well, unfortunately we're on the same track. and people talk in terms of default an overextension and too much debt and their eyes sort of glaze over. what does that really mean? well, essentially it means that we, as a nation, see a fundamental drop in our standard of living. if our debt gets to a certain point, we basically, as a nation, in order to pay for that debt have to reduce the standard of living of our people. now, what is that point? well, i think there's general consensus that a debt -- a public debt, that's debt owned by other countries and by the people of the nation that are running it up, a public debt that amounts to about 35% to 40% of your gross domestic product, what you're producing as a nation is a very good status. but as that moves up by running

deficits and, remember, we're running a $1.6 trillion deficit this year, and over -- under the president's budget we'll be running over $1 trillion deficits over the next 10 years. as that debt goes up each year, means that you're borrowing money from mostly americans, but also from other countries, especially the chinese and the saudi arabian s. as that debt goes up, it starts to cross certain thresholds. the next most significant threshold is to have a debt-to-public production ratio of about 60%. that gets serious. in fact, that's such a high debt-to-public production ratio that in europe, you can't even join the european union if you've got a debt situation that's that big. well, unfortunately later this year,, because of all the debt we put on the books just in the

last three years, we're going to pass the 60% throash hold as a nation -- threshold as a nation. and then you start to move in waters which are more than uncharted and choppy, they're dangerous. you start to move into the waters that greece finds itself in. because when your public debt gets up around 70%, 80%, 90% of your gross domestic product, you have trouble paying it back without doing some very horrible things to your people. things like massive inflation or massive tax increases, both of which cost americans jobs and reduces their savings and their ability to be -- live a better lifestyle. well, under the president's budget as proposed and under the scenario which is clearly in front of us -- it's a track -- it's like a railroad track, it's going to be almost impossible to get off it unless we do something very significant -- we hit 80% within six years. or approximately 80%.

so we're basically where greece is six, seven, eight years from now. and the implications for us as a society are catastrophic. now, what are we doing about this? not a lot. in fact, we're aggravating it every day. just yesterday, we passed another bill, or the day before, that spent $100 billion -- $100 billion -- that wasn't paid for, just went to the debt. and last week we passed another bill that alleged to spend $10 billion but buried in it were some parliamentary games which actually meant that it spent another hundred billion dollars that wasn't paid for in highway funds. $200 billion in two weeks. and the week before that, we did another bill that spent $15 billion unpaid for. not only are we not addressing

this problem, we're fundamentally aggravating the problem. and now the house has this senate health care bill over there. what's the fiscal implications of that? it grows the federal government by $2.5 trillion. $2.5 trillion. now, it's claimed it's paid for, but how's it paid for? it alleges it's going to reduce medicare spending by $500 billion, but rather than using that money to make medicare more solvent, it takes that money and creates two new entitlements -- or expands one and creates another one. and we know from our history that entitlements are never fully paid for. and then it takes money from a fund which is supposed to be an insurance fund and it spends that money, long-term care insurance, so that when those insurance i.o.u.'s come up to be paid, there isn't going to be any money to pay them. it's called the class act, the classic game of pyramid -- pyramid accounting. in fact, if did you it in the private sector, you'd go to jail.

so that's -- that's the course we're on, a massive expansion in our debt leading us to a situation where our capacity to pay that debt will be virtually impossible to accomplish without huge negative implications for the standard of living of our children and our grandchildren, and even our generation, quite honestly. i mean, it's going to arrive pretty soon. in fact, today there was a cnbc question put out: should you continue to invest in american debt in light of what we're headed towards? how do you avoid the impending meltdown? i mean, the cost, you know, as people start to sense this come at us, the costs of selling our debt is just going to become extraordinarily expensive because people will have to price in either massive inflation or an economic cost through reduction in

productivity due to massive taxes which will reduce our capacity to repay this debt in any sort of reasonable way. so this is a serious problem and yet we do not seem to be willing to face up to it. and there's something else we need to focus on. not only is it the sovereign nations of the world who have this debt problem, it's our states. think about this for a moment. california's debt problem is so severe that they are represented as being close to potential default. what's the implication of that for us as a country if one of our states were to default on their debt? the domino effect would be extraordinary. and do we have enough gas in our tank, so to say, to come in and resolve this from the federal level? i doubt it. we've used up most of our running room. you know, if we go into a fiscal cardiac arrest, which is approximately what we're going

to do -- it's exactly what we're going to do, a fiscal cardiac arrest -- four or five years from now, when we reach for the defib laters, there isn't going to be any power, there isn't going to be any power to activate them because we have used up all our resources. our -- all our resources already. we've spent it. can't borrow anymore and we certainly don't want to inflate our way out of it. it will be severe and the arrest may become terminal for certain parts of our economy and certain people's lifestyle, basically regular americans living on main street. so the issue is out there and it's pretty clear. greece is a precursor, california is a is an example, and our own profligate attitude here in the congress about it is not helping the problem at all. and you don't have to listen to me on this. i just want to place in the record a very thoughtful piece done by mohammed al-arian, who's

a senior member of the group known as pimco, which is the largest bond dealer in the world and one of the leading authorities on debt and the purchase and selling of debt in the world. and this article just hits the nail on the head about the threat that we confront as a nation for our failure to face up to this debt situation now and just allowing it to erode and continue to grow. and so, madam president, i'd ask unanimous consent to place this in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gregg: so it's time for to us act. it's time for us to first stop spending. that's the bottom line. you know, this is like -- it's like a diet. the only way you can lose some weight is to actually stop eating the wrong way. we've got to stop spending, and then we've got to come up with some pretty aggressive ideas that if we do now, will be less -- will have less negative impact on people than if we have to do that in a crisis situation, for addressing the very systemic problems we have as a country relative to the growth of our debt. madam president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. feingold: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so i may call up amendment number 3470. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from wisconsin, mr. feingold, for himself and others, proposes an amendment numbered 3470 to amendment numbered 3452. mr. feingold: madam president, i ask that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. feingold: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise today to offer an amendment with senators coburn and sherrod brown, to make a small but necessary step toward addressing the growing problem of federal deficits. this is the second time in as many weeks that we're offering this amendment and i hope that we will be able to have a vote or get it accepted on the f.a.a. reauthorization bill. the underlying bill we're considering reauthorizes many vitally important programs, including investments in our aviation infrastructure, such as long overdue modernization of air traffic control, and while i support many of these

investments, i think it is also critically important that we take a close look at where our spending can be cut as we try to address the loom deficit. -- looming deficit. now, of course, my amendment won't come close to solving this whole looming problem but it will make a dent as we try to get our financial house in order and make the tough choices to avoid burdening future generations with debt. there is no single or easy solution to the massive deficits we face, but one thing we should be doing is taking a hard look at the federal budget for wasteful or unnecessary spendi spending. hard-working american families have to make these kinds of decisions every week to make ends meet, whether it's skipping dinners out or making due with old clothes instead of buying new ones or finding new ways to trim their grocery bill. people are looking at everything in their household budget to try to cut back in tough times and the congress should be doing the same thing, looking to save money, the taxpayers' money, everywhere we can. so what i'm trying to do here is a proposal to get rid of old,

unwanted transportation earmarks that would save about $600 million right away and perhaps a few billion dollars over time. it won't eliminate the federal deficit on its own but it's real money in places like recene or fondue lack, wisconsin, where i recently held town hall meetings. inone step on a path that's going to have to involve many additional cuts. i've put together a number of proposals for where we should beginning tightening our belt, including the one for this amendment, in a piece of legislation i introduced last fall called "the control spending now act." the combined bill would cut the federal deficit by about half a trillion dollars over ten years. this amendment, my bipartisan amendment here with senators coburn and sherrod brown, would build off a proposal put forward in president george w. bush's fiscal year 2009 budget proposal to rescind $626 million in highway earmarks that were over a decade old and still had less

than 10% of the funding utilized. "transportation weekly" did an analysis of these earmarks at the time. they found that over 60% of the funding, $389 million, was in 152 earmarks that had no funding spent or obligated from them. these clearly are either unwanted or low priority for the designated recipients. and this is nothing against transportation funding either, of course. i fully realize the need for reinvestment in our crumbling infrastructure and its potential for job creation in hard-hit segments like construction. but, madam president, having hundreds of millions of dollars sit in an account untouched at the department of transportation does nothing to address our infrastructure needs or put people back to work. i've tried to build on president bush's concept a little and my amendment expands this rescission to all transportation earmarks that are over 10 years old with unobligated balances of more than 90%.

at a hearing before the budget committee just two weeks ago, i asked transportation secretary ray lahood about these unwanted and unspent earmarks and whether he supported my proposal to rescind them. secretary lahood responded -- quote -- "the answer is yes, we are supportive of your proposal and we have identified significant millions of dollars worth of earmarks." so at the suggestion of the chair of the environment and public works committee, we have also included a provision to allow the secretary of transportation to delay a rescission if the project is expected to be obligated within the next 12 months. i know that there are sometimes extenuating circumstances and delays that pop up and this seemed like a good way to deal with these situations while still ensuring that the intention to eliminate unwanted and low-priority projects was retained. i also hope that this will help alleviate concerns and ensure that the potential for extenuating circumstances is not

used as a reason to somehow oppose our amendment. it's unclear exactly how many hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars would be saved by this proposal being expanded to other transportation earmarks in addition to the previous estimate of $62 $626 million that would be rescinded from unwanted highway earmarks in the first year. this proposal would also be permanent so there would likely be additional savings as the unwanted earmarks o earmarks oft recent highway bill reach their ten-year anniversary. i think this, madam president, is a very modest proposal, going after just the lowest of the low-hanging fruit. it would support going even further and make it cover all federal agencies, but with the uncertainty about how many of these unwanted and unspent earmarks there might be across the whole federal government, our amendment instead requires an annual report by the o.m.b. to collect information from each agency and include recommendations on whether these other unobligated earmarks

should be rescinded. so as you can see, this is a proposal with bipartisan support both in the senate and from the past administration and this current administration. this really shouldn't be a hard decision and i hope we have strong support here in the senate. this is simply about instituting a good-government principle of returning unused funds to the treasury and it really shouldn't be controversial. if we can't agree to take old earmarks that he no one wants and use the money to pay down the deficit, then how are we ever going to get our fiscal house in order? madam president, i yield the floor. madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. feingold: i ask unanimous consent at the conclusion of the remarks of senators ensign and brown of ohio, the senate then stand in recess until 2:00 p.m. today. the presiding officer: is there objection?

without objection, so ordered. mr. ensign: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. ensign: madam president, first let me start by complimenting the senator from wisconsin on addressing at least a little bit of the spending that's going on around this place. i applaud the efforts. he understands that this is a modest effort, but we have to start someplace. i've been for really my whole ten years here in the senate, have been talking about spending, getting our debt under control, not passing it around to our children here, our children across america this huge debt burden that we are passing on to them. and so i applaud the efforts at least, even though they're small. anything that we can do around here to address the deficits and the debt, i think is very, very important. but i want to get up -- i want to talk about unemployment and foreclosures, especially how they are affecting my state and the overall economy.

i think that everybody admits that the country's hurting, our economy. there's people all over the country hurting for employment, hurting for foreclosures or potential foreclosures on their house, new unemployment numbers just been released, my state is still at 13% unemployment rate, with clark county -- which is where las vegas is located -- now at almost a record high of 13.8%. washoe county, where reno is, 13.5% unemployment rate. review journal, largest newspaper in my state, pointed out this week the salary and job outlook for nevadans is going from bad to worse. wages are declining across industries in our state and experts recently told the paper that if we were to count discouraged workers who have given up looking for employment and part-time employees who wish

to work full time, the real unemployment rate in nevada would actually hofer somewhere around 25%. let me repeat that. hover somewhere around 25%. if we were to count those who are self-employed -- for instance, if you're a realtor and you're not selling home, you may still be classified as employed, but you're effectively unemployed. if we counted all the self-employed people who aren't counted in the normal unemployment rates, these numbers would be higher. houses in neff -- housing in nevada is hurting severely. we are leading the nation in home foreclosures and there doesn't seem to be a solution to this problem coming out of congress. congress instead has gone out on a wayward path and trying to muscle through health care reform when the immediate focus of this institution should be on the hundreds, really millions of americans who have lost their jobs, risk losing their home, or

even worse -- both. in fact, nearly 5 million americans have lost their job during the time that congress has shifted its focus away from the economy on to health care. i will point out, however, if you live in the washington, d.c. area, you're actually okay. 100,000 new jobs have actually been created in this city in the last year. government jobs, not private-sector jobs. government jobs. this is a direct result of massive expansion of the federal government. i don't believe that growing the federal government and creating jobs here in washington does anything to help the unemployment in my state or around the rest of the country. health care reform proposals the majority is push through both houses are not to -- designed to incentivize job creation at a time when we need a lifeline.

instead, their bills will be job-killers. as a matter of fact, the national federation of independent businesses, which is the largest organization which represents small businesses in america, believes that their health care reform proposals will actually cost millions of jobs in small businesses over the next four years. and it also will greatly add to the nation's debt when we are already borrowing from future generations, as the senator from wisconsin just talked about. it's time for congress to shift our focus back to creating jobs. do it in a responsible way by reducing wasteful government spending and thinking about the future of our country. one spending bill after another that comes before this senate is not going to solve the economic problems that our country is facing. it's actually just going to make the situation worse over the next several years, because as we borrow more money, inflation

and higher interest rates are in our very near future. there are concerns about the strength of the dollar in the world. adding to our debt intensifies those worries. we all, as republicans, as democrats, really as americans, ought to be concerned about what this debt is going to do to the future of our country. so we need real solutions to our economic problems. we need to get the country back on track. to do that, we need to get control of out-of-control spending, especially wasteful spending. job creation needs to be our number-one focus, and we cannot incentivize job creation when our nation is buried in debt. this means that we are all going to have to start taking some difficult votes to reverse the wild spending spree that we are on. you see, here in washington, it's much easier to get

reelected if you're giving money away to people. it's much more difficult politically to take votes at that actually cut spending, because for every government program out there, there's a constituency that lobbies to keep that gravy train coming from the federal government. last week we had two options here in the senate. we had the option to pay for the extension of unemployment insurance benefits with unspent stimulus funds, money that we have already taken out of pocket of taxpayers, or we have the option of adding more debt to the credit card of this nation. i voted to extend unemployment insurance without having american families foot yet another government bill. unfortunately, the majority party didn't pass this bill. instead they voted to continue adding to our nation's debt. over $100 billion was added to our nation's debt just yesterday

by this u.s. senate. i stress again -- by the way, $100 billion used to be a lot of money around this place. it's tossed around like it's almost nothing now. it's a huge amount of money. $100 billion just passed, hardly got any notice around the country. that's what we added to our deficit and our debt yesterday. i stress again that job creation needs to be our number-one focus. but we cannot begin to incentivize job creation just by adding and adding more and more debt. i've been focused on introducing legislation that will help create jobs in my state while not increasing the debt. for example, the recent passage of my legislation with senator dorgan is called the travel promotion act. this will incentivize tourists from across the world to come from the united states and visit our world-class destinations.

this will spur job growth across my state and our entire nation. and these won't be government jobs. these will be private-sector jobs. and these jobs will not be paid for by the american taxpayer. but these will be jobs that will be a lifeline for our economy. legislation like this that we need to get past the idea that government spending creates jobs and showcases that we need to institute policies that incentivize the private sector to create jobs. we can do this by lowering taxes on small businesses. they are the engine of our economy, and we can start creating employment opportunities throughout the united states. these private-sector jobs will help get our country back on the road to recovery and will not add todd to the financial burden -- add to the financial burden of the united states. the majority party seems to believe that the only way to spur job creation is to pass

spending bill after spending bill. and as we have witnessed over the past year, this doesn't seem to be working. but this hasn't lessened the resolve of those across the aisle. this week house, education, labor committee chairman in the house, george miller, announced that he will unveil a jobs bill -- that's what he called it, "a jobs bill" -- aimed to save or create a lot of jobs in local governments. the $100 billion bill -- another $100 billion. the problem is that these jobs are going to be paid for by the community development block grant program, which in simple english means we're adding to the debt. this is money that the taxpayers are going to have to pay for in the future, borrowing once again from our children, adding to our nation's credit card debt. this is not a solution to create jobs in the long run.

the federal government spending money on legislation that only connection to job creation, putting the title in the bill is not working. will it save local government jobs? in my state it probably would. but my state is making the tough choices right now. they're actually looking where there's waste. they're looking how they can make government more efficient. we're not doing that here at the federal level. we're actually discouraging it by sending more and more money to the states. but at the federal government level, we're certainly not looking for any efficiencies, because all we continue to do is spend more and more money, add more and more government agencies, more and more government programs. we should be tightening our belt like every family, every business, local governments, state governments are doing across the country. it's one of the reasons that many of us have cosponsored legislation for a balanced budget amendment.

if we were required to balance a budget, we would be required to take those tough votes. it's why we get elected, is to do something to make a positive difference for our country. adding to our debt is not that positive difference. we need to think about the future of our country instead of just getting reelected by being able to give money away to some of our constituents. so, madam president, i conclude with this: job one needs to be about creating jobs in a responsible way. not government jobs. private-sector jobs. not adding to the deficit. getting government spending under control, cutting taxes, especially for small businesses, so that entrepreneurs across this country can create jobs. that's what the priorities of this body should be. madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to address the house -- address the senate for about ten minutes under morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i came to the floor to talk about a young woman in cincinnati, ohio, but i just -- i guess i'm just amazed at the amnesia in this body that -- you know, i hear colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that democrats vote for spending to keep that gravy train going, that democrats believe that job creation's always the government. the republicans believe that we've got to get spending under control, and how politically unpopular it is to vote to cut spending. i hear these things over and over, and i just -- i mean, i hate cliches, but you know the yogi bera line, "it's deja vu all over again." i was in the house of representatives for the first

six years of this decade, and i saw what happened. and what happened was my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, one bird flies off the telephone wire, they all fly off the telephone wire voting on issue after issue after issue to bankrupt this country and to drive or economy into the ditch. 2001, tax cuts for the rich. george bush's tax cuts went overwhelmingly to the richest taxpayers using, i would add, as the presiding officer in north carolina knows, using reconciliation to drive these tax cuts through in 2001, 2003, 2005, bringing vice president cheney in so they not only used reconciliation, they had to bring the vice president in, who is almost never here, as the presiding officer knows, to vote and pass it with 51 votes. we had a surplus in those days. we had a surplus, and they took that surplus, and they enacted tax cuts for the wealthy. then they started the war with iraq but didn't pay for it.

i disagreed with going to war. i voted against it. but at least we should have paid for it. they didn't pay for the waorbg. still -- the war in iraq. still haven't. then they did this huge tens of billions of dollars in giveaways to the drug companies, the insurance companies all in the name of privatization of medicare. when i hear their praoefrpg to me about -- preaching to me about democrats want to spend money on unemployment compensation or democrats want to spend money on health care like cobra -- those people who lost their health insurance -- or democrats want to spend money on reimbursing money in a more favorable rate, a fairer rate for medicare, they attack us for doing that, yet they took a budget surplus and ran this economy into the ground by deregulating wall street, by cutting taxes on the richest people in this country, by turning the surplus into deficits to the tune of hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars. we projected in 2000, a surplus

projected of $1 trillion. $1 trillion is $1 trillion. we now have a projection o of $1 trillion in budget deficit and they come in here and preach that democrats should quit spending money on unemployment compensation. all of these workers don't want to work. they want to receive the unemployment benefits. what somebody needs to explain to them and perhaps my friends on the other side of the aisle don't know anybody who is getting unemployment compensation because they spend too much time with people like us wearing suits and hanging around places like this and not in places like charlotte, dayton and winston-salem and cleveland. it is not unemployment welfare like they would like to say it is. it is unemployment insurance. when you're employed you pay into your a fund, when you lose your job you get money out of that fund. it's called unemployment insurance. they should remember that. madam president, i ask for my -- those remarks to be a separate place in the record. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. brown: i would like this morning for -- this afternoon, now, for a moment to commemorate the life of esmi louise kemmey, whose life was cut short one year ago this past sunday. she was bright, inquisitive, a spirited yun girl with many talents, with a limitedles limis imagination, she was an artist, musician, avid reader, expressive writer and budding water skier. the beloved daughter of done and lisa, the caring sister of brian and frances, she touched many hearts. from all accounts esmi's compassion and enthusiasm warmed the room and lifted the spirits of everyone whom she met. her loving brother described her as a real people person. one who loved meeting people,

talking to people, sharing her life with them and. for all of those whose life was brightened by esmi, this week is a week of sorrow. her life was taken from her under horrifying circumstances. the 13-year-old left the house one day to go for a jog and never returned. one man's rage resulted in the brutal end to an innocent loving child. anthony kirk was already a convicted killer and a registered sex offender when he committed this atrocity. he served 16 years in prison for the assault and murder of another young woman. my wife connie and i extend our deepest sympathy to esmi's family and friends and to the community during this

unthinkably difficult time. we lost esmi a year ago, but i know she will be a part of our lives always. the recurrence of these acts underscores the need to look at the criminal system. i join my colleague senator webb of virginia, the bill s. 174, the national justice commission act of 2009. this bill would establish a national criminal justice commission to undertake a presence rif review of the current system and submit a report to congress and the president that outlines findings and recommendations for changes in criminal justice policies. such actions vital is -- to keeping our children safe. as the crime that took esmi from us. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and i -- i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the

previous order, the senate stands in recess until

>> obama and his socialistic ideas of government running car companies and banks, deciding salaries, this is a life lesson in progress right now for conservatives. >> a year ago last month, president obama signed the economic stimulus bill into law. making $787 billion available. since then the federal government has committed almost 346 billion to states for stimulus projects. that's up two billion from last week. just under 195 billion has been paid out for those

projects. for more about the economic stimulus go online to c-span.org/stimulus. you find video like christina roemer speaking the bill's effect more economic proposals. hiring tax credit as well as additional fpbls al relief to states and capital to small banks. also on the web site, links to government and watchdog groups tracking stimulus spending. c-span.org/stimulus. >> now to an event where the president and ceo of the federal reserve bank of chicago, charles evans. this is part of a conference hefted by the national association for business economics. it's about a half hour. >> good morning, everybody. i'm bill straus, member of nabe's board of directors and it's my pleasure to introduce today's speaker. he is my colleague and my boss as well as a member of nabe. they're charles evans, president and ceo of the

federal reserve bank of chicago. charlie and i have worked together since he joined the fed in 1991. as many of you know the federal reserve bank of chicago is one of the 12 regional reserve banks across the country. these 12 banks along with the board of governors in washington make up our nation's central bank. charlie's background prepared him well for his job. before becoming president he was the director of research at the chicago fed. overseeing the study of monetary policy, financial markets, regional economic issues, and banking. and much of his personal research has focused on measuring the effects of monetary policy on u.s. economic activity. as well as inflation, and financial markets. it has been published in the journal of political economy, american economic review, journal of monetary economics, quarterly journal

of economics and the handbook of macroeconomics. charlie's academic experience includes teaching at the university of chicago, university of michigan, and the university of south carolina. so he does get outside the midwest. he has a bachelor's degree in economics from the university of virginia, earned a doctorate from carnegie mellon university in pittsburgh. many ways his entire career served as preparation for his current responsibility. helping formulate monetary policy. that is in the best interest of the american people. we're so very happy to have with us today, charlie evans. [applause] >> bill, thanks very much. it was very nice introduction. i appreciate that. and good morning. it's always a pleasure to be with you today. this year's conference and topics being discussed of great importance to us all, economist, regulators market

participants and policymakers. we share common interest in fostering economic recovery and return to strong growth in environment of low and stable inflation. conferences such as this one bring together diverse perspectives that will help devising solutions to achieve these goals. i think morning's breakfast was another example of that. nabe is really a great organization with such an expert audience, i wanted some solid messages this morning. accordingly, my speech today is a touch longer than it usually is, so i apologize in advance for that. i hope i can make that worth your time. so today i would like to discuss a few challenging issues that the labor markets present for monetary policy making. for a bit of context, i approached these issues not just from the perspective of a fed bank president but also a macro economist and former fed research director. have benefit of attending fomc meetings since 1995. i have observed first-hand some of the conflicts that

fomc members face in addressing the fed's dual mandate to promote maximum employment and price stability even in more normal times. for me price stability is 2% inflation as measured by the personal consumption expenditures deflator over the medium term. when i became chicago fed president in 2007, i never would have guessed that my first 2 1/2 years would have me voting continually for lower interest rates, and more policy accommodation. i just wouldn't have expected the need for that. but with unemployment rate at 9.7% and inflation significantly under my benchmark for price stability, there is no conflict between our policy goals. and so the directions for policy have been clear. today i will highlight a number of labor market issues lead me to think this accommodation will likely be appropriate for some time. let me emphasize, as you know from all the fed speakers who come here these are my views and not those of my colleagues on the federal open market committee.

let me briefly mention summary of the economic outlook. i find myself in broad agreement with the review that restricted bank credit along with business and household caution will continue to restrain the recovery's strength but that these headwinds will abate as we move through 2010. most business cycle indicators have turned favorable already. yet many households and businesses remain wary that a full-fledged recovery is in train. that's not surprising. as we all know, employment is often the last piece of the puzzle to fall into place. and until the economy begins to add jobs and in significant numbers, for many it will not feel like much of a recovery. the latest reports on this front have been mixed. layoffs are subsiding. firms are highering more temporary workers, and after a large decline, the average work week is showing signs of stablizing and perhaps reversing course. these developments usually are precursors of a broader scale recovery in labor

demand. but today employers remain cautious. job openings are still scarce and there are few signs, even anecdotally that permanent hiring has picked up yet. moreover, even once labor markets turn the corner, there is long ways to go before they get back to what we would consider to be normal. the ongoing weakness in labor markets, and memories of the jobless recoveries from the previous two recessions have raised concerns that something is fundamentally changed in the way labor markets work. some worry that they have deteriorated more than would be expected, given the declines in out put during the recession, and in turn, this additional weakness might i am spring -- i am spring on speed of recovery moving forward. headline unemployment numbers are consistent with the recession. the usual starting point for thinking about this issue is the famous law growth domestic product growth to the change in the unemployment rate.

oaken's law imply unemployment rate should be a percentage point lower than 9.7% we saw last friday. however this calculation assumes that the association between economic activity and the unemployment rate does not vary across the business cycle. in fact many employment indicators tend to deteriorate faster during recessions that on they improve during expansions. a simple statistical model, that uses the historical relationship between gdp growth and unemployment estimated only during recessions can actually account for the sharp rise in the unemployment rate. figure one compares the actual unemployment, got some figures here. figure one compares the actual unemployment numbers, the blue line, to their predicted values for models estimated using gdp data only from recessions, the red line. the two lines are just about spot-on. but the green line, the prediction from a standard

model, that does not distinguish between behavior and expansions and recessions, is not capable of capturing the current numbers. similar recession-only models can also explain the rise in broader measures of unemployment and underemployment like the u.s. bureau of labor statistics u-6 rate as well as the declines in payroll employment. and we didn't just sort of pull this out because it's convenient to try to explain these models but there's really rich literature on regime changes in macroeconomics this sort of fits in with. so there is a preexisting literature. based on these exercises, i think that it is reasonable to conclude that the unemployment rate and employment growth have evolved about as we would expect in a recession. especially one of this size. but other labor market measures are weaker than expected. once you look past the headline numbers however, some other labor market indicators are usually weak.

in particular, the share of adults outside the labor force increased more than the average length of a spell of unemployment has grown much longer than predicted by even a recession-only models. i would like to spend some time elaborating on the implications of the increase in unemployment duration. much of this material will be appearing in a forthcoming article by my colleagues at the chicago fed, dan aaron son, and. consequences of long term unemployment on households can be severe. households especially with little or no savings are susceptible to sharp falls in consumption. moreover, long term unemployment often leads to significant loss in permanent earnings even after the worker finds a new job. unemployment duration has risen at an unprecedented rate over the past year or so. and in february, over 40% of

the unemployed were in the midst of a spell lasting more than six months, by far the highest proportion in the post-world war ii era. now you can see this in figure two. which plots from 1948 to the present the relationship between the unemployment rate on the x axis, and the average length of an ongoing spell of unemployment. i got to admit as i was watching christine roemer today sort of try to deal with the fact that her figures weren't up on the slide i was thinking about how i might describe this. that cloud -- [laughter] that cloud looks a little bit like the state of kentucky. [laughter] and what i'm going to point out to you is that the progression it tries to turn into west virginia above it. the red dots represent the monthly figures for 2008 and 2009. at the beginning of the recession the unemployment rate was at 5%. and the average unemployment

duration was about the 17 weeks. duration was already four weeks more than what would be predicted based on the average historical relationship represented by the black regression line between the two measures. this initial divergence is largely accounted for, by a secular shift towards longer spells of unemployment, due to the aging of the workforce, and much stronger labor force attachment of women. so there's some secular change in this, in these relationships that we started out with. now the first 15 months of the recession, average duration increased with unemployment at roughly the rate you would have expected. this is indicated by the series of red dots that fall along the top of the blue cloud and are parallel to the black line. so we started off following that trend path. but since the first quarter of 2009 average duration has increased much more rapidly than the rise in unemployment rate would

predict. the extension of unemployment insurance benefits, while helpful supporting unemployed households likely accounts for a portion of the recent rise in the unemployment during race. even so, -- duration. we view over all magnitude increase as indicator labor market conditions are even bleaker than the unemployment rate alone suggests. this weakness may also explain why share of those outside the labor force has also grown so much. many people have simply stopped searching for jobs, given lack of demand for their services at prevailing wages. now let's turn to implications of rising long term unemployment on the outlook. this has, the rise in long term unemployment has ramifications for economy going forward. the likelihood of finding a job tends to decline as an individual remains out of work for longer period. partly this reflects the fact that those who typically have a difficult time finding work, will tend

to be unemployed longer. in this case, longer spells are a symptom, rather than the source of an underlying problem. however, a long unemployment spell could it telephone -- itself cause deterioration in a worker's skill, leaving longer term unemployed in less job prospects even as economy continues to thrive. this could lead to higher unemployment duration for some time. we gain insight into this dynamic from earlier periods. figure three highlights of the path of unemployment rate and duration during the last two severe recessions. so here we picked out some of the time paths from those clouds. . .

>> to summarize this discussion, headline indicator appear to follow the track, given the severity of the discussion. this may not reflect the weakness and the withdraw of workers in the labor force. these developments raise the risk that recovery marketses could be slow even as output returned to a well established path. now the other side in economy in the experience of growing output, is high productivity growth. indeed, productivity has been quite strong of late, particularly over the past 3/4. this is often the case in the early stages of recovery, as

firms meet higher demand for their products and services without expanding demand for the work force. the key question is the recent productivity surge reflects the more enduring increase in the level or trend rate of productivity. if the rains are predominantly driven by intense cost cutting, then they may be unsustainable once demand rises. in this case, we expect hiring to pick up quickly as the economic expansion takes hold. however, if the level in product i felt is risen do to technological or other improvements, then higher structure levels will continue. now businesses, when i talk to them, are very clear that they have undertaken very deep cuts in their work force that they've given it strong consideration and they have them just about rise size for how they expect to be producing and meeting customer demand for quite some

time. they would tell you that they achieved these efficiencies and they will continue. so what if they are right? what if they are right this time in that implication. in this case, the implications for hiring is not clear. higher levels of productivity will show through in both higher potential and output for the economy. so need not necessarily comment the cost of lower labor input. that is it could be that technology advance leads to more hiring end expanse or labor saving activity. the relative response of these factors has also consequences for the assessment of the degree to which the resources lack in the economy. since a higher level of activity implies a higher path, this would apply recent searches in gdp, both actual and consequential, would be i plied

by this if that was the case. this is a stunning implication if that were true. in contrast, some were skeptical that the economy is operating far below sustainable levels. they might argue that much of the drop as a result of the permanent reduction in the economy's productive capacity, perhaps because certain financial market practices that had for a time enabled additional investments have now been discredited, according to this view, the strong productivity growth of recent quarters continues to offset this decline in the level of potential output. the implication here is vastly less resource slack exist. and this would have sobering implications for inflation forecast going forward given the level that's in place. now of course the unemployment rates gives us another way to infer the degree of slack in the economy. my earlier discussion and decline in labor force

attachment may lead one to think that slack is even greater than what is implied by the unemployment rate itself. however, it is impossible that longer durations and lower labor force could reflect broader structural changes in the economy, such as a mismatch between the skills and those demanded by employers. there may also be other impediments that currently prevent workers from shifting to the industries where locations or jobs are available. say having a house that you can't sell very easily at price that you paid for it. under these scenarios, labor with market slack might actually be lower than what one might infer from the unemployment rate alone. now if this feels a bit like a tennis match, i apologize. i've given you self minutes of classic, two-handed economist speak. but this is okay. it's nabe, right? in the final analysis, however, the sheer magnitude of

unemployment today is so large that there's little doubt in my mind that there's little slack in the economy, alternative views do not alter this general conclusion in my opinion, the debate really boils down to whether the amount of slack in the economy is large or extremely large. now having said that, the question that i asked myself many times, should the fed have done more? there's a legitimate question on whether monetary policy should and could have done for for the labor markets. as we all know, many policy actions were taken. as the crisis arose, we first used our traditional tools, substantially cutting the federal funds rate, and lending to banks through our discount window. as we neared xi row funds rate, we turned to nontraditional tools to clear up the choke points, provid liquidity

directly and assuring a number of long-term credit markets. finally, we reduced long-term interest rates further, mortgage back securities and the debt of government sponsor and interprices. these nontraditional actions helped us avoid what easily could have been a more severe economic contraction. but the unemployment rate still hit 10% this fall. had we done more, the most plausible action would have been to expand our large scale asset purposes program. precisely quantifying the effect this would have had is difficult. a good place to start though is to look at the recent empirical evidence. and i think brian sac was here yesterday to talk about some of this. when significant new asset purposes were announced, our big influence financial markets

built that information immediately into asset prices. for example, right after the march 2009 treasury purchase announcement, 10 year treasury yields fell about 50 bases points. comfort rabble declined occurred in the spreads on the announcement of agency mortgageback security purchases in the november 2008. it might be responsible to infer that say doubling the size of the lsaps might have doubled this impact on rates. however, i would attach more than the usual amount of uncertainty to such a difference. part of my hesitation reflects our lack of understanding about the interactions between nontraditional monetary policy, interest rates, and economic activity. while research else and elsewhere to obsess the effects have been ramped up responsibly, today we do have a robust sweet of formal models to reliable calibration interventions of

this short. moreover, there are reasons to expect the impact of the actions might not have scaled up so simply. we initially responded to the financial crisis with our highest value tool. a reduction in the funds rate. and then moved to our best alternative policies as interest rates approached zero. finally, we turned to the ls lsaps which were further and stimulate demand for spending such as business fixed equipment, housing, and durable goods expenditures. but the influence of lower rates on private sector decision making may have reached the point of second order importance relative to the counter enforces, business and household cautious, and considerably tighter lending standard. at the margin, they might have had those effects but the other would have swamped them. moreover, it is impossible to wand if i, a portion of the impact of our nontraditional

actions may have come simply from boosting confidence. in those very dark times, it was a year ago this month, i believe the financial markets were assured that the policymakers were acts in a decisive manner. further asset purposes would not have had an additional effect of this kind. the confidence boost. it was already there presumably. in addition, on the practical level, the portfolio of future purchases would have looked different and their overall effective ness, might have been less effective than our recent experience. the feds typical monthly purchases were so large that it left very little floating supply for the private investors. this could have forced to concentrate obvious existing mbs. for many of the estimate used to

finance spending on new capital goods, housing, and consumer durables. consequences, their impact may have been less. finally, we must also keep in mind that more monetary stimulus also that has cost. these could be considerable at higher lsap levels. many are already worried about the feds expanded balance sheet and the associated large increase in the monetary base. currently, most of the increase in the monetary base is sitting idolly in bank reserves, because they are not lending, they are not generating spending pressure. leading the current in place for too long would fuel inflationary pleasure. likewise, if the monetary base was expanded much beyond where we have today, the risk that much would build as the economy recovers would be increased.

furthermore, policymakers have an unsizable balance sheet at the appropriate time and place. substantially increasing the size of asset purposes could have further complicated the process down the road. not today, down the road. that said changes in economic conditions could alter the cost, regard to the lsap. hopefully the recovery will progress without any serious implications. as we've repeatedly indicated, the committee will continue to evident the purpose of security in light of the economic outlook and conditions and financial conditions. i'll stop there. thank you very much for your attention. [applause] >> we thank you very much. charlie has agreed to take

questions from the members of the audience. if we could restrict those to members of nabe. thank you. >> i know it's unfair for me to ask a question. one the things that were spoking is this was a structural move in unemployment. >> right. >> have you worked on any estimates about what the full rate of unemployment may have changed to? my assumption is the implication of the full rate is higher than what it was, how much higher could it be? >> so the -- yeah, that's a good question. and it depends a lot on how you like to think the natural mate of unemployment. it's much more slowly moving measure of employment, full employment according to some measures. we probablily used to think it was four and 3/4 before it started. i thought 5% was better, rounder

number, it's certainly the case with some of the structural issues that i was talking about that effect unemployment duration, you probably could get some estimate that is substantially higher, maybe as much as a percentage point. that's not the way that i like to think about it. i prefer to think about the longer term. so maybe it's creeped up to 5.25, but for what we are looking at in terms of policy, policy issue l issues over the medium term, the gap between the unemployment rate and any measure is so large that i think inflationary expectations should be kept in check as long as we keep a focus on our mandate. >> good morning. abraham, wells fargo home mortgage, a few years ago, the prime was the interest rate, of course as approaches zero, there

are over indicators. brian talked yesterday about the interest rates and reserves, should we think of those rates as being the new fed rate policy instrument and planting the fed funds rate? >> that's -- okay. fair question. i didn't have the benefit of hearing brian's presentation, we have a lot of accommodation with the very large amount of access reserves. when the time comes, it's when times to move to less than highly accommodated policy to only accommodated to eventually neutral policy, we're going to have to either find a way to withdraw these reserves to somehow accomplish their power. one way to accomplish their power would be to provide an opportunity cost for banks to not be, you know, in the mood to lend as much of them. remember, we're talking about

the environment where the economy is growing well and we want to make sure lending doesn't get out of hand. we want lending to take off, of course. this is of course one possible tool that would do that. reverse, repurchase. actions would also have that effect. but i think, you know, for myself, when, you know, as the fed funds rate got close to entree row in access reserves were very large, the funds rate was soft relative to what our intentions were at that time. i think we'll be a little bit concerned that there'll be softness in the funds market as we move on up with access reserves with levels of what we are talking about. i won't be surprised if we rely heavily on excess reserve. of we increase that and we will expect the funds rate to follow that. but we will probably talk about that ioer rate first primarily along with the environment along

with the other tools that we with will be using and when it reestablishes itself, when it's, you know, up around 1%, 2%, i think we'd likely go back to that. but frankly, you know, we'll be re-examining that. >> i'd like to follow up on that question. i think brian did an excellent job. they will be closely related to each other. maybe the funds rate will be bounded by the other two. that's not absolutely clear. but the thing that i'm wondering is two of the three interest rates are not set by the fomc. of course, monetary policy is the fomc's job and as the fed reminds us recently as they changed the rate, they don't

necessarily coincide with fomc's meeting. i'm wondering if this is an issue. if it makes any difference. the legal disstink that the rate paid and discount rates are rated termeddy the board not by the fomc which is the monetary policymaking authority. >> that's a fair question given our different governing structure, although i think it's more theater than what will matter. during the current environment, the fomc has had -- as we have for all of the years that i've been observing this, had a very slabtive approach to looking at monetary policy. the regional bank president come to washington. we work with the governors. we do that as a federal open market committee. we talk about the level. given what we are looking at.

over the past many years, that's translated into what should the funds rate be. i think the basic discussion will continue to have those discussions and the actions will reflect that best thinking from the entire group. i hesitate to say the committee. remember, the federal open market is 12 individuals, it's not the entire 18 at full strength that are in attendance and contribute to the discussion. there are many ways in whip our structure doesn't really capture how we go about the decision making process. >> you make an interesting and compelling case for the changed labor market situation effecting at least your assessment of monetary policy. and at the same time, you say we do not reliable model for obsessing the impact on monetary policy of the employment if i

understand. >> that particular comment about our nontraditional policies. >> nontraditional policies. i would assume the same would be more than the same of traditional monetary policies. what i'm driving at is do you have any way of getting at the changes in the labor market, at least your questioning, to assess those changes in the labor policy structure which are not related directly to monetary policy, such as outsourcing the use of asia labor and so forth. is there any way the fed can capture that? >> those are difficult issues to, you know, reliably calibration what the effect of different business practices are for how the aggregate data proceed, that's why research is such a vibrant activity at

universities and research institutions. there's a lot we don't understand and a lot we can learn. i would say for the stand point of making monetary policy, and price stability, when i was talking about the labor market implications, the first thing on my mind was that what's the best way to engineer the lowest possible unemployment rate? because it has to be a sustainable level of unemployment. is has to be sustainable growth. that's what we are after. what was first on my mind is what are the implications of these developments for our inflation outlook because we have an awful lot of accommodation in place. if you didn't have some confidence that there were with factors holding back inflation, holding firms back from marking up prices in some very large fashion, then it would give you grate pause to be undertaken these policies. but as i look at unemployment rate, as i look at long-term

duration, as i look at measures of output gap as i see that, there seems to be many things holding back inflational expectations. that's the way that we try to use this. integrating these into a formal model is a great thing for researchers to do. i've contributed to that literature. and when i say we need a robust sweet of models to capture all of these things, that's going to -- as dr. romer said very well this morning, that is going to keep economist busy for the next few decades. >> just a quick question, charlie, the procedural, not detail, and certainly not issues, could you -- i do spend a lot of time explaining to audiences and students, how the fomc makes decisions. and how you make decisions before you go. just briefly run through how you prepare for meeting, what sorts of papers, materials, et cetera,

just procedural, not any detail. >> sure. you know, the reserve banks we have dedicated research staff that supports me in thinking about how the economy is, you know, -- how things are playing out. you know, we also have our bank supervision staff which reminds me of what banking conditions are at a grassroots level how things are recording well with local conditions type of operations. we begin this process two weeks before the fomc meeting when the book is published. we've already been, you know, getting a lot of information. research staff starts putting together a forecast and talking about special issues that we'll be facing, will the nontraditional policy that we're contemplating right now. should we -- what effect might they have? when they say they announced we are going to do $1.25 million on

nbs, there's a ton of research that goes into that assessment and understanding the uncertainty that's attached to that. we meet before we go to washington, i'll tell you, from the reserve bank stand point, we bring information to washington from outside of washington. so to see that it accords with the national data, we also have the benefit of seeing the boards forecast, their analysis, and so it's a value added process for my department in terms of you get to see this, here's other things that you should look at. then we go to washington, and you got it full strength, 18 people sitting around the table. and all views are listen to, and, you know, obviously the chairman plays a strong roll. but chairman bernanke has been tremendously -- he's been a leader. he's been a collaborator, he's been a listener. and i think we've gotten, you know, about as good monetary

policy as we could under the circumstances, maybe not in exactly the sequence that would have perfect with the benefit of hindsight. you know, but everybody talks, 12 vote. but everybody talks and is listened to. >> all right. thank you very much, charlie. [applause] >> we really appreciate it. [applause] >> so we have a networking break until 10:45. then we'll resume in the sessions. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

>> u.s. senate in resource, back at 2 p.m. eastern for more work on federal aviation programs. off of the floor today.

congressional budget office saying the senate health bill will cut the federal deficit by $118 million, and the associated press reports that no estimated are available for the president's latest proposal, but democratic leaders want to keep the 10-year cost at around $950 billion. also on capitol hill, senate harkin said the best way is to attach reconciliation. it would eliminate payment to banks, and redirect that money to direct lending. under the rules, the senate could pass the bill with the simple majority vote. senator harkin is joined here by the house education chairman george miller and others. the briefings is about 25 minutes. >> good morning. i'm congressman george miller. we were waiting for senator harkin. he has been delayed in the house and the house has a series of

votes. okay. tom. we're going to begin then go to javier and jim. they have votes. we have votes on. >> thank you for being here. well, first of all, the stars are aligning for victory, the end is in sight. however, i want to emphasis that we have a terrific opportunity here for a twin victory. we can use the education reconciliation bill which i've been working on as chair of the health committee and which george miller has been working on as chairman of the education labor with committee in the house to eliminate billions of dollars in wasteful subsidies to banks and redirect that monotoneddy students and families in the form of increased pell grants and others. here's what at stake, if we fail

to pass the bill, the 8 million students who receive pell grants could see 60% reduction. yes, you heard me right. students could see up to 60% cut in their pell grants. and nearly $500,000 students would lose their aid entirely. this is a catastrophe waiting to happen. and it's unacceptable. by contrast, if we've passed the education reconciliation bill, we have an opportunity to deliver more than $50 billion in additional pell grant aids to students and it's fully paid for. fully paid for. and we'll do so at a time when americans are struggling as never before. twine way -- define ways to pay for higher education. here's the fact. this bill makes more than $50 million investment in the pell grant program, as i said. >> part of senator harkin's

comments this morning. we are going to leave that. just a reminder, you can see all of that on our web site and later today. we're going to take you back to the gallery live. senator chris dodd and update on financial regulations. just getting underway here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [laughter] >> musical number? >> it's almost st. patrick's day. >> it is. it's one thing to disabuse the notion that i may be irish genetically, i'm tone deaf. no dany boy here. the fields of rye will have to wait. after this is all over, we gather for the evening. [laughter] >> i know, i have to believe

it. but -- are you all set? thank you. let me first of all thank all of you. i already put out a statement earlier this morning, indicating that we're on a positive and optimistic track of coming to a conclusion of the financial reform package in the senate. and i'm not one to sound like mutual aberrations, i want to commend bob corker, my colleague, for the work he's been doing. we've tried to fashion a bipartisan bill, we're not there yet. as i've said over and over again at years, having learned at the side of ted kennedy, nothing is done until everything is don. you have to continue working. while we've made great process, need to move along. i intend on money to put out a proposal on the table. that's the next step. i've been promising that to many in the room. we have a pro pal sal on the table. each week we let it slip a

little bit because we thought we could get further along in developing the product. so the committee print or the proposal that i'll offer on monday does reflect a lot of the ideas that bob corker and others have brought to the table. but clearly we need to move along. what i'm facing moseley is what i call the 101st senator, that is the clock. and similarly in election year -- particularly in election year. that clock becomes a rather demanding member. as time moving on, you limit the possibility of getting somebody done. particularly something of that magnitude and complexity. if i don't put a proposal out, i want to get to the committee the easter pass of break we'll come back to the middle of april at that point. we have a limited amount of time and the break in may, july, august, of course an election year. the time is shrink to get this

done. this is thought a reflection of something breaking down. quite the opposite. the prosses of moving along very, very well. but i felt it was important to put a proposal on the table short of a proposal that reflects the agreement. i'm grateful to bob corker. let me say the major parts of the bill. one is we intend to stop forever the notion that some institution, financial institution in the country is just too big to fail. that's going to end in in bill. we've reached broad on kenoses on that. my thanks to bob corker who worked on that, that's a major achievement that never again should the american they packers be exposed because institutions became too big to fail. secondly, we want to have an early warning so we can pick up the drafts either by institutions or by producting

that are systemic on the financial system at risk. that already we have a lot of consensus around that idea. it's not complete. of course thoughts are coming to the table. thirdly, we want to be in a situation where we are dealing with the derivatives, and it's exotic instruments. they are working very close. not there yet. and getting to it. how we provide the transparency, the accountability as the major source of the factors that contributed to the economic difficulties in the country. how do we better protect our consumers. including having a strong agency that will be able to engage in the kind of protections that consumers need. all of this is going to be further advanced, i think, by having a prosal on the table. other than it's a lot of consideration that go on. i think both members, as well as others who have a strong interest, will have a chance to

look at document, utilizing the week between the proposal to bring ideas to the table with a goal i have in mind of coming out of committee with the consensus bill. then coming to the floor of the senate. i wanted to come over and express, one, my sense of optimism about this. i know there's a tendency to look at the statement and wonder if there's been some retreat. there has not been in my view. and to particularly recognize, and i -- as bob corker because he has stepped up and did comment and say i'd like to try to work on getting to yes on a bill. that's been so valuable and this process. so without, let me stop and addresses any questions. i'm sorry? >> how do you plan to treat the consumer piece of your bill? >> well, we're working at it. again, as i said, i can't negotiate here at this table.

that's why i have members and we're talking. it's a major issue. a lot of progress have been made on it. trying to find a proposal here for broad support. i don't expect universal support. >> corker laid out what he thought there will be a deal on, creating in the fed, having a council are veto power. is that going to be your bill? >> as i said, i'll take a look at what's out there monday. i think you'll see, all titles, there's about 13 titles to the will. it's going to be a very different proposal than the one i proposed in october or november when we laid looking to staff to remind what month it was. so to be changed from that proposal. but i'm not going to negotiate here in your presence. >> the center today would be a travesty to have that bill marked up in a week. that you have the intention of working up quickly.

>> well, it may. i think because all of you want to give me a time schedule. i try to do that. i realize by doing so it's created my own set of problems for myself by giving dates and time. all of this is subject. i'm more interested in getting this right than getting it at a certain date. obviously i need to set marks to try to drive the process. i've been involved in a lot of bills and markups. i've learned a lot from the democratic and republican leaders and chairman over the years. one thing is consistent. you need to move things forward. you need to set products on the table, to get people to react to them, and set times in which you try to go forward. obviously that can slip based on where we are. getting this rate is more important than getting a date. but i emphasis again. i don't have a lot of time left in the congress. all of us have been in the room and know how this can go by very quickly. even a nomination on the floor of the senate to go through. sometimes days just to go

through the procedural motions to get to a vote. so i'm hoping to avoid a lot of that if we can develop a consensus. >> senator corker suggested that with reconciliation on health care that was putting the pressure on you and raising the question of whether health care poisoned the well? >> i know that's obviously a issue that we are all aware of. the administration cares deeply about this bill. and they want a bill. we are constantly in touch. i talk to the treasurer almost every day, as i do the white house. the chief of staff, what's the status. where are we? they have great interest on moving forward. there are over matters on the table. i've been involved in that one as well. the real problem i'm facing is the clock. the 101st senator, howard baker to coin that phrase or bob dole, but the 101st senator has been here years, you can appreciate in the election year what happens. the longest you get into the

year, the 101st senator can play havoc with trying to get something done. >> so reconciliation is not an issue? >> i'm sorry? >> in pushing -- in going through the mark up to try to get progress made through the mark up and on the floor, how concerned are you at holding on to the bipartisanship? we've seen certainly with health care. do you think this could go that same way? >> i hope not. that's what i've been trying to do. i acknowledge and recognize i always think my best product and every major bill with i've been involved having a partner. going back to the days of child care legislation with orrin hatch is not an exemption that i can think of what i was able to move anything without that relationship. i think that's true here as well. the bill of major complexity, and there are other parts of it obviously, the major piece as require operation. i'm not sure you get as good of

a product either. it isn't just a political factor, i think it's substancive as well. so i'm determined to try to get that. fully recognizing if you don't, it's going to be a lot harder to get the bill done. obviously my relationship with bob corker, dick shelby, obviously members of my own, tim johnson, all critically important opinion, i talk to them all of the time. and again this bill will introduce this proposal on monday will reflect a lot of what those conversations have produced over the last several weeks. a few more questions. >> they figured the lehman brothers, how to do that? >> well, look, my hope is again we're not just dealing with one issue here. we're dealing with a set of issues that have ft. gone frankly unattended for almost 80 years. you go back to the 1930s since there's been any major effort to reform.

we're not going to deal with every issue. but major issues. too boy -- too big to fail. that may be the single most important. we can regulate or provide the transparency of exotic instruments that contributed so much to the economic troubles we're in today. we need to fix that. we're getting close. we need to have the ability to look over and see what's going on in our economy. the idea that no one saw this coming, i don't buy. the idea of having a counsel in place to make the determinations are critically important and giving consumers, how many times have we talked about the legislation, the federal reserve didn't do anything when it came to promulgating the catastrophe. it was the major reason. this bill will address all of those issues to a large extent. maybe not exactly as i write

them, but as long as i can trap and build in the support to pass them. okay? [inaudible conversations] >> can you get ahead of reconciliation? how much does that effect the process for you and you lose any effort of bipartisanship? >> well, as i said, all of the factors. there are a lot of issues out there. certainly that's one we're all aware of. that's not the only thing. no, again we're at a point where you can talk about a bill. we've had a lot of hearing, 52 hearing alone on this bill. i put done a proto sal in november. trying to find something that will work. the moment has arrived. put aside reconciliation and everything else. the moment has arrived to put done a proposal. we want an outside interest as well other than news stories and conversation by staff and members. they need something on paper, they can say i like this, i don't like this, what does this

mean? how does this work? that only happens with the proposal on the table. that's why we need to put this out on monday. >> what's the possibility that you might foot the bill in an effort to get the systemic risk in too big to fail. >> i can't. we'd have to postpone the elections to do that. because as i do this in pieces in the senate will be impossible. >> two pieces, the bill you want to draft, it will be what you negotiated so far or -- >> a lot of it will be. a lot of things are unanswered. i have 22 members, so i need -- it isn't just two of us. we have a lot of members who have a lot of ideas and interest. as chairman of the committee, i need to pull that together in a way that con deuces a bill. i'll try to report where i think there is consensus and the committee, democratic and republicans and areas where there is not, we'll have to

reflect something different. that doesn't mean that's fore closed the option of getting to a consensus. >> there's seems to be a youing group of progressives. how concerned are you about holding on to the left wing? >> it's a complicated institution. and so you have to deal with all sorts of people to get something done. >> to what extend when the decision to end negotiations? >> oh, no, this has been around for a long time. you have to put a proposal on this table. i read about what's in, what's out? i began to realize not even that aside, you can't put a bill together that way. what's in? what's not? >> [inaudible question] >> we don't have a -- look the price tag of doing nothing.

i never want to read about institution that reach the status that american taxpayer had to pull the chestnuts out of the fire. >> it's a neighbor of mine. i have to go ahead, ted? >> when do you have to get the bill out of the senate to lead time for the conference committee? >> oh, ted, i don't know. sometime this spring. get into the summer and august and barney has worked hard and, you know, weeks ago put a bill together. it was hard for him. even on the house rules to get a bill, given the complexities. so we're talking to his staff.

obviously and others to keep track of what we are doing. and i just want to stay away from deadlines again. >> chairman frank's proposal to have thissational conference on c-span. >> i want it all night, all day, every camera you can find in that room. thank you. >> senator dodd -- >> i'm sorry? >> do you have any payday monday ? [inaudible response] [inaudible conversations] >> senator dodd live from the gallery. you heard earlier from senator corker. waiting for the u.s. senate to gavel back in 2 p.m. eastern. they have been in recess for an hour or so. likely for the caucus, for the democrats, the congressional quarterly is reporting that harry reid will decide whether

to pay the health care overhaul and changes to the student loan program and budget reconciliation. i wanted them to make that decision, said senator reid, i don't want to do it on arbitrary basis. this issue was brought up earlier today in the briefing by senator tom harkin and others. saying the best way is to attack tach it to health care bill using budget reconciliation. we are going to take you back to the briefing with senator harkin, george miller and others from this morning in the senate radio and tv gallery. >> good morning. thank you for being here. however, i want to emphasis we have a terrific opportunity here for a twin victory. we can use the education reconciliation bill which i have

been working on as chair of the health committee and which george miller has been working on as chairman of the education committee in the house to eliminate billion withs of dollars in wasteful substies to bank and redirect in the form of increased pell grants and others. here's what's at stake. if we fail the pass the bill, the 8 million studentses who receive paul grants would see about a 60% reduction in their student aid. yes, you heard me right. if we don't pass this education reconciliation bill, students could see up to 60% cut in their pell grants. and nearly 500,000 students would lose their aid entirely. this is a catastrophe waiting to happen. and it's unacceptable. by contrast if we passed this education reconciliation bill we have an opportunity to deliver more than, more than $50 billion in additional pell grant aid to

students and it's fully paid for. fully paid for. and we'll do so at a time when americans are struggling never before to find ways to pay for the higher education. now here's the fact. this bill makes more than $50 billion investment in the pell grant program as i said. the bill would increase the maximum pell grant by nearly $1,000 over time, a few years, and tie the increases to the rises in the consumer price index to keep pace with college cost. the bill could increase from 5500 to somewhere between 63, 64, 6500. this is excellent public policy. it's also good politics for democrats and republicans alike. i well remember in 2007 when we cut student loan subsidies to the banks. they went home, and there's a

huge win. i also want to add that our bill would reduce the budget deficit. yes, you hear me right. that's what resilluation process is all about, producing the budget by $5 billion. we need to know that congress sides with them and not with the big banks. the federal government has been subsidizing these banks and wasting taxpayer money for far too long. it's time to end it. i also appreciate that there are real benefits in our bill that state -- that will help our state nonprofit student lenders who provide services to students. we carved out a roll. the bill also includes $750 in guaranteed funding that will go to state to support activities who are prepared to enter and succeed in college. and lastly, and very, very important, our bill included over $2 billion to the

historically black colleges and university in american that have been underfunded for far too long. we can accomplish all of this. we can accomplish all of this by adopting the higher ed reconciliation bill and we intend to do this. it will help our students, it'll help their families, it will reduce the deficit, it will help make sure that our african-american students who are going through our history-backed colleges and universities get the help they need to also go to school. so this is a win/win for everyone. and i can't thank george miller enough for all that he has done to get us to this position. i'll turn it over to george now. >> thank you very much. thank you senator harkin, chairman miller, i thank both of you for the tremendous leadership that you've given on something that is tremendously important. i grew up in south carolina, a

state that will benefit to the tune of $831 million if this bill were to pass. a state that continues to be in the top five states in the country in unemployment. and unemployment numbers came out on states yesterday. we were number four over 12% unemployment. i have counties in my state where the unemployment rate is 22%. and all of these young people have been told that the pathway out of poverty, the key to employment is in education. and we have been making tremendous slides in providing that for these young people. this bill, not only helps

historically black colleges and universities, but there is construction money in this bill for those students, for their classrooms that we have been reading so much about. in addition to pell grants, this money is there -- and i'm sure i'll be able to speak to it. we are providing critical support to hispanic serving institutions, minority serving institutions, that they would not ordinarily get. and i want to thank senator harkin and chairman miller for their vision and their wisdom in putting together a piece of legislation that is -- that reduces the deficit, and enhances the opportunities for young children to get the education that they deserve and for that, i'd like to yield to the vice chair of the house

democratic caucus, javier. >> jim, thank you very much to chairman harkin and chairman miller and to senator frankin. we need to bill. i say that not just as the father of three girls, one less than two years away from trying to get into college. but as the first in my family who actually had a chance to go to a university and get the college degree. when i attended stanford, i relied on the grants that i received from the federal government, the low-cost student listens along with the work that i did and the little that my parents could contribute at that time. i don't believe today i would be able to attend the same university without the increase and support that i could get from the student loans.

we cannot allow the american families who are going through the toughest times to believe we are not going to stand with them. we don't do what's within the grasp. give their kids a chance to do what we are all going to do. graduate from a good college and get to work. get to work. 17,000 students in my congressional district. most of whom living families with an income of less than 35,000 a year are going to receive pell grants this year. they need that assistance to be able to finish their education. we need to finish the job that we have started and passing this legislation and now get it through the reconciliation process to get it up or down vote for american's kids who wish to go to college. we owe it to them because they have worked very hard to make it possible to get the grades to get into college. it's time for us to do this. i am pleased to stand with the

chances to say we can make it happen. we need to make it happen for american's families who want to get educated. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. this is a very important moment in the history of our country and what we will do now when the resources are available to us to provide the best educational policies, and to make the best access available to families and to young people seeking an education and to finance that education, the decision we will make will speak to the character of our nation. it will speak whether or not we understand -- we understand what the decisions we have to make to build a world class education system and to have highly skilled and trained workers and individuals in our country. what we are considered is the house reconciliation

instructions from our budget committee that instructed our committee to save money and deal with the student loin issue and on health care. those two instructions are joined, there can only be one reconciliation package that foes to the senate. they will be joined in the house and sent to the senate. and what we did is we took the suggestion of the obama administration that we take the $87 billion at that time in subsidies to the lenders and move that over and recycle that for the benefit of families and a students trying to finance an education for their future and to help other -- and to help other education programs. this wasteful spending was first identified by president bill clinton when he tried to start the direct loan program, successfully passed with senator kennedy and paul simon and some others, tom harkin and myself,

and a small program was run. and every budget -- i think every budget that president bush submitted to the congress, they identified this as wasteful spending. president obama had the courage to say let's take that -- those wasteful subsidies and put them into the benefit of families. and that's where we are today. the question is really whether or not the senate will accept that reconciliation package as negotiated. it has to be deficit -- in fact, it has to save money. not just deficit neutral. it's very, very important that we do this. this is about where middle income and lower income families live. will they be able to finance and will they have access to educational opportunities? we now know because of the economy that more and more people are subscribing to the pell grant they never thought they would be eligible. but they have lost their jobs or their children are eligible because the family has lost it's

income or some -- or students who are working are now eligible. so whether or not they will be able to continue their education, we know that americans from all economic classes, all ages are seeking out classroom space and community colleges to try to get training or retraining to hold on to their job or get a new job or go with the future of the economy. colleges are running extra days, extra hours. all over this notion. we're trying to help those community colleges. we know the pell grant doesn't seep pace with the increased cost because the states haven't supported their universities. we're protecting them against the inflation to be able to continue to afford that college. we know that a young child that gets exposure to a good early childhood education program does better when they are in the fourth grade and if they do well, they are less likely to drop out in the 10th grade.

for the first time, the nation is saying they want to make an investment not just in slots, but the quality of those programs. so here we have a complete package also in this economy, this package keeps the interest rates on student loans from doubling. very important when families are trying to figure out whether they can pay it or whether or not they can afford to pay it back if they take it out in the forms of loan. we also -- we also lower the forgiveness for loans. so that people can enter careers where they can start at lower wages and build a career and know they will be able to pay back their loans of they won't be making the choice between whether they can rent or have a place to live and pay back their loans. this is a critical bill to this economy at this time. we know now there's a whole new round of cuts coming at the state level. at the educational level. and the question is whether or not we can take these subsidies

and use them for the greater good. use them for the public zest. -- interest. use them for middle income and lower-income families to provide educational and economic opportunities for themselves or their children. this is about the character of the nation. for some to suggest that it's too complicated, too this or too that, deal with complicated legislation all of the time. and in this case, we can do health care and we can do education and it's critical that we do both. critical that we do both. because the health care bill will provide many students coverage that they don't have and they can still go to school with the passage of that bill. health care will make it affordeddable for workers and they will be able to stay in school and pay the premiums. these wills are red related and i hope we can pass it.

>> i bet you can think of something. >> well, i can think of a lot of things. i've traveled through minnesota talking about this. the university of minnesota adopted direct lending. they love the program. everybody who has adopted it, loves it of it's just win/win/win. my wife and her sisters all went to college on combinations of pell grants, and scholarships, and pell grants were very important to them. at that time, the pell grant paid about 77% of a public college education. and i don't know what the percentage is today. but it's way muchlier. so this is good and it is actually quite simple. this part of it. that we go to direct lending and i've been at the university of minnesota system has done this,

and it's worked great. >> senator harkin? >> yes. >> a number of senator democrats have raised concerned doing the student loan bill this way, do you have enough votes to move it through the process? >> i believe once they get the clear picture of what we're doing, there's a lot of misinformation going on out there. i saw some in the newspaper this morning. there's just a lot of misinformation out there. and i think once we get it cleared up and how they understand it, and the benefit that is will accrue and the fact that we are not increasing the deficit, we are reducing the deficit, i believe it will get overwhelming support. >> do you have any senator they've expressed concerned about the bill plus conrad and lincoln's vote. you are already potentially down to 51 votes.

aren't democrats getting close to having not enough votes? >> frank listen we i believe the edition of the reconciliation bill will help us get some votes. this is going to be one thing they can take back immediately. as i said, don't forget, if we don't do this, we could be facing a drastic reduction in pell grants. i don't think people want to go home and say we've cut your pell grants. >> you guys are entering budget season. you could just have another reconciliation in the budget that will come out in a month or so to do this later this summer, is that not an option? >> no, because we have everything put together right now. we have the reconciliation instruction, the house is ready to go on it, they've done all of their work on it. and who knows whether or not we'll be able to get a budget through this year. who knows that.

huh? maybe we don't get a budget through this year. if we don't, that's the end of it. if we don't do this now, if we don't kind of cross this ruin con right now and get rid of the subsidized bank loans and go to direct lending, i don't know when wil ever get to it -- when we'll ever get to it again. >> last year they scored as a saving, we understand when they do the new baseline, is it saves considerably less than that. can you talk to how much? >> we're getting it scored by cbo. obviously it's going to be less. we think it's still going to be in the range of about $67 billion. >> and do you see these two, i mean this is like a must pass, the rain is leaveing the station, we're going to have the

votes? >> i believe we'll have the votes. >> it won't hurt the health care package? >> notal audiotape. >> it will enhance it. i think it's going to enhance it in the senate when people understand what this is about and get through the misinformation that's out there. >> does it make up that $20 billion drop? >> that's what, you know, that's what the questions of the baseline are kind of open. if we fall precedent, we will take the house baseline, if there's not resistance, if they want to change the baseline or update it, then you'd have to make the modifications. this bill is required to reduce the deficit. obviously it would be deficit neutral. we have to make those adjustments. one the reasons the baseline has changed, the program has been so successful in terms of people

going to the direct lending, every day the student takes out the loan, the federal bank banks the savings. that was the $87 billion that george bush and barack obama have identified. we live in cbo hell, we'd have to short that out and negotiate that out. it has been under discussion. >> mr. miller, you said a moment ago it would help in the house. >> you know, i think mr. clyburn and mr. sarah were very emphatic. many of the institutions and working class families that those students go to, hispanic-serving institutions, in my own state of california, in my state of california, that's about $400 million. those institutions are vastly over scribed now, in texas, it's

a huge amount of money in arizona and mexico. they provide about half of the minority school teachers, scientist, engineers, doctors. so this isn't taken lightly. the question for those institutions is will they thrive or simply survive? the same thing is true with the pell grant. for members of the house, look at our caucus. look at our caucus and think of the directs we represent. you know? we break down the big stakes and we have districts that are heavily impacted, have different economic social makeups and so for the members of the house on my committee, they took tough votes, they worked this out, it was passed with four votes on the democratic side when it passed the house. this is regular word. this is how we do budget reconciliation. yes, this is -- i believe both of those caucuses are going to

the white house today. they were invited for other reasons. this is on their mind. >> senator harkin? you mention in your remarks the specific figures about pell grants and so forth that are in the bill. i wonder does that reflect an updated negotiated version of the bill? are there detail that is you can give us about what the bill would be if it was attached? because the house passed a version and now it's been in the senate and we haven't seen what the senate version would be. >> well, the figures i gave you are closer to -- well, current baseline. then there are close approximations. we don't have a cbo score get back. we feel confident they are in the ballpark. >> your deal is still in the works? it's being negotiated still? >> well, we're trying to get a score from cbo right now. >> the car vote from nonprofit. does that mean they'd be able to originate from federal loans?

>> no, they'd be able to serve the loan and have students help stay in school. the nonprofits do a job good of that. we want to enhance that. >> thank you all very much. >> thank you all very well. [and you haddable -- inaudible conversations] >> senators are returning to the floor next after a break to rule work on federal aviation administration programs, and authorization bills that's been stalled since july. now live senate coverage here on c-span2. on december 23, 2003, one cow was discovered in the united

states with b.s.e., the disease that is sometimes referred to in a kind of slang way as mad cow disease. even though that animal was actually born in canada, the reaction of our trading partners around the world was very swift an it was very devastating. almost immediately japan and other countries closed their markets to u.s. beef virtually in the snap of our fingers, we lost roughly 90% of our export market just disappeared. now at the time japan was the largest export market for u.s. beef. it had a value to our producers of $1.4 billion. now, mr. president, we began work to address b.s.e. in this country dating all the way back to 1988 when our united states

department of agriculture established a b.s.e. committee to make recommendations on appropriate regulatory controls. our government has developed and implemented a multilayered system of interlocking safeguards to ensure the safety of american beef. after the 2003b.s.e. -- b.s.e. discovery, we added more safeguards. this in coordination with u.s. cattle producers has paid off. a 2006 study by u.s. found that b.s.e. is nonexistent. about 40% of adult cattle in our country. in 2007 the world organization for animal health, the internationally recognized standard setting body also known as o.i.e. classified the united

states as a controlled risk country for b.s.e. this classification simply means because of the expansive system of safeguard that are in place, u.s. beef is safe for export an safe for consumption. now, interestingly enough, that is the same identical classification that the o.i.e. gave to japan just last year. so as japan asks its trading partners to treat them fairly under o.i.e. standards, well, what we are asking is that they reopen their market for our beef. seven years have passed. we've proven time and again the effectiveness of our safety system. and the japanese still restrict most u.s. beef products. japan's actions are not consistent with fair trading practices.

nor what the u.s. treatment of japan's imports. that's why i agreed to meet last week with the japanese ambassador to discuss this matter. i asked the ambassador: what happened if the united states said we don't want anymore car parts from japan until they can assure us there are absolutely no defects. but that's essentially what they've done to our beef industry. if we, in the united states, said we would never do anything to japan in response to the current toyota situation, that they have already -- or that they have not already done to us, well, that would not be a good deal for japan when it comes to exports. their treatment of our beef has cast our nation's beef industry billions of dollars. and has been economically devastating to states like my

own state, the state of nebraska. if we treated their products the same way, it would be equally as devastating to japan because we are a major importer of japanese goods. over the last six years the united states has purchased, on average, over $132 billion in japanese goods annually. in 2009 alone even in the midst of a global economic downturn, the u.s. purchased $99.5 billion worth of products from japan. cars led the way. we purchased $31.5 billion in vehicles and parts. beyond that, we bough bought $19.5 billion in nuclear reactors, machinery, and parts. just over $50 billion worth of electronics we bought from japan.

another $5 billion in optic, photo, medical, surgical instruments. and dozens and dozens of other products that add up to another $25 billion. i want to make something very, very clear. i'm not advocating that the u.s. close its borders to japan's products. japan is a valued friend of the united states. but what i want to say today is this, and i say it directly and with the resolution, there's sanctions on our beef do not represent the act of a friend nor that of a fair trading partner. there is simply no scientific justification for their restrictions. none whatsoever. a point that my friends from japan can't deny. quite honestly, mr. president, japan's standard of accepting only boneless beef from cattle aged 20 months and younger was really pulled out of thin air.

it's nothing more than an economic sanction. i've been dealing with this issue for nearly seven years. first as a governor of nebraska and then as our agriculture secretary and now as a united states senator. my confirmation hearing before this body to become secretary of agriculture was dominated by one topic, opening japan's borders to our beef. and so i come forward today to offer this sense of the senate resolution. the resolution does not say we want to keep japanese products out of the united states. it does not. it is in the interest of neither the united states nor japan to arbitrarily restrict market access for friends and close partners. we are both with japan. trade between the united states and japan should be conducted with mutual respect and based on

sound science. something we haven't seen from japan in this area in the last seven years. my resolution does say that both japan and the united states should comply with science-based standards. it also states that the obama administration should insist on increased access for u.s. beef and beef products to japan. very simply, mr. president, it is time for fair treatment from our friends from japan. i will continue to press this issue. i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the resolution that basically says trade should be fair. mr. president, than you. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah is recognized. mr. hatch: mr. president, i rise today -- i thank my colleague from nebraska for his cogent remarks. i rise today, joined by my

friend, the distinguished senator from south dakota, and chairman of the senate republican policy committee to discuss the health care legislation being considered in congress. the current debate is primarily about process. but before addressing that, i want to remind everyone that in the end, this is about the substance of the legislation that washington liberals want to impose upon the country by any means necessary. this legislation is bad both for what it represents and for what it would do. it represents a massive federal government takeover of the health care system. the health care and health insurance systems could be significantly improved with policies that respect individual choice, that embrace our system of federalism in which the states can tailor solutions to their own needs an demographics. it could, but washington liberals have rejected that path. what would this legislation do? as i've argue nude the past, this legislation would bust the limits that the constitution

places on federal government power. liberty itself depends on those limits. it always has and it always will. those limits mean that congress may exercise only the powers listed in the constitution. none of those powers authorizes congress to take such unprecedented steps as requiring that individuals spend their own money to purchase a particular good or service such as health insurance or face a financial penalty. this legislation would unnecessarily take this country into unchartered political and legal territory. we just heard from the congressional budget office that president obama's policies will add a staggerin staggering $8.5 trillion -- that's trillion, with a t, to our already sky-high national debt. this is before -- before passage of the health care tax and spend bill that would cost anothe another $2.5 trillion.

claims that this boondoggle will lower the deficit will result from pretty impressive accounting tricks. this legislation would start taking money from americans immediately but would not provide any benefits to them for years. how about that as a neat way to lower a bill supposed cost? what do americans get for all of these trillions of dollars? they would be required to buy health insurance but only 7% of americans would receive any government subsidy to do so. washington liberals say this bill cuts taxes, but 93% of all americans would not be eligible for any tax benefit. contrary to president obama's explicit pledge, one-quarter of americans making under $200,000 per year would see their taxes go up. middle-class american families paying higher taxes will

outnumber those receiving any government subsidy by more than three to one. and for all of these higher taxes, increased government control, greater regulation, and paltry help in buying health insurance, this would not control health care costs, which is the main reason for the concern about health insurance in the first place. it does nothing to rein in the junk lawsuits that drive up costs and doctors out of medicine. instead this legislation would cut $500 billion from medicare to pay for a massive new government and entitlement system that would includ include $159 -- 159 new boards and other bureaucratic entities. last month the white house released an 11-page document entitled "the president's proposal." calling it that, i suppose, was meant to appear like a meaningful step in genuine negotiations. it was nothing of the kind.

one of the most obvious changes in this document was the elimination of the medicaid subsidy that the senate bill gave to only one state. that was for political rather than policy reasons. oh, i cannot forget to mention that the document suggested changes would add at least this 11-page to you. suggested changes would add at least 5 billion more to the - the -- $75 billion more to the cost of the senate bill. that's around $7 billion a page. but it offered nothing to change the real defects in this legislation. for these and so many other reasons, this legislation is the wrong way to address the challenges we face in health care and health insurance. let me turn to my friend from south dakota, senator thune. now that we've been debating these issues for the better part of a year, what do the american people think of these liberal washington -- washingtonian, i

guess, proposals? and how did we get where we are today? mr. thune: i would say to my friend from utah that he has made a -- over the course of the last year has made many compelling arguments about the substance of this legislation. and just to -- just now described, i think, summarized what some of those are. and i think the reason that the american people have rejected this legislation is they understand the substance of it. as the senator from utah pointed out, it's got tax increases, medicare cuts and premium increases for most americans. they figured that out a long time ago. that's why i think if you look at the public opinion surveys that have been done with regard to the bill itself and to the process by which it has -- we have gotten to where we are, the american people are rejecting it. the reconciliation process, which has been talked about as a way in which to ultimately pass this through the house and then through the senate, there had been polls that had been -- have asked the american public what they think of using

reconciliation to enact health care reform. gallup poll, 52% of the americans oppose the use of reconciliation. last week's rasmussen report showed that 53% of americans are opposed to the health care plan. the most telling poll is the cnn poll is that 48% of americans want congress to start working on a new bill. 25% of americans want congress to stop working on health care. now add it together, that is 73% of the american public that wants congress to either stop working on health care all together or start over. now i'm not among those who thinks we ought to stop working on this. this is a big, important issue to the american people. they want us to do it but they want us to get it right. what's being proposed by our colleagues on the other side and what's so far been rammed through on a partisan basis is a $2 trillion expansion of the federal government that he can pandz the health care entitlement but does very little to reform health care in this

country or to address the underlying drivers of health care costs in this country. and so the senator from utah i is -- is absolutely right in why he describes i think the -- why the american people are so opposed to this legislation and that is because they -- they understand it, they know what it does, and they're concerned about the cost of their health care insurance in this country. they are concerned as well about those who don't have health care, and we have come up with solutions that we think make more sense to cover those who don't have coverage. but i think it's pretty clear where the american people come down on this issue. and incidentally, i think that's also what many of these elections we've had recently are about. if you look at what happened in virginia, new jersey most recently in massachusetts, many of those were referendums if you sort of go inside the numbers on the health care issue. and i think it's a clear message to washington that these health care proposals are not acceptable to the american people. and yet it doesn't seem that those of us here in washington, d.c., or at least some of us, are listening to that message. and, frankly, i believe,

mr. president, and i would say to my colleague from utah, this is a bad bill that has been rejected by the american people, part it was because of the substance of it, part of it because the normal process hasn't been followed. and we all know what was done to get that extra vote to try and pass this thing through the senate, to get that 60th vote, all these backroom deals that were put together at the last minute. we've heard the cornhusker kickback chronicled, we've heard the louisiana purchase chronicled many times over the course of the last several months. but i think the point very simply, and i would say to my friend from utah, is that, one, the american people understand that this will lead to higher costs for most americans, it's going to increase their cost of health insurance in this country. two, they want to see a bill that is put together in airway that elicits bipartisan support. the senator from utah has been here from 1977 -- since 197, has been involved -- 1977, has been involved in a whole series of important bipartisan debates where important legislation was acted on here in the united states senate but it was done in a way that had support from both republicans and democrats. and i think that's what the

american people expect of this process and they also expect to this -- for us to conduct ourselves in a way that is transparent. and doing legislation, 2,700-page bills behind closed doors, adding last-minute backroom deals to tryget that elusive 60th vote to pass it and now using reconciliation, something that clearly was not designed for this process, i think is another issue that is just -- is even worsening the american public's opinion not only of the substance of this legislation but also the process. and i want to ask my colleague about reconciliation, but before i do that, i want to mention one thing because many of us, you and i both and others on our side have talked a lot during the course of this debate about the cost and what we ought to be doing to address health care. and if we want to address health care in this country for most americans, or reform health care, it means getting costs under control. we've been arguing for some time that most americans -- and i think it's been through the congressional budget office has validated this, the actuary for

the center for medicare and medicaid services has validated this, that if you are buying in the individual market, you're going to see your insurance premiums go up above what they would normally go up, 10% to 13%, and if you're someone who buys in a -- in the large employer or small employer market, you're still going to see your health insurance premiums go yo up, they're goino be going up at the rate they are today or maybe slightly higher busbut the rate they're going up today is twice the rate of inflation. and the senator from illinois, the distinguished whip on the majority, the democratic whip, said yesterday on the floor of the senate -- and i quote -- "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 increas increase." so there you have it. we've been saying this all along, an acknowledgment by folks on the other side who are finally saying or reiterating what we've been saying all along

and that is that health insurance premiums are going to go up and i think for -- if you're someone who, like i said, who buys in the individual marketplace, who is in the large employer or the small employer market, you're going to see your premiums go up. the question is how much, and i think for most americans, they're going to go up significantly. but i would say to my colleague and i would ask him because he has been here since reconciliation almost was put in place. you'd have to go back to 1974 and the budget act but i'm told that it's been used 18 or 19 times since then and since the senator came here in 1977, i think every time reconciliation has been used, you have been a part of that process and have had to vote on that and there probably isn't anybody in this chamber that's more experienced on the issue of reconciliation, what it was designed to do, what it can't do than is the senator from utah. and so i would ask the senator if he could snrien those of us who haven't been here as long exactly what reconciliation was designed to be used for, how it's designed to function and why it is not applicable to the

case of trying to restructure or reorder literally one-sixth of the american economy which is what health care represents in this country. i would ask my friend. mr. hatch: well, i thank my colleague for his cogent remarks because, you know, my friend from south dakota is absolutely right, the american people aren't buying this nor are they going to buy this misuse of reconciliation. even with the large majorities in the senate and the house, the white house, and most of the mainstream media, washington liberals have not been able to convince the american people that this is the right way to go. the american people oppose this bill. they want us to start over and they want us to adopt a step-by-step commonsense set of reforms. we could do that but washington liberals instead are determined to find some way to get their way. the latest procedural gamut has been raised by my colleague and it's called reconciliation. before talking about reconciliation is, i have to emphasize what it is not. reconciliation is not simply an

alternative to the senate's regular process for handling legislation. instead, reconciliation is an exception to that process. while the house is about action, the senate is about deliberation, and the rules in each body reflect its role. for more than 200 years, the senate rules have allowed smaller groups of senators to slow down or stop offensive legislation or any kind of legislation, for that matter. the house has a simple majority vote -- is a simple majority vote body but the senate is not. the senate creates -- or this creates checks and balances or, should i say, checks and speed bumps to legislation, but passing legislation is not supposed to be easy, especially something that aeffects one-sixth of the -- something that affects one-sixth of the american economy. reconciliation is an exception to that because it limits debate and amendments and requires only a simple majority. it only allows for 20 hours of

debate. it actually weakens the role that the senate plays in the legislative branch and, therefore, this exception to our regular order was created to handle a small category of legislation related to the budget. while thousands of public laws have been enacted since the reconciliation process was created, that process, as the distinguished senator from north dakota has said, that process was used -- south dakota, excuse me, said, that process was used only 19 times to enact legislation of any kind into law. not only is reconciliation a rare exception to our regular legislative process, but using reconciliation to pass sweeping social legislation as opposed to budget or tax legislation is even more rare. reconciliation's been used only three times to pass such major social legislation.

welfare reform passed in 1996 with 78 votes. child health insurance passed in 1997 with 85 votes. and a college tuition bill passed in 2007 with 79 votes. in each case, dozens of senators in the minority party supported the legislation. the health care legislation before us is not the kind of budget or tax legislation that has been the primary focus of the reconciliation process in the past. it is much more like welfare reform or the child health insurance bill except for one very important thing. the health care legislation is a completely100% partisan bill -- completely 100% partisan bill. 100%. the reconciliation process, which from the start is a rare exception to our regular process, has never been used for such sweeping major social legislation that did not have

wide bipartisan support. never. and it was never supposed to be used for that. you can criticize the three-time social legislation -- three times social legislation was passed and your criticism might be considered valid by some, but the fact of the matter is, those bills were bipartisan. washington liberals obviously know this because their latest talking point is that reconciliation will not be used to pass the large health care bill of 2,700 pages but only to change the big health care bill. my friends, that is a distinguishes without a difference. the bill that washington liberals want is the combination of the big senate bill and the smaller fixer bill. in fact, they cannot stomach the one without the other. the bill they want, whether in one piece or two, cannot pass congress through the regular legislative process.

the health care bill that washington liberals want, if it can be passed at all, can only be passed through an illegitimate use of this extraordinary process called reconciliation. and, by the way, i would like to remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that the reconciliation process had been used only twice to pass a purely pann bill on any -- partisan bill on any subject, even those that reconciliation may have been designed to care for. in both cases, 1993, when democrats were in charge and 2005, when republicans were in charge, the american people in the next election threw the majority party out and gave the other party a chance to run the united states senate. just as washington liberals cannot convince the american people to support the substance of this legislation, they cannot make the case that reconciliation is a legitimate way to pass it. let me also say that there are

those in the house who want to distort this process so much that they want to devise a way where the house members don't have to vote on the senate-passed bill. by getting a rule that with majority vote will deem the senate bill as passed. talk about distorting the process. talk about the lack of guts to stand up and vote for what they claim is so good, talk about the deception to the american peop people. they've already distorted the reconciliation rules, but that would be a bridge too far. now, i ask my friend from south dakota, senator thune, whether he has seen, as i have, the spin and misdirection that have been employed to give the impression that this is a legitimate

process to pass this unpopular legislation. mr. thune: well, i would say to my friend from utah that it's interesting how the symantecs and terminology changes in washington depending upon what point you're trying to make, but many of my colleagues who have weighed in heavily against the use of reconciliation on a range of subjects, more specifically now health care reform, are now referring to it as simply a simple majority, all we're asking for is a simple majority vote, which does represent spin and misdirection. because, as the senator from utah has noted, reconciliation is a -- as a procedure has a fairly special place in the history of the senate, going back to 1974, when it was created, and it's to be used for specific purposes, to reconcile spending, revenues, tax increases, tax cuts, primarily to accomplish deficit reduction. and as the senator from utah has pointed out, when it's used to

enact significant legislation generally has broad bipartisan support. you mentioned welfare reform had 78 votes for it. that's the most frequently cited example of use of reconciliation for something that was policy oriented. but remember, that had 78 votes here in the united states sena senate, a huge and decisive majority of senators decided to vote for its use in that case. you also have, as i said, other examples where it was done to accomplish reducing taxes, increasing taxes. those are all arguably legitimate uses under the procedure of reconciliation. but now what you're finding is legislation that literally would restructure and reorder one-sixth of the american economy, that would have profound consequences and profound impact on the american people for not only the near term but the long term. we're talking about using this go your own way, go your -- go it alone process of reconciliation simply because

using regular order cannot accomplish the objective that is desired by the democrat majority. so they've fallen back on the use of reconciliation for something that really is unprecedented. and it's interesting to me, if you look at historically what some of our colleagues have sa said, the person who's probably -- there aren't many people who have more experience with this issue or more experience in the senate than the senator from utah, but the senator from west virginia, a member of the democratic majority, has been here for even longer and is cited most often as being the author of the current budget process that we have which includes this reconciliation procedure, and he wrote a letter a year ago which i would like to submit for the record, and i want to quote the first paragraph from that letter a year ago in april. he said, "dear colleague colleai oppose using the budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform and climate change legislation. such a proposal would violate the intent and spirit of the budget process and do serious injury to the constitutional

role of the senate." that is what the author of reconciliation said a year ago about trying to do health care reform through this process th that -- that the majority has decided to use. now, there are lots of other examples of our colleagues in the senate on the other side of the aisle, and i could read -- i could go on and on. the majority leader senator reid in november of 2009 said, i quote -- "i'm not using reconciliation." senator conrad, who is the chairman of the budget committee in the senate in 2009 on the floor said -- "i don't believe reconciliation was ever intended for the purpose of writing this kind of substantive reform legislation such as health care reform." even go on to the president when he was a senator, senator at that time obama, now president, said -- "reconciliation is a bad idea." so you go on and on, and you can find these statements of our colleagues on the other side who in the past have expressed

opposition, and not just timid, tepid opposition, but i would argue very aggressive opposition to the use of reconciliation for something this consequential and are now sort of falling back. in fact, i have 18 democrats on the record who said they oppose the use of reconciliation. they are now saying that we think that this could be used for this purpose and now it's being referred to as a simple majority. so again, i would say to my colleague from utah that i think the spin that's going on now to try and again confuse the american people about what is happening here is something that we need to end. we need to be transparent and clear with the american people about what's being done here, and i would simply ask my colleague from utah whether he thinks either that the process of using reconciliation, the process that has led us up to this point or for that matter the underlying substance of this bill is something that the american people would be proud of and would want to see us pass here in the united states senate.

mr. hatch: my friend from south dakota hit the nail op the head. i really appreciate your remarks. if this legislation was sound policy, if it incorporated consensus ideas, if it had any level of real support among the american people, washington liberals would not need to use the gimmicks that they're using here. especially the budgetary gimmicks. they wouldn't have to use the tricks that are being used here. they wouldn't have to use the spin that the senator from south dakota so accurately described. i mentioned earlier that the reconciliation process has never been used to enact sweeping social legislation that did not have wide bipartisan support. a senator: will the senator yield? mr. hatch: i would be happy to yield. for a question, but i do want to finish my remarks. mr. rockefeller: as i understand it -- and i'm presiding over the federal aviation administration, so this is a little off the track -- but it's very hard for me to listen to this kind of

dialogue week after week without having these thoughts and questions. the -- the senate passed with 60 votes a health care bill which now -- mr. hatch: 60 partisan votes. mr. rockefeller: right, which is on its way over to the house, the house has it. the question now is is the house going to pass it. if there is going to be any health care reform at all, the house has to pass it. if the house does pass it, it will then constitute about 85% to 90% of the entire health care bill. i listen to my good friend and the senator from south dakota talk about 60% of the gross national -- 16% of the gross national product, but the bill that comes out of the house will hopefully pass and not have to come back to the senate will, number one, be nowhere the vast

majority of the 16%, if that's an accurate figure, but one thing that is even more clear to me is it will have nothing to do with the reconciliation. it's the regular legislative process. the only question about reconciliation and the only place where it applies from this senator's point of view is on that particular add-on that would be done to include some republican ideas and to include a few more things that the house wants to do. now, i ask my senator from utah how -- how -- why does he say that this is reconciliation affecting 16% of the g.d.p. when, in fact, what affects 14% or 15% of the g.d.p. is simply in a regular order of senate process and has nothing to do with reconciliation? mr. hatch: what i have already said is the combination of these particular bills cannot pass without reconciliation. first of all, we know that the house doesn't really like the bill that passed through the

senate. if they had the votes to pass it over in the house, it would be already passed. so what they have done is they are coming up with a cockamamie misuse of the term reconciliation, and they are doing a smaller bill. mr. rockefeller: no, i -- mr. hatch: no, heat me finish. doing a smaller bill, assuming they could pass the large bill, would then come over here. now, i submit to you -- and i know it's absolutely true -- they can't pass the larger bill, or at least it appears they can't pass it because they certainly had time to do it, they just haven't done it. now, i have also indicated that they may abuse the rules further by getting a special rule over there by a majority vote, if they can, and the reason i put if they can is because if they go that route, that vote becomes an acceptance of the senate bill

that they will never vote on, then they send both over here with just a small reconciliation bill to be tried here. now, if that happens, they would have to deem the senate bill as having been passed by the house even though there never was a vote on it. so the key vote would be -- would be the -- the vote on the rule to deem that bill as passed even though they would never have voted on it. that's a really, really mixed up and messed up version of the reconciliation rule. there's only one reason they're doing that. that's because they cannot pass the senate bill without this reconciliation package that will change the senate bill without the senate bill ever having been voted on. now, if the senator is right and they can pass that bill, the senator may have a vote. mr. rockefeller: and i would

further question, i don't see any possibility of the house changing a bill which would have to come back over to the senate because it would be highly unlikely the senate would be able to pass that bill, so i don't think that will be the process, and i think what the house will do -- and you said they haven't done it, therefore they can't do it. well, they said that about the senate bill in the senate, too, and we did, and it was very close, for reasons that it got no votes from your side. but that's not the point. the point is reconciliation on 16% of the g.d.p., if they pass -- and this is all in the full time of working out the process. on the house side, the senate bill, which is what they want to try to do and then the reconciliation is not done on their side, it's done on our side in which we put in a few things to -- maybe some med mal,

whatever, that will be attractive to some republicans and also some things which will help with liberals on the democratic side in the house because they are more liberal than we are, and that i would say to my good friend from utah is not reconciliation, but it's put -- it's put that way for months now, and i'm on the floor and i have this microphone and you're being kind enough to -- to be patient with me, but it isn't reconciliation. the senator from south dakota said it's 16% of the gross domestic product. it isn't. probably about 5%, 6%. mr. hatch: let me -- i want to finish my remarks. mr. rockefeller: i thank the senator. mr. hatch: i want to finish my remarks, but the real problem is the house is having difficulty passing the bill because an awful lot of liberals don't like it and an awful lot of conservatives don't like it over in the house, if there are any conservative democrats over there. i think there may be a few. there aren't any here in this body, we all know that, on the democratic side. so what i'm bringing up here is the only way they can get the

bill back over here with their small reconciliation package that they talked about, the only way they can do that is by abusing the rules, and i question the constitutionality of what they probably will do. and, frankly, if they have the votes to pass it, it would have been passed by now. you and i both know they don't have the votes. well, let me just continue on with my remarks. i would ask that that colloquy not interfere with my remarks on this matter. i ask unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. hatch: okay. thank you. i thank the chair. i mentioned earlier that the reconciliation process has never been used to enact sweeping social legislation that did not have wide bipartisan support, but i also want to emphasize that such major legislation has had wide bipartisan support even when passed through the regular legislative process. that is the best -- those bills i was talking about.

that is the best way to achieve such significant change that can impact so much of our economy and virtually every american family. the senate, for example, passed the social security act in august, 1935, by a voice vote. it was unanimous. the legislation creating the medicare program in july, 1965 received 70 votes, bipartisan votes. legislation such as the americans with disabilities act, i led the fight for that on this floor. i played a significant role in that. that passed in 1990 by a vote of 94-6. and the revision enacted in 2008 passed both the senate and the house unanimously. that's the best way to enact sweeping social legislation -- with wide bipartisan support, and the deep consensus of the american people. and if you look at the meeting down at the white house of republicans and deps and the president, i think it was shocking to many who had been blaming republicans for not coming up with a bill, knowing that there was no chance it

would even be considered, to see that republicans had a lot of ideas. we're willing to work with democrats. we could have worked together. we would have started by doing the things we can agree on and go from there to see what we can do to bring about a bipartisan consensus, but no, that wasn't good enough. so whether our regular legislative process is used or the exception to that process called reconciliation is used, major social legislation has had wide bipartisan support. this one does not. legislation with much less impact than the health care bills before us had to have wide bipartisan support, but rather than compromise or deviate in any way from their big government federal control one-size-fits-all approach, washington liberals have insisted that they know better than the american people. and the american people have caught onto them. these liberals are determined to have their way by any means necessary, even by the

illegitimate use of an extraordinary process such as reconciliation. i ask consent that a column by this body's former majority leader, dr. bill frist, appearing in the february 25 edition of "the wall street journal", be placed in the record following our remarks. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. hatch: i thank the chair. senator frist cogently argues that using reconciliation for this health care legislation would be a historic and dangerous mistake. there is still time to turn back from this path. there is still time to do what nearly three quarters of americans want us to do, and that is start over and work together. i hope we do. i have stood ready. i told the president three days after the inauguration -- i was down there at their request. i told him i would be happy to work with him, and i know a lot of other republicans would be happy. we were never even called on. i want to thank my distinguished colleague from south dakota, senator thune, for his leadership in this body and his

articulate arguments here today. i really appreciate it. he does a great job leading our policy committee and is a real advocate for sound ideas and conservative principles. i hope he feels as i do as we have outlined today that on both substance and process, the senate is headed in the wrong direction -- or heading in the wrong direction on health care reform. we need to pull back and do it right. i would be happy to yield. mr. thune: just one final point, because i think it's an important one and i have heard it articulated by our colleagues on the other side. that is, this whole process by which the house is acting on this legislation. i served for three terms in the house of representatives. i know i still have colleagues, friends over there, and i know that they have a way through the rules process of doing a lot of things that aren't allowed for in the senate. the senate, of course, was designed by our founders to be more free flowing, to slow things down and to be more deliberative. the rules committee allows them to put together what they call a

self-enacting, self-executing rule. essentially what you said is to deem as passed the senate bill without a recorded vote on it, which tells you right there that there are a lot of house members who don't want to vote on the senate-passed bill. they don't want to go on the record on it, and the only way, the only way that that bill can pass in the house of representatives is with an accompanying reconciliation vehicle that makes the fixes that most of those house members want made. my point simply is this -- health care reform cannot pass absent this reconciliation process that's being promised on the house side and also being promised to house members that if they vote for it over there, the senate will follow suit. i believe that the senate, in all the points of order that will lie against this legislation when it comes to the senate, in all likelihood that the house members are being asked to take an incredible leap of faith that the senate is going to be able to retain many of the provisions that they add to the reconciliation bill in

the house -- but the point -- and i come back to the dialogue that you had with the senator from west virginia because i think it's an interesting point of discussion and one -- a criticism that i've heard from our colleagues on the other sievmentd but frankly the house of representatives could not pass health care reform absent this reconciliation vehicle, so it is about one-sixth of 0 our economy. it is about reordering and restructuring literally something that is personal and important to every american. and when you're talking about doing issues of those consequence, of that consequence and that impact, it ought to be done, as the senator from utah has mentioned, as has been done in the past, in a bipartisan way that illicits the best suggestions and ideas from both sides and gets a broad, bipartisan vote here in the united states senate. i thank the senator from utah for his leadership on this. mr. hatch: i appreciate your remarks. and make no bones about it. they know they can't pass the bill that's been sent 0 over there. and so they're going to gimmick

it up by doing this extraordinary procedure that i question its constitutionality. and frankly -- frankly, it's a matter of great disturbance to me that on something this important, something that affects one-sixth of the american economy, that they're willing to play games with this. in order to get their will, when a vast majority of the american people -- guess what they're doing? 58% last poll iy asaw, only 24% are for it. and frankly, they want their way no matter what. if they pull this off, i question whether they can, but if they do, i believe they're going to pay a tremendous price for it. and it's not the way we should be legislating, especially since a number of us have been willing to work with them on things we

agree on first. there's a lot we could agree on first, and then go from there and battle it out on the things we can't agree on. you know, that's a pretty good offer, and it's been on the table from the inauguration on. there's something more to this. it's a question of power. if they get control of the health care system in this country and move it more and more into the federal government, then more and more people become dependent on the federal government, then it's a question of power. i want to make less and less people dependent on the federal government. i'd like to have people have freedoms. this is going to take away freedoms. not only that, but the economics thathey come up with. in order to arrive at this $2.5 trillion bill, they've had to gimmick up the bill by allowing

taxes to begun at first, and then four years later implementing some of the bill. and some won't be implemented until 2018, long after president obama -- assuming he is elected to two terms -- is gone. they'll never have enough guts s to enact that part of the bill, but that's also been used by the -- let's put it this way: the congressional budget office has to score whatever the paper says. and even though the papers are saying these types of things that are just ridiculous, they have to score them. this is going to cost a lot more. we're already spend $2.4 trillion on our health care system in this country. they wanted to add another $2.5 trillion. they've used gimmicks for the first ten years. nobody disagrees that i know of who has any brains 0 on this matter, that it's going to be about $2.5 trillion more. can you imagine, $5 trillion for

health care, and they still don't cover everybody in our society. and there's a real issue whether they're covering a lot of people that the american taxpayer is going to have to pay for who should not be covered. now, these are things that i think drive honest people nuts. and i'm -- and yet to use this process to slip this bill through, it's a abysmal. they should be ashamed of themselves. and they act like the american people are so doggone stupid that they can't figure it out. they know that this is not a good thifnlgt. mr. thune: they have figured it out, which is why the last survey that i quoted was the cnn survey which said that 48% of the people want us to start over, 25% want congress to quit working on the issue altogether. that's literally three-quarters of americans who have rejected the substance of this legislation, which is higher taxes, expanded gocht, medicare

cuts, higher premiums for most americans, and some who flat out don't want anything done, which as i said is not the view i you i-- is notthe view i subscribe . mr. hatch: the senator knows as well as i know that there are 1,700 -- 1,700 provisions in this bill that turn the power over to make the decisions on our health care matters to the secretary of health and human services. i don't care whether the secretary is a democrat or a republican -- naturally i'd prefer a republican -- but i don't care if they're eager. tha-- but i don't care ifer they're eemplet that shouldn't be turned over to the bureaucracy sivment my gosh, there hasn't been a

hand extended to us at all during this process. it's -- they just said take it or leave it. i was in the gang of seven on the finance committee, and i found myself -- i deducted that the poor chairman there who was trying his best just plain wasn't given enough -- enough power to be able to really come up with a health care bill except within the parameters that they'd already decided. he was so restricted. i found myself going out of those private meetings with 20 or 30 of the national media people standing there and arguing that a lot of the things they were talking about were wrong. and i felt badly about that, and i decided i could no longer continue in 0 those talks because it was a matter of honor to me not to. and the bill turn the out exactly whiek i said it would turn it would turn out. first they took the "help" bill really and then they took the

aspects of the finance bill and then within one office here with very few even democrats, no republicans, came up with this monstrosity of a bill that they're -- that the house doesn't want to vote on. so they're going to do anything they can to avoid that vote, even gimmicking up the whole process. and that's disgraceful, in my eyes. now, i don't need to go on any further. i think this bill, we ought to start over. we ought to do it right. we ought to work together. and we ought to start with the things we can agree on and i think there would be a considerable number of things we can agree on, starting with people who have preexisting conditions. they ought to be able to get health insurance. we all agree on that. there's a number of other things we can agree on. the question is the wording. how can we word it so that it works within the budgetary processes and legislative processes of this country? which will, i just want to thank my dear -- well, i just want to thank my dear colleague from

north dakota -- or, south dakota -- i keep saying that -- i want to thank you for the excellent remarks you made here on the floor and i appreciate you answering some of the questions. thank you so much. i yield the floor. mr. rockefeller: mr. president? the presiding officer: is noter from west vier. mr. rockefeller: i ask that chris gobble, a legislativeful low with the finance committee, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of h.r. 14586. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. rockefeller: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. burris: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. burris: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burris: thank you, madam president. i just heard a interesting colloquy between my two distinguished friends from across the aisle in reference to health care. madam president, i found that very interesting as they dialogued back and forth.

the one problem with their dialogue, it's just misinformation that my distinguished colleagues are putting out on this floor and to the people of america. they keep saying that we should start over on health care. they're saying that we should -- we didn't incorporate any of their proposals, which is furthest from the truth, madam president. that work's been done over a year, and they had all the input. even the president of the united states incorporated their ideas into the bill that we passed from this distinguished body and the bill that's now lying between the house and the senate. so i found their colloquy very

interesting, and i just hope that the american people will begin to look at what is being put here, being said here, and that is our distinguished colleagues across the aisle don't want to see health care reform. evidently they want to continue the same old ways with the insurance companies controlling this health sick system. not health care system. a profit-making system for them. so i just hope that the american people will see right through their comments. but i'm trying to talk today, madam president, about whether or not there are real winners and losers in this health care debate. since the beginning of the debate over health care reform, we've heard an awful lot about the political problems

associated with taking on this issue. it's difficult, it's divisive, and there are no easy answers. and for those reasons, it's no wonder that our elected leaders have been unable to solve this problem for almost 100 years. this is nothing new. we've been working on this in this body for over 97 years. there will never be a shortage of reasons to put off the tough questions, to avoid the tough issues and kick the can down the road. there will never be a shortage of roadblocks and excuses. and over the last century, we've heard an awful lot of them. but we must not settle for that any longer. madam president, we must reject

the tide politics of the past and the tide politics of right now and the politics that i just heard from my distinguished colleagues across the aisle. it is now time to lead. it is time to say enough is enough, to stop shrugging off difficult problems and to meet them head on. it is time to fundamentally change the conversation. we've heard far too much about the political winners and losers in the health care debate and not enough about the real winners and losers in america's health care system. so let us refocus the terms of this discussion and keep the perspective where it should be on the ordinary americans who need our help. the ordinary americans who need health care coverage now.

because this isn't about electoral math. it's not about poll numbers or partisan talking points or cold statistics. it's about hard-working folk who are suffering and dying every single day under a system that is badly in need of repair. it is about the people whose lives and livelihoods are on the line. our success or failure at passing reform will have political consequences for some of the people in this chamber. but i believe those concerns are insignificant compared to the real consequences it will have for ordinary americans all across this country. so i call upon my colleagues in this senate and my friends in the media to focus our attention on what really matters. let's talk about what reform means to the real folk, not

politicians or special interests or even insurance lobbyists. this is bigger than politics, madam president. this is about addressing the national problem that has touched untold millions of lives over the past 100 years. as we debate this legislation today, there are 47 million people in this country without any health insurance coverage at all, another 41 people who lack stable coverage. and for every year that we fail to pass reform, another 45 million americans will die because they don't have health insurance and can't get access to the care they need. these are the people who are depending on us, folks in illinois and every other state in this union. these are the people who stand to benefit from our reform proposals and who continue to

suffer every single day that we fail to take action. for example, people like linda and her husband back in my home state of illinois. in 2008, they were paying $577 per month for health insurance under the cobra program. they each had a clean bill of health and had no reason to fear illness or injury. but when their cobra coverage ran out on the first day of 2009, their premiums jumped up to over $1,000 per month. they had no idea why the change was so drastic. they were perfectly healthy, yet their monthly bills had almost doubled. so to try to save money, linda and her husband switched to the individual insurance market and got a plan with a $5,000

deductible and a large co-pay. the switch was easy. they didn't even have to get a physical exam. and like many americans, they had every reason to believe that their coverage was secure. but when linda's husband got sick in october of 2009, he had a successful bypass surgery. an insurance provider approved the procedure ahead of time. but once the surgery was completed, the company simply changed its mind. even though linda and her husband had never been treated for previous heart problems, and even though he had not even been diagnosed with anything, bluecross blueshield suddenly decided that he had a preexisting condition, and they rescinded his policy.

his coverage ended on the spot, and he and his wife were left out in the cold. today they owe medical bills that added up to $208,000, with $89,000 about to go into collection. madam president, linda and her husband are just like millions of us in this country. they were perfectly healthy. they thought they had stable insurance. they paid for quality coverage, and then when they needed it most, their insurance company just walked away from it. that is absurd, madam president. that should not happen in the united states of america to anybody. i think linda, at best, when she said -- and i quote -- "they did nothing but take our money.

and now they're sticking us with the bill." end of quote. madam president, this is outrageous and it is totally unacceptable. yet, this is the reality faced by millions of americans every single day. insurance companies should no longer be allowed to pull this kind of bait and switch action on anybody. that's why we need to pass reform that will give people like linda the ability to hold insurance companies accountable so they can stop abusing their customers. that's why we need to restore robust competition to the market, so people can shop around if they don't think they're getting a fair deal with their insurance provider. that's why we need reform that will provide real cost savings so coverage is affordable to linda and her husband along with millions of others just like them. these are the people our

legislation is designed to help. so i think we've heard enough talk about the political winners and losers in the health care debate. we've heard enough about washington. because across america, the only real winners are the big insurance corporations who continue to rake in the cash, making record profits. you saw the reports given on their income for 2009. record profits for the insurance company with less coverage. the only real losers are the hard-working americans who can't afford coverage and can't get treatment. it is our duty to fight for these folks, madam president, and i would urge my colleagues to honor this sacred trust. the other day president obama gave a stirring speech that captured the spirit of this

fight. he called for bipartisan cooperation and urged regular americans to get angry and to get fired up and to say we aren't going to take it anymore, to get involved in this process so we can pass this bill, make reform a reality for linda and millions of others. colleagues, let us take president obama's speech as a wakeup call. let us listen to the will of the american people. we have moved this legislation further than any other congress in history. and we at this time, madam president, cannot let this legislation not become effective. it should become effective. and it will become effective. and we, madam president, must finish the job. thank you, and i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quoruquorum call:: ::quorum cal: quorum call:

mr. specter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. specter: madam president, i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: i have sought recognition to discuss an amendment that i intend to offer. the united states plays an important role in supporting our nation's maritime presence --

u.s. shipyards, that is, play an important role in supporting our nation's maritime presence by building and repairing our domestic fleet. the industry has significant impact on our national economy by adding billions of dollars to our annual output. commercial shipbuilding and the repair industry is a pillar of the american steelworker labor force, employing nearly 40,000 skilled workers. in the year 2000, the philadelphia shipyard was rebuilt on the site of the u.s. navy shipyard. the philadelphia navy shipyard was an historical institution in philadelphia, employed upwards of 40,000 during the height of

the war. at the time of its closing, employed about 12,000. we fought the case to retain the philadelphia navy shipyard all the way to the supreme court of the united states because the government on the brac commission concealed information from admirals that the yard ought to be kept open. but the case was too difficult and argued on the ground that there was an unconstitutional delegation of authority to the base closing commission, but the supreme court would have had to have overturned some 300 decisions to leave the philadelphia navy shipyard intact. since 1903, the acker philadelphia shipyard has employed some 12,000 highly-skilled professional workers. more than 50% of the large

commercial vessels produced in the united states. additionally, the shipyard contributes -- additionally, the shipyard contributes over $230 million annually to the philadelphia region, $5 million to $7 million per month in local purchases, $8.5 million in annual revenues to the city of philadelphia, and supports over 8,000 jobs throughout the region. today, the acker philadelphia shipyard is one of only two companies producing large commercial vessels in the united states and is a critical asset to the mick vitality -- to the economic vitality of the

region of the domestic shipbuilding. since the economic downturn, shipyards such as the acker philadelphia shipyard do not qualify for loan guarantees under existing programs at the department of transportation. without assistance, shipyards will be forced to begin reducing their highly-skilled work force. as the economy recovers, so will the need for ships and our domestic shipbuilding capacity. there will also be an additional need for ships, as almost $5 billion worth of double-skull construction and conversion work will need to take place by the year 2015 to meet the double-hull requirements under the oil pollution act of 1990. to address this dire situation facing our domestic shipbuilding industry, i am seeking the establishment of a loan guarantee program where the secretary of transportation can issue a loan guarantee for $165 million to qualifying

shipyards. because loan guarantees leverage funding, the program would require only $15 million to leverage the $165 million. the $15 million is offset by reprogramming previously appropriated funds so there's no additional spending associated with this program. the federal assistance would be short-term financing -- bridge financing to enable shipyards to remain in operation and meet the future anticipated demand for domestically produced ships. i ask unanimous consent, madam president, that the full text of my statement and a copy of the bill be printed in the "congressional record" at the -- at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: it is myen tondmene time is right. i know the distinguished majority leader is now arranging a schedule of pending amendments for votes. so i will not offer it at this

time but will seek to have all the relevant record included -- all the relevant information included in the record, as i have stated. i thank the chair and yield the floor. mr. dorgan: mad president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: madam president, the legislation on the floor of the senate is the f.a.a. rebill, and senator rockefeller is here, senator hutchison has been here and we are working now trying to find a way to move the legislation. it has attracted a lot of amendments that have nothing at all to do with the subject. it's as if some believe this is not urgent or important, and, of course, nothing could be further from the truth. there is an urgency to this legislation. i know it's not, perhaps, the highest-profile legislation in the congress these days, but we

have a requirement to reauthorize the activities of the federal aviation -- the f.a.a. and we have now failed to do that and instead had to extend their authorization 11 successive times. but because we extend it, we then don't improve the authorization and do the things that are necessary for improving airline safety, the things that are necessary to include the passenger bill of rights, which is in this bill, airport improvement funds, and particularly modernization of the air traffic control system. i mentioned yesterday the urgency of moving on what is called nexgen, that is, next-generation air traffic control. we now fly in this country to ground-based radar and we have all these airplanes in the sky and most of them have a transponder or something that puts a mark on a controller's screen somewhere in an air traffic control sector and it says this is where the april is.

well, it's technically right, at that nanosecond, that's where the airplane is. but instantly after that, the airplane is somewhere else. and in the next seven seconds or so, as the sweep of the airplane goes, that jet, it's long gone from that little spot. so because we don't know exactly where the airplane is -- webb ww about where the airplane is -- we have routes that are flown that are dress direct than they should be, we use more fuel than we should, we cost the passengers time, we pollute the air by keeping the airplane in the sky longer because we can't fly direct routes because we don't fly by g.p.s. our children can operate by g.p.s. with their cell phone but we can't fly or we don't now fly a system of g.p.s., way fly a system of ground-based radar for our navigation and that's been around forever. i mentioned yesterday the

circumstances of being able to control air traffic in this country when people began to learn how to fly and they started flying airplanes and figured out you could make money carrying the mail, they could only do that when the sun was up because they couldn't figure out how to fly at night. and so they started building bonn fires and then you'd fly to a bonfire. put a bonfire out there, a big old bonfire 50 miles away and fly to a bonfire and then land. and then they put up light stantions with the lights flying into the air so you could fly towards the light. and then we invented radar. and then we fly based on and guided by ground-based radar. but we're way beyond ground-based radar right now. that's what we still use but they don't drive a car out here with a ground-based radar. you drive a car with g.p.s. talk about all the people that are driving their vehicles using this little monitor. that's g.p.s. your kids have g.p.s. on their cell phones. but if you're on a 757 with 250 people behind the cockpit flying

from washington, d.c., to seattle, they're flying not by g.p.s., because they don't have the technology, they don't have the equipage in the planes in most cases, and they don't have the capability on the ground through the f.a.a. to digitize and to -- i shouldn't say digitize but to convert from ground-based radar to g.p.s. and something called next generation. modernization of the air traffic control system. if we pass this legislation, finally at long, long last we'll move in that direction aggressively. i've met with the europeans and others who are moving aggressively on next generation and we just -- we just keep extending 11 times the f.a.a. reauthorization bill. so we bring it to the floor to include safety, which i'll talk about in just a moment, it includes investment in the airport infrastructure in this country, which means jobs, putting people back to work, but we bring the bill to the floor at long last -- i think three years after it should have been done, but we couldn't do it because it gets extended -- and now we have amendments that have

nothing at all to do with this. earmark moratoriums, discretionary spending limits, school vouchers for washington, d.c., coastal impact programs for drilling. doesn't have the foggiest thing to do with the bill that's on the floor of the senate. which is why it's so hard to get things done. i've often said, you know, the difference between a glacier and the united states senate is at least you can see a glacier move from time to time. it is so hard to get things done and this is a demonstration of it right now. people come trotting to the floor of the united states senate, say, oh, we're working on aviation, safety. do you know why? why don't i offer an amendment on something that has nothing to do with it at all and then go back to my office. it's unbelievable to me. let me talk just for a moment about safety, because that also represents the urgency in this bill. i chaired the hearings, several of them now, on the tragic crash that occurred in buffalo, new york, one year ago.

it took 49 lives and the capta captain, the copilot, flight attendants, passengers, one person died on the ground. and this is a case where when you investigate it, as we have, a lot of things went wrong. we have a very safe system, very few accidents, but if you investigate what happened that night flying in to buffalo, new york, you understand that we're not far away from another accident unless we fix some of these things. here is a dash eight propeller airplane flying at night in icy conditions in the winter, about to land in buffalo, new york. here's what we've learned -- and i don't know whether it's just this case, just this cockpit, just this airplane, but i doubt it. what we learned is the captain of that airplane had not slept in a bed the two nights previous. the copilot of that airplane had not slept in a bed the night

before. two people in the cockpit that hadn't slept in a bed the night before the flight. why? well, the copilot flew from seattle, washington, all the way to laguardia in new york just to be at her duty station because that's where she went to work. so she flew all night long on a plane that stopped in memphis, tennessee, just to get to her duty station. this is a young woman that was making between $20,000 and and $23,000 a year salary. do we really think a young pilot making $20,000 or $23,000 -- which, by the way, raises another question about compensation, low compensation -- but do we really think that person, if that person travels all night is going to get a motel room someplace and have the money to pay for it? i don't think so. so two people in that cockpit flying at night in the winter with icing conditions. we now know that what are supposed to be sterile conditions in the cockpit, speaking only below 10,000 feet, only about what is happening with that airplane, that sterile condition in the cockpit was

violated repeatedly, talking about other things, careers and so on. we now know there was a training deficiency with respect to the issues of the stick pusher and the stick shaker which engaged when that icing became significant. we now know that the most wanted list of airline safety provisions and requirements from the -- from the safety board, the ntsb, national transportation safety board, they have had on their most wanted list several things that deal with fatigue, with icing that have been there for ten, 15 years. i mean, all of these things come together and raise questions about how do you fix this, how do you make sure this doesn't happen again? you know, people -- and i'm not suggesting that regional airlines are unsafe, although, you know, i think the evidence suggests that the most recent crashes, half a dozen or so,

have been regional carriers, and there are questions about the number of hours that is required to be able to sit in a right seat on a regional carrier. there are questions about whether the majors that hire our regional carriers to carry their passengers have some responsibility for that. i believe they should. but when someone gets on an airplane out here on a regional carrier, which carries 50% of the passengers in this country, when someone gets on the airplane, all they see is the fuselage and the marking that says united, continental, delta, usair. that's all they see, but that may not be the company that's transporting them. it may be a very different company, a regional airline company. and the question is does that trunk carrier whose brand exists on the fuselage of that regional carrier, have they required the same set of standards? is there one level of safety? that's the requirement, dating back to the mid 1990's.

one level of safety. when you step on an airplane, you should as a passenger have the opportunity to believe that in that cockpit, on that plane, with the training and so on, there is one level expected, one level of competence. i think this crash in buffalo raises serious questions about whether that really executives. -- really exists. i have a chart i want to show that describes a combination of a couple of issues. one is duty time. the other is fatigue. the third is commuting. i just want to show in this case with this tragedy what has occurred, because it requires us, it seems to me, to address this issue. if i could have the chart, i want to show a chart that shows colgan air pilots. and this could be a chart of virtually any airline, the major carriers or the regional carriers. but what it shows is where the

colgan pilots were commuting from in order to get to their work station here in laguardia, new york. colgan pilots living in seattle and portland and los angeles, san francisco, and commuting to work all the way across the country. it's not unusual. commuting has been going on for a long, long, long time, but the issue of commuting it seems to me is a reasonable issue for us to try to understand and try to do something about. it also relates to the issue of fatigue. do you really think that in that cockpit on that airplane, a pilot who hadn't slept in a bed for two nights and a copilot who hadn't slept in a bed the night previous was not fatigued? it seems to me pretty unlikely that that crew was not fatigued. we don't in this bill address the issue of commuting. we address other issues -- and there is, by the way, randy babbitt, the f.a.a. administrator, now has said to o.m.b. a rule-making on fatigue,

which i think is very important. but my point is this crash, this tragedy in buffalo, new york, a year ago raised so many questions. you can make the point that this is a very safe system. all of us in this chamber fly all the time, almost every weekend, and we get on airplanes believing that we're being transported safely. and i'm not trying to scare anybody to say that's not the case. i am saying this -- that you can decide to ignore some of the things we've discovered about the colgan crash, but we will do that at our risk, at the risk of reducing that margin of safety. here's what a pilot said to a "wall street journal" article on this subject. this is an 18-year veteran pilot describing the routine of commuter flights with short layovers in the middle of the night. he says -- "take a shower, brush your teeth, pretend you slept."

an important issueor those who fly airplanes,n important issue in terms of the question of are pilots fatigued. a pilot washes a movie on his computer at a crash house in sterling, virginia. houses up to 20-24 occupants designed to give flight crews from regional airlines a quiet place to sleep near their base of airports. many can't afford hotels. as i said, the copilot who was lost in this crash as well, the copilot made between $20,000 and and $23,000 a year. that was her salary. had a part-time job, i understand, working at a coffee shop. then get on an airplane in seattle, washington, to fly to laguardia airport to begin her workday because that's where her duty station was. and she flew all night long to do it. and the fact is crews that are making that amount of money, particularly those that are flying right seated in an airplane are not going to have the funding to go out and get a motel room.

my point is senator rockefeller and i and others have worked on this f.a.a. re-authorization bill to try to address a wide range of issues. this is just one, the issue of safety. one other point. the pilot of -- the captain of this plane had failed a number of different exams along the way to getting accredited, a number of different exams, but the airline that hired the pilot was not able to have the information to understand that. this legislation changes that. this airline has said had we known about the failure of those programs, this captain, this pilot would not have been hired by our company, but he was because the company didn't know. this legislation fixes it. you're going to hire a pilot, you know everything there is to know about the record of that pilot, the flying record of the pilot. so my point, listen, very simply is senator rockefeller and i, senator hutchison and others have brought this bill to the floor of the senate at long, long last, hoping that perhaps we can get a bill passed.

there is an urgency here with respect to safety and other things. i hope that senator rockefeller and i and others can expect some cooperation. it is very hard to get cooperation here on the floor of the senate, but if ever there is something we might decide to cooch rate on, how about making certain that there is that extra margin of safety in the skies by passing legislation that addresses, among other things, aviation safety? if we can do that, i think we will have given the american people some measure of confidencen this important subject. madam president, i yield the floor. i make a point -- i withhold the point. mr. mccain: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: did the chairman wish to speak? i would be glad to wait. madam president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, call up amendment numbered 3475. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. mccain: i understand that

that is the process right now, and i, however, will discuss the amendment. it's very simple and it would place a moratorium on all earmarks in years in which there is a deficit. i'm pleased to be joined in this effort by my good friend from indiana, senator bayh, and i thank him for his leadership and courage on this issue. i'm sure i don't need to remind my colleagues about our nation's fiscal situation, but let's review the facts anyway. just this morning, the treasury department announced that the government racked up a record high monthly budget deficit of of $220.9 billion last month. we now have a deficit of over over $1.4 trillion and a debt of over $12.5 trillion. i recently have seen a bumper sticker around arizona that says "please don't tell the president what comes after a trillion."

unemployment remains close to 10%, and according to forbes.com, a record 2.8 million american households were threatened with foreclosure last year, and that number is expected to rise well over three million homes this year. even with all of this, we continue to spend and spend and spend. every time we pass an appropriations bill with increased spending loaded up with earmarks, we're robbing future generations of their ability to attain the american dream, and i believe that that's immoral. that's why i have been pleased and somewhat surprised over the last several days to hear about the renewed bipartisan interests in banning earmarks. i'm thankful for the attention, and i welcome the democratic house leadership to the fight against earmarks. according to today's "washington post," i quote -- "facing an election year backlash overrunaway spending and ethics scandals, house democrats moved

wednesday to ban earmarks for private companies, sparking a war between the parties over which we would embrace the most dramatic steps to change the way business is done in washington." and i applaud the democrats in the other body for this step. it's a small step, but it's a step in the right direction. this house -- as house appropriations committee chairman obey pointed out, the fiscal year 2010 budget included more than a thousand earmarks for private companies, so the effect of the moratorium proposed by the other body would be a reduction of about a thousand earmarks. the problem with this is that there were over 9,000 earmarks loaded onto just one of the bills we passed last year. according to taxpayers for common sense, last year's earmarks funded by congress but not requested by the administration totaled

totaled $15.9 billion. so we spent $15.9 billion on earmarks while we are facing the highest national debt in history. additionally, according to today's report, since world war ii as a percent of gross national product. additionally, according to today's "congressional quarterly" and i quote -- "there are several significant catches to the house democrat earmark moratorium. they note if a program is not formally considered an earmark according to congressional rules, for instance, it could escape any ban. billions of dollars in spending for the defense industry could end up slipping through that caveat alone. analysts say -- and so why am i not surprised? thankfully, my friends, in the house republican caucus recognized the fact that the speaker's proposal did little to seriously address the problem so they upped the ante and voted

unanimously to impose an across the board earmark ban on their conference. i congratulate mr. boehner and especially congressman flake of arizona for taking this bold step. it was the right thing to do. unfortunately, the newfound zeal for attacking earmarks is not shared by their senate counterparts. according to today's "congressional quarterly" i quote -- "senate democrats signal that they would not follow suit, even as senior house republicans responded that all earmarks should be banned." and "congressional quarterly" also noted that it's not clear where majority leader harry reid stands. his office declined to comment on the house appropriations move, but the senate appropriators' opposition does not bode well for a prospect in that body. again, i'm not surprised.

"the washington post" article i cited earlier also noted that, and i quote -- "the latest earmark reform efforts follow a wave of investigations fowfg on house appropriators' actions. the justice department has looked into the earmarking activities of several lawmakers and relying on public documents the house ethics committee investigated five democrats and two republicans on the appropriations defense subcommittee, finding that the lawmakers steered more than than $245 million to clients of a lobbying firm under federal criminal investigation. the lawmakers collected more than $840,000 in political contributions from the firm's lobbyists and clients in a little more than two years. the battle over earmarks has been waged over many years. i have been engaged in it for 20 years.

and i am under no illusions that it will end anytime soon. i was encouraged in january 2007 when the senate passed by a vote of 96-2 an ethics and lobbying reform package which contained real, meaningful earmark reforms. i believe that at last we would finally enact some effective reforms. unfortunately, that victory was short-lived. in august 2007, some eight months later, we were presented with a bill containing very watered-down earmark provisions and doing far too little to rein in wasteful earmarks and pork-barrel spending. i find myself encouraged by what i've heard over the last several days, but i've been around here long enough to know not to get my hopes up. i don't look at this as being cynical, just practical. let's take a look at some of the things we've spent hundreds of

billions of taxpayers' dollars on over the last several years. $165,000 for maple syrup research in vermont, $150,000 for the polynesian voyaging society in honolulu, $250,000 for turtle observer funding, $500,000 for the belleview artss museum in washington, $2 million for the algae research in washington, $500,000, one of my all-time favorites -- comes back all the time -- $500,000 for the national wild turkey federation in nebraska, $799,000 for soybean research, $349,000 for pig waste management in north carolina, $819,000 for catfish

genome research in alabama, $250,000 for gypsy moth research in new jersey, $1 million for potato research at oregon state university, and the list goes -- $250,000 earmark for the iowa vitality center at iowa state university. the list goes on and on. and for over 20 years i've fought vigorously against the wasteful practice of earmarking. the fight has not been -- has been a lonely one and hasn't won any friends in this town over the years. it is an important fight, and i'm confident that in the end the opponents of this practice will be victorious. the corruption which stems from earmarking has resulted in current and former members of both the house and the senate

either under investigation, under indictment, or in prison. again, i was pleased to see that the speaker of the house and the chairman of the house appropriations committee have recognized earmarks for what they really are: a corrupting influence that should not be tolerated in these times of fiscal crisis or ever. i applaud my republican colleagues in the house and senate, especially senators coburn and demint, who have called for a year-long moratorium on all earmarks. i fully support and join them in those efforts. but i also think we need to do more. we need a complete ban on earmarks until our budget is balanced and we've eliminated our massive deficit. this amendment, if considered -- and i will make a point to $at one time or another -- will have a proposal to do just that. and i encourage my colleagues to

join me in that effort. it is what the american people want and we have an obligation to give it to them. we owe it to the american people to conduct ourselves in a way that reinforces rather than diminishes the public's faith and confidence in congress. an informed citizenry is essential to a thriving democracy, and a democratic government operates best in the disinfecting light of the public eye. by seriously addressing the corrupting influence of earmarks, we will allow members to legislate with the imperative that our government must be free from corrupting influences both real and perceived. we must act now to ensure that the erosion we see today in the public's confidence in congress does not become a complete collapse of faith in our institutions. we can and we must end the practice of earmarking. now, i have traveled around the country and all around my home state of arizona.

i have seen the tea party participants. i have met citizens of my state who have never, ever been involved in the political process before. they are angry, and they are frustrated, and they want change. they want the change that was promised to them last november, which they haven't gotten. they want us to act as careful stewards of their tax dollars. just the other night my colleague from arizona and i, senator kyl, were on a teleconference call to the citizens of our state, and many thousands of they will were on the call, and we responded to their questions and a guy on the phone said -- he was from thatcher, arizona, and he said, i've never been involved nor cared much about politics before, but, he said -- quote -- "you have gotten me off the couch." you've gotten me off the couch.

we've gotten lots of people off the couch because they're saying, enough. they're saying, enough of a $1.4 trillion debt this year and a n increase in that debt for next year of some $1.5 trillion. accumulated debt of the $12.5 trillion. they believe that we've spent too much and taxed too much. so i hope that we can send a message by completely banning earmarks and go through the appropriate process for funding of sometimes much-needed projects. that is the authorization and then appropriation route. many people believe -- and i am saying -- those of us who oppose earmarks -- that we are against

any projects for anyone's state or much-needed help. that's not the case. what we're saying is that we want any project and expenditure of taxpayers' dollars authorized and then appropriated. that way, by authorizing, the authorizing committees can compare all the virtues or the necessities of every project and match them up against one another. rather than an appropriation being added in the middle of the night that is directly related to a position on the appropriations committee or a position of influence rather than merit. we can't afford to continue that practice, which has led to the anger, sin tism of the american people -- cynicism of the american people and also has led 0 over time to investigation -- sometimes indictment and even incarceration -- of members of congress in federal prison. so i urge my colleagues to now

stand up and do the right thing, and that is to ban the earmarks at least until we can tell the american people we have eliminated this debt that we've laid on our children and our grandchildren. could i say to the chairman of the committee -- i say to the distinguished chairman that i did have an amendment on bicycle storage facilities and one other that perhaps at the appropriate time that the chairman will see. i will be glad to brief him and his staff -- and it would be appropriately in order. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. rockefeller: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: i disuct that the order of the quorum call -- i ask unanims coenthat the order of the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. rockefeller: madam president, one of the primary emphasis that i've put into this

federal aviation bill over the last number of years is modernizing our air traffic control system, and i've heard myself talk about it so much that i'm tired of listening to myself, but, on the other hand, i'm not sure that other people have heard it enough. it's so important. one way of explaining it is that most cars use more sophisticated global positioning systems than do our air carriers, our -- you know, our legacy airlines. that's kind of pathetic, and it has to end. the only way you can do that is by modernizing the air traffic control system. it's doable. there is he a money in the bill to -- there's money in the bill to do it on an annual basis. it should be completed by the year 2025. in fact, it's already begun in

one of the gulf states. its completed and they're using it. mongolia is using it, and we just -- we think it's not too much to ask to catch up to mongolia in air traffic control. we have a very safe air system, but it's not safe enough. by that, i mean that we move 30,000 flights a day in america. more than half of all the air traffic in the world is american. and nearly 700 million people per year use our airplanes. so that how you position airplanes and how you guide them and how they know where they are and where they're going and how they can most quickly and safely get there is really very important. the if a's recent forecasts say that there will be -- the f.a.a.'s recent forecasts say that there will be probably a 50% increase in the foreseeable

future. that'll be over -- well over a billion passengers per year. but we're already stretched too thin on the air traffic control system which we have, which is antiquaitd, and which is -- antiquated, and which isn't known by any other country in the world. nextgen will help clean up our air because airplanes will be able to go from one place to another because they'll be able to see what the weather patterns are, where the other planes are that'll help the air traffic controllers on the ground positioning them. airplanes will be able to fly more closely in each other's tail, so to speak, altitude. in all ways, it'll be much more efficient, much more manageable, all in real-time.

we don't it with our automobiles. and we ought to be able to do it -- and there will be much -- it is a very good environmental thing, which to the senator from new hampshire may sound like a reasonable prospect. because if you -- you know, jet fuel is not inexpensive, and it's not carbon-free. and this will use a lot less carbon emissions, and it'll also lower another kind of emission, which is noise emissions, which affect people -- not in this city but everywhere. most importantly, nextgen will dramatically improve safety, and that's the whole point. it'll provide pilots and air traffic controllers with better situational awareness. that's what we do for our troops. it's what we do for ourselves. and we need to do it for our airplanes. if you can see weather maps in

realtime and you just know that airplanes are going this way understand that to avoid what they visually -- and that to avoid what they visually see in the way of clouds or rain or whatever. but if they can get it in rea realtime g.p.s., then they can cut right through and go from point to point much more quickly. so our bill takes a lot of steps right away to do that. we'll be spending $500 billion a year -- that's in the bill -- on this. we expect it to be finished by 2025. it seems like a long time. we're not going to pay all of it. we're going to ask the airlines to pay equipage, which is their electronic response to what is on the ground, which is what we will pay for. and obviously every airplane will have to have that. they will want to do that. they will -- they won't like paying for it, but they won't like not having it when

everybody else does. the bill takes further steps to make certain about nextgen. this is one of those things that doesn't sound very good. but if it's done properly, it'll be very good. we create an air traffic control modernization oversight board within the f.a.a. and they will be active. we establish a nextgen officer at the f.a.a. that's a person and a group. they'll be responsible simply for seeing the progress is on schedule, pushing people that have to be pushed. and we will include representatives of federal employees in these all planning the nextgen projects. it's appropriate that you include people who fly airplanes, in other words, in this. so we need to begin implementing this technology now, and we need to get to the day when we can now that we're as safe as we are

in our car. actually, i'm not sure that's a very encouraging statement, but it's dangerous up there, and we take a lot of chances. i've been in an airplane that was struck by lightning, a single-engine airplane with one pilot. did a lot of praying, and here i am. and the subject of safety, madam president, that is -- senator dorgan was talking about that. you know, the grieving families from flight 3407, that accident in buffalo, new york, they are never to be forgotten, and we can never allow a tragedy like that to happen again. and that's the problem when you have commuter airlines. 50% of all of our air traffic is now commuter airlines. as i'm sure the senator, the presiding officer understands, in west virginia and new hampshire, we don't get -- you

get a lot more than we do, madam president, major jet flights. we don't get those very much, so we do with the propellers, and i squeeze my 6' 7" frame as best i can usually next to the exit door because there is more room there. that accident in new york was unavoidable. it didn't have to happen and should never happen again. we have an important opportunity to make serious changes, and we need to make sure those changes put safety first. safety is always the number-one consideration. so, a few ideas: our bill includes measures to strengthen the nation's aviation safety system. it takes great strides to promote something called one level of safety. as i stand here today speaking to the presiding officer, i can't believe that one level of safety is going to be achieved within six months, but that is the objective of the bill that. nobody gets to be more safe than

somebody else. when the senator from north dakota was talking about -- and this is, i think, the airline pilot folks, that they pay their senior people a great deal. but if you pay somebody who did not land in buffalo, new york, in that tragic flight, he was being paid between $20,000 and $25,000. in your state, madam president -- neither your state, madam president, nor mine pays teachers that little. it's shocking, absolutely shocking, that an airline pilot would be subject to such wages and therefore can't stay in a motel overnight, and, therefore, may go one or two nights without sleep and then fly a plane. you can't do that. you can't allow that. that's why we ought to get to this bill and we ought to pass this bill instead of waiting year after year and postponing it 11 times as we have by

extending the authorization. so, in recent years we actually have seen the safest period in aviation history, even with the busiest system in the world. our air traffic controllers oversee more than 30,000 flights a day. i think it's closer to 36,000 flights a day, and again 800 million people each year. but there are ways that we can do better. our passengers in the dedicated airline workforce deserve better. as chairman of the commerce committee and as former chairman of the aviation subcommittee, for more than ten years -- i've been into this a lot -- i appreciate the work that senator dorgan, who is now chairman of the aviation subcommittee, has done to continue this focus on safety using flight 3407 that crashed in buffalo as his sort of emotional touchpoint, but simply driving and driving and

driving. we've had actually eight safety hearings in the committee since that time, since that accident. and you can say, well, so what. but that's what galvanizes us. that's what allows us to put together a better safety section in this bill, which in fact we've done. so in the bill, we strengthen greatly the training and certification of commercial aviation pilots. two vague words but two very sharp meanings in those words. our bill requires the f.a.a. to reevaluate pilot training and qualifications and issue a new rule to make certain flight crew members have the proper skills and experience. and they either do or they don't. there's less questions. they have to be evaluated. and if they don't make it, they're out. i don't know what the union will say about that, but that's what we have to do. if the f.a.a. fails to do this and do is by the end of 2011, then all air carrier pilots must

have at least 1,500 flight hours. and now it would be more at the 800 level. but, in other words, that's a jolt. that's a real stick which we're holding out there in this bill to make them better in their certification and the rest of it. we fox a lot on -- we focus a lot on pilot fatigue. that's a human phenomenon, but it's a dangerous one if you're flying an airplane. it requires the f.a.a. to revise the flight and duty time regulations for commercial airline pilots and issue the final rule within one year. no, that's not tomorrow. but within one year, they will have a schedule that will hopefully stop this kind of thing where pilots fly in from san francisco, don't get any sleep, have to sleep in a little bunkhouse. and so otherwise we also require some other key changes. we require an electronic data

base that the f.a.a. must develop and that carriers must consult to obtain a full picture of a pilot's experience and skills before giving them such enormous responsibility. they have to pass that data base examination. the f.a.a. will also require air carriers to implement a formal remedial training program for underperforming pilots. the underperforming is a hard thing to evaluate but it's doable. the remedial training is not hard to do. that's just time in simulated cockpits or real cockpit situations. so, in conclusion, i just want to say that we all must understand the reality that we're living with here, that our utmost priority is always safety. but that's easier said than accomplished. the national transportation safety board, which the ranking member of the commerce committee, kay bailey hutchison of texas, i say chair and she

says was acting, but chaired, they recently determined pilot error was the primary cause of that flight in buffalo, flight 3407. to put it even more clearly, this tragedy simply did not have to happen and could have been avoided. and by passing this bill, we can do more to make sure we don't repeat that kind of history. safety is always important. i don't know of anyplace that it's more important than in the skies. i thank the presiding officer. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. rockefeller: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the sessions amendment 3453 -- the senate is in a quorum call. mr. rockefeller: i ask unanimous consent the order of the quorum call be rescinded, and apologize. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: i ask unanimous consent that the sessions amendment which is 3453

be modified with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: