>> thank you so much, mr. vice president. appreciate that. what? ..

>> you know, i think would have a lot less party crushes it went someone's credentials did not check out our little as they there to scream, get out of here. but, of course, that's just me. it's great to see the fox news team here. i'm thrilled. practically bursting at the seams. i, too, could have been a fox news reporter. i mean, i do have the legs for it. [applause] >> if that joke offended anyone, don't worry, i will invite you to a beer summon. everything will be okay. just the other day joe biden invited me to his saint patrick's day after party. i told him i'm not irish. he says, well, sure you are. he still convinced my name is oh oh posta the obama.

he says to me there's plenty of irish african-americans. i said like to? he goes hiking all a lie shawon. shaquille o'neal. i said joe, i'm not sure about those. do you have any better examples? he says sure, opera. [laughter] >> now i must admit the tea party has become a real phenomenon. they are worked up from what i hear. they are angry. they're all energizing stuff. hats they should switch to decaf. and if they slow down just a little bit maybe they might want to run it you spell checks on those posters. now i'm sure that we can get a few republicans to back to health care bill. republicans like lindsey graham, or brett, dick lugar. i just have to let them know that it will cover the rogaine, geritol and slim fast. [laughter]

>> as far as foreign affairs, i still say we must be firm with the iranians. however, we must keep open dialogue. so that's what i'm going to make a trip myself to beverly hills. and lastly, in closing, i must say this on a serious note. i know that the choices we have ahead of us are tough, and not everyone agrees with my choices. however, i promise you that by the end of my term, america will be able to stand up together, for the first time, and agree that once you go black you don't go back. thank you all very much. god bless you, and god bless america. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen.

our headliner tonight is a self-titled all-american immigrant. joe wong has come a long way from a rosy eyed new immigrant to one of the hottest properties in the world of comedy. he's appeared several times on both david letterman and the ellen degenerate shows. and since 2001, has been a boston favorite among comedians and audiences alike. ladies and gentlemen, i give you joe wong. [applause] >> good evening, everyone. my name is joe wong. but to most people i am known as who? [laughter] >> which is actually my mother's maiden name.

[laughter] >> and the answer to my credit car security question. [laughter] >> but joking aside i just want to reassure everybody that i am invited here tonight. [laughter] >> i grew up in china, who didn't. [laughter] >> my childhood memories are totally ruined by my childhood. [laughter] >> when i was in elementary school, as part of the curriculum i had to work at a rice paddy right next to a quarry where they use explosives to break rocks. and that is where i learned that

light travels faster than sound. [laughter] >> which is almost as low as a flying rock. going occasionally i would cheer up with jokes. but he doesn't do it right. when i was 71 day he says to me, hey, son, why is tofu better than centralized economy? [laughter] >> so five minutes later i said, why? [laughter] >> he said because i said so. i came to the united states when i was 24 to study at rice university in texas. [applause]

>> that wasn't a joke. [laughter] >> until now. and i was driving in the car with a lot of bumper stickers that were impossible to deal all. one of them said, if you don't speak english, go home. and i didn't notice for two years -- [laughter] >> and like many other immigrants, they wanted their son to become president of this country, and we are trying make equal now. chinese at home and english in the public. which is really tough to do, because many times i have to say to him in public, listen, if you don't speak english, go home. [laughter]

>> and he would say to me, hey, dad, why do i have to learn two languages? i said, son, why does it become the president of the united states and you're going to have to side legislative bills in english and talk to debt collectors in chinese. [laughter] >> when i graduated from rice, i decided to stay in the united states because in china, i can do the thing i do best year. being ethnic. [laughter] >> and in order for me to become a u.s. citizen, i had to take these american history lessons where they ask us questions like, who was benjamin franklin? we're like, oh, the reason our

convenience store gets robbed. [laughter] >> what's the second amendment? we're like, oh, the reason our convenience store gets robbed. [laughter] >> what is rove v. wade? we're like all, to ways to come into the united states? [laughter] >> later on, i've read so much about american history that i started to harbor.

in america they say that all men are created equal, but after birth, it kind of depends on the parents income for early education and health care. [applause] >> i read in the men's health magazine that president obama every week has to cardio days. you see, i don't have to exercise because i have health insurance. [laughter] >> i live in massachusetts now, where we have universal health care. been reelected scott brown. talk about mixed messages. [laughter] >> i think there was a movie about him, it's called kill bill. [laughter]

>> i'm honored to meet vice president joe biden here tonight. i actually read your autobiography. and today i see you. i think the book is much better. [laughter] >> they should have cast brad pitt or even angelina jolie. [laughter] >> so to be honest, i was really honored to be here tonight, and prepared for months for tonight's show, and i showed the white house my jokes about president obama. and that is when he decided not to come. [laughter] >> and he started to talk about immigration reforms. [laughter] >> take that, stephen colbert.

and president obama has always been accused of being too soft. but he was conducting two wars and still gave him the nobel peace prize. and he accepted it. [laughter] >> you can't be more bad than that. [laughter] >> well, actually, i'm thinking the only way you can be more bad than that is if you take the nobel peace prize and give it to the military. [laughter] >> we have many distinguished journalists here tonight, whom i consider as my peers. [laughter] >> because i use campus

newspaper. i think journalism is a last refuge for puns. only on the newspaper can you say things like, i was born in the year of the horse. and that is one i'm in a easier. my point exactly. and tonight is my first time on c-span, which is the channel i always watch. when i couldn't stand the sensationalism and demagoguery of pbs or qvc. [laughter] >> if i still couldn't fall asleep after watching c-span, there's c-span2 and c-span3.

[laughter] [applause] >> thank you very much. so i became a u.s. citizen in 2008, which i'm really happy about. [applause] >> thank you very much. america is number one. that's true. because we won the world series every year. [laughter] >> after become the u.s. citizen and i immediately registered to vote for obama and biden. you're welcome. [laughter] >> you had me at yes, we can. [laughter] >> that was their slogan.

[laughter] >> so after getting obama-biden elected, i felt this empowerment. and i started to think maybe i should run for president myself. meanwhile, had to take a step back and explain a little bit, because i have always been a rose and pessimistic hi. i felt that life is kind of like p. into the snow in a dark winter night. you probably made a difference, that it's really hard to tell. [laughter] >> but now we have a president who is half black, half white. it just give me a lot of hope because i'm half out black, half out white. [laughter] >> two negatives make a

positive. you may be say, hey, what would be your campaign slogan. you see, i spent 10 years in the past decade -- [laughter] -- you, to? okay. so i understand that american people are suffering, so my campaign slogan will be who cares? [laughter] >> if elected, i will make same-sex marriage not only legal but required. [laughter] >> that will get me the youth vote. you see, i am married now but i used to be really scared about marriage. i was like, wow, 50 percent of

all marriages end up lasting forever. [laughter] [applause] >> and i will eliminate unemployment in this country by reducing the productivity of the american workforce. so two people have to do the work of one. just like the president and the vice president. [laughter] >> or the olsen twins. [laughter] >> and despite heart disease and cancer, most americans die of natural causes. so if elected, i will find a cure for natural causes. [laughter] >> you seem to like that one.

but it won't be covered by health insurance though. [laughter] >> because other preexisting conditions. [laughter] >> and i have a quick solution for global warming. i will switch from fahrenheit to celsius. [laughter] >> it was 100 degrees, now it's 40. [laughter] >> you are very welcome. and i am great with foreign policy, because i am from china, and i can see russia from my backyard. [applause] >> i believe that unilateralism is too expensive, and open dialogue is too slow. so if elected, i will go with

text messaging. [laughter] >> i will text our allies just to say hi. [laughter] >> and text our enemies when they are driving. [laughter] >> omg, you are building a nuclear weapon? [laughter] >> but you're doing it wrong, lol. i just wanted to thank radio and television correspondents dinner for having me here tonight, and this is the first time i wish my son, knew what i was doing. thank you very much and have a great night. [applause]

>> joe wong. [applause] >> thank you so much, joe. thank you, mr. vice president, for being with us this evening. please remain seated while the vice president departs the building. [laughter] >> oh, you're not leaving? >> i am now. >> know, set. whatever. [applause] >> tonight's program was made possible by the generous support of our silver sponsored neustar, a company who brings the worlds technologies together, connecting people anytime,

anywhere, on any device. i thank them for their help in making this event possible. our dinner would also not be possible without the tireless efforts of a dedicated dinner team. this evening is the culmination of their phenomenal work. so on behalf of the executive committee, i want to applaud the planner for her commitment to our association by making tonight a reality. [applause] spent a special thank you to washington convention center, and occasions cater for their gracious hospitality. also, to dcm proms alison jeffery for her work navigating the world of hollywood entertainment, i hope you have enjoyed the outstanding big band sounds tonight of the right touch, who will continue to play for a while after dinner. [applause] >> i'm winging it now.

sincere thank you to all my friends and family for their support this past year, to my mom, virginia, who gave me all the tools. my beloved sisters, we've and been a, my cousins were here tonight, david, maryland, barbara, my niece and her husband, brett and others. a special hello to my friends, best on your technician in the world. higher her. to jim, his lovely wife, roberta, and my also friends back from japan here from scotland, members of the group average white band, thank you guys for all the here. before we end up, you can get tickets while you still can. and last but not least, a special thank you to one of my

personal heroes, jim lehrer. and my pbs family who always are in my corner. [applause] >> get those pledges in, folks. most of all, as i conclude my term as chairman, i want to thank you, our members, for the opportunity to advocate and work on your behalf. it has been truly an experience i will never forget. now, i'd like to turn the gavel over to my dear friend and colleague and the person who will serve as your chairman next year, slim man, peter slen of c-span. [applause] >> will now the c-span deal ever has 160,002 h worth of video online. let's consider this dinner deme

and past. thank you all very much. we will see you next year. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ >> vice president biden mainly with the crowd at last night's radio and television correspondents dinner here in washington. house and senate democrats are meeting at this hour in the house chamber. they went into the chamber about

45 minutes ago. a look at the house and senate leader mitch mcconnell and john boehner making their way down statutory hall. >> again house republicans, senate republicans making their way to the house chamber for a bicameral meeting, republicans in the house chamber. the ap is a point is where that house democrats have released details of the health care bill that they say caused $940 billion over 10 years. that's on the associate press. we will update that as we get more information. and the u.s. senate gavel in and momentarily. members will open the day with an hour of general speeches before returning to work on a bill that extends faa programs. legislation modernizes that era traffic control system and raise the aviation fuel tax rate.

we expect debate and votes on amendments throughout the day including to roll call votes starting at 2 p.m. eastern. transportation chairman jay rockefeller has expressed hope the chamber can finish the measure before the end of the we. the u.s. house comes in and about 30 minutes. that's on c-span. now live to the senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. god of peace, author and

finisher of our faith, you hung the stars in their place and put the pan et cetera in their -- planets in their orbit. inspire our senators to commit this day and their lives into your gracious care. give them vision to design their duties and the strength, oath of heart and resolve to discharge them. may they rededicate themselves to serving those in need. obeying your command to labor for the least and the lost in

our world. lord, enable our lawmakers to be a credit and not a debit in the ledger of your providential purposes. we pray in your sovereign name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, marh 18, 2010, to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1,

paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform te duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following morning -- senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each. the republicans will control the first 30 minutes, the majority will control the second 30 minutes. following that morning business the senate will resume consideration of the f.a.a. bill. and debate concurrently until 11:30 with the mccaskill amendment and the pryor amendment with the time equally divided between senate and pryor or their designees. additional roll call votes in relation to f.a.a. amendments are expected throughout the day. announce morning business please. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserve.

under the previous order there will be a period of morning business for one hour with republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half.

are you leaving? >> no,

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mr. gregg: i'd ask unanimous consent that the republican time be extended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gregg: i rise to discuss one of the issues which is going to have a huge impact on how this health care issue is resolved or not resolved, and that is the question of what reconciliation is and what it

implies relative to the legislative process. reconciliation is an arcane term. it's a term that is tied and created by -- tied to and created by the budget act, which we function under here in the congress. it's ironic that it would become the central effort, the use of reconciliation would become the central effort in buying votes in the house of representatives in order to pass the big, the giant health care bill, known as the senate health care bill, which bill, as we all know, expands the size of government by $2.3 trillion. and in fact, we understand now there's a new score from c.b.o. which is going to raise that number even further when it's accurately reflected. and takes the government and puts it into basically the business of delivering health care in this country in a way that's extraordinarily intrusive and will cost a lot of people who are on private insurance the insurance which they have, which

they probably feel they are fairly comfortable with although it may be very expensive. in addition still leaves 23 million americans uninsured while claiming it does a better job of insuring americans when in fact what it does is crat massive debt, skphroedz the size of government -- explodes the side of government and in my opinion will lead to a dimunition of care in this country. the way this big bill, which i outlined in the thumbnail process, is going to be passed in the house of representatives is to have a trailer bill called the reconciliation bill which is an art form developed around here relative to the budget process, supposed to be used for very specific efforts, certainly not for the purpose of buying votes for the liberal constituents within the house in order to pass the bigger bill. that bill needs to be discussed in order to understand what its implications are. a number of us have come to the

floor today to try to explain what the reconciliation bill is and how it has historically been used, but what the implications are relative to some of the things in the bigger senate bill, in the giant bill, the the giant spending bill, what the implications of the reconciliation, changes in the reconciliation trailer bill will be on the bigger senate bill and what the representations being made are and whether they're accurate or not. specifically, let's take what issue here, and this is what is known as the cadillac tax. the cadillac tax -- the tax on cadillac policies, is the appropriate way to describe this, is a proposal which was in the senate bill to basically eliminate the deductibility for insurance policies, health insurance policies that succeeded a certain -- exceeded

a certain level of cost, $27 thousand i believe was the number. to the extent an insurance policy paid for by an employer exceeds that number in cost, the excess amount -- let's say it costs $32,000 for your employer to have an insurance policy for you. that sounds like a lot of money, but there are a number, especially union programs, that cost that much. to the extent the difference between the $27 thousand and the $30,000 is paid for by your employer, that amount will no longer be deductible by the employer as an expense. it will actually be -- it's done in a more complex way, but that's the way it basically works out. and the effect of that is fairly significant on what's known as the social security trust fund, because it actually creates a situation where there will be more taxable wages which will mean that the social security trust fund will be getting more tax revenue. this brings into play the question of whether or not you can even bring forward language

of this type which affects the social security trust fund through the cadillac, through the taxing cadillac policies in a reconciliation bill. and i think this needs to be discussed because a very important issue as to whether or not the house members are being told correctly how this will be dealt with here in the senate. and i know my colleagues want to speak to this issue. a senator: let me ask my colleague from new hampshire, if i might, because it seems to me, at least, as you describe this reconciliation trailer bill that the house will use first to try and fix the elements of the senate bill that they don't like and then that reconciliation bill would come back to the senate. mr. thune: i would ask the senator is it not true that the house and senate have already passed their health care bills? why then is this second vehicle, this reconciliation bill necessary? it seems to me at least that the house, if they're going to vote on the senate-passed bill, that would put into law most of the

provisions that are included in that bill. so why is the second process necessary, i would ask my colleague from new hampshire? mr. gregg: well, it appears that the house member, the democratic membership is, first, afraid to vote on the bill. they're actually going to deem this, it appears, versus vote on it, which is an incredible academy of -- incredible act of political cowardice. they don't want to go to conference. when you have two different bills, you take them to conference, you meet and you discuss that bill and then you come out with a final bill. why don't they want to do that? because they know they can't pass the final bill here in the senate. to try to get around that, they created this different policy of using reconciliation as a trailer bill so that they'll just send back the reconciliation bill to be voted on here, not on the big bill, the $2.5 trillion bill. and, thus. not only will they avoid a vote in the senate, in the house on

the big bill, they'll avoid having to go to conference and basically bypass the constitutional process in this manner. a senator: if the senator will yield for a question? mr. cornyn: i've heard this process whereby the house is going to deem the senate bill passed and then pass a reconciliation bill which will then be sent over here to the senate. as speaker pelosi asking members of the house to hold hands and jump off a political cliff, hoping the senate will catch them by passing the reconciliation bill unaltered or just in the same form as it passed the house. but isn't it true that the complications arise in section 313 of the congressional budget act because of the byrd rule? we've heard a lot of talk about the byrd rule, what points of order might be appropriate here in the senate. and i wonder if the senator -- you touched on this a moment ago. but explain why, with 41

senators agreeing to sustain all points of order in the senate, how many different holes can be punched in the reconciliation bill passed by the house when points of order are sustained? you mentioned the cadillac tax that i note that the president of afl-cio was visiting with president obama at the white house on wednesday seeking further reassurances that the deferral of the cadillac tax on the cadillac plans would be deferred. presumably, that would be part of the reconciliation bill. can you explain what kind of jeopardy the byrd rule and points of order call into play that would make it unlikely that the president's promise to defer the tax on union tad lack plans -- cadillac plans could possibly pass the senate. mr. gregg: in order to buy votes, as i understand it, in the house -- and this is basically a vote-buying exercise, the reconciliation

bill. in order to buy votes, they're going to put changes to the senate bill in the reconciliation bill. and then send the reconciliation bill back here to be voted on on the theory it only takes 51 votes to pass it. the only problem with that approach is that a reconciliation bill is part of the budget process and has very strict limitations on what can be in it. so much of what they're talking about putting in the reconciliation bill may well be knocked out here in the senate. for example, you mentioned the cadillac tax. if in any way the cadillac tax language, cadillac policy tax language impacts social security, it will be subject to a point of order. in fact, it will be subject to two points of order here in the senate. and it will take 60 votes to overwhelm that point of order. and, therefore, since the 41 members of the republican party have signed a letter saying we're going to sustain the rules of the senate, we're going to stand by the laws of the -- that govern the senate procedures here, those, that language will

be knocked out. so what is being represented to house democrats as a way to get their vote, to vote for the big bill, which is to change the language relative to the cadillac policy tax in the smaller bill, the reconciliation bill, that probably won't survive the process and will probably be knocked out on a procedural move, procedural challenge here in the senate floor because it is inconsistent with the senate rules. mr. cornyn: if i could clarify the point that you you made and turn to the senator from south dakota. the points of order we're talking about, is it true that under section 3013-bf, that provision, that specific provision could drop out of the bill, but under a separate point of order, under 3010-g of the congressional budget office, it could literally bring down the entire bill. is that a correct reading of the congressional budget office?

mr. gregg: the senator from texas understands the rules very well, a 310-g challenge, is a challenge that says it affects social security. the language affects social security if -- if the cadillac policy tax impacts the social security trust fund, which, in my opinion does, and the parliamentarian rules, it does, then the entire bill will fall. a senator: if i might explore that with the senator from new hampshire and followup with a question that the senator from texas asked: is it correct -- as i understand this -- the cadillac tax provisions that were in the senate bill, that bill's now over in the house is going to be voted on, but because of the changes that had been proposed to now, which would delay the implementation of the cadillac tax and the cadillac tax, as the senator from new hampshire explained would -- it would cap the amount of health care benefits that

would be tax free, essentially, so above and beyond that would become taxable. there is an assumption made there would be a shift of health care benefits by employers to cash compensation, which would be taxable and generate more payroll tax revenues, that was the senate bill as it passed here. now the bill -- the additions or the modifications being considered in the house would delay the implementation date. therefore, there's a lot of payroll tax revenue that would be coming in under social security that will no longer be realized or at least not be realized until the year 2018, which affects amount of revenue that would be coming in under the senate-passed bill if these changes ray doptd. as -- are adopted. as i understand what the senator from new hatch shy is saying, that impacts the social security revenues. any changes that are made to social security create a violation of the -- of the reconciliation process, the byrd

rule, as the senator from texas referred to, in the senate and, therefore, a point of order would lie against that reconciliation bill when it comes back over here. majority, i assume, would move to waive that point of order. what happens if that point of order is not paved? if the majority is not -- waived. if the majority is not successful in having that point of order waived, what happens to that reconciliation bill that at that time would be under consideration in the senate? mr. gregg: there are two points of order available. one is the byrd point of order. if that is not waived, that section would go out of the bill. so people who are interested in that section, who use that section as a reason for justifying for the bigger bill, that section would not survive. so they would have been sold a bill of goods. the second point of order would take down the whole bill and lose its reconciliation protections which would mean that the bill would require 60 votes to pass here and i can

absolutely guarantee you it would not get 60 votes to pass. that bill would be dead, the entire reconciliation bill. again, people relying on the reconciliation bill in the house of representatives, house members on the democratic side who are being told, well, we'll fix it in reconciliation, may well be being sold a bill of goods if it's determined that some of these reconciliation language affects social security. because it's very likely that the entire bill will go down here in the senate because it will violate our senate rules. corn con may i follow -- mr. cornyn: may i followup with the senator from new hampshire. by being sold a bill of goods, are you suggesting that the leadership in the house, speaker pelosi, are guaranteeing that the reconciliation bill will pass the senate intact and they'll have political cover from their constituents who don't like this bill, but they will be able to shape and affect the final outcome?

are you suggesting because of the 41 senators who have said we will vote against waiving any budget points of order, that there will either be holes punched in that reconciliation bill that will make it impossible for the speaker to keep her promise to her house members ultimately or that it will bring down the bill entirely? is that what the senator's saying when you talk about -- selling them a bill of goods? mr. gregg: well, essentially, what i'm saying, and the senator from texas has certainly put it in context here, is that the only reason they could possibly be using this vehicle, this reconciliation vehicle, this extraordinary process, is because they're using it to get people to vote for a bill -- for a bigger bill they don't like. and they're claiming that this bigger bill will be improved by the reconciliation vehicle. it's pretty obvious that the reconciliation vehicle when it comes over here is going to be punched through and through with

holes because it will violate the rules of the senate on issues like this. mr. cornyn: is it particularly true of the promise that the president made to union leadership to defer the application of the cadillac tax on cadillac -- the excise tax on cadillac health insurance plans, that promise, like the promise to televise the negotiations to pass the bill on c-span, the promise that if you have a policy that you like, you can keep it, the promise that it would not raise taxes, and the like, that would be another promise that would not be kept and a promise that would be broken. mr. gregg: that would be like the check's in the mail type promise. you know. i would take it with a serious grain of salt. mr. thune: is it possible, i would say to both of my colleagues, if this process that the house is using, and, this, by the way, deeming the bill

passed seems to be a very curious way to try to pass legislation of this consequence that literally impacts one-sixth of our economy and literally impacts every american in a very personal way, that somehow they want to divorce themselves from 8 account ability or -- from accountability for voting for this in the house, therefore they're going to use a deeming provision that would essentially pass the bill without having a recorded vote on it which is incredibly ironic for a legislative body that is supposed to be about debating and voting on legislation. let's suppose this happens, they pass the senate bill and attach a senate reconciliation vehicle which both of you have referred to and it it comes over here and these points of order that have been raised against the bill which the senator from texas, the senator from new hampshire, have both referred to, there is the byrd point of orders, the section g-10, if that point of

order is raised and the chair sustains, i guess, i would say, or essentially validates that that is a valid point of order, there would be a motion to waive it, but this social security extraneous provision point of order that could be raised against the bill would sink the bill entirely as i understand what the senator from new hampshire is saying, the byrd point of order would punch holes in it, but it would have to go back to the house of representatives. if you're a member of the house of representatives, the best you can hope for is that you're going to get a bill back in the house that has a lot of these provisions in the bill that would be knocked out. the worst is that it might complete -- if this point of order, the social security point of order could be raised against it is actually something that is not waived by the senate and we have signed a letter, all of us have that we will oppose waiving points of order that will be raised against the reconciliation bill when it gets

to senate. i guess my question for my colleagues is: under that type of scenario, what happens next? do the house members who are going to be voting for this, assuming that the senate is going to fix all these things, then have to have that bill come back and is there any way in which all of these fixes that they hope are going to be eventually attached to the senate-passed bill will be attached or the things that they hope will be fixed in this bill will be pecsed. it seems to me they're trusting the senate to fix these things and it seems like an incredible leap of faith. mr. cornyn: i would say to the senator from south dakota, you explained it very clearly. can you imagine being asked to cast a career-ending vote the because your -- the people in your district hate this bill, yet you're following speaker pelosi's instructions to vote for it and define the wishes -- wishes of your constituents. can you imagine doing it in a context where there's so little

certainty as to the outcome because of this reconciliation process and the byrd rule and the points of order that we're talked about. you put that also in a larger context, you mentioned deeming the bill passed, i think that's clearly unconstitutional. you have ever heard of a bill becoming law that wasn't passed by the house and passed by the senate. there have been legal scholars twho have written this is cleary unconstitutional. there will be perhaps months, maybe years of litigation, possibly going to the united states supreme court charging this bizarre alice in wonderland procedure charging deeming the bill passed. can you imagine such a thing? mr. gregg: to take an important policy legislation, dealing with domestic policy in this country's last 50 years and not vote on it is an affront to the constitutional democracy. we're sent here to vote on a lot of issues, and a lot of them not

quite as significant as this one. if you have the most significant issue that you're going to have before you, certainly in my career, you would expect that you would want to vote because you'd want to express yourself. why did you come -- why did you run for these jobs? why did you want to serve your constituents if you were not willing to stand up on something of this importance? i thank the senator. i thank the chair. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: madam president, thank you very much. i wanted to review a couple of points with regard to where we are in health care. we're at a point now, of course, we're still awaiting action in the house, the other body as it is sometimes referred to here. so we have -- we have to allow

the house process to take place and then, of course, we'll be taking up health care more directly or more definitively next week. i think it's important to put this issue into the context of real people. we have a lot of discussions here in the senate and throughout washington on process and procedure and numbers and all of that. and that's important and relevant. but at end of the discussion, the old expression, at the end of the day, we have to be able to not only talk to the american people, as we have over many, many months now, in some cases many years, about what this legislation will do, but also we have to be aware of what's -- what's concerning a lot of -- a lot of people, a lot of families. i received a letter in the early part of 2009 from a woman in

pennsylvania who lives in burkes county, kind of the eastern side of the state, a couple of counties north of philadelphia, burkes county. the woman who wrote to me, patricia urban, is someone i have come to know in the last couple of years. unfortunately i know her only because of a tragedy in her own life that relates directly to health care. tricia urban related to me in a letter that she wrote to me, but also in subsequent conversations, and her story was the subject of a lot of discussion and public notoriety in her -- in her -- her home area. i just wanted to read a portion of the letter. not the whole letter, but i think the relevant parts of this letter. here's what she says and i'm quoting tricia urban.

she talked about her husband -- she and her husband having all kinds of trouble with health care. it relates directly to almost every major issue we're talking about. she said and i quote -- "like many americans we have difficulty with our health insurance. my husband had to leave his job for one year to complete an internship requirement to complete his docket rat in psychology. the internship was unpaid and we could not afford cobra." end the quote there for a second. we've had debates here for weeks on extending cobra health insurance to those who are unemployed. a safety net not only for trish aurban and her family at -- tricia urban and her family at that time, but so many american families, millions of them, especially in the midst of a terrible recession. but then she picks up here and imquoting again. quote -- "because of preexisting conditions, neither my husband's

health issues nor my pregnancy would be covered under private insurance. i work four part-time jobs and was not eligible for any health benefits. we ended up with a second-rate health insurance plan through my husband's the university. when medical bills started to at up, the insurance company decided to drop our coverage stating that the internship did not qualify us for benefits." i'll just commen -- i'll just cn that section. you have the insurance company dropped our coverage problem. this is information we've heard over and over again. testimony from real people about what insurance companies in america are doing to these families. discriminating against families. legal apparently under current law. part of why we want to change what's been happening in america, change the law through

passage of legislation. to deal with the question of protecting families from preexisting conditions at long last. we have talked about this issue for decades, but certainly in the last couple of years and more intensively in the last couple of months. this opportunity we have, this legislation gives us a chance not just to talk and to pontificate about what's wrong with the system, but to act. to vote and to act to change the system to protect families. and, again, we're talking about preexisting conditions. we're talking about people, families that are going to work every day, paying their premiums, doing their part as the agreement they have with an insurance company. and yet, despite paying their premiums, despite doing what they're supposed to do under the current system, they are being denied coverage. they are being discriminated against because they have a

preexisting condition. or, even more outrageously, their children are being denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. and i have to ask myself -- i think a lot of americans are asking this question: why do we tolerate this? why do we go from year to year and say that's terrible that insurance companies deny people coverage because of a preexisting condition, even when they're paying their premiums. that's terrible that insurance companies drop their coverage. that's terrible that they put limits on the kind of care they'll provide, but they'll put a dollar limit on it for a year or for a lifetime. that's really terrible, but nothing we can do about it. that's basically what we've been saying for years. we complain about the problem, or no one, or not enough people here in washington are willing to take on the insurance companies to say no, you're not going to do that any longer. we're going to make those practices illegal. well, we have a chance -- and

it's an up-or-down vote situation. we have a chance over the next couple of days -- i hope not weeks, but certainly over the next couple of days to decide these questions once and for all. we're either going to stand up to insurance companies or we're going to allow them to control people's lives in a way that's insulting to the american people, is damaging the the ability for families to have coverage and to have better health care. and i believe what insurance companies do on these discriminatory practices is harming our economy long term. how can you be a productive worker if you have to worry every day, whether or not you paid your premium, whether or not an insurance company can discriminate against you, against your family and especially against your children. that's what tricia urban was pointing to haoerbgs not the because -- pointing to here not because it was an issue in washington but because it was an issue to her life, her husband

and eventually having an impact on her pregnancy. i pick up the letter again, and i'm quoting tricia urban again in the letter. she talks about what the costs were for her and for her husband. quoting again -- "we were left with close to $100,000 worth of medical bills. concern with the upcoming financial responsibility of the birth of our daughter and the burden of current medical expenses, my husband missed his last doctor's appointment less than one month ago --" meaning less than one month prior to february of 2009. and here's where she begins to close the letter -- i'm quoting again -- "i'm a working-class american and do not have the the money or the insight to legally fight the health insurance company. we had no life insurance. i will probably lose my home, my car and everything we worked so hard to accumulate and our life

will be gone in an instant. if my story is heard," she says, "if legislation can be changed to help other uninsured americans in a similar situation, i'm willing to pay the price of losing everything." unquote. you might be wondering what happened here? what happened in her life? was it just a situation where they got dropped from their coverage? that's bad enough. is it a situation where they got dropped from coverage and also were denied treatment or care or coverage because of a preexisting condition? that would be bad enough in and of itself. but, no, the story gets worse from there. she talks about the day when her water broke and she's about to go to the hospital to deliver her baby. the baby's name is cora, just a little more than a year old now. here's what she says. she says, "my water had broken

the night before. we were anxiously awaiting the birth of her first -- of our first child. a half-hour later two ambulances were in the driveway. as the paramedics were assessing the birth of my baby and me, the paramedics in the other ambulance told me my husband could not be revived." she walks out to her driveway to get in the car to go to the hospital to deliver her daughter, cora, and she sees her husband dead on the driveway. largely because -- and maybe exclusively because -- he missed his last doctor's appointment for a heart condition because he's worried about paying for the doctor visit. now, this isn't some -- this isn't some, some screenplay or some theoretical story. this is real life for people in america. so we have to ask ourselves, on both sides of the aisle, our friends on the other side have

to ask themselves: is this good enough? is this the best that america can do, that we have to say sorry to tricia urban, sorry that happened to you about a preexisting condition, but we don't have the guts or the ability here in washington to stand up to insurance companies. sorry you were denied coverage, but it's not going to change. sorry that a doctor's visit might have cost too much at a particularly vulnerable point in your life or the life of your husband. sorry that your husband died. but we don't think we can be responsive to those situations. why do we tolerate this? why do we allow insurance companies to control our lives this way? so, this isn't some, just another vote in washington. this isn't just some discussion about reconciliation or the house vote and all that other stuff. this is about real life. and we're either going to, in

the next couple of days stand up to insurance companies or we're not. and i think it's a lot of, a whole set of questions that tricia urban is asking, she's asking me, she's asking all the democrats in this chamber and all the republicans. and then there's another set of questions that i have and i think a lot of americans have for our colleagues on the other side. they say they want health care reform but they're not willing to support what we're trying to do. you say, okay, well, if they don't support what we're trying to do, they probably have an alternative plan they've come together on and worked on for months, and they're going to propose that alternative. that's the american way? we have an idea, they have an idea, we debate and someone wins. that's not the case. i'm still waiting -- we're all still waiting -- for republican elected officials in washington, house or senate, to tell us what

their plan is, to tell us definitively what they really want to do. do they relip want to be response -- do they really want to be responsive to this problem of the preexisting condition? do they really want to stand up against the insurance companies and say, no, you can't discriminate against families any longer? and, oh, by the way, they're going to do just fine those insurance companies because if our bill passes, they're going to have 30 million to 31 million americans covered. they're going to do just fine. don't worry about the insurance companies. they'll do just fine even if they put a lot of protections -- we put a lot of protections in the bill. so we have to ask our republican friends, you say you care about covering americans. our legislation covers more than 30 million. how about you? their latest proposal covers 3 million americans. i mean, that's not even a serious attempt to cover americans. we passed a bill last year on

children's health insurance where we're going from 4 million children covered because president obama signed the children's health insurance reauthorization into law; we're going to go up to 7 million. we've already proven that we can cover more children with an expansion of an existing program than the other side of the aisle is going to cover in their entire health care plan. but there's not much detail other than that. they say they want to cover 3 million. it's a choice, should we cover 31 million americans and strengthen our economy and give people the security of health care? or cover 3 million and pretend -- pretend -- that that's a serious proposal? they say they care, on the other side, they say they care about deficit reduction and controlling costs. and yet, they won't support a proposal that at last count reduced the deficit by $130 billion. and we're getting new information that's just coming out today from the congressional

budget office that that number might still remain true from what it was in december. $130 billion of deficit reduction over the first ten years. and in the second ten years, maybe as high as $1 trillion or more. so, if you care about deficit reduction, then why wouldn't you sign on to something that will provide maybe the most significant deficit reduction in american history in one piece of legislation? they say they care about medicare. you've heard that a lot over there. they care about medicare and all that. and then when their proposal comes up, they want to have vouchers for medicare. is that a real serious proposal? so, they have to answer some basic questions, and they have to specifically answer the questions that tricia urban is asking us. because tricia urban's story is

a story that we've heard in different forms all over the country, certainly all over pennsylvania. maybe not every story has preexisting conditions limiting coverage, jacking up rates so that you can't afford to have coverage. and tragically, a death in the family. maybe not every story is that substantial. but we've heard stories over and over and over again. and i'd also point to, also point to our businesses. i want to submit for the record, madam president, ask consent to make part of the record an associated press -- i'm sorry -- a "pittsburgh tribune review" article from earlier this month "health tops pennsylvania's business woes."

i ask that be submitted for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: the headline is health tops business woes. subheadline is states, small businesses also see the recession as a severe obstacle. if you're a small business owner in pennsylvania, this survey shows, you're worried about two things: the recession, no question it's having an adverse impact. that's why the recovery bill and our jobs bill is so important to these businesses. but also health care. and i'm reading an excerpt here. about 71% of the 250 businesses that responded to this survey said health care costs were their biggest challenge. unquote. health care costs. now, this isn't, you know, a group of democrats sitting around a room in pennsylvania saying let's pass health care. these are small business owners in pennsylvania. they might be democrat, republican, independent or may not have any affiliation. their life is running a small

business and raising their families. and 71% of them surveyed describe health insurance as their -- quote -- "biggest challenge." so we don't need to, any longer debate this is an issue we've got to deal with. i want to walk through some of the basic provisions of what we've put in place with the senate bill, what the house has been wrestling with all these months and what president obama has been trying to do. just a couple of quick highlights. first of all, if we have the opportunity -- or i should say if we're successful in this opportunity to pass major health care reform, other issues we've talked about for years but don't get a lot of attention are going to be finally the law of the land. quality and prevention. so many -- the information or the research on this is irrefutable. if you insist on prevention and you make it free or very low cost, that person is going to be

healthier, because they're going to take steps that are preventive in nature. they're going to be healthier. their family's going to be healthier. they're going to do better on the job and the economy will be stronger. but also, we're going to strengthen our health care system in terms of cost. we're going to reduce costs by a lot of, in a lot of ways, but one of them is prevention and elevating the quality of our care. sometimes people get the best care in the world, but in some places that can be very limited. second point on cost an deficit. i mentioned that before. the deficit reduction in the democratic health care bill i is $130 billion over the first 10 years. we'll see if the congressional budget office alters that. but what we're hearing today, some of the preliminary reports is that that number might hold up. some thought because of the passage of time that number might go from $0 n

to $100 billion. we'll see on that. that's tremendous deficit reduction over 10 and 20 years. protections i want to highlight that quic quickly. basic protections for families that pay now. they think they're protected because they have a policy, an agreement and they pay their premiums. they're doing their part and then some insurance company bureaucrat or some other player in this marketplace comes to them and says, we know you're paying your premiums, we know you're holding up your end of the bargain, but we, the insurance company don't think you or your child should have coverage. sorry, you're out of luck. well, we're dealing with that in a couple of ways. first of all, it's important for people to understand what will happen now and what will happen later. if we get this bill passed, after -- six months after the president would sign it into

law, it would be illegal for an insurance company to deny a child coverage because of a preexisting condition. it's a tremendous change in the first year. literally after six months. in that same time period, and beyond that, if you're an adult, technically you wouldn't have the legal protection because you can't do all of this at once. so we have to decide, do we do nothing in short term or do we at least protect children. we're protecting children in the first couple of months of the bill. but even though technically an adult would not have legal protection until 2014, they'll have recourse. they'll have an option to say, i'm an adult, i've been denied coverage because of a preexisting condition, i can go into a high-risk pool and get coverage. so there is recourse -- actually that's in the first three months for the adult.

that's very important protections. we can talk more later about that. finally, and i'll begin to close. finally on children's health insurance, i talked about that before. important to know what the bill does on a great successful program, the children's health insurance program. for example, in our state -- this is what children's health insurance has mefnlt it meant that we've been able to reduce or rate of uninsured children down to 5%. still not good enough. still want to go lower. our uninsured rate for children in pennsylvania is 5%. with regard to adults between the ages of 18 and 64, it's 12%. so more than double the adult uninsured prior to getting to the age of medicare, that's more than double what the children's uninsured rate. that's good for children that we made progress. we need to make more. but it's bad for adults who haven't had a strategy to help them. that's part of why we're trying to pass a bill. at long last, we're going to be

helping many, many adults. tens of millions. the children's health insurance program is extend under the bill for two years until september 30, 2015. what the president wants to do, as part of the -- the so-called reconciliation suppose to maintain -- is -- he proposes to require states to maintain eligibility for children's health insurance to 2019. not just 2015, 2019. and he wants to fund it through 2016. i think that's a very important change that the president has proposed and that we have a chance to -- to ratify in our debate. now, there's a lot more we could talk about, but i'm running low on time. but i think the basic -- the basic question here for the american people is: are we going to have an up or down vote on health care or not. some over there who have useed this process before on many

measures seem to not want us to have an up or down vote on health care. i think the american people want that even if they disagree with parts of the bill. but the real question for -- for our republican friends is: will they be responsive to tricia urban? are they going 0 say, -- to say, well, i know preexisting conditions are a problem, i know coverage is a problem for you and your family. i know that denying a child -- a child health care coverage because of a preexisting condition is a problem. but we're not going to do anything about it. the insurance companies were too strong, we couldn't beat them. we're just going to go the way that so many have gone in washington. i don't think that's going to be a good enough answer for tricia urban and her family, but for millions of americans. and, finally, the question is: if you're not for our bill -- if you're going to vote against it -- what are you going to do about this? what are you going to do if you vote against covering 31 million

americans, what are you going to do? are you going to cover three is that a serious proposal? if you say you care about medicare, are you going to support, which is the republican proposal to have -- have vouchers for medicare? if you say you care about deficit reduction, you're going to vote against a bill that cuts the deficit by $130 billion? let's say that number goes down. the worst we can do is $100 billion. but the estimates might hold up in the next couple of days. we'll see what the congressional budget office has. so i think republicans in the senate and the house have to answer those basic questions. not necessarily my questions or our questions, but the questions of tricia urban and others across our country. every single state the millions of americans who have been denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. notice i said millions over the last couple of years, according

to one estimate -- one survey. so they have some questions to answer over on the other side of the aisle and we'll see what their answer is. and the answer will be the vote. how you vote on this will be one answer to all of those and many other -- many other questions. so i hope that we can have some convergence on the other side that they will see that it's important to cover americans. it's important to provide the kind much security and protections to families who are paying their premiums every day and not being given the protections that they deserve. i hope our friends do that. and i hope they don't just spend all their time debating the finer points of process in the senate. people don't really care about how -- what the procedure here is in washington and senate. they want to know, are we going to have at long last real protections for real families or will the insurance companies win

again? this isn't really complicated. that's one of the basic questions that they're asking us to -- to answer for them. so, with that, madam president, i will yield the floor and nef . the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. casey: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: madam president, i know i have less than two minutes. i wanted to add a couple of -- a couple of things to the record here one is a -- an article from the "los angeles times" of february 4th of this year, headline "anthem blue cross dramatically raising rates for californians with individual health policies."

i ask that that article be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: many americans have heard these stories and experienced the pain of these health insurance premium increases, but here -- i'm going to read quick portions of it. anthem blue cross dramatically raised rates for californians. policyholders are incensed over rate hikes as much as 39%. going on to say the anthem blue cross is telling many of its approximately 800,000 customers who may buy individual coverage, these are people not covered by group rates, that their premiums will increase 30% to 39%. and, finally, i will -- i just want to submit for the record a -- a series of statements contained in a -- a 3 1/2 page summary entitled "g.o.p. on

reconciliation." this is a series of statements that republican senators have made over the years with regard to this process that they're complaining about and think that we shouldn't be able to use even though they supported in the past. interesting reading, although we don't have time to highlight here. with that, i will yield the floor, and notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. dorgan: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: mam president, i ask consent that the quorum call be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed.

under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 1586, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 36, h.r. 1586, an act to impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain tarp recipients. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 11:30 a.m. will be divided equally between the senator from alabama, mr. sessions, and the senator from arkansas, mr. pryor, or their designees. mr. dgan: madam president, the title of the bill just reported is the correct title of the bill. however, the legislation we're discussing inside that bill does not relate so much to the title. this is the f.a.a. reauthorization bill, reauthorizing a wide range of programs within the federal aviation administration. this is the fifth day we have been on the floor of the senate. senator rockefeller has been managing the legislation. he is necessarily absent now and

asked me as chairman of the aviation panel to manage in his stead. he has said, and i would say as well, that we have put together a piece of legislation that has substantial modernization pieces in it, that will modernize our air traffic control system, substantial improvements in safety, aviation safety, improvements in the airport improvement program to invest in and expand and improve the infrastructure in aviation in this country. it has a lot of things that are so very important. i worry now on the fifth day on this piece of legislation that if we don't get it done today, we may not get this bill done at all. that would be a shame, because this authorization has languished for a long time. rather than reauthorize the f.a.a. with new authorization, we have extended it 11 straight times. 11 extensions. and that describes how difficult

it is to get things done. finally, at long last, senator rockefeller, senator hutchison have brought the bill to the floor. senator demint and i, as chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, worked on the bill with them. and we have now been here five days. the question will be between now and the end of today: will we get this done or does this just dissolve as unfinished work, made a good try but didn't make it happen? so it gets extended again, and all of this work is for naught. the fact is every single senator in this chamber that serves here and every constituent of every member has a very big stake in getting this done. anybody in this country that flies on commercial airlines -- and that's a lot of americans -- have a big stake in the issue of air traffic control modernization, substantial improvements to safety and the

things that are included in this legislation. so, the failure to do this, in my judgment, would be really a great, great disappointment not just for us, but for the american people. i want to mention that we've cleared a lot of amendments, as has been the case recently with a lot of legislation. there's been a lot of delay, but we've worked on amendments en bloc that have been cleared. there is an additional group of thapldz we hope we will clear -- amendments that we hope we will clear. at 2:00 today there will be votes on two amendments side by side that are offered on this legislation. it's offered certainly within the rules, although it doesn't relate to this particular legislation. but we'll vote on those and try to dispose of those issues. and i wanted to mention there is another issue, i think probably the last significant issue that is there, and that is the issue of the slots and the perimeter

rule at national airport here in washington, d.c. the slots and perimeter rule is controversial, complex, difficult. we have a number of amendments that have been filed representing different interests of how many additional flights should be added to washington national, how many flights might be added that would extend beyond what is a perimeter rule at washington national. i would hope that those who have filed those amendments would agree to stand down and allow us to try to resolve that some way in conference. the house of representatives, in its legislation, does have -- does address in part the slot rule. and if we get to conference with the u.s. house, if we can pass a bill through the senate, clearly it will be something that will lead -- that we'll need to resolve there. but what my great concern is if this afternoon following the votes we get into long protracted debate about the various amendments that have been filed on the slot and

perimeter rules, this bill will not get done. and i know a number of people who have offered the amendments dealing with slots have also great interest in making certain this bill gets done. my fear is if it's not done today, it probably will not be done. we will probably not complete this legislation. so i'm going to be visiting and talking with those who have offered those amendments, asking if we can work with them as we go into conference and try to address the slot and perimeter rules with the house. and it has to be a part of our conference because the house has a provision, a number of provisions in the house legislation dealing with those issues. but, the frustration, i guess, for 200-plus years in the united states senate is nothing moves very quickly. that remains a frustration in 2010. nothing here moves very quickly. that is part of the charm of the senate perhaps and part of the great and abiding eternal frustration of the united states senate. but at least on important issues

during important times things really should move. there are certain things that are urgent to get done. one year has now passed since the last commercial aviation accident in this country in buffalo, new york. as a result of that and the investigation of that accident, a number of new safety recommendations are included in this piece of legislation. it's very important for us to understand the urgency of passing legislation that will substantially improve aviation safety in this country. to ignore it, i think, is to shortchange the american people. so, again, simply, we are working through the amendments. i expect this afternoon we'll have these votes. i also hope we can work with our colleagues on the slot or perimeter rule of amendments that have been offered in order to resolve them. and my hope is that we'll resolve them not by protracted debate, which i think very well

will probably doom this bill because we will not have additional time here on the senate floor after five full days, but resolve them in a way that allows those who care about this to work with us as we go into conference with the house on the slot and perimeter rules. madam president, i yield the floor and i make a point of order that quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. prmr. pryor: madam president, i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. pryor: madam president, i ask to be allowed to speak for

10 minutes on my amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. pryor: thank you. mam president, i rise today to talk about the pryor amendment that we're going to take up this afternoon and have a vote on. and, madam president, i want to show my colleagues this chart here that talks about america's fiscal condition. and this chart came out of the c.q. today on tuesday, februar february 2. and, as you can see, what it does is take the fiscal 2011 revenue estimates over here with this pie chart and then it takes our proposed outlays with this pie chart. and, of course, one of the things that's obvious to anyone who's paying attention, if you look at these two numbers, it took like we're taking i in $2.5 trillion, but we're sending out $3.8 trillion.

that's a big problem. that means, once again, we're in deficit spending and we have to get our fiscal house in order. i don't know if my colleagues on both sides saw in this week. but earlier there was a story in the "new york times", and it's been reported in other publications that moody's looking at the possibility of downgrading america's credit from triple a down to something lower than that because of the enormous national debt that we have and the -- the persistent annual deficits. madam president, this piece of the chart here, i think, is very revealing when you look at the money that's going out through the federal government. you see this purple -- there's a couple of slices here that -- the purple pie chart slices. you'll see one is $671 billion.

that's non-defense discretionary spending. and then on the national defense discretionary spenting spenting, $744 billion. but everything else in here is mandatory spending or it's our interest on the national debt. this little green sliver here. it may be hard to see on television is what we're paying on the national debt, it' it's $251 billion in interest payments in paying back the national debt. but you see the majority of the money that we're spending out is for mandatory spendings, these are entitlements, things like medicare, social security, but other entitlement programs and other mandatory spending that is going out. our amendment -- the amendment that i've been working on this week tries to address our fiscal situation not nearly by tapping

into this discretionary spending, which depending on which part of discretionary spending you're talking about could be as little as 12% of the money we have going out of the system or it could be as much as 25% or 30%. it just depends on how you calculate it and what all you include. but we can't fix our fiscal house using discretionary spending only. i think one of the advantages that the pryor amendment has is we want to take the whole picture. we want to take all the mandatory spending. we want to take all the discretionary spending and all the revenues and use them to try to get our fiscal house in order. i think one of the best things about this little chart that was in "c.q." today is this graph right here where we start during the carter years and it goes all the way through the obama years. so you have carter, reagan, george bush, clinton, george w. bush, and now obama, and you'll

see this purple line. unfortunately, most these years it's below zero. you see the purple line, that's our annual deficit. and you'll see this yellowish, orangey line, that is as a percent of g.d.p. what our deficit is. one of the great things about this graph that gives me courage and gives me hope is that during the clinton years, we went above the line. we actually went into surplus spending. we did it for the last four years of his administration. and the thing that i get hope from is we can do it again. we can do this. we can address, if we do it in a bipartisan way, if we do it in a smart way, if we put everything on the table like they did during the clinton years, we can address our deficit and our national debt, and we can do it in a way that will be good for the country long term, because

what we do every time we spend $1 around here, we're making our children and our grandchildren pay for that at some point down the road. we also -- well, we just need to stop the reckless course that we're on. everybody agrees, whether it's the chairman or the ranking member of the budget committee, whether it's an outside economist, people just, like on wall street that analyze all this, everybody agrees that we're on an unsustainable course. so what the pryor amendment tries to do is tries to address our deficit spending. not just the spending part, though, but our whole picture to look at our annual deficits. one thing i'd like to say as a comment is when i look at this graph right here, this is really a graph of political courage. because the easiest thing in the world for a politician to do, the easiest thing that any of us can do around here is to cut taxes and increase spending.

and that's what's happened in recent years. that didn't happen during the clinton years, but that's happened in recent years. and the easiest things to do is to go into deficit spending and push the problem down the road to somebody in the future. the time is now for us to stop doing that. the time is now for us to reverse our -- these purple lines and get them going up here above zero. the truth is we can't do it in one year; probably can't do it in five years, given the economic and fiscal condition we're in right now. but, over a period of years, we can get this moving in the right direction. and i promise you that the markets will love it. i promise you that the global economy would love it. they would love to see some american leadership on this. and it's something i think everybody in the world looks at how we spend money around here and they just shake their heads because they know we're on an unsustainable course. this is one way to look at this graph right here, is this is a graph of political courage.

and the people back in here, when they did that balanced budget act back in 1993 -- and i have a lot of colleagues who were here and cast those hard votes back then, that was an act of courage. and you know what? that wasn't always popular because they made some hard choices. that's what we have to do again, and that's hopefully what the pryor amendment will get us on track toward doing. i know i just have a couple minutes left. how long do i have, madam president? the presiding officer: 2 1/2 minutes. mr. pryor: i will try to wind down in that time and just say what the pryor amendment does is it freezes discretionary pending caps proposed by president obama in the year 2011. it freezes all discretionary spending caps for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 at 40% of the difference between president obama's budget proposal and last year's budget proposal. the reason we're doing that is

because senator sessions and senator mccaskill have worked very hard on their amendment. in fact, i voted for their amendment a couple of times in its previous forms. they used some different numbers. and i thought in order to be fair, we need to split the difference with their numbers and these two freezes that we're talking about will reduce discretionary spending by at least $77 billion over three years. and that's major. that's a big chunk out of discretionary spending. but where we make up the difference is then we ask the national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform to find at least -- at least -- an additional $77 billion of deficit reductions over the next three years to close the gap between projected revenues and entitlement spending. so, we pretty much give this to the commission and say, look, commission, you're set up. the president put you together.

we have six or eight members from the senate on that commission, other members from the house. y'all sit down and y'all work through this. you have a year to do it. work through this and find the other $77 billion worth of savings. in comparison to the two amendments, the pryor amendment actually saves a little bit more money over the next three years than the sessions amendment. one of the reason is we're looking at the deficit reduction, not just spending. their amendment, again, which i've supported in the past, their amendment focuses on spending. but ours is more about deficit reduction and try to take the full picture into account. so, with that, madam president -- mr. dorgan: would the senator yield for a question? mr. pryor: be glad to. mr. dorgan: first of all, let me say i support your amendment. both amendments have some merit. it's not unworthy to be talking about trying to tighten belts in every area of public spending. you know, some public spending is more important than others.

we ought to be judicious as we deal with it. the difference, as i understand, between these amendments is one says let's cut spending in one area. that is domestic discretionary spending, which is a rather small part of the budget. and it doesn't address the other issues of the spending that goes on through the tax code, the entitlement spending and other larger issues as well. and even as we vote on these issues -- and i intend to support and -- intend to vote and support your initiative which i think is the right initiative -- i have to say i don't think this is really complicated in terms of what happened to our country and what we have tpo do to put it back on track. you can't send kids off to war and say we're going to charge all the costs of war. we've been involved now in the war against terrorism, war on iraq and not paid for a penny of it because throughout the last decade the president said we're going to make all this emergency spending. some of us said let's pay for

it. president bush said if you try to pay for it, i'll veto the bill. it's not particularly complicated to understand what has happened here. government has to pay its bills. dealing with the with entire area of public spending here is very important. and i think the senator has offered a piece of legislation, an amendment that has great merit and i hope will get the substantial support of the united states senate. mr. pryor: thank you. thank you, madam president. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. the senator from missouri. excuse me. mrs. mccaskill: madam president, i rise to speak in opposition to senator pryor's amendment and in favor of the sessions-mccaskill amendment on us trying to get our fiscal house in order. right now in america, most families are figuring out where they can cut the budget. most families are figuring out what are the extras that we,

even though we don't want to give them up, we've got to give them up. that's what america is doing right now. most local governments, they're doing the same thing. they're sitting around rooms trying to figure out where they can cut budgets because their revenue is down. state governments, in missouri the governor has had to cut the budget significantly, even with the stimulus money we sent to missouri to help them balance their budget, they are cutting programs. they are cutting employees. they are doing what they have to do to balance the budget. and then we get to washington. everybody in america is cutting back except washington. we came very close a few weeks ago -- 59 votes -- to a very modest, baby step. we're not talking about something that's earth shattering here. we're talking about just

limiting the size of growth. not cutting anything. the sessions-mccaskill amendment cuts nothing. all it does is limit the size of growth. of discretionary spending in both the defense budget and the domestic budget. 59 votes to limit the growth of discretionary spending. would it be great if we could do the same thing with mandatory right now? i think it would be. i think it would be terrific if we could limit the size of growth of mandatory spending right now. could we in fact roll back some of the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest? i'd be for that. the bottom line is we have 59 votes for a baby step. so what happens around here when we have 59 votes for a baby step? we come up with an amendment, frankly, that is more cover than

substance. i mean, it's time to take a hard look in the mirror. if we can't do sessions-mccaskill, what can we do around here? what can we do to show the american people that we understand that government can't continue to grow when revenues aren't? we've done some big bold things. i've been supportive of all of them to bring us back from the brink of a recession. they were very important. but i have been so discouraged by what's been going on around here the last few days. the circling of the wagons. this amendment, with all due respect -- and he's my friend and we've worked together on many things, but 50 votes to waive? are you kidding? you have to have 60 votes now to waive, and they're lowering it to 50. the only changes we've made to the sessions-mccaskill amendment since that 59-vote

margin we got a few weeks ago is we moved down how many votes you have to have for emergency spending. it's no longer subject to a 67 point of order. this was done to address the concerns that some of the members had about congress's flexibility to respond to emergencies, though it's very hard to find any emergency in history that congress hasn't addressed with more than 67 votes. we moved that number down. now the caps only cover three years. a 1% growth over the next three years when every other government in america is cutting -- a 1% growth over three years? is that so hard? there are no caps on this year in this amendment and no caps for 2014. the pryor amendment only has one year of caps and it can be waived with 50. and then it purports to try to mandate that the fiscal commission do some things. and, by the way, if the fiscal commission doesn't do it in

time, then none of this counts. i mean, we're outsourcing our responsibilities here. i was for the fiscal commission. i was a cosponsor. i think we've got to be honest about what this body is capable of doing and what it's not capable of doing. but did i really think this body was not capable of 1% growth for three years in discretionary spending? i had no idea this body wasn't capable of that. and the pressure that is being put on members that were part of that 59 is really depressing to me. this is one of those moments that i separate from leadership in my party, and i'm proud to separate from leadership of my party because this is the right thing to do right now. america doesn't think we get it. and you know what? they're right. we don't. a 1% growth in government and discretionary spending for the next three years is a reasonable approach to what we are looking at in terms of both our deficit and our debt.

and i am sorry that leadership doesn't agree with me on this. i'm sorry that leadership doesn't think this is good public policy. but i've got to tell you, we worry around here about elections; i'll tell you, the folks that are thinking that this side-by-side is somehow going to cover them from the wrath of the american people when it really sinks in that we are not even willing to limit growth in a meaningful way in this country. when i'm in the grocery store when i go home on the weekends, that's what i am constantly told when i run into people. it just doesn't feel like you guys get it. if we end up with less than 59 votes today, if we go backwards rather than forwards, you know what i'm going to have to tell them when i see them in the grocery store this weekend? you're right. the majority of my party does not get it. and bay the -- and by the way,

i'm willing to stand up right now and cosponsor anything that we want to limit the growth in mandatory. i'm for that, too. i'm for doing whatever we need to do to make sure that we look at the revenue side. i'm for that also. but really, this is a baby step, and if we can't take the baby step right now at this moment in history with this mess we're facing in terms of finances, then i think we're in a world of hurt, just a world of hurt. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i thank the chair. i would just want to express my appreciation to senator mccaskill who is a person of courage and conviction and who has reached a decision that we need to do better in our country about spending, and as she

said -- and it's the simple truth -- our amendment is a small but significant step. it's a statement that we are going to take some action that will have some benefit in containing the growth -- not requiring cuts but contain the growth of spending in our country, and unfortunately as we have gotten so close to having it being passed, now an organized effort appears to be under way to try to see if they can pull back the growing number of votes that have been cast for it. we started out with 56 votes, then went to 59 votes. every republican, 18 democrats voted for it. we just need one more and we will be able to take this significant step of having a statutory cap on spending and the level of spending that we

are limiting it to is the level in the democratic budget that passed last year -- or this year. so the amount is not anything other than what the budget already calls for that was passed by a democratic majority, and it's the kind of numbers that we probably could do better on and we could cut some programs probably and should, but regardless of that, what we're saying is one of our big problems here is that we don't stick to whatever budget we have, and we constantly violate the budget, and republicans have done this, too. the debt now is spiraling out of control to a degree that we have never, ever, ever seen before in the history of our country. it's not responsible, and we have got to stop it. i just would say about my colleague from arkansas, we just were celebrating a bipartisan

effort last night that cleared when he and i and some others have worked on balancing the crash and powder cocaine penalties so that they are more fair and more realistic, and i think that was a good bipartisan step. i think we're on the way to a bipartisan bill here. we're disappointed that we now have what i think can only be referred to as a cover amendment that does not have the teeth or the strength of the amendment we have offered. it provides an opportunity for people to vote for it and say they voted to contain spending. i was all for it. i didn't vote on the mccaskill-sessions bill, but i voted on this other amendment and it's just as good. i mean, it's not just as good and it's not -- it doesn't have as much ability to contain spending, it does not, and it should not be substituted.

and if the american people are frustrated with us, our polling numbers are as low perhaps as we have ever seen in this country for congress, and one of the reasons is they are tired of us manipulating and maneuvering to try to make ourselves look good, and in the interest of the country take the hindmost. people are tired of that, and they are correct in my view. some of our colleagues say that's just populist, they are just angry, they will go away. they have a right to be concerned about what we're doing and how these activities are occurring on the floor of the senate. so the democratic leadership obviously decided this bill might be in a position to pass, they didn't want it to pass. they have conjured up what we call a cover amendment, and it should not be what we pass. i would just note the caps are higher in this amendment than the budget resolution passed by congress. the democratic budget resolution just last year. it would allow about $38 billion

more in nondefense spending over three years than what was in our fiscal year budget, fiscal year 2010 budget resolution. the side by side, the cover amendment, does not follow the president's proposal to freeze nondefense discretionary spending for three years. it waives the fiscal year 2012 and 2013 caps, it has only a 51-vote threshold, and i wish we could have talked some more about what senator mccaskill had offered and maybe we could have made some changes to the plan that we had. frankly, this would be the third time we made changes in the legislation to try to assuage concerns that members had we thought were legitimate and worthy of putting in the bill, and i would have like to have made those changes. i would just say, madam president, that the american people are unhappy about this.

i know polling numbers are not supposed to be the end-all in congress, but we ought to understand that we work for our constituents, they don't work for us. that's what i'm hearing out there. you work for me, sessions, and i am concerned about what you're doing up there. we want better response from you guys. this is a poll, cnn opinion poll ." which of the following comes closer to your view of the budget deficit -- the government should run a deficit if necessary when the country is in a recession and at war, or the government should balance the budget even when the country is in a recession and is at war?" that's a pretty hard question. i think some people who are very frugal might worry about how to answer that question, but look at the numbers.

67%, two-thirds of the american people, said balance the budget. only 30% said run a deficit. now, i tell you, the american people have got it right. the threat to our economy in the long run is one thing -- debt. irresponsible, reckless, unsustainable growth in debt. if we would get that under control, the great american entrepreneurial spirit, the work ethic of our people, the exceptional capabilities of our business leaders, we'll compete with anybody. but if we tax and spend us into debt, we are threatening our future. how big a threat is it? look at these numbers. this is the debt. in 2008, it was $5.8 trillion.

from the beginning of the american republic, we had accumulated $5.8 trillion in debt. it's projected by c.b.o. that in 2013, it will be $11.8 trillion. in a little over three years, we will be doubling the total american public debt. and finally, by 2019, based on the budget we're operating in today and the laws that are on the books today, it will triple to $17.3 trillion. and the interest on that debt -- we have to borrow the money. does nobody understand that? we borrow the money, and we are borrowing it on the world market. interest rates are likely to surge in the years to come, but right now with the economy shaky, people are willing to buy government bonds, even if they pay low rates. so we're getting a bargain right now, but this debt isn't going to be a bargain in the future.

a bargain on the interest rates, not a bargain for the good of the country. this shows -- this shows the interest that will be paid. in 2009, last year, we paid paid $187 billion in interest. and in 2020, according to the president's budget analysis that he has submitted, it will be be $840 billion. $840 billion in interest in one year. the federal highway bill, bill, $40 billion a year. does that give some perspective here? bigger than the defense budget. so these are stunning numbers. that's why every economist, republicans and democrats, heritage foundations and brookings institution, former c.b.o. directors and o.m.b. directors of both parties all say repeatedly we're on an unsustainable course. the deficits continue to surge

in the outer years, and they are not coming down. people say well, when are we going to pay it back? we're not paying it back. in the years -- in these years, in the out years, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, they are projected steady but lower growth, but growth every year, no recessions. the deficits are going to be about a trillion dollars a year. they're not going down. we're still going into debt a trillion dollars a year. so i -- i guess what i'm saying is one of the things we need to do is focus on discretionary accounts and this is it. some say only the mandatory, only the entitlements count. not so. as of this moment, this year,

every penny of the surging debt -- and this year will be be $1.5 trillion -- every penny of that debt will be as a result of spending in the discretionary accounts. not social security and not medicare. oh, that can't be so. social security and medicare together are now still in net surplus, and we take the money that that surplus is and we spend it and we bor owe -- give a bond back to social security and medicare. i'm saying don't think that discretionary spending isn't a big part of the problem. it is the problem today, but in the future, we clearly face an actuarial challenge of monumental proportions because the expenses of medicare and social security are going up and the revenue is going down and we're going to be in serious

trouble. we need to deal with that now. so, madam president, i thank my colleagues for the opportunity to share these remarks. i urge our colleagues let's take a good step both for the sessions-mccaskill bill and oppose the pryor amendment. i thank the chair and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: i would like about three minutes, if i could, to respond to my two colleagues. first i want to commend both senator sessions and senator mccaskill for their work on their amendment. like i said, i voted for it in previous -- previous editions of it, but one of the -- i think it has one major flaw, and that is it really only deals with discretionary spending. i know it does affect the deficit and that's very important, but its focus is just on the spending.

when we did multiyear discretionary spending caps, they were a key part of the 1990, 1993, and 1997 deficit reduction packages, they worked. however, those deficit reduction packages looked at all spending, mandatory and discretionary, as well as revenues. that's what our amendment does. it takes the whole picture. if we are going to walk the walk on having our fiscal house in order, we need to look at the entire picture. i know that -- and i think we need to do it in a bipartisan way just like they did in previous congresses when they really made serious efforts to get the deficit under control. i think it needs to be bipartisan. one concern i have is when we fix discretionary spending, i think it will be very difficult for us to reach any kind of bipartisan agreement on the mandatory as well as the revenue pieces of our budget. senator mccaskill mentioned this is baby steps. i don't know if i would say it's baby steps. what they are proposing is a

very solid first step to try to get our fiscal house in order, but i'm just concerned that it might close the door. i also just want to make this point in closing, and that is if you look at these purple lines on this graph, we see these years are the obama years. certainly he inherited a lot of thing the first year so the first year is probably not fair to give to him. he had a little bit, but he inherited most of that. if you look at these years, to the president's credit, he says he wants these purple lines to get shorter and that's good but it's not enough. it's not enough. the president's budget and his proposal in my estimation is not enough. and we need to get this moving back the right direction. but if you look at just discretionary spending and you throw in the military discretionary spending as well, that's about, let's say, to% of the budget -- 25% of the budget, just discretionary alone. domestic discretionary is only about 12%. but anyway, put those two

together, let's say it's 25% of the budget. the real flaw ning the sessions-mccaskill approach is we're using 25% of the budget to try to fix 100% of the problem. we need to put 100% of everything on the table so that we can then, you know, use our good judgment to make those hard decisions to try to get us back to a balanced budget. we're not going to do this in one year. we're probably not going to do it in five years. i wish we could in five years, but we need to -- these numbers here are not enough and we need to move it back in the right direction. and my approach actually helps this picture quite a bit more than their pictures help. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. mr. mccain: madam president thpresiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: madam president, i rise in support of the amendment number 3475 that i have introduced. as i have stated several times already, the amendment's very simple. it would place a moratorium on

all earmarks in years in which there's a deficit. i'm joined in this effort by my good friend from indiana, senator bayh, and i again thank him for his leadership and courage on this issue. you know, last year i reminded my colleagues about the current fiscal situation and i think it's important to again review the facts. the treasury department a week ago announced the government racked up a record high monthly deficit of $220.9 billion. we now have a deficit of over $1.4 trillion and a debt of $12.5 trillion and unemployment remains at close to 10%. the list goes on and on. and on tuesday, the senate rejected an amendment offered by senator demint. this amendment called for a moratorium on all earmarks for fiscal years 2010-2011. there wasn't anything earth shattering about that amendment. it would have shaken the -- it wouldn't have shaken the foundations of our democracy.

it's simply the political equivalent of calling a time-o time-out. yet sadly, 68 senators voted against this modest proposal, including 15 from my own party. so i have no illusions about the outcome of this amendment. i've been around here long enough to see what goes on. but it doesn't mean i'll quit fighting nor does it mean that the american people will quit fighting to eliminate the waste, abuse of the system and, indeed, the corruption that is part of this earmarking. i've listened to the arguments that some of my colleagues continue to state, that eliminating the earmarks isn't necessary because they account for such a small part of our annual budget. is that a reason to continue to -- this practice? and i'm aware that earmarks consume a small portion of a budget measured in the trillions, but given the seriousness of our current

situation and the problems that are confronting american families who wake up every morning wondering if they're going to lose their job or their house or if they will still be able to afford their children's education, it's deeply offensive to them. it's deeply offensive that we in congress can't exercise some fiscal discipline. it's all the more offensive that we've had in recent time all the evidence we should require and understand that earmarks are so closely tied to acts of official corruption. in a report entitled "why earmarks matter," the heritage foundation wrote -- quote -- "they invite corruption. congress does have a proper role in determining the rules, eligibility and benefit criteria for federal grant programs. however, allowing lawmakers to select exactly who received government grants invites corruption. instead of entering a competitive application process

within a federal agency, grant seekers now often have to hire a lobbyist to win the earmark auction, encouraged by lobbyists who saw a growth industry in the making. local governments have become hooked on the earmark process for funding improvement projects. they encourage spending. while there may not be a causal relationship between the two, the number of earmarks have proved -- approved each year attracts closely with the growth in federal spending." and they also added, "they distort priorities. many earmarks do not add new spending by themselves but instead redirect funds already slated to be spent through competitive grant programs or by states in specific projects favored by an individual member. so, for example, if a member of the nevada delegation succeeded in getting a $2 million earmark to build a bicycle trail in elko in 2005, then that $2 million would be taken out of the

$254 million allocated to the nevada department of transportation for that year. so if nevada had wanted to spend that money fixing a highway and rapidly expanding las vegas -- in rapidly expanding las vegas, thanks to the earmark, they would now be out of luck. just march 17, a "roll call" editorial, "earmark action. even though they represent just a small fraction of federal spending, earmarks have accounted for an outsized proportion of congressional impairment over recent years, so we're pleased to see house democrats and republicans moving to limit them. but until the senate goes along or until president obama determines to veto earmarks when they come his way, the spectacle of special interest spending won't stop nor with it the public's suspicion that many earmark projects are bought with campaign contribution." i ask unanimous consent that the article -- the editorial in "roll call" be made part of the

record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: madam president, i've been on the floor many times -- also, i would ask unanimous consent that the article in the "wall street journal," march 17, called "earmarks in reverse" be included, and "the washington post" of march 12 entitled "all earmarks should be banned in the house and the senate," and finally, the steven and cokey roberts, "a bribe by any other name." and also the editorial of the "las vegas review journal," "all in." and finally, "the earmark reform has not changed much in congress." the reason why that goes to the record is because it isn't just my opinion. it's the opinion of the "wall street journal," "the washington post," many other periodicals as to the effect. also, perhaps we here might pay

attention to the fact that a poll just in the last couple of days shows a 17% approval of congress. our approval ratings are at an all-time low. and there's a variety of reasons. it isn't all because of earmar earmarks. it's because of the economic situation. it's because of the frustration. it's because of the belief on many americans that we are not responsive to their problems and challenges unprecedented in these days that we face. but when we're spending a million dollars to rehabilitate a bathhouse at hot springs, arkansas, a million dollars for a waterless urinal initiative, $250,000 for turf grass resear research, $500,000 for a teapot museum in north carolina, $2 million for the vulcan monument in alabama, $3 million

for the -- $556,000 for the montana sheep institute. some may argue that these are small amounts of money. americans don't understand. when they can't stay in their homes, they can't educate their kids, they can't keep their jo jobs, why congress continues to engage in this practice. and let me just say in interest of full disclosure, this problem was exacerbated when republicans took control of both houses of congress. the "wall street journal" says, "this reluctance to change is rooted in the congressional belief that earmarks are the main guarantee of incumbencies. earmarks were relatively rare until the rise of the tom delay republicans in the late 1990's. by 2005, the high-water of the earmark craze, both parties had linked arms to add 3,500 pet projects to spending bills.

legislators crow about their largess and use it to lend campaign money from earmark recipients. this cash-for-votes mentality has become a symbol of everything americans hate about washington. the recent decision by the house ethics committee to put aside allegations that several house members had awarded earmarks in order to secure campaign donations was another sign that congress wasn't serious about changing the culture of special favors." so i think, madam president, we could take a major step in the direction of restoring confidence in us if we will just using the earmark process until the deficit is erased. i urge my colleagues to consider this proposal and reconsider their opposition to it. madam president, i yield the floor.

ms. klobuchar: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i rise today in support of the bill that's before us, the f.a.a. reauthorization legislation which is currently on the floor. i want to thank senator dorgan from the neighboring state to minnesota, the state of north dakota, for his leadership with this committee and on the subcommittee and also i'm proud to be a member of that subcommittee and to have worked on this bill. the air transportation system is important to all americans and certainly to the people of my state. minnesota is the childhood home of charles lindbergh, and today we are home to a major0 hub of delta, which was previously northwest airlines in our state, that flies people literally all over the world. we are also home to cirrus aircraft, which is one of the manufacturers of smaller planes up in duluth, and we have thousands of pilots and airline

employees who fly each and every day, both for their enjoyment as well as for their livelihood. as anyone who's recently flown on an airplane knows, our airport transport system is strained and it is subject to increased congestion and increased delay. and recent incidents have, in fact, called into question the safety of our commercial aircraft as well as the training of a few of the pilots, notable incidents, who fly them. we know that for the most part we have a very good air system, but we know that there must be improvements, especially if we're going to compete on a global basis with other countries that are working to update their air traffic systems. as a member of the senate commerce committee's subcommittee on aviation and someone who has worked hard to bring this legislation to the floor, i know that this bill will address many of the concerns that the people of our country have. first, this legislation incorporates important safety improvements.

the tragedy of colgan air flight number 3407, which crashed outside of buffalo in february of last year, brought the safety of our airlines back into the public eye and raised new questions about the safety of regional aircraft and the training and experience of the pilots who fly them. we have had many hearings, thanks to senator dorgan, on this tragedy, and every single time there are victims, there are families of people who were killed in that crash in the hearing room to remind us of the changes that need to be made. pilots for regional carriers are in some cases not trained as well as for major carriers, they are overtired and they are underpaid. in fact, some regional pilots earn so little that they take second and sometimes third jobs. and many pilots live far away from their bases, leading to long commutes and even longer hours spent waiting in airports. the facts surrounding the buffalo crash bear this out.

the first officer, who earned around $20,000 a year, flew to newark on a red-eye flight on the day of the accident. she arrived at 6:30 a.m. and reports indicate she spent the entire day in the newark airport sending text messaged t messager friends before her shift began. the evidence also suggests that the pilot was up for large parts of the night before the plane. once on the plane, the pilot and first officer broke f.a.a. policy by engaging in nonessential banter and conversation during critical times of the flight. and the flight data recorder indicated that the crew was inexperienced, poorly trained and ill-prepared for the tough weather conditions that night. as the first officer told the pilot -- and this is an exact quote, and i'll never forget this, being from minnesota where we have a lot of icing issues, where, in fact, senator wellstone was killed in a plane crash in part because of poor pilot training and icing issues. the quote of the first officer on that plane before that plane went down, the plane in buffalo, "i've never seen