Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Senators Conrad and Gregg to create a bipartisan budget commission to address our Nation's long-term fiscal crisis.

The Conrad-Gregg amendment would create an 18-member bipartisan commission which would be charged with developing a specific plan to correct our government's long-term fiscal imbalance. All options would be on the table. The commission's legislative recommendations would require expedited consideration by the Congress, a supermajority vote in both Chambers, and Presidential approval.

While I would prefer that Members of Congress have the ability to offer revenue-neutral amendments to the commission's legislative recommendations, it is imperative that we move forward on this proposal. For this reason, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the legislation.

I would note that I have not always thought the creation of an independent commission was the right approach. I was hopeful that Congress could tackle

the issue of the looming fiscal catastrophe confronting us. But I have concluded that the only way we are going to achieve urgent action on the very serious fiscal problems we face is through the creation of this independent commission.

The fact is, America's out-of-control debt is a grave threat to our future prosperity. Just last month, the Senate voted to increase the debt limit to an astonishing $12.4 trillion, and yet here we are again today considering another increase in the debt limit--this time by $1.9 trillion, to $14.3 trillion. Last year, this body approved the President's budget which will double our debt in 5 years and triple it in 10 years. In other words, we are facing an explosion in the Federal debt.

As bad as that sounds, our Nation's debt problem is actually far worse. America has nearly $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities for programs such as Social Security and Medicare. These unfunded liabilities amount to $184,000 per person living in our country, or $483,000 per household. By contrast, median household income is just over $50,000.

As David Walker, the former Comptroller General and now president of the Peterson Foundation, put it in recent testimony before our Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee:

It doesn't take an economist or a mathematician to realize

that this is unsustainable.

We are talking about debt levels that are unsustainable and threaten the very future economy of our country. Our problem, in a nutshell, is that government has promised more than our citizens can afford to pay.

One columnist described this as the collision between the high and rising demand for government services and the capacity of the economy to produce the tax revenues to meet those demands. Historically, Americans have paid about 18 percent of gross domestic product in Federal taxes. But with the explosion in entitlement spending tied to the retirement of the baby boom generation, plus interest on the national debt, Americans would need to pay taxes equal to 34 percent of GDP to keep pace with spending 25 years from now. That is right, the tax burden would have to soar to 34 percent of our gross domestic product.

I am looking at the young pages who are on the floor right now. It is their future we are talking about. They are the ones who are going to be faced with this enormous debt.

Even if it were possible to raise taxes in order to finance this rate of spending, that remedy would do tremendous damage to our economy. It would crush job creation, devastate our already battered small businesses and dash the aspirations and can-do spirit of our people. Thus, our decisionmaking must begin by reconsidering spending that, although popular, simply cannot be justified during this fiscal crisis. It is wishful thinking to hope we can simply grow our way out of this problem. Economic growth helps, there is no doubt about that, but it is itself endangered by this enormous debt.

Becoming more efficient and productive helps reduce our long-term financial challenges, but economic growth alone will not rescue us from the predicament we face. If we fail to stop this approaching tsunami of red ink, then the futures of our children and our grandchildren will be swamped by our negligence. The American dream as we know it, where each succeeding generation can achieve a higher standard of living and quality of life than the previous generation, will be over. It will not be easy, even with this commission, but we must confront the conflict between what we want and what we can afford. It is time to reassess our priorities, to make the hard decisions and to set a new fiscally responsible course for our country.

The budget reform commission proposed by Senator Gregg and Senator Conrad would begin to move us forward as a nation in facing these serious financial challenges. I know it is not easy for many of my colleagues to give away some authority to this commission. I remind them that the commission's recommendations would still come back to us and could not become law without our voting for them and without the President deciding to sign the recommendations into law. But I have concluded that the only way to jump-start the process, to do what needs to be done, to right the fiscal boat, to help us face these challenges, to help us move forward as a nation, is to enact the Conrad-Gregg amendment. I urge all my colleagues to support their effort.

Mr. President, yesterday the Senate Homeland Security Committee heard testimony from the three top U.S. intelligence officials about the errors that the Federal Government made leading up to the thwarted Christmas Day plot. We dodged a bullet that day when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian-born terrorist, failed to detonate a bomb on flight 253 in the skies above Detroit.

But today, Mr. President, I rise to discuss an error that was made after that foreign terrorist had already been detained by American authorities in Detroit, an error that may well have prevented the collection of valuable intelligence about future terrorist threats to our country. The error became clear during my questioning of three of our Nation's top intelligence officials at the committee's hearing yesterday. Frankly, Mr. President, I was stunned to learn that the decision to place the captured terrorist into the U.S. civilian criminal court system had been made without any input or the knowledge of the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, or the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. That is right, Mr. President, these officials were never consulted by the Department of Justice before the decision was made.

That decision was critical. The determination to charge Abdulmutallab in civilian court likely foreclosed the collection of additional intelligence information. We know that the interrogation of terrorists can provide critical intelligence, but our civil justice system, as opposed to the military detention and tribunal system established by Congress and the President, encourages terrorists to lawyer up and to stop answering questions. Indeed, that was exactly what happened in the case of Abdulmutallab. He had provided some valuable information to law enforcement officials in the hours immediately after his capture, and we surely would have obtained more information if we had treated this foreign terrorist as an enemy belligerent and had placed him in the military tribunal system. Instead, once he was read his Miranda rights, given a lawyer at our expense, he was advised to cease answering questions, and that is exactly what he did.

That poor decisionmaking may well have prevented us from finding out more of Yemen's role in training terrorists and more about future plots that are underway in Yemen targeting American citizens in this country or abroad. Good intelligence is clearly critical to our ability to stop terrorist plots before they are executed. We know that lawful interrogations of terrorist suspects can provide important intelligence. To charge Abdulmutallab in the civilian criminal system without even consulting three of our Nation's top intelligence officials simply defies common sense.

To correct this failure and to ensure that our Nation's senior intelligence officials are consulted before making the decision to try future foreign terrorists in civilian court, I am today introducing a bill that would require this crucial consultation. I am very pleased to be joined by the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman, who has been such a leader in this entire area, as well as by three other Senators, Senator Bob Bennett, Senator John Ensign and Senator Kit Bond, who are also concerned about the testimony yesterday.

Specifically, our bill would require the Attorney General to consult with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Defense before initiating a custodial interrogation of foreign terrorists or filing civilian criminal charges against them. These officials, Mr. President, are in the best position to know what other threats the United States is facing from terrorists and to assess the need to gather more intelligence on those threats.

If there is a disagreement between the Attorney General and these intelligence officials regarding the appropriate approach to the detention and interrogation of foreign terrorists, then the bill would require the President to resolve the disagreement. Only the President would be permitted to direct the initiation of civilian law enforcement actions--balancing his constitutional responsibilities as Commander in Chief and as the Nation's chief law enforcement officer.

To be clear, this legislation would not deprive the President of any investigative or prosecutorial tool. It would not preclude a decision to charge a foreign terrorist in our military tribunal system or in our civilian criminal justice system. It would simply require that the Attorney General coordinate and consult with our top intelligence officials before making a decision that could foreclose the collection of critical additional intelligence information.

This consultation requirement is not unprecedented. Section 811 of the Counterintelligence and Security and Enhancements Act of 1994 requires the Director of the FBI and the head of a department or agency with a potential spy in its ranks to consult and periodically reassess any decision to leave the suspected spy in place so that additional intelligence can be gathered on his activities.

As the Senate Intelligence Committee noted in its report on the legislation that added the espionage consultation requirement:

While prosecutorial discretion ultimately rests with the

Department of Justice officials, it stands to reason that in

cases designed to protect our national security--such

as espionage and terrorism cases--prosecutors should ensure

that they do not make decisions that, in fact, end up harming

the national security.

The committee got it right. The committee went on to explain:

[T]he determination of whether to leave a subject in place

should be retained by the host agency.

The history of the espionage consultation requirement is eerily reminiscent of the lack of consultation that occurred in the case of Abdulmutallab. In espionage cases, Congress has already recognized that when valuable intelligence is at stake, our national security should trump decisions based solely on prosecutorial equities. This requirement must be extended to the most significant threat facing our Nation, and that is the threat of terrorism.

I encourage the Senate to act quickly on this important legislation. The changes proposed are modest. They make common sense. But the consequences could be a matter of life and death.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, yesterday the Senate Homeland Security Committee heard testimony from the three top U.S. intelligence officials about the errors that the Federal Government made leading up to the thwarted Christmas Day plot. We dodged a bullet that day when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian-born terrorist, failed to detonate a bomb on flight 253 in the skies above Detroit.

But today, Mr. President, I rise to discuss an error that was made after that foreign terrorist had already been detained by American authorities in Detroit, an error that may well have prevented the collection of valuable intelligence about future terrorist threats to our country. The error became clear during my questioning of three of our Nation's top intelligence officials at the committee's hearing yesterday. Frankly, Mr. President, I was stunned to learn that the decision to place the captured terrorist into the U.S. civilian criminal court system had been made without any input or the knowledge of the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, or the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. That is right, Mr. President, these officials were never consulted by the Department of Justice before the decision was made.

That decision was critical. The determination to charge Abdulmutallab in civilian court likely foreclosed the collection of additional intelligence information. We know that the interrogation of terrorists can provide critical intelligence, but our civil justice system, as opposed to the military detention and tribunal system established by Congress and the President, encourages terrorists to lawyer up and to stop answering questions. Indeed, that was exactly what happened in the case of Abdulmutallab. He had provided some valuable information to law enforcement officials in the hours immediately after his capture, and we surely would have obtained more information if we had treated this foreign terrorist as an enemy belligerent and had placed him in the military tribunal system. Instead, once he was read his Miranda rights, given a lawyer at our expense, he was advised to cease answering questions, and that is exactly what he did.

That poor decisionmaking may well have prevented us from finding out more of Yemen's role in training terrorists and more about future plots that are underway in Yemen targeting American citizens in this country or abroad. Good intelligence is clearly critical to our ability to stop terrorist plots before they are executed. We know that lawful interrogations of terrorist suspects can provide important intelligence. To charge Abdulmutallab in the civilian criminal system without even consulting three of our Nation's top intelligence officials simply defies common sense.

To correct this failure and to ensure that our Nation's senior intelligence officials are consulted before making the decision to try future foreign terrorists in civilian court, I am today introducing a bill that would require this crucial consultation. I am very pleased to be joined by the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Lieberman, who has been such a leader in this entire area, as well as by three other Senators, Senator Bob Bennett, Senator John Ensign and Senator Kit Bond, who are also concerned about the testimony yesterday.

Specifically, our bill would require the Attorney General to consult with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Defense before initiating a custodial interrogation of foreign terrorists or filing civilian criminal charges against them. These officials, Mr. President, are in the best position to know what other threats the United States is facing from terrorists and to assess the need to gather more intelligence on those threats.

If there is a disagreement between the Attorney General and these intelligence officials regarding the appropriate approach to the detention and interrogation of foreign terrorists, then the bill would require the President to resolve the disagreement. Only the President would be permitted to direct the initiation of civilian law enforcement actions--balancing his constitutional responsibilities as Commander in Chief and as the Nation's chief law enforcement officer.

To be clear, this legislation would not deprive the President of any investigative or prosecutorial tool. It would not preclude a decision to charge a foreign terrorist in our military tribunal system or in our civilian criminal justice system. It would simply require that the Attorney General coordinate and consult with our top intelligence officials before making a decision that could foreclose the collection of critical additional intelligence information.

This consultation requirement is not unprecedented. Section 811 of the Counterintelligence and Security and Enhancements Act of 1994 requires the Director of the FBI and the head of a department or agency with a potential spy in its ranks to consult and periodically reassess any decision to leave the suspected spy in place so that additional intelligence can be gathered on his activities.

As the Senate Intelligence Committee noted in its report on the legislation that added the espionage consultation requirement:

While prosecutorial discretion ultimately rests with the

Department of Justice officials, it stands to reason that in

cases designed to protect our national security--such

as espionage and terrorism cases--prosecutors should ensure

that they do not make decisions that, in fact, end up harming

the national security.

The committee got it right. The committee went on to explain:

[T]he determination of whether to leave a subject in place

should be retained by the host agency.

The history of the espionage consultation requirement is eerily reminiscent of the lack of consultation that occurred in the case of Abdulmutallab. In espionage cases, Congress has already recognized that when valuable intelligence is at stake, our national security should trump decisions based solely on prosecutorial equities. This requirement must be extended to the most significant threat facing our Nation, and that is the threat of terrorism.

I encourage the Senate to act quickly on this important legislation. The changes proposed are modest. They make common sense. But the consequences could be a matter of life and death.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 12 minutes.

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

Mr. President, along with Senators McCaskill and Bennett, I rise to introduce two bills that would lay a strong foundation to improve the Federal acquisition system.

The first bill, the Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 2009, would create a federal acquisition management fellows program to develop a new generation of acquisition leaders with government-wide perspective, skills, and experience.

The second bill, the Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement Act of 2009, would institute much-needed organizational clarity to enable the Federal Acquisition Institute, FAI, to fulfill its mission of facilitating career development and strategic human capital management for the federal acquisition workforce.

The federal acquisition system is under tremendous stress. Between fiscal years 2000 and 2008, acquisition spending by the Federal Government expanded by 163 percent, from $205 billion to $539 billion. The rising costs of military operations, natural disasters, homeland security precautions, and other vital programs will drive those expenditures to even higher levels in the years ahead.

This prodigious level of purchasing creates abundant opportunities for fraud, waste, and abuse. We have seen far too many outrageous failures in government contracting, such as unusable trailers for hurricane victims, shoddy construction of schools and clinics in Afghanistan, or the installation of showers in Iraq for our troops that pose electric-shock hazards. These and other failures demand strong steps to protect taxpayer dollars and deliver better acquisition outcomes.

As a long-time advocate for stronger competition, accountability, and transparency in government contracting, I recognize and appreciate the steps the administration has taken recently to improve Federal contracting. Many of these initiatives originated from legislation I co-authored with Senator Lieberman during the last Congress.

But no matter how many laws we pass or OMB guidance documents are issued, the effectiveness of our Federal acquisition system depends on a vital human component--the acquisition workforce.

While contract spending has risen dramatically, the number of acquisition professionals who help plan, award, and oversee these contracts has been stagnant. With roughly half of the current acquisition workforce eligible to retire over the next decade, the difficulties of strengthening that workforce will become increasingly acute. A well-trained and well-resourced acquisition workforce is critical to keeping pace with increased Federal spending and much more complex procurements of services and goods.

The two pieces of legislation I am introducing today would help to address these important long-term problems that we must solve to make our acquisition system healthy again.

First, the Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 2009 would create a centrally-managed Government-wide Acquisition Management Fellows Program that combines both a Master's degree-level academic curriculum and on-the-job training in multiple federal agencies. By partnering with leading universities that have specialized government acquisition programs, the government can attract top-caliber students who are interested in pursuing both academic advancement and public service.

Compared to the several existing agency-specific intern programs, this government-wide program would provide a unique and much-needed skill set that we currently do not have in sufficient number, that is, acquisition professionals with multi-agency and multi-disciplinary training who can understand and manage government-wide acquisition needs and perspectives.

Considering that interagency acquisition now accounts for approximately 40 percent of the entire contract spending and that GAO has designated the management of interagency contracting a high-risk area since 2005, it is without question that we need to develop future acquisition leaders who can understand government-wide needs and perspectives.

Specifically, the program would include the following: one academic year of full-time, on-campus training followed by 2 years of on-the-job and part-time training toward a Masters or equivalent graduate degree in related fields; and a curriculum that would include rotational assignments at three or more executive agencies covering, among other issues, acquisition planning, cost-estimating, formation and

post-award administration of ``high risk'' contract types, and interagency contracts.

Upon graduation, participants will have completed all required non- agency-specific training courses necessary for a basic contracting officer warrant.

In addition, participants would be required to enter into a service commitment appropriate in length to ensure the Federal Government receives a proper return on its investment. The service commitment would be no less than one year for each year in the program, and would require reimbursement of funds for those who do not successfully complete the program or do not fulfill the minimum service requirements.

It is also important to note that this program would be less expensive than its current alternative. Typically, existing agency career intern programs like those run by DHS or GSA hire interns at GS- 5, -7, or -9 level, which pays between $33,000 and $66,000, for Washington, DC area. These interns also receive benefits and free training during this internship period.

The proposed program would not pay salaries during the training, but unlike the other programs, would award a graduate degree. Based on market research, this alternative money-saving arrangement would be able to attract top-notch candidates with both public and academic interests.

Second, the Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement Act of 2009 would strengthen the Federal Acquisition Institute, FAI, whose key responsibilities are to promote career development and strategic human capital management for the entire civilian acquisition workforce.

In part due to the lack of organizational clarity and the disproportionate funding compared to its counterpart in the Department of Defense, the FAI has remained largely underutilized.

The proposed legislation would establish a clear line of responsibility and accountability for the Institute by requiring that the Federal Acquisition Institute, through its Board of Directors, directly reports to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy; the director of FAI be appointed by the OFPP Administrator and report directly to the Associate Administrator for Acquisition Workforce at

Mr. President, along with Senators McCaskill and Bennett, I rise to introduce two bills that would lay a strong foundation to improve the Federal acquisition system.

The first bill, the Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 2009, would create a federal acquisition management fellows program to develop a new generation of acquisition leaders with government-wide perspective, skills, and experience.

The second bill, the Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement Act of 2009, would institute much-needed organizational clarity to enable the Federal Acquisition Institute, FAI, to fulfill its mission of facilitating career development and strategic human capital management for the federal acquisition workforce.

The federal acquisition system is under tremendous stress. Between fiscal years 2000 and 2008, acquisition spending by the Federal Government expanded by 163 percent, from $205 billion to $539 billion. The rising costs of military operations, natural disasters, homeland security precautions, and other vital programs will drive those expenditures to even higher levels in the years ahead.

This prodigious level of purchasing creates abundant opportunities for fraud, waste, and abuse. We have seen far too many outrageous failures in government contracting, such as unusable trailers for hurricane victims, shoddy construction of schools and clinics in Afghanistan, or the installation of showers in Iraq for our troops that pose electric-shock hazards. These and other failures demand strong steps to protect taxpayer dollars and deliver better acquisition outcomes.

As a long-time advocate for stronger competition, accountability, and transparency in government contracting, I recognize and appreciate the steps the administration has taken recently to improve Federal contracting. Many of these initiatives originated from legislation I co-authored with Senator Lieberman during the last Congress.

But no matter how many laws we pass or OMB guidance documents are issued, the effectiveness of our Federal acquisition system depends on a vital human component--the acquisition workforce.

While contract spending has risen dramatically, the number of acquisition professionals who help plan, award, and oversee these contracts has been stagnant. With roughly half of the current acquisition workforce eligible to retire over the next decade, the difficulties of strengthening that workforce will become increasingly acute. A well-trained and well-resourced acquisition workforce is critical to keeping pace with increased Federal spending and much more complex procurements of services and goods.

The two pieces of legislation I am introducing today would help to address these important long-term problems that we must solve to make our acquisition system healthy again.

First, the Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 2009 would create a centrally-managed Government-wide Acquisition Management Fellows Program that combines both a Master's degree-level academic curriculum and on-the-job training in multiple federal agencies. By partnering with leading universities that have specialized government acquisition programs, the government can attract top-caliber students who are interested in pursuing both academic advancement and public service.

Compared to the several existing agency-specific intern programs, this government-wide program would provide a unique and much-needed skill set that we currently do not have in sufficient number, that is, acquisition professionals with multi-agency and multi-disciplinary training who can understand and manage government-wide acquisition needs and perspectives.

Considering that interagency acquisition now accounts for approximately 40 percent of the entire contract spending and that GAO has designated the management of interagency contracting a high-risk area since 2005, it is without question that we need to develop future acquisition leaders who can understand government-wide needs and perspectives.

Specifically, the program would include the following: one academic year of full-time, on-campus training followed by 2 years of on-the-job and part-time training toward a Masters or equivalent graduate degree in related fields; and a curriculum that would include rotational assignments at three or more executive agencies covering, among other issues, acquisition planning, cost-estimating, formation and

post-award administration of ``high risk'' contract types, and interagency contracts.

Upon graduation, participants will have completed all required non- agency-specific training courses necessary for a basic contracting officer warrant.

In addition, participants would be required to enter into a service commitment appropriate in length to ensure the Federal Government receives a proper return on its investment. The service commitment would be no less than one year for each year in the program, and would require reimbursement of funds for those who do not successfully complete the program or do not fulfill the minimum service requirements.

It is also important to note that this program would be less expensive than its current alternative. Typically, existing agency career intern programs like those run by DHS or GSA hire interns at GS- 5, -7, or -9 level, which pays between $33,000 and $66,000, for Washington, DC area. These interns also receive benefits and free training during this internship period.

The proposed program would not pay salaries during the training, but unlike the other programs, would award a graduate degree. Based on market research, this alternative money-saving arrangement would be able to attract top-notch candidates with both public and academic interests.

Second, the Federal Acquisition Institute Improvement Act of 2009 would strengthen the Federal Acquisition Institute, FAI, whose key responsibilities are to promote career development and strategic human capital management for the entire civilian acquisition workforce.

In part due to the lack of organizational clarity and the disproportionate funding compared to its counterpart in the Department of Defense, the FAI has remained largely underutilized.

The proposed legislation would establish a clear line of responsibility and accountability for the Institute by requiring that the Federal Acquisition Institute, through its Board of Directors, directly reports to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy; the director of FAI be appointed by the OFPP Administrator and report directly to the Associate Administrator for Acquisition Workforce at

Madam President, I rise today to speak in favor of the motion to commit offered by Senators Hutchison and Thune.

The Hutchison-Thune motion to commit would send the health care bill to the Senate Finance Committee with instructions to revise the bill in a revenue-neutral manner, to prevent taxes in the bill from going into effect before the exchanges are set up in 2014.

The bill makes Americans wait until 2014 to get insurance through the new ``exchanges,'' but it rolls out new tax hikes starting right away. Unless we take action to change this, Americans will see 4 years of tax increases before the chief benefits of this bill become available.

In the 4 years between now and the time the exchanges come online, Americans will face at least a dozen new or increased taxes and fees costing $73 billion.

Some of these taxes start in 2 weeks. For example, a new tax on pharmaceutical manufacturers, which will raise an average of $2.2 billion per year; a new tax on health insurance providers, which will raise $6.7 billion per

year; a new tax on medical device manufacturers, which will raise $2 billion per year.

Other taxes kick in 1 year from now. These include an increased penalty on withdrawals from Health Savings Accounts and a new $2,500 cap on FLEX spending accounts.

These new limits and penalties make no sense to me. Why would we want to impose a penalty on Americans who use money from their FLEX spending accounts to buy over-the-counter medicine? How is that going to help make health care more affordable?

But that is not all the bill does with respect to taxes. In 2013, the bill imposes several more taxes, including a reduction in the tax deductibility of medical expenses, a new high cost insurance excise Tax--the so-called Cadillac tax, and an increase in the Medicare payroll tax for high earners.

These tax increases total $73 billion before 2014, before anyone gets a dollar of subsidy to purchase health insurance in the new exchanges.

These taxes will be paid right away by Americans in the form of higher health insurance premiums. This is not just my opinion; this is what the Congressional Budget concludes too. Here is what the CBO said about the $6.7 billion annual fee on health insurance providers, which is scheduled to begin next year:

We expect a very large portion of [the] proposed insurance

industry fee to be borne by purchasers of insurance in the

form of higher premiums.

It is not just taxes on insurance that will be passed on to consumers. Taxes on pharmaceutical manufacturers and medical devices makers will also be passed on.

This means that American consumers will see price increases for everything from insulin pumps, to pacemakers, to power wheelchairs and drugs like Prilosec.

As the CBO Director has said:

Those fees would increase costs for the affected firms,

which would be passed on to purchasers and would ultimately

raise insurance premiums by a corresponding amount.

The Joint Committee on Taxation shares the CBO's view these tax hikes will be passed along to consumers.

Once again, I do not see how imposing these new taxes now--before the exchanges are set up and the chief benefits of the bill are supposed to become available--makes health care more affordable.

For all of these reasons, I will be voting in favor of the Hutchison- Thune motion to recommit, and I would urge my colleagues to do the same.

Motion To Commit

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the president and CEO of Maine Motor Transport Association, Dale Hanington, on his retirement. The men and women of Maine's trucking industry are grateful for his determined and effective leadership. I am grateful for his guidance and support on transportation legislation, and for his friendship.

Dale, a Maine native who earned his bachelor's degree in business administration, retired from the Maine State police at the rank of lieutenant after 20 years of service. After retiring from the Maine State police, he served as a safety engineer with a large construction company for 2 years. In 1989, Dale joined the Maine Motor Transport Association as assistant to the executive director, and he became the president and CEO of the association in 1993.

Dale has been a strong advocate for Maine's most important transportation needs, including raising the Federal truck weight limit in Maine, which we have worked together tirelessly to address. With Dale's help and support, we finally have made progress in securing a 1- year truck weight pilot project for Maine.

I am grateful for our strong working relationship over the years. I offer my sincerest appreciation to Dale for his service and congratulations on a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the conference report before us, which contains six of the seven remaining appropriations bills. Division D of the conference report contains the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill. As ranking member of the subcommittee responsible for writing this division, I want to thank Senator Durbin for his leadership and collegiality throughout the past year. Since joining this subcommittee, I have seen Senator Durbin demonstrate the kind of bipartisan cooperation that is the hallmark of the Appropriations Committee. He and I worked in a collaborative fashion to produce a bipartisan bill.

The Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee has jurisdiction over a diverse group of agencies, many of which have a profound impact on the financial stability of our economy and on the lives of most Americans. This appropriations bill is a key part of efforts to restore the stability of, and the public confidence in, America's financial institutions. It makes needed investments to strengthen the Securities and Exchange Commission's ability to enforce rules governing our financial markets and to detect and prosecute fraudulent schemes. It also increases the Federal Trade Commission's capacity to protect consumers from scams and anticompetitive behavior.

Senator Durbin and I share many of the same concerns about the ability of our financial regulatory institutions to protect small investors and market participants. For years, the SEC's funding and staffing levels had declined, even as its oversight responsibilities rapidly increased. As a result, staffing shortages and an environment of lax oversight and enforcement at the SEC contributed to our current financial crisis. Funding shortfalls have hampered the ability of this agency to fulfill its mission of protecting the public through enforcement of securities laws.

We have included a 16-percent increase in funding for the SEC that will help the agency better fulfill its mission by giving it the resources to increase staffing levels and to make information technology upgrades.

The conference report also provides important increases above the President's budget request for the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. The CPSC protects American consumers from defective and unsafe products, while the FTC protects consumers from unscrupulous marketing scams.

The bill also provides ample funding for the Small Business Administration. Our economic strength and future are tied to the strength of small businesses. The conference report funds important SBA programs like Women's Business Centers, Veterans' Programs, Native American Outreach, and HUBZones above the President's budget request. As a former regional administrator of the SBA, I am particularly supportive of the increase of $16 million over the President's request for the Small Business Development Center Program. Each year, the SBDC network of over 900 service centers provides management and technical assistance to an estimated 1.2 million small business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs.

The conference agreement includes an important provision that protects the due process rights of auto dealers. The auto dealers are essential to the success of the auto manufacturers because the dealers facilitate distribution, sales, and servicing of hundreds of millions of vehicles annually. It is in the best interest of the public to have a competitive and viable automobile distribution network throughout the country, including in urban, suburban,

and rural areas. It is also in the interest of the local economies, the national economy, and our economic recovery to preserve jobs at successful small businesses.

Senator Durbin and I share similar views about the funding priorities for most of the agencies within this bill. One of the few areas where he and I disagree is the DC school voucher program. We both respect one another's different positions on this issue, but I am disappointed that this bill effectively ends this successful program.

The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program has provided additional educational options for some of the District's most at-risk, low-income children who had previously attended some of the lowest-performing schools in the country.

Sadly, DC's public schools continue to underperform despite a per- pupil expenditure rate that is the third highest in the Nation. Experts have carefully studied the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program and concluded that the educational success of the program's participants in reading has outpaced those in DC public schools.

Of the $75.4 million for DC public schools in this bill, $42.2 million is to improve the District's public schools, $20 million is to support DC public charter schools, and $13.2 million is for Opportunity Scholarships. Unfortunately, the conference report contains language that would only allow currently enrolled students to remain in the program. No new students would be permitted, despite the fact that the $7,500 per student cost for scholarship children is less than one-half the $15,511 per student cost for DC public schools.

In May, Senator Lieberman and I held a hearing in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee during which we heard compelling success stories of current and former participants in the program. Their testimony helped to highlight the real world implications of discontinuing the program. The fear about this program ending was poignantly stated by a little girl wearing a T-shirt asking: ``What About Me?''

By all accounts, students are succeeding and thriving in their scholarship schools, and their parents are overwhelmingly satisfied with the education that their children are receiving. So I do not see the wisdom of blocking new students from participating in this successful program.

I am disappointed that the full Senate never had an opportunity to take up, debate, and amend the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill when it was reported out of committee.

This is unfortunate, especially since Senator Durbin and I worked hard to write a bipartisan bill which had overwhelming support in the committee. The Senate has had time to consider all 12 Appropriations bills. Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Cochran both worked hard to complete and report all 12 bills out of committee by September. For the record, the Financial Services bill was reported out of committee on July 9.

Next year we must return to regular order so that all Senators can have an opportunity to debate these important bills.

I thank the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee staff: Marianne Upton, Diana Hamilton, Melissa Petersen, and Richard Burkard with the majority; and Mary Dietrich and Rachel Jones with the minority.

Turning to Division A of the conference report, I would like to speak in support of a provision I authored. This provision will increase safety, save energy, and decrease vehicle emissions by creating a 1- year pilot project to allow trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds to travel on Maine's interstates. This provision also requires an analysis by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the State of Maine of provision's impact on safety, road and bridge durability, energy use, and commerce.

By way of background, let me explain why this pilot project is needed. Under current law, trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are allowed to travel on the portion of Interstate 95 designated as the Maine Turnpike, which runs from Maine's border with New Hampshire to Augusta, our capital city. At Augusta, the Turnpike designation ends, but I-95 proceeds another 200 miles north to Houlton. At Augusta, however, heavy trucks must exit the modern four-lane, limited-access highway and are forced onto smaller, two-lane secondary roads that pass through cities, towns, and villages. The same problem occurs for Maine's other Interstates like I-295 out of Portland and I-395 in the Bangor-Brewer area.

Diverting trucks onto these secondary roads raises critical safety concerns. In fact, there have been several accidents, some of which have tragically resulted in death, which have occurred after these large trucks were diverted onto secondary roads and through smaller communities. For example, In May 2007, a 17-year-old high school student from Hampden, ME, lost her life when her car was struck by a heavy truck on Route 9. The truck driver could not see the car turning onto that two-lane road as he rounded a corner. Interstate 95 runs less than three-quarters of a mile away, but Federal law prevented the truck from using that modern, divided highway, a highway that was designed to provide ample views of the road ahead.

A year earlier, Lena Gray, an 80-year-old resident of Bangor, was struck and killed by a tractor-trailer as she was crossing a downtown street. Again, that accident would not have occurred had that truck been allowed to use I-95, which runs directly through Bangor.

While improving safety is the key objective, a uniform truck weight limit of 100,000 pounds on Maine's interstate highways also would reduce highway miles, as well as the travel time necessary to transport freight through Maine, resulting in economic and environmental benefits. Moreover, Maine's extensive network of local roads would be better preserved without the wear and tear of heavy truck traffic.

Interstate 95 north of Augusta, ME, where trucks are currently limited at 80,000 pounds, was originally designed and built for military freight movements to Loring Air Force Base at weights much heavier than 100,000 pounds. Raising the truck weight limit would keep heavy trucks on the interstates, which are designed to carry more weight than the rural State roads.

Current Maine law requires that vehicles carrying up to 100,000 pounds on state roads be six-axle combination vehicles. Current Federal law requires that vehicles carrying 80,000 pounds be five-axle. Contrary to erroneous assumptions, six-axle 100,000 pound vehicles are not longer, wider or taller than the five-axle 80,000 pound vehicles. The six-axle 100,000 pound vehicles, which include an additional set of brakes, allow for greater weight distribution thereby not increasing road wear and tear. Further, stopping distances and safety are in no way diminished, and preliminary data from studies conducted by the Maine State Police support this statement. That is why Maine's Commissioner of Public Safety, the Maine State Troopers Association, and the Maine Association of Police all support this pilot project.

A higher weight limit in Maine will not only preserve our rapidly deteriorating roads, but will provide economic relief to an already struggling trucking industry. Trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are permitted on interstate highways in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York as well as the Canadian Provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. Maine truck drivers and the businesses they serve are at a competitive disadvantage.

Last year, I met with Kurt Babineau, a small business owner and second generation logger and trucker from Maine. Like so many of our truckers, Kurt has been struggling with the increasing costs of running his operation. All of the pulpwood his business produces is transported to Verso Paper in Jay, ME, a 165-mile roundtrip. This would be a considerably shorter trip if his trucks were permitted at 100,000 pounds to remain on Interstate 95. Instead, his trucks must travel a less direct route through cities and towns. Kurt estimated that permitting his trucks to travel on all of Interstate 95 would save him 118 gallons of fuel each week. At last year's diesel cost of approximately $4.50 a gallon, and including savings from his drivers spending less time on the trip, he could have saved more than $700 a week, and more than $33,000 and 5,600 gallons of fuel annually. These savings would not only be beneficial to

Kurt's bottom line, but also to his employees, his customers, and to our nation as we look for ways to decrease the overall fuel consumption.

An increase of the Federal truck weight limit in Maine is widely supported by public officials throughout Maine, including the Governor, the Maine Association of Police, and the Maine Department of Public Safety, which includes the State Bureau of Highway Safety, the Maine State Police, and the Bureau of Emergency Communications. The Maine Legislature also has expressed its support for the change having passed resolutions over the past several years calling on Congress to raise the Federal truck weight limit to 100,000 pounds in Maine. I look forward to passage of this important provision, which has been long awaited in my State.

Cloture Motion

Madam President, first, let me thank my two colleagues for their hard work on these amendments. My colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, has been working so hard on health care issues for such a long time. My colleague from Indiana, Senator Bayh, and I have worked together on other issues, and I am proud of the fact that the three of us have been able to come together, in a bipartisan way, to present to our colleagues three important amendments.

It is, as Senator Bayh has noted, so unfortunate that the debate on this bill has been so divisive and partisan. Senator Wyden approached me about trying to find some common ground on issues that would unite us.

I should make clear the adoption of these amendments--important though they are and great steps forward though they are--do not solve all the problems I have with the legislation before us. But they do improve the underlying bill in important ways because they help to advance the goal of more affordable insurance choices for consumers. Providing more choices and more competition and greater affordability, after all, should be major goals of health care reform.

The bill before us falls short in meeting those objectives.

Let me discuss our amendments. In summary, our amendments would allow individuals, who are not receiving subsidies, to purchase lower cost plans if that coverage is more affordable for them and more appropriate for them.

We are also proposing health insurance vouchers that would provide more options for employers and employees alike. We are proposing incentives to insurers to keep their rates lower than they otherwise might be.

Let me further explain our three amendments. First, we would open the catastrophic plan--the so-called young invincibles plan--in the individual market to anyone, regardless of age, who is not eligible for a subsidy under the bill.

It is incredible to me that we are going to so constrain the insurance choices for an individual who is receiving no taxpayer subsidy at all. That does not make sense. We want to ensure not only that people can keep the insurance they have, if they like it, but also that they have more options available to them. Why should we say that an individual who is not receiving any help--no subsidy at all--can only purchase one of the four types of plans that are authorized by this bill?

Some would say, well, if you do that, you are going to have a problem where a person will perhaps have a health savings account or a supplemental catastrophic insurance plan and wait until they are ill to trade up to a far better plan. But there is a way to stop that from happening. We have drafted our amendment so that if an individual wished to upgrade his or her coverage, he or she would have to wait until the next plan year and then could only upgrade to what is known as the bronze plan--the next higher level of coverage. That would help greatly to avoid the problem of adverse selection and having a situation where an individual simply waits until he or she becomes ill before upgrading coverage.

We also wish to make sure consumers know exactly what they are buying and what kind of coverage they are getting. That is why we would require health plans to disclose fully the terms of the coverage to ensure that consumers fully understand the limitation.

Finally, this amendment makes clear that States have the ability to impose additional requirements or conditions for the catastrophic plans offered under this bill.

The bottom line is, health care reform should be about expanding access to affordable choices. The bill that is on the floor now would cause many Americans in the individual market to pay more for health care coverage than they do today. That isn't right. If their health care coverage is working well for them, if they are higher income and can bear the risk, if they have a health savings plan, if they are not getting a taxpayer subsidy, why should we dictate, to this degree, the level of coverage they can buy?

I believe this amendment is simple common sense. Let me explain what it would mean in my home State of Maine because I think it shows that one size does not fit all. In Maine, 87.5 percent of those purchasing coverage in the individual market have a policy with an actuarial value of less than 60 percent. The most popular individual market policy sold in Maine costs a 40-year-old about $185 a month. These individuals often pair this catastrophic coverage with a health savings account.

Under the bill we are debating, unless they are grandfathered and don't have any change--for example, they have not gotten married or divorced--then that 40-year-old would have to pay at least $420 a month--more than twice as much--for a policy that would meet the new minimum standard. Otherwise they would have to pay a $750 penalty.

There is an exception in the bill, but it is only for people who are under the age of 30. What we are saying is, let's broaden that, so that if you don't receive help from the government, if you don't receive a taxpayer subsidy, you, too, can buy that kind of catastrophic coverage plan.

A second amendment the three of us are offering would provide more choices to small businesses and to their employees. Giving employers and employees more choices should be among the chief goals of health care reform.

Our amendment would allow employers who choose to do so to offer vouchers to employees so they can purchase insurance on the exchange. This would allow them, for example, to use the employer voucher, plus tap into the subsidy available because of their income level, and put some of their own funds into purchasing the kind of coverage they want. As Senator Wyden has explained, this program is completely optional. Employers could offer these vouchers or decide to continue with their employer plan.

Let me tell you one reason I think this strengthens the bill. We need more people buying insurance through the exchanges, because if more people are using the exchanges, it broadens the risk pool, and the rates will be better for everyone. In insurance, having more people over which to spread the risk drives costs and premiums down.

So it is not surprising to me that our Nation's largest small business group, the NFIB, has endorsed our amendment. Let me read one paragraph from the NFIB letter because it really sums it up. The NFIB says:

This amendment addresses the shortcomings of the existing

employer-based system for small businesses. In the current

system, small employers often have few options beyond ``take

it or leave it.'' This new and voluntary option will

encourage employers to provide insurance coverage for

employees. It is the exact opposite of employer mandates that

harm struggling businesses, discourage startups, and kill

jobs.

I think the NFIB has said it well. This will give more choices both to employers and to employees.

Finally, let me say a few words about our proposal to modify the formula for the allocation of the $6.7 billion annual tax on health insurance providers.

There are a lot of problems with that particular tax, not the least of which is the gap between when the tax is imposed and when the subsidies are finally available 4 years later. Another problem is that the tax applies to nonprofit insurers as well as for-profit insurers. I am working with Senator Carl Levin to try to address that problem.

Here is what we are saying. The way the tax is designed in the bill, there is little to keep insurers from jacking up premiums, which is exactly the opposite of what we want them to do. They are going to just pass this tax on. So what we propose is to give insurers an incentive to keep premiums as low as possible. Under our amendment, if you are an insurer that is holding down the cost of your premiums, you don't pay as large a share of the tax. That makes sense. That helps us be more fair to the efficient insurer that is working hard to keep premiums down.

Again, I am very pleased to join with my two colleagues in presenting to the Senate three amendments that will provide more choices, greater affordability, and more options. These should be the goals of health care reform, and these amendments help to advance those goals.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Washington State, Senator Cantwell, in introducing what I believe to be landmark legislation, the Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal, or CLEAR Act. Let me commend the Senator for her leadership on this important issue.

One of the most appealing parts of this bill is it takes a fresh look at the issues facing our country in the area of developing alternative energy, promoting energy independence, and addressing climate change and the need for more green jobs in the economy. Indeed, this bill addresses the most significant energy and environmental challenges we face. It would help to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, promote alternative energy and energy conservation, and advance the goal of energy independence for our Nation.

The cost of gas and oil imposes a great burden on many Americans, particularly those living in large rural States such as the State of Maine. High gasoline prices have a disproportionate impact on Mainers who often have no choice but to travel long distances to their jobs, grocery stores, and doctors offices. This lessens the amount of money they have to spend on other necessities.

In addition, 80 percent of Mainers heat their homes with home heating oil. That is one of the highest percentages in the Nation. The State of Maine is one of the States most dependent on foreign oil of any State in the Nation. Our Nation must work together on comprehensive long-term actions that will stabilize gas and oil prices, help to prevent energy shortages, avoid those spikes when we are held hostage to foreign oil, and achieve national energy independence. This effort will require a stronger commitment to renewable energy sources such as wind energy, as well as energy efficiency and conservation.

The development and implementation of these new approaches to environmental stewardship and energy independence will also provide a powerful stimulus to our economy and the creation of green jobs. Like my colleague, I want the United States to lead the way on green technology, not lose our edge to China, for example.

In addition to advancing these goals, the CLEAR Act is the fairest climate change approach from the perspective of consumers. It would rebate 75 percent of the proceeds generated by the cap on carbon emissions directly to citizens. That is a tremendous advantage of this bill over alternative approaches such as the cap-and-trade bill.

I also share the concerns of my colleague from Washington State about the abuses we have seen in energy and agricultural markets, when speculators are allowed to participate in the market. That is why in our bill, which imposes an upstream cap on carbon, only the producers are allowed to participate in the trading. That is a far better approach that will guard against market manipulation and excessive speculation.

In the United States alone, emissions of the primary greenhouse gas carbon dioxide have risen more than 20 percent since 1990. Clearly climate change is a daunting environmental challenge, but we must develop solutions that do not impose a heavy burden on our economy, particularly during these difficult economic times. That is why I am pleased to join as the lead cosponsor of the CLEAR Act. Climate change legislation must protect consumers and industries that could be hit with higher energy prices. We must recognize that many of our citizens are struggling to afford their monthly energy bills now and cannot afford dramatically higher prices. We also must produce legislation that would provide predictability in the price of carbon emissions so that businesses can plan, invest, and create good jobs. Climate change legislation should encourage the adoption of energy efficiency measures and the further development of renewable energy.

I am very excited about the possibilities for the State of Maine because of its immense potential to develop offshore wind energy. Estimates are that the development of 5 gigawatts of offshore wind in Maine would be enough to power more than 1 million homes for a year. It could attract $20 billion of investment to the State of Maine and create more than 15,000 green energy jobs, jobs that are desperately needed in our State. The CLEAR Act would help to achieve all of those goals.

I could not support the bill that was passed to deal with climate change by the House of Representatives. Let me read a couple of the descriptions of that bill. The New York Times described it as ``fat with compromises, carve-outs, concessions, and out-and-out gifts.'' The Washington Post in an editorial described it as having pollution credits and revenue that were ``divvied up to the advantage of politically favored polluters.''

I do not believe this bill, which is a 2,000-page monstrosity, can garner the necessary 60 votes to proceed in the Senate. The CLEAR Act, by contrast, would help to move a stalled debate forward by offering a fairer, a more efficient, and a straightforward approach.

You have only to look at our bill. It is 39 pages long compared to 2,000 pages of the House-passed bill.

My full statement goes into detail on how the bill would work. I hope my colleagues will look closely at it. But let me talk about one part. That is in the CLEAR Act, 75 percent of the carbon auction revenues would be returned to consumers as tax free rebates. They wouldn't be lost to speculation or to $\1/2\ billion of fees every year to investment firms on Wall Street. No, 75 percent of those revenues would be returned on a per capita basis to consumers. That means that 80 percent of Americans would incur no net new cost under the CLEAR Act. The average Mainer would stand to actually gain $102 per year from the CLEAR Act. I can tell you, Mainers would welcome that. It would help them winterize their homes, meet their energy bills, invest in energy conservation and efficiency, or have a little more money to get by.

By contrast, under the House-passed cap-and-trade bill, the average citizen in this country would experience a net cost increase of $175 per year. That is a big difference and a big advantage of the Cantwell- Collins approach.

What about the other 25 percent of the auction revenues? What we would propose is that those would go to a trust fund to fund energy efficiency programs and renewable energy research and development, to provide incentives for forestry and agriculture practices that sequester carbon, to encourage practices that reduce other greenhouse gases, to help energy-efficient, energy-intensive manufacturers, and to assist low-income consumers. That fund would be called the Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust, the CERT fund. It would be subject to the annual appropriations process so that Congress could adapt assistance for climate-related activities on an annual basis rather than being locked into a complicated allocation scheme that may well favor special interests.

I am excited about this bill. It offers us a way forward to a green economy. It will help create jobs. It will alleviate the burden on consumers, particularly in New England, where the Presiding Officer and I live, as well as the Northwest. It makes sense. It is a commonsense approach. I hope my colleagues will consider joining the Senator from Washington and me on this important legislation.

Again, I commend Senator Cantwell's leadership. She has done a great deal of work to come up with this approach, and I am excited to be joining her in this effort.

To reiterate, today I am pleased to join my colleague from Washington, Senator Cantwell, in introducing landmark legislation, the Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal, or CLEAR, Act.

This bill addresses the most significant energy and environmental challenges facing our country. It would help reduce our dependence on foreign oil, promote alternative energy and energy conservation, and advance the goal of energy independence for our Nation.

The costs of gas and oil impose a great burden on many Americans, particularly those living in large, rural States like Maine. High gasoline prices have a disproportionate impact on Mainers who often have to travel long distances to their jobs, doctors' offices, and grocery stores, which lessens the amount of money they have available to spend on other necessities. Also, 80 percent of Mainers heat their homes with home heating oil, one of the highest percentages in the Nation. Our Nation must work together on comprehensive, long-term actions that will stabilize gas and oil prices, help to prevent energy shortages, and achieve national energy independence. This effort will require a stronger commitment to renewable energy sources, such as wind energy, and energy efficiency and conservation.

The development and implementation of these new approaches to environmental stewardship and energy independence will also provide a powerful stimulus for our economy and the creation of ``green'' jobs.

In addition to advancing the goal of energy independence and creating green jobs, the CLEAR Act is the fairest climate change approach for consumers. It would rebate 75 percent of the proceeds generated by the cap on carbon directly to citizens.

According to recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, increases in greenhouse gas emissions have already increased global temperatures, and likely contributed to more extreme weather events such as droughts and floods. These emissions will continue to change the climate, causing warming in most regions of the world, and likely causing more droughts, floods, and many other problems.

In the United States alone, emissions of the primary greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, have risen more than 20 percent since 1990. Climate change is the most daunting environmental challenge we face, and we must develop reasonable solutions to reduce our carbon emissions.

I have personally observed the dramatic effects of climate change and had the opportunity to be briefed by the preeminent experts, including University of Maine professor and National Academy of Sciences member George Denton. In 2006, on a trip to Antarctica and New Zealand, for example, I saw sites in New Zealand that had been buried by massive glaciers at the beginning of the 20th century, but are now ice free. Fifty percent of the glaciers in New Zealand have melted since 1860--an event unprecedented in the last 5,000 years. It was remarkable to stand in a place where some 140 years ago, I would have been covered in tens or hundreds of feet of ice, and then to look far up the mountainside and see how distant the edge of the ice is today.

The melting is even more dramatic in the Northern Hemisphere. In the last 30 years, the Arctic has lost sea ice cover over an area ten times as large as the State of Maine, and at this rate will be ice free by 2050. In 2005 in Barrow, AK, I witnessed a melting permafrost that is causing telephone poles, planted years ago, to lean over for the first time ever.

I also learned about the potential impact of sea level rise during my trips to these regions. If the west Antarctica ice sheet were to collapse, for example, sea level would rise 15 feet, flooding many coastal cities. In its 2007 report, the IPCC found that even with just gradual melting of ice sheets, the average predicted sea level rise by 2100 will be 1.6 feet, but could be as high as 1 meter, or almost 3 feet. In Maine a 1 meter rise in sea level would cause the loss of 20,000 acres of land, include 100 acres of downtown Portland, including Commercial Street. Already in the past 94 years, a 7-inch rise in sea level has been documented in Portland.

The solutions to these problems must not impose a heavy burden on our economy, particularly during these difficult economic times. That is why I am pleased to be the lead cosponsor of the CLEAR Act.

While we must take meaningful action to respond to climate change, it must be a balanced approach. Climate change legislation must protect consumers and industries that could be hit with higher energy prices. We must recognize that many of our citizens are struggling just to pay their monthly energy bills and cannot afford dramatically higher prices. Such legislation also must provide predictability so that businesses can plan, invest, and create jobs.

Climate change legislation should encourage adoption of energy efficiency measures and the further development of renewable energy, which could spur our economy and job creation. For example, Maine has immense potential to develop offshore wind energy. Estimates are that development of 5 gigawatts of offshore wind in Maine--

enough to power more than 1 million homes for a year--could attract $20 billion of investment to the State and create more than 15,000 green energy jobs that would be sustained over 30 years.

The CLEAR Act achieves all of these goals, whereas the bill passed by the House of Representatives earlier this year has been characterized by the Boston Globe as ``providing cushions for industry;'' ``fat with compromises, carve-outs, concessions and out-and-out gifts,'' a New York Times article by John Broder, June 30, 2009; and having pollution credits and revenue that were ``divvied up to the advantage of politically favored polluters,'' from the Washington Post editorial, June 26, 2009. This House bill could not garner the necessary 60 votes in the Senate. The CLEAR Act will help to move a stalled debate forward by offering a more efficient, straightforward approach.

Let me discuss how our bill would work. The CLEAR Act places an upstream cap on carbon entering the economy. The upstream cap on carbon would capture 96 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions, 93 percent of total annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by weight, and 82 percent of total annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by global warming potential.

The initial annual carbon budget under the cap would be set based on the amount of fossil carbon likely to be consumed by the U.S. economy in 2012, the year in which the CLEAR Act regulations would begin, based on projections by the Energy Information Administration. For the first 2 years, the cap would stay at the 2012 level to give companies time to adapt to the system. Starting in 2015, the carbon budget would be reduced annually along a schedule designed to achieve nearly an 80 percent reduction in 2005 level emissions by 2050.

The cap will recognize voluntary regional efforts like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI. RGGI is a cooperative effort by 10 northeast and mid-Atlantic States to limit greenhouse gas emissions. These 10 States have capped CO2 emissions from the power sector and will require a 10-percent reduction in these emissions by 2018.

Coal companies, oil and gas producers, and oil and gas importers would have to buy permits or ``allowances'' for the carbon in their products. They would buy the permits in a monthly auction in which those companies would be the only ones allowed to participate. One hundred percent of the allowances would be auctioned; no free allowances are provided to special interests. Thus, the CLEAR Act does not provide special favors like the House bill.

Unlike the House bill, in the CLEAR Act, only the companies directly regulated by the legislation would participate in the auction. This avoids the huge potential for market manipulation and speculation to drive up carbon prices that exists in the House bill. Financial experts estimate that under the House bill, carbon permit trading could create a $3 trillion commodity market by 2020. Do we really want to have energy consumers subsidizing Wall Street traders?

In the CLEAR Act, 75 percent of the carbon auction revenues would be returned to consumers as tax-free rebates. Nationwide, this means 80 percent of Americans would incur no net costs under the CLEAR Act. The average Mainer would stand to gain $102 per year from the CLEAR Act. By contrast, under the House-passed cap and trade bill, the average citizen would experience a net cost increase of $175 per year.

The other 25 percent of the auction revenues generated under CLEAR would go into a trust fund to fund energy efficiency programs and renewable energy research and development, to provide incentives for forestry and agriculture practices that sequester carbon, to encourage practices that reduce other greenhouse gases, to help energy-intensive manufacturers, and to assist low-income consumers. The fund, called the Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust, CERT Fund, would be subject to the annual appropriations process. This would allow Congress to adapt assistance for climate-related activities on an annual basis, rather than being locked into a complicated allocation scheme that favors special interests.

I applaud the leadership of my colleague from Washington for developing this straightforward, effective and fair climate bill. I urge all my colleagues to consider joining us on this important legislation.

Madam President, I thank the manager of the bill.

I rise in support of the motion offered by my colleague from Nebraska to commit this bill in order to strike the more than $42 billion in cuts in the Medicare home health benefit.

Madam President, you, too, come from a pretty rural State, so I know you understand just how important home health care is to the seniors in our States. Home health care has become an increasingly important part of our health care system. The highly skilled services and compassionate care that our Nation's home health agencies provide have helped to keep families together. They have enabled millions of our most frail and vulnerable senior citizens to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and, instead, to receive care just where they want to be, in the privacy, comfort, and security of their own homes.

Moreover, by helping these individuals to avoid more costly institutional care, home health saves Medicare millions of dollars each year. That is why I find it so frustrating and so ironic that once again the Medicare home health benefit is under attack.

The bill before us would cut payments to home health providers by more than $42 billion over the next 10 years. Moreover, these cuts are a double whammy because they come in addition to $7.5 billion worth of cuts that have been imposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services through regulation.

These cuts are particularly unfair and disproportionate for a program that costs Medicare less than $16 billion a year. That is simply not right, and it is certainly not in the interests of our Nation's seniors who rely on home health care in order to keep out of more expensive hospitals, nursing homes, and other institutions.

The Medicare home health benefit has already taken a larger hit in spending over the past 10 years than any other Medicare benefit. In fact, home health as a share of Medicare spending has dropped from 8.7 percent in 1997 to only 3.6 percent today.

There was an excellent article in today's New York Times talking about the disproportionate impact this bill would have on home health care. As the reporter points out, under this legislation, home care would absorb a disproportionate share of the cuts. It currently accounts for 3.7 percent of the Medicare budget but would be required to absorb 10.2 percent of the savings from Medicare under the House bill and 9.4 percent of savings under the Senate bill. That does not make sense.

Home health care has consistently proven to be a compassionate and cost-effective alternative to institutional care. In rural States where home health providers have to travel long distances to deliver care, the impact of these cuts will ultimately fall on our seniors because home health agencies simply will not be able to afford to serve seniors who are living in smaller communities off rural roads in isolated parts of our States.

These deep cuts are completely counterproductive to our efforts to control overall health care costs. They also place the quality of home health services at risk, particularly given ever-rising staffing, transportation, and technology cuts.

As our Nation faces the continuing challenges of caring for an aging population, now is not the time to be making such deep cuts in the Medicare home health benefit. I urge support for the motion to commit introduced by my friend and colleague from Nebraska.

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, home health care is the compassionate, cost-effective alternative to institutional care. It allows our seniors to receive care just where they want to be--in their own homes. Under this bill, home health care would take a disproportionate cut.

Let me quote a home health care director in my State who sums up what the approach will be, what will happen if this motion is agreed to. She says:

Our staff is scared, but it is our patients who will pay

the price if Congress makes cuts in home care.

I urge support for the motion to commit offered by the Senator from Nebraska.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the health care bill that the Senate will begin voting on tomorrow evening. Let me begin by making clear that I believe our health care system needs fundamental reform.

One of my top priorities as a Senator has been to work to expand access to affordable health care. The fact is, however, that the greatest barrier to health care coverage today is the exploding cost. Monthly health insurance premiums in Maine have risen at an alarming rate. They now often exceed a family's mortgage payment. Whether I am talking to a self-employed fisherman, a displaced mill worker, the owner of a struggling small business, or the human resource manager of a large company, the soaring cost of health insurance is a vital concern.

Much of the health care reform debate so far in this Congress has centered around the need to expand coverage to the uninsured, a goal I embrace. The fact is, however, it will be difficult to achieve our goal of universal coverage until we find a way to control health care costs that have driven up the cost of insurance coverage for families, employers, and governments alike.

While I agree that our health care system is broken and in need of major reform, the bill we are about to consider falls far short when it comes to reining in health care costs. This is a critical issue because the high cost of health care is the biggest barrier for those who lack insurance. The high cost of health care is what is driving up the cost of insurance premiums, causing many middle-income families and small businesses to struggle to meet these rising costs.

I am concerned that this bill takes us in the wrong direction and that it will actually drive up costs and reduce choices for many middle-income Americans and small businesses.

Health care reform should give Americans more, not fewer, choices of affordable health insurance options. Under this bill, many Americans will be required to purchase health insurance that is more expensive, not less expensive, than the coverage they currently have.

Under the majority leader's bill, all individual and small group policies sold in our country must fit into one of four categories: bronze, silver, gold, or platinum, and they must have an actuarial value of at least 60 percent. Post reform--if this bill becomes law--it will be illegal to issue new policies in the individual or small group markets that do not meet those standards.

Moreover, unless they are grandfathered, most Americans who are not enrolled in at least a bronze plan will face a new $750 fine.

Let's look at what this means. In my home State of Maine, 87.5 percent of those purchasing coverage in the individual market today have policies with an actuarial value of less than 60 percent. In other words, they have policies that do not qualify under the standards that would be established by this bill.

The most popular individual market policy sold in Maine costs a 40- year-old about $185 a month. Under Senator Reid's bill, that 40-year- old would have to pay at least $420 a month, more than twice as much, for a policy that would meet the new minimum standard, or pay the $750 penalty.

I believe Americans should have the choice to purchase more affordable coverage if that is what works best for them. Health care reform should be about expanding affordable choices, not constricting them. It should not be about forcing millions of Americans to buy coverage that is richer than they want, need, or can afford. Yet under this bill, even an individual who does not qualify for any taxpayer assistance, for any subsidy, would have to buy a prescribed plan rather than, for example, a low-cost, high-deductible policy that, when combined with a health savings account, may best meet his needs.

Moreover, the very tight rating bands in this bill will increase costs for young people.

Why does that matter, when we are trying to expand coverage for those who are uninsured? For this reason: More than 40 percent of uninsured Americans are between the ages of 18 and 34. Extreme price increases for the young and healthy will simply force them out of the market because most young people, I fear, will just do the math. They will decide to pay the new $750-a-year fine, rather than paying $5,000 a year or more for health insurance. This is particularly true because under the bill, if they do get sick later, they can still buy insurance with no penalty, no increased cost. That is why the National Association of Insurance Commissioners--keep in mind, this is the association of State officials which regulates insurance; these are public officials--according to the NAIC, these provisions will lead to severe adverse selection that will drive up the cost of premiums for everyone else who is in the insurance pool.

Proponents of this legislation contend that the subsidies included in the bill for low- and moderate-income Americans will compensate for any premium increases. Let's take a look at that. First of all, it is important to know that the subsidies do not go into effect until the year 2014 yet a lot of the taxes which I am going to discuss later, which are also going to drive up the cost of premiums, go into effect next year. So that is a problem as well.

Moreover, these subsidies are going to be available, it is estimated, to fewer than 8 percent of Americans.

Moreover, if you receive your health insurance from your employer, as the vast majority of Americans now do, you are not eligible for a subsidy under this plan. But your premiums are still going to go up because of the increased taxes and fees imposed by the bill.

When Americans understandably are so upset about the high cost of health care, and when health insurance premiums are going up by double digits, making it so difficult for most Americans to afford health insurance, the last thing we should be doing is to make the situation worse. I can't help but think of the Hippocratic Oath, ``do no harm.'' Should not that be our first rule?

Americans who are already shouldering the burden of too high health care costs would hardly consider a bill to be ``reform'' if it drives those costs up further. Yet I fear that is exactly what will happen if this bill becomes law as written.

In light of this, I think it is a legitimate question to ask whether this bill may actually increase the number of uninsured Americans by driving up the cost of health insurance for years before the subsidies go into effect?

Let me take a further look at some of the increased taxes that are in this bill. Americans will face at least a dozen new or increased taxes and fees amounting to $73 billion before the subsidies go into effect in 2014. What kind of new taxes are we talking about? This chart shows just some of the taxes that will hit Americans when the bill goes into effect--and there are many more. Here are a few.

There is a tax on pharmaceutical manufacturers, a tax on health insurance providers, a tax on medical devices. Think of what we are talking about taxing here: We are talking about insulin pumps, artificial hips and knees, stents put into hearts--all sorts of medical devices. If a new fee is put on these devices, that is going to be passed on to consumers and reflected in insurance premiums.

All in all, as I mentioned, these taxes will cost $73 billion before 2014. These taxes will be paid right away by Americans in the form of higher health insurance premiums. That is not just my opinion, that is the view of the Congressional Budget Office, which evaluated the impact of several of these taxes. For example, here is what the CBO said about the $6.7 billion increased tax on insurers:

We expect a very large portion of the proposed insurance

industry fee to be borne by purchasers of insurance in the

form of higher premiums.

The problem is, the way these taxes are structured, they are going to be passed on to consumers, and it is not only the taxes on insurers that will be passed on. Here is what the CBO Director said about new fees on the pharmaceutical industry and also on medical devices. The CBO said:

Those fees would increase costs for the affected firms,

which would be passed on to purchasers and would ultimately

raise insurance premiums by a corresponding amount.

The Joint Committee on Taxation looked at the tax on the so-called Cadillac plans, the 40-percent excise tax. Here is what it said:

As insurers pass along the cost to consumers by increasing

the price, the cost of employer-provided insurance will

increase.

I do not believe that the American people have sent us to Washington to raise their taxes and call it health reform--especially now, in the midst of a recession, with unemployment above 10 percent.

This leads me to another point. I am so concerned about the impact of this bill on our small businesses. They are the job creators in our economy, and the rising cost of health care has been particularly burdensome for them. A small business owner in Maine recently e-mailed me to say the following:

I just received our renewal proposals for our small

business. The plans are all up anywhere from 12 to 32 percent

on the three plans that we offer. . . . You are right when

you say we need to address the cost of health insurance, not

create another vehicle to deliver the services. The current

legislation, as I understand it, totally misses the mark.

How does this bill help small business? On balance, it doesn't. That, again, is not just my opinion; that is the opinion of our Nation's largest small business group, the NFIB. In a statement on the bill released yesterday, the NFIB said:

This kind of reform is not what we need. New taxes . . .

new mandates . . . new entitlement programs . . . paid for on

the backs of small business.

In fact, NFIB described the bill as ``a disaster.''

I ask unanimous consent a copy of the NFIB statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, there are some provisions in the bill that are intended to try to help small business but again they miss the mark. I support and have long proposed the idea of tax credits for small businesses to help them afford to provide health insurance for their employees. But the credits for small businesses in this bill are poorly structured. Only businesses with no more than 10 workers, paid an average of $20,000, can get the full tax credit. So if a small business hires additional employees or pays more, its credit begins to decline and it is eventually phased out. Businesses with more than 25 workers, or paying average wages of above $40,000 get no tax credit whatsoever.

Take a look at this. I realize this chart is a bit busy, but stay with me. Under the Finance Committee bill, if you have 10 employees and you pay them on average $20,000, you get a 50-percent tax credit applied to the cost of the insurance. But if you give them a raise, the tax credit begins to decline. For example, if you have 10 employees and you pay them $25,000 on average, you only get a tax credit of 38 percent.

Let's say you are trying to improve their quality of living. They have done a great job for you, so you give all your employees a raise, bringing their average wage to $30,000. Now the tax credit is only half as much as when you paid them $20,000.

If you pay them $40,000 on average--zero. You lose the tax credit altogether.

What we have here is a tax credit that is structured in such a way that it discourages small businesses from adding employees and paying them better. That doesn't make any sense at all. That makes no sense at all.

This legislation would have enormous consequences for our economy and for our society. We have to remember that this bill would affect every single American, every small and large employer, every health care provider. It affects 17 percent of our economy.

There are many reforms, such as allowing small businesses to pool together to have better bargaining clout, that I support and that have strong bipartisan support, that could have been the basis for further debate and amendments. So it disappoints me greatly that we are about to proceed to a divisive, partisan bill. I continue to believe that the American people would be better served by a bipartisan bill that brings together the best ideas on both sides of the aisle, and I pledge to continue to work with Members on both sides of the aisle to develop alternatives that will bring about true health care reform.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Conrad to introduce legislation to ensure that our seniors and disabled citizens have timely access to home health services under the Medicare program.

Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified nurse midwives and clinical nurse specialists are all playing increasingly important roles in the delivery of health care services, particularly in rural and medically underserved areas of our country where physicians may be in scarce supply. In recognition of their growing role, Congress, in 1997, authorized Medicare to begin paying for physician services provided by these health professionals as long as those services are within their scope of practice under state law.

Despite their expanded role, these advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants are currently unable to order home health services for their Medicare patients. Under current law, only physicians are allowed to certify or initiate home health care for Medicare patients, even though they may not be as familiar with the patient's case as the non-physician provider. In fact, in many cases, the certifying physician may not even have a relationship with the patient and must rely upon the input of the nurse practitioner, physician assistant, clinical nurse specialist or certified nurse midwife to order the medically necessary home health care. At best, this requirement adds more paperwork and a number of unnecessary steps to the process before home health care can be provided. At worst, it can lead to needless delays in getting Medicare patients the home health care they need simply because a physician is not readily available to sign the form.

The inability of advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants to order home health care is particularly burdensome for Medicare beneficiaries in medically underserved areas, where these providers may be the only health care professionals available. For example, needed home health care was delayed by more than a week for a Medicare patient in Nevada because the physician assistant was the only health care professional serving the patient's small town, and the supervising physician was located 60 miles away.

A nurse practitioner told me about another case in which her collaborating physician had just lost her father and was not available. As a consequence, the patient experienced a two-day delay in getting needed care while they waited to get the paperwork signed by another physician. Another nurse practitioner pointed out that it is ridiculous that she can order physical and occupational therapy in a subacute facility but cannot order home health care. One of her patients had to wait 11 days after being discharged before his physical and occupational therapy could continue simply because the home health agency had difficulty finding a physician to certify the continuation of the same therapy that the nurse practitioner had been able to authorize when the patient was in the facility.

The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act will help to ensure that our Medicare beneficiaries get the home health care that they need when they need it by allowing physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists and certified nurse midwives to order home health services. Our legislation is supported by the National Association for Home Care and Hospice, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, the American College of Nurse Practitioners, the American College of Nurse Midwives, the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, and the Visiting Nurse Associations of America. I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors of this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Conrad to introduce legislation to ensure that our seniors and disabled citizens have timely access to home health services under the Medicare program.

Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified nurse midwives and clinical nurse specialists are all playing increasingly important roles in the delivery of health care services, particularly in rural and medically underserved areas of our country where physicians may be in scarce supply. In recognition of their growing role, Congress, in 1997, authorized Medicare to begin paying for physician services provided by these health professionals as long as those services are within their scope of practice under state law.

Despite their expanded role, these advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants are currently unable to order home health services for their Medicare patients. Under current law, only physicians are allowed to certify or initiate home health care for Medicare patients, even though they may not be as familiar with the patient's case as the non-physician provider. In fact, in many cases, the certifying physician may not even have a relationship with the patient and must rely upon the input of the nurse practitioner, physician assistant, clinical nurse specialist or certified nurse midwife to order the medically necessary home health care. At best, this requirement adds more paperwork and a number of unnecessary steps to the process before home health care can be provided. At worst, it can lead to needless delays in getting Medicare patients the home health care they need simply because a physician is not readily available to sign the form.

The inability of advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants to order home health care is particularly burdensome for Medicare beneficiaries in medically underserved areas, where these providers may be the only health care professionals available. For example, needed home health care was delayed by more than a week for a Medicare patient in Nevada because the physician assistant was the only health care professional serving the patient's small town, and the supervising physician was located 60 miles away.

A nurse practitioner told me about another case in which her collaborating physician had just lost her father and was not available. As a consequence, the patient experienced a two-day delay in getting needed care while they waited to get the paperwork signed by another physician. Another nurse practitioner pointed out that it is ridiculous that she can order physical and occupational therapy in a subacute facility but cannot order home health care. One of her patients had to wait 11 days after being discharged before his physical and occupational therapy could continue simply because the home health agency had difficulty finding a physician to certify the continuation of the same therapy that the nurse practitioner had been able to authorize when the patient was in the facility.

The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act will help to ensure that our Medicare beneficiaries get the home health care that they need when they need it by allowing physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists and certified nurse midwives to order home health services. Our legislation is supported by the National Association for Home Care and Hospice, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, the American College of Nurse Practitioners, the American College of Nurse Midwives, the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, and the Visiting Nurse Associations of America. I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors of this important legislation.