Floor Statements

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 798 and ask for its consideration.

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

The amendment is very simple and straightforward. It aims to ensure that gun owners and sportsmen are able to transport securely firearms aboard Amtrak trains in checked baggage, a practice that is done thousands of times a day at airports across the country. I emphasize that this amendment deals with checked, secured baggage only. It would return Amtrak to a pre-9/11 practice. It does not deal with carry-on baggage. Unlike the airline industry, Amtrak does not allow the transport of firearms in checked bags. This means that sportsmen who wish to use Amtrak trains for hunting trips cannot do so because they are not allowed to check safely a firearm. I emphasize, this bill deals with checked, secure luggage, not carry-on luggage. It would apply to Amtrak the same as airlines.

Madam President, if I could understand the order, do I understand that the time is equally divided between the proponents and opponents of the amendment and that we are to vote at approximately 10 after noon; is that correct?

If I may, let me begin the debate. I understand Senator Brownback and others may be coming also. I had, frankly, understood the debate would begin later so I rushed over from a hearing.

The Senator from Vermont has questioned the necessity of this amendment. Actually, I will point out to my colleagues that what the Wicker amendment does is restore the Kemp-Kasten provision that has been a part of the foreign policy of this Nation for almost a quarter century. It has worked well under Republican and Democratic administrations. I submit it would be wrong to change that policy at this point.

What does Kemp-Kasten say? Kemp-Kasten says Federal funds, American taxpayer dollars, should not go to fund coercive abortion practices or involuntary sterilization practices. It prohibits the appropriation of American dollars to organizations involved in such activities. But it has always made provision that the President of the United States has the right to investigate and certify whether these organizations have been engaged in practices involving coercive family planning activities.

Should my amendment pass, President Obama would have the same authority President Reagan, President Bush 1, President Bush 2, and President Clinton had to make this certification. In other words, the Wicker amendment keeps the Federal policy as it has been, and the underlying bill would amount to a dramatic shift in foreign policy.

Why do we need the amendment to begin with? I quote from a letter, dated June 26, 2008, from John D. Negroponte,

the Deputy Secretary of State, to Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen on this question, wherein he writes:

As reflected in the law and as a matter of longstanding

policy, the United States opposes coercive abortion and

involuntary sterilization.

Let me interject at this point. Certainly, that should still be the policy of the United States. That should always be the policy of this Federal Government, that we oppose coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization.

The letter goes on:

I have determined that by providing financial and technical

resources through its sixth cycle China Country Program to

the National Population and Family Planning Commission and

related entities, UNFPA provides support for and participates

in management of the Chinese government's program of coercive

abortion and involuntary sterilization. If that is true, this

Senate, this Congress has no business taking hard-earned tax

dollars from taxpayers and sending them to UNFPA, if it,

indeed, is true that they participate in the management of

this coercive Chinese program.

If it is not true, the President will be able to make a determination. But if he investigates the question and finds that such coercion is still being practiced in China and if American dollars, through UNFPA, are being used to assist the program, then I would hope he would truthfully make the determination and, once again, it would not be a matter of the U.S. taxpayer funding such awful practices.

Now, let me read, then, from the Analysis of Determination that Kemp- Kasten Amendment Precludes Funding to UNFPA, which was attached to Secretary Negroponte's letter.

The analysis says:

China's birth limitation program retains harshly coercive

elements in law and practice, including coercive abortion and

involuntary sterilization.

That is what this debate is about. Do we want tax dollars of American workers to go for coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization?

The analysis goes on to say:

These measures include the implementation of birth

limitation regulations, the provision of obligatory

contraception services, and the use of incentives and

penalties to induce compliance.

Further quoting:

[I]t is the provinces that establish detailed birth

limitation policies by regulation, enforce their compliance

and punish noncompliance.

Quoting from the second page of this analysis:

China's birth limitation program relies on harshly coercive

measures, such as so-called ``social maintenance'' fees . . .

the threat of job loss or demotion, loss of access to

education--

If Chinese citizens do not comply with these harsh measures--

extreme social pressure, and economic incentives.

In families that already have two children, one parent is

often pressured to undergo sterilization.

On the third page:

Since fiscal year 2002, the Administration has reviewed

annually UNFPA's program in China and determined that the

U.S. cannot fund UNFPA in light of its support or

participation in the management of China's program of

coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

Let's be careful. I would say to my colleagues, let's be careful with American tax dollars. Let's keep the provision that allows the President of the United States to make this determination. If there is evidence to prove that American tax dollars would be used by the United Nations to fund these coercive practices, then, for God's sake, let's not allow the U.S. taxpayers to be a party to these abhorrent and coercive practices.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, may I inquire of the Chair as to how the remainder of time will be divided?

I thank the Chair.

I would inquire of the Senator from Vermont if he has further speakers?

Reclaiming my time, I await their remarks, and I yield the floor at this time.

Madam President, I wonder if the Senator from Vermont will yield on that point?

Well, I do not ask for that, Madam President. Now, I asked if the Senator will yield on his time. I yielded to him on my time just a moment ago.

Madam President, I am prepared to close, and I assume the Senator from Vermont will do so also.

The Senator from Vermont says the money in this bill will go to sanitization, to protect against child marriage, to protect against female genital mutilation, to promote maternal health care. No one objects to that. If the President of the United States, under the Wicker amendment and under the 25-year-old Kemp-Kasten provision, can certify that such organizations do not promote coercion in the name of family planning, then the money will go to these worthy causes. The question is, Why does the Senator from Vermont and the people who agree with him on this issue not trust the President of their own political party to make a determination?

Now, the Senator says that the Kemp-Kasten language is still in the bill. I would submit that, in fact, is not true. The bill purports to retain Kemp-Kasten, but it goes on to say that funds will be directed to the United Nations Population Fund ``notwithstanding any other provision of law.'' I say to my friend from Vermont, that is the change in the law that guts Kemp-Kasten, that changes 23 years to 25 years of Federal policy and allows U.S. taxpayer dollars to be spent for coercive sterilization, for forced abortion, and that is the issue. Yes, Kemp-Kasten is purported to be in the bill, and then it is gutted in the next paragraph.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent to proceed and debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to call up my amendment.

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

Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 607: Senator Enzi, Senator Bunning, Senator Inhofe, Senator Coburn, Senator Vitter, and Senator Grassley.

I will yield to the Senator.

Madam President, I spoke at some length yesterday about this amendment. It deals with one issue and one issue only--whether U.S. taxpayer dollars will be provided in this omnibus bill to help fund coercive population control policies, such as China's one-child policy--a policy that relies on coerced abortion and forced sterilization.

Specifically, this pro-child, pro-family, pro-woman amendment would restore the Kemp-Kasten antipopulation control provision, which has been a fundamental part of our foreign policy for almost a quarter century. As it has always done, Kemp-Kasten allows the President of the United States to certify that funds are not used for coercive family practices. As it has always done, the provision would allow the President to release those funds after he has made such a certification.

My amendment is needed because the underlying bill reverses this longstanding provision. The omnibus bill

that we have before us purports to retain Kemp-Kasten, but then it also includes six troubling words that effectively kill the provision. In addition to Kemp-Kasten, the bill directs funds to the United Nations Population Fund, or UNFPA ``notwithstanding any other provision of law.''

Perhaps these words were added inadvertently. I don't know. But the words that are added--those six little words--represent a loophole that in effect guts Kemp-Kasten and alters this longstanding bipartisan foreign policy in the process.

Some people may ask why restoring Kemp-Kasten is important, and here is why. The U.N. Population Fund, a group that is in line to receive some $50 million in this bill, has actively supported, comanaged, and whitewashed crimes against women under the cover of family planning. Under the Kemp-Kasten provision, the last administration withheld money from UNFPA for this very reason. I would like to quote then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, who stated:

UNFPA support of and involvement in China's population

planning activities allows the Chinese Government to

implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.

Therefore, it is not permissible to continue funding UNFPA at

this time.

That is the end of the quote from our Secretary of State.

A further analysis by the U.S. State Department of the Chinese program on family planning reveals this--I will quote from the State Department analysis:

China's birth limitation program retains harshly coercive

elements in law and practice, including coercive abortion and

involuntary sterilization.

Does anyone in this Senate want to spend U.S. funds to support these activities: coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization? I think we ought to have a unanimous consensus in the Congress that we have no business spending our taxpayers' dollars on such things. The report goes on to say:

The State Department summarized these practices in its 2007

China Country Report on Human Rights Practices. . . . These

measures include the implementation of birth limitation

regulations, the provision of obligatory contraceptive

services, and the use of incentives and penalties to induce

compliance.

Further in the report, and I continue to quote:

China's Birth Limitation Program relies on harshly coercive

measures such as so-called ``social maintenance'' fees.

And to skip down further:

In families that already have two children, one parent is

often pressured to undergo sterilization. A number of

provinces have legal provisions that require a woman to have

an abortion if her pregnancy violates government regulations.

. . .

I wish we could stop this practice worldwide. China is a sovereign nation, and they have the power to impose these laws on their people. But taxpayer funds should not be spent from the U.S. Treasury to assist an organization that funds such practices in China.

The most recent State Department report on UNFPA activities shows that their funds are indeed funneled to Chinese agencies that coercively enforce the very practices I just read about. Are we to believe that in less than a year the UNFPA has changed its practices? That is not a bet I am willing to take with the taxpayers' money.

The Wicker amendment should be adopted to once again give the President, President Obama, the opportunity to certify that UNFPA, or any other organization, is not participating in family planning techniques such as the harsh techniques I just read about.

My amendment does not represent a radical shift or departure from what is normal. In fact, it simply returns the language in this bill to language that was agreed upon by both Republicans and Democrats in last year's Foreign Operations appropriations bill during a time when Democrats controlled the House of Representatives and controlled the Senate of the United States. The language that I am offering was agreed upon by Republicans and Democrats.

Finally, there have been concerns voiced about the need not to make changes in this bill. We have been told this bill has been preconferenced. Persons say that in doing so we might delay the bill's passage by sending it back to the House for approval. I admit the funding contained in this bill is important, but that does not mean we can forget about our jobs as legislators. I do not believe the other body will let this bill die simply because we are doing what is right, by clarifying our country's policy of standing against coercive population control practices like forced abortion and forced sterilization.

I realize opinions in this Chamber and across our country vary greatly on the issue of abortion. I am pro-life and I am mindful that some Members in this body would describe themselves as pro-choice. But regardless of where we come down on that issue, can't we agree that we do not want to spend taxpayer dollars to force this on women who do not want this procedure? We ought to all be able to agree that is wrong and that is a misuse of American taxpayer funds.

The United States should not turn its head on coercive family control programs like sterilization and forced abortion, and our taxpayers should not have their dollars used to help fund such horrible acts. My amendment will help stop that from happening. It restores a longstanding foreign policy provision. It reflects our Nation's commitment to promoting human rights. I urge its adoption.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, tomorrow I will rise to offer a pro-life and pro-child amendment to the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. But more than that, it will be an amendment that is profreedom that follows in the line of reasoning of my friend and my colleague from New Jersey. It is anti-oppression, prowoman and anticoercion.

My amendment tomorrow will restore the Kemp-Kasten anticoercion population control provision that has been a fundamental part of our foreign policy for almost a quarter of a century.

Since 1985, the Kemp-Kasten provision has denied Federal funding to organizations or programs that, as determined by the President, support or participate in a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. Should my amendment be adopted, then President Obama would be able to make an official determination as to whether organizations engage in such coercive practices.

The Kemp-Kasten amendment has been included in appropriations bills without substantial changes for 23 years, until today. Perhaps at this point it would be helpful to my colleagues if I outlined the differences between the Mexico City policy and the Kemp-Kasten provision.

Already, as one of his very first acts as President, President Obama chose to nullify the so-called Mexico City policy. The Mexico City policy said the United States would not federally fund groups that promote or provide abortion as a method of family planning. According to a Gallup poll released last month, overturning this pro-life policy was the least popular of the President's actions in his first week in office. Only 35 percent supported funding groups that promote or provide abortions as a method of family planning, and 58 percent oppose this new Obama administration policy.

I disagreed with President Obama on his Mexico City policy. I think most Americans, frankly, disagree with President Obama on this Mexico City decision. I think most Americans would rather not spend taxpayer dollars on international organizations that promote abortion as a method of family planning.

Having said that, I am not surprised by the President's decision. He ran, frankly, as a pro-abortion candidate. Senator McCain ran as a pro- life candidate. I think the decision in the election came down to other issues. Elections have consequences, but can we not all agree that forced abortion is wrong? Can we not all agree that coerced sterilization is wrong? That is what Kemp-Kasten has stood for for almost a quarter of a century.

Regardless of how Senators come down on the pro-life or pro-choice debate, can we not all at least agree on this one proposition, that the United Nations should not be able to spend American tax dollars on coercion in the name of family planning? That is the issue dealt with in Kemp-Kasten, and that is the only issue addressed in my amendment.

Here is what the bill language currently does. It purports to retain Kemp-Kasten, but then goes on to direct funds to the United Nations Population Fund ``notwithstanding any other provision of law.'' ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law''--these six words, in effect, nullify the Kemp-Kasten anticoercion provision. It is either contradictory or purposely deceptive that one portion of the omnibus bill purports to retain Kemp-Kasten while another paragraph has the real effect of gutting Kemp-Kasten.

One might inquire: Why does the majority party not trust a President of their own party to make a determination about whether U.N. funds are provided to coercive abortion programs? Surely a majority of this body does not favor funding UNFPA even if the organization is engaging in coercion. Surely we can all agree on that. Perhaps not.

The truth is, the U.N. Population Fund, UNFPA, has actively supported, comanaged, and whitewashed pervasive crimes against women in the guise of family planning. Just last year, the U.S. State Department found, once again, that the UNFPA violated the anticoercion provision of Kemp-Kasten and, accordingly, reprogrammed all funding originally earmarked to the UNFPA to other maternal health care and family planning projects.

The most recent State Department report on UNFPA activities in China shows that UNFPA funds are, indeed, funneled to Chinese agencies that coercively enforce the one-child policy.

What has changed in less than a year? Are we to believe that all these organizations have suddenly shifted their policies? This bill gives UNFPA a 25-percent funding increase and a deadly exception.

What has really changed is that we have a new administration with a pro-abortion agenda. I don't think coerced abortions were what the American people voted for last November. Creating this exception specifically for UNFPA makes a mockery of longstanding U.S. policy to protect human rights abroad. If we cannot stop the abuse in other parts of the globe, at the very least we should not be encouraging abuse with U.S. funds. We should be pressing the UNFPA to conform to human rights standards, instead of trying to change human rights standards to conform to the oppressive Chinese population control program.

By creating a loophole for UNFPA, we regrettably send a message to oppressive governments that coercive abortion is not a serious concern for American citizens. This message could not be further from the truth.

I urge my colleagues tomorrow to support the Wicker amendment and continue our longstanding policy against coercive abortion. Let's continue the time-honored Kemp-Kasten policy.

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

Mr. President, as Members can see from the debate we have had today and throughout the past couple weeks, almost everyone in this Senate and in the House of Representatives agrees on the need for Congress to be working with our new President on a stimulus plan to jump-start the economy.

We have people in our home States who are hurting. There were 600,000 jobs lost last month across our country. These facts underscore the need for something to be done to strengthen our economy. So we are all in agreement on that basic premise.

There is a great deal of good will out there in the country for our new President. I commend President Obama for making the economy his main focus. I also commend him for publicly stating Democrats do not have a monopoly on good ideas. The President said: Republicans have good ideas also. And he wanted to include them in his stimulus plan.

That is not what happened when House Democrats met behind closed doors several days ago to write this bill. It is not what has happened throughout the process.

Republicans responded to the President's call. We came forward. We came to this floor. We talked to our constituents back home. We stood before every television camera that would film us. We talked with every journalist we could find. We have discussed our ideas with the American people.

We presented ideas that I believe could have turned this economy around. Our ideas focused, first, on getting the housing market out of the gutter. The housing problem is what got us where we currently are, and it should be where we begin in turning our economy around.

Also, we proposed real tax relief for America's working people and for those people who create over half the jobs in this country, our Nation's small businesses.

Additionally, our plan called for targeted infrastructure investments with clear economic development purposes, in addition to putting an emphasis on legitimate Government priorities, such as early investment in military equipment and facilities, items we know will be funded in the future but would create increased jobs quickly if we focused on them now.

Just as importantly, the Republican idea I supported would have stimulated our economy at half the cost of the plan we are considering today, and that is not just my opinion, that is the opinion of a lot of very well-considered Democrats in this town.

Three days ago, the Senate cast one of the most expensive votes in the history of the United States of America. That $835 billion bill, which actually costs $1.2 trillion-plus when we add the cost of interest, has been given, at best, a small haircut. The bill before us is being presented to the American people today at a cost of $789 billion, still in the neighborhood of $1.1 trillion to $1.2 trillion, when one adds the cost of debt service.

In order to reach the current number, this so-called compromise cut much of the tax relief geared toward job creation and stimulating the housing market in order to keep in place spending for slow, unending, and nonjob-creating government programs. As the Washington Post reported yesterday morning, this final product ``claims many coauthors, including house liberals who saw a rare opportunity to secure new social spending.'' And take advantage of that opportunity they did indeed.

It now appears the majority leadership in the House and Senate have taken a bad bill and made it worse. Two popular items, one Republican and one Democratic, added to the Senate bill on the floor have been dropped from the final version and replaced with weaker alternatives that are less likely to work to stimulate home sales and automobile sales.

The first is the Isakson amendment, which was so widely agreed upon in this Chamber that it was approved by a voice vote. It went right to the housing problem. It would have provided a $15,000 tax credit to all home buyers, a concept which has worked in the past. Yet the final conference report before us reverts back to the House-passed proposal, providing much less money--an $8,000 credit--and limiting the provision to first-time home buyers. We need to encourage home buying by every American who is creditworthy, and this provision doesn't get the job done.

The Mikulski amendment, offered by our Democratic colleague from Maryland, also had wide bipartisan support. It passed this Chamber by a vote of 71 to 26. It has been dropped in favor of a weakened alternative. The plan now allows new car buyers to deduct from their Federal taxes the sales tax they paid on a new car. But the Mikulski provision that would have also allowed them to deduct interest on their car loans was stripped. The Mikulski amendment would have helped struggling U.S. automakers and auto dealers get buyers in the showrooms, it would have helped move cars off their lots, and helped protect the endangered automobile industry jobs. Like the Isakson amendment, it was unfortunately removed from this final package.

So while the conferees tinkered around the edges--making the bill worse in some ways--we stand here today debating a bill that will add over $1 trillion to the national credit card. I have said it before in this debate, and I will say it one more time: A trillion dollars is a terrible thing to waste. But that is exactly what this bill does. This bill is full of bad decisions that will take Americans decades to pay for.

Much has been made during this debate--by me and by many of my colleagues--about how much $1 trillion is, and I think we have established well that this is a staggering amount of money. Again, this is the most expensive piece of legislation ever passed in the history of our Republic.

Last September, Congress approved the $700 billion Wall Street bailout.

That came on top of approximately $200-plus billion earlier in the year in the form of rebate checks. I think the American people have the right to ask: of that $200 billion and then the $700 billion--and that is almost $1 trillion right there, and certainly more than $1 trillion when you add the debt service, as I have already pointed out--what did we get? What did the taxpayers, the American public, get for that unbelievable expenditure of taxpayer funds last year? A worsened economy is what we have gotten. We certainly didn't get the economic boost that was promised.

In an editorial yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, it was noted that the Congressional Budget Office estimates the 2009 deficit will reach 8.3 percent of the economy--a number that does not include the stimulus or the TARP bailout funds. We know that after this is enacted--and it does appear that the proponents of this conference report have the votes to move it to the President's desk--another very expensive financial package will be forthcoming from the administration in a matter of days. So what does this mean for people across America? Each household now owes more than $100,000 to pay for the debt we already have, not including the additional debt that is coming.

Senators need to ask themselves, when is enough enough? When will we begin making hard choices?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to consume about 30 seconds more.

We need to ask ourselves in the Senate: When is enough enough? When will we begin making hard choices between what will truly work to stimulate this economy and what we wish to have but which will not work to get the job done?

Americans expect us to get this right and to take the time necessary to make sure we get this right. This bill fails to hit that mark. I will vote no because we simply cannot afford again to make a mistake of this magnitude.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Objection.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I assure my colleagues that I will not take long to ask this question. I had hoped my friend from New York and my friend from Illinois would engage in a colloquy and not have left the Chamber.

Much was made in the discussion between the two Senators about the debt President Bush ran up during his administration. I don't know that it serves the debate very well to point fingers, but we might as well set the record straight for those of us who are paying attention.

Congress spends the money, will my friend acknowledge? It is Congress that spends the discretionary funds around here, and it is Congress that sets the spending on autopilot in terms of the mandatory spending. The President

does not spend a penny without the consent of this Congress.

I hope my friend will also acknowledge that there was not one time during the 8 years of the Bush administration when our friends from the Democratic side of the aisle came forward with their budget proposal and proposed a budget that would spend less than was spent by the United States of America. In fact, in every instance, our friends on the other side of the aisle proposed budgets that spent even more than we actually spent in the end.

I just wanted to see if my friend agreed with that point. I thank him for allowing me to make that point.

Mr. President, I do want to speak on behalf of the McCain amendment and, regrettably, against the underlying legislation. We all understand the reason we are having this debate. Without exception every person in this Chamber is convinced we need to act to jumpstart our economy.

People across the country are facing hardship. More than 860,000 properties were repossessed by lenders in 2008, more than double the figure for 2007. American manufacturing is at a 28-year low. Mr. President, 1.9 million jobs were lost during the last 4 months of 2008. The economy shrank at a 3.8-percent pace at the end of the last calendar year, the worst showing in a quarter century. The unemployment rate now stands at 7.2 percent, 7.6 percent in my home State of Mississippi, with many States even less fortunate than mine.

These figures are a sobering reminder of how much we have at stake. But that is also why we need to ensure that we get this right. Part of the reason I voted against the bailout last September was that I thought it was rushed.

The Senator from Arizona acknowledged it was done in a hurry. We were told if we did not act in a matter of days, the world, as we knew it, might come to an end. I think there are many Members of this body who now wish we had taken more time to ensure that the TARP legislation was done right.

Let's learn from that experience. The bill we are debating this week is an unprecedented bill. Its magnitude is a staggering $1.2 trillion over 10 years. As a matter of fact, when I came over here to wait my turn, I was handed a legislative notice. Actually the bill now has a net impact on the deficit of $1.273 trillion, including $389 billion in debt service. That means the interest on this bill is almost four- tenths of $1 trillion.

I want to take a moment to put into perspective that amount of money. Many of us in the Chamber have heard these examples over the last few days, but they are worth repeating to the American people. I can assure my colleagues that the American people are beginning more and more to listen to this debate.

The entire Vietnam war had an inflation-adjusted cost of $698 billion. This bill is 1.2 trillion. Our involvement in Iraq has cost $597 billion. This one piece of legislation is over $1.2 trillion. FDR's New Deal, which many have tried to compare to this plan, pales in comparison, with an estimated 2009 inflation-adjusted cost of $500 billion, less than half the amount of this one piece of legislation in current dollars.

On top of this massive spending request, let's also remember we are being told, should this legislation pass, the President will then send to the Hill another $500 billion package to prop up the financial sector.

For those of us keeping score, that would be close to $2 trillion in spending when we factor in the cost of the interest. All of that is in addition to the $700 billion bailout bill passed last fall. It is hard to get a firm grasp of the magnitude of this spending.

I will say what other colleagues have said: If you began spending $1 million per day on the day Jesus was born, and you spent $1 million per day every day since that time until today, you would still not have spent anywhere near $1 trillion or, to put it another way, if you have $1 trillion in one-hundred-dollar bills, if you connected all of those one-hundred-dollar bills end to end, they would encircle the earth 40 times to get to $1 trillion.

Back in my home State of Mississippi, it has been reported that this package could mean $1 to $2 billion in projects for our State. What that means, though, when compared to the magnitude of the bill, is that as little as one-tenth of 1 percent of this spending would make it back to my State in projects.

One-tenth of 1 percent return is not a good investment for Mississippi taxpayers, and it is not a good investment for American taxpayers, essentially when, as the Senator from Texas pointed out, this money will have to be borrowed from China or other foreign governments, if we can persuade them to continue lending us the money.

It will need to be paid back by future generations. The Congressional Budget Office reported this week that the per-job cost of this plan, even if the jobs created are what we are being promised, the per-job cost of this plan is from $100,000 per job to $300,000 per job.

Now, when you take into consideration the fact that the average Mississippian earns $31,000 per year, it is hard for me to stand here and tell hard-working people back in my State that the most efficient use of their tax dollars is to spend up to $300,000 to create one additional job for Americans.

But that is what our own budget office tells us this bill will do. That is not the best use of American taxpayer dollars. We need to get this right. The American people deserve a maturely considered plan. As Thomas Jefferson reminded Americans in his day: Delay is preferable to error. Let's not rush into doing this the wrong way because generations of Americans, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, will pay for our mistake.

It has been pointed out on this floor today, and it is worth mentioning again, that we Republicans are not alone in expressing grave, profound concerns about the enormity of this spending plan and the effect that it will have on the United States.

President Clinton's former Budget Director, Alice Rivlin, agrees. She recently testified we should not rush to spend the amount of money this bill will spend on projects with slow spend-out rates.

She said:

Such a long-term investment program should not be put

together hastily and lumped in with the anti-recession

package.

And hastily put together is what this program is.

Alice Rivlin, President Clinton's Budget Director, went on to say:

The risk is that the money will be wasted because the

investment elements were not carefully crafted.

These are the words of the Budget Director under President Bill Clinton.

Now, $1 trillion is a terrible thing to waste; $1.273 trillion is a terrible thing to waste. Members of the news media understand this too. The Washington Post's David Broder, who has covered Congress for more than 40 years, a respected journalist, wrote on Sunday regarding this plan:

So much is uncertain, and so much is riding on it that it

is worth taking time to get it right.

Yet we are told we need to vote this evening. We need to try to vote today or tomorrow on this, the largest spending bill ever in the history of the United States. In order to get it right, this package needs to be laser focused on getting workers back to work, getting our housing market out of the gutter, and doing so in a way that does not waste taxpayer dollars.

The Democratic leadership in this Congress said only recently that this package should be targeted, temporary, and timely. I could not agree more. Unfortunately, as this package stands today, it could more accurately be described as slow, unfocused, and

unending. Americans have real concerns over some of the spending contained in this package: $20 million for the removal of fish barriers; $70 million to support supercomputing activities for climate research; tens of millions to spruce up Government buildings in Washington, DC; $25 million to rehabilitate off-road ATV trails; $600 million for new Government vehicles; $150 million for honey bee insurance. The list goes on and on.

My friend from New York said, a few speakers back: If you want to take this pork out, take it out. We can take it out with his vote and with the votes of his colleagues, but we cannot do it alone. If he says take it out, and he will join us in doing that, then we are getting somewhere.

These projects may have merit, but what do they have to do with creating jobs immediately? There is a process for considering those types of projects, and this emergency stimulus package is not that vehicle.

I was pleased to hear the President speak recently acknowledging the good ideas Republicans have and saying he wants to make sure Republican ideas are incorporated in this package. So what are those ideas and why do I support the McCain substitute?

First, we need to trim the unnecessary spending that doesn't immediately put people back to work. Second, this package needs to get right to the housing problem because housing is what caused the situation we are currently in. Then let's focus more on targeted tax breaks for the working class and for the job creators, the small businesses. The President initially said 40 percent of this package should be made up of tax cuts. Regrettably, we are no longer close to that goal.

Senator McCain has proposed an alternative plan that does all of these. His substitute plan costs half as much, thankfully, and offers focused spending and effective tax cuts. It eliminates the 3.1-percent payroll tax for all American employees for 1 year. It lowers the two lowest marginal tax rates for 1 year.

We also need to accelerate depreciation for capital investments made by small businesses for 1 year. We need to improve tax incentives for home purchases. We need to improve early investment in national defense and military infrastructure priorities, jump-starting the economy while making Americans safe, and mandatory deficit reduction after two consecutive quarters of economic growth greater than 2 percent.

If the stimulus package works and the economy begins to grow for 6 months in a row, then we need to rein in this unbelievably large spending bill, declare victory, and then start working on a plan to pay for it. We also need to establish an entitlement commission to review Social Security and Medicare.

I was delighted yesterday when the Isakson amendment was agreed to, doubling the current first-time home buyer tax credit to $15,000 and expanding it to cover all properties and home buyers. It is a small start--it is nowhere near the place we need to be--but I congratulate the Senate for taking that step.

This is an important debate, perhaps the most important debate we will have this year. The President was right when he said that Republicans have good ideas. I hope, as the President said, we can incorporate those ideas into this legislation. I hope we can make this package much smaller and much more targeted to jobs and housing. That is what more American people are beginning to say as they are becoming familiar with the details of this plan.

If we pass anything close to the current proposal and go to conference with the House, does anyone really believe the final product will be less expensive? If we pass the McCain proposal and cut in half the price tag of this bill and go to conference with the House, it is my hope and prayer that conference committee can report a package we can support in an overwhelmingly bipartisan manner, that can bring about confidence in the American people and make us all proud.

It is time to redirect this package. We need to make it targeted, timely, and temporary. We need to do it today. We have an opportunity to strengthen this legislation so that it doesn't waste taxpayer money, so that it actually puts people back to work quickly and puts families back into homes and Americans back to work. The American people deserve to have us do this right.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the SCHIP legislation the Senate is considering this week purports to provide more health insurance for our Nation's poorest children. But in truth, the bill shortchanges the neediest of children in States such as Mississippi. Instead of paying taxpayer dollars for our poorest children, those who need health insurance the most, the bill we are considering today gives taxpayer- funded health insurance to middle-class families in wealthy States. The SCHIP bill we will be voting on today does nothing to ensure that all American children under 200 percent of the poverty level have health insurance. In fact, the bill diverts this important program, which I have supported for years, away from its intended purpose. SCHIP was designed to cover low-income children between 100 percent and 200 percent of the poverty level. That comes to $22,000 to $44,000 per year for a family of four. These families require assistance under SCHIP because they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but they are not able to afford private health coverage for their children. This was the intent of SCHIP.

What we ought to be doing in this bill is prioritizing low-income American children and making sure as many uninsured poor kids as possible are covered under the increased funding we are going to provide. Instead, this bill allows States to expand their programs without demonstrating they have covered the poorest children first. In my State of Mississippi, for example, SCHIP covers 65,000 children, but there are another 30,000 children below 200 percent of the poverty level who are without health insurance. This bill would not cover those children, even with the expanded funding.

Other States that are similarly situated include Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, North Carolina, and Arkansas. I urge the Senators from those States to join me in an effort to correct this inequity. I urge all Senators to make this bill better so we make sure we include poorest of the poor children first.

In the past decade since SCHIP was created, the number of uninsured poor children has decreased from 28 percent to 15 percent. But we cannot, in the face of that success story, neglect the remaining 15 percent. Many of them are in the States I have mentioned.

Fifteen percent of America's poorest children still do not have health care, and we are debating a bill that would expand SCHIP beyond its intended purpose, to cover higher income families and other adults.

SCHIP allotments in fiscal year 2009 will be $5 billion. Under this bill we would almost double that amount to $9 billion per year. But only an additional $79 million is needed to cover these poor uncovered children in States such as Mississippi. If we are going to almost double the size of the program, we ought to make sure poorest of the poor are covered.

If this bill were really about health care for poor children, we would guarantee each State sufficient funds to cover every child in a family below 200 percent of the poverty level. It is that simple. And we would do that before moving on to cover more affluent families in the more affluent States.

Senator Cochran and I have submitted an amendment that would do that. Our amendment would prohibit States from receiving funds to cover individuals above 200 percent of the poverty level until we can guarantee that 90 percent--not 100 percent but 90 percent--of the poorest children nationwide are covered.

The result of our amendment would be that the more affluent States would simply have to wait if they want to cover middle-class children, if they want to cover families making as much as $88,000 a year or more. They would have to wait until the poorest of the poor children in Mississippi and Arkansas and North Carolina and North Dakota and Nebraska and Iowa are covered.

I have been watching the votes this week. It appears the leadership has locked in a majority to resist amendments of this nature. I thought the bill was about making it easier to cover children under 200 percent of the poverty level--between 100 percent and 200 percent. If amendments such as that of Senator Cochran and myself are not agreed to, we have to wonder is the real intent of this legislation to replace our private health care system with a government-run system at the expense of people who need help the most?

One of my colleagues yesterday said we are ruining SCHIP. I have to concur with that, if this legislation is not amended. I urge my colleagues to join me in bringing the focus of SCHIP back where it belongs, on helping poor children.

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

Mr. President, this is not my desk. I choose to speak from this place because the vantage point is better, because I will also have something to say about the delightful wife of Senator Ted Stevens. I am the junior-most Member of this body. I am here today with the junior Senator from Alaska and two of the longest serving Members of the Senate. It is almost presumptuous for me to even rise to speak at this occasion, but I do so because as the least ranking Member of the Senate, I wish to express my profound respect for Senator Ted Stevens.

The previous speaker, my friend from Kentucky, said one way to get to know Members such as Ted Stevens is to go to a conference with them. As a Member of the House of Representatives, I had occasion to go to conferences sponsored by the Aspen Institute where we would discuss matters of importance to our Nation and to the world. It was at a conference in Istanbul on the subject of political Islam that I learned about the keen intellect of Senator Ted Stevens, and also the fact that a participant in that conference could be less than half Senator Stevens' age, but he was willing to engage with you, to listen to you, to have the give and take you can have in small group sessions such as that. I appreciate the opportunity I had as a Member then of the House of Representatives in having that sort of interaction with this great man.

There has been expression today about the seemingly gruff exterior or facade of the man we speak of today. I will tell my colleagues who he is gruff about. He is not too happy about people such as Islamic jihadists, about the opponents of freedom around the world. He is a little gruff about anyone around the globe who would wish our country ill, and he makes no bones about that.

I wish to commend Senator Stevens and to express my admiration to him for the good judgment and good fortune he has had in having as a spouse someone such as Catherine Stevens.

I mention two very small stories that I think tell a lot about both Senator Stevens and Catherine. We were at this conference and my wife was not able to accompany me. According to the rules, I was able to bring my college-age daughter Caroline. It happened that she needed to take an earlier flight to get back and I would stay with the conference for another day. I

found out later what happened. She said: Daddy, Mrs. Stevens gave me some money before I left. It happened this way: Mrs. Stevens asked Caroline how much money she had to make it through the various airports and Caroline told her and, as usual, her cheapskate dad had shortchanged her. Mrs. Stevens said, That is not enough money, and she pulled out a couple of hundred dollar bills to make sure Caroline got through the airport system safely. Here was the wife of the President pro tempore of the Senate being kind and being careful that a college- age girl was well taken care of. I paid the money back, I wish to assure my colleagues, but I don't know that I will ever be able to pay back the friendship.

I have only been in the Senate some 10 months. Early on I offered an amendment which was important to my State and my region. It was obvious that the amendment did not have the support of a majority. It was going to go down and go down in flames, as it did. I was down close to the front and had already abandoned all hope for the amendment passing. I am sure Ted does not even remember this, but he walked by the desk there and cast an aye vote for the Wicker amendment. He was one of the few people to do so. Someone was taking Senator Stevens to task for voting yes. He did not know I was listening, but I heard him say, ``I did it to help Wicker.'' I am sure that was the only reason he cast that vote. I can tell my colleagues I appreciated that act of kindness, just as I appreciated Catherine Stevens' act of kindness toward my daughter.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow said:

Lives of great men all remind us we can make our lives

sublime, and departing, leave behind us footprints on the

sands of time.

Now, the junior Senator from Alaska did a wonderful job of outlining the many footprints our friend Ted Stevens has left for both the United States of America and the people specifically of his beloved State of Alaska. The people of Alaska will long live better, Alaskans yet unborn will live better because of the efforts of Ted Stevens. Americans today and Americans yet unborn will be safer and live freer because of the service and the leadership of Ted Stevens. I am honored down to my bones to be able to stand on the floor of the Senate today and pay tribute to this great man.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Chad Jungbluth and Andrew Pate, military fellows serving in my office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of the fiscal year 2009 Defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cochran and I be permitted to use 10 minutes to enter into a colloquy.

Mr. President, in the next few days and weeks, the Senate has an opportunity to engage in real bipartisanship. We have a chance to adopt pragmatic solutions in the 25 or so remaining days we have in session this year. We can adopt concrete steps to address what many regard as the greatest energy crisis of our lifetime. I see an opportunity for Congress to act now to bring an end to the pain Americans are feeling each time they go to the pump.

As a Senator from Mississippi, I can tell you as I travel around my State, as I have town meetings and as I talk to people on the phone and engage them in any way a legislator does, that the No. 1 issue among my constituents is the ever increasing price of gasoline. We have some urban areas in Mississippi but not many. We have some suburbs, but we are mostly small towns and rural areas. We do not have the option of using public transportation. We know it is not possible for the farmers in Mississippi to park their farm equipment if they are going to try to stay in business.

Skyrocketing gas prices are hitting American families and communities and they are also hitting our government agencies. Police departments, fire departments, schools, and even our military are being squeezed by the high price of fuel. Yes, the price of fuel and our reliance on foreign sources even constitute a threat to our national security because of the effect they are having on our military. We are reaching closer and closer to a true emergency situation and it is past time for real legislative accomplishments. What the people of the United States need and what our Nation deserves is a comprehensive long-term plan for domestic exploration, conservation, and the introduction of renewable and alternative fuels into the energy marketplace. That is why I hope we can have an open amendment process on this legislation, to allow open debate in the Senate about this.

The average price of gas in my home State of Mississippi is currently between $3.80 and $3.90 per gallon. Only a year ago it was $1 less. Many people do not understand why these prices have risen so dramatically. There is a variety of viewpoints but it all comes back to our unwillingness to produce more energy here in the United States.

At this point I yield to my friend from Mississippi, the senior Senator.

Mr. President, I have long supported the efforts to lift the moratorium on energy exploration in the United States and Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which we commonly refer to as ANWR, and also on the Outer Continental Shelf. A lot of us in Washington, DC use the term ANWR and we bandy it about. I am afraid some people out in grassroots America may not realize what ANWR is. ANWR is an Arctic reserve that is the size of the State of South Carolina. It is a vast frozen area in the very northernmost part of Alaska.

What we have proposed is drilling for oil there in a small area, about the size of the typical metropolitan airport in this vast reserve. Congress sent President Clinton a bill in 1995 to provide for energy exploration in ANWR. We are told that if President Clinton had not vetoed that bill in 1995, we would today be getting the same amount of crude oil from ANWR as we are currently having to import from Saudi Arabia. This would have been American jobs. This would have been American dollars spent here in the United States to make us less energy dependent on foreign and unstable sources.

Last week, President Bush took a major step in moving us toward energy independence when he lifted the Executive ban on offshore drilling. We still have the obstacle of a congressionally mandated ban on offshore drilling, which we ought to be discussing in this

legislation today. We ought to be voting on it in the next 25 legislative days that we have remaining.

The peak of pricing for a barrel of crude oil was $146 per barrel only a few short days ago. Yesterday it closed at $126.80 per barrel. There are experts who will tell you that the confidence injected into the markets by this simple step by President Bush caused a drop of some $19 per barrel in the price of crude oil.

If Congress would take the further step and actually pass the legislation to lift this ban or, more precisely, to allow the moratorium to expire at the end of the fiscal year, I think there would be even more confidence in the market, and the price of crude oil and gasoline would continue to drop.

We also need to eliminate the ban on oil shale. This has been discussed this morning. We have three times the amount of crude oil reserves in three Western States in the form of oil shale, three times the supply as we currently see in Saudi Arabia.

I think lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling, lifting the moratorium on ANWR, and lifting the moratorium on the exploration of oil shale in our own country, are steps we definitely need to take. Every moment we are idle we will be ever more dependent on foreign sources of oil. I think we need to act and act this year.

Again, I toss it back to my friend, the senior Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. President, this is an immediate problem and it deserves immediate and comprehensive attention. Last week I sent a letter to Senate leaders, the majority and minority leaders, to say we should not leave Washington for the annual August work period without passing energy legislation that will make a true difference for the American people. There is no more important action that this body should be taking than to address this issue with pragmatic solutions to the problem. This is a critical time and this is an important debate, the most important debate we could have as elected officials.

I am encouraged to hear that there are bipartisan discussions going on even as we speak to adopt solutions on which we can all agree. I know that a bill I would craft might not receive a majority vote in the Senate, but there are common solutions that I believe a majority of us can and must agree on. The time to act is now.

May I ask how much time remains in the 10 minutes that has been allotted?

If I might continue to speak. I see we have no one who has asked to speak at this time. When another speaker arrives, I will be happy to yield at that point.

As I mentioned in my introductory remarks, this is an economic security issue. But it is also a national security issue.

Last week, the LA Times reported that the Pentagon will spend $16.4 billion on fuel this year--$16.4 billion as compared to $5.2 billion in 2003. The cost of fuel for our national security has gone up that much. This is a major concern for our military. They are having to budget for ongoing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and all of the areas around the world in which we are engaged.

That same article in the LA Times mentioned another important point about the need to adopt alternative fuel sources, now more than ever. The Air Force, a branch where I served for some 4 years, and longer than that in the Reserve--the Air Force is already researching the use of coal to liquid for its fighter jets.

Their goal is to have half of the planes burning coal-based fuel by the year 2016, a substance which we have an abundance of in the United States of America.

At these record prices, commercial carriers are beginning to follow suit. The Federal Government should encourage and incentivize the ventures, doing research on coal-to-liquids.

Congress has an opportunity to be proactive. We could choose to boost our economy by producing more energy domestically, and I am proud to join my Republican colleagues in a clear message which I think also states an obvious truth: We need to find more resources and we need to use less.

That is the reason I have readily cosponsored the Gas Price Reduction Act. We offered it only a few weeks ago, and it gets to the very heart of our debate--increasing supply to keep up with increasing demand as well as using less through conservation and alternative fuel methods here in the United States.

Both Senator Cochran and I are cosponsors of this legislation. It is my hope that we can work together across partisan aisles to come up with a solution for America. We do not need political games. We do not need to have a limited structural legislative vehicle that allows our side only one vote on one proposal which probably cannot pass in its current form and allows one vote on the Democratic side for a legislative proposal that will also probably not ever see its way to the statute book. We need to do something about this problem. And this year, these few remaining days of this legislative session comprise the time to act.

About 8 minutes also.

Mr. President, I am disappointed that the Senator from Michigan has objected to the unanimous consent request. I certainly hope, though, that we can have a conversation about this issue and move eventually to the consideration of S. 3118 as Senator Cochran suggested.

The American Medical Association has requested an 18-month fix--an 18-month extension--to give the medical community and Congress time to enact a permanent fix to the sustainable growth rate formula. This legislation--the Grassley bill--would provide for this 18-month extension. It would also provide an 18-month extension with a one-half percent increase in 2008 and a 1.1-percent increase in 2009 in physician reimbursement. This, I might add, is identical to the provision in the Stabenow bill, S. 2785, the Save Medicare Act, which was, in fact, a bipartisan bill and a bill I was happy to cosponsor.

The bill Senator Cochran just asked for unanimous consent to consider also increases Medicare payments for ground ambulance services, it extends the authorization for the Medicare

Rural Hospital Flexibility Program grants, and it provides important provisions for community hospitals and for rural home health care.

The bill does make certain noncontroversial changes to the Medicare Advantage Program. It also extends critical programs involving Medicare, and it eliminates the double IME windfall to Medicare Advantage Programs. But it doesn't contain the controversial provider offsets that the legislation which was offered by the majority leader would have done and which the President promised to veto.

The legislation Senator Cochran just asked unanimous consent to consider could be passed tonight, sent to the President for his signature tomorrow, and the Members of the majority party in this Congress could claim a victory, and a bipartisan victory at that.

I believe it is important for people to understand the history of this legislation.

The Senate and House have been legislating to prevent these provider cuts from going into effect since the year 2002. For the past 6 years, as a Member of the House of Representatives, I have voted numerous times to prevent these physician cuts from going into effect, and each time, these cuts have been prevented. That has been done on a nonpartisan, bipartisan basis without political wrangling.

Indeed, this year, just a few days ago, before the Fourth of July recess, Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley were on the verge of presenting a bipartisan package which would have prevented these cuts from going into effect and prevented this entire controversy. They were moments away before the rug was pulled out from under them by the leadership in this body.

Why is it different this year? Why have we been able to do this on a nonpartisan basis, prevent these cuts from going into effect to the providers, to the physicians, and the harm that would ensue to the Medicare recipients in the past? Why is it different this year? It is clear to me that members of the Democratic leadership in this body and in the other body have decided to turn this so-called ``doc fix'' into a political issue.

I was struck by the exchange between the minority and the majority leader on the night of June 26 when Senator McConnell requested of the majority leader, after the cloture had not been invoked, that we have a simple 30-day extension in order to continue to work on this issue. In objecting to that unanimous consent request for a simple 30-day extension so we could continue to work on this, it became obvious to me what a political issue this is becoming. The majority leader, in objecting, mentioned elections this year for three House seats in which the Democrats won. He went on to say that this time next year, there would be 59 Democrats in the Senate at least. He mentioned the President's approval rating--and this is all in the Congressional Record, page S6233 of the Congressional Record, if Members would like to follow along--he mentioned the President's approval rating. He mentioned numbers of people in the Senate who are up for reelection this year, and he even mentioned polling before suggesting that his Republican friends did not truly want to prevent these cuts from taking effect.

There is not a single Member of the Senate who wants these cuts to take effect. There is not a single Member of the House of Representatives who wants these cuts to take effect. But the majority leader said that night: The only way out of this is to accept this legislation; it is this legislation or nothing, in effect. I will say this much for the distinguished Democratic leader of the Senate: He was open and frank about what is really at issue here. This is very much about this year's elections and less about preventing the cuts to doctors.

Now, what are we wrangling about here? We are wrangling about the offsets to prevent the cuts from going into effect, particularly what it would have done to Medicare Advantage, a program that some 22,000 Mississippians depend upon and a program I would like to protect for them.

Now, we have a disagreement. The Senator from Michigan sees this differently than I do. There are people who would tell you that the bill offered to us that night would have gutted the Medicare Advantage Program. Medicare Advantage offers seniors a choice between regular Medicare and traditional insurance in the form of Medicare Advantage. These insurers offer the same services as traditional Medicare, but in addition, they offer options Medicare does not. In Mississippi, this means seniors may choose to have increased coverage of things such as diabetes management, increased cancer screening, or lower cost-sharing in the form of lower premiums and copays.

Admittedly, Medicare Advantage is not a perfect program. I believe there is a certain bipartisan consensus that we should take a look at the plan's enrollment and billing practices. Physicians back home in my State of Mississippi tell me this, and I want to work with them. The amount of payments to these plans is also an issue that needs to be looked at. But the Medicare bill that the majority leader would have forced upon us on that Thursday night of June 26, 2008, would have included provisions that did not enjoy bipartisan support. If that bill had passed, American seniors and Mississippi seniors would have lost their choices. They would have been told: Take it or leave it.

Fewer choices and less competition are not good for America's seniors and certainly not good for our health care system. If Medicare Advantage needs adjusting, we should consider stand-alone Medicare Advantage legislation.

I wonder if I may have an additional 2 minutes, Mr. President. I don't see anyone here at this moment. I wonder if I may have an additional 2 minutes to wrap up.

I thank the Chair.

There is overwhelming support for fixing the sustainable growth rate. Doctors deserve better than to be involuntarily paired with a poison pill provision that cannot pass this Congress on its own merits. I repeat, there is not a single Member of this Senate who wants these cuts to go into effect.

The issue of Medicare Advantage is so important because of the competition. If we are ever going to solve the future of funding on the issue of Medicare as a whole, if we are going to have that goal that the AMA wants of 18 months to look at a permanent fix to this issue, if we are going to prevent the train wreck that looms a few short years from now on the funding of Medicare as a whole, then we are going to have to inject competition. But let's not use it as a political football. Let's not adopt offsets on which there have been no hearings. Let's not change basic Medicare policy in the form of a pay-for for a temporary fix.

What we are looking at is two vastly different approaches to health care reform: the traditional Medicare, one size fits all, take it or leave it, that would lead us to a Canadian-style, single-payer type plan for the entire United States of America, or injecting this little bit of competition to see if we can help control the cost of the Medicare Program. That is what we are making this stand about, and that is why I hope eventually we will adopt the unanimous consent request Senator Cochran has made and move to a bipartisan plan we can all support and prevent these doctor cuts from going into effect.

I yield the floor. I thank the Chair for indulging me on the time.

Mr. President, in a few moments, I will call up amendment No. 4719. I have been asked to withhold on that until the distinguished chairman arrives. At this point, I will simply describe to the Members of the Senate what my amendment does. May I proceed on that, Mr. President?

Mr. President, my amendment No. 4719 would add an amendment to the National Flood Insurance Reauthorization Program to provide for multiple peril insurance. It would create a new option under the National Flood Insurance Program to offer coverage of both wind and flood risk in one policy. It is an idea that certainly makes sense to most Americans, particularly those along the gulf coast who have suffered the ravages of Hurricane Katrina and are still doing so 2\1/2\ years later.

The proposal requires that premiums for this new coverage be risk based and actuarially sound so that the program would be required to pay for itself.

The Congressional Budget Office has issued a statement about similar language that was included in the House legislation. I will come back to that in a moment or two.

CBO estimated that the multiple peril program would increase premium receipts and additional claims payments by about the same amount, resulting in no significant net budgetary impact. By covering wind and flood risk in one policy, the multiple peril option will allow coastal homeowners to buy insurance and know that hurricane damage would be covered.

I am pleased to announce to my colleagues that the Wicker multiple peril insurance program amendment, which I will call up in a few moments, has the backing of the National Association of Realtors. They have endorsed my amendment to add multiple peril insurance to the flood authorization bill.

Now, when we are embarking on a major change to a program, there are concerns that are voiced and need to be discussed. A number of people have expressed fears that multiple peril insurance would cause the displacement of jobs from the property insurance marketplace. In fact, I would contest that allegation and state to my colleagues this: The program will not create a sales force for Federal insurance agents. Indeed, in coastal communities, local insurance does not write wind insurance today. Of course, the local agents do write the traditional fire, theft, and liability insurance, and they earn commissions for the Federal policy, as they do now with the National Flood Insurance Program coverage. They will be able to continue to do so under the Wicker amendment.

Others have expressed concern that wind storm coverage is widely available and Federal involvement is not necessary. I would say this to that assertion: There is a difference between being able to purchase wind insurance

under a very expensive, limited State wind pool, which people are able to do, theoretically, and being able to purchase wind insurance and still be able to pay your mortgage because it is so expensive that the typical American family is not able to do so.

Indeed, wind premiums are increasing exponentially because the risk is contained in geographical boundaries of a given State. My amendment would correct that problem. Also, I think another myth with regard to multiple peril insurance is that it would dramatically increase the exposure of the National Flood Insurance Program and the Federal Government to catastrophic loss.

That is where I want to get back to fully quote the Congressional Budget Office in this regard. The explicit language of the Taylor amendment, adopted in the House of Representatives and adopted overwhelmingly in that body, on a bipartisan basis, provides that the premiums coming to the program will be actuarially sound and risk based. I don't think we can be any more explicit than that. If a Member of the Senate would like to come forward and make that a little clearer, I would be happy to have an amendment in that regard.

The House of Representatives said the premiums are based on risk, and they must be actuarially sound. Here is what the CBO had to say about the proposal as it was offered and adopted in the House of Representatives, which is virtually identical to the amendment I am offering today:

H.R. 3121 would direct FEMA to offer such multiple peril

coverage at an actuarial, i.e., unsubsidized rate. Because of

the uncertain nature of actuarial pricing, FEMA might collect

more receipts than necessary to pay future claims, resulting

in a net reduction in direct spending. It is also possible

that FEMA might collect less premium income than would be

necessary to cover future liabilities from multiple peril

policies, which would likely result in the need for

additional borrowing authority from the Treasury. In the

latter case, the legislation would prohibit FEMA from

entering into or renewing any multiple peril policy until

such borrowing is repaid.

That is the one difference in my amendment and the House-passed amendment. But, specifically CBO goes on to say:

CBO expects that the new coverage offering under H.R. 3121

would increase premium receipts and additional claims

payments by about the same amount, resulting in no

significant net budgetary impact.

Mr. President, so we enter into a debate today on a commonsense proposal to allow the insurance consumer to know when he or she purchases hurricane insurance, there will not be a debate between wind and water in the courtroom, and the insurance customer, homeowner, property owner can purchase insurance with the knowledge that he or she is covered regardless of the nature of the peril and pay a premium that is adequate to purchase such coverage.

Amendment No. 4719 to Amendment No. 4707

Mr. President, at this point, I think it is appropriate--and I am told the chairman has no objection--to call up my amendment No. 4719, which is at the desk. I do so now.

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

I thank my friend, the Senator from Florida, for yielding.

I, too, wish to commend him for his statement about the complexity of this issue. I appreciate the reservations he has expressed, while at the same time expressing support for the Wicker amendment today. I would hope the Senator would agree that support for this amendment today, though it might not be a perfect amendment, would send the signal he suggested--that there needs to be a Federal response to this issue.

We know this bill will go to conference. There will be additional work on it. But I would like to send a signal to the executive branch, to the insurance industry, to the homebuilders, to the realtors, we need to get busy on this issue.

Because, as the Senator said, the insurance for wind coverage is not there anymore in the private market at an affordable rate. And the wind pools are not affordable, because the pool is so small that we cannot spread the risk, whether it is Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, or my home State of Mississippi.

This is a problem for people when the next big one comes, as my friend has said. We do not know where or when it will come, but what we do know for a certainty is it will indeed come.

So I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the Senator's remarks. I appreciate his

bottom indication that he supports the amendment as a vehicle to move this issue forward.

I yield the floor.