Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have just returned from the interment services for our colleague and our friend, the Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens.

I must say it should be pointed out that our Chaplain, Chaplain Black, gave a marvelous eulogy during the graveside services that was poignant, elegant, and I know in regard to helping the family with solace and poignancy, he had no equal. He simply was absolutely marvelous. He described Ted Stevens as a ``force of nature''--which I think was a rather appropriate description, depending on your description of a force of nature--and as a person who always made him laugh. Well, it is difficult to try to figure out how to eulogize a person of Ted's stature, someone who has done so many different things. So you have to sort of segment, it seems to me, your own personal relationship with Ted and do the best you can to grasp this unusual man and describe him.

I was a Member of the House when I first met Ted Stevens. It was at a Republican retreat years ago. In expressing his opinion, he was obstreperous, if not outrageous, regardless of any other person's point of view. To say he was both unique and memorable is an understatement-- a force of nature, indeed, perhaps a wandering tornado, if you will, with a poststorm rainbow of ideas.

I came to the Senate back in 1996. It didn't take long for Ted Stevens to burst into my--up to that point--relatively routine senatorial life. He jabbed his finger on my chest and said, ``I know who you are.'' I responded, ``Well, I sure as hell know who you are.'' He said, ``You allegedly know something about agriculture.'' I said, ``Well, thank you,'' and he interrupted and said, ``You serve on Armed Services and Intelligence?'' I said, ``That's right.'' He said, ``How would you like to go to the Russian Far East with me and Danny and some others?''

I thought to myself, Why on Earth would I want to go to the Russian Far East?

He said, ``We are going to Khabarovsk, and then we are going to Vladivostok.'' But that's out there where the Cossacks went over the steppes of Russia. ``Then we are going to meet with the admiral of the Russian navy, and Vladivostok is closer to Alaska than to Moscow. I know him,'' said Ted. ``Then we are going to go to South Korea to indicate our strong support. But then we are going to be the first delegation allowed into North Korea, Pyongyang.''

Well, that got my attention. He said, ``That is why I need to have you come along, because if we can arrange a third-party grain sale, there are things that we can do in North Korea to at least establish a relationship.''

I thought, what a unique idea, using agriculture as a tool for peace, if you will--or at least a fulcrum to change the relationship with North Korea. I said, ``Well, sure, I will sign up.''

That began a personal and meaningful relationship with Ted and Catherine and their family with Franki and our family that lasted during the duration of my career in the Senate until his untimely death weeks ago.

He said, ``I understand that you are a newspaper guy.'' I said, ``Yes, and?'' He said, ``You could be the scribe in regard to our CODEL.'' I might add that any CODEL you went on with Ted Stevens, you always had a T-shirt afterward saying: ``I survived CODEL Stevens.'' You could--and I did--end up at the South Pole. So I was known as the Stevens CODEL scribe.

In any case, we went to Khabarovsk and Vladivostok. We talked to that admiral, who felt closer to Ted Stevens than he did his own Russian Government, and we went to Sakhalin Island. Ted was trying to work out some kind of arrangement where American oil companies could explore and develop the tremendous oil reserves there and have a contract that meant something with Russia. It was there that Flying Tiger Ted learned about saber-toothed tigers that were allegedly actually still alive in that part of the world. It is a wonder he didn't schedule a hunting trip.

Then we went to South Korea and eventually into North Korea, and it was the first delegation allowed into that theocratic time warp. We left everything on the plane. We stayed at an alleged VIP headquarters--no heat, very cold, just North Korean TV with 24/7 military parades and martial music.

That night the discussion had gone on and on and on. We had hoped to meet with Kim Jong Il. That was not possible, so he sent two of his propaganda puppets to meet with us. We had permission from the Treasury to waive certain requirements so that we could arrange for a third- party grain sale to assist North Korea, which goes through a famine every harvesting year. It would have been at least a start.

So you had Ted and Danny Inouye, two World War II veterans, who told the North Korean delegation it was time to make Panmunjon a tourist attraction. Ted finally had it and said, ``Knock off the BS. I know you understand English. Let's get to the bottom line.'' The bottom line was that they could not do anything in terms of policy. They were there to make an intelligence estimate, and it was a lost opportunity at that particular time. The leadership effort by Ted Stevens didn't pan out, but not for the lack of trying.

On another CODEL we landed at 11 and got to the hotel at about midnight. Ted was a great connoisseur of military history and movies. He was a great devotee of the series ``Band of Brothers.'' So we were playing Band of Brothers to staff and to all present. This is at 12:30 at night, going on to 1, 1:30. We had fought and died with episode five; we were going to episode six. I looked around, and all the loyal staff were asleep; all Members were still there and were asleep. I was having a hard time keeping my eyes open. I looked over at the great man, and his eyes were closed. I thought he was asleep, so I got up and started to turn off the television. As I reached for the power button, he said, ``This next part is the best part.'' He was not watching it; he was listening to it because he had seen it at least three times. Well, needless to say, we saw episode six in its entirety. Thank the Lord, we didn't go to episode seven. We would have been there all night.

Some years ago, I was present for the ceremonies in Alaska when Ted was named the ``Alaskan of the Century.'' How on Earth could a sitting Senator,

or anybody, get overwhelming citizen support and approval and accolades from his State and be named ``Alaskan of the Century''? Ted did. I was there to allegedly roast him. There was a great crowd. Facts and records are stubborn things. He was and is still today the ``Alaskan of the Century.'' What he did and what he accomplished in the making of our 49th State was simply remarkable. By the way, the Federal Government still has not made good on many promises they made to Ted when he worked so hard and diligently to make Alaska a State.

At any rate, he flew in, during that ceremony, on a World War II plane. He had his combat jacket. He came in with Catherine and they took their places on very posh chairs. I will quote what he said time and time again to the people of Alaska: ``The hell with politics; let's do what's good for Alaska.''

I will add this: The country and our national defense and every man and woman in uniform owe this man a great debt.

When you come to this body and you come to public service, you know you risk your ideas, your thoughts, your hopes, and your dreams before the crowd. Sometimes the crowd says yes, and you have friends who will stand behind you when you are taking the bows. Then perhaps something happens in your life and you suddenly become a lightning rod for accusations; you wonder where your friends are, who will stand beside you when you are taking the boos, not the bows. The lightning rod was fast, furious, and egregious, especially considering the man, his accomplishments, and integrity.

In Washington, when there is crisis and chaos and big-time problems, many are called but few are chosen. When the chips were on the table, we chose Ted. As chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, he headed up the posse that decided the Nation's spending priorities. What a tough job. It was a tough job then, and it is even tougher today. But he did a heck of a job. For, you see, Members of Congress are a lot like someone suffering from the flu, an insatiable appetite on one end and no sense of responsibility on the other.

They said: Ted, Ted, I know we have to meet our budget caps, but this program is really important to me. My program is an investment, not a cost.

Somehow, someway, the chairman has to wade through all of the demands of his colleagues, try to meet the ever changing and growing needs of our Nation at an unprecedented time of economic challenge, and through all of it, then he must fulfill our obligations to guarantee our national security and to the many entitlement programs we are very reluctant to reform in this body and the other body and to which we Americans seem to think we are entitled. It is like herding cats, big cats with saber teeth, just like those up on Sakhalin Island. In the doing of this, Ted Stevens was surrounded by many colleagues good at proposing more spending on existing programs and new programs to boot and those who look at any spending increase with a gleam in their eye and the tools of a stonecutter.

There are few, however, who can measure value, and that is what Ted did. Just at the time he thought he could make both ends meet in behalf of Alaska and our Nation, someone moved the chains. To his critics--and there were many--the old saying ``a penny for your thoughts'' may be a fair evaluation of their contribution. The wheels of progress are seldom turned by cranks, critics, or, in Ted's case, a howling pack of wolves.

Today, both political parties are having trouble looking beyond their ideological fences. Ted Stevens was a bipartisan fence-mender while riding herd on all of the strays. How on Earth did he do this? How did he persevere throughout an ordeal that would have best the best of men?

Abraham Lincoln defined duty in this way:

I do the very best I know how, the very best I can, and I

mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out

all right, what is said against me will not amount to

anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing

I was right would make no difference.

During Ted's memorial service in his beloved Alaska, Vice President Biden's tribute was truly eloquent, personal, and pertinent. Others spoke with equal meaning. But it was Senator Danny Inouye, his best friend, who brought thousands to their feet at this service, clapping for minutes when he said: ``We all knew he was innocent.'' So did 10 angels and those who knew him best, and I think Ted heard them both.

Thank you, Catherine and Ted's family, for sharing him with us, and, as Vice President Biden said so well, we will not see the likes of him again.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes to eulogize our former colleague and friend, the President pro tempore of the Senate, the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

The distinguished Senator from California said that if we choose to proceed, we will have a vote tomorrow at 11:30 on this bill. I think her actions are premature, so I do object.

Mr. President, it is my understanding--and I am asking the Presiding Officer--that under rule VI, No. 4, at 7 we are going to be presented with a live quorum call. Is that not correct? Is that the schedule for the Senate? I am asking to determine how much time I have between now and 7 o'clock.

It says, for those who take the time to be familiar with proceedings of this distinguished body, that:

Whenever upon such roll call it shall be ascertained that a

quorum is not present, the majority of the Senators present

may direct the Sergeant at Arms to request, and, when

necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators,

which order shall be determined without debate; and pending

its execution, and until a quorum shall be present, no debate

nor motion, except to adjourn or to recess pursuant to a

previous order entered by unanimous consent, shall be in

order.

So I thank the President for making that very clear. Hopefully, that sheds some light on what we are doing on a Monday evening, which some Senators would simply call a bed check. We are scheduled to vote at 11:30 tomorrow on whether to proceed with a debate that has been taking place here on the Senate floor. I think that obviously would be the time for the debate. But I think I have about 20, 25 minutes here to make my comments. I shall proceed.

We are really talking about a tax bill. I know the authors of the bill, the people who have spoken before, obviously think it is a major issue. It is a very important issue, but what we are really talking about is bringing to the floor a debate that raises taxes on U.S. companies and makes them less competitive globally. I don't think that is a very good idea, a tax increase on these companies, given the difficult times we have and given the difficult times we have in our export markets, to make our U.S. companies that deal

overseas less competitive. But I don't think we should be surprised, given that the majority has not yet acted to keep taxes from increasing for families and small businesses--everybody--come next January. That is the real bill we should be considering. That is the bill we certainly should be considering before we adjourn until the lameduck session of Congress which I assume is still being planned.

It is most unfortunate that we are going to a lameduck session of Congress. I had a constituent say: Lameduck; that is going to be a Daffy Duck. I think that is a little harsh given the intent of both Houses of Congress, but what we really ought to be talking about is the tax increase that is going to take place in less than 90 days unless Congress acts. I know there was a great discussion within the majority caucus as to whether we should move on that, whether we should take a vote on that, both in the House and the Senate. That is really why I come to the floor.

This is a looming tax increase that will take effect next year. It is going to hit every American who pays income taxes. There has already been a great deal of debate about who will pay these higher taxes. The President and many of his supporters in Congress say they will not raise taxes on those families earning under $250,000 or individuals earning under $200,000. That was a campaign pledge of the President.

The American dream--or at least it was when I was growing up, and I had hoped it would be for my kids and grandkids meant one could climb the ladder of success, the ladder of economic success as high and far as they wanted, and nothing government-made or manmade would stand in their way, except they had to do the climbing. Now we find that when you hit $250,000, if you are filing a joint tax return or if you are earning $200,000 individually--you are rich. They describe people who earn over $200,000, $250,000, and regardless of their obligations, regardless of whether it is a small business, and regardless of what those circumstances may be, bingo, they are going to have to pay that higher tax rate. So we have somebody in Washington describing in manifest detail who is rich and who is not in the United States. I find that to be the antithesis of the American dream, at least as I understood it. I think now there is a hue and cry of, let's level everybody with everybody else. I do not think that is where we want to be in terms of our national intent.

The health care reform law has already broken the pledge in regard to that of the President, the $250,000 and the $200,000, because that imposes a slew of new taxes on small businesses and health care consumers, including those earning well under these income levels. So we should be weary of any pledge by the President or the majority to protect taxpayers from the harmful tax increases that are set to take effect in January. With less than 90 days--about 3 months--left in the year, this administration and the majority in Congress have done nothing except talk about it in their caucuses and to find out where the votes were and to find out how it was playing before the election. That is the truth. Nothing to prevent this massive tax hike on American families and small businesses.

Now it is September. I don't think most families are really thinking about their income taxes right now. They should, but they are not. They put the frustration of April 15 behind them. Tax freedom day is somewhere down the road in April or May. That is when you are paying all the taxes, and that is where all of your income goes to government and you finally have tax freedom day. That becomes something that comes to their mind right off the bat in the spring. But some families were fortunate enough to able to take a vacation as of this summer or late summer. However, many were working instead and very happy to do so, given the situation in regard to jobs. They are just happy to have a job to provide for their families. But none of them are probably thinking about what is going to happen on January 1. They will be handing more of their paycheck over to Uncle Sam. That is exactly what is going to happen if the administration and the majority in Congress do not act and do not act soon. We should act before a lameduck Congress.

Some have dubbed this tax relief package the ``Bush tax cuts,'' saying they only benefit the wealthy. Let me point out, that is simply not correct. I don't see how continuing existing tax policy that has been in effect for 10 years constitutes a tax cut. It is preventing a tax increase. If we want to get partisan about it, it is not about a Bush tax cut, it is about a President Obama tax increase that we are trying to prevent.

Let's take a minute and look at how this tax relief passed on a bipartisan basis and supported by several Senators in the majority who are still serving in this body let's take a look at it and how it has benefited families and small businesses across all income levels.

The bipartisan tax relief doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000. This credit amount will be cut in half next year. The bill lowered capital gains and dividend tax rates to benefit families who invest long term and save for their future.

These taxes will go up dramatically next year. If you read any financial publication, are aware of any think tank that deals with taxes and finances and the economic outlook for this country, you find out that is going to have a dramatic effect--a very unfortunate law of unintended effects. Those taxes will go up, as I said, very dramatically next year by as much as 33 percent for capital gains and 164 percent for dividends.

This bill lowered income tax rates for every taxpayer who pays taxes--I am talking about the 10-year existing tax relief--whether you are a lower income taxpayer, a middle-income taxpayer or an upper income taxpayer. So unless we act soon--and that is in the hands of the majority--taxes will go up for every taxpayer as of next year, and that is the bill we should be considering now, not a bill that is going to cause quite a bit of harm to every company that does business overseas.

Here are just a few examples of what this will mean to working families if the majority allows these provisions to expire: A single parent with two children who earns $30,000 will see a tax increase of $1,100 a year. A family of four who earns $50,000 will see a tax increase, on an average, of $2,100 per year.

Clearly, these families are earning well below the $250,000 threshold the President promised not to raise taxes on, these folks. Yet in just 3 months, that is exactly what is going to happen. So you might want to think about it, America, as well as what is going to happen down the road a little bit. You have Halloween. That is about when the lameduck Congress comes back. You have Halloween and then you have Thanksgiving, Christmas--not the time you are thinking about a big tax increase that is going to whack you right in the forehead, but that is exactly what is going to happen.

The President's supporters in the Congress have yet to introduce a bill to prevent this tax hike. It is that simple. We certainly do not see any language on a bill to prevent these massive tax hikes that go into effect on January 1.

However, the President and his supporters in the Congress say they want to extend tax relief for everyone but those taxpayers they say are wealthy. Who are these folks? Who are these wealthy taxpayers? Well, under the President's proposal, and presumably the proposal supported by most in the majority, it is any individual who earns more than $200,000 in income per year or any family who earns more than $250,000.

I know there are some who earn much less than these amounts who think that sounds fine. Well, maybe to some it does. It is always:

Don't tax me. I won't tax thee. Tax the guy behind the

tree.

There is a little bit of envy here that goes on among all of us, I think, in our hearts when we look at people who earn huge salaries. Somehow, some way that we have now defined those people at $250,000 and $200,000.

I think that is unfortunate because we all benefit--we all benefit-- when incomes increase and people become successful. That is how the economy gets turned around. That is how we have people who are entrepreneurs and they invest and they provide more jobs. When incomes go up and people have more of their own money to spend and invest as they see fit, more businesses are started, expanded, more jobs are created and--guess what--more income comes into the government.

There is a lot of money sitting on the sidelines waiting. If you do not take more money out of people's pockets, you will see, I think, a burst of economic activity that results directly or indirectly to the Federal Government.

I was just reading in the Wall Street Journal an article about that. I intended to bring it over, but I failed to do so. You can just take it from me. When incomes go up and people have more of their own money to spend and invest as they see fit, more businesses are started and expanded and more jobs are created.

To see the harm in raising the top two tax rates, to target those earning over the $200,000/$250,000 threshold, we only have to look at what allowing this tax relief to expire means for small businesses to see the danger in allowing this tax increase to take place.

Because many small business owners pay their taxes on their individual income taxes, if the top two income tax rates are increased as the President proposes, small business owners in these tax brackets will pay those higher income tax rates.

The administration says these higher taxes will affect only 3 percent of small businesses, so we should not be concerned about raising these taxes. If we have heard 3 percent, we have heard that enough over and over and over again: only 3 percent. But those numbers downplay the impact of raising taxes on small businesses.

Let's look at what such a tax hike would mean for America's small businesses. Keep in mind, these are the same businesses that, by the President's own admission, are the Nation's job creators. They create 70 percent of the jobs in this country--70 percent. Yet under the President's proposal, tax rates would increase by at least 17 percent on small businesses.

According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, that means three-quarters of a million businesses--750,000 small businesses--will pay higher taxes.

Allowing the top rates to expire subjects nearly $500 billion-- another $\1/2\ trillion--in small business income to higher taxes. This is a very conservative number. Further, small businesses with between 20 and 299 workers employ about 25 percent of the U.S. workforce. So we are taking action to raise taxes on 25 percent of the U.S. workforce.

These small businesses will have to recover the cost of higher taxes somewhere. It may come from lower wages. Will they lay off workers? Will they reduce benefits or raise the cost of their products? That is dicey, given this kind of environment in regard to consumers and what they are able to do. None are good options.

With unemployment holding steady at over 9 percent, common sense would indicate, that raising taxes on those businesses that are creating jobs is a very bad idea. As small businesses face a significant tax hike come January, workers will inevitably pay the price. By one estimate, an increase in the top tax rate would cost jobs by reducing small business hiring by as much as 18 percent. That is 18 percent we do not need.

Raising taxes on small businesses will also likely slow the already weak economic recovery. We see a lot of headlines saying: The recession is over. But let's talk about the economic recovery we all wish--both Democrats and Republicans, all of us wish--would take place. The National Federation of Independent Businesses, the NFIB, has said the second most cited concern of small businesses is taxes. As a result, small businesses are sitting on the sidelines until they know whether they are going to be facing higher taxes come January 1. That ought to be obvious. Small businesses need certainty about how much they are going to owe in Federal taxes.

Yet, once again, this administration's rhetoric on small business does not match the reality of its proposals. The administration says it wants to help small businesses, and it has touted the recently passed small business bill as proof of that. Yet this same administration pushes through a health care bill that Americans do not want that imposes higher taxes on small businesses. Now it wants to raise taxes even further on these same small businesses by increasing their Federal income taxes.

It seems a bit ironic to watch the majority touting the small business bill that the President is, in fact, signing into law today. They said small businesses needed this tax relief so they could grow, expand, and create jobs. During debate on this bill, they criticized Republicans for holding up important tax relief for these businesses.

So it is curious now, that many in the majority who supported this relatively modest tax relief and who repeatedly stressed the importance of tax relief to small businesses are the same ones who oppose extending income tax relief that benefits small businesses.

Let me make it as clear as I can. The same members of the majority who supported the small business bill and who insisted we must provide them tax relief are the very ones who oppose extending income tax relief that will benefit small businesses. That is a contradiction. That is tough to explain, it seems to me. I am pretty sure a lot of people are simply not going to understand that, especially in the next month or in November.

If it is so important to provide tax relief to small businesses in this bill, why isn't it equally important to extend other small business tax relief? We will not get our economy back on track until small business begins hiring, period, and they are not going to hire if they have to pay more taxes in January on top of what they have already been burdened with in the health care bill. Yet that is precisely what the administration's proposal will do.

Why would our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to allow income taxes to go up at the end of this year for hundreds of thousands of small businesses? Why are we having a vote tomorrow on proceeding to another bill that could be very hurtful in regard to our competitors overseas. How does that aid the economy? How do higher taxes help put unemployed Americans back to work? How does a higher tax burden allow a small business to grow and expand? How do higher taxes on small businesses aid the economy?

The answer is pretty straightforward. Small businesses are hurt by higher taxes. They cannot hire new workers and they cannot buy equipment or a new building or make other investments that can help their business grow.

This approach by President Obama and the majority is absolutely the wrong approach to take if we want to ensure job creation and grow our economy. We need to continue the tax relief passed in 2001, by a big bipartisan majority, that has lowered income tax rates for all taxpayers and encouraged families to save and businesses to invest. Continuing this tax relief, rather than more spending, will help get our economy back on track.

What I usually hear from my friends--and I want to comment on it--on the other side of the aisle, especially when you talk about tax cuts-- you say: tax cuts, and then, bingo, for the rich, for the wealthy. We are beating a dead ``class warfare'' horse, it seems to me. But that simply is not an accurate picture of the massive tax increases that are facing American families next year.

The majority has been in power for nearly 4 years. They have had plenty of time to address this issue, plus estate tax reform, plus the AMT, plus all the other things we say we are going to do as members of the Finance Committee. I am privileged to serve on that committee. Yet, similar to a child who has not done his homework, they have put this off until the last minute, creating enormous uncertainty for families and small businesses.

They try to justify these massive tax hikes by saying this bipartisan tax relief contributed to the Nation's current fiscal problems.

The popular refrain Americans have heard from the President and his supporters in the Congress is that they inherited the current deficit, and that it is a result of the tax relief we passed, again, on a bipartisan vote, in 2001.

But the numbers do not add up. Did you know the Federal deficit decreased as the 2001-2003 tax relief took effect? The deficit stood at $412 billion in 2004 but dropped to $161 billion in 2007. That is the year the majority took control of the Congress. I was here. I know. I could list Senators on both sides of the aisle who made tremendous progress in regard to reducing that deficit from $412 billion in 2004 down to $161 billion in 2007--tough to do. We had Katrina,

had all sorts of problems, Iraq, two major wars, but we did that.

Three short years later, the deficit has more than quadrupled and this year is estimated to come in at approximately $1.3 trillion--not billion, trillion. ``Trillion'' has become the watch word of the day; not billion, trillion.

That is a direct result of the massive spending agenda the President and his supporters in Congress have undertaken, including a failed stimulus bill, bailouts of failed companies, and a health care bill that a majority of Americans do not want--growing by the day when they find out the details of the bill.

What is particularly ironic about all of this is that the President has seen no reason to offset the billions in Federal Government spending that he and his supporters have put in place--billions in new Federal spending on a failed economic stimulus program and billions to failed companies, billions that have contributed to the largest deficit in this country's history.

Further, the President has already said he doesn't plan to pay for the cost of extending about 74 percent of the expiring tax relief--that is about $2 trillion--that benefits lower and middle-income taxpayers. I am for that. Everybody here is for that. And that number is actually expected to go higher. Yet the remaining 26 percent of the tax relief-- that tax relief that in part benefits small businesses--the President doesn't want to extend. Why not? Here is the kicker. He says we can't afford it.

We can't afford it? This, from the same President whose spending spree has driven up the deficit to unprecedented levels? The same President who spent well over $700 billion on last year's failed stimulus program? The same President who handed out billions in Federal tax dollars to failed businesses? That is right. The President says we can't afford to extend income tax relief for small businesses to help them create jobs, grow, and continue to employ more than 20 million Americans who work for small businesses.

Well, we have a saying for this in Dodge City. It sort of resembles a lot of what we have in our Dodge City feedlots, but I am not going to go into that.

A recent observation by Kevin Hassett and Alan Viard with the American Enterprise Institute writing in the Wall Street Journal sums this up very nicely:

The administration is right to view the deficit as a

serious issue, but this sudden commitment to fiscal

responsibility is bizarrely inconsistent. The administration

professes deep concern about the $700 billion revenue loss

from extending the tax cuts at the top, but apparently views

the revenue loss of nearly $2 trillion from extending the tax

cuts for the middle class as too inconsequential to mention.

I repeat, again, we are all for that.

They continue:

Nor has the administration's concern about the deficit

driven it to reduce federal spending.

That is the key. It seems to me it is disingenuous for this administration to say we cannot afford to provide tax relief that helps small business and gets our economy moving in the right direction when the same administration has pursued failed policies of unrestrained spending that do little but grow the deficit.

We can and should provide tax relief to all taxpayers, and that should be the business of the day, not a live quorum call or a bed check and then go out this week and then come back in a lameduck Congress to debate that. Then it would be, what, 40 days before the ax would fall in regard to every American paying more taxes.

I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.

Thank you. We can and should provide tax relief to all taxpayers--tax relief that helps families keep more of their hard- earned dollars and tax relief that provides certainty to small businesses so they can make investments and create jobs without the fear that their taxes will go up. We need to extend this tax relief that keeps money in the hands of families and small businesses rather than putting it in the pocket of Uncle Sam.

I yield back the remainder of the time that the distinguished Presiding Officer granted me.

I appreciate the Senator bringing up the statements by our revered Senator Byrd. I remember when I first came to the Senate, he had, for lack of a better word, a lecture or maybe a sermon to us all about the comity of the Senate and why the Senate is different from the House. The standard example is that the House is where we pour a hot cup of coffee, and then it cools off in the Senate when we put the coffee in the saucer. And that is what we are supposed to do to protect the minority. Here is what Senator Byrd said in one of his last speeches before the Rules Committee before we lost Bob. His knowledge and love for this body were unmatched. He actually wrote the history of the Senate. He said he opposed cloture by a simple majority because ``it would immediately destroy the uniqueness of this institution. The Senate is the only place in government where the rights of a numerical minority are so protected. A minority can be right and minority views can certainly improve legislation.''

Obviously, if we go down another road--and we have--I just heard the majority leader indicate this side of the aisle is guilty of obstructionism. I guess it is in the eye of the beholder.

I might remind my friend from Arizona that the bumper sticker for the distinguished State of New Hampshire is ``Live Free or Die.'' I hope we live free, and I would hope that the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire would not take that literally, given the comments by the Senator from Arizona.

I came into public service in 1980, with my dear friend from New Hampshire. Other than some rather obstreperous incidents in regard to basketball, we have enjoyed a very good relationship. But there isn't anybody here who understands the budget process and how minority rights should be protected and how we should proceed other than Judd Gregg. He has done an outstanding job. I know that once he leaves the Senate, he will be called upon to help us get out of this tremendous debt problem and to face the entitlements square-on.

Facts are stubborn things. I am not trying to put these facts on any individual. As the distinguished Senator from Tennessee has pointed out, what this really is about is the consent of the governed. That is what Madison was really interested in when he wrote about the Constitution. We want a strong Executive and certainly a House and a Senate to be responsive, but it is to protect the consent of the governed. The governed, as everybody knows, is extremely upset. It is because their voice is not heard. Why is their voice not heard?

In the 110th Congress in the House of Representatives, only 1 percent of the bills were brought to the floor with open amendment rules--1 percent. Ninety-nine percent of the bills reached the Senate from the House with little or no input from the minority. As of March of 2010, the House was on track to shatter its record for closed amendment rules in the 111th Congress. That is the House.

I spent 16 years in the House. I can remember very well one particular incident where there was a real controversy over a seat in Indiana. The secretary of state of Indiana declared the winner. It came back to the House Administration Committee, went back out to Indiana, recounted. When the Democrat went ahead, they called it closed, and that was it. We walked out. We said the comity of the House had been destroyed.

We are close here in the Senate. In the 110th Congress, cloture was filed 133 times, 98 of which were filed the moment the question was raised on the floor. If that isn't obstructionism, I don't know what is. Over the last 22 years, the majority leader has filled the tree roughly three times per Congress on average. However, from January 2007 to April of 2010, the majority leader filled the tree 26 times. That is a 300-percent increase in filling the tree for the 110th and 111th Congress. These numbers do not reflect the additional times this has taken place in the 5 months since the numbers were submitted to the Rules Committee, including today, with DOD authorization. From the 103rd to the 109th Congress, rule XIV to bypass the committee was used on average 24 times per Congress. This was shattered in the 110th Congress when it was used 57 times. I go over these facts to show that in regard to the definition of obstructionism, it goes both ways. That is the rest of the story.

A little bit later, if the distinguished Senator from Tennessee has time, I would like to go over this sense-of-the-Senate resolution or legislation to be introduced by the junior Senator from New Mexico declaring the rules of the Senate unconstitutional in order to rewrite the rules to favor a simple majority to pass legislation. I would like to have a discussion with him at a future time.

I know the distinguished Senator from Utah has something to say as well.

I say to my friend from Tennessee, I want to ask him a question. Is it fair to characterize these attempts by the majority to change the rules--and that is what they want to do; I think it is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution in the Rules Committee--to continue favoring them, even if their majority narrows after November, in the lameduck or what I call the Daffy Duck, the lameduck now, you could characterize that as an ``arrogance of power.'' Those are pretty tough words, but that is the exact term used by then-Senator Biden in 2005 to describe a similar attempt to rewrite the rules to favor the majority at that time. So what goes around comes around.

Does the Senator from Tennessee find it as disconcerting as I do that the junior Senator from New Mexico has introduced a resolution declaring the rules of the Senate ``unconstitutional'' in order to rewrite the rules to favor a slimmer majority, i.e., one, one free throw. That is it.

Does any majority last forever? The answer to that is no. What goes around comes around. If the interpretation of the Constitution and the Senate rules of the junior Senator from New Mexico is accepted, I say to my friend from Tennessee, what is to prevent any majority of either party from rewriting the rules of the Senate whenever it suits them? Would such a practice not negate the whole point of having rules in the continuing body that is the Senate? Would this practice not make the Senate nearly identical to the House, where majority takes everything? Would this not neutralize the express purpose of the Senate to act as a check on the House and be directly 180 degrees opposed to what Senator Byrd was warning us about in regard to his last testimony before the Rules Committee in this distinguished body?

Again, my friend from Tennessee has hit the nail right on the head. We have a lot of challenges around here. People say ``problems'' or ``crises.'' We have a lot of challenges. The only way you meet a challenge is to work together and to represent the consent of the governed. What we have here now is we do not have the consent of the governed. We do not have the opportunity.

I remember in the health care debate staying up until the wee hours of the morning in the HELP Committee, the Finance Committee. I did not get behind closed doors to write the bill that was actually written, but I had 11 amendments on rationing. All of them were defeated on a party-line vote. Trying to be a little clever by half, I introduced a Democratic amendment, one of Senator Schumer's amendments. It was defeated on a party-line vote. They did not even recognize it was Senator Schumer's--all on rationing.

One of the biggest controversial items you hear about throughout the country in regard to the health care debate is the rationing of health care, which is going on right now. There was no consent of the governed. It was ``our way or no way.'' It did not have a chance. That is the biggest issue we face, and it seems to me it really reflects on this body and how we treat each other and, more importantly, how we treat the American people and why

we have such a fuss out there in the hinterlands.

I thank the distinguished Senator for taking this time. I think it is very valuable time. I hope we can lower the debate a little bit--a whole lot--and work together, as he has indicated, to meet the challenges we have before the country.

I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with.

I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 15 minutes.

Madam President, after careful consideration and assessment of the nominee's record and expressed views, I rise today to express my opposition to Solicitor General Elena Kagan's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the nomination process, a telling and inciteful statement by another Senator is most applicable and pertinent. During the Senate's debate on the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts, then Senator Barack Obama stated:

. . . that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of

statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95

percent of the cases that come before the court, so that both

a Scalia or Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of

the time on those 95 percent of the cases--what matters on

the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly

difficult.

In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules will only

get you through the 25th mile of the marathon.

That last mile can only be determined on the basis of 1)

one's deepest values, 2) one's core concerns, 3) one's

broader perspectives on how the world works, and 4) the depth

and breadth of one's empathy.

I respectfully disagree with this rationale and find it troubling. Our judges must decide all cases in adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction.

The role of a judge is not to rule based on his or her own personal judgments or comply with one's empathy, how they think the world really works, concerns and values--deep or shallow--all subject to personal views, ideology and the winds of time and political change. No, the role of a judge should adhere to the laws as they are written.

An appointment to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States is a lifetime term. It was crafted by our Founders to protect and insulate the highest Court of our land from personal concern, empathy, individual values or how one thinks the world really works at some point of time, not to mention the threat of any influence of politics.

Nominations to the highest bench should therefore not be considered lightly. It is one of the most important votes a Senator has the privilege to cast.

And I would submit compared to the standard of legal precedent, statutory rules, constitutional construction, again personal values, concerns, how the world allegedly works and one's personal criteria of empathy represents a lesser standard--sort of a standard lite.

The qualifications of the nominee must be carefully considered. As U.S. Senators, we have an obligation to ensure that our courts are filled with qualified, impartial judges.

In light of that I must ask--who is Elena Kagan?

In reviewing Ms. Kagan's qualifications, I find her lack of judicial experience striking.

While others note that serving as a judge is not a requirement for a Supreme Court nomination, it has also been noted that every nominee in nearly 40 years to the Supreme Court has had extensive judicial experience, whether from the bench or as a litigator in the courtroom.

Ms. Kagan's litigation experience is limited, with the majority of her arguments being made during her brief tenure as the U.S. Solicitor General.

Given her obvious lack of experience in the court room, one must ask if this is the best position to receive on-the-job-training? Will the ``craft'' of judging come innately to Ms. Kagan or is it a skill honed by years of practice and judicial experience?

Some have argued in defense of such a thin judicial resume that nominees can bring a ``real world''--- whatever that is--- perspective to the bench. Nonetheless, much of the nominee's experience lies in the hallowed, Ivy League, halls of academia, indeed a world of its own.

While I do not question the merits of a strong university background, I question how that makes one more in tune with the ``real world.''

Additionally, the nominee's resume includes her positions as special counsel and policy advisor in the Clinton administration--a role in which she truly relished her job. During her tenure she advocated for policies involving the second amendment.

In response to a Supreme Court decision which struck down the Brady Act's requirement of background checks before gun sales, documents from the nominee's tenure suggested that the administration explore how to maneuver around the Court's decision by executive action.

The advice here goes beyond legal counsel and indicates a clear interest in achieving a policy goal by going around the Supreme Court's decision, while forgoing the jurisdiction of Congress.

When determining how Ms. Kagan may approach a seat on the Court, her position as a policy adviser is one of the few records available to review.

Does this type of maneuvering indicate how Ms. Kagan would use her position as a Supreme Court Justice to justify an agenda where a policy goal is the intended outcome?

I must also say that as dean of Harvard Law School, Ms. Kagan's effort to ban military recruiters from the main placement office on campus is deeply troubling.

The justification for violating the Solomon Amendment--named after Congressman Gerald Solomon--was to protest the military's don't ask, don't tell policy. This action was also consistent with her own expressed views.

It must be noted, blocking access to military recruiters is counter to Federal law.

Only when threatened with the loss of Federal funding, did Harvard comply. Ms. Kagan then used a stayed decision by an appellate court, which determined the Solomon Amendment was unconstitutional, to reinstitute the ban. Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court overturned the appellate court's decision by an 8-0 ruling.

According to Chief Justice John Roberts, ``A military recruiter's mere presence on campus does not violate a law school's right to associate, regardless of how repugnant the law school considers the recruiter's message.''

I must say, I don't know of any recruiter who would stand up and debate students in the circumstance of a policy judgment--more to the point, in regard to a policy that is as controversial as don't ask, don't tell. They are there to recruit individual students or to answer questions they may have.

U.S. servicemembers deserve our unfettered support, as they face unimaginable danger on the front line in defense of our Nation. Their willingness to sacrifice their time away from home and loved ones while serving in harsh and dangerous places under difficult circumstances should be honored.

It seems to me we dishonor their sacrifices and service by hollow justifications of policy agendas. These efforts are a clear indication to me, as well as my fellow Kansans, that Ms. Kagan's agenda is at odds with her role as a dean and a future Supreme Court Justice, and is clearly out of step with the average American no matter how deep her concern, empathy, values or the real world she believed she could change.

It is clear from her time as a policy adviser during the Clinton administration--a job she truly relished--that she supports methods of enacting policy changes through administrative means and around the jurisdiction of the legislative branch.

This type of disregard for the jurisdiction of the elected branch of government is concerning.

Ms. Kagan's zeal and enthusiasm as a political advisor and an academic does not qualify her for a lifetime appointment to our Nation's highest Court.

Not only does she lack experience on the bench, but her record clearly demonstrates a propensity towards pursuing an activist agenda.

In her own words, Ms. Kagan confessed difficulty in ``taking off the advocate's hat [to] put on the judge's hat.'' This admission is at best worrisome; at worst, a clear indication of her intent to legislate from the bench.

We have a constitutional obligation to ensure that our judges are impartial and faithful to the law. During Chief Justice John Roberts' confirmation hearing, he noted that ``Judges and Justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules, they apply them. The role of an umpire and judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.'' They may go to criticize the umpire, but they do not go to see him.

I am not convinced that Ms. Kagan will limit herself to merely applying the rules.

Given the limited judicial background and a lack of forthrightness in queries as to her judicial philosophy during the nomination hearings, I am fearful that this nomination will serve as another tool in what we have witnessed in further encroachment of government into the everyday lives of the American people.

Kansans have made clear to me that they do not want activist judges on the Court and they do not want additional government intrusion into their daily lives and pocketbooks, especially coming from the bench.

Unfortunately, I think appointing Ms. Kagan to the Court will result in more of both. Therefore, I must oppose her nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak with regard to election reform, democracy, and unfortunately partisanship, and most importantly, the first amendment.

There is a threat to the Constitution on the floor of the Senate today. It is called the DISCLOSE Act. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

The DISCLOSE Act, an Orwellian oxymoron if there ever was one, contradicts the Supreme Court's January decision in Citizens United. It is essential to put the decision in context and shed sunlight on this dangerous bill.

First, I applaud the Court's ruling. It reaffirms the right to freedom of speech. This is precisely the Court's role in our government system of checks and balances: to rein in Congress when legislation does not square with our founding principles. Let us remember the 10 words in the first amendment that are most relevant for this debate:

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of

speech.

However, some of my colleagues across the aisle have mischaracterized the Citizens United decision as undoing 100 years of law and precedent. This is a reference to the Tillman Act of 1907 that prohibits corporations from directly financing political campaigns. This was not affected by the Court's ruling. The Supreme Court did rule, however, against provisions of the so-called Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that barred corporations and unions from running political ads 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. Corporations and unions cannot donate directly to a Federal candidate and, contrary to the claim of DISCLOSE Act supporters, it is already illegal for foreign entities to participate in American elections.

Unfortunately, the sponsors of the DISCLOSE Act have chosen partisan fiction over fact in their effort to override the Court. The DISCLOSE Act is anything but full and fair campaign disclosure. It is politically skewed, motivated by a majority desperate to continue to be a majority.

The DISCLOSE Act is loaded with handouts to the most monied of Washington special interests, including the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club. They didn't want tape put on their mouths. Others doubtlessly were standing in line saying: Don't muzzle me, you can simply muzzle the other guy behind the tree.

I challenge anyone who comes to the floor to preach the virtues of this bill to explain, with a straight face, the carefully tailored exemptions from disclosure included in title III. Moreover, despite a clever rewording of the House-passed version, the Senate bill retains carve-outs for labor unions by exempting donations under $600 under title II, section 211. This figure is conveniently below the average union dues. So for 600 bucks you have free speech. If it is over $600, you don't.

Supporters of the DISCLOSE Act claim it is necessary to keep a flood of money out of politics, but carve-outs for special interests say otherwise. On June 24, the National Journal's Congress Daily reported that environmental, labor, and other groups--many of which specifically benefit from title II and title III exemptions--announced they would spend $11 million to either reward or admonish Senators in both parties for their positions in regard to climate change legislation.

Another example is the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. The Hill newspaper reported on June 21 that this union, exempt under the bill, had ponied up $75,000 for ads in Maine to pressure Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to support a taxpayer-funded bailout for unions.

These facts present an inconvenient truth for the sponsors of the DISCLOSE Act. It flies in the face of our democracy for the majority to ration the right of free speech to one set of Americans at the expense of others.

In May, it was reported in the press that sponsors of this bill boasted that its deterrent effect should not be underestimated. Americans do not, and never have found it appropriate for government to shut down any political dissent.

The DISCLOSE Act abandons the longstanding practice of treating corporations and unions equally. But even if title II and title III exemptions were removed, the bill is still unworkable. On May 19, writing in the Wall Street Journal, over half a dozen former FEC Commissioners noted that the FEC has regulations for 33 types of contributions and speech and 71 different types of speakers. The DISCLOSE Act adds to this complexity with another layer of Byzantine requirements that raise serious concerns about whether the law can be enforced consistent with the first amendment. We do not need any more regulations to the first amendment.

If anyone doubts this bill is motivated by politics, they need to look no further than a June 22 letter sent by the bill's Senate sponsor and the Senate majority leader to Members of the House in which they pledge to bring the measure to the floor in advance of the fall elections. Why the rush? In so doing, the majority has again used rule XIV to bypass the Senate Rules Committee--a committee upon which I serve--in order to expedite the DISCLOSE Act's passage.

Unfortunately, it is becoming all too common for the majority to circumvent regular order, stifle the minority, and force unwanted legislation on the people by filling the amendment tree, misusing rule XIV, and ping-ponging legislation between the Houses. I am tired of Ping-Pong. Give me table tennis. Give me a paddle. Give me five serves, and then I will let Senator Schumer have five serves, and we can go back and forth as we should in regard to amendments in the Rules Committee, where this debate ought to

be held. Senator Cardin said: Let us have a debate. I am for that. And let's put it in the Rules Committee, where it should be debated first.

To review, the Citizens United decision does not upend a hundred years of law and precedent. The DISCLOSE Act has intentional loopholes in title II and title III to keep special interest dollars on behalf of the majority flowing, and the rest of the bill is a confusing set of redundant regulations. The bill's sponsors are rushing this legislation to the floor without consideration by the Rules Committee--again, here we go; that is what happened with health care; that is what happened with the Dodd-Frank bill--in order to protect the incumbent majority before the fall elections.

Under the first amendment, the American people have a right to speak out against policies and legislators who kill jobs, curb growth, and expand the government at the expense of the private sector--and now a proposed tax increase. These policies hurt millions and millions of Americans employed in the private sector and millions more looking for work during a recession. They must be protected under the first amendment. The people have a right to be heard.

Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 4325.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have reached an understanding that this amendment will be a side-by-side amendment to the amendment offered by Senator Cardin. So at the time it would be considered we would have the vote.

Mr. President, included in the $\1/2\ trillion of new taxes in the health care reform law is a tax hike of $20 billion on medical devices. That is right. This new law imposes a $20 billion excise tax, a tax of 2.3 percent, on lifesaving medical devices.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation both confirmed that these excise taxes will not be borne by the medical device industry--will not be borne by the medical device industry. Instead, the tax will be passed on to patients in the form of higher prices and higher insurance premiums.

Recognizing that this tax, as initially proposed, was unpopular-- because as written it would have increased taxes on medical devices such as eyeglasses and hearing aids--the bill was modified to exclude these and other items that are generally purchased by the general public at retail for individual use.

Yet even with these exemptions, patients still bear the burden of this new tax. Here are just a few examples of the people who will be hit by this new tax and the types of devices that will be taxed. People with disabilities, diabetics, amputees, people with cancer, and those with heart problems are just some of the people who will see their health care costs go up because of this tax.

During debate on the health care bill, I offered amendments to simply strike this unfair tax. Unfortunately, the majority did not approve these amendments. My amendment today prevents this new tax from raising the costs for pediatric medical devices--those devices that treat the youngest in our population: children who have serious or life- threatening illnesses such as cancer or a heart problem. The amendment exempts from the excise tax medical devices primarily designed to be used by or for pediatric patients.

This tax on medical devices is a tax on innovation as well. It harms research and development that leads to medical advancement. It creates an additional burden for medical device manufacturers to develop new products or to redesign them to meet the specific needs of pediatric patients.

As the FDA notes on its Web site:

Designing pediatric medical devices can be challenging:

[Obviously] children are often smaller and more active than

adults, body structures and functions change throughout

childhood, and children may be long-term device users.

With these challenges and other barriers that exist to the development, approval, and availability of pediatric devices, it seems to me--and I think it should be clear to everyone, all of my colleagues--we should not add another barrier by taxing medical device manufacturers who develop and manufacture pediatric devices. Imposing the excise tax on pediatric medical devices will do nothing but slow innovation for these necessary and lifesaving devices.

So when innovative and lifesaving technologies are taxed, when the cost of many tests increases because the devices used in the tests are taxed, when new devices are not developed, and when fewer manufacturers are able to survive in the anticompetitive environment this tax will create, the consumers of health care will suffer for it.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to exempt pediatric medical devices from the excise tax to ensure that the youngest patients who need the lifesaving treatment these devices can offer do not have to pay more for that treatment. This is a step in the right direction to correcting the serious flaws in the health care law.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, much like Senator Cardin's amendment, my amendment also recognizes the need to ensure that the youngest in our population have access to health care. My amendment does this by exempting medical devices primarily to be used by or for pediatric patients. The CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation both confirmed that these excise taxes will not be borne by the medical device industry. The tax will be passed on to patients in the form of higher prices and higher insurance premiums.

My amendment prevents this new tax from raising the cost for pediatric medical devices--those devices that treat the youngest in our population, children who have serious or life-threatening illnesses, such as a heart patient or a cancer patient.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, recently, Leader McConnell and Dr. John Barrasso, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, and I engaged in a colloquy regarding President Obama's nominee for the head of CMS, the Centers for Medicare Services, Dr. Donald Berwick.

Simply put, Dr. Berwick has a long history of interesting statements--pertinent statements--that support government rationing of health care, an issue I have vigorously fought against throughout the entire health care debate.

The White House response to our colloquy, it seems to me, was most unfortunate, if not rather incredible. Here is what the Obama administration had to say:

No one is surprised that Republicans plan to use this

confirmation process to trot out the same arguments and scare

tactics they hoped would block health insurance reform.

The fact is, rationing is rampant in the system today, as

insurers make arbitrary decisions about who can get the care

that they need. Dr. Don Berwick wants to see a system in

which those decisions are transparent--and that the people

who make them are held accountable.

This is a fascinating response. Instead of flatout denials of government rationing, we have excuses. If you read between the lines, you will notice that for the first time ever in this debate, the Obama White House is admitting their health care plan will ration health care. It just doesn't make it transparent.

Remember, when Republicans, such as myself and Jon Kyl and Dr. Coburn, the Senator from Oklahoma, tried to warn that health care reform would result in government-rationed care, we were dismissed as crazy reactionaries or even worse. President Obama accused us of trying to scare people, and no less than the American Association of Retired Persons, AARP--that organization that purports to represent Medicare patients and seniors all across our great Nation--said our rationing concerns were a mere ``myth''--that ``none of the health care reforms . . . would stand between individuals and their doctors or prevent any American from choosing the best possible care.''

How interesting that now, after the health care bill has become law, the President is admitting we were right all along. Here is the quote:

Don Berwick wants to see a system in which those

[rationing] decisions are transparent--and that the people

who make them are held accountable.

That is a complete and utter about-face.

Although cloaked in the typical straw man arguments that have come to characterize this administration,

the statement is undeniable. The government is going to ration your health care.

To set the record straight, I don't accept rationing, whether it be transparent or otherwise. I am opposed to rationing whether it is done by the government or by an insurance company. I am not defending any of the practices of insurance companies that have unjustly denied claims.

I am against rationing whether it is proposed by Republicans or Democrats or think tanks or the special interest sidelines in this city.

But the Obama administration's response does nothing to address my concerns that our government will ration health care. Instead, we finally have an admission from the White House that this is what they plan to do.

I am not holding my breath for an apology or a correction from the President or the AARP or any of the other organizations that demonized our concerns for the past year. But I do intend to ask some very tough questions of Dr. Berwick, the President's pick to implement and enforce literally thousands of regulations that will soon come pouring out of the Department of Health and Human Services, and that will inevitably include rationing.

It is nothing personal, as I have said before. I have met Dr. Berwick. He is a very personable, affable, intelligent man. I don't doubt that he has support from his peers who know him. I am not questioning his honor or his motives or his love for this country.

As an aside, I would appreciate it--and I know a lot of other Members of this body would as well--if the White House extended the same courtesy to me and, for that matter, anybody else raising serious policy questions.

But we have a fundamental disagreement about the future of our health care delivery system. I happen to think it is important that we have this conversation so the American people can understand what is going on.

Please quit attacking my motives and the motives of others. Accentuate the policy, eliminate the politics, and don't mess with those in between raising reasonable questions. That is an old song that rather dates me, but I think it is appropriate. Questions such as this: What did Dr. Berwick mean when he said:

I am a romantic about the [British] National Health

Service; I love it. All I need to do to rediscover the

romance is to look at the health care in my own country.

So he is both romantic and supportive of the British National Health Service.

With cancer survival rates for women 10 percentage points higher in the United States than in England and over 20 points higher for men, why does he think their government-run system is superior to our system?

Please explain this quote:

If I could wave a magic wand . . . health care [would be] a

common good--single payer . . . health care [would be] a

human right--universality is a nonnegotiable starting place .

. . justice [would be] a prerequisite to health equity as a

primary goal.

While that may sound very nice, very idealistic, the reality is, declaring health care to be a human right necessarily places some citizens' rights above others--suppressing the rights of some in favor of another government-favored group.

If you are saying health care is a universal right, what you are essentially saying is that some people have a right to someone else's property, whether that be taxable income or doctor services or their health care.

I disagree with this argument. Health care has become an entitlement for some in this country, but it cannot be properly described as a right without egregious government coercion and income redistribution and patient care consequences.

But maybe that is OK with Dr. Berwick. After all, he did say that ``any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must--must--redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorest and less fortunate.'' I want to hear more from Dr. Berwick on this point.

Furthermore, what did he mean when he said that ``equity'' is a necessary component of ``quality''? Does that mean high-quality care should not be available unless it is available to all? This certainly seems to square with the United Kingdom's practice of delaying access to the latest breakthrough drugs and technologies because of their high costs. What does Dr. Berwick think this attitude will do to investments and innovations in lifesaving treatments?

And what about this quote:

Limited resources require decisions about who will have

access to care and the extent of their coverage. The

complexity and cost of health care delivery systems may set

up a tension between what is good for the society as a whole

and what is best for an individual patient . . . Hence, those

working in health care delivery may be faced with situations

in which it seems that the best course is to manipulate the

flawed system for the benefit of a specific patient . . .

rather than to work to improve the delivery of care of all.

Is this a suggestion that it is a doctor's duty to concentrate on the good of society or the good of his or her patient? That certainly sounds like a proponent of socialized medicine to me. I use that word very carefully.

Finally, this is a question about the following statement by Dr. Berwick:

Most people who have serious pain do not need advanced

methods; they just need the morphine and counseling that have

been around for centuries.

That is an amazing statement. I know Dr. Berwick is familiar with the Liverpool Care Pathway to death that is employed in the British health care system and its reliance on morphine and counseling. He should also be aware of the growing concerns of many British doctors that this so- called pathway to death is being overused for patients who would have otherwise recovered, especially stroke patients. Is this what is being advocated for the American health care system? For Medicare patients? This certainly sounds like the ``death panels'' that became so roundly ridiculed and dismissed by ObamaCare supporters during last year's debate.

I know that ``socialized medicine'' and ``death panels'' have become loaded terms. I understand that. But if that is what you are for, you should just say so. Don't be afraid to have this discussion. Dr. Berwick certainly has not been shy about his views in the past.

Maybe this is a comment more appropriately directed at the administration than at Dr. Berwick, but do not hide behind straw men and name-calling of those who disagree with you.

I have legitimate concerns--many of us have legitimate concerns-- about the direction we are taking in this country with particular regard to health care. The thousands of people in Kansas who have contacted me over the last year have very legitimate concerns, too, and if you do not think I deserve some answers, they certainly do.

The American people are sick and tired of being told that they are crazy or racist or that they do not know what they are talking about or being misled or that any question raised is simply partisan politics. Promise after promise has been broken, from the pledge not to raise taxes to the promise that if you like what you have you can keep it, to the falsehood that this new law does not cut Medicare. And remember the one about lowering premiums. The list goes on and on. Now it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that the law will ration health care. I think we are duty-bound to hold this administration and its nominees accountable for these broken promises and for what lies ahead for patient care. That is why I will continue to ask the hard questions that need to be asked of this nominee.

I will continue to fight against what I truly believe is government rationing of health care. I did so on the HELP Committee when we considered it, the Finance Committee when we considered it, and during the reconciliation process when we considered it. All, of course, were defeated by party-line votes. And I will continue to maintain that the American health care system, with all of its flaws, is the best health care system in the world. We need to fix the flaws. We do not need rationing.

In the case of Dr. Berwick, we need answers.

I yield the floor. It appears to me there is not a quorum, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

If the distinguished Republican leader will yield, I will be happy to respond.

First, I thank the distinguished leader and the doc from Wyoming, who is always bringing forward new and important information about the health care bill and some of the problems that we are experiencing with it, for allowing me to join in this colloquy.

We are talking about President Obama's nominee to be administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service--CMS is the acronym. Rest assured, every health care provider in America knows about CMS, and the nominee is Dr. Donald Berwick. I just met with Dr. Berwick and had an opportunity to hear some of his thoughts on the direction he thinks American health care, and particularly Medicare and Medicaid, should take.

He is a very affable, friendly doctor from Connecticut. He has a wide background in terms of health care. I have also been reading up on Dr. Berwick, who has a prolific record of statements and speeches and books that further lay out his ideas for the future of health care. I recommend everyone within the health care industry and every health care consumer get hold of these speeches and these statements and, if possible books and read them.

Here is what I have learned. Dr. Berwick, I would tell the distinguished Republican leader, is a huge fan, a major champion, and a contributor to the British national health care system called NHS. As a matter of fact, I have a quote of Dr. Berwick regarding the NHS.

I am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it.

The NHS is not just a national treasure; it is a global

treasure.

Well, I understand that people become very passionate about their jobs, but romantic seems to me a little unique, but we will let that go.

Now, why is this important? Because the NHS rations health care. The NHS denies and delays patient access to therapies in regard to breast cancer, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, kidney cancer, macular degeneration--this happens to be my favorite example: patients required to go blind in one eye first before they get treatment for the other eye--and brain tumors. A patient group coalition called the group that rations health care in Great Britain unfair and unacceptable.

The quote by Dr. Berwick is:

The decision is not whether or not we will ration health

care--the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes

open.

Consequently, I think the good Senator from Wyoming has something to say about that in regard to rationing health care and the British system.

If the leader will yield, it is one thing to use the British health care system and be romantic about it, to quote Dr. Berwick, as an example for rationing, for practicing health care cost containment. It is another thing to do it by age, which is happening. But it is rationing by region, which the leader has pointed out and Dr. Barrasso has pointed out, that should strike fear in the hearts of any person living in any rural area in the country. His tenet for modernizing the American health system is reducing what he calls ``the oversupply of inventory.'' That is how he defines it. Dr. Berwick's oversupply of inventory is, in truth, the rural patients' lifeline.

I know Dr. Barrasso understands that.

As the leader has said, in Kentucky--well, in Kansas, demanding a patient in Kansas drive 200 or 300 miles to Wichita or Kansas City or Denver so their infant can get proper care is ridiculous. I can foresee a time when the rural health care system will consist of a bandaid and a bed pan.

Dr. Berwick is the perfect nominee for a President whose aim has always been to save money by rationing health care.

I would like to add, at this particular time, in addition to the rationing the good doctor talked about, the national health system in Great Britain utilizes an end-of-life pathway to death; an end-of-life pathway to death--that is a shocking description--that many British doctors say leads to premature death in patients who could have otherwise recovered.

To say that is noteworthy is unjust. It is egregious. Dr. Berwick's ideas on end-of-life care seem to mirror this death pathway. The quote is: ``Most people who have serious pain do not need advanced methods; they just need the morphine and the counseling that have been around for centuries.''

This is a rather stunning statement, it seems to me. But it is very similar to President Obama's remarks about the elderly approaching the end of their life. The President has said that as you get older, ``maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the shots and the pain killer.''

The only thing missing in that is the walker.

Consequently, he has also remarked that ``the chronically ill and those towards the end of their life are accounting for 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.'' We know that. ``[T]here is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place.'' That is the end of the quote by the President.

It sounds like this ``difficult democratic conversation'' has already happened in the United Kingdom and that their pathway-to-death solution mirrors Dr. Berwick's and President Obama's ideas exactly.

But age rationing, as has been indicated, is not the only way to do it, as the leader has pointed out. We have regional discrimination as well.

I say to the leader, this isn't anything new. Dr. Barrasso has been predicting this for some time. Those of us on the Finance Committee and the Health committee, we got a double dose. During the health care debate, we tried to warn of the ``four rationers'' that were embedded in the bill. That is what we called them. I made several statements on them. We have: the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, the CMS Innovation Center, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Dr. Berwick was actually the vice chair of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force until 1996. You may remember this, as Dr. Barrasso pointed out, this was the body that recently ignited a firestorm by recommending that women wait until age 50 before they receive a mammogram. That certainly angered many doctors in America, and whoever said that beat a hasty retreat.

We also warned that ObamaCare, I say to the leader and my friend from Wyoming, will result in higher costs, not lower, a prediction not only by the CBO but by the bravest man in America, CMS expert, Richard Foster, who--it is amazing to me that he is still on the job, thank goodness. He recently backed all that up, in terms of higher premiums, higher cost, rationing, access to doctors by the elderly, and has renewed his warning time and time again.

Now our predictions are coming true and President Obama's CMS nominee,

Dr. Berwick, will be the man who cuts health care costs by putting the rationing plans into practice. We will call it cost containment, but it will be rationing.

I hope my colleagues will join me in carefully reviewing the statements and the speeches and the books and everything else that good Dr. Berwick has stated in the last 30 years on rationing. I think if we do that, most of us will agree he is the wrong man, wrong time, wrong job.

I thank the leader and the good doctor for allowing me to join in this colloquy.

Mr. President, I understand I have 10 minutes in which to make my remarks. Is that correct?

I appreciate that.

Over the past 2 years, Americans have seen an unprecedented government reach into the private sector, some of which may be necessary. They are angry about it, as they should be.

For many, the overreach of government began with the bank bailout or TARP. The $700 billion TARP that I opposed was passed in the fall of 2008 when every day we awoke to see a new financial crisis headlining the front page.

TARP was initially intended to purchase troubled assets and get them off the books of the troubled banks. Yet, over time, the program evolved into a fund--some would call it a slush fund--to include bailouts for the auto industry and the housing market. The term ``bailout'' will never be the same again.

I think the American people are right to demand that they are never again put on the hook to bail out a failed company. They are right to demand that those who got us into the financial mess not be allowed to do so again. Unfortunately, the financial regulatory reform bill that the Senate is set to take up and debate does not achieve these goals.

I know both sides are now involved in discussions, and the next 48 hours are going to be absolutely crucial to determine if, in fact, we can get a bipartisan bill. But with any business, if it is mismanaged, if its leaders make poor decisions, the business should be allowed to fail. Success and failure have, until recently, been the cornerstone of what has made our economy one of the strongest in the world. The bailouts of financial and auto companies have turned that philosophy on its head. I think it is a dangerous road to go down. We need to set a new course. It is what the American people want.

This bill does not end bailouts. Instead, it allows some of the largest financial institutions to contribute to a bailout fund, to be used if a company were again to fail.

Well, this does nothing to deter companies from taking risks that could lead to failure and the need for a future bailout. In fact, it sends a signal that the government will bail out institutions, just as it bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two troubled mortgage giants that have received $125.9 billion, might as well make it $126 billion, in direct government funding and now have an unlimited U.S. credit line.

Yet there is no mention, no mention, of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac in this bill. Failure to deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac keeps taxpayers on the hook for more bailouts of these entities.

The bill also allows the FDIC and the Federal Reserve to come to the aid of failing financial firms, which means that financial markets will be fully aware of the government's authority and inclination to prop up large failed financial institutions.

The very existence of this authority undercuts the claim that the government will actually ever wind up with such firms. Those firms, along with their creditors and shareholders, will take more risks and, yes, put the financial system into even greater danger.

There has also been much attention paid to the creation of something called a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, BCFP. I would hate to try to pronounce that acronym.

This sounds like a good idea at first. We all want, everyone in this Senate wants, to ensure strong consumer financial protection. That is not the issue. Yet, rather than working with regulators to strengthen existing consumer protection rules and crack down on unfair deceptive and abusive practices, this provision adds another layer of bureaucracy and financial regulation that will ultimately be harmful for consumers, and I mean all consumers, by raising their costs for financial products, and eliminating the types of financial products and services that are available to choose from.

Not only that, this bill increases the regulatory burden for banks, including our community banks, that are already subject to 1,700 pages of regulations in the consumer area alone. Under this bill, our community banks would have to comply with an additional 27 new or expanded regulations, including new burdens on small business loans. No telling how many pages these new regulations will add or how much they will increase the cost of lending to small business. Finally, this bill harms the very innovation and entrepreneurship that has made our country so successful and created one of the strongest economies in the world. It does this by limiting the ability of small startup companies to raise seed capital. Currently, angel investors--that is quite a name--but angel investors, those higher income individuals who wish to invest in a promising startup company, to take the risk, must have a net worth of at least $1 million or income of $250,000.

This bill increases those requirements to $2.3 million and $450,000, respectively. Estimates are that this provision, along with a provision in the bill that would subject startups and investors to 50 different sets of State regulations, would disqualify about 77 percent of current investors.

In 2007, these individuals invested $26 billion in more than 57,000 ventures across the country. We are talking about companies such as Amazon, Google, Facebook. All benefitted from angel investors. Yet this bill makes it harder for promising young companies to get the capital they need to get started to grow and become successful.

At a time when the unemployment rate is 9.7 percent, I think the last thing Congress should do is to make it more difficult for small businesses to start up and be successful. Small businesses are, as the President has acknowledged, the leading job creators in the country.

Everyone--everyone--all of us agree we need better regulation of our financial system. However, the financial regulatory reform bill that came out of the Banking Committee does not achieve that goal. I dearly hope the chairman of the committee and the ranking member can reach some accommodation to produce a better product.

It does not address the problems, as written, that led to the financial turmoil but, instead, imposes additional regulatory burdens on our community banks and financial institutions that did not contribute to that turmoil.

It does not discourage risk taking by large financial institutions. It does nothing--nothing--to address Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, which had a central role in the collapse of the housing markets that helped trigger the financial crisis.

It does not ensure that taxpayers never again have to bail out a failed company. However, it does increase the Federal bureaucracy and make it more difficult and costly for consumers to obtain credit for their families and small businesses.

This approach will not benefit consumers or community banks or our economy. We need to work to improve this bill. It is vital for our economy we get it right when addressing financial regulatory reform because the consequences will be seen for years--for years--to come.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, will the chairman yield for a second?

I am very privileged to represent the State of Kansas.

Nebraska is fine, but they----

I mean, their football teams are a completely different----

So it is Kansas.

I appreciate it.

Madam President, each of us privileged to serve in this Chamber knows that the Senate and each of our offices could not operate successfully without the assistance of talented and dedicated staff. One former Senator who certainly knew this was my fellow Kansan, Bob Dole. During his nearly 35 years in the House and Senate--and most especially during his decade as Senate Republican Leader--Bob was ably assisted by some of Capitol Hill's best and brightest.

One of those individuals was Jim Whittinghill, who many of my colleagues will remember from his years as Bob's deputy chief of staff. Jim passed away on Thursday. I have been in contact with Senator Dole since learning of Jim's passing, and he asked me to enter the following statement in the Congressional Record:

Jim Whittinghill--or ``Whit'' as his friends called him--

and he had many--worked with me during my time as Senate

Republican leader from 1986 until 1994 in a series of

positions, including Deputy Chief of Staff. Whit was a top

flight staffer who provided me with counsel on a wide variety

of issues, including 2nd amendment rights and energy. He was

a proud Republican, but he was respected on both sides of the

aisle. Democrat Senators and staffers knew that Whit's word

was his bond, and he was very influential and helpful in

reaching bi-partisan agreements. After his years on Capitol

Hill, Whit went on to have a very successful career in the

private sector. He will be greatly missed by all those who

worked with him.

On a personal note, let me add that I was in the House of Representatives when Whit was working for Bob, and I agree with all that Bob said about him. I know I join with many others in this Chamber who knew Whit in extending our condolences to his family and friends.

I ask consent to call up Roberts-Inhofe-Brown amendment No. 3579, and I ask unanimous consent Senator Crapo be added as cosponsor.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, included in the half trillion dollars in new taxes in this health reform bill is a tax hike of $20 billion on medical devices, a $20 billion excise tax on lifesaving medical devices. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation have both confirmed that these excise taxes will not be borne by the medical device industry if in fact that is what the other side wanted to do. Instead, the tax will be passed on to patients in the form of higher prices and higher insurance premiums. My colleagues are going to speak in greater detail about this tax, but let me take a moment to talk about some of the people who will bear the burden, and what types of devices will be taxed.

People with disabilities, diabetics, amputees, people with cancer and people with Alzheimer's are just some of the folks who will see their tax costs go up because of this tax. My amendment prevents this new tax from raising the already high cost for these groups by striking the tax on medical devices.

This is a tax on innovative devices as well, a device such as the cyberknife. The cyberknife is a noninvasive alternative to surgery for the treatment of both cancerous and noncancerous tumors anywhere in the body. Yet under this bill, such cutting-edge devices will be taxed. Those who need the treatment offered by the cyberknife will see the cost of that treatment go up. When innovative and lifesaving technologies such as the cyberknife are taxed, when the costs of many tests increase because the devices used in the tests are taxed, when the new devices are not developed and when fewer manufacturers are able to survive in the anticompetitive environment this tax will create, consumers of health care will suffer for it.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Brown.

I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending motions and amendments so that I may offer an amendment, No. 3577, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent now to temporarily set aside the pending motions so that I may offer a motion to commit, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, included in the new taxes in this health reform is a tax hike of $20 billion on medical devices. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation both confirmed these excise taxes will not--will not--be borne by the medical device industry but, instead, are passed on to patients in the form of higher prices and higher insurance premiums.

Who are these folks who will bear the burden of this new tax? People with disabilities, diabetics, amputees, people with cancer, just to name some of the people--and more--who will see their costs go up because of this tax. We do not want to do this. Why should we want to do this on those who are most vulnerable?

This amendment would prevent this new tax from raising the already high costs for this group and a tax that will stifle the Medicaid device technology and innovation of this country.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is offset by an amendment similar to that offered by Senator Schumer in the Finance Committee so it must be bipartisan.

Will the chairman yield?

I am just so sorry that Montana lost in the first round.

Mr. President, this amendment protects the rural health care delivery system by exempting critical access hospitals from dangerous payment cuts by the Independent Payment Advisory Board. This board is an unelected and unaccountable body, nefarious to be sure, with unprecedented power to set payment rates and make other Medicare policy changes.

While most hospitals are exempt from the board's cuts by virtue of the special deals they cut with the administration--for shame--critical access hospitals, which are among the most vulnerable in the country, are not exempt.

I do not know why critical access hospitals were let out of this exemption--perhaps a drafting error; I do not know--but I can think of no other more deserving providers than critical access hospitals throughout our rural areas--in Montana and in Kansas--to be spared from the Independent Payment Advisory Board's cuts. Save the rural health care delivery system.

Surely, you are not going to raise a point of order?

Mr. President, I take it the chairman has raised the point of order, so we are at regular order.

I thank the Senator. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 4(g)(3) of the statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of my amendment in saving rural hospitals, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Thank you, Mr. President.

This motion commits the bill back to the Finance Committee with instructions to repeal ``the four rationers'' of health care reform. These four horsemen of the rationing apocalypse are the Patient Center Outcomes Research Institute, already conducting research that will be used to deny coverage and ration care; the CMS Innovation Center, which will grant new powers to CMS--that should be a pleasant thought by any beleaguered hospital administrator--the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which is given new powers--that is the outfit that said women should not have mammograms until age 50--wonderful--and the Independent Payment Advisory Board, vested with extraordinary power to set Medicare payment rates and make policy decisions.

These rationers comprise the infrastructure for the ``Brave New World'' of big government intrusion into health care decisions of all Americans, and they must be repealed.

Start over. Put patient care first. Get them back in the corral. Support the amendment.

Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues in support of this bipartisan agreement. Yes, there is a bipartisan agreement in regard to this bill. It can be done. It has been reached by the Senate Finance and Commerce Committees on the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration and Airport and Airway Trust Fund; i.e., the Rockefeller substitute amendment No. 3452.

I thank Chairman Rockefeller for his leadership. He is right; we need to move this bill. He referred to the 11 times it has been delayed. I have been working on this bill for 4 years. I know he has been working very hard, very diligently, and we do have a workable compromise. I think it represents the true meaning of that word. It shows what is possible when we roll up our sleeves and go to work together. So special thanks to Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley and to Senator Rockefeller and all of his staff and all of Senator Baucus's staff, everybody's people who have been working on this.

In 2006, at my invitation, then-Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters joined me and Congressman Tiahrt from the fourth district of Kansas, local officials, all sorts of representatives from the aviation businesses in Wichita, for a roundtable discussion about the importance of aviation to Kansas and to the country. We then toured Cessna's manufacturing lines to see firsthand an example of the great work of Kansans who build 50 percent of the world's general aviation aircraft. Reauthorizing the FAA and the Airport Airway Trust Fund is not only a top national priority to, obviously me, Senator Brownback, and the Kansas delegation, but a top Kansas priority.

We tried to pass this bill 2 years ago, and at that time 40,000 employees were in Wichita and the surrounding counties and they made their living building planes, manufacturing parts, and servicing aviation. Now, unfortunately, after delay and delay and delay due to the rough economic climate and conditions, that number has dropped to just over 25,000. That is a tremendous decrease with an awful lot of hurt for a lot of families in Kansas.

Kansas is home to nearly 3,200 aviation and manufacturing businesses, including Cessna, Hawker-Beechcraft, Bombardier-Learjet, Boeing, Spirit, AeroSystems, Garmin, and Honeywell, to name a few. However, aviation isn't simply an economic engine in Kansas; it is part of our history, our way of life and, most importantly, part of our future. It is an example of our entrepreneurial spirit.

Throughout this debate, I wish to point out that general aviation has been called to increase its contribution to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund to help pay for what everybody knows needs to happen: the modernization of our air traffic control system. All along the way, general aviation has stepped to the plate and agreed to help pay for the necessary increases to move our aviation infrastructure into next- generation technology.

I cannot recall a time when any industry has come to me and said, We want to help and we are willing to support an increase--65 percent, by the way--in our taxes to do so, but that is exactly what the general aviation community did. Their only request has been that they be able to pay through the current efficient and effective tax structure, the fuel tax. So the agreement reached between the Finance and the Commerce Committees respects this request and allows the general aviation community to be part of the modernization solution without creating a new bureaucracy or any additional redtape. This raises an additional $113 million dedicated to updating the air traffic control technology that will increase safety and decrease congestion. At the same time, our commercial airlines and passengers are held harmless from tax increases.

So, again, I am pleased this agreement recognizes the value of both commercial aviation and general aviation to our Nation's transportation system.

I realize there have been strong feelings on both sides of this debate for a considerable number of years.

My goals as we drafted the bill were very clear: First, ensure that our air traffic control system is upgraded and remains safe for all passengers and aircraft. Secondly, protect the general aviation community and Kansas jobs which would have been threatened by a new user fee.

This legislation represents the best of a bipartisan compromise and a real effort to make our skies safer. I am very proud to be a part of this compromise, as are tens of thousands of workers employed in Kansas in aviation manufacturing.

Our State has always been and remains the air capital of the world, and under this agreement it will continue. I thank my colleagues for helping us to reach a compromise that will maintain our world standing.

I am very hopeful the Senate will continue to work in this spirit of bipartisanship on this bill. Yesterday Senator Brownback in his remarks, Senator Rockefeller in his remarks just a while ago, and Senator Hutchison made these same comments. We need to move quickly to a conference committee and eventually have this bill signed into law before the current program expires. I know when a train moves, everybody wants to put their car on the train. However, let's try to keep extraneous amendments--I don't mind Senators at all talking about their concerns, whether it be education, gay marriage, or earmarks; and I would expect we would hear a lot of speeches on earmarks--but we need to keep this bill the way it is and move this bill. Then there will be another train or I will have Kansas general aviation provide an aircraft for a more speedy amendment to go over to the House if that is the case.

So let's try to keep our extraneous amendments if we can, despite our strong feelings, off this bill, and let's get something done. It has been languishing here for over 4 years and probably longer than that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about prescription drug importation and patient safety. Senator Dorgan's amendment to allow for the importation of prescription drugs into the United States could have grave consequences for patient safety in America.

In a recent letter to my good friend and home State colleague Senator Brownback, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Margaret Hamburg, identified the four risks to patient safety that drug importation schemes pose: No. 1, the drug may not be safe or effective; No. 2, the drug may not be a consistently made, high quality product; No. 3, the drug may not be substitutable with an FDA-approved product; and No. 4, the drug may be contaminated or counterfeit.

That is a lot of risk to expose already-vulnerable patients to. And think about this: Malta. Cyprus. Latvia. Estonia. Slovakia. Greece. Hungary. Romania. These are just a few of the countries that could be exporting prescription drugs to the United States if the Dorgan amendment passes. As a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have grave concerns about the ability of these countries to adequately protect their drug supplies.

Our Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, is the gold standard for drug and product safety in the world, and even it has not been one hundred percent effective in preventing contaminated and counterfeit products from entering our supply chain. The recent scandals involving imported heparin, infant formula, and toothpaste have demonstrated the unfortunate limitations of the FDA's ability to conduct foreign inspections of food, drugs and cosmetics manufacturers abroad. If our own safety watchdog can't guarantee our protection, how can we expect that protection from Malta or Slovakia?

There is a real risk that these countries will be vulnerable to importing drugs from countries that are known for high rates of counterfeiting. In the European Union last year, 34 million counterfeit drugs were seized at border crossings in just 2 months. The World Health Organization estimates that drug counterfeiting rates in Africa and parts of Asia and Latin America are 30 percent or more. And up to 50 percent of medicines purchased from Internet sites that conceal their address are found to be counterfeit. Do we really want an HIV or cancer patient in Ohio, or Arizona or Kansas to rely on imported medicines that may have zero effectiveness, or which may even be harmful?

According to FDA Commissioner Hamburg, the Dorgan amendment does not adequately address these potential risks. In fact, the Commissioner says that the amendment ``would be logistically challenging to implement and resource intensive'' and that ``significant safety concerns . . . and safety issues'' remain.

Senator Lautenberg has introduced a side-by-side amendment to Senator Dorgan's, requiring that, before any law allowing the importation of prescription drugs into the United States can become effective, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must certify that such a scheme will both pose no additional risk to the public's health and safety, AND result in a significant reduction in costs for consumers.

I think that this amendment just makes sense. We must protect the prescription drug supply in America.