Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today to recognize John Rhyno of North Attleboro,

MA. John is a community leader with an innate sense of right and wrong and the courage to put it into action.

Some people decide they should help those in need. Some people do it as part of a company or religious group's volunteer day. Then there are the quiet heroes and unsung patriots like John, for whom helping others is simply part of who they are.

I met John during my first campaign for Massachusetts State Senate in 2003. He is the son of a World War II veteran, John Sr., who returned from the war to work as a jeweler, when that industry still had a commanding presence in the Attleboros. In addition to working long hours herself, John's mother was devoted to caring for her husband and their only son. The values John learned at home were reinforced in his community through the YMCA, Boy Scouts, church, and school sports.

As a boy, John did yard work, shoveled snow, fixed cars and did other odd jobs, contributing much of the money he earned to his parents to help make ends meet. His wife Sherry tells the story of a Christmas when a young John Rhyno surprised his parents by purchasing a tank full of heating oil from W.H. Riley & Co., a practice he continued over the years. Even though it was for his own home, the experience planted the seed within John that those closest to those in need know best how to help them through tight times. I will talk more about this in a moment.

At a young age, John demonstrated that doing what is right often requires as much courage and toughness as it does compassion. He would regularly stand up to bullies, even when they were picking on kids he hardly knew. John was also a talented athlete and excelled on North Attleboro High School's football field and in other varsity sports. As an adult, John coached local Catholic Youth Organization basketball teams.

After graduating from NAHS, he took night classes at Wentworth Institute and Fisher College, earning college degrees in automotive technology and business while working full-time managing the repair garage, motor pool, and snow removal for a local manufacturing plant. A devoted employee, John quickly assumed a good deal of responsibility. After more than a decade on the job, new management took over. One day, his new boss called him into his office and told John that to save money, John would have to lay off a subordinate. He refused. Taken aback, his boss explained in not-so-subtle terms the finer points of insubordination and its consequences. John got the message and did the only thing that seemed right to him. He quit, saving his subordinates job.

Within a few weeks, John and a friend hung a shingle at 675 East Washington Street in North Attleboro. Thirty years later, ``John & Ed's Garage'' remains a successful local business.

John Rhyno saw local public office as an opportunity to advocate for his friends and neighbors. He won his first race for North Attleboro Selectman in 2000. John and Sherry use the term ``office'' very broadly. Open office hours take place at the couple's home, where they encourage constituents to share their concern and ideas for making their community a better place to live, learn, work and play.

During the unusually hot summer of 2005, many local seniors on fixed incomes expressed concern over how they would afford the rising energy costs. John recalled how he was able to help his own parents decades earlier with much needed home heating oil and together with Sherry, a professional artist who retired from UMass Boston after 30 years in senior management, founded Neighbors Helping Neighbors. In the 6 years since they started the 501(c)(3) community assistance fund, it has raised and donated over $100,000 by and for the people of North Attleboro to help pay for home heating or just make ends meet until they get their feet on the ground. One hundred percent of all donations go directly to those in need through a voucher system--no red tape, bureaucracy, delays, overhead or excuses. There's no better proof than Neighbors Helping Neighbors that those closest to a problem are often in the best position to devise solutions.

The Rhynos still open their home for office hours, though local residents also know they can always just drop by John & Ed's Garage when they have got a concern. About to begin his twelfth year on the town's Board of Selectmen, John is known as an accessible commonsense problem solver who always seeks citizen input, often taking out newspaper surveys to gauge local opinion.

Residents are so accustomed to his sincerity it seems only his closest friends can tell when he is joking. One Easter Sunday, John and Sherry drove to inspect a local family's historic stone wall that the town had slated for removal. With the homeowner at a town board meeting on the issue a few weeks later, John decided to have a little fun. Doing his best to keep a straight face, John passionately told colleagues and residents of how as a boy visiting the town's historic Woodcock Garrison House, he heard the story of how townspeople stood on a stone wall with buckets of water for Paul Revere's horse on his historic midnight ride. John expected that his obvious tall tale would bring a few much needed laughs to the otherwise dry meeting. Instead, the board bought it hook, line and sinker and gave unanimous consent to save the wall.

On March 21, 2011, John Rhyno will receive the North Attleboro/ Plainville Rotary Club's top honors: the Distinguished Service Award for Outstanding Citizen for his lifetime of advocacy for his community. I join them in honoring John and extend my own heartfelt thanks for his friendship counsel and his selfless dedication to his community.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor Ambassador Raymond L. Flynn in recognition of the retirement of his basketball jersey at his alma mater, Providence College. On Saturday night, the Friars will pay tribute to Ambassador Flynn, a 1963 graduate of the college. Ambassador Flynn is one of the greatest backcourt players in the storied history of the Providence College basketball program. Over his 82-game career, the Ambassador scored 1,025 points. Prior to the Friars' game against the Cincinnati Bearcats at the Dunkin' Donuts Center on Saturday, the college will unveil a banner bearing Ambassador Flynn's No. 14 jersey hanging from the rafters.

A longtime South Boston resident, Ambassador Flynn compiled an impressive list of achievements during his time as a Providence Friar, including two National Invitation Tournament championships in 1961 and 1963. He earned the Most Valuable Player award for his performance in the 1963 tournament. During his junior season, Ambassador Flynn averaged 12.8 points per game and received All-East honors. A skilled outside shooter, the Ambassador increased his average to 18.9 points per game during his senior year, meriting his second All-East distinction, an All-New England award, and Academic All-America honors. Following his graduation, the Ambassador very nearly joined his hometown team, the Boston Celtics.

Following his noteworthy accomplishments as a collegiate student- athlete, Ambassador Flynn embarked upon a distinguished political career. In 1971, the Ambassador won a seat to represent his South Boston community as a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives and served at the State house until 1979. Ambassador Flynn subsequently served South Boston as a member of the Boston City Council. After 4 years as a city councilor, Ambassador Flynn ran successfully to become mayor of Boston in 1983. He won reelection in 1987 and 1991. In a 2001 interview, Ambassador Flynn lightheartedly remarked, ``As a young kid growing up on the streets of South Boston, everybody wanted to be President of the United States or Mayor of Boston.''

Part way through the Ambassador's third term as mayor of Boston, President Bill Clinton called on him to serve as Ambassador to the Holy See. Ambassador Flynn embraced the opportunity to represent the United States at the Vatican. By the time he left this post in 1997, Ambassador Flynn had cultivated a close working relationship with Pope John Paul II, whom he had

first met in 1969 during his State representative campaign. The Ambassador's friendship with Pope John Paul II led him to author two books: ``The Accidental Pope,'' a novel cowritten with Robin Moore, and a memoir titled ``Pope John Paul II: A Personal Portrait of the Pope and the Man.''

Today, I am proud to salute Ambassador Raymond L. Flynn's accomplishments as a collegiate student-athlete in addition to his achievements as a public servant, diplomat, and devoted husband and father. I am also proud to call him my friend. When Ambassador Flynn sees his jersey hanging high above the court for the first time on Saturday night, I am sure the crowd will give this accomplished son of Massachusetts a standing ovation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to repeal the tax imposed on medical device manufacturers.

As my colleagues know, this 2.3 percent sales tax imposed on medical device manufacturers--a tax that will ultimately be passed on to consumers--is part-and-parcel of the Federal health care reform bill that passed last Congress.

Like others in this chamber, I am extremely concerned that this tax could threaten jobs in my State, reduce domestic investment in research and development and ultimately diminish access to life-saving medical devices for patients.

Medical technology companies employ more than 375,000 workers in the United States. In Massachusetts alone, we have more than 225 medical device firms, which employ more than 20,000 workers, and contribute nearly $1 billion in payroll. Medical devices are one of our State's top exports, contributing $6 billion to our State's economy.

These are powerfully good numbers. These are the numbers that make my State tick, help drive our economy, and keep people working. I want to make certain that what happens in Washington does not reverse these numbers, does not undermine my State's ability to compete, and does not hamper our chances to grow and hire workers.

Massachusetts' position as an industry leader, a hub of innovation and entrepreneurship must be preserved. That has been and will continue to be my focus in the U.S. Senate.

So how do I intend to accomplish this?

For starters it means working to eliminate the medical device tax, which I believe will diminish our ability to compete, will increase costs for consumers, and could result in our medical device and technology jobs being sent overseas, where the costs of labor and production are cheaper.

The effort that I am spearheading--and that I ask my colleagues to join--eliminates the medical device tax in a way that does not add to the deficit. I propose eliminating this harmful tax--a tax that will stifle innovation, be passed on to consumers, and increase the cost of care--and propose that we offset the cost by using unobligated discretionary dollars. This is the same source of funding, the same offset, that 81 of my colleagues supported yesterday.

As my colleagues know, I worked on an amendment that would repeal the medical device tax last Congress. I will continue this work because the harmful effects of this tax are the last thing Massachusetts needs-- more industry jobs lost, our workers at a competitive disadvantage.

But the medical device tax doesn't just lead to job uncertainty, it leads to investment uncertainty as well, which results in private capital staying on the sidelines rather than being invested in Massachusetts based companies and their workers.

The medical device tax, coupled with other provisions in the Federal health reform bill, increases the level of uncertainty at a time when businesses, consumers and investors are craving the exact opposite.

For example, some medical devices are approved as combination products, both as medical devices and drugs and/or biologics. The Secretary has yet to determine how these medical devices will be captured under the law, how they will be taxed.

I pledge to work with my Senate colleagues--and during the Medical Device User Fee Modernization Act reauthorization slated for next year--to ensure that the medical device companies whose products are approved as combination products by the FDA are not double-taxed by way of the medical device tax and the pharmaceutical tax.

With the rolling implementation of the Federal health care reform bill, this Congress will provide many opportunities for me to protect the interests of and work on behalf of Massachusetts families, Massachusetts taxpayers,

Massachusetts workers, and Massachusetts businesses.

I hope my colleagues will join my efforts to find opportunities to correct what is wrong with the Federal health reform law--to protect innovation, the jobs, and the development and growth that can occur in a sector that is vitally important to our Nation's health.

I know that a robust medical device sector translates into a healthier America--physically, economically, and socially. The same is true for Massachusetts.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to repeal the tax imposed on medical device manufacturers.

As my colleagues know, this 2.3 percent sales tax imposed on medical device manufacturers--a tax that will ultimately be passed on to consumers--is part-and-parcel of the Federal health care reform bill that passed last Congress.

Like others in this chamber, I am extremely concerned that this tax could threaten jobs in my State, reduce domestic investment in research and development and ultimately diminish access to life-saving medical devices for patients.

Medical technology companies employ more than 375,000 workers in the United States. In Massachusetts alone, we have more than 225 medical device firms, which employ more than 20,000 workers, and contribute nearly $1 billion in payroll. Medical devices are one of our State's top exports, contributing $6 billion to our State's economy.

These are powerfully good numbers. These are the numbers that make my State tick, help drive our economy, and keep people working. I want to make certain that what happens in Washington does not reverse these numbers, does not undermine my State's ability to compete, and does not hamper our chances to grow and hire workers.

Massachusetts' position as an industry leader, a hub of innovation and entrepreneurship must be preserved. That has been and will continue to be my focus in the U.S. Senate.

So how do I intend to accomplish this?

For starters it means working to eliminate the medical device tax, which I believe will diminish our ability to compete, will increase costs for consumers, and could result in our medical device and technology jobs being sent overseas, where the costs of labor and production are cheaper.

The effort that I am spearheading--and that I ask my colleagues to join--eliminates the medical device tax in a way that does not add to the deficit. I propose eliminating this harmful tax--a tax that will stifle innovation, be passed on to consumers, and increase the cost of care--and propose that we offset the cost by using unobligated discretionary dollars. This is the same source of funding, the same offset, that 81 of my colleagues supported yesterday.

As my colleagues know, I worked on an amendment that would repeal the medical device tax last Congress. I will continue this work because the harmful effects of this tax are the last thing Massachusetts needs-- more industry jobs lost, our workers at a competitive disadvantage.

But the medical device tax doesn't just lead to job uncertainty, it leads to investment uncertainty as well, which results in private capital staying on the sidelines rather than being invested in Massachusetts based companies and their workers.

The medical device tax, coupled with other provisions in the Federal health reform bill, increases the level of uncertainty at a time when businesses, consumers and investors are craving the exact opposite.

For example, some medical devices are approved as combination products, both as medical devices and drugs and/or biologics. The Secretary has yet to determine how these medical devices will be captured under the law, how they will be taxed.

I pledge to work with my Senate colleagues--and during the Medical Device User Fee Modernization Act reauthorization slated for next year--to ensure that the medical device companies whose products are approved as combination products by the FDA are not double-taxed by way of the medical device tax and the pharmaceutical tax.

With the rolling implementation of the Federal health care reform bill, this Congress will provide many opportunities for me to protect the interests of and work on behalf of Massachusetts families, Massachusetts taxpayers,

Massachusetts workers, and Massachusetts businesses.

I hope my colleagues will join my efforts to find opportunities to correct what is wrong with the Federal health reform law--to protect innovation, the jobs, and the development and growth that can occur in a sector that is vitally important to our Nation's health.

I know that a robust medical device sector translates into a healthier America--physically, economically, and socially. The same is true for Massachusetts.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Mr. Wyden, to introduce legislation that will protect Massachusetts by allowing it to waive out of specific requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

As my colleagues know, my single priority is and has always been to ensure that what we do here in Washington does not harm my State of Massachusetts, or the people of Massachusetts, and that we are responsible stewards with every tax dollar.

This has been true when it comes to voting against raising taxes on families and businesses. It has been true when it comes to fighting for commonsense, progrowth policies that will create jobs in Massachusetts. And it has been true in my efforts to be sure that the Federal health care reform bill does not diminish or harm the health care innovations that have occurred in Massachusetts.

Today we get to make a correction to the Federal health care reform bill to be sure that we are doing the right thing, not just for the State of Massachusetts but for other States who seek to waive out of certain requirements of the Federal health care reform law.

In many ways, Massachusetts has been on the forefront of implementing health care reform--expanding access, designing systems to increase market participation and choice, and increasing transparency for consumers and providers. We continue to learn lessons every day in Massachusetts about what works and doesn't work in health care reform.

And this is an important point because it speaks directly to the purpose of the 1egislation that I am introducing today with my colleague, Mr. Wyden from Oregon.

As difficult as it is for me to admit this, not every State wants to be like Massachusetts. Massachusetts is a great State, with the best hospitals, physicians, researchers and health care providers in the country and the world.

But I recognize that my colleague from Oregon is interested in protecting the reform efforts of Oregon. He doesn't want to be like Massachusetts because Oregon is different from Massachusetts. Oregon's insurance market is different, its provider network is different, its beneficiaries and population are different from Massachusetts. Oregon might want to implement reforms or create a coverage mechanism that I do not like or that would not work in a State like Massachusetts. The same is true for the other 49 States--each State is different, unique-- and each State should be able to find solutions that work for their citizens and their State budgets.

Which is why the legislation that I am introducing today with Mr. Wyden--the Empowering States to Innovate Act--is so important.

Right now, as provided under section 1332--``The Waivers for State Innovation''--of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, States can waive out of provisions of the Federal reform law. That's the good news. The bad news is that this waiver authority is not scheduled to take effect until 2017, a full 3 years after PPACA is scheduled to be fully implemented.

That makes no sense, so we are going to fix it.

The first thing our bill does is to allow States to waive out of specific parts of PPACA in 2014 rather than 2017. This makes sense not just from an operational standpoint--because PPACA takes effect in 2014--but also from an economic and fiscal standpoint. Why should Massachusetts be delayed in obtaining a waiver from the Federal reform bill when it may have already met and or exceeded specific provisions of PPACA? Holding Massachusetts back--limiting my State's ability to innovate, remain flexible and responsive to the health care market-- costs money; it costs taxpayer money.

That doesn't make sense. So our legislation fixes that.

The second piece our bill does is to provide States with certainty with the waiver process. Not every State will be eligible for a waiver and not every waiver will be granted. But our bill provides some certainty for those States who apply for a waiver by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to begin reviewing applications within 6 months of enactment of this bill. The earlier a State knows whether it has received a waiver, the earlier it can begin implementing its specific plans and proposals.

Taken together, these two changes are good for Massachusetts. They are good for other States who are trying to innovate and advance in the areas of health care reform, cost containment, and coverage.

During Wednesday's Finance Committee hearing, Dr. Berwick, who is from the State of Massachusetts, I might add, said this about State innovation and flexibility.

And I quote:

The cliche about states as laboratories of democracy is not

just a cliche, it's true. The diversity of approaches that

we're seeing emerge state by state has been there for a long

time. I think we should be doing everything we can to

encourage it.

I couldn't agree more. I am a strong supporter of state rights and for allowing States to solve problems without the Federal Government's interference.

We should be encouraging State innovation, not hampering it.

And that is what the Empowering States to Innovate Act does--it helps ensure that States aren't held back from innovating and seeking solutions that work for their citizens, their taxpayers, their providers, and their communities.

Finally, Mr. President, I want to associate myself with Mr. Wyden's comments about how our bill fits into the Federal health care reform debate. Enacting this legislation is the right thing to do because it is good for States like Massachusetts. It is good for States like Oregon and Utah, who have begun to make changes and reforms at the State level.

The legislation provides flexibility and says that a one-size-fits- all health care system doesn't fit the needs of every State. I know a Federal standard isn't in the best interest of my State of Massachusetts, which is why passing this bill is the right thing to do.

I thank my colleague, Mr. Wyden, for his thoughtful remarks and urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation that I think both parties can and should agree on.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Mr. Wyden, to introduce legislation that will protect Massachusetts by allowing it to waive out of specific requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

As my colleagues know, my single priority is and has always been to ensure that what we do here in Washington does not harm my State of Massachusetts, or the people of Massachusetts, and that we are responsible stewards with every tax dollar.

This has been true when it comes to voting against raising taxes on families and businesses. It has been true when it comes to fighting for commonsense, progrowth policies that will create jobs in Massachusetts. And it has been true in my efforts to be sure that the Federal health care reform bill does not diminish or harm the health care innovations that have occurred in Massachusetts.

Today we get to make a correction to the Federal health care reform bill to be sure that we are doing the right thing, not just for the State of Massachusetts but for other States who seek to waive out of certain requirements of the Federal health care reform law.

In many ways, Massachusetts has been on the forefront of implementing health care reform--expanding access, designing systems to increase market participation and choice, and increasing transparency for consumers and providers. We continue to learn lessons every day in Massachusetts about what works and doesn't work in health care reform.

And this is an important point because it speaks directly to the purpose of the 1egislation that I am introducing today with my colleague, Mr. Wyden from Oregon.

As difficult as it is for me to admit this, not every State wants to be like Massachusetts. Massachusetts is a great State, with the best hospitals, physicians, researchers and health care providers in the country and the world.

But I recognize that my colleague from Oregon is interested in protecting the reform efforts of Oregon. He doesn't want to be like Massachusetts because Oregon is different from Massachusetts. Oregon's insurance market is different, its provider network is different, its beneficiaries and population are different from Massachusetts. Oregon might want to implement reforms or create a coverage mechanism that I do not like or that would not work in a State like Massachusetts. The same is true for the other 49 States--each State is different, unique-- and each State should be able to find solutions that work for their citizens and their State budgets.

Which is why the legislation that I am introducing today with Mr. Wyden--the Empowering States to Innovate Act--is so important.

Right now, as provided under section 1332--``The Waivers for State Innovation''--of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, States can waive out of provisions of the Federal reform law. That's the good news. The bad news is that this waiver authority is not scheduled to take effect until 2017, a full 3 years after PPACA is scheduled to be fully implemented.

That makes no sense, so we are going to fix it.

The first thing our bill does is to allow States to waive out of specific parts of PPACA in 2014 rather than 2017. This makes sense not just from an operational standpoint--because PPACA takes effect in 2014--but also from an economic and fiscal standpoint. Why should Massachusetts be delayed in obtaining a waiver from the Federal reform bill when it may have already met and or exceeded specific provisions of PPACA? Holding Massachusetts back--limiting my State's ability to innovate, remain flexible and responsive to the health care market-- costs money; it costs taxpayer money.

That doesn't make sense. So our legislation fixes that.

The second piece our bill does is to provide States with certainty with the waiver process. Not every State will be eligible for a waiver and not every waiver will be granted. But our bill provides some certainty for those States who apply for a waiver by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to begin reviewing applications within 6 months of enactment of this bill. The earlier a State knows whether it has received a waiver, the earlier it can begin implementing its specific plans and proposals.

Taken together, these two changes are good for Massachusetts. They are good for other States who are trying to innovate and advance in the areas of health care reform, cost containment, and coverage.

During Wednesday's Finance Committee hearing, Dr. Berwick, who is from the State of Massachusetts, I might add, said this about State innovation and flexibility.

And I quote:

The cliche about states as laboratories of democracy is not

just a cliche, it's true. The diversity of approaches that

we're seeing emerge state by state has been there for a long

time. I think we should be doing everything we can to

encourage it.

I couldn't agree more. I am a strong supporter of state rights and for allowing States to solve problems without the Federal Government's interference.

We should be encouraging State innovation, not hampering it.

And that is what the Empowering States to Innovate Act does--it helps ensure that States aren't held back from innovating and seeking solutions that work for their citizens, their taxpayers, their providers, and their communities.

Finally, Mr. President, I want to associate myself with Mr. Wyden's comments about how our bill fits into the Federal health care reform debate. Enacting this legislation is the right thing to do because it is good for States like Massachusetts. It is good for States like Oregon and Utah, who have begun to make changes and reforms at the State level.

The legislation provides flexibility and says that a one-size-fits- all health care system doesn't fit the needs of every State. I know a Federal standard isn't in the best interest of my State of Massachusetts, which is why passing this bill is the right thing to do.

I thank my colleague, Mr. Wyden, for his thoughtful remarks and urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation that I think both parties can and should agree on.

Mr. President, today I rise to celebrate the bicentennial, January 6, 2011, of the birth of U.S. Senator Charles Sumner, who so ably represented the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in this body

from 1851 until his death in 1874. While I am honored to serve the people of Massachusetts from the physical desk once occupied by Senator Sumner, I rise today in recognition of Charles Sumner's tireless and often solitary quest for racial equality, education reform, and social justice.

By all accounts, Senator Sumner was one of this body's greatest orators; Sumner didn't give speeches, he unleashed them. According to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Sumner delivered remarks ``like a cannoneer ramming down cartridges.'' The target of Sumner's verbal fusillade was almost always injustice, especially slavery and the men and institutions that sought to expand or perpetuate it. Yet, even among fellow mid-19th century abolitionists, Charles Sumner's views on racial equality were considered utopian. Years before the Emancipation Proclamation, Sumner called for the abolition of slavery. Decades before the 15th amendment declared that the ``right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude'' and nearly a century before the Voting Rights Act, Sumner insisted that all Black men should have the rights of citizenship.

Charles Sumner was not born into a powerful or wealthy Massachusetts family; his upbringing in Boston was at best modest. Yet his parents insisted that Charles receive the best education available, and he was fortunate enough to attend the acclaimed Boston Latin School, where he excelled and went on to receive degrees from Harvard College and Harvard Law School. Sumner spent his late twenties travelling through Europe and England, where his intellect and education impressed leading officials with whom he formed lasting relationships that proved invaluable to the Union years later when Sumner served on the Foreign Relations Committee.

In May of 1856, Sumner became the victim of one of the most unfortunate incidents in Senate history. Days after Sumner delivered a vitriolic speech against Kansas-Nebraska Act coauthor Andrew Pickens Butler, the South Carolina Senator's nephew, a Member of the House of Representatives, approached Sumner while he was sitting at his Senate desk and beat him unconscious with a metal tipped cane. The attack left Sumner gravely injured, and he did not return to the Senate for 3 years. Sumner's ``Crime Against Kansas'' speech, and the violent retribution for it, further eroded the already strained relations between representatives of free and slave States. In his day, Senator Charles Sumner was considered an extreme, a wild-eyed dreamer whose vision of a society free of institutional racism seemed as unachievable as it was radical. Today, 200 years after his birth, we are the heirs of Charles Sumner's vision. Dozens of streets, schools, and towns across our country bear the name of this outspoken Senator from Massachusetts.

Today, the issue of education reform looms large in our Nation's consciousness. Too many of our public school systems are failing our children. We would be wise to look at the legacy of Senator Sumner. He was one of his era's most vocal advocates for high-quality public schools and argued in the Massachusetts courts for the integration of the Commonwealth's schools. He based his argument on the--at the time-- novel concept that the inferior schools to which many children were relegated had lasting effects on their development. In fact, a century later this very argument would underpin our Nation's most famous civil rights case. In 1954, a young Black girl named Linda Brown was prevented from enrolling in an all-White public school that was much closer to her home than the all-Black school she was forced to attend. Her father joined a class action suit against the city's school board, and the resulting case would forever transform American society. The city was Topeka, KS. The case was Brown v. Board of Education. Ironically, the school where she had been denied was known as the Sumner Elementary School. Peering down from somewhere on high, Senator Sumner must have been pleased that injustice was not allowed to stand in his name.

At the time of his death in 1874, Sumner was still agitating for school reform and Federal legislation to repeal all discriminatory laws against Blacks and the tens of thousands of Asians who had immigrated to America and helped build our transcontinental railroad system. The late Senator Robert C. Byrd, a noted historian of the Senate, once wrote, ``After Clay, Calhoun and Webster, no nineteenth-century senator stood higher on the political horizon than did Charles Sumner, nor did any garner more praise, condemnation and controversy than that eloquent Massachusetts senator.'' Today, I am proud to celebrate the bicentennial of Sumner's birth and his incredible service in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to congratulate my colleagues on their leadership and their willingness to come to the table to find a workable solution to ensure that we do not forget those who risked their lives on September 11, 2001.

Today, the Senate reached an agreement to move forward on legislation that would create a program dedicated exclusively to provide screening and treatment to the first responders and other men and women who participated in rescue efforts at the World Trade Center.

As I have said repeatedly, the work of my colleagues, Ms. Gillibrand and Mr. Schumer, are honorable and good. As I have said in every meeting that I have held--whether meeting with firefighters and police officers in Massachusetts, whether it be with Mayor Bloomberg of New York City or New York City Police Commissioner Kelly--I support their efforts and their good work and dedication to make sure that none of the heroes from September 11, 2001 are left behind or forgotten.

I support this agreement because it represents what the Senate should be about: coming together, working together, and finding common ground and workable solutions. Today, in the final hours of the 111th Congress, we did just that by providing benefits to the first responders in a realistic and pragmatic way.

But, M. President, I continue to have reservations regarding the offsets that are used to provide these benefits. As I have said to my colleagues, I am concerned because I am not 100 percent confident that the suggested offsets will materialize because of potential legal challenges or questionable trade implications.

We should not forget the lives that were lost on September 11, 2001. The lives that were risked that day. And those who continue to live with scars from that day. And I can assure you, we won't.

I am supporting this legislation because it provides access to the health care and treatment that our heroes deserve. And I greatly appreciate the input and patience of so many firefighters and first responders from my own state of Massachusetts, for whom I have tremendous respect and gratitude for all that they do.

Thank you, Mr. President. And I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act, which passed the Senate today. I have heard from a broad coalition of universities, businesses, and educators in my home state of Massachusetts about the positive impact of the COMPETES Act on our economy. I have listened closely to my constituents' concerns and have concluded that reauthorization of this legislation is absolutely necessary to the long-term economic health of Massachusetts and the United States as a whole. To continue to lead in the 21st century, we must make sure that the United States has the most competitive economy and education system in the world. The COMPETES Act goes a long way to achieving that end, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of today's legislation.

This bill reauthorizes Federal funding to support science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research. The original COMPETES bill was enacted with strong bipartisan support in 2007 and was based upon the recommendations contained in the National Academies' report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' That report correctly stated that:

Having reviewed trends in the United States and abroad, the

[National Academies] is deeply concerned that the scientific

and technological building blocks critical to our economic

leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are

gathering strength. We strongly believe that a worldwide

strengthening will benefit the world's economy--particularly

in the creation of jobs in countries that are far less well-

off than the United States. But we are worried about the

future prosperity of the United States. Although many people

assume that the United States will always be a world leader

in science and technology, this may not continue to be the

case inasmuch as great minds and ideas exist throughout the

world. We fear the abruptness with which a lead in science

and technology can be lost--and the difficulty of recovering

a lead once lost, if indeed it can be regained at all.

The fears of the authors of ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' are as relevant today as they were prior to the original authorization of COMPETES. We must keep our foot on the gas pedal if we want to win the global race for jobs, economic growth, and new opportunities for our children and grandchildren.

Massachusetts is an innovation-driven economy and has significantly benefitted from the COMPETES Act. A 2009 independent study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, found that Massachusetts is home to nearly 7,000 companies founded by MIT alumni. These types of companies exist in part because of the federal research funding that the COMPETES Act provides to universities like MIT. According to the study, those 7,000 businesses have created nearly one million jobs in my State, generating $164 billion in worldwide sales, 26 percent of the total sales dollars of all Massachusetts companies. I know that many of my Senate colleagues hail from States with similar success stories.

Many of the jobs that stem from the COMPETES Act funding are in export-intensive sectors, such as my State's world-class semiconductor industry. I agree with President Obama that we must double U.S. exports in 5 years. But we can only achieve this worthwhile goal if we encourage students and leading thinkers to make our industries cutting edge so that the worldwide demand for our products grows significantly. Only then will we have sustained economic growth and get our country moving again.

Since arriving in the Senate I have carefully scrutinized every bill with our Nation's fiscal concerns in mind. The compromise struck in this reauthorization recognizes the fiscal climate of today while still making meaningful investments in our future. For example, the bill sunsets nine programs, eliminates several other duplicative programs, and includes an authorization level that is only half of the House's proposal.

I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join in supporting passage of the America COMPETES Act.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today because I have not forgotten what happened on September 11, 2001. I have not forgotten the brave men and women who risked their lives and lost their lives on that fateful day when 19 men brought the fight against terrorism to our American shores.

Today the Senate held a procedural vote on whether to proceed to a House bill that would create a program dedicated exclusively to provide screening and treatment to the first responders and other men and women who participated in rescue efforts at the World Trade Center.

As I have said repeatedly, the intent of the House bill and the work of my colleague, Mrs. Gillibrand, are honorable and good. As I have said in every meeting that I have held--whether meeting with firefighters and police officers in Massachusetts, whether it be with Mayor Bloomberg of New York City or New York City Police Commissioner Kelly--I support their efforts and their good work and dedication to make sure that none of the heroes from September 11, 2001, are left behind or forgotten.

We should not forget the lives that were lost that day. The lives that were risked that day. And those who continue to live with scars from that day. And I can assure you, we won't.

I agree with my colleague, Mrs. Gillibrand that the House bill is a good start on how we can provide benefits to the first responders but that we need to do so in a realistic and pragmatic way.

Like many of my colleagues, I do not agree with how the House proposes to pay for these benefits. Taxing businesses--especially in this economic environment--is not a realistic way to generate revenue. And I think my colleague from New York and others agree that raising taxes on businesses to the tune of billions of dollars is neither appropriate nor realistic.

I am encouraged that the Senators from New York are serious about seeking a compromise and finding an alternative mechanism to provide a funding source. They have offered additional ideas for how we can provide these benefits. And I have offered ideas on how we can provide these benefits. This is not an easy task. Finding nearly $8 billion in funding that will garner enough support in the Senate is not easy.

I remain committed to working with my colleagues on this issue.

Mr. President, I rise today to continue to urge my colleagues for quick passage of my legislation that would restore access to life-saving medicines for children's hospitals.

As my colleagues are aware, I introduced independent legislation in September that would protect the lives of the most vulnerable among us--our Nation's children--by immediately restoring access and ensuring children's hospitals across the country are able to purchase orphan drugs at a discount.

Children's hospitals lost access to these medicines when Congress passed

the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

That wasn't right.

And so my legislation sought to fix it and restore access to these life-saving medicines for children's hospitals. Without this fix, children's hospitals across the country will be faced with higher drug costs. I introduced this legislation with the support of several of my Republican colleagues. And I know that my Democratic colleagues support the intent of my legislation too.

Unfortunately, and despite passage in the House, the Senate has not passed legislation to correct this flaw in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

But I am hopeful that the Senate will take action soon. I continue to work with my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee and with Senate leadership to ensure that the Senate acts swiftly to correct this error in the Federal health care reform bill.

As my colleagues are aware, access to orphan drugs are critically important to children, many of whom, if they are ill, suffer from rare diseases or conditions. Orphan drugs, by definition, are designed and developed to help and treat diseases or conditions that affect fewer than 200,000 people, many of whom are children. On a daily basis, the Children's Hospital of Boston uses most of the 347 medicines that are designated orphan drugs.

I will say again that my legislation has the support of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. And I have this support because fixing this provision and restoring access to life-saving medicines is the right thing to do.

My legislation restores and protects the ability for children's hospitals to access those outpatient medicines through the 340B drug discount program authorized in the Public Health Services Act. Access to this program and the corresponding discount saves the Children's Hospital of Boston nearly $3 million annually, but more importantly, Children's Hospital of Boston is able to save lives as a result. Hospitals and doctors at children's hospitals are able to access life- saving medicines, children live better lives, and families are given peace of mind.

Passing my bill quickly is the right thing to do and I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to act swiftly to enact my legislation to ensure that children's hospitals can once again receive discounted pricing on these life-saving medicines.

There is no cause for delay. The House has passed this restorative language twice already. The Senate needs to do the same. And we should do so before the end of this year.

I believe quick passage is possible--quick passage should be possible--because of the support and efforts that I have seen demonstrated by my fellow Senators.

Madam President, I object. And I have a pay-for alternative on which I would like to speak.

Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Rhode Island, who passionately spoke about his proposal, his bill to deal with a very important problem we are facing in the United States.

I am not the new person here anymore. Somebody came in yesterday. But I will say that it is still new to me that here we are, with 6\1/2\ hours before the benefits will expire, and we are now discussing this. God forbid we actually think ahead and spend a little bit of forethought in preparing and working together to try to come up with some type of solution before being faced with a 6\1/2\-hour deadline before the benefits expire. So, once again, I know I am not the newest guy anymore, but I have to say that this is not the way to do business in the Senate. And if it is, it needs to change.

So here we are. The Senator just spoke about our needing to do this to keep the economy moving. No, we have to start focusing on jobs. That is what we have to do to get this economy moving. We have to start focusing on the things that are important--the deficit, the spending. Yesterday, we couldn't even pass the 1099 fix--something small businesses and all businesses in this country are clamoring for. We could not do that one thing--one thing. Now all of a sudden we are going to do another extension.

I have complete and total sympathy and understanding for this. I want to help. More than anybody here, I want to help. But to just keep throwing money at a problem when it is not paid for, with 6\1/2\ hours left, to put people on the spot instead of doing it the right way-- working together, getting together in an office with the leadership and the people who care about these issues and coming up with a common solution--makes no sense to me.

The reason we are having this high unemployment which my colleagues keep referring to--9 percent unemployment--is because there is no certainty in business. There is so much uncertainty right now in the business world, whether it is with the financial services people or the estate planners. Right now, we have zero percent. If you die--folks say it is a good year to die because next year it could be 55 percent or it could be less. Who knows. So there is so much money on the sidelines right now that we don't know what to do. It is not coming in to get the economy moving.

We can't do the 1099 fix, we can't do the R&D tax credits, we can't work on accelerated depreciation, and we haven't repatriated any of the monies that are offshore. What do we do? We put up more and more roadblocks for businesses, so they do not want to hire these people off the unemployment rolls. Yet here we are with 6\1/2\ hours left, people aren't hiring, and we spent 7 days on food safety. Listen, I love to eat as much as the next guy, but give me a break. We should have spent 7 days working on the one thing the people who voted in November wanted--and they sent us a very powerful message--and that is getting our economy moving again; focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs; streamlining the regulatory process; and firing away to get this economy moving. But we needed to work on food safety. Oh my gosh, that was so important. I am glad I rushed back from our break to work on food safety. Now, I know we have some issues in that regard, but don't you think the 1099 fix and unemployment benefits and all these other things are a little bit more important?

Some of my colleagues will say--the Senator from Illinois just said it--that we are here debating tax cuts. No, we are not. We are not debating tax cuts. I have been here for every vote we have had. I have been to every meeting since I have been back here. Where were we talking about tax cuts? Am I missing something? No, we haven't been talking about tax cuts. We haven't debated or discussed anything to do with business and getting our businesses and our economy moving again.

The recent job numbers in Massachusetts reflect over 280,000 people unemployed in my State alone--over 8 percent of the Massachusetts workforce. As the Senator from Rhode Island mentioned--and I know Rhode Island well; I eat in Federal Hill regularly--the unemployment is much higher there. They have very serious problems. And one of the reasons we have problems is because we are not focusing on anything to do with business. We are not giving them the tools and resources they need to actually hire the people on the unemployment rolls. It is like a catch- 22.

Nearly 15 million people across the country are unemployed, 6 million of them having been without work for 6 months or more. That is roughly five people for every one job opening. Families in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Illinois are all struggling. They sent that very powerful message a couple of week ago. They are struggling to make ends meet and, as the Senator from Rhode Island said, to buy food, to buy shoes, to buy extra Christmas presents. I understand that. But if they had a job and had the pride of going out and working hard each day and if businesses had that certainty of hiring that new employee, they could do that and a lot more. They could actually invest in the future of our country.

We are in the midst of a historic economic crisis. I realize that. People are unable to find work, and I recognize that as well. The longer they are out of

work, the harder it is to actually find work and become employable.

I could go on and on as to how Congress has chosen to spend its time. I remember that before we went on break, before the elections, we wasted so much time on stuff that did nothing to help the economy. So here we are. I figured that when we came back, after the message was sent, we would get it loudly and clearly--big change over in the House. Here we are. We are going to get right back to the economy. But what do we do? We do food safety. Are you kidding me? People deserve better. The people who are unemployed deserve better.

The consequences of our failure to act are the 15 million unemployed workers in our country because they are unable to find that job. So here we are, 6\1/2\ hours before the benefits are going to expire. And I do not want to see that happen. Let me make it very clear to anyone listening or watching or however the press wants to regurgitate my statements: I don't want this to happen. It doesn't need to happen. As many of my colleagues know, if we fail to act today, 60,000 Bay Staters will see their unemployment checks evaporate at the end of the week and 800,000 workers will see their checks disappear. That number will increase to 2 million by the end of December.

So we are faced with another important decision, as we are with every other decision we make here: Do we provide the important benefits by burdening future generations, by adding on to that almost $14 trillion national debt, or do we provide the important benefits by raising taxes on businesses that are already struggling?

If you want to talk about the Bush tax cuts, listen, that was a tax policy proposed by a President, supported by Congress, and it has been the tax policy for the last 10 years. To put a tax increase on anybody in the middle of a 2-year recession is going to add to these unemployment numbers and will be an absolute job killer.

So is there a better way? Of course. There is always a better way, especially when we work together. We can always find a better way, as I have tried to work with the Senator from Oregon and other Senators to find commonsense solutions to our very serious problems. That is why I am once again offering an offset extension of unemployment benefits.

The funny thing is that the proposal--and this is what I find so ironic. I will see where everyone wants to stand. If my colleagues want to do something today, I say to the Senators who are here and listening, we can provide that 1-year extension. In fact, I am offering an offset that was supported by 21 Democrats yesterday when we tried to do the 1099 offset bill, which I supported. I was a cosponsor, in a bipartisan manner. I supported both the Republican and the Democratic proposal just hoping, God forbid, we could get one thing done--just one. Twenty-one Democrats supported that bill.

So here I am with my offer. My proposal is to offset the unemployment insurance--sorry, I need to take a breath here--the offset they supported yesterday would rescind unobligated discretionary funding. It is the same offset we did yesterday. So what is the difference? Do you know what the difference is? People are hurting, and they need the help in 6\1/2\ hours. The 1099 fix we can address down the road, but others need it in 6\1/2\ hours.

So for those who supported it yesterday, I am certainly hopeful that they will support it again today. I don't know, is it me? I ask my colleagues to join in and be cosponsors. Is it because I am a Republican that we will not pass it? It is because it is my idea? I am the almost new guy. I get that. But what about looking past party politics, as I have done since the day I got here, to try to find commonsense solutions for people who are hurting. And trust me, there are a lot of people hurting. Why don't my colleagues join me in supporting this proposal that 21 other Democrats proposed yesterday and who actually went down in the well and voted on? This is a truly bipartisan proposal that we should be able to rally around. I am confident that we can work together, as the people demanded only a couple of weeks ago.

As we enter the final weeks of this 111th Congress, there are several priorities that lie ahead. As I said earlier--I know I am getting worked up, but it just incenses me--we are here with 6\1/2\ hours remaining, and we just found out really today, or late yesterday, that we were even going to talk about this. We have to provide that certainty to businesses, from small mom-and-pop businesses all the way to the biggest corporations. They need to know what is up. They need to know they can actually rely on us to set policy that allows them to plan for the future, so they can get those 9-plus percent people off of unemployment.

Do you think we are going to keep creating more and more government jobs; that is it? We are just going to keep printing the money and there is no consequence? There is plenty of consequence. The consequence is not on our grandchildren now; we are at our great-great- grandchildren as to paying this obligation back.

We still have to ensure that the Federal Government keeps running. Let me see: We have the estate tax issue, we have dealing with tax proposals or policy at all, we are trying to get the regulatory scheme in place so we can give businesses the incentive to maybe bring money back from the offshore accounts they are holding so they do not invest in other businesses in other countries, we have this issue--we have a lot of other things on the table and we have done nothing. We spent time on food safety.

I love to eat. I have seen many people around here, we all love to eat. I want my food safe, make no mistake about it. I do not want to belittle that effort. But we need to provide money so people can actually go out and buy the food we are trying to make safe. We cannot keep spending and borrowing with no regard to our future, to our fiscal future. We need to be fiscally responsible and find ways to pay for the initiatives and policies that we think are important.

When you talk about the money--listen, it is not the government's money. It is people's money. When they have money, they traditionally invest it, and they invest in businesses and they continue to get that economic engine going. It is not the government's money.

It is also very clear to me that people want to work and they want us to focus on that one issue. I do not know why we are avoiding it--I do not. Did you know we are avoiding that one issue that can get our country back on track? Let's just say we took all the recommendations from the debt commission that have been proposed. If we do not do the other things, it is going to be short-lived, if it works at all.

Creating jobs and supporting policies that improve economic growth have been my priority and will continue to be my focus in the Senate. There is nothing more important. I encourage the administration to immediately drop everything and focus on the economy. It is the one thing that is our ticket out of the economic mess we are in right now; instead, we are doing food safety.

I also think we need to give people that lifeline in order to get them through the tough times. Make no mistake, I agree they need help. But I look at it, are we going to do it from the bank account or are we going to put it on the credit card--bank account, credit card? How about you folks up there--bank account, credit card? OK. I know what I want to do. I will use the bank account. Let's use money that is already in the system and put it to good use immediately by 12 o'clock tonight. Let's do it.

We can settle this tonight. We can provide that extension of benefits tonight. My bipartisan idea will allow that to happen and will prevent millions of Americans from losing their benefits. Providing this 1-year extension will allow us to focus on the many other important priorities we have and that we have to handle before the end of the year.

You want to stay through the holidays and everything. Hey, I am here. Whatever. My kids are grown; they do their own thing anyway. Do I want to stay here? Sure, I will stay. We will stay and we will go out and celebrate Christmas here. Whatever. But we have so many things we need to do and we could do them right now.

I am glad food safety is done. We do not have to do it anymore. So what is next? Let me see--just pick something. I guarantee, I bet--I know betting is illegal here--I will bet we do not do anything that has to do with the economy. I will bet you.

I encourage my colleagues to join with me and stop using the credit card and burdening additional generations with this tremendous debt that we cannot afford.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4915

I ask unanimous consent the Finance Committee be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4915; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

I yield.

Madam President, once again, make no mistake, I have great respect for the Senator from Rhode Island. We worked on many regional issues--fishing and military issues. I respect his service not only to the military but also to his State. But I have to respectfully disagree with his presentation and representation on some of the issues.

He keeps referring back to the tax cuts for the rich. That is great. We are not dealing with that right now. It is not something we are dealing with because we have not dealt with anything to do with any tax policy or structure since I have been here--zero. We have not done the estate tax, we have not done any tax policies, we have not done anything. Now you want to kind of muck it up and talk about if you do this, we should not do that. Listen, we are here, we have 6 hours and 15 minutes to deal with this issue. I am not quite sure why it took so long to get to this point. Why couldn't we have spent the last 7 days, when we were doing food safety, dealing with this? Why? Because there is no priority in taking care of people who are hurting and dealing with the issues that are affecting our economy and our country on a very real and personal basis.

My colleague says there have been delays, we should just do it for longer than 1 year. He wants to do it for longer than 1 year? Great. Pay for it. The reason there have been delays is because we wanted to find a funding source. We could have initially taken it out of the unallocated stimulus dollars that were being used as special slush funds for folks and agencies. That was one of the delays, I remember, being part of that. That didn't pass. I think I got two Democrats.

Yesterday, we did a 1099 fix and 21 Democrats supported it. What is the difference? Now we are talking about real people--about kids. It is about the kids. I keep saying it is about the kids. It is not just about the kids who are here right now; it is about the future generations who are going to have to try to figure out a way to pay for this insurmountable debt.

I reiterate, it is pretty simple--bank account, credit card. That is all I am saying. Happy to help, folks. The folks up there listening, go back and say to your friends and family: Senator Brown of Massachusetts said bank accounts, credit card. It makes sense.

I want to help. But I also want to streamline, consolidate this, weed out any fraud, waste, abuse, any money we are not using properly, and get it out the door into businesses and families and get the economy moving again.

So here we are. I am very curious to see what is next. I enjoyed the food safety. I voted for it. I gave some input on it, and I voted for it. I am happy to help. It is not going to be implemented in 6 hours and 15 minutes. The people need our help right now.

Madam President, I appreciate your paying attention and leading us. I am just hopeful that we can come together and use some common sense and start to focus on the economy. It is the economy, period.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about a provision that was included in the Federal health care reform bill. It is a provision that adversely impacts small businesses and entrepreneurs, both an engine of job growth in Massachusetts and across the country.

I support Mr. Johanns' efforts and leadership to repeal this provision of the law. I am proud to be a cosponsor of his efforts to do just this.

The provision that I am referring to--section 9006 of the Federal health care reform bill--requires that every business, charity, and local and State government entity submit a 1099 form for every business transaction totaling $600 or more in a given year. It has been estimated that this mandate would affect approximately 40 million entities across the country.

Under the law, businesses will be required to report purchases of items

such as office equipment, food and bottled water, gasoline, lumber, and plumbing supplies if payments to any vendor in the course of a year total at least $600. They will, in many cases, also have to report payments for things such as travel and telephone and Internet service. To comply with the mandate, businesses--especially small businesses-- would have to institute new, complex record-keeping data collection and reporting requirements that track every purchase by vendor and payment method. The provision will increase accounting costs, expose businesses to costly and unjustified audits by the IRS, and subject more small businesses to the challenges of electronic filing.

So what does all of this really mean? And why does this provision need to be repealed? Well, what it means is that small businesses and entrepreneurs will be busy completing paperwork, filling out forms, and complying with government mandates.

The provision needs to be repealed because when small businesses are focused on keeping the government at bay, they aren't creating jobs or making investments that spur economic growth.

This is a policy we can all agree on--from both sides of the aisle. It is a policy that I have supported from the very start and that I will continue to support and fight for.

Passing this amendment is the right thing to do--for small business owners, for entrepreneurs, and for every business that is eager to hire workers, expand its business, and grow.

I commend my colleague's leadership on this issue. My colleague, Mr. Johanns has been leading this effort since the Federal health care reform passed earlier this year, and I support him fully. And I urge my fellow Senators to repeal this job-and investment-killing mandate.

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

Madam President, I rise today and join my colleague, Senator Wyden, to speak about legislation we have introduced that will protect not only his State but my State of Massachusetts and other States by allowing them to waive out of specific requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

As my colleagues know, my single priority is and always has been to ensure that what we do in Washington does not harm my State of Massachusetts or the rest of the country, and that we are responsible stewards with every tax dollar that flows from the States into the Federal Government.

This has been true when it comes to voting against raising taxes on families and businesses. It has been true when it comes to fighting for commonsense, progrowth policies that will create jobs in Massachusetts. It has been true in my efforts to be sure that the Federal health care reform bill does not diminish or harm the health care innovations that have occurred in Massachusetts.

It is my belief that Congress needs to be held responsible for its actions, for the policies it advocates, and the legislation that ultimately passes through these Halls to become law. When Congress passes legislation that is harmful--in this case the Federal health care reform legislation, which I did not support--or there is an unintended consequence--which I think is the case when it deals with Massachusetts and the innovations we have had for years, where we have 98 percent of our people already insured--Members need to be bold enough to stand up and fix it regardless of party affiliation and regardless of whether it is popular.

I commend the Senator who is about to speak after me for his leadership on this matter. Senator Wyden has been working very diligently on addressing the concerns for his State. Today I get a chance to do the same. Today we get an opportunity to make a correction to the Federal health care reform bill to be sure we are doing the right thing, not just for Massachusetts but for other States that seek to waive out of certain requirements of the Federal health care reform law.

In many ways, Massachusetts has been on the forefront of implementing health care reform: expanding access--as I mentioned, 98 percent of our people are already insured--designing systems to increase market participation--from the Cadillac plan, all the way to the fully subsidized Commonwealth Care Program--and increasing transparency for consumers and providers. We continue to learn, however, lessons every day in Massachusetts about what works and what does not work, and we are continuing to work on those very issues to make sure we can do it better.

This is an important point because it speaks directly to the purpose of this piece of legislation that I have introduced in a bipartisan manner with Senator Wyden from Oregon.

As you know, the health care reform efforts of Massachusetts are our own. We were one of the first States in the country to take this upon ourselves to address the very serious problem we had in providing funds to hospitals that were providing care for people who were making a good wage but who were not paying the bills. As a result, the citizens had to subsidize the hospitals to the tune of over $1 billion. So we believed it was imperative for us to get something done.

As difficult as it is to admit this, not every State wants to be like Massachusetts. I understand that. They may not want to be like Oregon either. Massachusetts is a great State, with, I believe, the best hospitals, physicians, doctors, nurses, treatment facilities, research facilities in the country and around the world. There is a reason why people come to Massachusetts for the care and coverage they need so badly.

But I recognize that my colleague from Oregon is interested in protecting reform efforts in Oregon as well. He does not want to be like Massachusetts because Oregon is different from Massachusetts. Oregon's insurance market is different. Its provider network is different. Its beneficiaries and population are different than in Massachusetts.

Oregon might want to implement reforms or create a coverage mechanism that I do not like or that I would not want to work in the State of Massachusetts, but that is OK. That is what this bill is about. It allows the individual States to have the right to do what they believe is imperative and important for their particular State, which is why the legislation we have introduced--the Empowering States to Innovate Act--is so important.

Right now, as provided under section 1332--the Waivers for State Innovation--of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, States can waive out of provisions of the Federal reform law. That is the good news. We are allowing States to participate in the process and allowing them not to have duplicate processes or maybe potentially have lesser care and coverage if the Federal health care bill is implemented. So it allows us to continue to provide the care and services we want to provide to our citizens in Massachusetts. The bad news is, this waiver authority is not scheduled to take effect until 2017. So what are we doing until then--a full 3 years after the PPACA is scheduled to be fully implemented?

For me and my dear friend from Oregon it does not make any sense. When I see something that does not make any sense in Washington, I do my best, regardless of party affiliation, to fix it.

The first thing our bill does is to allow States to waive out of specific parts of the PPACA in 2014 rather than 2017. This makes sense not only from an operational standpoint, because the PPACA takes effect in 2014, but also from an economic and fiscal standpoint. Why should Massachusetts be delayed in obtaining a waiver from the Federal reform bill when it may already have met or exceeded, in many cases, the provisions of the act? So holding Massachusetts back by limiting my State's ability to continue to innovate and remain flexible and responsive to the health care market costs money, and it costs the taxpayers money at a point right now where we don't have a whole heck of a lot of money to go around.

The second piece our bill does is to provide States with certainty with the waiver process. Not every State will be eligible. Let me repeat that: Not every State will be eligible for a waiver and not every waiver will be granted. But our bill provides some certainty for States that apply for a waiver by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to begin reviewing applications within 6 months of the enactment of this bill. I hope this bill is enacted quickly. The earlier a State knows whether it has received a waiver, the earlier it can begin implementing its specific plans and proposals. It makes fiscal sense.

Taken together, these two changes are not only good for Massachusetts but potentially for other States. They are good for the other States that are trying to innovate and advance in the areas of health care reform, cost containment, and coverage. That is what it should be. It should be a symbiotic relationship between the Federal Government and the States. The States should have the right to determine what they want to do for their citizenry. Do we think maybe some States could do it better than the Federal Government? I believe when we deal with health care, Massachusetts is second to none, with all due respect to the other Senators in this Chamber.

During Wednesday's Finance Committee hearing, Dr. Berwick, who is from the State of Massachusetts, I might add, said this about State innovation and flexibility:

The cliche about states as laboratories of democracy is not

just a cliche, it's true. The diversity of approaches that

we're seeing emerge state by state has been there for long

time. I think we should be doing everything we can to

encourage it.

I couldn't agree more. I am a strong supporter of States rights, especially when it makes sense, and for allowing States to solve problems without the Federal Government's interference.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Massachusetts Hospital Association in support of my efforts today.

Thank you, Madam President.

We should be encouraging State innovation and not hampering it, and that is what the Empowering States to Innovate Act does. It helps ensure that States are not held back from innovating and seeking solutions that work for their citizens, their taxpayers, and their communities.

Finally, I wish to associate myself with the comments of the Senator from Oregon when he makes them about how our bill fits into the Federal health care reform debate. Enacting this legislation is the right thing to do because it is good for States such as Massachusetts and Oregon and Utah that have begun to make changes and reform at the State level that make sense for their citizens.

The legislation provides flexibility and says one size fits all is not appropriate and it does not always meet the needs of that individual State. I know the Federal standard is not in the best interests of the people of Massachusetts, which is why passing this bill is the right thing to do.

Let me say I deeply appreciate the Senator from Oregon and his effort to weed through the quagmire of rules and regulations and come up with a commonsense solution. I am hopeful others in this Chamber will learn from our example, that we can work together in a bipartisan manner to tackle problems and try to solve them without the rhetoric and without the bomb throwing and just solve problems. Because right now, we need more people like the Senator from Oregon to do just that.

Thank you, Madam President.

I yield the floor.