>> thank you. thank you so much for a very insightful panel. this question is directed to ms. robinson and mr. ricks. everyone talked about the need to understand iraq for the sake of iraq. can you talk a little bit about the president and future influence of other chalabi as there is any. >> the man has nine lives, politically. i think it's been in a lot of the papers so i won't repeat the details of that, but the problem is and again i think earlier diplomatic intervention was required before those 500 people were purged from the electoral roll to be able to run for candidates. ..

>> that's not a criticism. it's just his personality or he is not as adept are comfortable in that world of maneuvering. and i think we have suffered as a result at a very radical time. but ultimately it is of the iraqi's who have to come around to programs these deals, and maybe they will get through a painful tree that may involve some return to war. i was a little concerned about

the u.n. envoys kind of hands-off bit where he said let's let the iraqi's sorted out. there's just some deep cleavage is in very deep issues, and traditionally war in the scenarios have involved some kind of mediation and envoy. so i think some group of friends, you know, i think the diplomatic measures need to be taken to try to help steer what is a too iraqi process. and i think that we can get there, but we need to rely on people. and i find it very ironic, that in my view, one of the greatest statesman of iraq is a kurd. here's a man who is willing to reach outside of his sectarian and some very heavy sectarian pressures within his party, and both kurdish parties, frankly, and be willing to sacrifice repeatedly some of the kurdish demands to get some of the deals brokered. and while i do think that the central figure of iraq is the

arab power-sharing arrangement, that kurdish is a close second to very much need to stop kurdish expansionism and put together a reasonable formula what a kurdish regional government's powers are going to be. and farsighted kurdish leaders do understand that you cannot go it alone or you will invite certain war, with turkey, with no u.s. allied with you. >> i think there is a lesson is that we tend to underestimate these people. repeatedly. the american attitude towards sadr has been that he is basically al sharpton with heavy weapons. [laughter] >> and, in fact, he actually has proven to be a real survivor. the same way that ahmad chalabi, ahmad chalabi we treat like a mississippi riverboat gambler. i just think it would be fascinating to see the day if he

ever becomes prime minister. he will be a pro-iranian prime minister, to see the look of the face of others that day. >> will come down to the front here and take some on the side. >> here's a microphone. >> my name is ruthless phillips, and i have a question about how we train local forces. and i wonder if we have done any fundamental thinking about what we tell them, in addition to how to fire a rifle, in other words, what is, what are we doing to involve the local folk in giving a rationale to the average trainee, what is his duty to the iraqi people or the afghani people?

in other words, are we trying to get across or trying to get the local folks, to get across, a notion that he owes his allegiance to an idea, and not just to whoever happens to be his commander, in terms of how he deals with his own people? and i think this is absolutely critical. i go back, of course, to vietnam and the fact that we're able to turn the vietnamese army around in the very early days in terms of how they dealt with people. i go back to the philippines and how important that became in terms of setting a model for what the soldier was, which was, he was a true servant of the people. and it seems to me that that's probably a neglected area, but i don't know enough about it. and i think we ought to maybe think about it. >> andrew, do you have a thought

on the? >> i'm not the pro's pro on security forces. there are some people in this room who know a lot more than me, but i'm not going to embarrass them. or call them out. but i think that just real briefly, the one thing i wrote down is the one change that's taken place in the way that we develop security forces, we have so far had an institutional perspective on it. nor did you bring them in, you train them, basic rifle mark sanchez, physical fitness, and send them out as part of units. i think as we make change, this hasn't taken place in iraq because we are winding down our presence in iraq. you may have read that. but this has taken place in afghanistan, where we are taking this move and we will see if it pulls off from kind of training to partnering. and that has a couple of different effects. first off, there's a pragmatic effect that you can assume a little risk in the time you're spending training someone in the institution, in the schoolhouse.

and then you can partner them with, say, for example, you take an afghan and your partner them with a u.s. company. and you can do certain things. first off, if you've got a battalion of u.s. marines garrisoning a district in afghanistan, that's kind of a waste of marines if there is not actual fighting taking place. but if you have it ask and partner with a u.s. marine company in that same district, now you are doing a lot of things because first off, you've got afghans on the grand. you don't have as many u.s. troops on the ground. you're able to start partnering in such a way that the type of training, the type of mentor and that's taking place, it's not kind of the big brother's little brother type of thing that i think we never really got beyond in iraq. it's really, you know, living together, sleeping together, working together, train together, planning together. and then operating together. in such a way that we would hope that the way we do business, both operationally and

culturally, begins to have an effect on the way the host nation troops begin to operate. as far as instilling, you know, values ideas or patriotic values and whatnot, devotion to a greater cause, that i cannot speak intelligently about. i think again, we've gotten better at the way we think about training security forces, but i don't know how exactly you do that, creating the idea of a nation or the idea of a poll is through training. >> i agree with everything andrew said. i just want as quickly. we win a great distance in iraq originally when the icd sea was formed which became the national guard. the conventional units were forced to take on their local brigade of the national guard and the mentor to them and they

just saw them as force protection threats and it's a question them on their base. they really wanted to have nothing to do with them. those with a chaotic dirty areas and they couldn't get iraqi culture and the soldiers were just totally unprepared. over time, i think it is pretty but it never really did, i think, take for reasons i will say in a second. but the one successfully was the iraqi special operations forces. and they very much had the model. this was the u.s. special forces, army special forces that but over time it included maybe see us and some others as well. and that was really the model that they know. you're just with them from dawn to dusk. you live with them, eat with them, so for. that's produced the most single most effective unit. nonpartisan and very next, and i think dave mcchrystal is right in trying that approach. but in afghanistan, but i wonder if conventional forces are ready. and i know that he has proposed an advisory court to get some group of conventional forces that are really steeped in that

kind of cultural know-how because you got to keep going back to the same place ideally to the same unit, and i know that's what the special forces do. but when we are talking about these hopefully rare exercises of big going, we want to do small point. we've got to have something that's better, that is more knowledgeable. i think the professionalism occurs by osmosis. i've seen it too many times. i think professional u.s. soldier, that will rub off. but i think going the other way to have a u.s. soldier understand what he is dealing with, we got to get more intensive training in people, not just a military, but cultural trainers to clue up the trainers. train the trainers. >> the gentleman in the blue shirt. >> thank you for being here. andrew, you alluded to this earlier, you indicated when third parties on behalf of a third nation, and recently president karzai, usurped power

from his electoral commission. and i wondered what the, if -- when a counterinsurgent is already engaged in an insurgency, and is heavily invested as we are, what happens if we don't have a legitimate partner in the host nation government? >> yeah, i mean, look, the odds are you're not going to be fighting a counterinsurgency campaign if the government is legitimate in the first place, right? so this should shock us that a government that is facing an insurgency is also facing a crisis of legitimacy. and that in part is what's so frustrating about this is we have a come up with, you know, a sophisticated political mechanism to accompany what's become a sophisticated military mechanisms. i think that there are things that the u.s. military can do, and ultimately i think the

problem we have, one of the problems we have in afghanistan, the problem we have in afghanistan. one of many pubs we have in afghanistan stems from the fact that if you read tom's book, linda's book, you read about the relationship between general petraeus and ambassador crocker, that we had in iraq. that wesley something pretty special, that you had, you know, the military stakeholder, the diplomatic stakeholder, that were basically joined at the hip. now look, there's been a lot that's been rumors about relations between general mcchrystal and ambassador eikenberry. the two as far as i can to get along quite well. the embassy and nato may be another thing. but there are obstacles in the way in afghanistan that prevent us from being able to use kind of the same, you know, the same pair of chief diplomat and chief military official. and a lot of that has to do with

the fact that it's a coalition. carl karl eikenberry came to meet with ambassador -- or with president karzai, and he can meet with him at 2:00 in the french ambassador comes in at 3:00 in the british ambassador comes in at 4:00. they all have just as much of a stake in afghanistan. in addition, you have the u.n. high representative. you have a nato civilian representative. so general mcchrystal doesn't will have a civilian counterpart. and i think, you know, as far as when you cry no joy, i think we've already done that. i think that general mcchrystal understands all too well that the current troop levels in afghanistan cannot be sustained that i think the president has made clear to both the people of this contributing nature and other contributing nations that we will not be in afghanistan forever. i think that also, you know, when he said we will start withdrawing in 18 months, you

know, i didn't like what he said that because i think that sends the wrong message to afghan people who have to make a choice in this campaign, as well as wrong message to the pakistanis and the insurgent. but at the same time i think it sends a positive message to the afghan political decision-makers. and so, your question is, you know, what happens if you are facing recalcitrant or destructive political, your, host host nation government. i think you do have to make clear as we have made that our presence in afghanistan goes up or down largely dependent on what they do or fail to do. >> let's move to the next question. >> very quickly i think the answer there is going to be find local legitimate leaders. i think you primarily have to work from the bottom up in afghanistan. and as long as you have karzai taking some measures to at least hopefully improve the trajectory, i think they need to get a few other corrupt people out but i think the key there is going to be getting local

legitimate leaders, and hopefully be elected once. but if not, use the traditional ones. >> let me just apolo to the afghan panel that follows is. will talk about iraq in just a second. >> let's go to this site again. and they will come back over here. >> i am wrong. i teach military history in vietnam war at texas tech university. i also teach a course, graduate seminar, on the history of insurgency, and went at him 324 was published by university of chicago press back in at i think was in '07 or '08, i started using it kind of as a background textbook for the various wars that we study. some of my veterans of iraq and afghanistan who serve in the early years reading that book were saying i wish we would've had this in the early days. now, america had wars in the philippines. we certainly, our expenses in the.

why was there no anticipation that an insurgency would develop to the point where we would need a manual by 2003? because it just seems so obvious that these wars would have developed into something like what we see. >> this is actually one of the core subject of my next book, which i just started work on, which is a history of america's generalship from the world war ii to the present. asking that question, why would they probably the most confident, tactical military in the world, where our military leadership so blind to the nature of the war in which they were engaged in iraq. general jacking has written a thought in an insightful way about this. i think basically at the end of the vietnam war, the u.s. military said we're not going to do that again. and the american people agreed. and they went through and they

took out all the insurgency stuff. there's an argument that the u.s. military was so strained and we can at that point really need to get back to focusing on to fill the gap because that was what all that was probably capable of doing at that point. it was sort of a straightening your lines and doing what you could do. that said, somebody in the u.s. midterm i have broken up in the 1980s and said we are so a dominant conventionally, but the only way we can be faced is that the far ends of the spectrum. either in small unit a regular warfare, or an weapons of mass destruction. that we have occupied the middle ground so thoroughly. instead what you have is army that after the gulf war was extraordinary complex and, gordon sullivan when he was chief of staff you to give talks about how we think we have it just about right. i have learned that that's one of the warning signs of military leadership. whenever somebody tells you that, look for your wallet.

>> time is very short. what i would like to do now is take as many questions as i can fit in. maybe up to three or four or five even. and then asked, will be taking a chance to because we will turn to the panelist for some final thoughts and they may or may not touch on your question. >> hi. just a quick comment. i am sure you are aware the marine corps small wars manual. it needed updating but it was there. quick question, back to the militia and the sons of iraq. one of my concerns is a large failing is leading the army go to ground and then arming the sons of iraq and what that might pose for us when we draw down below 50 or 30,000, or to completely. >> a real concern about that. >> the gentleman right next to. did he have a -- okay. the gentleman back here. the next.

>> i have a question of the the a trace of brain trust and history and expertise that ms. robinson mentioned the interdisciplinary nature of the trust. and i am wondering how, or who on the group was responsible for providing historical expertise about the history of iraq? especially the pre-2003 history. most of the historians of iraq, i know, which stressed that the sunni-shia divide, the media blitz might have taken place after the invasion, but the deeper historical roots were very salient. so i'm interested to know about that. >> and a couple of questions on this site. >> i have -- can you give me? i have to question. one for tom and one for andrew. the first one is after your assessment is going of general petraeus, i would like to ask tom this first come if you think his activity is spread too thin

and should he have state or should he go back if finish one job before he starts the second? at my second job is to into. and this deals with the veterans coming home. now, i wanted to know what priorty you think is given to these young men and women coming back to the united states when they come back with a positive attitude about our endeavors there. because i am a retired teacher, and we see a lot of the veterans in north carolina by web bob matthew, and we see a lot of these young men and women and we talked to the. we asked them what they think. this is what we talked about yesterday about the national debate on overdoing. is what i think it starts with these young men and women coming back to their communities, their churches, their civic groups and high schools, coming in to what they think. we do something novel. we actually listen to these men and women come and see what they think. so my question is, guys, and man, is a priority given to the soldiers coming home that there,

i guess i would say, enthusiastic about their service and willing to share it with america. >> or, could you pass the microphone on? thank you. >> mark gilbert. we been talking a little bit here about how lessons of vietnam were forgotten for very strong cultural, political reasons. in the 1980s and 1990s. my concern is that part of that change was because we return to face the soviet threat, or russian threat. but when this war is over, we are going to face larger conventional threats. right now we are assuming all the wars are going to be like this, and i'm going to have to agree, but i can see what they long-term expenditure of money, the disastrous effects on our military, personnel, the american people wanting to turn away from this kind of war again. when we have legitimate reasons to do so politically on the horizon of our leaders. and i wonder what we're doing to institutionalize this time so we don't have to rely on petraeus

or some brilliant historian or student of history. to save us from these lessons being lost again. >> i apologize for those and i did that get too. in our last five minutes, six minutes, give each one of our panelists two minutes to respond or address or throw in any additional comments that and i want to go in reverse order, so andrew, if i can begin with you. >> with respect to veterans, i think that in the near term you are seeing in a lot of veterans come back from iraq and afghanistan, looking at a couple in the audience right now, who have come back and are getting involved in policy, and looking at defense policy, looking at the way we are building the force. it's very positive. i guess what worry about is in the long-term. just a few of us ultimately, it's hard to imagine veterans of the wars in iraq and afghanistan

occupying prominent places in the political decision making realms of the united states 20 years from now. simply again because there are too few of us. there aren't many. this has been a shared experience. this has been an experience that has been largely undertaken by i think, what, 1%? 25 percent of the american public and their families. that's it. as far as when we go from here, i think that you probably, you probably will see a desire not to get involved in these counterinsurgency campaigns ever again. i for one having fought them, i am highly in favor of that. [laughter] >> but having said that, two things. you may see the united states and our military power more occupied, more oriented towards offshore balancing and protecting the global commons, cnas has a new report on that, protecting sea legs, getting

back to more conventional threats, maybe not the rise of china, but just insuring that the lot of the things that we take for granted right now such as space, the high seas, remain secure. but the caveat to that is something that h.r. master always brings up is that the enemy always gets a vote. the enemy always gets a vote and how he's going to fight. so if we get really good at little intensity conflict in conventional conflict, and would better prepare for cyberwar. if we did really good at cyberwar and neglect conventional conflict, then guess what? you know, we may face every turn of the old industrial state on state wars of the 20th century. so i think that one of the lessons from iraq and afghanistan is not to get very good at going but have flexible double, with especially building officer corps that is intellectually nimble and open to open to change. >> tom ricks? >> okay. on the issue of mahdi army, sons

of iraq. this is something that was written about eloquently which is the short-term solutions, that petraeus and owed merrill implemented, mainly to long-term problem. this guy takes us back to host government issues, which is the sons of iraq would tell you if you ask them, and i did, what do you think of the baghdad government? they said as his you guys are out of the way we're going after them. we're just keeping the powder dry until we can get them. so i think there are long-term problems created there. a second question is lessons. we should also be asking what the enemy has learned. and i think with the enemy has seen globally in iraq and afghanistan is that the united states can be taken on. and this is one reason to pay attention to the hezbollah versus israel fight, the summer of '06. what we are seeing is a regular forces now have sufficient precision to firepower that they

can add to do quite a lot of damage to what used to be overwhelming conventional forces. when hezbollah light infantry can stop an israeli tank all of that is backed by attack helicopters, there's a different sort of war going on out there. so i think what we may see is high intensity insurgencies. which is a phrase that has just occurred to me, but i want to copyrighted right now. [laughter] >> that is reflected in the qdr, that hybrid threats. >> in my waziristan book that i've been reading, another host government solution, i didn't know this. the pakistani government, newly independent, dealing with the problems of the northwest frontier province inside and paid, hired the former british governor to come back in a knot because everybody loved him but because he was not his broker. and he understood the situation. he was just a useful way. that may be our way out, is when

you subordinate herself to the host government and actually perform some of the same functions for them as a transitional thing. and finally on the question of learning, i'm beginning to think this may be just a human failing. that every generation has to learn the same damn lessons over again. and that's a human tragedy. >> linda? >> i have a little bit different perspective on the mahdi army in the sons of iraq. they were already armed. what it was was a play to bring them in on the other side. and i think where i come from is the bumper sticker of this war, the learned that went on was you can't kill your way to victory. so it was a maneuver to try to get a different solution going. the deal was they were supposed to be incorporated into the iraqi security forces, and i don't think odierno cut a good enough to.

deal. i think it should've been more like 50%, because people in the neighborhood you want to be secured by those people, they know them, they trust them. and it helps me balance the local police force which is still problematic. so again, it is unfinished business. the others is a job training program. again, we need to be there holding their feet to the fire through conditioning to make sure this in game works. historians low just in some of the people involved. molly, rob ford, phoebe more at some districts under a number of people brought in. but also people were sponges. they were reaching out and sucking up from other areas as they were doing that three months in depth study. i am, as you've already mentioned andrew, the hybrid warfare. i think the future is not going to be going back to some major operations that the hybrid warfare model i think is really where the future is, because it's very hard to counter the tactics we've seen. i mean, we've adopted this silly ackermann ied. vietnam era knows him as mines

and booby dress. they are very hard to counter. and those tactics are going to be used time and time again by either a state or substate act. a lot of this thinking is not only in the qdr but it is working its way through some official concepts, and ideally, within a year into a rewrite of joint. i would like to pay some homage to general john campbell, who was brigadier general in iraq in a critical era. we can't think that petraeus did it all. he was the commander at the top. john was the multinational division, baghdad, a d.c. for maneuver. and he was the man who made this happen. going around to every unit day after day, working hand in glove with the iraqi's in the baghdad operational command, and being the example and mentor. he is now ahead in charge of the 101st airborne division, and he is headed to afghanistan. and i'm sure he's going to apply many of the practices that the learned and did so well there in

a very different environment. and finally, i would like to just emphasize again what i have been saying and what i think is going to apply for the next panel. very eager to hear them, but we must have a small coin model in my. i call it big coin and small coin but those were really into the details, support to counter insurgencies is really what we have been doing. and otherwise known as foreign and to the fans. we should not be out there fighting these wars as the ones in charge. we should be supporting the host nation government enforces. thank you. >> many insights on this short panel. one inside already have, one lesson i knew coming to the table was when you're dealing with a very difficult issue, make sure you surround yourself with top quality expert. i have done that today. please thanks the panel. [applause] >> let me just echo, like many

of you, i have heard many panels, many speakers on iraq over the last several years. i have never heard a more on point or better description of what we should be taking away from this experience. thank you all very much. we will take a 15 minute break and start on afghanistan. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible] >> in the sin is can be now for

general speeches. this afternoon work resumes on a package that extends certain tax breaks, jobless benefits and cobra health insurance eight. the measure includes other extensions such as medicare payments to physicians, plus highway and flood insurance programs. up to three votes are expected after 2 p.m. eastern, possibly including final passage. meanwhile, the u.s. house gavels in in 30 minutes, 10 a.m. eastern for a number of bills, including a resolution of war powers resolution proposed by representative dennis kucinich of ohio. that resolution will get three hours of debate. you can call the house live on c-span. again, they start in about 30 minutes. on c-span3 a look at health care policy. kathleen sebelius speaking to the group america's health insurance plans at 10:30 a.m. now to the u.s. senate on c-spanc-span2.

the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., march 10, 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. rei mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will turn to a period of morning business until 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. senators during this time will be allowed to speak for up to ten minutes. the majority will control the first 30 minutes, republicans will control the next 30 minutes. at 2:00 p.m., the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 4213, the tax extenders legislation under an agreement reached last night, all postcloture debate time will be yielded back and the substitute amendment will be agreed to. the senate will then proceed to

a cloture vote on the underlying bill. if cloture is invoked, all postcloture debate time will be yielded back and the senate will then proceed to vote on passage of the bill as amended. we continue to work on an agreement to begin consideration of the federal aviation administration re-authorization bill today. mr. president, the bill s. 3092 is at the desk. i understand it's due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3092, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 5070 vegas valley drive in las vegas, nevada, as the joseph a. ryan post office building. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: will the chair now announce morning business? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, there will be a period of morning business until 2:00 p.m., with

senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the republicans controlling the next 30 minutes. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president?

i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: mr. president, there have been a lot of issues brought up on the floor of the senate recently. two that seem to be front and center are the health care reform bill and questions related to our national debt and the annual deficits that we run into. i have listened, as many on the other side of the aisle have come to the floor and argued to do two things. first, kill the health care reform bill, and second, reduce our nation's debt. unfortunately, that is a mixed message, an inconsistent message, and it's one that really defies logic. we know that the increasing costs of health care is adding to the expenses of the federal government, state governments, and local governments, and if we don't do something to express -- suppress, if not reduce, the costs of health care, we are going to see a dramatic increase in our deficits. the bill before us attempts to create mechanisms to start bringing down the increase in costs in health care. anyone who would stand before

you and say well, if you pass health care reform, next year's health care premiums are going down, i don't think is telling the truth. i think it is likely they would go up, but what we're trying to do is slow the rate of increase. if the rate of health care inflation were the same as inflation in general, it would be a major step forward to come to grips with a real problem facing america. i have told the story on the floor about a local town in illinois that spends 10% of its small budget, $20 million annual budget on health care premiums, and they have just been notified next year the premiums on about 200 employees will go up 83% for health care. that's one small town, kankakee, illinois. the same thing is true in the state of illinois with our state budget where we face a fiscal crisis, and the costs of health care in the medicaid program in particular continue to go up because of high unemployment, people who lose their health insurance at work, turn to

medicaid and create a greater burden for state and federal government. so as the economy struggles and people lose their jobs, we have to view health care reform as part of the answer, not only to family challenges and business challenges, but challenges that face us at the federal level as well. health care costs take up a growing share of federal and state budgets. in the year 2009, we spent an estimated $2.5 trillion on health care. 17.3% of our gross domestic product. that's the sum total of all goods and services produced in america. it represents the largest one-year increase in share of gross domestic product since we first started tracking it in 1960. if we don't pass health care reform to try to slow this rate of growth, the deficits each year will get worse, so those who come to the floor and say kill health care reform, balance the budget, are really preaching

an inconsistent message. it doesn't work. if we can reduce just slightly the annual increase in federal spending on medicare and medicaid, we can see positive changes when it comes to our annual deficits. economists agree. 23 leading economists, columbine nobel laureates and those who serve both democratic and republican administrations, identified four key measures that will lower costs and reduce long-term deficits. health insurance reform includes all four of those measures. deficit neutrality, an excise tax on the highest cost health insurance plans, an independent medicare advisory board and delivery system reforms. the congressional budget office has scored the health care reform bill and says that it will actually -- at least the senate version -- will actually reduce the budget deficit by by $130 billion or more over the first ten years, and and $1.3 trillion over the next

ten years. we are waiting for the latest score of the bill which could be forthcoming in the next day or two, but we hope that it indicates the same thing. to fail to pass health care reform is to invite higher deficits in the future. we can't have it both ways. you can't stop the effort to bring down health care costs -- at least the rate of increase in health care costs -- and then preach fiscal conservativism. it just doesn't work. those two messages are inconsistent. in terms of the use of the reconciliation procedure in the united states senate to pass parts of health care reform, it's not a process that's unknown to us. over 20 times we have used reconciliation to deal with major issues facing america. in fact, the republican side of the aisle has used the process much more frequently than the democratic side of the aisle. the programs that have been feactd by reconciliation have often included medicare, cobra,

and the children's health insurance program. in fact, when president bush wanted to pass his tax cuts for wealthy people, he used the reconciliation program and the republicans supported it. reconciliation has been used three times by the republicans to actually increase the deficit. out 262 times, reconciliation has been used since 1981, republicans used it to increase our national deficit at least three times. all those instances during president bush's administration. 2001 reconciliation was used to pass extensive and costly tax breaks, many of them benefiting the very wealthy. those tax breaks increased the deficit by $552 billion over five years. republicans using reconciliation to give tax cuts to the wealthy and increase the deficit. reconciliation was used again in 2003 for tax breaks. those breaks resulted in adding to the deficit $342.9 billion in

red ink over five years. finally, reconciliation was used in the year 2005 to extend the tax breaks. that extension increased the deficit -- that republican reconciliation bill increased the deficit by $70 billion over five years. the health care reform bill that we are considering will give middle-income families the largest tax cut in history. what the republicans fail to mention is that the money we are raising in health care reform -- almost $500 billion -- will flow back to middle- and lower-income families and small businesses to help them pay hem premiums. killing health care reform reform, which is the agenda on the other side of the aisle, will deny businesses and families struggling to pay health care premiums that are going up. we know that the -- that america's business community will save under this approach and more americans will be

insured. the health care recovery bill that we are -- r reform bill, rather, that we are considering will bring 30 million more americans you understand coverage. when the republicans will asked how many will you bring under coverage? they said 3 million. let kneel you, 30 monica lewinsky americans is not only peace of mind for them but also stops the transfer of their expenses to other people. we currently provide charitable care for those who have no insurance and pass the costs on to everyone else. it is estimated that each of us has a hidden indirect tax of $1,000 a year in health care premium costs just to make certain that we provide for the uninsured. the approach that we are promoting in health care reform will provide coverage for these 30 million and will stop this cost shifting and this hidden tax on families across america. let me also say that the

provisions in this bill that are the most objectionable to the republican side of the aisle mirror the health insurance available to senators and congressmen today. we have a plan -- the federal aviation administratio-- thefedh benefit plan, and it requires minimum coverage in every plan so we know that we'll get protection. i haven't found any republican senator willing to step up and say, that's socialism, we shouldn't do it, i'm going to cancel my federal employees health insurance. not one. they live with it. i live with it every day in protecting myself and my family. i believe it's fair. i believe every american and every business should be given this opportunity. the insurance exchanges 0 offered to america what we as members of congress have enjoyed as an institution for over 40 years. if it's socialism to put it in this bill, then i would hope

that my friends on the other side would stand up and personally condemn this socialism by dropping their federal employees health coverage. that will be proof positive of their genuineness on this issue. let me just say as well in closing that many of the people who have come to the floor and suggested that reconciliation is some renegade procedure that is seldom used in the senate have ignored the obvious. the fact that it's been use 2-d 2 times, more often than republicans than democrats, tells the story. i see on the floor the republican leader, senator mcconnell. he did not consider this procedure objectionable 13 different occasions when he voted for it. senator kyl, who is my counterpart on the republican side and serves as the republican whip, has voted for 11 out of 11 reconciliation bills during the time he's been in the snavment every time reskill yags was used, the --

every time reconciliation was used, the republican whip voted for it. senator mccain has voted for reconciliation nine out of 13 times that he has served in the united states senate. it is a process that has been used repeatedly by both parties for major decisions -- health care cuts, cobra insurance, children's health insurance just to name a few. it is something that we acknowledge under our rules, and if it is part of the solution of bringing health care reform to an up-or-down vote, at least this aspect of it to an updarn vote, it should be a process that most republicans are familiar with because most of them have voted for it repeatedly. i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: mr. president,

the american people are looking at what's going on in washington right now and they're wondering what the white house and democratic leaders in congress could possibly be thinking. the fact that we're still even talking about a health care bill that raises costs, increases premiums, and increases government spending is a complete mystery to most people. americans have issued their verdict on this bill. they don't want it. it's that simple. and that's to say nothing of the process. the process that democratic leaders have used to try to pass this bill is viewed even less favorably than the bill itself. so even if americans supported the bill, which they clearly don't, they would still want the process cleaned up. americans expect lawmakers to be completely up front and

transparent about any changes they're thinking about making to the health care system. americans also expect a level playing field. that means union leaders don't get special deals that nonunion members don't. it means that the people of nebraska don't get a free ride bought and paid for by the rest of the country. it means the people of nebraska don't get a free ride bought and paid for by the rest of the country. even nebraskans are telling us they don't want that kind of special treatment. it means that if you're a senior citizen, you don't have to move to florida to keep your health care plan. it means that louisianans don't get a windfall of federal money just because one of their senators was willing to sphroart -- was willing to vote for a bill most americans overwhelmingly oppose. these are just some of the things americans don't like about the way democratic leaders

tried to push their bill through congress and past the public. but they didn't much like the way the bill was put together either. they didn't like the fact that members of both parties spent endless hours negotiating and in committee meetings only to see democratic leaders write their own bill behind closed doors. these are the kinds of things that americans have been complaining about at town hall meetings and in statewide elections for months and months. these are the kinds of things the people of massachusetts were saying in january. and americans can't believe that after all this, after a year of protests and all the statewide elections, democratic leaders are still stubborning pushing the same bill and the same process. democratic leaders knew the public didn't support their bill, so they tried to jam it

through on a party-line vote. when they had trouble with that strategy, they went for the kickbacks and special deals. as a result, they lost their 60-vote majority. so they came up with another strategy. they tried to get around the normal rules. they decided they'd try to jam it through with a bare partisan majority, something that's never been done before on legislation of this magnitude. now, some in the media are blaming the resistance the administration and democratic leaders have faced on the white house messaging machine. mr. president, that's absolutely absurd. americans aren't rejecting this bill because they don't understand it. they're rejecting it because they know exactly what's in it. but democratic leaders continue to deceive themselves. i saw the speaker said yesterday

that congress needs to pass this bill so americans can see what's in it. let me say that again. the speaker said that congress needs to pass this bill so americans can find out what's in it. that's like telling somebody they have to buy a house so they can walk through it. and the white house seems to be throwing out every idea it's got, hoping something will stick. the president is expected to highlight fraud and abuse in a speech today. i'm glad the administration wants to use the enforcement power of the government to find and prosecute fraud, but that's something we can and should be doing already right now. do we really need to pass a $2.5 trillion spending bill, raise taxes, and slash medicare to go after fraud and abuse? i think not. finding waste, fraud, and abuse is one of the areas where we

have agreement. senators grassley, cobun, coanyone, lemieux, and others have been leading this effort for quite sometime. tackling fraud and abuse is one of the issues that can and should form the basis after bipartisan, step-by-step approach to health care reform. not as a hook, not as a hook to drag this monstrous bill over the finish line. on the contrary, democratic leaders should leave this bill on the field. then we can talk about passing commonsense ideas like tackling fraud and abuse on their own. one by one. the fact is, in whole debate has deinvolved into a little bit of a farce. it might actually be funny if the stakes were not so high. americans don't know how else to say it.

they don't want this bill. the american people do not want this bill. and they want the process cleaned up as well. how much longer do americans have to wait before democratic leaders will give up this partisan quest and agree to start over, to work together, out in the open on the kind of commonsense reforms americans really want? that's the question americans are asking. and we owe them an answer. the american people aren't an obstacle to be circumvented. this is their health care system, not ours. it's time to end this partisan effort, listen to the people, and start over. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas is recognized. mr. pryor: mr. president, it's with great sadness that i come to the floor today to talk about sergeant vincent r.c. owens from fort smith, arkansas. his life of service to our nation is a shining example of a true american patriot. sergeant owens lost his life while serving in eastern afghanistan after his transport vehicle came under fire by enemy forces. he was a part of the third battalion, 137th infantry regiment if fort campbell, kentucky. previously sergeant owens spent 14 months in iraq serving with the a-battery first battalion, 56th air defense ar it willry from flt bliss, texas. sergeant owens served both tours

with honor and distinction earning awards including two army commendation medals, two army achievement medals, a value orous unit award, the national defense service medal, the iraq campaign medal, the global war on terror service medal, the army service ribbon and the combat action badge. an ardent athlete, talented student and motorcycle aficionado, sergeant owens lived his life of only 21 years with passion and dedication. those who knew him describe him as a kind and easy-going man who always had high standards for himself. he was the oldest of five children. he had been married to his wife kaitlyn for just six weeks. despite being a newlywed, sergeant owens did not hesitate to answer the call of duty.

sergeant owens' family and friends said he joined the army out of a sense of patriotism and took pride in serving his nation. he devoted his life to defending america and gave the ultimate sacrifice for the country he so deeply loved. after this tremendous loss, fort smith, arkansas, is in the process of waiving off 200 airmen from the air national guard's 188th fighter wing as they head to afghanistan, joining about 75 members of the 188th already serving there. this will be the unit's first deployment with the a-10 thunder bolt 2 also known as the wart hog since the 188th received the aircraft in april, 2007. also, many of these guardsmen are part of the agribusiness development team. this unit will teach afghans better farming, crop storage, and marketing practices in an

effort to draw them away from poppy production and build a strong economy. these arkansans are picking up sergeant owens' mantle in the fight to create a more secure and stable afghanistan, and together their efforts will endure. today i join all arkansans in lifting up sergeant owens' wife kaitlyn, his parents sheila and keith, and his siblings and friends and extended family and community of fort smith during this very difficult time. sergeant owens may be gone, but his courage, valor, and patriotism will never be forgotten. mr. president, i yield the floor. and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska is recognized. mr. johanns: thank you, mr. president. i rise today -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. johanns: let me ask the quorum call be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. johanns: mr. president, i rise today to speak to the senate health bill and to talk a little bit about some of the issues related to that bill in terms of financing and scoring, and to be very candid about it, some of the accounting gimmicks that try to hold this bill together. i will be joined by senator wicker and senator barrasso in this colloquy. but let me, if i might, get

started. you know, if you start to study the bill -- and for many of us who have served in other capacities, myself as the governor and as a mayor, the first thing you want to do is ask yourself does it work, is the financing of this bill such that it makes sense, it's not -- it's an honest portrayal of the income you expect and the expenses that you expect? certainly, that's where i start, and i would suggest many of my colleagues start. well, the one thing about this bill, this health care bill that struck me immediately and struck others is that, first of all, there is ten years of tax increases. they total over half a trillion dollars, a massive amount of tax increases. the second thing you see is that there are ten years of medicare cuts. again, about a half a trillion

dollars total there. and you do those things and some other things, and it pays for six years of spending, because even though some of the things relative to this health care bill kick in initially, the vast majority of it doesn't kick in for three or four years. so when you put that all back together, you begin to realize that what you really have here is a health care bill that costs about $2.5 trillion over a ten-year score. then you start working through a whole bunch of other issues. you've got a senate bill that takes $52 billion and higher social security taxes and revenues and counts them as offsets. that would be money normally reserved for the social security trust fund. you look at the class act. one member of this body, a member who is very respected for

what he has done relative to budgeting called this really a ponzi scheme. the class act was initially opposed by our friends on the other side or by league democrats, but it's back alive. it's included in the senate bill. it's another federal entitlement that is going to create an insolvency problem very quickly. it takes money from premiums that are supposed to go for benefits and uses fo uses them r offsets and pay-force. they say the class act faces, and i a quoting here "a significant risk of failure." and then says "and may lead to -- quote -- "an insurance death spiral." unquote. our friends on the other side claim that the bill will simultaneously extend the

solvency of medicare and have en magically decrease the deficit. but the reality of that, again, is -- and it comes from c.m.s. act wearies. they say, wait a second here. that's double counting. you can't use the same dollar twice. you can't count it twice. c.m.s. concludes that the medicare cuts in the legislation -- and again i'm quoting -- "cannot be simultaneously used to finance other federal outlays such as coverage expansions under this bill or to extend the trust fund." so when you cut all the way through this and see what's happening here, it doesn't hold together. this is a financial plan that is built upon sand that you can almost guarantee is going to collapse. so let me, if i might, ask my colleague, senator wicker, what do you think of all of this? offer some thoughts as to where

this bill is headed in the financial mechanisms of this bill. mr. wicker: well, i appreciate my colleague from nebraska getting into the weeds because it's important that we know the details of the numbers there. i think also there's sort of the big picture aspect of this. there are a lot of americans out there who may not have read the details that the senator from nebraska just outlined, but they instinctively know that you can't do all this to one-sixth of our economy and save money for the federal government at the same time. they just instinctively know that this is going to turn out as big entitlement programs always do to be more expensive than has been estimated, and it's going to cost the american taxpayer and future generations in terms of the national debt. i'd like to pivot and talk about

what this is going to do to state governments, because that's -- that's an additional aspect over and above the gigantic numbers that the senator from nebraska mentioned. what -- really almost half of the additional coverage in this senate bill, which the house is being asked to adopt lock, stock, and barrel without even changing so much as a semicolon -- half of the coverage is going to be under medicaid. now, we all know that medicaid requires a huge federal investment, but also medicaid also requires a state match. and under the provisions of this bill, if it's enacted, states will be told the magnificent federal government has increased coverage, and now, mr. state

legislator, mr. state governor, you figure out a way to pay your part of it. i know this: in my state of mississippi, our legislators and our governor have had to stay up late two years in a row figuring out a way to pay for the medicaid match that they already are being asked to patience much less this new mandate -- to pay, much less this new mandate of additional persons that would be compedz under this senate -- covered under this senate language. there's no way that the state of mississippi can stand this new medicaid coverage without an increase in our taxes at the state level. i don't think we can cut teachers enough, although teachers might have to be cut to pay this federal mandate. i don't think we can cut local law enforcement enough, although that split to b might have to b. it is just a huge, unfund burden on the state. and, quite frankly, even if all

of the promises that are being made on the senate side that we'll clean this up in reconciliation, even if all of those promises come true, which i frankly doubt that they possibly can be, the states are going to be faced with this huge unfunded mandate, and you don't have to take our word for it on this side of the aisle. democratic governor after democratic governor have had press conferences, they've sent letters, they have sent messages, they've been available for press availabilities. the governor of state of tennessee said this bill is the mother of all unfunded mandates and has urged even at this late date that we not go down this road, so i appreciate my friend from nebraska point out what this is going to go to -- pointing out what this is going

to do to the federal budget. and i would simply commend the bipartisan state officials who have been talking to anyone within the sound of their voices saying that state governments cannot afford this mandate at the state level, and it will inevitably result in an increase in taxes at the state level, something that we certainly don't need and that we don't need at this time of economic hardship. so i would add that. perhaps senator brownback has some thoughts that he would like to add, and i know others may be joining us, too, mr. president. mr. brownback: i appreciate my colleagues allowing me to join in on this colloquy, because i think it is incredibly important, and the american public believes it's incredibly important, clearly i because, if for no other reason, they're looking at this and they're saying, we don't want this bill. we don't think this bill is the right way.

we don't think this procedure is the way. they oppose it on process, they oppose it on product. listen to the poll numbers. 68% say the president and the congressional democrats should keep trying to work with republicans to craft legislation. and, by the way, got a lig, long, all-day pleat metin meetie white house. we put forward ideas and virtually all of them were rejected on a bipartisan, incremental compromise, which is much more the way the public wants to go much the rasmussen poll says that 25% think it will help. 66% believe the health care plan proposed by president obama is likely to increase the federal deficit. the reason they think that? because it will. this is going to increase the federal d on top of all that there is a big intangible here. if this bill passes, the rest of the wormed is passing and rest of the world is passing and

seeing if the united states passes this program when we're running a deficit and have a $12 trillion debt that's nearly the size -- 90% of the size of our total commitment of they're watching and they're saying, if the u.s. does this now, they are not serious about getting their budget under control. they're going to start pulling dollars out of the u.s. economy and putting them other places. it's going to make it harder for us to raise capital. it is going to increase interest rates. it is going to hurt the u.s. economy, and that is a near-term thing that's going to lavment because the people are watching this. this famous "saturday night live" routine where tao is the lecturing president obama, how are you going to get your budget under control? by passing a big, new entitlement program? it ran too close to home of what people are saying. this doesn't make any sense to me, either. this is going to humple hurt.

greesce is a mess. our deficit and debt has could i rocketed. we pass this, this is going to hurt us near-term on the cost of being able to raise capital that we need thew this economy. it is going to hurt states that are really struggling as well. it is ad about idea at a bad time. i'm glad nigh colleague glad mye join in. the doctor is here from wyoming to help us dissect this lesmgh lesmghts. mr. barrasso: i agree with what my colleague has to say. that's what i'm hearing at hoavment i'm hearing it from voters, from patients. i was in wyoming this past weekend. i have had the privilege of practicing medicine there for 25 years, taking caver families in wyoming. when you talk to people, their concerns are the national kernings that the senator from kansas has just mentioned about the debt and what is facing our nation long term. they're also very focused on their own personal care.

and if you have a town meeting or just talk to people at the coffee shop, the people of america believe that if this bill passes, that the quality of their own personal health care will go down that there are opportunities to go -- that their opportunities to go a doctor who they've enjoyed going to, that that relationship may be gone. and we're seeing that from health care providers as well all across the country, even the mayo clinic has said that this bill is a huge lost opportunity. it was supposed to be designed to help get the cost of care down, and it's not. it's going to raise the cost of care. and it was designed to improve the quality of care, but it's going to cost people the quality of their own health care. that's why americans don't like this bill. they don't like anything about it. the mayo clinic has been used by the president early on in this debate as the model for how we

should have health care in this country. the mayo clinic has said, no, thank you, to patients on medicare in arizona. no, thank you, to patients on medicaid. yet the president plans to push this program through. and he said i am going to provide coverage for more americans. he is going to do it by putting 15 million more people on medicaid, a program that many doctors won't see, because the reimbursements are so low. if all you saw were medicaid patients, you couldn't afford to keep the doors open at your hospital or clinic. that's why the mayo clinic said, no, thank you, mr. president. we can't take those patients, whether it is medicaid or medicare. yet they're going to cut medicare, the program that our seniors depend upon, by $500 billion in cuts to our patients who depend on medicare. and it's medicare advantage and

there's an advantage -- the reason people sign up is there is an advantage to that program. it does preventive care, coordinated care. $135 billion is being cut from the hospitals in all of our states and communities. $42 billion from home health agencies. they are eight folks who help -- they're the folks who help provide a lifeline for people who are at home. it saves money by keeping them out of the hospital. cuts to nursing homes, cuts to hospice providers an prayers ins final days of their lives. i see we have a former governor here on the floor from nebraska who has experienced these issues with medicaid, medicare, with nursing hoassments i would ask my friend and colleague, is this the same thing you're hearing at home in nebraska? hasn'johannesburg this is exacty what i'm --

mr. johanns: this is exactly what i'm hearing. you're trying to figure out how do you fashion a state budget that deals with medicaid. i said a few weeks ago, i don't know the folks who wrote this bill, who they were talking to, because if you look at the expansion of the health care to people in this bill, repeally what they're doing is expanding medicaid by abou em 15 million 8 million individuals. the senator from wyoming hit the nail on the head. you already have serious access problems with medicaid. who do i mean by that? the dr. barrasso, again really, really nailed this issue. doctors cannot practice on the medicaid reimbursement. they would literally go broke. our little hospitals in autumn of our states -- in all of our states, our critical access hospitals will just tell you, we could not keep our doors open on

medicaid reimbursement. they can't do it on medicaid and medicare reimbursement. so what's the solution here? the solution certainly isn't adding 15 million to 18 million more people who walk in to a hospital or a doctor's office and say, so, we don't take medicaid patients because we can't afford to do that. the other thing i want to mention here, if i might -- and then i'm going to ask senator wicker to comment on some of these questions also. but this is a very important point. all of a sudden we're starting to hear a lot of discussion from the white house on down about, well, we got to get a hand on cost. and i think they've done that because, quite honestly, the american people are -- they get it. they understand that if you don't have an impact on cost, you're not going to get anywhere with health care reform. so my colleagues will remember, we sent a letter to the c.m.s.

actuary employed by the federal government. we said, take a look at this bill and tell us what you think in these respects. one was health care costs. let me groat that report. "overall health expenditures under this bill would increase by an estimated total of $222 billion." compared to what? compared to doing nothing. so if we did nothing, we would have a better impact on health care costs than this bill is going to do. so after spending $2.5 trillion, after cutting half a trillion out of medicare, after raising taxes over a half a trillion dollars, the c.m.s. actuary says to us, well, after you have done all those things, the overall health expenditures under this bill would increase by an estimated total of $222 billion

versus doing nothing. senator wicker, i wanted to ask you is that the kind of health care reform you're hearing the people back home want? mr. wicker: the people back home want health care reform, but they certainly want the kind that's going to lower health care costs and lower health care premiums, and you mentioned c.m.s. it may be that some people within the sound of our voices don't -- don't realize. this is a part of the administration. this is not some outside business group that has an ax to grind. the actuaries at the center for medicare and medicaid services are called on to tell us the numbers as they see them. they had no choice but to answer the question accurately, and the question is not one that lends itself to getting public support for this plan. i think that's why the poll numbers that senator brownback mentioned are there. really, there is only about 25%

of the american public that -- that believe at this point we should pass this huge senate bill lock, stock and barrel and send it to the president for his signature. now, senator barrasso mentioned the one half trillion dollar cut in medicare, and we spent a little time in december debating whether actually there was a cut in medicare. some of our friends on the other side of the aisle suggested that, well, this really -- the programs that were cut really shouldn't be considered part of the medicare program. well, obviously, there is one democratic senator that thought so much of these cuts in medicare that he got an exemption for his state. that's what the minority leader has been calling the gator aid. so florida under the senate bill, the bill the house is being asked to pass in its entirety without changes, the senate bill says we're not going

to cut medicare advantage for the state of florida. now, why the people of the state of florida are more deserving of medicare advantage and medicare benefits than the people of wyoming or mississippi or kansas or nebraska, i don't know, but somehow the majority, 16 members of the senate in their wisdom felt that medicare was a good program and medicare advantage was a really good program for the people of florida. by the same token, i guess the -- the democratic senator from nebraska has now repudiated what was known as the cornhusker kickback which was basically saying nebraska wouldn't have to pay for their share of this huge medicaid mandate. all the other states would. somehow, that state was singled out and apparently the people of

nebraska rose up in horror at being singled out for some sort of favor that the other people in america were not being asked to do, and so that's being proposed to be changed. but now if the house votes on this next week, they won't have a chance, will they, senator johanns, to take that out. the only choice the house is going to have is to vote for the cornhusker kickback, the gator aid, the louisiana purchase, these special deals for labor unions, and all of that will be sent to the president to be signed into law and will be part of the statute. that's the way i understand the democratic procedure. am i correct, senator johanns? mr. johanns: i believe you're correct. let me offer a thought, if i might -- and i think others, senator brownback, maybe i will

turn to you next. you know, if this was a great bill, if this were the kind of legislation that you wanted to take home and go out there and champion and maybe if you're up for election campaign on, then you wouldn't have to go through all these gyrations and gimmicks and somersaults and cartwheels to try to get this darned thing passed, but that's exactly what's happening. i -- i just can't wait to get up in the morning and run down and turn on the computer and see what the latest is because they are just over there at the house. but you know, they finally figured out, i think, that the only way to get this terrible policy enacted is to pass the senate bill with all of its warts and moles and ugliness and special deals and whatever. they've got to pass it without pulling a dotted i out or a

crossed t. now, they may be able to say back home well, yeah, but folks, i didn't really support that. what i really wanted was the reconciliation package that would fix all these things. all i can say is look, reconciliation was never designed for this. this isn't what reconciliation was designed for. reconciliation was designed to bring down the budget deficit. so what's happening over here on the senate is more somersaults, more gyrations, more cartwheels to figure out how to shoehorn this terrible piece of policy into an approach -- a rule that was never designed. so now you're going to end up with this day, i guess, where we all show up here and literally you have rulings on what you can do with wilings and what you can't do. so no house member can go home and say well, i voted for this

awful piece of legislation but we're going to be saved by reconciliation. you know what? maybe you will, maybe you won't. and the reason why that -- that question can't be answered today is because reconciliation was never designed to take control of 1/6 of the economy. it was never designed to do what folks are trying to do. let me wrap up with this, and then i'd like to hear senator brownback's thought. enough of the -- enough of the somersaults, enough of the cartwheels, enough of the -- trying to figure out how many angels fit on a pin and what sized razor blade is going to divide the hair. this is craziness. this is terrible policy. please stop now. the country is begging us to stop and start over with a thoughtful process. this was -- if this was a great bill, we wouldn't be going

through this. there would be bipartisan support like there have been on many tough issues through the decades of our history, but, you see, this isn't a good bill. this is a terrible bill. and the bottom line is they're going to try to fix it with a process that was never designed for this purpose. senator brownback, i'd like to hear your thoughts on that. mr. brownback: we were on the floor in december, the longest session in the history of the united states senate, the longest continuous session, 25 continuous days, and we were talking and talking and talking about this, and my colleague from nebraska and i were joined by a colleague from utah, senator hatch. been around a long time. been a part of a lot of health care reform legislation. his point is if you follow the normal order and you work it through a committee and a bipartisan process, almost every health care bill that he has been a part of -- and there have been a number of substantial ones -- gets 75 votes in this body. people want to support health care reform on a good bill. they will support it, it will be bipartisan. we're all for health care. but now you have got this thing

that is going to be completely partisan on one side, not supported by the american public, and then you're having to jimmy rig the process here to try to figure out how we set this thing up to do. even kent radical, the democratic chairman -- the chairman of the -- kent conrad, the democratic chairman, says "reconciliation cannot be used to pass comprehensive health care reform. it won't work. it won't work because it was never designed for that kind of significant legislation." my experience is you try to do something that it's not designed to do this, you're going to get a flawed product and a flawed process that people are really going to be mad about. it will hurt this body. i think it will be very harmful to this country to do this and shouldn't be done. and after all of the december that we spent, 25 continuous days in session, i think the american people spoke when they had a massachusetts election and elected scott brown. it was clearly about health care reform. i know my colleague from wyoming has been all over speaking about

this on television, getting a lot of feedback from people, and i think he probably is getting the same sort of feedback that i have about don't do this. it wasn't designed to be done, this sort of health care reform, in a reconciliation process. mr. barrasso: i heard that just this morning. we had a number of county commissioners from wyoming here in washington, and they were at a speech yesterday given by the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, and she told these county commissioners, this group from all around the country that we need to first pass the bill so that then later the american people will know what's in it. she said this to them, and they laughed, they laughed at the speaker of the house at this meeting yesterday because these are county commissioners. they know they're not going to vet on something that the people in the community don't though about. -- don't know about. people in the community come, they want to know what's going to be discussed, and they vote on it. the people of america know what's in this bill. they know this bill will raise taxes by $500 billion.

they know this bill is going to cut medicare for our seniors who depend upon medicare by another another $500 billion. they know that they are going to be paying for this thing for ten years but there is only six years of services. it is amazing how much the people of america know about the gimmicks of this bill, that, in fact, those who are pushing the bill wish they didn't know. that's why three out of four americans say stop. a quarter of them just say stop. a quarter of them say stop and start over. only a quarter of them support what's happening here. mr. wicker: i do think that was a very telling remark from the speaker of the house yesterday, and if someone didn't catch that, she said we need to pass the bill so we can then find out what's in it. the comments are out there on the internet for the american people to see. i'd like to quote senator lamar alexander about this entire process. he said "what the president is

doing is asking house democrats to hold hands, jump off a cliff, and hope harry reid catches them." i don't know that harry reid will be able to catch them. i'll say this. if there are budget points of order that need to be waived in this scheme that the majority leader has about cleaning the statute up in conference, i'm not going to be part of 60 votes to waive that poured. -- to waive that point of order. it will all be on mr. reid and his teammates over there to get this done because i will not be a part of waiving points of order, helping them get to a supermajority to clean up something, even if it needs to be done. this process needs to be stopped, and the next -- i'd say the next 10-14 days are going to tell the tale. the american people do not want this bill, and it's up to the house of representatives and to

us saying what we can over on the senate side to see if we're going to listen to the people and stop this bill, go back to the drawing board and try something that works. a senator: i would just note that that is the case. why is it that the speaker is saying we have to pass the bill to see what's in it? mr. brownback: they are going to hold it back until they break enough arms to get a majority vote and then pop it out, and then it will be an hour's debate on a sixth of the economy being changed. we saw that same procedure here when majority leader reid was crafting this bill behind closed doors and nobody knew what -- knew what was in the bill, and then pop it out when you've got the deal, when you have made enough deals, broken enough arms, then we could pass this. that's no way to have a process like this. that's no way to effect this big a piece of the economy that touches every american's lives in the process. i would urge the speaker not to do something like this, to

listen to the american public and follow normal order. they could send this back to the committee, to the finance and the "help" committee, work a bipartisan agreement on this, say we have got to hit this number or that, let's do an incremental approach, and come out with a bill that would have 75 votes. that is doable. we put forward a whole bunch of ideas at the blair house. here are different things that we would support. put out a long day of discussion. that's the normal order that produces good legislation that will stand the test of time. this will not stand the test of time, and it's going to bankrupt the country. mr. johanns: let me offer a few closing thoughts, and i so appreciate the opportunity to be on the floor today with them. you know, it wasn't that long ago that our president of the united states actually was a member of this body. he was a member of the united states senate. and it just seems from time to

time we are asked to comment on the 60-vote rule, you know, and he was asked to comment on that, and here's what he said. he stated that removing the 60-vote threshold would, and i am quoting here, "change the character of the senate forever." then he went on to say and that having "majoritarian absolute power on either side was not what the founders intended." the thing about reconciliation is this: it limits debate. it's a very apreifiat abbreviat. it comes in and say, you're only going to get 20 hours of debate, very limited, and the second thing is that it only takes a majority vote. from time to time this issue pops up, but you don't have to study the history of this great

nation very long to understand what our founders were doing. the house is a majority body. now, senator, states like nebraska and kansas don't fare very well in that. we don't have a lot of members. literally 0 on every vote you can find yourself losing. our founders understood that. they came up with an idea for a very unique body, a body that would be an equalizer. every state got two. every state got two members. but the important thing about this body was this: that arabss were passed on the house -- that as issues were passed on the house side by majority vote, over on this side it was anticipated that something more would be required to cause the members to come together and try to work through the nation's difficulty problems. now, initially, there was no way to stop debate, and then about

1915 twal it was decided that a two-thirds vote with a stop debate and then in the mid-1960's that was changed to 60 votes. that 60 votes is an important limitation on the powfort federal government -- on the power of the federal government to impose its will upon the people. awl i'li'll wrap up my commentsy saying that the will of the people is very clear. they do not want this bill. they see this as massive government takeover of their lives. they have spoken very clearly and eloquently in our town hall meetings, in elections that have 0 occurred, and they have said, we want you to go back and work through your differences and come up with a bipartisan approach. yes, if reconciliation is used, you will not only change the character of this 0 body, you will change how our government

operates, because if you can pass this bill through reconciliation process, you can do anything. and you end up with literally a system that is vastly different than was ever intended and a system, in my judgment, that is not good for the future of a great nation. with that, let me just wrap up and say again to my colleagues, i appreciate the opportunity to be on the floor with you today. 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:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada is recognized. mr. ensign: mr. president, i ask the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. mr. ensign: mr. president, i rise today to discuss the tax extenders legislation that we have before us, and the real consequences of our fiscal recklessness. i cannot stress enough that our spending is completely out of control, and it seems like every week this body passes more legislation and spends more money and adds more debt onto the backs of our children. unfortunately, the democrat majority continues to sing from the same old sheet of music. more debt, more spending, and more fiscal recklessness. last week, the nonpartisan congressional budget office provided their analysis of president obama's budget, and it

is nothing short of a fiscal train wreck and a road map to banana republic status. it truly pains me to stand on the floor of the united states senate and tell the american people that president obama is leading us down a path of bankruptcy. i believe that this budget is simply reckless. with enormous budget deficits as far as the eye can see. just this year, the government has overspent by over a trillion dollars. the same thing last year. we're adding trillions of dollars in debt to our children and our grandchildren. nevadans and people across the country are facing very hard economic times, and for the federal government to be spending this much money is really an insult to american families everywhere. in 2020, the last year of the president's budget, our nation's credit card bill will account

for 90% of the economy. but what does this mean in terms of -- that real people can understand? because these numbers are so large and so enormous, it's difficult to put them in perspective, so let me talk in terms of consequences, the consequences of this fiscal recklessness. at a certain point, foreign countries will not buy our i.o.u.'s, our bonds, or they will demand higher interest rates because they are riskier. our standard of living will decrease. actually, for the first time in american history, future generations will be worse off than prior generations. the dream -- the american dream of owning a home as a young adult will vanish. you will have to wait until your 40's and 50's to be able to buy a home. families in order to maintain a similar standard of living will have to become smaller.

with a less dynamic economy, we will enjoy less of the fruits of innovation and technological progress. i know that this is hard to hear, but one day if we continue down the current path, this scenario will become a reality. we cannot keep spending and spending and spending without consequence. democrats claim that we need to spend money because our economy is sluggish. we need stimulus after stimulus to put us back on the right track. well, i can tell you we are not on the right track. unemployment in my state is still 13%, and there really isn't much light on the horizon. we have lost our way and have wandered down a path of fiscal crisis. more spending doesn't fix the economic crisis. i want to talk about the depression of 1920-19 1 that you never heard about.

-- 1920-1921 that you never heard about. it was an extremely sharp recession. shortly after the end of world war i, we went into this economic crisis. the department of commerce estimates the economy dechristkindl by nearly 7 -- declined by nearly 7% during this time period. unemployment rose sharply during the recession. estimates put the increase in the rate of unemployment went from around 5% to almost 12%. from may, 1920, to july, 1921, automobile production declined by 60%, and total industrial production across the united states decreased by 30%. stocks also fell dramatically. the dow jones industrials was cut by almost half. business failures crippled between 1919 and 1922. but instead of a fiscal stimulus, here's what president

harding did. he cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920- 1920-1922. marginal tax rates were slashed across all income groups, so he cut taxes and cut government spending at the same time. this encouraged businesses to grow and to add jobs in the private sector. the national debt was reduced by one-third. in 1920 acceptance speech for the republican nomination, harding said, "we will attempt intelligent and courageous inflation, strike at government borrowing which enlarges evil, and we will attach the high cost of government with -- attack the high cost of government with every energy and facility which attend republican capacity. we promise that relief which will attend the halting of waste and extravagance and the renewal

of practice of public economy, not alone because it will relieve tax burdens, but because it will be an example to simulate thrift in public and private life." harding's laissez-faire economic policies, rapid government downsizing and low tax rates spurred a private market recovery and led to a readjustment and investment and consumption for a peace-time economy. unemployment rate went from almost 12% in a little over a year to less than 2%. let me repeat that. unemployment rate went from almost 12% to under 2%. i don't think that's what's happening today. this episode in history provides a counterexample to the argument that we need massive government spending to stimulate our economy. you see, we don't hear about the great depression of 1920.

instead, we hear about the roaring 19 20's. because sound fiscal policy, cutting tax rates, tutsing spending led to economic resurgence. this is an example that shows when the governmen burden of gos lessened through less taxes and less debt, the private sector will respond with investment, job creation, which lead to economic growth. so why is the legislation on the floor today not the answer? if creating jobs is priority number one -- and it should be for this body -- why is the majority party letting tax incentives for job-creating businesses expire? these noncontroversial provisions expired three months ago. why is helping business an afterthought for the majority? the tax extender portion of this bill could have passed by unanimous consent months ago, but the majority just didn't

want to bother with that. it will have to be extended again later this year because the provisions will again expire on december 31. this is not the right policy for creating a stable and certain environment for employers who are wanting to hire more employees. the tax extender provisions. -- the tax i extender provisions amount to only $25 billion. the tax extenders are good. they include energy production credits, research credits, separated depreciation for certain businesses, state and local sales tax deductions, and low-income housing tax credits. now, i've said this these are good provisions, but we should have done much more. foremost, we should be cutting individual and corporate income tax rates so that people and businesses could use their money to get the economy moving again

and could invest in job creation and wealth-creating enterprises. but, at the same time, we need to cut government spending so we aren't massively increasing the debt. you see, i hate to break it to you, but america is falling behind other countries in that regard. tax relief is wrongly criticized by those across the aisle. they have been arguing for job creation, but their policies are making it tougher on private businesses. in order to help these businesses find a stable footing once again, we need to make permanent tax relief and not wait for these extensions to expire again and again. so let me conclude. to get this economy moving, we don't need to pass a bill that's going to add over $100 billion to our deficit and our debt. that's what the bill before us does today. it adds over $100 billion to our

deficit and our debt. a few years ago $100 billion was a lot of money around this place. we throw that amount like it's nothing around here anymore. that is debt that is adding to the coming fiscal crisis that this country is going to be facing. i believe that the prescription to get this economy going is to cut taxes, cut government spending, believe in the spirit of the american people and the american entrepreneurs instead of creating jobs here in washington, d.c. i don't know if the american people know that over 100,000 jobs were created in this city last year. over 100,000 jobs in washington, d.c. that's about as many jobs as my state lost. that's not the prescription for economic prosperity. government jobs have to be sustained with tax dollars year after year.

when the private sector creates those jobs, the whole economy grows and feeds off itself, and you don't need taxpayer dollars to continue to subsidize those jobs. as a matter of fact, they feed in money to the federal treasury. so, mr. president, the bill before us today i think is fiscally irresponsible. it's the exact opposite direction that we should be going. and what we should be doing is acting in accord as americans, not as republicans, not as democrats, but let's look at history and learn from it and get this economy going by focusing on actually what has worked in the past and what will work in the future. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. bennett: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah is recognized. mr. bennett: mr. president, as i move around the state of utah tawngdz to my constituents -- and talk to my constituents, i find with all of the other specifics that they are concerned about, the one thing

that just about everybody is concerned about is our long-term fiscal situation. they're worried about debt, they're worried about the deficit in this year that is adding to the debt, and they say to me, what can we do about it? they listen to the pundits who talk on the air about this particular project or that particular project, that sound outrage owsms many times the projects are in fact legitimate, but they make good copy. i say, if you add up all of these projects together, the good ones and the bad ones, and eliminated them all, you would reduce the federal deficit by .80% -- excuse me, .8%. let's talk about where the money lies, where the challenge is. i is present to my constituents a series of charts that i will

present here that outline where the challenge is. and one of the things that becomes clerks as we go into this debate -- and one of the things that becomes clear, as we go into this debate, is that it is not just our financial situation that is in trouble. the pressures created by our debt are crossing over into the area of national security. we cannot maintain our military or our diplomatic initiatives with the kinds of pressures continually increasing. so, a little bit of history, mr. president, which i share with my constituents and that i share here as a background for the bill that i will be introducing today. this is a very simple pie chart that shows the components of federal spending back in 1966. i asked my constituents, why 0 do i pick 1966 as the year to start? and they -- some of them know the answer, some of them doovment but in 1966, mandatory

spending constituted 26% of the budget, and interest on the national debt, another 7%. you have to pay the interest on the bond, so that's mandatory spending as well. so the government is committed for a third of the budget before the congress ever gets around to appropriating any money. now, in 1966, the biggest portion of mandatory spending was social security. the combination of social security and other mandatory programs and the interest costs, two-thirds of the budget. the other -- pardon me, one-third of the budget. the other two-thirds was available to the congress. and of that spending, defense 13e7bddefensespending was 44% o. defense spending obviously dominated non-defense discretionary spending. where are we today? what has happened in the years since 1966 and today?

here's the components of federal spending in fiscal 2008. and i picked that year before the tsunami hit us, the financial tsunami that caused the meltdown and all of the problems, as perhaps a demonstration of what's happening structurally within the budget, not affected by any particular emergency. mandatory spending has now grown to 54%, interest costs from 7% to 8%. so that the two of them constitute roughly two-thirds of the budget. from 1966 to 2008, mandatory spending now is twice as big in its proportion of the budget than it used to be. defense spending has shrunk to a half of what it was back in the 1960's, non-defense discretionary spending is about the same. all right, now back to the question: why did i pick 1966 as the year to start with?

because that's the year that the federal government got into the medical business and enacted medicare. and since then we've added medicaid, so that today when you talk about mandatory spending, social security is no longer the dominant fact tear. it is a combination of social security, medicare, and medicaid. now, i will leave aside the issue of the value of those programs. i'm just talking about the money that we're spending here. and today, as we argue over congressional spending, we only have a third of the budget to talk about. and half of that, roughly, is defense spending. let's look out just 10 years. let's go to fiscal 2009, fiscal 2010, either way. mandatory spending will then have grown to 59%. the interest rate at 5%, defense

will have shrunk, non-defense will have shrunk -- pardon me, 2009, this is the difference between the earlier one. the reason the trt costs are shrink #-g is because we are borrowing money at a lower rate by virtue of the things that have happened with the financial tsunami. but let's now go out ten years and see where we will be. in ten years mandatory spending will have grown to 58%, the interest cost costs will have gn to 13%. and defense and non-defense together will constitute only 30%, and if defense is shrunk to 15% of the budget, it begins to bite very seriously into america's role in national security around the world. one author that i have looked at, who has talked about america's role in the world in a

very thoughtful way, looks ahead to this and he says the greatest threat to america's position in the world is not china, it's not india, it's not north korea; it's medicare. the greatest threat to america's ability to sustain itself and its national security is coming from the growth of mandatory spending. and if we spend all of our time arguing over those tiny things that make good copy in newspapers and on television and not addressing this inexorable growth, we will discover that the congress has become irrelevant. three-fourths of the budget of congress will already be spent before the congress even meets. and only one-fourth will be left for us to talk about, and that will -- and that one-fourth will have to include our spending for national security, and you will see how everything else will get

squeezed out. i had that hit me directly as we had the debate last year on the budget resolution for fiscal 2010. standing at this very place, i looked down at the bill that was presented and signature here on a podium, and it projected federal revenues for fiscal 2010 at $2.2 trillion. down because of the challenges we had with the economic meltdown p. and then on the next page it said, "mandatory spending: $2.2 trillion." that spentst men that everything we do in government in fiscal 2010 other than mandatory spending, the defense department, the war in afghanistan, the f.a.a. that controls the airplanes, the national parks, our embassies overseas, the f.b.i., all of our law enforcement, the border security, everything -- every single dime that we spend in government other than mandatory spending in fiscal 2010 had to

be borrowed. we didn't have a single dime of tax revenue available to pay for anything in government because it was all taken up in mandatory spending. all right, what does this do to us long term as a nation if we cannot get this under control? people keep talking about the national debt and how it is growing and growing and growing. actually the national debt has not been growing and growing and growing over the years. here's a chart that shows the national debt measured in the way it should be measured as a percentage of the gross domestic product. the size of the national debt with respect to the size of the economy. to illustrate why this is the way to do it, i've often used this example here on the floor. i ran a company before i came here. when i became the c.e.o. of that company, it was very small.

it had a debt of $75,000. when i stepped down to retire prior to running for the senate, the debt was $7.5 million. and you would say, well, bob bennett, you're not a very good manager if you've run the debt up from $75,000 to $7.5 million. and then you look at the debt the way you should look at it. at the time i became the c.e.o. of that company, they were doing under $300,000 a year in total revenues. they had no margin at all. every dime they took in in revenue was eaten up with costs, and they could not make the payments on the $75,000 debt. the $75,000 debt threatened the survival of the company. and when we had a $7.5 million debt, the company was doing over $80 million in business, and we had a 15% margin on sales. we were earning more per year than the whole debt we had.

and the only reason we didn't pay it off is because we had some prepayment penalties built into the mortgages that we had established. so i wasn't such a bad steward after all if you make the measure totally on the basis of the size of the debt. i was a good steward if you make it on the measure of the debt in relationship to the size of the enterprise. that's what this chart shows -- the national debt as a percentage of the size of the enterprise, to use business terms, in this case the size of the economy. you see that just after the second world war, our national debt was well over 100% of g.d.p. and in the decade after the -- two decades after the second world war, we come from 1945 to 1965, the debt had shrunk from over 100% of g.d.p. to close to 30% of g.d.p.

even though it was going up in nominal dollars, it was coming down as a percentage because the economy was growing so rapidly. and then once again we add to our entitlement spending. we add medicare, and you see that this is the trough, and it begins to grow. and it begins to grow. and when we get to the end of the cold war, it turns down again because of two things. number one, our defense spending goes down, and the economy booms. we get tremendous growth as a result of the end of the cold war. it was at 49.6% when medicare and medicaid got started. medicaid followed. medicare was ahead of it by a decade or so. and not much different in 1989, at the end of the cold war, 53%.

this shows the historic level that it has been. okay. now this is the history. and the blue line shows the projections that the obama administration has given us as to what will happen under their spending plan. one thing we know about projections is that they are always wrong. we don't know whether they're wrong on the high side or the low side, but we mow they're -- we know they're always wrong. and what usually happens is that the projections are always optimistic, and the circumstances come in in a result that is less than we had hoped for. so if we take this as an optimistic projection, we are saying that when you get out to 2020, which is only a decade away -- only ten years away -- the national debt will be back

up very close to what it was at the end of the second world war. and that's unacceptable. everyone in this chamber knows that entitlement spending is the driving force behind all of this. everyone in this chamber knows that shaving back a little on this program or cutting out a particular grant on another program will have no real impact on this if we don't have the courage to deal with entitlement spending. and so, mr. president, today i'm introducing a bill to deal with entitlement spending. i have no illusions that it's going to pass in this congress, but i want to lay it down so that we at least have a marker from which to begin. i've already done that with social security. several years ago when i was chairman of the joint economic committee, i held a series of hearings on social security and discovered that we can indeed solve the social security

problem, move numbers around a little and say to everyone who is currently drawing social security, you will continue to draw social security throughout your lifetime, adjusted for inflation. nothing will happen to it. furthermore, your children can draw the same level of social security benefits that you draw adjusted for inflation through their lifetimes without any danger to it. and their children can draw social security throughout their lifetimes at exactly the same level adjusted for inflation, without a tax increase. how is that possible, senator? the way it's possible is to say we're only going to allow social security benefits to grow as rapidly as inflation grows. we already have built into the program we're going to pay social security plus inflation, plus a nice little kicker along

the way. and that nice little kicker along the way over 10 years and then 20 years and then 30 years pretty soon gets you into the kind of trouble that i have described. and you say no, we'll allow it to grow with respect to inflation, but we will not allow it to grow any more rapidly than that. and then the kind of thing that happened here can happen here. as the economy grows more rapidly than the inflation rate, we will see the national debt begin to come down. we will see the pressure on national security begin to ease. and we will see the great concern that americans have about the financial situation that we have begin to be addressed in the way it was addressed in the years after the second world war. i'm not saying we abolish the entitlement programs. there are some of my constituents who say that's the thing to do, just abolish medicare, abolish social security. i say, yeah, you want to abolish

these things but keep the taxes? because that's what we would have to do if we're going to get the financial circumstance that you like. no, over time we can do this without abolishing these programs, but we have to see to it that they do not grow. so, here's what my bill will do it will control the growth of entitlement spending by reinstating spending limits and saying that entitlement programs cannot grow at a rate faster than the inflation rate. and that will mean to the future congresses, if they adopt this bill, okay, we can still spend for medicare. we can still spend for medicaid. we can still do the social security. but we can't add things to it in such a way that will cause it to grow more rapidly than inflation, number one. number two, do the same thing with all non-defense discretionary spending. we will allow to you grow each year in accordance with the

inflation rate, but we will not allow you to increase non-defense discretionary spending more rapidly than the inflation rate. and then number three, enforce the spending caps with automatic spending reductions and budget points of order, the details of the kind of thing we get into around here all the time. very simple, very straightforward. but it gives the kind of direction that many of the solutions that have been proposed around here don't do. many of the solutions we have around here sound great, and they're very complicated. and this point of order lies here and that situation there. but overall, we're turning our back on two-thirds of the federal spending and saying, well, that we won't address because these programs are popular. and we don't wand -- want to offend the voters by saying something has to be done with

the most popular programs in america. i find the voters are saying we have to deal with this. we have to have the courage to deal with it, which means we have to have the courage to deal with entitlement spending and not just focus on non-defense discretionary spending. the final thing my bill would do would be to prohibit the creation of any new mandatory spending programs. that's, again, part of the problem that we have had. i close, mr. president, by repeating a question that i asked my constituents as i'm making this presentation to them. i say how many of you know who willie sutton was? and most of my audience is young enough not to know the answer to that question. but there are a few who say willie sutton was a bank robber. and that's true. and he wasn't a very good bank robber because he kept getting caught. and each time he would serve his sentence, and then he would go out after he had been released

from prison and he'd rob another bank. finally somebody said to him -- and this is why we remember willie sutton. not for being a bad bank robber, but for the comment he made. somebody said willie, why do you keep robbing banks? and he said because that's where the money is. we look at the national debt, we look at the problems we face, and we ask the question: where's the money? we have to rein in the entitlement spending because that's where the money is. two-thirds of the budget now, three-fourths of the budget within ten years. if we continue to ignore the growth of entitlement spending and focus entirely on the rest of it that makes good press but not good policy, we'll find ourselves where our financial situation is up here, our national debt will be as high as it was with a percentage of g.d.p. as it was in the second

world war. and our national security will be threatened to the point that our entire posture around the world will be changed simply because we won't be able to afford it. it's for that reason, mr. president, that i send to the desk an act that may be cited as the economic disaster prevention act of 2010 that deals with spending limits on entitlement programs as well as spending limits on discretionary spending and the prohibition of any new mandatory spending programs. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the bill will be received and appropriately referred. the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i understand the senator from virginia is going to speak next. and i would ask unanimous consent that when he finishes i be given 45 minutes at the completion of his time. the presiding officer: is there objection?

without objection, so ordered. the senator from virginia is recognized. mr. warner: mr. president, i have 12 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. mr. warner: mr. president, i rise today to speak about a bipartisan commonsense amendment that members of this body endorsed yesterday by unanimous consent. i want to thank chairman baucus for his work that he and his staff managed, this important job-creation package that we took a step on yesterday. i want to thank senator crapo for cosponsoring this bipartisan amendment. and senator coburn for his ideas and support. my amendment is simple. it amends the recovery and reinvestment act of 2009, what i

think most folks would commonly refer to as the stimulus. to correct gaps and oversight in transparency. it provides much-needed additional accountability for these public investments, again, that have come about through the stimulus package. i voted for the stimulus. it was one of the first and toughest votes that i cast as a new member of this body. and i have worked hard to make sure that my state -- the commonwealth of virginia -- has had opportunities to compete for its fair share of its funding. now, the recovery act, the stimulus was thought perfect. and reasonable -- was not perfect. and reasonable people can debate whether or not it was necessary or ambitious enough. but i do think it is fair to say that a majority of economists of all political stripes and across most ideological spectrum now agree a year later that while

imperfect, the stimulus package prevented our battered economy from sliding over a cliff last spring into what i think could have been a full-scale economic depression. almost a year ago, i remember coming to this floor for one of my first presentations, and i stood here on the senate floor and spoke about my concerns about the potential challenges of implementing a piece of legislation as big as the recovery act. at that time i said we needed to come up with a common set of definitions that would allow us to measure our progress as these stimulus dollars why pumped into our economy. now, i know that metrics, performance indicators and other things, many members eyes start to glaze over when you start to go into these type of discussions. but if we're going to be truly responsible to the people of this country, it is our job to make sure that we put in place, particularly when we start new

programs, those kind of performance metricsle as the chair -- metrics. prior to being senator, i was a governor. my sense was as we started down the ambitious act of the recovery act, we need to have the same kind of metrics in place. i suggested a year ago having specific timelines and checkpoints so we can better check the outcome of programs funded with stimulus dollars. i discussed at that time steps we could take to hold recovery act recipients more accountable. i actually recommended delaying or deferring stimulus payments if progress wasn't adequately demonstrated or appropriately reported. well, here we are a year later and while i do believe the mackeral level a lot of the stimulus activities have accomplished their goals, it appears that requirements for program reporting and disclosure, disclosure of spending plans have gone missing or not just been reported.

and that the notion of putting in place, in effect, a business plan for some of the new programs of this legislation have never fully been vetted. the amendment that this body adopted yesterday, this bipartisan amendment, we've successfully included fixes to make sure that on a going forward basis, we won't have this problem. now, when we pass the recovery act one year ago we required recipients to report quarterly. we required agencys to report the -- post the reports and established an oversight board to tackle the issues of waste, fraud, and abuse. the recovery, accountability board. we required the c.b.o., various inspector generals and the government accountability office, you would think that we would have it totally covered. we would have thought through all of the ramifications.

unfortunately a year later we found that that's not the case. not that anyone here needs a recap, but i think it is fair to once again explain -- and i don't think -- particularly those of us who reported the recovery act -- that the administration did a good job of explaining what was in the recovery act. so not a long recap, but i think it is important for the viewers and my colleagues to recall what it was. literally one-third -- more than one-third of the stimulus act was tax cuts. $288 billion of tax cuts. $288 billion of tax cuts. i believe it was, in effect, the third largest tax cut in american history. as i traveled virginia and the presiding officer i know travels the great state of illinois, i very rarely find a constituent who realizes that the stimulus had a huge amount of tax cuts.

now we've only paid out about less than half of those dollars. but a third of the stimulus was tax cuts. a second third was direct assistance to state and local governments. i can tell you in the commonwealth of virginia, i sometimes run into my -- the legislators there. some folks from the other side who oftentimes will say to me, you know, senator, we're going to keep kicking you in the tail about the stimulus. but keep sending those checks because otherwise we'd be right down the tubes at state level. and often times these dollars have gone to prevent what would have been otherwise catastrophic layoffs in our schools in our highway departments, providing health care. and many governments -- many state governments who are working on biannual budgets are finding in the second year of the budget when the stimulus dollars run out, the enormous budget shortfalls they're going to face. again, many of our constituents,

because these didn't necessarily create new jobs, but prevented massive additional layoffs, i'm not sure that we conveyed that to folks adequately. the their part of the stimulus package, and the part i'm primarily concerned with today and the focus of my amendment included significant new investments in our nation's economic infrastructure. these are areas this body and policymakers have talked about for years, but we never really put our money where our mouth was until the stimulus. this area includes such important policy goals as smart grid, investing in high-speed rail, making sure that we've got the power of information technology to transform our health care industry to make it more productive and cost effective. so we've got significant dollars in health care i.t. an area that i'm particularly interested in, deployment of broadband across our rural communities. as you can see in the third category, as of mid february,

we've paid out only $80 billion of a total of $275 billion. it has now become clear that many of the programs in this third category are what i would term high risk. that means they include federal programs that saw enormous increases in funding and new responsibilities. some of these programs barely existed a year and a half ago. they had before relatively modest priorities. but now broadband, we've seen a 100 followed increase, health care i.t., dramatic increases. these programs have had a year to gear up. but we've got to make sure that they have business plans that can be vetted. in some cases these stimulus plans were vetted new new priorities and new programs. now many of these programs are just now a year later getting their stimulus funds out the door. and here's the challenge -- here's the challenge that my amendment will address: we simply don't know a year in and

with $80 billion being spent out very much about how these high-risk programs are actually doing in terms of delivering broadband, health care i.t., smart grid. for example, let me turn to the next chart, on the website recovery.gov, you learn that the energy department paid ou out $2.5 billion in stimulus money so far. close to another $24 billion remains to be spent out. and if you look even further, you find that the energy department complied with o.m.b. requirements last year to come up with an implementation plan for the weather assistance program. the energy department set a clear and reasonable goal, it said that it would use stimulus dollars to weatherize 50,000 homes in 2009. did is -- it is geared for low-income homes. they help the homeowners, decrease energy costs, decrease

our commitment on foreign oil. there's a lot of good in this program. but a report from the energy department three weeks ago shows these funds actually paid to weatherize only 30,000 or so homes in 2009. that means the program missed the goal by 20,000 homes. that's a score of 60%. i don't know about you, but when i was in school, 60% was not a passing grade. we should be concerned that almost every dollar of the $5 billion program for weatherization has already been awarded. we've got to make sure that we're getting the results we were promised. how can we have confidence that these grants already in the pipeline for these year are going to be properly managed. we must have more transparency and accountability from the energy department about how they're managing this program an overseeing the spending of these funds. there's the same kind of challenges around the smart grid program. i'm not just picking on the department of energy. if you look in the other areas, health care i.t., rail, you find

the similar challenges. now, there's no information beyond once these funds are distributed how these funds distribution fits into the overall management of these important new programs. that information should be easily accessible and available to our taxpayers and it should be reported on a regular base toys those of us in congress who have this oversight responsibility. if these agencies are not meeting their milestones or deadlines, and if stimulus programs are not producing measurable results, we need to know about it. if there are problems or potential barriers to distributing the stimulus funds we in the congress and the administration could do more to support solutions. we should work together to fix the management barriers that slowed down this work. mr. president, it's not too late. according to the congressional budget office, the government spent only about 18% of the stimulus funds in fiscal year 2009. by the end of this fiscal year,

that means october of this year, 2010, that number grows to 54%. that still means over half of the dollars will be spent out after october of this year. so that means much of the stimulus spending remains in the pipeline. and that means we have an opportunity now to correct any management and transparency gaps. so our amendment that this body adopted would do that in three important ways. first, it requires agencies to update and refine their implementation plans they developed last year for these high-risk programs. now we define high rick as any program that received more than $2 billion or any program that saw a funding increase of 150% or more from the previous year's funding. these are programs that went from small to ramping up in huge amounts. it includes brand-new programs. under our amendment these programs will be required to update the stimulus imitation and over -- implementation and

oversight plans by july 1. they've got to show us their business plan in a way that is intelligible and understandable to the taxpayers and to congress by july 1st. second, our amendment will require these high-risk programs to report their outcomes to congress and taxpayers every quarter beginning september 30th. we can't wait for a year to go by before weather we see the -- whether we see the programs spending billions of dollars are achieving their goals. these reports must include reports on spending and outcomes that clearly measure whether or not these programs are working and meeting the goals defined basically in the business plans that they would have submitted by july 1st. finally, our amendment adds an enforcement mechanism to make sure that federal agencies, federal of congress and the public have the information they deserve to evaluate whether or not the stimulus investments are actually working. one of the things that we found is close to 1,000 recipients of

stimulus funding in this last quarter never even filed the required reports so that we knew -- we know and the taxpayers know how these dollars are being spent. so the amendment will include civil and financial penalties on stimulus grant recipients who do not comply with the quarterly requirements. the amendment requires discretion for the attorney general and the courts to set these penalties and to -- and to make sure there is consideration whether the recipient is a nonprofit organization or a unit of state and local government or small business. again, we're not trying to unduly penalize, but we want to put teeth in the fact that these organizations that are recipients of federal funds that they document what they're doing with those funds. this is basic business accountability. mr. president, once again i applaud my colleagues for he stepping up in a responsible and bipartisan way to correct obvious gaps in the management and accountability and transparency of the recovery act programs. with so much of the stimulus

funding still in the pipeline this amendment will allow us to dra -- dra pactly improve how we measure and report outcomes and have accurate and viable reports and resultsor taxpayers. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. coburn: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. coburn: i'd like to compliment my colleague from a virginia. i'm a cosponsor of his amendment. i think it's a very noble attempt to try to put better hands on the stimulus. it's interesting to note that when we had the first hearing with the i.g., that's overseeing the stimulus, that he said

regrettably $50 billion would be wasted. $50 billion out of $867 -- actually $940-some now billion would be wasted. so we started with the assumption that 6% or 7% of the money is going to be defrauded. and i would just congratulate my colleague because some of the steps that he's talking about in his amendment will actually lessen that, hopefully. and -- and i agree with him. it's exciting for me to see a bipartisan attempt to start bringing teeth into the laws that we pass not towards the american public, but towards the agencies that administer the funds. and i congratulate him. i think he's got a good amendment. think we'll have a great vote on it. i wanted to spend a few moments talking about the bill that we're considering last -- last -- after -- yesterday afternoon i had the great fortune. my daughter was performing in florida and was driving back