right. we have been able to leverage with the funding that you gave us so far, $7 billion into the hands of small businesses. through the recovery act fund and that is going to continue, 750 banks that had stopped lending, they were frozen, they were not in our books from october to the start of the recovery act, are back lending. these are very often community banks and other banks and they are back, some of them haven't been in sba lending since 2007. we are very glad about that. we will be working very hard to leverage those programs into these places where the lending is frozen. in addition, as you know, the president is committed to small-business, there are number of additional programs, many discussions going on about how to address this. is a critical issue to resolve for the nation's economy. .. it is important that sba

implement a section 503 and 509 that will help unlock the secondary markets so that those banks will have to liquidity to start lending again. and do you have like a timeline of when those programs will be up and run something? >> if the secondary market is not functioning then banks don't lend because they have no place

to sell their loan and get the liquidity. we have the two programs up there on the timeline. the two ones you mentioned are still in the light green. i will say the secondary market has recovered. it is back to pre-october volumes and we can give you that date and information. we track it. it happens at a monthly clearing basis so we're back at 340 million. we've been back there and there's 15 billion of t.a.r.p. money that stands ready to purchase in the secondary market if that gets stuck again. but we have committed to execute those programs and we will execute them. >> let me just --. >> when? >> three weeks, two weeks, august. >> three weeks? >> right where they are. >> let me just say, my thought if we can give as a country in this environment 200 billion --

whatever the number plus all these contingencies to aig, big -- general motors, $50 billion, why don't we take $100 billion or take something significant because that's what it's going to take to help these small businesses. i'm just telling you -- and i'd love to have you come down to our area, take anywhere in florida, you can tell you a lot of these businesses are rolling out of business and they've created a lot of the jobs -- i mean, most in our area, in one chamber we had 2600 businesses. most of them are 20 and 30 employees or less. a lot of them are folding up. they are getting their lines of credit pulled. you know, they'd like to work with sba but sometimes it takes too long. but we got to find a way to where they empower and maybe that sunsets over time and we need real money and results but right now we lost 3 million job. this isn't one administration or another in my mind. the reality is we lost 3 million jobs. these are a lot of working families. we've got to get more money out there and good loans that make sense right now. i'll just close with that.

>> your time has expired. >> at that time madam chair and secretary mills. good to see you again. i'd like to make an observation first and then i'll have a question. first, we talked at the luncheon a few months ago. and one of the things i've been on this committee three years and i noticed every time we'd have a new person come in, we'd ask them these questions and they'd say, we're looking into that. we're working on that. we're going to do a study on that. and three, four, five months later we come back and sometimes there was a new person who said i just got on the job and we're looking into that. we're going to study that. i wasn't there then. i wish you a long tenure and i also say in four or five months, i hope you can show us the progress that we've made in there. my question would be, now that you're new at the job, what are a couple of things you walked in the door and you start peeling stuff apart and have really shocked you and said we've got

to do this right away either in the fraud mitigation -- i think you mentioned that in your testimony, some of the waste and fraud mitigation efforts you've made. and i'd like to ask mr. shear the same thing, she's done, if you had her job, what would you say this is something we have to start right now, get done, that you would implement on day one from your observation of being in the agency? so ms. mills if you'll come first and then mr. shear. >> absolutely. i'm looking back just to make sure i'm reading the same words to you in my opening statement because i'm on record with the following which is that many of the problems that have been built up over years and that they're not going to be solved in a matter of days or weeks, but they will indeed be solved. we have a top management, risk-based approach to addressing these issues. they are all on our radar.

we track every single gao report and i.g. recommendation. we work our way through them. we either agree with them and execute them or we have further discussion as to, you know, how we should move forward with them. because we cannot run an agency that is so critical to the economy going forward with our $90 billion loan portfolio. with being responsible for 23% of government contracts going to small business. being responsible for disasters, which could be catastrophic, we can't -- we can't execute unless we execute without -- you know, at the highest levels of effectiveness and transparency. so that's the commitment. we are working on that. i would have to say that these -- what i have found actually on the flip side is that we have -- we have great people. we have a great team. and we have great bone structure, and the secret that i have found is that our bone

structure is our people and also our partners. we have over 4,000 lending partners. we have over 14,000 counselors in our our scores and women business centers. we have a network throughout this whole country where we touch businesses -- we are within -- one person told me an hour to 40 minutes of most businesses for the counselor so we have an important and critical role to play. we are breaking down silos and that also helps with this waste, fraud and abuse because it can't live in this open, transparent environment and we are working together to bring that entire network to small businesses in order to bring the economy out of the recession and give it strength and make it competitive going forward. >> mr. shear, if you were in charge, what's the number one thing you'd tackle and maybe on the same line. >> i'll make one flippant remark that we're not supposed to make

management decisions so let me make some observations. as an accountability organization, when we see -- what i'll call a complete lack of internal control in fraud prevention, in a program like the hubzone program, some people might say well, the hubzone program isn't that important because whenever we look at anything in government dealing with hubzone or contracting programs, that's something that is always going to be as an audit agency something that we think is very important to address and address aggressively for these programs to work. with respect to the capital access programs, this i will make a statement just because it's such a big part of what sba

does and even there's a more important part even though we have the credit crisis that faces us. over the years, among the things that we have recommended is that in running its programs where sba is delegating authority to lenders and they are so compliance oriented which is good but how do those lenders using the authority we're granting them? are they meeting the intent of the program? so as we go forward, for example, now in looking at the recovery act we just say can sba step back in the way they manage their capital access programs so you can help figure out how to implement different provisions that are to meet an intent in the credit markets where you're relying on private lenders to carry out certain authorities so

that would be the second area. the third area i'd point out -- okay. the third part that i would point out as an audit agency we don't make recommendations to either increase or decrease any agency's budget. i mean, we're not in that business. it's a congressional prerogative. but with sba over the last few years at a minimum, we always are asking the question in the development programs like women's business centers in running various programs including the contracting programs, including ada, do you have the resources in place so what we tend to look for is some type of strategic planning, what do you need to get the job done? so those are the three areas i'd point out. >> mr. shear and to have all those things in place, the

agency will need resources because when mr. graves asked a question addressing a question to you about how does this agency compare to other agencies, we have to answer the way you answer it, but also taking into account that this is the agency where for the last six, seven years the budget was cut by another 40%. that's another factor that we need to -- element that we need to factor in. >> thank you, madam chair. miss mills, the committee has heard that you and your staff have been improving contracts requested by the office of inspector general. and we're concerned that this could interfere with an ongoing investigation of inspector general in violation of the inspector general statute. are you approving contracts requested by the inspector general? and if you are how are you ensuring that there's no interference of the ongoing investigation of the inspector general's office?

>> the question is are we approving contracts? and maybe you could clarify what sort of contracts. >> we're dealing with the inspector general. can you explain your relationship and maybe we can go from there. >> yes, the inspector general is an inspect actor in the agency. they are funded independently. they are they are very active and work separately from us but we hope in partnership and we provide information as requested. >> do you work together in any sort of contractual obligations? >> not to my understanding but i'm happy to get back to you with an answer on that for the record. >> okay, that's fine. a while ago you mentioned you were looking at programs at a risk based approach and how would you determine a risk-based approach.

>> there's two times i think i mentioned that. one over all we have a senior risk team that looks at a number of things because although we have small risk teams that go program by program, we are now looking more on a comprehensive basis on a senior level about how much risk are we talking on. in various aspects of what we do. and consciously, for instance, in the program there may be a mandate or we may decide that a program should be a higher risk program. we should do that consciously. >> i assume when you talk about risk, you're talking about how you discern -- how you evaluate a loan application and whether you're willing to look at, say, somebody who's less financially able or less financially stable; is that where you're going with this? >> so, for instance, the arc loan program that is part of the recovery act is a much riskier program than the sba usually does in its profile.

and we expect very high default rates from that program. but it's a very important program for this particular time. it is for viable businesses who are experiencing some difficulty, but it's a bridge over troubled water for them. so we are making a conscious assessment that's a program -- you know, where we're executing as part of the recovery act, but it's also a program that is not within our normal risk profile so that's one of the risk assessments. >> at what point do you pull back on a program if you feel it's becoming too risky. >> well, we set the parameters in the beginning. >> what are the parameters? >> what the default rates will be. >> what's the default rate specifications. >> it's part with omb. it's high. it's over 60% for the arc loan and that is well beyond in what we have for any of our other programs. so our expectation is, you know, that's what we'll get.

>> okay. just one final comment here. mr. shear also made a comment and i had a question i was wanting to ask -- a couple of weeks ago we had a group in here where we talked about the amount of paperwork that's involved in the 7a program and mr. shear made the same comment a minute ago that it was so cumbersome that many of the people were refusing to participate because of that. have you looked at that in trying to do the paperwork? my family is in the banking business as well. i used to do this. it's horrible. absolutely horrible. and to go through this process -- and a minute ago you made a comment on your disaster relief program went into 14 days to 18 days. i just wish that it was 14 days on a sba bank loan. >> i believe it's five to seven

business days. but that's because since the -- we have done process reengineering. that's a continuous task. i'm a big advocate of process reengineering. and we need to make these programs effective and efficient for the borrower while maintaining the oversight and getting the information and calculating the information we need so that we have good loans. but we are -- we have significantly reduced the turn-around time and made the process much more friendly for the bank and the borrower. >> it didn't sound like a commitment to me. are you going to make a commitment and look at the 7a program and fine-tune that? >> yes, i am. >> thank you very much. i yield back. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you, madam chair. on july 1st i hosted a forum in my district for small business owners to discuss access to capital. i've heard from many of my constituents and i can tell you that there's a great deal of demand for these arc loans.

but last week the finance and tax hearing held a hearing for access to capital and there are few banks making arc loans. i know in the kansas city area and i'm on the kansas side but the whole kansas city metropolitan area, less than a dozen of these loans have been made. one witness last week made the important thing that there's no incentive for banks to make arc loans and secondary market and paperwork or reg for these loans which offer businesses far more than just $35,000. what, if anything, can sba do to make these loans more attractive to lenders to get the process moving. >> we're lending in 47 states. we are on track -- we're going to have a limited number of arc loans available. there will be approximately 10,000 before the funding runs out.

and it is likely that demand will greatly exceed supply. we trained 1300 lenders in the first week. and lenders have no risk. it's 100% guaranteed by the bank, and they do make a profit because -- although the borrower pays no interest, the sba funds the interest. >> i yield back, madam chair. >> thank you. thank you, madam chair. and thank you both for testifying today and sharing your expertise. administrator mills, i want to commend your leadership at the sba. we've seen a real rebound in the secondary market. we're seeing increased lending participation from new lenders, lending activity in terms of loans and amounts being lent.

it's so important to the small business community as we try to ease the credit crunch from limiting their access to capital. but you also talked about process reengineering. i know from our past conversations you're one very committed to improve. there's a real trust that needs to be built between the sba and those lenders and there's something in the history that undermine that. what comments would you share that you're doing to help rebuild those relationships where there are lenders who aren't participating but who could be participating, whether it be the arc loan, 7a or other sba programs. and i also do want to acknowledge -- i worked with some of your folks in chicago, senator durbin and i held a forum about not just the roll-out of the arc lending program but some of the other things going on to stimulate the secondary market. and was very well received and

your folks did a really good job. >> well, thank you very much. it's very important that we rebuild and that we build -- continue to build our relationships with our lenders. let me just tell you quickly two things. one is transparency. we are making sure that lenders know how they're rated in our lender oversight system. and that was something of concern to them. and we also are continuing our programs and our preferred lender programs and our delegated authority programs once we have experience with the lender we're able to do various things, let them use their own paperwork, let them make their own decisions and then we monitor them and we find that our best lenders end up in those programs and it is something that they then -- we have a very good transparent and trustful relationship between us. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i do have another question. madam chair and administrator

mills, we're concerned not only about the amount of time it takes to implement recommendations from the gao but we're also concerned about the amount of time it takes to implement things required by law. you know, we talked a lot about the arc program and we know for a fact that, you know, it was supposed to be implemented within 15 days of enactment, you know, which would have been march 2nd. it took until june 15th and we don't know because of a specific provision of the law or other diversions but my question to you is i'd like a commitment from you that the agency is going to implement programs that are required by law before implementing some of the pilot programs that you're working on like the floor plan financing initiative and some of the other things. we'd like to hear you say that you'll do those things that aren't required or that congress has passed before doing some of the other diversions. >> well, i very much am committed to those things that are required by law and these

recovery things were our top priority list. i do want to tell you that we did the arc loan -- the reason for the time of the arc loan is what i mentioned in my opening statement. that this was a risk profile that was very, very much higher than the standard risk profile that the agency takes on. and that's what took the time to create the risk mitigation that would allow us to go out and make these loans appropriately. but the second thing is the dealer floor plan. the chairwoman had mentioned to me the same issue and you mentioned to me that issue and we did sequence them because that was the right thing to do behind arc. >> ms. mills, we are concerned about the fact that there are certain provisions that the congress passed requiring sba to

issue regulations and to get those programs up and running. in answering your question to mr. graves you mentioned that those were high risk and so you needed to act cautiously. my question to you, floor financing is not risk? >> the floor financing risk profile is the same risk profile as the standard 7a risk profile. so that's -- that's how it was constructed. >> okay. i want to go with you over some of the provisions that we passed. and this happened -- you were not the administrator. i just want to make sure that you tell us your intention and commitment to get those provisions up and running. for example, in the energy independence and security act,

this includes the energy efficiency technology loan program and the renewable fuel capital investment company -- those provisions have not been implemented. in the military service and veterans small business reauthorization and opportunity act of 2008, this include section 105, increasing the number of veterans outreach centers have not been implemented. studying gaps in availability of outreach centers and section 208, the veterans loan program. it has not been implemented, and this initiative are in excess of two years. so can you tell this committee when the agency will have each of these provisions up and running? >> we are committing to executing those things that you give us to execute.

i would like to take the opportunity to come back to you on each of those specific ones and make a timetable so that you can know when to expect it. and if there are any issues, why, you know, we're not able to do it. we would say so at that time. but at this point, i think we need to commit to you to come back to you with what an implementation time and plan for each of those because they need to be done. >> yeah. if there is anything that the committee needs to do, then that should be part of the legislative package that the administration should be sending to us. the map of a hubzone eligibility is what the agency and firms use to determine if they can participate. when was the last time that your agency updated its hubzone map? >> the last time the map was updated last fall. it will be updated again this fall.

[inaudible] >> yes, miss mills, the sba's latest budget requests $9 million for operating the hubzone program. and i'm going back to the hubzone program because it's taken a lot of time to implement

some of the recommendations that the government accountability office included in its report. for operating the hubzone program, this work out to about 700 to 900 per participant in the program. while that seems significant, gao examined 52 firms in the program and found over half, 29, were ineligible. so what are taxpayers getting for the $9 million? and what you're going to do about it. >> well, as you know, $10.8 billion went to hubzone firms and that's about 11,000 firms. and the specifications are that you have to be a u.s. citizen. you have to be a small business. you have to have your principal office in the hubzone and you have to employ 35% of your workers inside this hubzone.

we are, as you know, in the process of executing some oversight improvements in order to make sure that those criteria are met up front in the certification and that those firms remain eligible. and that's where we're doing the site visits and that's where we plan to improve our processes. and we need to get that program to a place where we have a better outcome for mr. shear. >> administrator mills, i will request from you that you submit to the committee the following. specific time frames for when the sba will have implemented the following items. an updated written disaster plan that intergrates regional marketing information that distinguishes the agency respond to a hurricane in florida and an earthquake in california.

the bridge loan programs mandated by the act. the annual report to congress on disaster assistance and i would like to have those time frame and responses in our offices in two weeks. >> yes, we can do that. >> with that, the witnesses are dismissed and i take this opportunity to really thank you for joining us today. >> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] >> u.s. senate is coming in next

with an agenda including spending extensions for the highway unemployment and unemployment trust funds and increased authority for mortgage assistance programs all to sustain operations while congress is on august recess. it passed the house yesterday. majority leader harry reid said the senate would next proceed to the fiscal year 2010 agriculture spending bill. meanwhile, over in the house, they're working on the defense spending bill for fiscal year 2010. they gavel in at 10:00 am eastern. also at 10:00 coverage on the energy and commerce committee on the house side working on healthcare legislation. watch that markup online at c-span.org and c-span3. and now the u.s. senate on c-span2. the chaplain: let us pray. o lord of our pilgrim years, the day returns and brings us the round of its concerns and duties.

as our senators serve you and country, make them aware that their attitudes, words, and actions influence the structure of events and human relationships around our nation and world. help these representatives of freedom to master themselves, that they may be the servants of others. in these times of strain, keep them from magnifying the slights and stings that are a part of the legislative process. give them pure hearts and a

passion to serve the american people with integrity and honor. lord, today, we commit to you all that we have and are to realize your best for this nation and world. we pray in your strong name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, july 30, 2009. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten e. gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, there will be a period of morning business for an hour. senators will be permitted to speak for 10 minutes each. under agreement reached last night, we'll turn to consideration of h.r. 3357, the highway trust fund legislation, among other things. roll call votes are expected to occur throughout the day. the senate will recess from 2:00 to 3:00 p.m. to allow for the members-only briefing with secretary clinton and secretary gates, who have both just returned from overseas -- the secretary of state and the secretary of defense. i have not had an opportunity to speak with the republican leader today but will probably have the four votes after the briefing

that we have from the two secretaries. we'll stack them. we should be able to complete all the debate at that time. but the legislation has not yet arrived from the harks but i think i -- but the legislation s not yet arrived from the house, but i think it will be here in the next half-hour or so. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership sometime reserved. under the previous order, there will be a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: madam president, the american people are making their voices heard in the debate over health care, and one of the things they are demanding is that we do something to lower costs. this is why the proponents of a government takeover never failed to mention lowering costs as one of their primary goals. yet, more and more americans are beginning to ask themselves a very simple question: how can

more government lead to lower costs? they look at medicare, a government-run health care program that's nearly bankrupt, and they don't understand how an even bigger, more complicated government-run health care, health plan won't end up in the same condition. and they certainly don't understand why the administration would propose cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from medicare to help pay for this massive new government-run plan. yet, this is precisely what some are proposing, that we use medicare as a piggy bank to pay a significant portion of the administration's plan for health care reform. well, in my view, it's a terrible idea. and on the 44th anniversary of this vital program that roughly 40 million americans rely on each day, i think it's important to explain why.

here's how one of the proposed cuts would work. right now if a senior citizen on medicare needs surgery, his or her hospital stay will likely be covered by medicare. and because health care costs go up each year, medicare provides for annual increases that ensures that hospitals and other providers are able to keep pace with inflation. what the administration and some democrats in congress are now proposing is that we reduce or even eliminate this annual increase, thus, cutting the amount of money we spend on medicare, a drastic measure that would have serious impact on our hospitals and the communities and patients they serve. it would be one thing if these cuts were being proposed as a way of strengthening medicare. the simple fact is that medicare faces significant challenges that must be addressed. when medicare part-a, the program that pays for hospital stays was enacted 44 years ago

today -- and i've got a photograph here of president johnson with president truman and his wife on the day it was signed 44 years ago today -- it was project that had in 1990 this program would spend $9.1 billion on hospital services and related administration. that was a projection for 1990 expenditures. as it ourpbd out, spending in -- turned out spending in 1990 totaled $67 billion or more than seven times the original prediction. these exploding costs have taken a toll on the program's bottom line. today medicare is already spending more than it's taking in and is expected to be insolvent in just eight years. unfortunately, the administration plans to use medicare cuts in order to fund yet another government program.

now, america's seniors don't want politicians in washington tampering with medicare to pay for health care reform. they want us to fix it. i get letters almost every day from some of the nearly 700,000 kentuckians who have medicare. they're counting on it in the years ahead and they're worried about its future. in my view, we have a serious obligation to make sure it's there for them. unfortunately the administration's proposal takes the wrong approach. just yesterday the joint economic committee completed a study of the administration's proposed cuts to medicare. it found that if these cuts were used to restore medicare rather than to fund a government takeover of health care, the medicare trust fund's 75-year unfunded liability would be reduced by 15% or more than $2 trillion, and that it would delay the trust fund's bankruptcy by two years. in short, while any savings from

a reform to medicare would strengthen it for a longer period of time were they put back into the current program, this just highlights how important overall reform is to ensuring that medicare continues to serve our seniors. this is why i've argued for weeks that any savings from medicare should be put back into the program, and this is why i've repeatedly urged the administration and my colleagues in the senate to move forward on the bipartisan conrad-gregg proposal which would provide a clear pathway for fixing the problems in medicare and other important entitlement programs. conrad-gregg would force us to get debt and spending under control. it's the best way to reform medicare. it deserves the support of every single member of congress. doctors and hospitals across the country are worried about what these proposed cuts in medicare would mean for them and their

patients. earlier this year the kentucky hospital association warned that the kinds of cuts being considered in washington would seriously impact the services hospitals currently provide to seniors in my state. i'd encourage my colleagues to talk to seniors, doctors and medical professionals in their own states and see what they're saying. my guess is that it's a lot different than what some of the lobbyists and interest groups here in washington are saying. some in congress seem to be in such a rush, such a rush to pass any reform rather than the right reform that they're looking everywhere for money to pay for it, even if it means sticking it to seniors with cuts to medicare. if there was ever a program that needs to be put on a sounder financial footing, it's medicare. and yet, throughout the debate over health care, we don't seem to be focusing our attention on

this vital issue. instead, the same people who are unwilling to make the hard choices that are needed to fix medicare now want us to trust them to create a new government program that will inevitably suffer from these very same problems. it just simply doesn't add up, and americans are beginning to realize it. so on this anniversary of the signing of medicare, here's my message: using massive cuts to medicare as a way to pay for more government-run health care just isn't the kind of change americans are looking for. americans want savings from medicare to be used to strengthen medicare, not to create a system that would increase long-term health care costs, force americans off the insurance they have and like, and lead to a government takeover of health care that has the very same fiscal problems that medicare already has.

44 years ago today president johnson signed medicare into law, saying that our nation would never refuse the hand of justice to those who have given a lifetime of service and wisdom and labor to their nation. those of us in congress have a responsibility to fulfill that vow and the best way to do so is to work together on reforms that address the real problems in our health care system, problems like the ones we see with medicare. i've been encouraged as lawmakers on both sides, and even the president have acknowledged, that the reform proposals we've seen so far aren't where they need to be. strengthening medicare to make sure it meets the needs of seniors today and in the years to come would be a very good place to start. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee.

mr. alexander: thank you, madam president. madam president, i just -- i have a statement to make about the president's nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to be associate justice of the united states supreme court. even though judge sotomayor's political and judicial philosophy may be different than mine, especially regarding second-amendment rights, i will vote to confirm her because she is well-qualified by experience, temperament, character, and intellect, to serve as an associate justice of the united states supreme court. in 2005, i said on this floor that it was wrong for then-senator obama and half the democratic senators to vote against john roberts, a superbly qualified nominee, solely because they disagreed with what senator obama described as roberts' -- quote -- "overarching political philosophy" and his -- quote --

"work in the white house and the solicitor general's office that consistently sided with the strong in opposition to the weak." unquote. today it would be equally wrong for me to vote against judge sotomayor solely because she's not on my side on some issues. courts were never intended to be political bodies composed of judges on your side who would reliably tilt your way in controversial cases. courts are supposed to do just the opposite: decide difficult cases with impartiality. the oath that judge sotomayor has taken twice and will take again when she sworn in as associate justice of the supreme court, says it best, and i quote it: "i will administer justice with respect to persons and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and i will faithfully and

impartially discharge and perform all duties incumbent upon me under the constitution and the laws of the united states." end of quote. now, during her confirmation hearings, madam president, judge sotomayor expressly rejected then-senator obama's view that a certain percentage of judicial decisions -- that in a certain percentage of judicial decisions -- quote -- "the critical ingredient is supplied by what's in a judge's heart and in the depth and breadth of one's empathy." unwoaunquote. in answer to a senator from senator kyl she said in her confirmation hearing, and i will quote that as well, "i can only explain what i think judges should do, which is judges can't rely on what's in their heart." this is judges sotomayor speaking.

"they don't determine the law. congress makes the laws. the job of a judge is to apply the law. and so it's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases, it's the law, and the judge applies the law to the facts before that judge." that was judge sotomayor's answer to senator kyl. giving broad senate approval to obviously well-qualified nominees helps to increase the prestige of the supreme court and to confirm its impartiality. for that reason, until the last few years, republican and democratic senators, after rigorous inquiries into the fitness of nominees, usually have given those well-qualified nominees an overwhelming vote of approval. for example, no justice on the supreme court that john roberts joined in 2005 had received more than nine negative votes. four were confirmed unanimously.

all but three republican senators voted for justice ginsburg, a former general counsel of the american civil liberties union. every single democratic senator voted to confirm justice scalia. now in truly extraordinary cases senators, of course, reserve the prerogative, as i do, to vote "no" or even to vote to deny an up-or-down vote. during the eight years i was governor of tennessee, madam president, i appointed about 50 judges. in doing so, i looked for the same qualities that justice roberts and judge sotomayor have demonstrated: intelligence, good character, restraint, respect for law, and respect for those who came before the court. i did not ask one applicant how he or she would rule on abortion or immigration or taxation. i appointed the first female circuit judge in our state and

the first african-american court chancellor and the first african-american state supreme court justice. a pointed both -- i appointed both democrats and republicans. that process served our state well and helped to build respect for the independence and fairness of our judiciary. in the same way, it is my hope that my vote now will not only help to confirm a well-qualified nominee but will help to return the senate to the practice only recently lost of inquiring diligently to the qualifications of a nominee and then accepting that elections have consequences, one is to confer upon the president of the united states the constitutional right to appoint justices of the - supreme court. i ask m that my statement on

justice john roberts be printed in the record after these remarks. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. alexander: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. klobuchar: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: madam president, health care reform is a very personal matter for me, a personal matter for so many people in my state. i first got interested in this issue, as i think many of us did, after something happened to me when my daughter was born. she was born, she was very sick, she couldn't swallow. and back then the insurance companies had a rule that new moms ant and their babies were kicked out after it 4 hours. so after she was in intensive care, i was kicked out of the

hospital in 24 hours. as my husband wheeled me out in the wheelchair, i remember thinking, this wouldn't have happened to the wife of the head of the insurance company. but it happened to me. and i went to the legislature along with others to say we have to change this to ensure mothers and their new babies at least a 48-hour hospital stay. that new law was passed after president bill clinton was elected. i remember going there and some of the insurance companies that were there trying to make sure it was delayed and the implementation of this 48-hour rule. so i decided to take all the pregnant women that i knew to the conference committee and we outnumbered the lobbyists 2-1. so when the legislature said, when should this new law take effect, garntling new moms and their babies 48 hours, all the pregnant moms said "no." and -- all the pregnantnant moms said "now."

and that is what happened. as i travel my state, i've heard about the importance of doing something about health care. they want cost-effective health care. we've got one of the best health care systems in the country. the president has lauded minute membership. we've got something like -- the president has lauded minnesota. we've got something like 99% coverage. some say we can't have the status quo because our premiums are going up and up and up. if i lose my job, i'm not going to have health care tomorrow. that's what the people in my state are saying. i've heard it from people like dundawn in staples, minnesota, o is having trouble being able to afford her prescription drugs for her m.s. or john who ends up paying thousands of dollars in deductibles and coinsurance if one of his boys gets sick. meanwhile, a new study finds that small businesses pay up to

more than 18% -- 18% more -- to provide health insurance for their employees, often forcing these businesses to lay off employees or cut back on their coverage. i was up in two harbor, minnesota, about a month ago visiting a backpack -- a little backpack companies that's done amazing things. they're actually making some of the backpacks now for our troops in iraq and afghanistan. and they said that their health care premiums now are something like $20,000 for a family of four. small businesses paying that much, one family for health care insurance. i was down in southern minnesota in the southwestern -- the southeastern corner of our state and met with one of the clinic heads there, someone who heads up one of the hospitals in wisconsin and minnesota. he said they'd had three emergency appendectomies in just a two-week time period and they shouldn't have happened at that time. they should have been caught

earlier. when they talked to the people in the emergency rooms, they said, why are you here? two said we're with small businesses and we thought that if we came in too early and we thought maybe we could just get over this because we were afraid of what it would do to the premiums. the third person said, well, i just didn't have the known pay for this. that's what we're hearing all over our state, in a state that tends to have one of the best health care systems in the country. the american people know that inaction is not an option. if we do not act, costs will continue to skyrocket and 14,000 americans will continue to lose their health insurance every single day. that's the status quo. we must not waiver in our efforts to enact a uniquely american solution to our nation's health care problems. we must keep what works and fix what's broken. we must also level the playing field between consumers and insurance companies, preserve choice, expand some access and provide safeguards so that

people don't lose their coverage if they change our lose their job, have preexisting medical conditions or simply grow older. as we prepare to take up landmark legislation, many in washington are looking to minnesota as a national leader. in minnesota, we have developed a health care system that rewards quality, not quantity. it promotes coordinated integrated care, and it focuses on prevention and disease management and controls costs. that's why we tend to have healthier people in our state. that's why we tend to have more people covered. that's why we tend to have more higher-quality health care, because we focus on the system as a whole. the congressional budget office doug elmendorf testified before the senate budget committee that to truly contain health care spending, congress must change the way that medicare pays providers in an effort to encourage cost effectiveness in health care. i couldn't agree more. shifting to a value-based system is critical to controlling

health care costs. because you know what? people will be shocked by this. when you look at states that have some of the highest quality, it tends to be some of the lowest costs. and states that have the highest costs tend to have the lowest quality care. that is messed up. most health care is purchased on a fee-for-service basis. so more tests and more surgeries if not done appropriately with the patient in mind can mean more money. korgtd researchers at darthmouth medical school nearly $7 billion a year is spent on unnecessary health care. that is 30% of total health care spending. to rein in costs, we need to have all health care providers aiming for high-quality, cost-effective results as they do in minnesota. that's why i've introduced legislation along with senator martinez that would create a value index as part of a formula used to determine medicare's fee schedule. this indexing will help reduce

unnecessary procedures because those who produce more volume will need to also improve care or the increased volume will negatively impact fees. to correct myself, that legislation was actually introduced with senator gregg and senator martinez and i have introduced a bill to focus on medicare fraud. linking rewards to the outcomes for the entire payment area creates the incentives for physicians and hospitals to work together to improve quality and efficiency. in too many places patients must struggle against a fragmented delivery system where providers' duplicative services sometimes work at cross-purposes. we must also look at other areas where we can help reduce inefficient health care spending, because in the end this is about focusing on quality care and getting that care to the patients that need it. it's focusing on the patients instead of all the insurance providers and all the other people that feed off this system. it's focusing on what works best for the patients. recent studies show if all the

hospitals in the country followed the protocol that the mayo clinic uses in the last four years of chronically ill patients' lives where the index is incredibly high, i think most people and their families would love to have that kind of mayo clinic health care, if we used that model it would save $50 billion every five years and that money can be used to bring more people into the system. that money can be used to make health care more affordable for the people of this country. that's what we're talking about when we talk about health care reform. the bill that we have, medicare costs and medicare fraud that i have with senator martinez, would require direct depositing of all payments to providers under medicare and medicaid. again, so people aren't ripping off the system, they're not scamming the system. it's going to the people that need it. the bill has been endorsed by the aarp, the national association of district attorneys and the credit union national association. representative patrick murphy is carrying the legislation in the

house. it is no small task, but we must reform america's health system. i strongly believe that reaching this goal, reaching this goal of reform, making sure that we just don't have the status quo where it's becoming harder and harder and harder for the people of this country to afford health care, it depends upon controlling costs, rewarding quality, stopping fraud, and making the system work for the people of this country. for the sake of our fiscal health and for the sake of the million of americans struggling to afford the care they need, tphafbgting effective health care reform in this country is essential. we know it's not easy. it's not going to happen overnight. it's 17% of this economy. but we also know that doing nothing and just saying no to everything and calling things names when we're effectively trying to find a solution is the wrong way to go. so i hope that my colleagues in the senate will start working on this bill constructively so we can get something done for the people of this country. thank you very much, madam president, and i yield the

floor. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, i see the senator from nevada is on the floor. i would like to ask, before i seek recognition here, i would be happy to yield the floor to him with the understanding that i would follow him if the senator from nevada would give me an indication of how long he might be able to speak. mr. ensign: at the most, ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from nevada. mr. ensign: i thank the assistant leader, the senator from illinois, for that courtesy. madam president, i rise to talk about health care reform this morning. it is critical in our system that we address the cost issue. we have the finest-quality health care system in the world. but it's too expensive for too many americans.

and because of that, too many americans are uninsured. and not only are too many americans uninsured, for those who have insurance, a lot of folks, especially if you're employed by somebody, you haven't gotten the kind of raises that you would have otherwise gotten simply because if people are paying more and more for your health insurance, there isn't the money there to be able to give you higher wages. and so it's critical for so many reasons that we address the cost issue. we spend about $2 trillion a year in the united states on health care. some people say we need to spend more. i disagree with that. i actually think we spend plenty of money in the united states on health care. we just don't spend it in the right ways. we need to eliminate a lot of the waste, a lot of the bureaucratic spending on health -- of our health care dollars and get that money actually to the patients. now, there are five different committees between the house and the senate that are working on health care reform proposals. three in the house, two in the

senate. let me address very quickly the "help" committee bill, which is one of the committees from the united states senate that has passed a bill. it was passed straight party lines. and i think one of the reasons -- i'll point out some of the flaws i believe that happened with that bill. first of all, it's not paid for. second of all, it's too expensive and it doesn't cover enough people, especially for the money that is spent. 200 times in the bill it gives the secretary of health and human services new powers to establish programs, parameters, appropriate moneys and otherwise dictate the course of one-sixth of our economy. 200 different times. this was about a 600-page bill. and if each one of those times were it detailed out where it gave the powers to the secretary

of health and human services, if that was actually written in bill form at that point, this bill probably would have been about 5,000 pages. that's how incredibly complex our health care system is and how even more complex some people are trying to make it. this bill creates 50 new offices, bureaus, commissions, programs and bureaucracies. 87 new government programs alone are created in the community transformation grants program. so -- and the democrats rejected on a party-line vote an amendment that would have instructed the bill -- prevented the bill from riding funds on bike paths and street lights. i like to see bike paths and things like that, but there is no place for that in the health care reform bill we're trying to

put before the united states senate and the u.s. house of representatives. furthermore, the final cost of the bill has not been released. now, i'm on the finance committee, and there is a group of bipartisan senators trying to work together to come up with an agreement. they have not been able to do that. the big reason is they're truly trying to finalize the details. the details are extraordinarily challenging because of how complex our health care system is today. that's why we need to take our time and get it right. you don't mess with one-fifth or one-sixth of the economy of the united states and get it wrong. there really are no do-overs when it comes to health care reform when we're doing it on this massive of a scale f. we mess it up, we literally can mess -p our country, we can mess up the economy of our country and threaten the very existence of our system of government

because we can bankrupt our country. we all know that medicare and medicaid are threatening to bankrupt our system of government as it stands today. and all the "help" committee bill and other bills that have been introduced so far do is they accelerate how fast medicare and medicaid can bring economic collapse to the united states. madam president, i'm working on other proposals. there are examples out there where things are being done right in the health care system. i've told the story to my colleagues many times about safeway. safeway is a company, several years ago their health care costs were just skyrocketing every year. with 200,000 employees they were spending about $1 billion on health care expenses. going up every year. when a company is only making $200 million to $300 million a year and their costs are going up 20% a year, you could see the

writing was on the wall. they were going to bankrupt their company just with health care costs. so theset out on a new course, and they focused on four areas. they incentivized their people through lower premiums if either they didn't smoke or they would quit smoking. and they also provided the smoking cessation products. they focused on area of obesity or weight management. if you were in the proper body mass index or if you would lose weight, they would give you a lower health care premium. they also focused on cholesterol and hypertension. they didn't penalize you for having high cholesterol. they rewarded you for keeping your cholesterol under control and they rewarded you for keeping your blood pressure under control. rewarding healthy choices actually works. safeway is a very good example. what happened to safeway in the past four years? compared to the rest of the united states, they have been

able to lower their health care costs by 40%. unfortunately, the congressional budget office, which is the official scorekeeper around here, looking at how much money is going to be saved, their models don't work with something like the safeway model. their economic models don't work. the bean counters around here, unfortunately, don't know how to put that into application for the rest of the country, which is unfortunate. because i believe if we make some of the same modeling that safeway did for the rest of the country, we could save huge amounts of money in our health care system. we don't have to save 40% like safeway did. if we save 10% -- heck, if we don't save anything, if we just freeze the rate of growth to zero, we will be so far ahead in money that we'll have plenty of money to be able to cover the uninsured. but unfortunately, the congressional budget office doesn't say that it's going to save money. it's ludicrous, though, that having people quitting smoking, having them have, you know,

rewarding them for proper weight management wouldn't save money. we need to change the economic models that we have around here. not only will that save money, but it will also lead to higher-quality lives. obesity is epidemic in the united states. type 2 diabetes is rampant. most type 2 diabetics can actually be reversed or at least controlled based on diet and exercise. and we need to encourage healthier behaviors in the united states. and instead of just having a sick-care system, let's actually turn it into a true health care system here in the united states. another thing that we need to do, i believe very strongly, and this is a role for the government, we need to provide transparency on cost and quality so that individuals can shop. in the bay area, a colonoscopy can cost anywhere from $800 to

$8,000. well, if you provide costs and quality measurements, if the government does, that information across the united states, people can set up plans and they can say here's what the various costs are. we're going to pay, let's say, between the $800 and $8,000, let's say they pay $1,200. then if you want the more expensive one, tough pay the difference. if you want the less expensive one, you can get the difference. that will cause people to shop, and they will have the information based on cost and quality of outcomes to be able to make smart medical decisions. the one thing that we don't want to do, madam president, is we don't want to put a bureaucrat making those decisions in between the doctor and the patient. that is a precious relationship between a doctor and a patient, and we don't want the government making those kinds of decisions. i don't want to see a government-run plan that says, you know what? we're going to have rationing. so many other countries around the world, that's how they control their costs.

they actually ration care. there's delayed care. and we have better outcomes in the united states than, say, on cancer, on cardio vascular disease, on so many other areas that have government-run health care plans. so, i think it's critical that we get together as republicans and democrats, really as americans, and come up with a health care system that is lower in cost and even better in quality than we have today. the bills that are before some of the comieght committee commie not going to achieve that. i've done several town hall meetings in the last couple of weeks. we've called almost a couple hundred thousand nevadans niewndz talked to many of them -- and talked to them of them, gotten their feedback. one thing that is not quite unanimous but i tell you a -- from the calls we're seervetion its yeefer whelming, and that's

people do not want a government plan. they don't want a government but rationing care. whatever plan we come up with shore include a government-run health care plan. i feel strongly about that, and i think as more and more of the american people find out what the effects after government-run plan would be, you'll see a lot more opposition coming to that. so, madam president, i appreciate the senator from illinois allowing me to go first, and let's get together as americans and do the right thing on health care and join, as republicans, democrats, independents across this country and have a health care system that is lower-cost and better-quality. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: on behalf of majority leader reid and after consulting with the republican leader, i ask that upon conclusion of my remarks, the senate proceed to h.r. 3357, under the provisions of the july

29 order. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: thank you, madam president. i ask consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: the senator from nevada just expressed his views on health care and i'd like to perhaps give a little different view on where we are and where we should go. we are wrapping up this july session. we will be taking a recess for the few weeks. it is one of the few chances for us to be back home, a little time with our families before school starts. we're all looking forward to it as everyone does each year. but we've done important work this year and more important work to follow this. year -- before the end of the year, we thoap pass health care refor-- we thoappass health carn america. we are counting on the finance committee to work with us, to develop a bill for consideration on the floor of the senate about the same period of time.

these bills and the concepts they contain are going to be there throughout the month of august for everyone to take a close look at and review. this is not going to be done in haste because it's too important. it's going there and the critics will have a chance to look at it. people will be able to come up with suggestions, constructive suggestions, i hope, that lead us to the passage of health care reform in this country. now, i listened to my colleague and friend from nevada, senator ensingers talk about government-run health care. in my hometown of springfield, illinois, a doctor wrote a letter to the editor warning us about government-run health care. there are about 300 million people living in our great nation. of those 300 million people, 45 million of them are currently covered by medicare. medicare for seniors and disabled people in america is a government-run health care plan. now, for many of these people, it is the first health insurance

plan they have ever been covered birks. a relate relate tear came up tod said, i want you to meet somebody who's never been health insurance protection one day of her life. she said, i never could afford it. i was a realtor. i never had enough money. knock on me, i've been pretty lucky. but she said, thank god in two years i'll be under medicare. so the savings that i have that i put aside for my retirement aren't going to be wiped out by one illness or one surgery. i'll have medicare. well, she'll join the ranks of 45 million people on a government health insurance plan called medicare that we've had for 45 years in america and is wildly popular. not one single critic on the other sued of the aisle who stands up and shakes their fist and rails about government health care has said, eliminate medicare. of course they wouldn't. theals not a position that the american people are -- that's

not a position that the american people are going to support. some people are a little confused, though. one of my colleagues went back home and over the weekend somebody said, senator, listen, whatever you do don't, let the government start mel meddling iy health care plan. so 45 million people under medicare. another 65 million people are covered by medicaid. medicaid is a health insurance plan for the poorest people in america. we said that if you're poor in america, you're still going to get health care and we are going to provide it. working with the states. so more than a third of the people who live in america today are covered by government health insurance. i've never heard a person on the other siechtd aisl side of the , eliminate memedicaideliminate m.

so here we have a third of america currently under a government health plan and on the other side of the aisle, saying whatever you do, don't have a government health plan. it is i inconsistent. but many people say, i don't want to change. i don't want to go into medicare or medicaid. i like what i have. would you please leave me alone. and the answer is yes. in fact, we guarantee it. we're going to put in any legislation considered by the house or the senate the protection of you as an individual to keep the health insurance you have if that's what you want. what we're trying to create are voluntary choices and opportunities. and these are critically important because, let's face it the cost of health care is going out of sight. we know it. we sense it. now, some people say, well, senator, easy for you to say. you've got that famous senator health care plan. we've heard all about that one. let me set the record straight.

members of congress, if they choose -- and i have chosen on behalf of my family -- can sign you wersignup for the federal e' health benefit plan. it isn't a special plan for congressmen and senators. it covers federal employees across the united states. 8 million i federal employees ad their families. that's why i signed up for it it's a great program. open enrollment once a year. how about that? what do you choose from? in my case, in illinois, nine different private health insurance plans, and we pick the one best for our family. if we want a lot of coverage, they take more out of my paycheck. less coverage, less out of my paycheck. but it is a voluntary choice. and i think that's what the bottom line should be for americans. we are trying to move toward that model, create pools of people like federal employees so that they can bargain with the private insurance companies,

have good coverage at a reasonable cost. we want to build into this as well health insurance reform. what good is it to have a health insurance plan that says, we offer you coverage for everything except your sickness? and that happens. people who may have turned in a claim last year for an aching back can find this year it's a preexisting condition. it's not covered. people who two or three years ago may have survived prostate cancer or breast cancer may find no coverage for cancer illness in the future. that's unacceptable. that's not really health insurance. health insurance isn't worth much if it isn't going to cover your illness. so we say as part of your health care reform, you can no longer exclude people for preexisting conditions. you can no longer exclude people who live in certain parts of the country over knows in other parts of the country. you cannot discriminate based on

age or geography except in certain limitations. this gets health care where it needs to be. not game where the health insurance companies try to pick the healthiest people in the country and put everybody else over the cliff. if you buy health insurance in america, it will really protect you. i was interviewed this morning on wamy in my state. senator, if you don't allow insurance companies to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions, won't all of our premiums go up? well, the honest answer is if everybody has health insurance in america, premiums could go down. right now those of us who have health insurance are not just paying for our cairks we're paying for the care of the uninsured. an uninsured person in america is not going to die on the street, thank god. they're going to show up in an emergency room and they're going to be cared for and when they can't pay their bill, that hospital, that doctor will pass their medical charges through

the system on to those of us who are paying for health insurance. so if we bring everybody in with health insurance protection, this cost transfer isn't going to happen. it's going to reduce the upward push for health insurance premiums in our country. and, secondly, if we don't have basic rules about health insurance as to what they'll cover, hold on tight. we found out in illinois not too long ago, there were actually health insurance companies -- i remember this as a person working in the illinois general assembly -- there were actually health insurance companies that were selling maternity coverage to new mothers and their children but excluding the newborn peab for the firs baby 0 days of its life because if you have an infant with a real problem, those first 30 days of medical care can be very, very expensive. so they just wrote it out of the policy. and we said, no way. as a matter of policy in illinois, if you want to sell health insurance to cover a

family or a maternity benefit or children, you do it from the moment that child is born. we put it in the law. you can argue that's going to raise the cost of insurance. maybe it d but if health insurance isn't there with we need it, then it isn't worth the cost. that's why we're doing this health care reform. there's one other aspect i want to mening and that's small business. -- i want to mention and that's small business. small business people know better than any other group what's happening here because they're struggle tovivor in a recession and the men and women who -- to survive in a recession and the men and women who run these small businesses are trying to provide for their employees. yesterday we had a gentleman from aberdeen, maryland, who came to speak at a press conference. he owns a moving and storage company. his last name is derbishire. he inherited his business from his father, brought his son garrett with him and hopes his slon carry it on. he is he's always felt a special kinship and connection with his

employees. he wants them to do good work and he wants nem to be loyal and he wants them to know that they're appreciated. so mr. derbyshire pays as an employer 85% of an individual employee's premiums. and 57% of the families'. that's pretty good. i give him a + for really caring and trying. but he told us he just can't keep up with it. health insurance premiums are going up so fast, he doesn't know how long he can do t i've heard the same thing from a man who owns starbucks, which incidentally offers health insurance to their employees, who told us not that long ago, we want to continue to do this. we it's the right thing to do -- we think it's the right thing to do. but if the costs keep going up, we won't be able to continue this. that's the relate lit of what small businesses face. when you -- that's the reality of what small businesses face. when you take a look, only 49%

of small businesses with three to nine workers offered health insurance. 78% of businesses with 12024 workers offered some type of health insurance. in contrast, 99% of businesses with more than 200 employees offered health insurance. you know, it shows that if you're really orntding close to the margin -- operating close to the margin in a small business, a little added expense can pish you over the edge, and one of the first casualties is health insurance protection. it means the employees have no protection and it means the owners have to go out on the private market. what happens when you go out on the private market? for a smashings your choices are limited. the overhead costs, administrative costs are dramatically higher than they are for the larger companies and many of them just can't afford to do it. so what we're trying to do is offer through health care reform a way for every person working for a business, large and small to have health insurance. look at the uninsured people in america and you're going to find

that most of them are not the poorest people in our country -- they have medicaid -- and of course they're not the luckiest people in the world -- like myself pands other families who already have health insurance -- they're smack dab in the middle. they're the ones who are uninsured. so if we are going to fill the gaps in america and provide for coverage, that's the way we have to go. what are our goals here? our goals here are simply stated. we want to have health reform, health care reform which helps the middle class in america. we want to make sure that at the end of the day we have stable costs so that people know what they can anticipate, so that the costs won't run them out of health insurance coverage, even if they lose a job. we want to provide a helping hand, for example, to lower-income people so that they can buy health insurance, giving them a tax break and incentive. we want to provide incentives to

businesses and people. we want to make sure that they have stable coverage, too, that these health insurance companies can't wave the magic wand and all of a sudden you're not compedz by your health insurance policy anymore. stable cost, stable coverage, and to make sure as well that at the end of the day we have quality care available for all americans. one element we should be rewarding that the current system doesn't reward is preventive care. there are a lot of things that we can do to reduce the cost of health care in america and improve the health of individuals and families. we need to create incentives for that to happen. there are ways to do that. steve byrd is the c.e.o. of safeway anddom nick's. he has a plan for his management employees where they can voluntarily sign up. they go through a health screening, identify any risks that that person might have, being overweight or diabetic or high blood pressure or high cholesterol, things of that nature. smoking. and then they create a little profile and say, now what we'd

like you to do is move toward more fitness, better diet, monitoring your diabetes, monitoring your cholesterol and your blood pressure. and as they show improvement, they earn cash incentives. in other words, they pay them extra money if they get healthier. what's happened to the health insurance costs at safeway? in the last three years it's been flat. it hasn't increased. across the board, in other companies across america on average it's gone up 38%. by incentivizing employees to get healthier, they not only have better lives but better health outcomes and lower costs for their company. why isn't that a national model? why aren't we doing that across the board saying we're going to move toward a healthier company so we have fewer health care costs? secondly, we've got to eliminate the incentives for piling on medical bills. ever had a member of your family go to the hospital for a day or two or a week and then a month

later they send you the bill? were you amazed by it, how thick it was? and you turn it page after page and say, my goodness, thank god i have health insurance. if you do. but if you don't you look at the bottom line on the last page and say i don't know how i'm going to pay this thing. we reward doctors and hospitals for piling on every single line on a page. instead of saying the real goal here is wellness and making certain that people get well from diseases and illnesses. so we need to create a new incentive in the way we have health care in america, to take the best and brightest women and men who serve as our medical professionals, working at these hospitals and give them the incentive for the best outcome. senator klobuchar from minnesota was here a few moments ago and she talked about mayo clinic which i have the highest regard for and the highest respect. this is a clinic which gets some of the best results in medicine

in america at the lowest cost. how do they do it? what is so miraculous or magic up there in rochester, minnesota? well, they pay their physicians a salary. a physician doesn't make an extra buck if he orders an extra test. the physician instead looks at that patient and says i think we need three specialists in this room right now, and let's see if we can work out a plan for wellness. and they come together, and they work it out. and it isn't a matter of how many lines on a page in the final billing. it moves a matter of that person going home well. and it works. they've reduced the cost. and it happens across america. we've seen it in many places. cleveland clinic and so many others who have been noted as examples of centers of excellence. that's what i want to see in my state of illinois. that's what every state -- every senator should be working for. let's not -- i'll close by saying let's not fall into the trap on this health care reform debate to let the buzzwords and the words that infuriate people

stop us from a meaningful, honest debate. this has got to be patient-centered health care, not government-centered health care. we are not talking about rationing. we are talking about a rationale health care system that is geared toward wellness and disease prevention. we've got to make certain that the at the end of the day that we allow people to choose their own doctors and their own hospitals and their own health insurancplans and to keep the health insurance plan they have if they want to. we've got to help small businesses, provide the kind of health insurance coverage they want to have for themselves as owners and for their employees as well. at the end of the day we can improve this system. it's the biggest single issue challenge congress has faced in at least 40 years, maybe in a much longer period of time because it affects every single person in this country. we can do it. with the president's leadership and his commitment, we can get this right. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate proceed to the consideration of h.r. 3357, which the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3357, an act to restore sums to the highway trust fund and for other purposes. mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you,

mr. president. i call up my amendment and ask that it be modified with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment as modified. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, mr. vitter, proposes amendment numbered 1907, as modified. mr. vitter: mr. president, i urge all of my colleagues to come together, work together as the american people surely want us to do in adopting this amendment, because i truly believe this amendment is the responsible way to address the shortfall in the highway trust fund. what is wha does this amendment do? it is very simple, mr. president. this amendment funds the highway trust fund shortfall by using money from the already-passed stimulus bill. and why is tha important? it's important, mr. president, because otherwise we are racking up yet more deficit and yet more debt on top of the mountains of debt we have already accumulated

to pass on to our children and grandchildren. and so this is very important, mr. president, so that, yes, needed highway work can be done, particularly needed work in the midst of this recession. but it can be done without racking up yet more debt to weigh down the economy and to burden our children and grandchildren. mr. president, i would make two central points about this idea and why this amendment is so necessary. first of all, the first central point is the level of debt we are accumulating in this country. it is truly staggering, mr. president. it is truly beyond the comprehension of us to get our hands around. this year alone, the deficit has surpassed $1 trillion. so just this year's federal

spending, that deficit spending has gone beyond $1 trillion and, oh, by the way, we're not finished this year, and it continues to grow. this year, we've racked up over $1.8 trillion of new debt, because there is that $1 trillion in the normal year's spending plus the huge stimulus bill of $800 billion. so in terms of racking up new debt to put on the backs of our children and grandchildren, there's $1.8 trillion of new debt this year. that is way beyond anything we've experienced in this country in our lifetime. just the $1 trillion of deficit spending rivals the sort of number we used to talk about not so long ago for the entire

federal budget. but, unfortunately, mr. president, it gets worse. it gets significantly worse. because this congress, over my objection, this congress passed president obama's budget. and that budget takes those mountains of debt that i just described at already sky-high historic levels, and what does it do? does it work it down? no. it doubles that level of debt in five years. it more than triples that level of debt in ten. that's the path we're on, and that's the legacy we are handing to our children and grandchildren. mr. president, that is simply, completely irresponsible. to have this mountain of debt already accumulated this year,

historically high levels, $1.8 trillion accumulated this year alone, and it's growing. and then to have a budget plan that doubles that in five years and triples it in ten is inexcusable. in that five-year period, this president will have racked up more debt than every predecessor president before him combined. we need to get off that path, and the american people know it. the american people understand through their common sense that this is a recipe for disaster. all of us as parents want to hand our kids a better world, a world of more opportunity, a better future than even we had handed to us from our parents. and yet, we are on path to do exactly the opposite and hand our kids an enormous burden,

hand them a tomorrow full of clouds and uncertainty, particularly dominated by this threat, central, fundamental economic threat of deficit and debt. we can't accept that. and yet, here we are on the floor proposing the -- the other side proposing to fund the highway trust fund with guess what? more debt. more borrowing. more borrowing by the government from whoever buys our debt, including wonderful allies around the world like the communist chinese government. we need to get off this path. and this is one important step in doing that, saying, yes, we'll continue vital highway programs, but we'll do it by taking from the already appropriated stimulus funds. that's appropriate money that's already appropriated through the process.

we won't do it by borrowing yet more money. the other side has fancy arguments about, well, this is really taking back a loan we sent the general fund eight years ago. mr. president, let's make no mistake about it, that money is long gone. this is racking up more debt, pure and simple. and for that very reason, because it's racking up more debt, because it increases outlays in this fiscal year, it has a budget point of order against it which i will raise before our final vote. so if you need any further proof that the underlying bill requires borrowing yet more money, racking up yet more debt, it's nailed down by the fact that there is a budget point of order against the underlying bill which i will raise. now, the second critical reason we should adopt the vitter amendment and fund highway

projects from stimulus money and not rack up yet more debt goes to the nature of the stimulus and the attempt which has been very slow and very faltering of using those stimulus dollars to help provide the economy. of course that was the whole argument behind stimulus. we're in a severe recession. we need to do something. we need to get spending and economic activity out the door. we need to hold down unemployment. that was the whole argument. from the very beginning, i didn't think that would be the result. that's why i voted against the stimulus both because of the nature of the spending. it's a lot of big government programs, not a lot of true shovel-ready infrastructure spending. and because of the timing of the spending. i thought from the very beginning that relatively few dollars would go out the door immediate lip, and a lot of the stimulus money wouldn't be spent

for years. well, mr. president, unfortunately, all of that is coming true. and, again, if you look at the nature of the spending in the stimulus and the timing of it, it leaves a lot to be desired. now, i think all of us in this body and americans across the country favor infrastructure spending as the centerpiece of the stimulus. yes, let's do real, concrete shovel-ready projects. let's build roads and highways and bridges as the best example of a true, concrete, shovel-ready infrastructure project. and i certainly strongly supported that element of spending as a way -- not the only way, but as a way to help revive our economy. unfortunately, mr. president, that type of project was never a major part of the stimulus bill as passed. in fact, if you take all of the roads and highways and bridges,

all of that construction in the entire stimulus, how much of the bill do you think it is? 50%? certainly not. 30%? keep going down. 20%? no. 10%? try 3.5%. 3.5% of the entire stimulus focused on what the american people thought really could be spending to help stimulate the economy -- shovel-ready infrastructure projects on roads and highways and bridges. my amendment is a way to increase that part of the stimulus that goes to that project, to increase highway funding through the stimulus which i think there was a very broad consensus to do from the beginning, but it never got done in the stimulus. the second big problem with the stimulus is the timing of that money. it has gone out the door very,

very slowly. of the entire $800 billion stimulus bill which was supposed to be immediate relief for the economy, let's start turning the corner on this recession immediately, passing that bill, today -- months later, half a year later -- 10% has gone out the door. only 10% has been spent. that's ludicrous. of that tiny slice that was roads and highways and bridges, the 3.5%, guess how much of that money has gotten spent? 1% of that. not 1% of the whole bill. not almost a third of the 3.5%. i mean 1% of the 3.5%. in other words, .035% of the entire bill. meaningless amount. so let's increase the amount of

money we take from the stimulus pot and immediately get out the door for vital highway projects. now, mr. president, because of those factors in the stimulus, the nature of the spending which was never focused on real shovel-ready infrastructure. only 3.5% going to roads and highways and bridges, and the timing of the money which has been amazingly slow -- only 10% of the stimulus spent right now -- and only 1% of the roads and highways and bridges, what's been the effect on the economy? of course, the effect has been slim to none. this chart says it all. this graph is what the proponents of the stimulus bill say would happen to unemployment over time. we pass the stimulus and it's going to help revive the economy. it's going to make sure unemployment peaks at less than

8% and then comes down. well, unfortunately, the reality has been very different. because compared to this prediction by the proponents of the stimulus, this is reality. this is what unemployment has been doing in the last several months, going up and up and up, well beyond the peak that was predicted, reaching almost 10% today. again, this is the second fundamental reason we need to adopt the vitter amendment. because the stimulus as it was put together is not weighted nearly enough toward real infrastructure like roads and highways and bridges, and it's not weighted nearly enough on spending now versus a year from now. this vitter amendment will help change that for the better, will reweight the stimulus, at least at the margin, for more roads and highways and bridges and more spending now, because we

need it now in the midst of this recession now. so, again, mr. president, i urge all of my colleagues to come around and embrace and support this vitter amendment. doesn't it make sense to say we need to start now in terms of rejecting this path of more and more and more debt. because the underlying bill, make no mistake about it, is funded by more borrowing, more debt. that's why a budget point of order lies against the underlying bill. i will raise that budget point of order before the end of our debate. and, secondly, doesn't it make sense to say, look, the stimulus idea was about exactly this sort of spending. americans across the country favor stimulus spending that's prely focused on roads and highways and bridges and real infrastructure, things that are

truly shovel-ready. they don't favor big government waste programs and they don't favor spending three years from now because that's going to have no impact but to get us out of this recession right now. this amendment again will fine-tune the stimulus in the positive direction toward spending on roads and highways and bridges, which virtually all of us support, more of that spending, including the distinguished chairman of the environment and public works committee. she had an amendment on the stimulus to do just that which was opposed and defeated by the other side. and will also fine-tune the stimulus to get more money out the door now. don't we need that? only 10% of the $800 billion has yet to be spent. don't we need to front load it a lot more than that to have any sort of significant positive impact on this recession? again, tragically the unemployment figures say it all. the prediction peak at 8%, come

down from there. the reality, we continue to go up and up and up toward perilously close right now and toward 10%. again, mr. president, i urge all of my colleagues, democrats, republicans, to join together to work together as the american people want us to do around a basic, commonsense idea. let's stop the debt. let's stop racking up yet more debt, putting it on the backs of our children and grandchildren. let's front load the stimulus and do shovel-ready infrastructure now rather than big government projects three years from now. with that, mr. president, i yield back my time. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: could the president let us know how much time remains on the vitter amendment and general debate?

the presiding officer: the senator from california has 30 minutes remaining. the senator from l.a. has yielded back -- the senator from louisiana has yielded back his time. 20 minutes of debate on the bill itself. mrs. boxer: thank you very much. mr. president, of all the times to stop job creation in its tracks, i'll tell you, this is not the time to do it. and the republican response to the bill that has come over from the house, the bill that would restore the funding, make sure there's funding in the highway trust fund to get us through september 30, also make sure that we can handle unemployment insurance, and also ensure that our families can get mortgages, those who qualify, the answer from our republican friends -- and they have a right to do it -- is to take that funding from the unobligated stimulus

package. now here's the thing, we know that we are starting to finally get those dollars for our economic recovery out the door. we know that. yes, they're not flying out the door because the administration wants to make sure that these are worthy projects. but i will tell you right now, the republicans are putting at risk the very program they say they embrace: the highway program. the fact of the matter is we still have $10 billion for highway-related jobs that would be subjected to the vitter amendment. so irony of ironies, they say they are spending the highway trust fund, but that amendment puts these funds at risk, puts these jobs at risk. the stimulus is designed to create those jobs.

the funding is get out the door. i've gone to my state and seen it at work. yes, we know that employment is lagging. so what do you do when employment is lagging? you don't go to a program that's designed to put people to work.w that the house bill is not only deaf the sit neutral, it reduces the deficit. it reduces the deficit according to c.b.o. not only in 2010, but over the next five and 10-year period. and that's because of the way they're funding the trust fund and the way they are funding the housing priority. so what the republicans are doing is they're taking a deficit reduction measure that keeps the highway trust fund solvent through the end of september. that makes sure people can continue to get unemployment

service, that makes sure people can get mortgages, those who qualify, and they're saying instead of reducing the deficit, let's slash the stimulus program, take funding away from our states, away from our counties, away from our cities, away from our businesses back home. mr. durbin: will the senator yield for a question? mrs. boxer: i'm happy to yield. mr. durbin: i'm trying to follow the debate from the senator from louisiana. is there net job creation or would we lose jobs in if our goal is to create more jobs in america, i listened to his explanation, i'd like to ask the senator from california: even if we take the money out of one pocket and move it to another pocket, how does it create new jobs in america? mrs. boxer: it's not even moving funds, it's slashing funds from the stimulus program that has one purpose and that purpose -- and that purpose is to create jobs.

mr. vitter: will the senators yield? mrs. boxer: we have heard -- we have heard over and over again from our republican friends, who voted against the stimulus, although i have to say some of them are going and standing in front of projects that are built with stimulus dollars, but we'll forget that one. we're hearing from them that the stimulus isn't working fast enough. well, what do they want to do today but cut the funding? mr. vitter: will the senator yield? mrs. boxer: what i have suggested and i want to get my friend's reaction to this. what i suggested to my friends on the other side, i agree to extend highway funding for 18 months, i just don't agree with the way they're doing it. wait until the end of the stimulus program. and if there is funding that has not been obligated, that has been left on the table, take those funds and then add those funds to the highway trust fund. mr. vitter: will the senator yield? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i'd like to ask the senator from california, since the senator from louisiana

didn't support the president's recovery and reinvestment program, and most of those on his side of the aisle did not, those of us who voted for it, did it with the understanding that it would do a number of things, it provides tax relief for families, it provides a helping hand to those who are unemployed so that they can afford health insurance, if they lost their job, for example. it does provide infrastructure programs and projects. my understanding is that we're a little over four months into the two-year stimulus program, not quite five months into it and the senator from louisiana wants to basically declare it a failure, never having voted for it, now declare it a failure. i would ask the senator from california, when the senator from louisiana talks about the number of dollars committed, the number of projects that we've agreed to, it was my understanding as of a couple of weeks ago, that we had obligated over $200 billion out of th

the $787 billion meaning that we had promised we will pay, once the projects are under way, and jobs are actually created, and that that number is going to continue to grow as we obligate it. is it not also true that we want to make certain that whether we're spending money for projects under the highway trust fund or under the stimulus bill, that we don't waste taxpayers' dollars. we want to look carefully at each project to make sure it does serve a public service, to make certain that americans are going to work at a decent wage, and that when it's all over, we not only get through the recession, but we have a legacy of projects that will serve our economy and our nation. if the senator from louisiana has his way, he's going to take the money out that we're currently investing into creating jobs in america and move it into the highway trust fund. and i'm just wondering if the senator could respond, does it make any sense for us to take a different approach on stimulus and not be careful that the money we spent is actually spent

well? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i will yield to you on your time, senator. but right now i'm going to keep my time. what i want -- what i want to say is it's very he important that we thread this in the right way. we want those jobs out there and we want them as fast as we can get there. out of the $27 billion for highway projects, there' there's $10 billion remaining. and i can assure my friend -- both my friends -- that it's very important to be careful on the way you do it. because if you do this too quickly, you know what will happen on the floor of the united states -- we'll have our friends on the other side saying, o'they rushed. -- oh, they rushed. we want to be careful. but we don't want to at this point as we see this recovery starting to take hold, we all believe and hope that's true, we know that the unemployment is the lagging indicator. this is not the time to throw a dagger into the heart of job

creation, and that's what this amendment will do. mr. durbin: i'd ask the senator from california, if i have the appropriate amendment before us, does the senator from louisiana go beyond the highway trust fund and the money that's transferred? does he also apply some of the money from the stimulus to unemployment and to mortgage insurance or is that a separate amendment? i know these amendments were filed late last night and i may not have that correct. mrs. boxer: i believe the senator's amendment -- and he can explain it -- deals with the trust fund and others will have similar amendments for u.i. and fannie mae and jennie. mr. durbin: on the stimulus projects that we are funding, what is the requirement for local match for those projects as opposed to requirements for projects under the highway trust fund? mrs. boxer: my understanding is it's 100% because it's a stimulus, we're trying to do just that. and because our states are suffering and yours is, mine is,

that's for sure, we saw our republican governor talk about how heavy our hearts are back there, we decided to help our state. so this is very different. it is 100% federal. mr. durbin: it is 100% federal, the projects go forward even if the state is struggling with their budget. if i recall correctly, most of that required some state or local match. mrs. boxer: that's correct. mr. durbin: maybe louisiana is flush with money, i don't know, but most states, california, ill i know and others, would -- illinois, an others, would have a difficult time moving it through. actually the senator from louisiana is cutting down the opportunity, reducing the opportunity for infrastructure projects by requiring this match to the highway trust fund. mrs. boxer: i would say to the assistant majority leader, that he is absolutely correct. you know, i understand the need to extend the trust fund to 18

months. and on that part senator vitter and i are in agreement. but the way he funds it is hurtful to the american people, to the american workers, to our businesses, to our contractors. and even though we know a lot of us want to see these funds get out there quicker, they're on the verge. i would say vice president biden say we've committed more than one-fourth of the recovery act's total funds, we're on tract to meet the deadline set when the deadline was set in february, we're set on track until september of 2010. he points out the purpose of the stimulus was the jolt for an immediate -- for immediate help, but then a long-term economic recovery. so this kind of amendment -- and the other amendments we're going to see he -- that say to the american -- see -- that say to the american people, you know, it's four months, and we want to forget about this whole notion. you know, it just doesn't sense.

the timing of this is way off. if at the end of the two-year period where the stoism was supposed to -- the stimulus was supposed to act, there's money leftover, i'll be the first to say, let's reduce the deficit with it or put it into the highway trust fund. i do believe highway infrastructure should have gotten more funds from the stimulus. but that's another point. mr. durbin: my last comment or question to the senator from california and i join her in opposition to this: if the net result of vitter amendment is not to increase jobs in america, but actually to reduce jobs in america, it seems like it's just the opposite of what we ought to be doing in the middle of a recession with so many americans losing works, we want to create good-paying jobs here at home. and the vit earmd by increasing the need for state an local match, is going to decrease the likelihood of creating those jobs. the stimulus money, 100% federal money for shovel-ready projects,

it will be money that moves more quickly into the economy, more quickly into paychecks an help us rebound from the recession that we're in. i would say to the senator from california, thank you for your opposition to this. even if you didn't vote for the stimulus, voting for the vairmtd will take money away for projects from your states that will create good-paying jobs. mrs. boxer: before my friend leaves, i think i can put some spefntion to you. we already know there's -- specifics to you. we already know that there is $10 billion worth of highway projects that are not obligated. we know there are superfund cleanups long overdue. we have funds for that. we have $5.5 billion in construction-related activity that deals with cleaning up underground leaking storage tanks and the specialized jobs -- good-paying jobs that those activities create. we have $300 million to restore our nation area wildlife

refugees. $100 million in a great program that republicans and democrats have been lauding in my committee, the economic development and administration where you leverage those funds from business. that would be at risk. we have $5 billion available for flood control. and it's ironic that my friend from louisiana -- and i've been working with him and senator landrieu to do everything in our power to stop flooding. and we have problems in our state. lord knows -- the world knows about the problem in his state. $5 billion was available for flood control -- all of which are focused on job creation and the irony of ironies is those funds could well be cut under the vit earmd. mr. durbin: so the senator from louisiana, his amendment would cut funds for the flood control?

mrs. boxer: yes, out of the $5 billion available. as we know senator biden says on average 25% of the funds have been obligated, so that means a good portion of $5 billion for flood control would, in fact, be at risk. so i thank my friend for coming over and for helping me, you know, explain to our colleagues and the american people why we oppose this amendment even it may be well intentioned, but at end of the day it hurts our people. had helps their chance to -- it helps their chance to get good jobs. i yield the floor an reserve -- and reserve the balance of my time. mr. vitter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: madam president, let me briefly address some of the issues an misconceptions -- and misconceptions that have come up by focusing on four key points. first of all, i believe the senator from illinois said why

would we want to take anything out of the stimulus and stop job creation? i have a news flash: there is no job creation. unemployment is going up. -- up again. the unemployment numbers say it all. this is the projection from the proponents of the stimulus about unemployment peaking at 8% and then coming down. tragically this is the reality, joblessness goes up and up and up toward 8%. so there is no job creation right now. number two, the senator from illinois said: why would we want to move from one pocket into another pocket, that doesn't do anything. well, it does do a lot if the pocket we're moving money from is stuff that wouldn't be spent until after 2011 and we move it to a pocket focused on real, concrete roads and highways and

bridges spending that can be done now, that's a big change in terms of the type of spending we're talking about and it's a big change in terms of the timing of the spending. the biggest reason for the stimulus having no significant impact on unemployment is the type and the timing of the spending. on the timing side only 10% of the entire $800 billion stimulus has been spent to date. on the type of spending only 3.5% of the whole bill was ever for roads and highways and bridges. and only 1% of that -- 1% of the 3.5% has been spent yet. so, yes, we're he moving money from one pocket to another so as to not run up more debt. and in the process we're having a lot more immediate positive impact on employment and that's

very important. point number three, in direct response to the senator from california, if she would like to wall off any stimulus money, the money for roads and highways and bridges, the money for flood control and say the president can't use that money in this transfer, i would be very open and supportive of such a and supportive of such a i did not do that simply to give the administration maximum flexibility in terms of working out those details. however, again, the senator from would like to propose a second-degree amendment to wall off true highway funding or flood-control funding or whatever, i would be happy to support that. fourth and finally, i believe -- i really couldn't believe my ears but i think the senator from california said that the underlying bill involves deficit reduction. now, let's get real here.

i know washington a fairy tale world. i know things are turned upside-down so office like "alice in wonderland," but the underlying bill racks up more debt, more deficit. that's the whole motivating factor of my amendment. the underlying bill does nothing but borrow more. don't take my word for it, look at the fact that there's a budget point of order against the underlying bill which i will point out and raise for consideration of the senate. so the underlying bill clearly involves more debt. how couldn't it? we're taking money from the general fund to fill in the highway trust fund. guess what? we're deficit spending in the general fund. we're already through the general fund, racking up a deficit. so if you take money from there, you have to backfill that. if you spend the same amount

with more borrowing, more deficit, more debt. so, again, if you care about turning the corner on deficit and debt, this is the responsible amendment to support and the responsible approach to take. the underlying bill racks up more debt. the vitter amendment avoids that. and, again, there is a budget point of order against the underlying bill which, if -- with the cooperation of the senator from california, i believe she needs to make some introductory comments but i will make that budget point of order now. i yield the floor to the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president? how much time remains on the vitter amendment either side? the presiding officer: on the republican side, 20 minutes -- no. 9 1/2 minutes for senator vitter. 15 minutes for senator boxer. the presiding officer: and on the general debate? the presiding officer: 20 minutes on the general debate. mrs. boxer: all right. well, i'm going to just put a

couple things in the record and make sure that senator vitter can offer his budget point of order and then i'm going -- i've asked if the senator would be willing to take ten minutes on our side on the general debate. so i don't think i have to ask unanimous consent but why don't die that, that after i conclude and after senator vitter makes his point of order, then we get to senator durbin for his ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: okay. on the issue of the c.b.o. score, the congressional budget office score that scores the house bill as deficit reduction, i find it intriguing that my friend, who supports the c.b.o. when they say we're spending money -- for example, on the health bill they said, oh, look, c.b.o. says it costs money -- but he derides it when c.b.o. says that this particular bill is a deficit reducer. so i'd ask unanimous consent to place in the record the c.b.o. score which shows that, in fact, the -- the bill sent over from the house reduces the deficit.

the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: and, madam president, notwithstanding the order of july 29, i ask that it be in order for senator vitter to make a budget point of order against h.r. 3357 at this time and that a motion to waive the applicable point of order be considered made with the vote on waiting the point of order occurring at a time to be determined. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you. madam president? i will make that point of order. this is such great -- the underlying bill is such great deficit reduction that it would involve more borrowing and more debt and more mandatory spendi spending. it would specifically increase mandatory spending and exceed the committee's section 302-a allocation and, therefore, i raise a point of order against the bill pursuant to section 302-f of the congressional budget act of 1974. the presiding officer: under the

previous order, the waiver is considered made. mr. durbin: madam president, i seek recognition pursuant to the unanimous consent request of the senator from california of the ten minutes remaining on our side on the general bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, the senator from louisiana suggests that the stimulus bill that the president enacted is not creating jobs because we still have unemployment. well, fact is, it is creating jobs and we still are in a recession. were we not working with the stimulus bill to put money back in the economy to create american jobs, it would be wor worse. we all know that. when the president came to office, he encountered an economy that was losing on average 700,000 jobs a month. our growth rate had hit a negative 6.3%. foreclosures at record levels. residential investment had fallen, banks were in crisis and freezing lending. $10 trillion in wealth had been lost. virtually every american with a savinga

savings or retirement account had taken a hit. that's when the president put his hand on the bible and took responsibility the office. that's what inhaired. he came into office and said let's get america back to work. let's invest in things that will pay off over the long-run. let's build the bridges, build the hoirksz build the -- highways, build the airports. let's create jobs that we cannot only rely on today but we can build in the future, in our economy. and we did it. with limited help from the other side of the aisle. the senator who's offering this amendment voted against it. the position from most senators on the other side of the aisle was let's do nothing. let's let the market work this out. do you have any idea where we'd be today if the market was still working this snout i'm afraid we would be in sorry shape. we would continue to see job loss and continue to see more and more unemployed americans, which is exactly the office what we want. now comes the senator from louisiana, who opposed the stimulus package in the midst of this economic crisis and now he says let's take money out of the stimulus package that's creating

good-paying jobs in america. let's take it away from the states where they get 100% federal funding for their projects, let's put it in a different fund. it isn't creating any new -- new spending, new investment, but let's put it in a different fund that now requires a state match. well, what that means is if your state budget is struggling -- we know a lot of states are -- the senator from louisiana does you no favor. he's taken a project in your state that's important for your economic future, closed it down and said now we'll be glad to give you some of that money back as long as you can come up with matching funds. well, i'm afraid that that is not really helpful. it's hurtful. at a time when this economy needs all the help it can get. and when it comes to the stimulus package, understand, we're a little over four weeks -- pardon me, four months into this stimulus, this two-year stimulus package. and the senator from louisiana says, well, i'm prepared to declare it a failure. let's stop right now.

well, i'm not prepared to declare it a failure. in fact, i think there is an indication that it's starting to put america back to work. because of the recovery act, which the senator from louisiana wants to reduce spending on -- listen to this -- 95% of working families are already getting tax credits in their paychecks. those dealing with job loss are collecting an extra $25 a week f. you're out of work. it doesn't sound like much if you have a job, but if you're out of work, it means something. there's also help for unemployed people to pay off health insurance. i don't know. the senator from louisiana didn't vote for that. i don't know if he thinks that's a good idea. if i were unemployed, i would want my family to have health insurance. i think that's pretty basic. there's also a helping hand here for seniors. there's money to help college students, many of whom have had to face the idea of suspending their college education because mom and dad are struggling at home. the senator from louisiana may be opposed to that. i'm not. i want these kids to stay in school. i want them to get their college

degrees because they're going to lead america. we provided $34 billion in funds for states for medicaid because our states are struggling to provide health care for the poor. the senator from louisiana may oppose that. that's his right to do. i happen to think that providing basic health care for the poorest in america is evidence that we are a caring and compassionate nation. we'll continue to be. and the money that's gone to the states and local governments has avoided the layoffs of teachers, doctors -- pardon me, teachers and police officers and other law enforcement in louisiana and illinois and california, around the nation. now, the senator from louisiana may think that is a waste of money, we never should have done that, but for a safer america and for an america where kids can go to school and have the teachers they need, i think it was money well spent. beyond that, this recovery act that we're involved in is one that has started to see -- make some results. just starting. i'm not being pol poly anish abt

this. we're coming out. i hope we're coming out. in january, a month before this recovery act went into law, we lost 741,000 jobs. terrible. by june, the economy was losing one-third fewer jobs. i wish we weren't losing any jobs. but the fact is, the stick sloes starting to work. the senator from louisiana, who did not support it, who has no plans for this economy, now wants the take the money out just at the moment it's starting to work. boy, the perfect washington answer. let's move in right now, four months into a two-year program, and declare it a failure. well, that may be his approach but i don't think it works for america. in less than 160 days, more than 30,000 projects have been started under this bill. 30,000 across the country. i went to peoria, illinois. there was a project there at the airport which is critical to their economic future. funded by the stimulus bill, creating good-paying local jobs right in the heartland of illinois. more than $23 billion has been

made available to fund over 6,600 shovel-ready transportation construction projects, 3,200 are underway. and if the senator from louisiana has his way, we'll stop right there, we'll start cutting back on these projects right now. that's his idea of economic recovery. over $369 million has been put into rural water systems. i can tell you, representing a state with a lot of small towns, like louisiana, they need this money to make sure their wawrkt their drinking water, is safe for the people who live there. the senator from louisiana said enough said, let's start cutting back on that. $2 million has been moved out to state governments and community organizations for weatherization and energy efficiency on low-income homes. half a billion in overdue cleanup of superfund sites. the senator from louisiana says let's cut that money, let's through money. i don't think that makes sense. we know that if we didn't have this recovery act, there would be more unemployment, more people out of work, fewer dollars being paid in taxes to

the federal 2k3w0*69 and state governments. our situation would be worse when it comes to the deficit. the more people who are unemployed, the fewer who are paying in taxes. the more people need services. it's a recipe for a deficit that grows. the vitter amendment, by reducing the spending power of the stimulus funds, will make our deficit worse. that's a fact. he must acknowledge it. i hope he does. and in terms of obligating these funds, i want to make sure at the end of the day, having voted for this and supported it, that the money's well spent. i don't want a single dollar wasted. and we're going to take care to make sure these projects make sense, that we have justification for them and that they will serve america and our economy's future that. is responsible and accountable and transparent. i know that the senator from louisiana says you're four months in, you haven't gotten it spent, it's time to bail out. that kind of shortsightedness wouldn't work. the idea that we would cut back

on funds for flood control in the state of louisiana and illinois makes no sense whatsoever. the senator from louisiana supporting a cutback in those funds so that he can transfer money into the highway trust fund. i think we're on a path to recovery. i hope that path is a short one and we reach it soon. in the meantime, the vitter amendment won't help. the vitter amendment makes it worse. the situation where the projects that we're counting on to get america back to work, good-paying jobs right here at home is in danger because of this amendment. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, even if you didn't vote for the stimulus package, do the math. 100% federal money for that project in your state as opposed to the vitter approach, which would require 20% or more from the state before they could go forward with any projects? at a time when most states are struggling, this is not the answer. this will be not only part of the problem, it will be a big part of the problem. i reserve the balance of my

time. i yield the floor. madam president, before i yield the floor, if i might, i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. approved by the majority and minority leaders. i ask consent these requests be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. ensign: madam president, i call up my amendment at the desk and ask that it be modified with the changes that are at the desk. they've been agreed to by both sides. the presiding officer: the instruction line of the amendment is so modified. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. ensign, proposes an amendment numbered 1905 as modified. mr. ensign: i ask further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ensign: madam president, just to briefly describe my amendment. in my home state of