ability for rural communities to keep those benefits and are t here challenges due to this shift in marketing that we should be made aware of? >> we are always on the road saying that nobody gets a pass in food safety. food safety is not a size relevant thing, whether you are a little guy or a big guy. because one of the emphasis of know your former know your food is to get more institutional purchasing of locally grown, regionally grown food committee that is our school system, there are new relationships about what food safety certifications need to be put in place. liability, how contracts should be written. that is one of the reasons why we have a farm to school team going around the country trying to figure out where farm to school has been successful, where it has failed. there are 43 states that have a foothold.

get the lessons learned and documents that so that other institutions can follow. did that road map in place. in terms of its potential for rural economic development we think it is great. as we know from our survey data that there is a real uptick in small farms. those that are grossing 10,000 less. we also know there is that disappearing middle of family farmers and a just not finding ways to make ends meet. we think that if we can build a starter local and regional ag system those smaller farmers will graduate into the middle sized farms and the middle sized farms that are trying to find a way to survive in a different, evolving, agricultural climate, they will be able to do so. so it is a lot of strategies that may be helping fund flash

freezing, processing, and will help small farmers. might be about helping augment still cold storage. it might be facilitating the aggregation the materials so that they can satisfy an institutional buying request. so, again, a variety of strategies. again no food safety concerns that i am aware of at this point. >> thank you very much. >> just one follow-up. there is a charge on there cultural developments as a percentage of total development assistance. it is what i was mentioning to you earlier about how this has fallen off substantially. agricultural development globally in the 80's. it was, i guess, trendy, but not sufficient enough to grab on.

you can see how much it has fallen off by this chart. this recent uptick, i'm told, is a milnnium challenge funding. again, i think it is outside of the real house. you're the one that has the expertise in this field. usda and the land grant system is the one that knows it. my hope is that as money and challenge its and the bismarck. as we liggett ways to stabilize countries around the world, too, that more of a focus on africa. usda, the land grant system that is in there doing this because that is where the expertise is. this is very good investment for foreign affairs from my

estimation for the united states. it seems like we are kind of in between on how we are going to do this, who is going to do it. i would hope that maybe the funding goes through millennium challenge or the funding goes through aid, but it ends up working through the expertise that you have and the agencies that is the land grant universities. it would be my hope as well that the overall number would go up. we are a long ways down the road. we give a lot of development assistance. ..

we realize that we have to do a better job of providing assistance to deal with food insecurity issues across the globe. we have a one government approach to this, so the state department, us-aid and usda have an interagency task force if you will to put together the global feeding initiative and it is focused on first of all resources, as the president indicated during the g-20 meeting this year and which i indicated a meeting i when i traveled to italy on food security ever. it is targeted in terms of its impact on the countries in

subsahara africa and some of the poor countries, haiti is a targeted area, even before the earthquake and it is focused on three fundamental approaches. first of all, increasing agricultural productivity in these countries and that involves us-aid providing opportunities for greater exchange through the cochran fellowships, which we've asked for a request for additional resources for. it is working with agricultural ministries like we are in afghanistan and iraq , and to pakistan, to address specific issues that we have expertise on. that we can share. it is designed to promote science based approach in terms of biotechnology and the benefits that that could potentially have in in creasing crop production in drought areas, with drought resistant crops and or strategies, more appropriate use of fertilizer, better understanding of soil conditions, things of that nature. secondly, even if you grow the

food, it doesn't necessarily means it gets to the people who need it and therefore it doesn't necessarily create economic opportunity for those farmers, so we need to also focus on creating greater access and that deals with developing market strategies, developing regula regulatory framework and the infrastructure, both the storage facilities, to avoid post-harvest loss, transportation facilities and the like, and then finally, even if it's available, even if it's accessible, it may not be properly utilized and so therefore it goes into an education effort to make sure that there's proper refrigeration, proper handling, proper cooking of the food, so that it's safe for people to consume. when you do all of that, you really do create a much more vibrant agricultural economy and in these countries that are fragile, and are food insecure, that is absolutely the first thing that has to happen. we are doing pretty significant work in afghanistan, and, you

know, time doesn't permit me to go into great detail about it, but i think we're seeing some results from that. >> one other thing that you didn't things mention, that's not in your area, but i think it's just critically important is the structure of the government in those countries. we've seen places in particular, you know, i can look at examples in subsahara africa where we put quite a bit money in over a lot of years an i travel to these places and you meet with leadership and they ask the question, where did the money go and that's why i like the millenium challenge approach, where there's a key piece of this, is about governance on now how you govern and places like china and india went to an open market segment from the way they were doing it, systems and things started to flourish, so i would hope that we learn our lessons too from our past engagement, when we put a fair amount of money in this, is that it does matter whether a country is willing to help itself and structure itself in a way that

these dollars can take hold. it's like whether it can take root or not or are we going to just throw some money in here, hand i would kind of hold it back, say, we're ready to do this, but you've got to change these two things. before we're going to put this -- we're ready to do it and we want to do it, but otherwise, i think we may repeat some past problems, where we've poured money into some countries an we don't have a whole lot to show for it. >> well, that precise discussion took place in afghanistan with reference to minister rahimi and his efforts at developing the management, because of his ministry has to operate effectively and we made a commitment of resources but it was conditioned on those resources being used to bolster his capacity to actually do the work that needs to be done. and understand the corner competencies that a ministry requires, so there is a concerted effort in that

country, in all countries, to make sure that we have the regulatory structures, the government structure and framework that's actually going to make this work, and that's certainly what we're focused on at usda. >> one other final thought and i really appreciate your time and your knowledge of your subject and your agency. last year when we went through the process, chairman, on the floor, we had a number of amendments proposed by individuals, suggesting different cuts in places within usda. our office is going to go back through and look those over to see if there was some good suggestions there of things we have should look at. cutting and maybe putting that in other places and maybe even have a pruned down budget even further, because i think we owe it to the taxpayer in these times of record deficits to say, what is it we can do to get this number down? we need to do our functions, we need to do them well, but we also, we don't want to have trillion dollar deficit. we've got to get the numbers down and so we're going to go

back through and look at some of the suggestions our colleagues put in last year for possibilities to get the budget number down further. and i appreciate, mr. chairman, and thank you, secretary, for your time. >> thank you very much, senator brownbach. mr. secretary, i am pleased to see that the budget continues the growth we began last year and the competitive agriculture food and research initiative. as you know, i'm a strong supporter of this program. however, in order to pay for the unprecedented increase that the budgets proposes in afri, a large number of other research projects are eliminated. as i said, i'm pleased to see the beginning of the long-term growth for afri. submission our is different from that of formula programs. formula programs are by their nature more flexible and able to rapidly respond to emerging research needs which require

more immediate action than a long-term research contract. can you respond to this concern, also, mr. secretary, i've heard from senator byrd who has expressed concern about proposed on going ard work in west virginia, we'll be submitting some questions for the record on behalf of senator byrd. i would just like you to know i would submit those and would appreciate a response. >> very good, mr. chairman. let me see if i can respond. our understanding of what we've proposed on the formula funding is it was a -- we maintained the funding that was included in last year's budget, basically, it's the same formula funding as the previous year. we recognize the concerns that the committee expressed about the need to maintain formula funding and we tried to respect that with a status quo formula funding. we did eliminate some of the programs that were specifically designated or earmarked, if you will, by members of the

committee, as is consistent with our practice, and refocused those resources in to a more competitive circumstance. we honestly think that we will get a bigger bang and a better bang for our buck if we do this. we want rezap that's actually going to move the dial. we want research that's focused on key priorities that this congress, this administration, this country needs to focus on. as it relates to ars, we appreciate senator byrd's concerns. our view is that before we begin spending additional resources on ars facilities, that we really need to thank a step back and do a strategic overview of precisely what facilities we have, what condition they're in, and prioritize the maintenance and expansion and new construction projects. we'd like a year to be able to do that and we'd like a small amount of money to be able to do that, so that we can come back to this committee with a thoughtful and strategic approach to improvements to

construction, to these labs. we recognize the important role they play, we just again want to make sure we're using taxpayer dollars wisely. >> all right, mr. secretary, i appreciate that. the budget asks for a much smaller increase than in present years, but it does chicago significant performance measures. this includes a goal of decreasing total illnesses from all fsis regulated foods by more than 17%, between fy-2009 and fy-2010. as well as additional decreases in the following years. fsi-is on track to meet these goals? >> we think they are, mr. chairman. i think to say, and -- that there is not -- there is a need for better data collection, so that we have a better understanding of precise live what causes the difficulties and illnesses that americans experience and at what

part in the food chain those difficulties are experienced. one the things that we would like to do is to increase data collection. we'd like to use additional resources to focus on better data collection, so that we can focus on trend lines, establish baselines, by which we then can make better risk assessment and better decisions relative to where there may be problems. we think we need to strengthen our capacity to respond to multiple jurisdictional illnesses, that cross state lines, which is which we have proposed additional resources for strengthening our public health programs. we think there needs to be expanded research efforts on identifying pathogens that we may not even be aware of today, that could potential my cause problems. we're obviously continuing to focus on improving the hasap program, with particular focus on expanded sampling that's necessary to do that and finally, we want to focus on our

school food programs to make sure that they are not creating difficulties for our school children in terms of unsafe food. we're doing a top to bottom review of those programs. we will be looking at our inspection and procurement programs, we'll also have an independent set of eyes at the national academy of sciences take a look at some of those programs, we want to improve the notification system between the federal government, state, and school districts, and so there's an awful lot work going on within fsis. it isn't always necessarily about additional presources. it's about managing sure you're focusing your time and attention on things that matter and we want to make sure we get a regulatory structure in place with the resources that we have. >> what about state inspected meat programs, are they going to be continuing to receive your attention and funding? >> you know, that is a question i will have to get back to you on, unless the deputy is going to bail me out here.

>> in rule making, hopefully soon to come out with the final rule on the interstate meet, i know that's something that wisconsin is desperately waiting for and we've certainly had a lot comments. i think it's a great way to facilitate some of the niche market, very important for the smaller plants, for opportunities there, and we're looking forward to publication of the final rule. we did get a lot of comments and we're trying to fine tune the proposal so everyone will be ready to embrace it. >> i would mrs. say, mr. chairman, that the one area that we are focused on relative to state financials is a continued effort -- inspections is a continued effort to promote more frequent and better inspections of schools. as you know, there is a requirement that there be two inspections per year of schools, not all the schools in america are up to that standard. we continue to press states to make sure that they are encouraging that to happen.

we recognize again, they are under substantial financial stress. we don't want this to be a casualty of that. >> all right. mr. secretary, usda is a principal source of funding to improve availability of electric power throughout rural america. rural areas face unique challenges in accessing adequate power at affordable costs because of the high cost to extend electric power, to rural households, farms and communities due to the lower customer density as well as the remote locational aspects. this budget cuts the electric power program leveled by more than 30%, even though the subsidy cost for this program are small. further stops the use of these funds for the construction acquisition or improvement of fossil fuel electric generating plants, unless those funds are for carbon sequestration systems. we all support cleaner energy, particularly in rural america,

but this budget proposes drastic changes usda electric program. mr. secretary, the planning horizon for large power projects is years. how will these proposed program changes affect the electric power supply to rural areas in the near term, and what assurance can you provide that rural areas will not be harmed, such as with higher electric rates and unreliable power availability as a result of these proposed change, mr. secretary. >> mr. chairman, we are obviously encouraging farmers and ranchers across the country to take a look at their own facilities to determine whether or not they can be embracing more renewable energy opportunities. it's one of the reasons for the read program. we've seen a tremendous interest in reap, millions of dollars being spent to do audits of operations, and i think a growing recognition that there is money to be made and money to be saved through renewable energy, so we obviously wanted to send a positive message about

renewable energy. the president has been very clear about his priorities in this area. i would say that it isn't always necessarily a budget that is -- that is reflective of support that could be provided to an industry. one of the things that we are looking at, which i know the rec's have asked us to look at, is this notion of how we use our security position to enhance expansion. we have circumstances today where we made loans to rec's, where the value of of the assets that they have have substantially appreciated since the time of our loan, which means that our loan is oversecured, if you will. the question is, is there any way in which we can take a look at that oversecurity concept to determine how we might be able to provide additional resources without necessarily spending additional dollars? these are the kinds of things that we need to be looking at, to make sure that in these

fiscally difficult times, we're stretching the resources as effectively as we can, so we're looking at ways in which we can help the rec's, particularly in this way. we haven't yet made a decision on it, but we are looking hat it. -- at it. >> so the assurance is that -- i'm looking for here this morning are forth coming, but not -- >> well, you know, i don't want to mislead the chair. i'm not in a position today to tell you that all of the demands are necessarily going to be met. i can tell you that i think there is a growing demand on the renewable side, which is why our budget reflect that. it's also consistent with the president's comments to the world, to the globe, and i think there are perhaps other strategies that we could utilize that would supplement for additional resources. but we recognize and appreciate the importance of affordable power. >> on broadband, mr. secretary, for the last several years,

substantial funding has been provided annually to extend broadband service throughout rural america. in addition to recovery act made a substantial investment to strengthen the program with funds that must be obligated by this september. this budget seeks additional funding for broadband loans for fy-2011. mr. secretary, please describe the progress you are making extending broadband service to remote unser evidence and underserved rural areas, by the end of this year, how much rural america do you think will still be without adequate broadband service? do you expect to obligate all of the recovery act funds for this by this september and with the abun dance of funding already provided for this program, can you justify an additional $400 million in fy-2011? >> mr. chairman, i think it's fair to say that the tremendous work that congress and the president did in the recovery act in creating opportunities for broadband expansion

represent a significant down payment, but by no means, a balloon payment on the need for expanded broadband access in the united states. we've seen literally thousands of applications for these presources, far in excess of the resources that were made available in the recovery act. we will, i believe, we are on track to obligate our resources by september 30 from the recovery act. but there will still be significant demand after that -- after those applications have been approved and funds are provided. what we are trying to do with this is to emphasize, particularly in rural communities, the importance of having this tech noel. -- technology. it isn't simply expanding broadband, it's making sure people in rural communities know how to use it, whether it's tell communitying, by expanding markets from local to global markets or the opportunities for farmers and ranchers to have

realtime information. there is a need for education for people to understand that this is a tool they ought to have and they ought to be willing, if they have to pay pa subscription fee or whatever they ought to be willing to make that investment because it will return that investment. i would say that beings as i said earlier, in my earlier comments, it is a linchpin of a new rural economy that we have to construct in this country. without that technology, businesses, farmers, ranchers, communities will not be able to succeed in the 21st century. so i think we to continue to invest, i think of we have to be wise about our investments, we have to make sure that folks understand how to utilize the resource that they have, the financial wherewithal and the technical expertise to utilize it properly in community, and that we need to look for projects that will benefit not just a single community, but a region, a group of communities, multiple communities from resources. we're seeing projects, my home state recently received an award in which 12 counties, 90,000

people, will be impacted by this. i think it was something like 30,000 small business operations and farms and activities in this area would be benefited. so it's an enormous opportunity here. so i would encourage the committee to look strongly at continuing to invest in this very important technology. >> you made the point, and i agree with you, that broadband is absolutely essential to the future of rural america. when do you imagine that we'll have full broadband service as well as you've pointed out, the ability of individuals to know how to use it? >> senator -- mr. chairman, i'm not sure i can give you a specific date. i will tell you that i think of we have a ways to go. i know my state, when i left, as governor, we had roughly 90% of the state covered, but that didn't necessarily mean that it was being fully utilized and fully appreciated and that took five or sex years of hard work

on the part of our utility companies and on the part of our small telephone companies to make that happen in the state regulatory structures, so there's a lot of work yet to be done here, but i think we need to accelerate. i would say that continued investment is an indication from this congress and this administration of the importance of it, and the need to continue to look for ways to leverage these resources. and parliament of our challenge candidly, is that there are places where you may have 300 or 400 people, but the investment will be multiple millions of dollars, and so it become very difficult to be able to explain to people why a subsidy of $50,000, $60,000, $70,000 per customer can be warranted, which is why we're looking at lower cost strategies, to at least get people further ahead in the technology arena than they are, whether it's satellite or other strategies that may be perhaps a little bit less expensive than broadband, but can still provide

access to the internet, can still provide some distance learning opportunities. and so it's conceivable that at the end of this process, if we have resources left over from the applications with the recovery act, that we'll put a small amount of money out there for these communities that just cannot -- we just can't justify $50,000 subsidy, but we could justify a satellite operation or a tower or some kind of antenna system. >> all right. mr. secretary, according to a feeing america study, more than 37 million people received emergency food each year through food banks and other agencies. this is an increase of 46% since 2006. the current economic situation not improving for many americans, what is the department doing to help food banks make sure people have access to food? >> well, the recovery act provided us a tremendous shot in the arm. and we got those resources out

as quickly as possible. we'll continue to use hour commodity purchasing capacity. it's a little bit limited based on activity that have taken place prior to this year, but we will continue to look for ways in which we will provide help and assistance. >> the budget includes a small increase for the emergency food assistance program. do you believe this increase is sufficient? >> you know, the answer to that question, senator, depends in part on how well and how quickly the economy recovers. i mean, we expect an anticipate that we're going to see a steady increase in economic activity, as we have seen in the last couple of months. with our stock market being stabilized and the housing market being somewhat stabilized. our hope is that that's

reflected in job growth at some point and when that happens, there will be less demand and less pressure, but in the meantime, we want to provide some resources that will allow us to respond. whether this is enough or not, it somewhat depends on where we are six months from now hornine months from now. our hope is that it is enough, but i -- i'm not going to say that we wouldn't come back here hat some point in time and tell you, we need more. >> we'll leave the last few minutes of this hearing, as the u.s. house is about to gavel into continue debate today on the $149 billion bill to extend certain tax breaks and federal programs through the end of the year. senators passed and the president signed a short-term extension to enable jobless benefits and highway projects to resume for another month. the senate plans to pass the longer extension to the house before that measure expires. several amendments are pending and votes may pop up today on the senate floor. the bill includes expiring tax breaks, jobless benefits,

highway projects, as well as med compare payments to doctors, flood insurance, cobra health insurance, small business programs, and laws governing satellite tv. the u.s. house meanwhile at 10:00 a.m. this morning. live coverage this morning on c-span, this morning, house ways and means meet at this chairman charlie rang emannouncing that he will step aside from his committee position while his ethics investigation continues. now live to the senate floor on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer.

the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, the giver of every good gift, thank you for get harbors of peace where we may bow in prayer and seek your grace and wisdom. guide our senators during this season when vast issues are at stake. as they serve you and country, keep them mindful of the great tradition in which they stand, enabling them to rise to greatness of vision and action.

ford, with confidence we commit ourselves and our nation to you, who knows the road we travel and has promised to bring us to a desired destination. may we continue to expect great things from you as we attempt great things for you. we pray in your gracious 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., march 3, 2010. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: mr. president, we're going to move directly to the bill. if senator mcconnell, of course, wishes to speak, he has that right. we're going to move to h.r. 4213, the tax extenders act. last night we were able to reach an agreement on the next amendments in order. those amendments will be offered soon, and i hope that we'll be able to reach agreements to vote in relation to the pending amendments. mr. president, we're going to offer one, senator murray,

senator sanders will offer one, and then there will be two republican amendments. now, mr. president, we have to clear the decks. there will be no more amendments until we make some arrangement to dispose of what has already been laid down. we have three of these, four more, that means seven amendments, so -- as i repeat, there will be two democratic amendments this morning, two republican amendments. that will mean a total of seven amendments. and we have to -- we're going to take a pause then and try to get rid of some of these and voting on them before we move to others. we can now move to the bill, mr. president. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 4213, which the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 4213, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to extend certain

expiring provisions and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: i sent an amendment to the desk on behalf of senator murray and others. this is number 3356. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, for mrs. murray and others proposes an amendment numbered 3356 to amendment numbered 3336. mr. reid: i ask the reading of the amendment be waived, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: this amendment, i note, has been -- i offer on behalf of mrs. murray, mr. harkin, mrs. boxer, mr. begich, and mr. burris. this is the amendment proposed by senator baucus. the sanders amendment i ask be called up now. that's 3353. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i would note, mr. president, this is for senator sanders, mr. dodd, mr. whitehouse, mr. leahy, and mrs. gillibrand. the presiding officer: the clerk

will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. ride, for mr. sanders and others proposes an amendment numbered 3353 to amendment numbered 3336. mr. reid: i ask the reading of the amendment be waived, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i would ask the clerk call the roll. there appears not to be a quorum present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: the republican leader is recognized. the presiding officer: are we in a quorum call? mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings on the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, most americans breathed a sigh of relief in january when it looked like the democrats' partisan plan for health care was done for. most people saw the outcome of the massachusetts senate race as an opportunity to start over on what they wanted, which is a step-by-step plan that would target costs without raising taxes or insurance premiums, without cutting medicare and without using taxpayer dollars to cover the cost of abortions. unfortunately, the proponents of this plan are still determined to force this distorted vision of health care reform on a public that's already overwhelmingly opposed to it. and so this afternoon, the president will outline yet

another version of the democratic health care plan we have been hearing about all year long. the sales pitch may be new, but the bill isn't. we got a preview of the administration's new sales pitch yesterday in a letter from the president thch -- in which he said he is now willing to incorporate a few republican ideas into the democratic bill, but this isn't what the american people are asking for. americans don't want us to tack a few good ideas onto a bill that reshapes one-sixth of the economy, vastly etion spanneds the role of government, and which raises taxes and cuts medicare to pay for all of it. they want us to scrap the underlying bill, scrap it altogether, and start over with step-by-step reforms that target cost and expand access. this whole exercise is unfortunate and completely unnecessary. it also is a disservice to the

american people. the fact is the longer the democrats cling to their own flawed vision of reform, the longer americans will have to wait for the reforms that they really want. last week's health care summit could have served as the basis for a series of step-by-step reforms that both parties could support and which the general public would embrace. unfortunately, democrats here in washington have decided to press ahead on the same kind of massive bill they were pushing before the summit. even worse, they now seem willing to go to any length necessary -- any length necessary -- to force the bill through congress. well, americans don't know how else to say it. they don't want the massive bill. perfectly clear. they want common sense, bipartisan reforms lower costs and they want us to refocus our energy on creating jobs and the economy. they've had enough of this year-long effort to get a win

for the democratic party at any price to the american people. the americans have paid a big enough price already and the time we've lost focusing on this bill. they don't want it, and they won't tolerate anymore backroom deals or legislative schemes to force it through congress on a partisan basis. history is clear. big legislation always requires big majorities. and this latest scheme to lure democrats into switching their votes in the house by agreeing to use reconciliation in the senate will be met with outrage. so we respectfully encourage the administration to consider a new approach to reform, one that doesn't cut medicare to fund a $1 trillion takeover of the health care system or impose job-killing taxes in the middle of a recession, and one that will win the support of broad majorities in both parties.

we encourage the administration to join republicans and democrats in congress in listening to what the american people have been telling us for more than a year now. and at the risk of being redundant, here's what they're saying: americans are telling us to scrap the bills they have already rejected and start over with commonsense, step-by-step reforms we can all agree on. now is not the time to repeat the same mistakes that brought us here. it is time to listen to the people and to start over. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois is recognized. mr. durbin: mr. president, last night i met the mayor of kankakee, illinois. she told me about a problem she has. kankakee has 28,000 residents.

the economy is hurting. they've lost sales tax revenues. they don't have the income that they had just last year. their annual budget is $20 million for the city of kankakement. that's for all the services that they provide. 10% that have budget, $2 million, goes for the health insurance of the workers in that town -- about 200 of them, 10%, $2 million. so they went to their insurance company and said, what will the insurance cost us this year? and the health insurance company said, your rates are going up 83% -- 83%. what had cost them $2 million last year will cost them almost $4 million this year. when i listened to the speech from the minority leader, the republican leader here, who says, start over, go slow, baby steps, we don't want to do

anything that really is big or addresses this problem in any kind of comprehensive way, i think to myself, does he understand the reality of what businesses, families, and smalltowns and large cities are facing across america? the kankakee example is not unique. just a couple weeks ago in california, blue cross-blue shield, anthem announced a 39% increase in health insurance premiums next year. you know, if you look at what the average family paid for health insurance 10 years ago, it's about $6,000 a year, $500 a month. that's a lot of money. but that was ten years ago and it has doubled in the last ten years. it's now $12,000. the average premium paid by a family of four across america. what will happen in the next eight to ten years?

it will double again. and can you imagine the job that you will need ten years from now that will generate $2,000 a month just for health insurance premiums? -- before you take the first penny home to pay your mortgage or feed your family or provide for your kids' college education? that is the call on the republican side of the aisle to go slow, start over. no, their go slow and start over can be translated into two words: give up. we're not going to give up. they call for common sense. our approach to health care reform really is grounded on common sense. and let me tell you what the basics are. the basics are that small businesses across america need to have choice and competition, and we create insurance exchanges. you know, i went to the health care summit with the president last week and i listened to the

republicans say, you know what's wrong with the health care reform bill? number one, it's a government-run program. well, it's not. it's private health insurance companies brought together by the government to compete for the business of individuals and small businesses. and they said, you know what else is wrong? they put minimum requirements on health insurance plans, minimum requirements of what they will cover. you know, you ought to let the health insurance companies offer whatever they want. if they want to offer something that really is virtually worth worthless, that's their business. let the consumers decide. and i said at that health care summit meeting, isn't it amazing that members of congress who are part of the federal employees' health benefit plan program, including the house and senate members who senate that summit have, their families protected by a government-run health care plan? which establishes minimum requirements for health

insurance to protect our families? and yet when we suggest doing that for the rest of the america, the conservative republicans say, you've gone too far. that violates some basic values and principles. you know, if they were honest about it, they would have walked right out of that summit and turned in their federal employees' health benefit plan program cards and said, we're out of here. this is socialism. we're not going t to be part of it. but, no, they want to enjoy the benefits of a government-run plan with minimum benefits outlined and described for their families. they just don't want other people to have it. that's wrong. it's not only wrong, but it's unfair. it's unfair to the families across america who deserve the same kind of protection of health insurance that members of congress have. so the first commonsense part of our health care reform is insurance exchanges where private companies compete for the businesses -- for the

business, health insurance business, of small businesses and individuals, competition and choice. the second commonsense part of health care reform says, it does no good to own a health insurance policy which isn't there when you need it. you may pa pay a lifetime of pr, one accidents, one diagnose circumstance you're stuck with a huge pile of hospital bills. the health insurance company says, we took a look at your papers. you failed to describe that you had acne as a teenager. i'm not mak making this up. or they say, you didn't tell you that you had an adoptive child in your family. that's another preexisting condition, did you know that? it is. in the list of preexisting conditions, it includes things like that. and that's what happens.

the tricks and traps in health insurance that yank coverage from you when you need it the most. this bill, the health care reform bill that we're working on, starts to change that relationship. and it gives the consumer across america a fighting chance, to fight back when they are denied coverage for a preexisting condition, to fight back when they say there's a cap on the total amount that we're going to pay in your lifetime, to fight back when they say, you can't take your insurance with you when you leave a job, to fight back when parents realize that when their kids get out of college, the family health insurance program can't cover them anymore. those are basic health insurance reforms that embody common sense. the senator from kentucky, senator mcconnell, comes here and says, we've got to junk this big government plan. it's so wildly unpopular. is it unpopular to offer choice and competition to small businesses? is it unpopular to give consumers a fighting chance against health insurance

companies? and there's a third aspect, too. we asked the republicans at the health care summit, if you accept the obvious, that 50 million uninsured americans get sick, go to hospitals, are treated and the cost of their care is then passed on to everyone else, if you accept that, what are you going to do about it? they said, oh, we have an answer to that: 50 million uninsured americans? we'll deal with that. we'll take care of 3 million of them. 3 million of them. 6% of them, we'll take care of them. well, the bill that we are supporting, the health care reform bill we're support, takes care of 30 million. i wish it were 50 million. but it takes care of 60%, over half of them. the hospital administrator at memorial medical center in springfield, illinois, said to me, senator, if i don't have to give out all this charity care, i can contain my costs and really build this hospital and even make it greater nor this

community. but i have to absorb charity care for uninsured people because we do that in america. put more of them in insurance, i will have more revenue coming in, i won't have to transfer their cost burden to other families, i'll be better as a hospital, we'll do better as a community. i think he's right. it's just common sense. the senator from kentucky says we need common sense. that's part of it. i think we also need common sense when it comes to medicare. medicare, of course, was created almost 50 years ago. those who opposed it said, too much government. those who supported it said, how else can we provide for the elderly and retired, giving them basic health care protection if we don't have an insurance plan across america that we contribute to as we work and is available for us when we retire? what happened when medicare was passed? senior citizens started living

longer, better, more independent lives. the record is there. it's clear. it worked. and we want it to continue to work. but the problem is, as the costs of health care skyrocket because of baby steps and no steps recommended by the other side of the aisle, as the costs skyrocket, medicare costs do as well. it only has about nine years left before it goes into the red. well, the bill that we are proposing, the health care reform bill, will extend the life of medicare another decade. i wish it were longer. but it certainly is a step in the right direction. and how do we extend the life of medicare? we look at the waste in medicare today -- and there is waste. let me give you a couple numbers to compare. and these numbers reflect the average cost for each medicare recipient annually in each community.

in my hometown of springfield, illinois, central illinois, small-town america, i'm honored to represent, $7,600 a year average cost of medicare recipient. rochester, minnesota cialtion home of one of the greatest hospitals in america -- mayo clinic, a place i dearly love and respect for the treatment they've given to my family -- it's about the same, $7,600 a year for medicare recipients, annual cost. now go to chicago, big city -- $9,600 a year average cost for medicare recipients. and now go to miami, florida -- average cost for medicare recipients: $17,000 a year. now, it costs more to live in miami than it does to live in springfield or even rochester, minnesota, but twice as much? no.

something is wrong here. overpayments are obvious in miami, florida in mcallen, texas -- we can pick them out, and we can see that we are wasting our tax dollars with too many tests, too many procedures, not focusing on quality but quantity. can we make this a better system? can we keep seniors healthy and reduce costs? of course we can. we can eliminate a lot of the waste. we can raise questions about self-dealing by doctors who make sure that they send their patients to their own laboratories using their own machines over and over again. we can do that. and in doing so, we're not going to compromise the basic care that medicare recipients want. so the senator from kentucky says too big. it's a big government program. we need to go step by baby step here. no, we need to take a look at the obvious. if we don't address medicare and reform it the right way, in nine

years it will be in the red, going broke. we cannot let that happen. baby steps from the other side of the aisle will not take us on this important journey to the goal that we all share. i also want to say a word about the deficit. president obama said to us when we started this debate i know what our goals are, but in reaching those goals, do not add to america's debt. we came up with ways to reduce health care costs, to increase taxes on people making over over $200,000 a year. not dramatic increases, but, in fact, increases in taxes for them. and the congressional budget office says as a result in the first ten years, our bill, the health care reform bill, will reduce the deficit by by $130 billion, and in the second ten years, it will reduce it by $1.3 trillion. the largest deficit reduction in the history of the united states. this approach is fiscally

sensible, fiscally sound. now a word before i close. i see my colleague from iowa is on the floor and i want to yield to him, about reconciliation. senator grassley is on the finance committee. he served on there for a number of years, and he understands how the senate works. when president reagan wanted to initiate his tax cuts, he used a process called reconciliation. reconciliation basically says no filibuster. you come to the floor, you offer your amendments, and ultimately it's a majority vote. that's what reconciliation says. so president reagan used reconciliation for tax cuts. speaker newt gingrich used reconciliation for his contract with america. we have used reconciliation to create the cobra program to provide health insurance for unemployed workers across america. time and again, we have used reconciliation for major issues involving taxes and revenue.

it's been done 21 times in the last couple of decades. more often, it's used by the republican side of the aisle than the democratic side of the aisle. now, to brand this process as somehow un-american and unfair is to suggest that all of the efforts by the republicans to use this process have been un-american and unfair. i don't think that's true. it wasn't true then. it isn't true now. what we have is a bill that has passed the senate, health care reform bill, which is now over to the house. the house of representatives will decide whether or not they can enact the senate version of health care reform. the follow-on bill is likely to be the reconciliation bill which will make some changes in that health care bill. it's not the total health care bill, but it will include changes. some of the changes that are being contemplated are ones that i think most members on both sides agree to.

should we close the doughnut hole? well, what's the doughnut hole? it's a gap in coverage in medicare prescription drugs for seniors. should we close that gap? i think we should. that's part of it. second, should we try to make health insurance more affordable? our underlying bill puts almost almost $450 billion in tax cuts on the table for small businesses and for individuals who cannot afford their premiums. the reconciliation bill will try to make it even more affordable. can we help the states with their medicaid burdens? we should. my state of illinois and iowa and new mexico, governors are struggling. with motion on unemployment, more and more people need medicaid. we should help them pay for it. these ideas behind reconciliation, there are other aspects to them, we're working out details on them. none of them are radical. none of them are comprehensive in terms of changing health care dramatically in america, but they do improve on a bill that

has already passed in the united states senate. the republican leader comes to the floor and tells us this is un-american and unfair. i couldn't disagree more. every time we hear the republican side of the aisle say start over, i ask them how much longer should america wait? we have been at this in the senate now almost nonstop for over a year. the senator from iowa, senator grassley, was part of a bipartisan effort with senator baucus, a democrat, that went through 61 separate meetings to try to find bipartisan agreement, and it didn't. i salute senator grassley and others for trying, but it didn't, and we had to move forward. so should we start over? should we give up the things that i've talked about? should we give up this effort to give small businesses choice and competition? give up on the effort to make

sure we have a fighting chance with insurance companies? give up on the effort of trying to make sure that a substantial number of uninsured americans have that protection. give up on the effort of extending the life of medicare for ten years? give up on the effort to reduce our deficit by reducing health care costs, not only for our government but for businesses and families? no. we cannot give up. we cannot give up on america. we cannot give up on this challenge, and i urge my colleagues to stay the course, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. grassley: are we now on the pending legislation? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. grassley: then i ask unanimous consent -- and i think this has been cleared with the other side -- that the pending amendment be set aside for the purpose of my offering an amendment and giving short debate on my amendment.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the. the clerk: the senator from iowa, mr. grassley, for himself and others proposes amendment numbered 3352 to amendment numbered 3336. mr. grassley: thank you for reading my amendment. mr. president, a couple days ago, i stated that i had worked in early february to put together a bipartisan package with my amendment. -- or with my colleague, finance committee chairman baucus to address some time-sensitive matters that needed to be considered. so i find it surprising that we're taking up a package this week that like last week's exercise still is a partisan product belonging to the senate

democratic leadership. we are not taking up the bipartisan package that i put together with finance committee chairman baucus. this partisan bill, the senate democratic leadership legislation arbitrarily decided decided -- i stated that wrong, mr. president. let me start over again. the senate democratic leadership arbitrarily decided to replace two weeks ago the baucus-grassley bipartisan bill with one that is dramatically different. that partisan package is almost three times the size and significantly greater in cost than the bipartisan bill that senator baucus and i announced on february 11. it's unfortunate that the democratic leadership failed to ensure that these critically needed medicare provisions were

extended at the end of last year, and then they failed to extend the provisions that had expired in 2009 for over two months. so today, this present situation i just described brings me to the offering of this amendment. this amendment would ensure that medicare provisions are fully offset, and my amendment would also extend the sphiz update through -- the physicians' update through the end of this year. the word physicians' update is directly related to the fact that on december 31 and now on february 28, doctors will not receive their full payment. it will be cut by 22% under the existing formula. except that just recently, that

was extended so that doesn't actually happen. but this on-again, off-again situation that doctors are put in ought to end, and this amendment i offered will make sure that that doesn't happen through all of 2010. so i want to make very clear that this isn't just for doctors, even though it affects just doctor payment, but these provisions are also essential to the health and well-being of every medicare beneficiary. and this is the fiscally responsible way to extend that. we ought to pay for them. these medicare provisions have been routinely supported by both sides, fully offset and passed repeatedly in recent years. now, of course, it's march 3. medicare beneficiaries around

the country are suffering from the democratic leader's decision to abandon the baucus-grassley bipartisan package that my colleagues and i had worked out weeks ago. first, there is the urgently needed physician payment update, and sometimes around this town we refer to this as the doctors fix for short, to fix the formula, to bring the formula up to date so those 22% cuts doesn't go into effect. now, there was a doctor's fix at the end of last year through a two-month extension that expired, as i just said, on february 28. so as of march 1, physicians and nurses and other health care professionals were subject to

the severe cuts of 21%. and then because we get a lot of calls -- and my office got these calls as well from doctors concerned about how they are going to keep their office open, we now that 30-day extension passed last night so these physician payments that would have been a 22% cut now for three days won't take place until -- unless we act the end of march. that's not a very good way to do business if you have got to worry about a doctor, particularly in rural america, keeping their offices open and pay their help, so we ought to do it on a more consistent basis than running month to month. these cuts to physician payments cannot be allowed to occur, and as damaging as these would be to beneficiary access to care

anywhere, these cuts are even more disastrous for access to care in rural america like iowa where medicare reimbursement is already at least 30% lower than in other areas. i'm appalled that seniors' access to physicians and needed medical care has been handled this way because of political games that are being played by the majority leaders. -- leadership. should these cuts remain in place, they will have a truly devastating effect on the ability of seniors to find payments who take medicare payments. many beneficiaries have already been affected by medicare provisions that the senate democratic leadership allowed to expire even last december. one of the most urgent situations involves limitations that medicare places on the amount of certain kinds of treatments for beneficiaries.

medicare places annual limits on the amount of outpatient physical therapy, speech, language pathology therapy and occupational therapy that a beneficiary can receive. in other words, the government is saying regardless of how much health care you need in these areas of therapy, you can only get up to so much dollar amount. well, laws that have lapsed have allowed special cases to be taken care of contrary to what the law specifically says on dollar limit. in 2005, the law was changed to provide an exception process to these therapy caps for situations when additional therapy is medically needed, and that needed protection for beneficiaries then expired when the doctors fix expired,

december 31. medicare beneficiaries who have suffered strokes or serious debilitating injuries, such as i say a hip fracture, have significant rehabilitation needs. so we're in this situation of extending this doctor fix from month to month. situations that need this rehabilitation have already exceeded the caps for 2010. those with the greatest need for therapy will be the hardest hit. here again with the 30-day extension bill having passed last night, this problem has been only temporarily fixed. but this is another case where congress is playing political games with medicare. these should have been taken care of at the end of last year, and they could already have been resolved even now, if the senate

had taken up the original baucus-grassley bill instead of having it replaced with a cu cutback, partisan piece of legislation that the senate handled last year. or you might say, being handle right now with this specific piece of legislation now on the floor of the senate that my amendment is being added to. 0 other essential provisions that we need to be looking at for extension are additional payments for mental health services. this benefits medicare beneficiaries into n. need of mental health counseling, as well as veterans suffering from post-trougposttraumatic stress r disorders since try car tricared upon medicare rates. another issue concerning additional payments for ambulance services that many ambulance providers need just to keep their doors open. those provisions also expired at

the end of last year, but they were not extended in the 30-day bill voted on last night. another important issue affects community pharmacies, pharmacies that have not gone through the accreditation process will soon be forced to turn away medicare beneficiaries. a provision in my amendment would ensure that beneficiaries who need vital medical supplies like diabetic test strips, canes, nebulizers and wound-care products can continue to have access to these products through their community pharmacy. many eligible professionals such as physicians, nurse practitioners, physical therapists and others have been specifically exempted from this accreditation requirement. this provision would also exempt community pharmacies under

certain conditions. a number of other expired provisions are extended in this package. they include improved payments for hospitals, especially rural hospitals that rely on these provisions just to keep their doors open. and like many others, these problems are not fixed in a simple 30-day bill passed last night. these problems remain. the impact of a hospital shutting its doors would be especially hard on rural and underserved areas where hospitals offer only access -- the only access to health care. we need to pass this critically needed and fiscally responsible amendment now, and i urge my colleagues to support it. that's what i have to say on my amendment. i'd like to take just a couple

minutes to respond to a couple issues that senator durbin brought up, and i'm not here to refute anything he said but to give an addendum to what he said on a couple points. one is the use of reconciliation and the 0 opposition, i think pretty unified on this side of the aisle that the name of the game should not be changed, and he didn't say anything inaccurate. but when it comes to reconciliation on massive 2,700-page bill that we call "health care reform" that is a partisan bill, the same bill that passed christmas eve in this body, never has reconciliation been used to reorganize one-sixth of the entire economy. in other words, about $2.5

trillion out of a $14 trillion economy is being reorganized by that health care reform bill, and so i say to senator durbin that that's quite a bit different than using reconciliation for a tax bill or for a medicare reform bill or to save money on certain entitlement programs. it's kind of like peanuts compared to a massive restructuring of one-sixth of the economy. and that's why we say reconciliation should not be used. a second point for not using reconciliation is the fact that this bill has been turned down by the vast majority of the

american people, overwhelming opposition to this 2,700-page bill, albeit, not overwhelming opposition to the issue. is the present health care system adequate and should it be changed? with that, i think a slight proportion of the american people would say "yes." and i think most of the 14*u7b senators would -- and i think most of the 100 senators would say "yes" to that. but for this 2,700-page bill, 70% of the american people have said that it needs to be -- it needs to be started over again with a clean sheet of paper. and then on the issue that he brought up of extending medicare for ten years, that's true if you use the double-accounting in the bill. and as the congressional budget office has stated that it is

using double-accounting. well, that's not the way that you can intellectually count money twice. the congressional budget office, in a paper that i read to the president at the summit last year, claims that it is double-counting. that's not just the way to do business. and you could extend any program -- the viability of any program by a lot, if you're going to count money twice. but you just can't do that. and the sum of that problem -- that's wrong with the 2,700-page bill. the american people understand that. that's why they've rejected it, and that's why we say reconciliation shouldn't be used, and that's why we say you should start over and do things incrementally. i yield the floor. and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont recognized. mr. sanders: i move to set aside -- the presiding officer: the national is currently in a quorum call. mr. sanders: i move that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. sanders: mr. president, the amendment that i want to speak on is number 3353, and this amendment is extremely simple, and it is extremely straightforward. at a time when millions of senior citizens, veterans, and persons with disabilities have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty, at a time when the cost of prescription drugs, medical care, and heating oil have gone through the roof in many parts of our country, at a time when millions of seniors have seen the values of their pensions, their homes and their life savings plummet, at a time -- and here is the important point -- for the first time in

36 years seniors will not be receiving a cola in their social security benefits, the amendment that i am offering today with senators dodd, leahy, schumer, kerry, whitehouse, mikulski, gillibrand, lautenbergings and begich will provide over 55 million senior citizens, veterans, and persons with disabilities $250 in much-needed emergency relief. this $250 emergency payment is equivalent to a 2% increase in benefits for the average social security retiree, and it is, as you will recall, the same amount that seniors received last year, as part of the recovery act. in other words, what we are doing now is exactly the same as

we did last year with the recovery act. mr. president, i don't know about new mexico, but i do know that in vermont a lot of citizens -- senior citizens, and veteranses -- disabled veterans -- are wondering this year why they have not received a cola? they've written to my office, and they're saying to me, hey, i don't know what you're talking about, because my costs have increased over the last year. and that is because, in fact, while inflation may not have gone up in general, those areas that elderly people and people who have health problems utilize -- prescription drugs, health care, other health-related issues -- those costs, in fact, have gone up very substantially. so there is an awareness, i think, all over this country that we cannot in the midst of

this recession turn our backs on disabled veterans and seniors. this amendment has widespread support from organizations representing tens and tens of millions of americans. among the organizations that are supporting this amendment are the aarp, the largest senior group in america, the american legion, the largest veterans group in america; the veterans of foreign wars, the national committee to preserve social security and medicare; the disabled american veterans; amvets; and many other organizations. mr. president, money directed to this population will go almost immediately into the economy. so when we talk about stimulus lurks i don't know a better way to get money -- so when we talk about the stimulus, i don't know a better way to get money out than passing this amendment.

i am also delighted and happy that president obama is very strongly supportive of a $250 emergency payment to seniors. as you know, the president has spoken out on this issue, and he has also can included it in his budget, and he has also recommended that it be included in the underlying legislation that we are debating today. and here's what president obama has said about this issue, and i quote: "even as we seek to bring about recovery, we must act on behalf of those hardest hit by this recession. that is why i am announcing my support for an additional $250 in emergency recovery assistance to seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities to help them make it through these difficult times. these payments will provide aid to more than 50 million people in the coming year, relief that will not only make a difference

for them but for our economy as a whole, implementin complementx cuts we've provided working families and small businesses in the recovery act. this additional assistance will be especially important in the coming months, as countless seniors and others have seen their retirement accounts and home values decline as a result of this economic crisis." end of quote, president obama. and i very much appreciate the president speaking out and fighting for senior citizens and the disabled with regard to this issue. mr. president, i can tell you that just on monday, i had a meeting with senior citizens and senior citizen organizations in the state of vermont, and it was a very distressing meeting, because when we talked, for

example, about nutrition programs, the commodity -- the meals on wheels program, or the congregate meals wha program in which seniors coming to senior citizens centers to get a decent lunch, people are telling me that for the first time in many years, when seniors are asked to put money into an envelope -- and very carefully, the senior centers don't want to know what people contribute. people can contribute what they want. and what they are innocenting noinnocent --and what they are w is that people are putting in nothing or maybe they're putting in just one dollar. and they're seeing the same thing when people get out of their cars and they deliver meals to very fragile and frail people in rural areas, people don't have the money now to pay even $2 for a lunch. so all over this country, people

-- seniors are hurting, and i think they are upset and distressed that they are not getting a cola this year. and, essentially, what this payment is about is a substitute for a cola. it is a one-year payment, and it's the equivalent of about a 2% cola. let me just mention the response of some of the veterans organizations, and this amendment, importantly, will be helping our disabled veteranses. here is what the v.f.w. said in support of this amendment. they said, and i quote, "this year veterans and seniors will not receive a cola. this could not come at a worse time. your legislation would provide a one-time check of $250 to 1.4 million veterans, 48.9 million social security recipients, and 5.1 million s.s.i. recipients.

we believe that this will provide some relief to those veterans and seniors living on fixed incomes who rely on a cola to keep up with daily living expenses. the v.f.w. commends you for concentrating on changes that can positively impact the lives of others and looks forward to working with you and your staff to ensure passage of this legislation." end of quote. i want to thank the veterans of foreign wars for the great work they do and for supporting this amendment. we appreciate their support. now let me just quote a letter that i recently received from another organization that has been very strong for many, many years in fighting for senior citizen rights, and that is the national committee to preserve social security and medicare. and this is what the national committee says, and i quote: "the national committee strongly urges to you pass legislation to provide a $250 payment to our nation's seniors who did not receive a cola this year. it is vitally important that we

provide help for seniors of modest means who have been adversely affected by the economic recession and rapidly rising health care costs. seniors have been especially hard hit by the 20% to 30% decline in the value of employer pensions, ira's and 401(k)'s as well as the steep drop in housing values. and, unlike younger americans shall the elderly are much less likely to recover their savings losses due to their shorter economic horizon." end of quote. and that's from the national committee to preserve social security and medicare. we appreciate their support for this amendment. and here's aquote from the aarp, which represents over 40 million americans, and we support -- we very much appreciate their support. this is what the aarp says, and i quote: "for over three decades,

millions of americans have counted on annual increases to help make ends meet. in this economy, having this protection is even more critical for the financial security of all older americans. aarp applauds the president for urging congress to extend for 2010 the $250 economic relief provided to older americans last year. the 65-plus population is facing extreme financial hardship. older americans are paying more out of pocket to medical care, have experience add real decline in their retirement accounts and in housing values, face longer periods of unemployment for those who need work, and low returns on interest-bearing accounts. without relief, millions of older americans will be unable to afford skyrocketing health care and prescription drug costs

as well as other basic necessities. aarp will continue to work with members of congress from both sides of the aisle to provide $250 in economic relief to millions of seniors who count on social security to pay their bills." end of quote. here's the point, the point that the v.f.w. has made, the national committee has made, the aarp has made: , you know, some people may say, you know, $250, it's not a lot of money. but the truth of the matter is, if you are a senior in the state of vermont or in any other state in this country, and your health care costs are going up and your prescription drug costs are going up and your heating bills are going up and you're not getting any cola this year, you're in trouble. you are in real trouble. and i do not want to give any i will thriewtion this $250 -- and

i do not want to give any illusion that this $250 is going to turn anybody's life around, it is not. but it is going to give people a little bit of support, making their lives just a little bit easier. so, mr. president, i think that this is extremely important legislation, and it's important legislation that i hope we can have widespread bipartisan support. and once again i want to thank all of the organizations who are supporting this amendment, and that's the aarp, the american legion, the veterans of foreign wars, the national committee to preserve social security and medicare, the disabled american veterans, and amvets, and o.w.l. as well. so the bottom line here is we're

in the midst of a very serious recession. we are doing our best to try to figure out ways that we can create the millions of good-paying jobs our working people need. we're going to pass cobra to make sure that when people lose their jobs they don't lose their health insurance. we're going to extend unemployment benefits, but in the middle of all of that, let us not forget our parents and our grandparents, let's not forget senior citizens, and disabled veterans. let's pass this amendment of thank you very much, mr. president. and with that, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado is recognized. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. bennet: i ask permission from the chair to speak for 15 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i'd like to take a couple of minutes this morning to talk about something that not

only affects the legislation currently on the floor, but everything we are currently working on in the senate. before coming to the senate a little over a year ago, i had spent my life in the real world, the world of business, of local government, of public schools, and most important of all of family, but since coming to washington, i have discovered that many people learn to live in an entirely different world, an echo chamber shut off from the reality of life in america that defies common sense at every turn and uses anonymous holds to defy the rule of reason. i used to tell my little girls that alice in wonderland was just a fairy tale, but now i'm not so sure. if you come from the real world, when you get to washington to wonderland, the logic can seen upside-down or inside out or just plain wrong. here it turns out that folks attack you when you don't cut

back room deals at the taxpayers' expense. here a lot of people seem to think that saying they are for doing something, like extending unemployment benefits or passing a jobs bill, is exactly the same thing as actually rolling up your sleeves and getting it done. they think that blaming failure on their opponents is the same thing as fighting for real change. mr. president, coloradans and americans are reading their papers and watching their televisions, and what they see drives them nuts. and it should, because all they find are talking heads yelling at each other on cable news and cynical, reckless partisanship paralyzing their government. this phony political conversation won't do when we need real change, but washington can't seem to get out of its own way, and that is why i will introduce legislation to end lobbyists' abuses, reform the ways of the senate, stop the outside influence of special interests, and put washington to

work for the people of colorado. first we need to hold congress accountable. we should freeze the pay and office budgets of every member of congress until we have four quarters of job growth. our salaries and office budgets should not go up when the rest of the country is struggling. and members of congress should lose their taxpayer funded health insurance until we pass health insurance reform. if congress can't get its act together on health care, then the american people shouldn't subsidize health care for congress. that goes for democrats and republicans. it turns out that dysfunction in washington is just another kind of pre-existing condition that allows the insurance companies to get their way. second, we need real lobbying reform that restores power to the voters. we need to ban members of congress from becoming lobbyists when they leave office. we need to do something about the revolving door between congress and k street. we need stronger rules and

tighter standards for lobbyists registration and real penalties for those who break the rules, and we need to end the corporate subsidy for members of congress who fly on corporate jets. every member of congress should pay their fair share and disclose every person who is on the plane with them. third, real reform will not be complete without earmark reform. the people of colorado pay taxes and they deserve a government that works for them. i have no issue with members of congress fighting for projects they think are valuable for their state or for their district. i'm proud, for example, of the funding we secured for projects like the arkansas valley conduit which languished, languished in the senate since president kennedy first promised it to the people of colorado. but this funding should be done in the light of day, completely transparent and accountable, not behind closed doors, hidden from the american people. under my legislation, members of congress will be required to

post every earmark request they receive and every request they make for funding, and we shouldn't wait for the law to change. there is no reason to wait for the law to change. we can start doing this now. second, every earmark should be listed at earmarks.gov. the website should be easily searchable and user friendly. third, members of congress should be held accountable for their requests. larger earmark requests should go before the appropriations committee, and we should end air drops of earmarks in conference committee. finally, earmark recipients should be held accountable. this means randomly auditing earmarks every year and publishing the results for our constituents to see. next, we need to deal with the challenge of passing real campaign finance reform that reduces the outside influence of special interests. i intend to support the bill that senator schumer and congressman van hollen are putting together and urge my

colleagues to do the same. finally, we need to reform the institution of the senate itself. the filibuster has been used in the senate for quite some time. it's been used by the minority to slow down debate, have their voices heard, and in some cases stall legislation. i would remind members of my own party that just the threat of a filibuster stopped the privatization of social security. however, during this session of congress, the right to filibuster has been abused. it has become a normal part of business, a way to stall every piece of legislation and simply slow the senate to a crawl. three months ago, mr. president, we spent weeks debating the extension of unemployment benefits. the bill passed 98-0. the senate has spent days, weeks and sometimes months holding up nominees that pass with more than 90 votes, and to add insult to injury, one senator held up

the entire senate, preventing us from extending unemployment benefits and caribbean. the -- and cobra. the country deserves much better than that. i will introduce legislation that will reform senate procedure to encourage the two parties to work together to get things done. it will eliminate anonymous holds. if senators want to single-handedly stop a nominee from being approved, then they should have the courage to do so publicly. it will introduce a new procedure to allow us to reduce the time of debate so that we can move on legislation that has broad bipartisan support. third, it will eliminate the filibuster on the motion to proceed. it's one thing to try to block a piece of legislation. it's another thing to prevent it from even being debated in the first place. and finally, my legislation would change the rules of the filibuster to force the two parties to actually talk to each other and not past each other.

the president reminded us during the state of the union that our job is not to get elected, and i have heard the same thing from thousands of coloradans in hundreds of living rooms and town halls. it's easy to throw our hands up in the air and wait for someone else to make the big changes we need, but we all know that the american people deserve better. i know the people of colorado expect much more. they know that the united states senate needs a big dose of colorado common sense. i know this is not easy. i know there are 100 different reasons, maybe a thousand different reasons some will say we can't get this done, but i also know our country needs a government that works for them. i hope my colleagues from both sides of the aisle will work with me and others to make sure we get it done. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: mr. president, we have been talking about having a bipartisan effort to rein in spending and some of the things we can do in that regard, so i'm pleased to just share a few thoughts today on the legislation that my democratic colleague, claire mccaskill of missouri, and i have offered that would ensure that we show some fiscal discipline in our spending habits. it is not a dramatic change in what we should be doing and what i think we can do, but it is

a -- an action that would send a message, i think, to the financial markets in the world that we are beginning to get the message from our constituents that this recklessness, this kind of spending cannot continue. our legislation received bipartisan support last time. 56 senators voted for it, which is a pretty good number, but you do need to get 60 to pass the legislation. i think this time with our new colleague from massachusetts, maybe we're at 57, we may be at 58, and others i think at this moment may be evaluating whether this is the kind of action they would like to support. let me go back and take a palestinian or two and explain what our legislation attempts to

do, how it can work, how it has worked in the past, and why this step could be important. because it would really set a firm, much firmer cap on our spending. it would make it more difficult for our spending levels to violate the budget. i'd like to explain why i think it's something members of both parties can support. what we're talking about is moving beyond the budget caps that are only good for one year and take those budget caps and extend them for four years, and make them statutory. it's not something that can't be changed. if there is an emergency, we can vote to do that. in fact, our congress can, with 60 votes, eliminate the whole statute and write a new statute

if we feel it's too severe. so congress clearly would have the ability to ability, if it chose, to get around these limits on spending. back in the 1990's, this statute -- early 1990's, legislation was passed that put a statutory cap on spending, and at this moment -- and we have charts that i would just show that -- it's kind of upsite down in a way. this -- it's kind of upside down in a way. this shows the deficits in the early 1990's. this is when we passed the legislation, the statutory cap on spending, and the deficits went down until we hit surplus. for four years in the late 1990's, early 2000. and then this statutory cap expired, and that's when deficits started going up and they're continuing to go up. three times this amendment last year actually in deficit, three

times that amount, $1,400 billion in debt last year, and it's expected to be $1,500,000,000,000 in deficit this year -- deficit in one year. so this is an unsustainable path that we'd be taking. this is a proven technique to gain control of spending. why it was allowed to expire and not extended in early 2000, i don't know. i know a number of people argued that it should be kept, and it was not. secondly, what is the cap? what would it be? the amount of limit that we would place on spending would be the amount that president obama asked for in his budget. it's 1% to 2% in the spending accounts. and if you went above that you'd have to have a serious bipartisan vote of two-thirds to

break that cap that the president has set as the proper goal. i would note parenthetically, since the president submitted that budget, he has indicated that he would like to see a freeze on spending, on the non-defense discretionary accounts, a flat freeze. so i would be supportive of that, and i'd support the president in that, but i think, first, if we could just get a hard limit on the 1% to 2% increase, we'd feel like we've done something worthwhile. so how would this work? if somebody came in and proposed spending levels that exceeded the specific budgetary limits, as set by president obama's budget, then they would have to ask -- it could only be done by

waiving the statutory cap, and that takes a two-thirds vote. so this would have some teeth to it. now, of course, if we have a serious emergency, we've gone back and checked for the last 30 years and every time there's been an emergency like an earthquake or an ice storm or a hurricane, the congress has waived the budgets and enacted emergency legislation with 90 votes, 100 votes, high 70 votes -- eve every single time. so it is unlikely that there would ever -- that you would see a emergency not be funded if the nation has to do that. i don't think that's a problem. what we are saying, though, is that when we have legislation come up, that comes up that's

not paid for, that is not accounted for, a person would be able to make a budget point of order and say, you -- you shouldn't have expended moneys in more than 1% increase in this budget account or 2% increase, and i make a budget point of order. take a two-thirds vote of the senate to waive it. so it really, i think, gives some real teeth to the president's budget, the same kind of teeth that president obama -- president clinton had during his time in office, his budget or the congressional budget, that was actually passed by the senate and the house. that budget was enforceable. and when it was enforceable, we achieved a surplus. now, let's be frank. it will be more difficult today to achieve a budget surplus than in the 1990's. we've got a lot of different

factors at work here. one of nem is that the disft so much -- one of them is that the deficit is so much larger and we've got some real problems getting there. but you've got to begin. i don't -- i would just put this -- okay ... so, you say, well, you've got a budget, my colleagues might here say, and why is this a problem. why can't you just use your budget point of order and stop spending and contain it to a rate close to inflation at lower rates than we've seen in the past? well, it didn't work last year. this is a 2000 base increases in the year we're in today -- the feral yeafiscal year 2010 -- tou how spending has increased. the chart that i've got here, does not -- does not -- include

the breathtakingly huge $800 billion stimulus bill. each one of these accounts got money out of that. i haven't even included that in there. but look what we did the year we're in. the budget was below this, but it -- eventually, this is what we passed. foreign operations, foreign aid, state department got a 32.8% increase. interior, 16% increase. c.j.s. -- commerce, justice, state -- is 12.3% increase. thud -- transportation, hoirks and urban development -- 23% increase. agriculture, 14.5% increase. defense -- the lowest one -- 4.1%. all of these well above

inflation rate in our country. and so what i'm saying is, this is unsustainable. every witness we've had at the budget committee hearing, democrats and republicans, brookings and heritage foundation, all of them are saying this is an unsustainable course. it has the potential to threaten 0 our economy and our political future, really, as one said. and one of the witnesses recently said, when you run up debts like we're doing today and you get to the very top of the amount of debt this nation can carry, and we're heading to that direction, that bad things can happen quickly, unanticipatedly. you have a serious collapse in greece, or "the new york times" today reports real instability with regard to the brits and

their debt. you think that greece has an impact on our economy because of their reckless spending, the british economy is far larger. it would have an even greater impact. we are not far behind. in some ways we're ahead of the brits in the amount of money we're spending, in the amount of debt we're accumulating. so we're threatening our economy if we don't watch it in ways that we can't anticipate. no body predicted -- well, at least there were some private prognosticate irrelevancprognosd 2007 -- some predicted the debt rising and predicted bad things to havment but none of our leaders d mr. bernanke woos -- mr. bernanke was supposed to be

so great and they brag about him. where was he, if he's supposed to be so smart? so our people are suffering today because of bad decisions, and i have a simple view: that is, nothing comes from nothing. nothing ever could. everything you take today somebody has paid ford and bought. if you don't have the money today, and you grasp something of value, somebody is paying for it. and in our case, we're borrowing the money. so, i just would want to say, mr. president, that we can do better. we've done better in the 1990's. we're not going to be able to slash spending in record amounts, but i think in some of our accounts, we absolutely could eliminate spending. some of the government programs have been independently evaluated as to be not worth the money we're spend on them. they should be ended. you shouldn't be spending money hon a program that doesn't produce a return, worthy of the

investment we're putting into it, even if you call it a jobs bill. we're going to help people have jobs, but if it doesn't produce jobs, how can we spend money on it? we need to be more vigorous in analyzing it. soiled just say to my colleagues, please -- so i would just say to my colleagues, please look at this legislation. i think it would be just a few more votes and we could have a bipartisan statement that we're going to stick on the budget that we passed, the budget that president obama submitted. and if the president comes in and s it, maybe we can spend less than even this legislation would control. we could even reduce some spending in certain accounts. i would hope that's possible. this isn't a final word, but it would send a message to the world, to wall street, to our constituents that we hear your concerns and we're going to take some firm steps. we're not going to be waltzing

in here every week or two with some other bill that's not paid for and treating it as an emergency and increasing our debt. i know senator bunning -- i see him here -- a lot of people didn't understand what it is that he was objecting to with regard to this bill dealing with unemployment insurance. the legislation that came up essentially declared -- flatly declared, really -- that this was an emergency, that we're going to spend another $10 billion, and tbas going to be on top of the -- and it was going to be on top of the budget, would not be under the budget, and every bit of that $10 billion would have to be financed by borrowing on the world market. and senator bunning said, i'm willing to support an unemployment insurance extension, but i'd like for us

to start paying pour it, for a chaifnlgt anchange, and end thif debt and the ease in which we go about it. so we're in a big battle about that right now. let me say a bipartisan word here about my legislation. because there's so much intensity this year about our spending, i've altered the legislation -- senator mccaskill and i have -- from the one we voted on a few weeks ago that got 56 votes, 17 democrats voting for it. we've altered it so it begins next year. so we're going to have this fight this year. each bill will have its own battle and we'll have our own votes on it. but it will really only apply next year. and i think that that's the kind of a good-faiths reach out to our colleagues to say, let's at least do that. let's at least put the caps that we put in place as part of our budget, as part of president

obama's budget, let's put it in effect. if we go above that and if somebody has an idea of going above it, it won't be so easy. it'll take a two-thirds vote to do so. so if you don't believe that we ought to make it tougher to bust our budget, don't vote for it. but if you believe, as i think most of our constituents believe, we're showing too little fiscal discipline, then you should vote for it because it would give us an ability, as has been proven in the past, to contain spending and get us -- getting on the right track. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mr. bunning: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ken cefnlt. mr. bunning: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that pending amendments be set aside so i can call up my two amendments which are at the desk and that the reading of the amendments be waived.

the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the amendments. mr. bunning: thank you. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. bunking, proposes amendments numbered 3360 and 3361 to amendment number 3336 en bloc. mr. bunning: thank you, mr. president. anyone who has paid attention to the floor of the senate for the last week knows what my amendments are about. i am offering senators two ways to pay for this spending bill. first of all, i'd like to submit for the record the c.b.o. scoring of this current bill that is before us. both the scoring and the offsets

offsets -- i ask unanimous consent that they be put into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bunning: the first amendment is with unspent stimulus funds, and the second is by shutting down unnecessary or duplicate federal programs. in other words, i'm saying we should use money that we have already set aside that has not been spent or eliminate wasteful spending to pay for the benefits that are in this current bill. over the last few days, many senators on the other side of the aisle have come to the floor and said that unemployments are the best form of stimulus available. they say that the families that are getting those benefits turn around and spend the money immediately. well, if that is true, i cannot think of a better use of the money from last year's so-called stimulus bill.

why leave that money sit around unused in a government account somewhere when those funds could get into the hands of people who need them the most and will put them into the economy right away what is so sacred about the stimulus bill that we should keep that money sitting around until it can be spent later, this year or next, or even in 2012 and beyond? why not help the people now? but for the senators who think the stimulus money is so sacred that it cannot be touched, i am proposing another way to pay for this bill. senators coburn -- senator coburn, my colleague from oklahoma, has identified well more than $120 billion worth of

savings from waste, fraud, and abuse. these savings include closing the federal employee tax gap. that is, making sure all federal employees pay all the taxes they owe. and stopping the payment of benefits to people and companies who are not entitled to those benefits. the amendment would also be paid for by ending federal programs that are no longer needed or duplicates of other government programs and making existing programs run more efficiently. i think the president's budget itself has hit on many of those programs that he would like to see eliminated or partially eliminated. i think it's safe to call that wasteful spending and i think

the taxpayers who are footing the bill for those programs would agree. families all across america have to tighten their budgets when times get tough and government should do the same. that is all i'm trying to do with these two amendments. i'm sure some will accuse me of being against the programs in this bill, but the record should be clear by now that i support helping people in their time of need. in fact, every member of the senate who was able to make the votes last night supported extension of those benefits either in my paid-for version or in the version that added to the debt. my amendments are not about whether we should extend these programs. no. my amendments are about whether we should pay for extending the

programs or whether we should put -- keep piling more debt on top of the $14 trillion-plus debt we have already. i think the answer is very cle clear. last night i thought we had a deal worked out to give me an up-or-down vote on my amendment to pay for the short-term extender bill. instead, one senator raised a budget point of order against the amendment and i expect someone will try to do the same thing today with my amendments. that was her right as a senator but it is certainly not within the spirit of the agreement i tried to reach to find a way forward on these important programs. but i think the larger question raised by that move is what are

the 53 senators who voted to block my amendment afraid of? are they afraid the senate might pay for something we do? are they afraid we might take a step towards balancing the federal budget? are they afraid we'll bring washington spending out of control, which is out of control, just a little bit under control and live under the same rules as ordinary american families? is it too much to ask, mr. president, that we fay for what we spend -- that we pay for what we spend? last night, 53 senators said yes, mr. president, it is too much to ask for, but i think it is not. today, every senator will have an opportunity to join me in saying it is not too much to a

ask. or they can vote against my amendments and add another $100 billion-plus to the national debt. that's the emergency spending in this present bill, over $100 billion. so that goes on to the bottom line of the federal debt. i urge every senator to vote for my amendment to pay for this spending, to put away the taxpayers' credit card and to put an toned the debt madness. i have examples of those spending rescissions.

just as an example, there's $245 million from congressional budget offices to end some of the perks that congressional leadership and congressional budget offices have. there's an end to the forest service economic action program, $5 million. i think the president put this in his budget. the program duplicates an existing usda program, urban and community forestry, that has been poored managed. an end to public telecommunication facilities grant program, $18 million. i'm positive that this was in the president's budget. this program is intended to help public broadcasting stations construct telecom facilities. since the transition to digital broadcasting has been completed, there is no more need for this

program. and on down the line. i mean, the h.u.d.'s economic -- the h.u.d. brownfields economic development initiative, $17 million more, reduces the historical preservation service within the interior department by $55 million. this was a grant program or duplicated by other programs at the interior department. this is one that i am very familiar with because when i was in the house, we thought this was a necessary program to put our economic footing on foreign soil the same as other foreign-based companies when they came to america. end the overseas private investment corporation, $52 million. overseas private investment corporation are loans to u.s. private companies, funding for

foreign investment and insuran insurance. the u.s. trade and development agency does the very same thing. eliminate $28 million in the department of transportation that has been directed at transportation museums -- museums. i don't think we should be building new museums with the department of transportation funds. i think we should be building roads. those are just a few examples of one of the rescissions that i would like to see in the second amendment that i offered today. i think, mr. president, there will be ample time to discuss these later on but i wanted to make sure that we offered these amendments early on so that we could have a good and thorough debate on these programs as this

bill is -- proceeds through the u.s. senate. i thank the president, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i rise this morning because i am

offering an amendment on youth summer jobs that will build on and extend the extremely successful summer job program that we included in the last year's recovery act. last summer's program put over 313,000 young people to work and provided a much-needed shot in the arm to them, to their families, to business and communities around the country. i have personally heard stories from young men and women who participated in the program and who told me how much it changed their lives and gave them the skills and the experience they know they need to succeed in school and in the work force. that's why while we are focusing on legislation that will support unemployed americans and help workers get back on the job, i think that we should also continue investing in a successful program that helps our young people get to work. mr. president, the amendment i'm offering today will provide

$1.5 billion through the work force investment act to create create500,000 temporary jobs for young people across the country. it will invest in critically needed employment and learning program that will help stimulate our local economies while providing meaningful short-term work and learning experiences for the young people who really need it the most. in addition to the summer jobs programs, this amendment also supports year-round employment and longer-term efforts to help our young people obtain a post-secondary degree or credential. mr. president, growing up, i had every different kind of summer job you can ever imagine. i started out working in my father's five-and-ten cent store in main treet in bothel -- street in bothel, and aong with my brothers and sisters i did everything from working the cash rej disperegister and stocking e shelves and sweeping the floor.

later i worked at a park and helped keep the restrooms clean and help make the park clean. i also one summer worked at a psychiatric ward at the v.a. during a summer in college. you know, looking back, i can tell that each one of those jobs i held as a young person helped me in a very unique way. each one of them taught me skills and lessons that i've been able to use throughout my life. those jobs t -- those jobs taught me everything from the value of hard work to the daily challenges of running a small business, how to dress and act in a professional work setting. but most of all, those jobs helped me be exposed to new experiences and new people and new challenges. in fact, my time working at the seattle v.a. that summer gave me an appreciation of our veterans and health care workers that has driven to fight for them every single day that i'm here in the united states senate right now. it's not just me.

summer jobs have been proven to teach skills and life lessons for everyone. studies have shown that people who get early work experience as teenagers make more money as adults. in fact, early work experience has been shown to raise earnings over a lifetime of 10% to 20%. but as we all know, today teens are finding it especially difficult to find a job. over the past two years, the number of employed teens in the united states has declined by nearly 25%, and their overall employment rate fell to a new postwar world war i1 to more than 18%. today with families who are cutting their spending so they

can pay their bills and businesses having to freeze hiring so they can pay theirs, that means even fewer jobs for young people today. and, mr. president, i don't think we should forget that teen jobs will help stimulate our local economies because as anybody who's had a teenager at home knows, young people are a lot more likely to spend their paychecks in their communities than pocket them. and when a young person does in fact save their wages, oftentimes they're saving for college or making a critical contribution to their families in this very difficult time. mr. president, sometimes i hear people talk about these big national programs and too often forget that there really are real people being impacted, real families being helped and real young people being offered such an important helping hand. so i wanted to share with everyone today a story about what this funding meant for a program in king county washington last year and for a young man who had the opportunity to participate

because of the funding we provided last year. now, back in 2006 -- 2007, king county was able to provide 200 local youth jobs for that year. they were able to provide just about the same number -- 200 or so -- in 2008. well, then last summer, with the funding that we secured for them in the recovery act and under the leadership of a great c.e.o., marlena sessions, they were able to provide 900 young people with summer work experience. 900 young people in king county last summer who had the opportunity to productively engage in their community and avoid that high-risk and criminal activity that we worry about and, importantly, learn the 21st century skills employers value like critical thinking and team work and problem solving and communication. one of those participants in king county was a young man named ryan. he spent his summer last summer working at a maritime supply

company in seattle, a company called washington chain. ryan had gotten into a lot of trouble in his life in the past. he was actually on work release from prison, and he didn't have many of the skills that employers are looking for in employees. so he went out and he applied for job after job, fast-food restaurants and more of the same. he actually put out 200 applications in total without a single one willing to take a chance on him after they found out about his record. well, ryan heard about the seattle, king county summer jobs program. and you know what? it changed his life. ryan was accepted into a program that was a partnership between a youth service provider and a community college. he spent three weeks in class followed by three weeks in a paid internship at washington chain. the company wasn't planning on hiring any new full-time employees, but at the end of

last summer this experience changed ryan so much and they were so impressed with ryan and his work capability that the company found a full-time job for him. it was a real job for ryan, with a decent salary and good benefits and a future. and for the first time in his life, ryan was able to take pride in his work and finally support himself and his young children. after the program was over, ryan said that the program was -- and i want to quote him -- "one of the best things that ever happened to me." end quote. and his boss at washington chain said that the company was lucky to find ryan. he said that ryan had been -- quote -- "willing to do about everything we've asked." the summer jobs program that we passed last year gave ryan and many more like him an opportunity that they would not otherwise have had. it's a new lease on life for him, and doors opened to him that had always been closed to him. and ryan is far from alone.

there are hundreds of thousands of young people around the country whose lives were changed by the experiences they had last summer. so if this amendment that i'm offering today passes, there will be 500,000 more by this time next year. 500,000 young people providing much-needed services in hospitals and day-care centers, in senior centers, in parks, in public and in private organizations. staying off the streets, helping their communities, gaining the skills and the experiences they need to put them on a better path to success in school and life. and, yes, by the way, spending those paychecks and contributing to our economic recovery. so, mr. president, i urge our colleagues to support this amendment. the underlying bill that we are considering today is going to help millions of families across the country who need some help right now getting back on their feet. this amendment will help young people across the country start their professional lives by

firmly planting them on moving towards a successful, productive and fulfilling career. so i hope all of our colleagues take the time to think back and think what happened to them, people they know in their lives as they had a summer job experience that helped set them on a path that they may have never thought available to them and realize it's our responsibility sitting here in this chamber now to provide that same kind of opportunity for young people who are following in our footsteps. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, is there a quorum call? the presiding officer: there is not. mrs. boxer: all right. first i want to thank senator thune. he gave me permission to speak before him. i will be brief in my strong support for the murray amendment to provide $1.5 billion for youth jobs programs through the workforce investment act for summer and year-round employment. this amendment will help create up to 500,000 temporary jobs for young people, and we know that the youth jobs program works. funds included in the recovery act for youth jobs provided over 300,000 young adults with employment opportunities last summer, stimulating local

economies all across the country. young adults who work not only help supplement family incomes; they also spend the money they earn in their communities. according to the northeastern university center for labor market studies, every dollar earned by a young adult returns $3 to the local economy. youth jobs programs also help disadvantaged young adults become active members of their communities. the many local workforce investment groups in my state of california not only provide disadvantaged young adults with short-term employment, they also offer job training and mentoring programs, help them advance their careers with educational opportunities and teach critical life skills. we also know that right now there are not -- there's not enough work opportunities for teens and young adults. mr. president, the unemployment rate for 16- to 19-year olds is above 25%. for 16- to 19-year-old

african-americans the unemployment rate is nearly 50%. kwraoegt jobs programs -- youth jobs programs help keep our kids off the streets, which is important to all of our communities. and i just want to highlight one of the many recovery act youth jobs success stories in california. the classer herald reports that last summer the golden sierra workforce board worked with 23 disadvantaged teens in rockland, california, to construct a permanent storage facility at a local high school. participants helped design the facility using computer design technologies. they built the main frame, they painted and dry walled. they installed solar lighting. without recovery act youth job funds, this program wouldn't have been possible. and i'd ask unanimous consent to place in the record an article from the "rockland, california herald."

it's a wonderful story about the high school students taking on this building project. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: so this amendment is very important. and as our economy continues to recovery, we all know that jobs are lagging, and we need to do all we can to try and replicate what happened in rockland, california. when you give a young person opportunity, a job opportunity, i think it stays with them the rest of their lives. i remember the jobs i held when i was a teenager. it really gave me a sense of self, that i could help the company i was working for. and i did many different jobs as a youngster in the summer, and i was very fortunate to have that experience that i later brought to other jobs later in my career. so this amendment will create up to 500,000 summer jobs, and it will strengthen local economies. so i really do thank senators murray and the other cosponsors here in the senate.

i also, in closing, want to acknowledge congresswoman barbara lee and the congressional black caucus who were leading the fight in the house to support critical programs for our disadvantaged young people. when i talked to congresswoman lee, she said, bar pwrarbgs can you do -- barbara, can you do something in the senate, i remembered that senator murray had this bill. and i called senator murray, and we have this amendment here. i think the fact that it's been offered early in this bill is a good thing, because this is something good we can do for our young people. they want so much to get job experience. they are struggling so much in this recession. i want to congratulate again senator murray and the other cosponsors. i hope we have a strong bipartisan support for this amendment. and i would yield the floor and again thank senator thune for allowing me to speak. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota.

mr. thune: mr. president, i have an amendment that i introduced yesterday filed at the desk. i have some modifications to that amendment at the desk. and i would ask unanimous consent that the amendment be so modified. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the amendment is so modified. mr. thune: i would also like to ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that senators bennet and roberts be added as cosponsors. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, yesterday one of my colleagues criticized me for trying to retkreubgt unspent stimulus -- redirect unspent stimulus funding for tax relief to pay for small businesses. i, like many people, have my doubts about some of these estimates, but i can guarantee you this much: that none of these jobs have been created or saved by the unspent funds. there's a lot of money in the stimulus bill yet to be spent. according to recovery.org, the administration's web site, about 38% of the money, the stimulus money approved last year out of

that $1 trillion amount -- round numbers -- has been spent. so there's a lot of unspent and unobligated money. and, frankly, many of us at the time that passed last year suggested it would be a much wiser use of those funds if we directed those toward small businesses. that the small businesses are the creators of jobs in our economy. they create two-thirds of the jobs. they are the economic engine that drives the economy in this country. and ironically, less than 1% of that $1 trillion that was approved last year in stimulus funding was directed at incentives for small businesses to create jobs. we put money into all kinds of other things, mr. president, all kinds of other things which to date have shown little evidence that any jobs have been created. now, it seems to me at least that the argument that was made at the time by many of us was that allowing or creating more of these incentives, putting more policies