quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. rockefeller: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: i ask unanimous consent that the order of the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: i ask unanimous consent that the senate resume consideration of the baucus amendment number 75 as further modified. this is the amendment for the finance title of the bill that we're on which was reported out by the finance committee last week. further, that the agreement as further modified be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. ms. cantwell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i come to the floor today to comment. i heard both the chairman and the ranking member giving comments about the f.a.a. bill. first of all, i want to thank

them for their hard work and diligence in this legislation. it doesn't just come now, this year. this is something that the chairman and ranking member have been working on for several years. and i had a chance yesterday to talk about the nextgen system and how many jobs are going to be created from really high-wage technology that is going to be used to modernize our transportation system. it's going to deliver flights that are probably 20% more on time. it's going to save us 5% to 6% on fuel. it's going to lower co2 and it's going to improve the experience for passengers. so i'm all for the f.a.a. underlying bill. and i applaud them for their hard work and trying to make this legislation a reality in doing so this week. i do have concerns about the proposed hutchison amendment. and i know that the senator from texas indicated that she is still talking with people and working with people.

and wanted to make everyone happy and -- in this place, i don't think you make everyone's. but i applaud the senator's willingness at least on the floor saying she's trying to work to make everyone happy. i think she's probably sincere in her efforts. i do have a concern, having been involved with this issue now for probably three or four years myself, not just the f.a.a. bill, but the slot issue and air transportation. and my former colleague, senator warren smith, -- gordon smith, were involved with this issue and before that with numerous members of the commerce committee. it is one of the thornier issues that congress has to deal with. and primarily the issue is one that's fused by both issues of economic development around airports. also transportation interests of the flying public and probably a little bit of dose of what members, you know, own personal

experiences and interests are. but for me getting access to the west to the nation's capitol, is an important issue. it's not the primary way i come to work every week. i actually fly in and out of the other airport in the region and do so -- i don't know if i'd say happily, because, frankly, i think dulles airport -- i don't know what they've done with their new -- they got rid of their mobile lounges an invested in some transports system that you probably walk as far on that system as you do what the previous system is. i see people smiling on the floor because i think they've already been through it. i think they're saying, yeah, i've done that drill, what's up at dulles. that aside, that's the way i fly 80% of the time back and forth to the nation's capitol and pleased to have that flight schedule that accommodates me

and probably lots of washingtonians. i think there's probably lots of my washingtonians to come back to deal with a variety of issues on that corridor and see that as an access point as well. the issue is whether the west has enough access to dulles -- to national airport. and in the past two baits that we've had on -- debates that we've had on this issue in 2000 and 2003 the congress decided that they did not have enough access to the west. and this body passed legislation to open up more slots to the west through which the department of transportation decided what were the best areas of the west to service who or the best networks to possibly service those areas and how to get that traffic from one destination to the nation's capital. in both instances, in 2000 and

2003, that very broad directive was given to the department of transportation. each time six new flight paths were opened up to the nation's capital and i think that process worked very well. it worked very well because the debate was not here in the united states senate floor about who's service was going to be delivered, but it was given to the department of transportation and the broad swrowt line. in each instance increasing access to the west to the nation's capital is about having the flying public act as the nation's capital and it's also about economic interest and that's why i still have concerns about this proposal on the table and about the fair access that it is -- may not provide to many people in the west. this particular proposal, unlike the two previous access issues in 2000 and 2003 were in each

point six new slots were given and the transporataion department had a fair an open process about it. this particular proposal focuses on the airlines that already service the nation's capital. and in this case over 60% of the nation's capital slots are controlled by two specific airlines. this proposal would open those carriers' -- carrier's ability to trade out slots that they already have with other cities and thereby giving them access to the west. in fact, my colleague from texas' proposal even on those new slots and new incumbent carriers that they're saying can give access to the west are people who are currently operating even inside the perimeter today. if you think this proposal is helping access the west, it is primarily about accessing the west for people who already

control the real estate and actual airport, which is two carriers. now, i noticed that the department of justice has looked at this larger issue. that's because for many of my colleagues, who don't want to spend a lot of time on this, i'm actually -- i guess i'm glad i'm educated on it, but i wish i had time to work on other things. the issue is that the national interest or policy question comes into play when you have access to what are limited footprint destinations. like national airport, like laguardia. those are times when the united states government has said we want to make sure that there is a fair process about this because there's a small footprint and obviously if somebody controls too much of that footprint, it's an issue. so in the most recent debate, delta airlines and usair have been trying to do a swap exchange between laguardia and d.c.a., and the department of

justice has basically said not such a good idea. you already own too much of the market share. if you guys want to do something like this, why don't you divest some of the slots that you have now? and instead of doing that, the airlines i think are going to go down a path of continuing to try to accumulate and dominate here in the east. so i -- i hope my colleagues will take into consideration that i know the chairman and the ranking member are trying to work in good faith, both on this issue and to move the bill forward, but for this member who wants to see a healthy transportation network, i am very concerned about the existing incumbents at national airport to continue to dominate with 60% of the market, and perhaps cancel a lot of flights that they currently have now within this region, only to benefit from the more lucrative

long-haul flights across the country. now, i'm for a fair process. i think everybody should be able to bid on any new flights that are going to be put on the table, and i think that the two processes that congress followed in 2000 and 2003 were closer to what i believe personally is a more fair and open process. so i hope that we can, you know, continue working in dialogue on these issues. i -- i do think they are important. they are probably more important for the long run of what the transportation network and system looks like in this country to make sure that the consumer interests are taken care of and that there is a -- a fair and competitive price, and i know that -- i know that some of the people who have been involved in this debate, probably not here on the floor but, you know, out in the public are talking about the amount of money that certain airlines have invested into these airports, as if, you know, somehow that means that they own the airports. well, i think the facts will show in both of these cases the

majority of money poured into the infrastructure at both of these facilities are basically taxpayer dollars through bonding authority. so it is not as if some airline owns the rights, owns the ability to control 50% or 60% of one of these airports just because they have been paying for airport improvements. we have all been paying for airport improvements. as i said, me personally, i think the airport improvements that are made at dulles aren't really so much of an improvement, but i'm going to continue to live with that and continue to fly through that particular airport. so i hope my colleagues will keep discussing this issue and hope that we can get somewhere on it. mr. president, my concern is that a proposal with conversion in it will mean many of my colleagues here on the senate floor will have their flights canceled to their favorite locations, and basically they will start servicing long haul across the country with a very

big share of the existing national market. i hope we can do something that will instigate more competition, more diversity and something that will help get this legislation passed. i thank the president and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you,

mr. president. mr. president, today i come to the floor because the -- the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today because on monday, president obama introduced his new budget, and what we saw in that budget is that for the most part it's more of the same -- more spending, more taxes, more borrowing. and we see this budget from a president who doesn't seem to understand the gravity of the nation's fiscal crisis. the -- when you start digging down into that budget that the president proposed and looking into the internal revenue service component of that budg budget, what you see is that the internal revenue service is

starting to focus in and audit obamacare. there is a glaring difference in the budget this year from previous years because it is the president's new health spending law. the i.r.s. now has unprecedented power over health care in america. in fact, when you take a look at this budget and specifically the internal revenue service's fiscal year 2012 request, over 250 times, mr. president, over 250 times the affordable care act, known in the budget as the a.c.a., known by people across the country as obamacare is mentioned 250 times. you know, mr. president, the goal to me of the health care law has been to let for people all across the country get the care they need from the doctors

that they want at a price that they can afford. as a member of my party looking at our economy, looking at the deficit and looking at the -- the incredible debt, what i think we need to do is make it cheaper and easier. cheaper and easier to create private-sector jobs in this country. that's the way we get the economy going again. but when i read this budget, and specifically the i.r.s. request, it seems to me it's making it harder and more expensive to create private-sector jobs in our country. you know, the people of this country are not taxed too little. the problem is the government spends too much. and when i take a look at this budget, that is exactly what i'm seeing being rejected by this administration. because it seems that this administration is more interested in taxing, in raising taxes rather than cutting spending. so when you -- you take a look

at what the i.r.s. says in the budget. it says the implementation of the affordable care act of 2010 presents a major challenge to the internal revenue service. this is the i.r.s. talking about the law that was crammed down the throats of the american people in the middle of the night, written behind closed doors. we're all familiar with it. now it is presenting a major challenge to the internal revenue service. the internal revenue service goes on to say that this law represents the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years with more than 40 provisions that amend the tax laws. "the wall street journal," reported earlier this week that the budget gives the i.r.s. the ability to hire 5,000 new workers. 5,000 new workers. after taking a close look at the i.r.s.'s plans, we know that they will have to hire over

1,000 -- 1,000 new i.r.s. bureaucrats -- washington bureaucrats -- to implement obamacare measures. what are some of those now that we're going to have i.r.s. agents coming into and looking into? well, one is the tanning tax. the component that promotes the excise tax on tanning facilities. the i.r.s. is requesting anoth another $11.5 million and requesting 81 more full-time equivalents to go ahead and implement this tanning tax. for oversights, they call it strength in oversight of exempt hospitals. mr. president, these are tax-exempt hospitals. hospitals that don't pay taxes. but to do an oversight of these hospitals, they want anothe another $9.9 million and another 84 full-time employees. and information, the new health coverage information they want

100 more new employees. something i call obama care 101 assisting taxpayers. the i.r.s. is requesting 22 -- 22 -- $22.2 million in hiring another 150 full-time qif lentz. and the -- equivalents. the i.r.s. call centers, so someone has a question, they can call in and ask a question, they want another $15 million because of the complexity of this new health care laws that going to be difficult for people to understand. you know, the american people and small business owners, and those are the job creators of this country, mr. president, they want the i.r.s. to make their lives easier, not tougher. not audit their health care choices and their health care decisions. but adding hundreds of new jobs, millions of dollars to the i.r.s. isn't going to make care better. it's not going to make care more available for anyone. so i'm going to continue to come to the floor with a doctor's second opinion to fight to repeal and replace this health

care law and to do it with patient-centered reforms that help the private sector, not the i.r.s., create more jobs. you know, mr. president, this morning we had a little event called wyoming wednesday, where people from wyoming come here and senator enzi's office and we have coffee and doughnuts and visit. one of the people from wyoming said, you know, i saw a sign and it was worrisome. i said, what was the sign. this location where they're putting in offices used to be a parking lot. you know, when you're replacing a parking lot with more offices for more washington bureaucrats, that's not a good sign for the rest of america. so here we have the i.r.s. saying that they're dealing with a major challenge because of the health care law. it represents the largest tax law change in more than 20 years. more than 40 provisions are used -- are being amended in the tax law and to go after things that they want this kind of

money to implement the tax changes with regard to the indoor tanning services. 81 new full-time equivalents. and you say, what's involved in this? the i.r.s. says that's -- there's as many as 25,000 businesses that provide indoor tanning services that they're going to tax, including 10,000 businesses that have tanning services such as spas. we're standing here in the united states senate, united states congress, 9% unemployment in this country, people looking for work, and more government jobs are being created and these people are creating government jobs to make it harder on small businesses. and it gets right to the crux of it right here because the i.r.s. even says, these entities, all of these tanning entities, typically do not have experience filing federal excise tax

returns. so what's the government going to do? come in, make them file claims and forms they don't have experience with. it's going to be costly. going to take time. going to be taxed. that's not a way to create new jobs. it's so interesting to look at this whole issue of they wan want $10 million more dollars to spend to strengthen the oversight on tax-exempt hospitals. mr. president, these are tax-exempt hospitals. were are the taxpayers being asked to pay another $10 million to hire 84-full-time equivalents? because according to the law crammed down the throats of the american people, the i.r.s. is now required to review at least every three years the -- the benefit activities of tax-exempt hospital organizations which number about 5,100 in this country. they actually say in the budget request by the i.r.s. as part of the president's budget that was

submitted on monday, it says these are new requirements for tax-exempt hospitals which include a majority of hospitals in the united states. so we're going to increase taxpayer dollars, going -- taxpayer dollars going for more i.r.s. auditors and make it harder on the tax-exempt hospitals in terms of paperwork and what they need to do. it goes on and on, mr. president. and that's why the american people are fedup with what's happening in washington. you know, you look into the president's budget and -- and before getting to the one part that has to do with the class act -- let's talk a little bit about that. because there's a whole component of the budget. one in 30 staff members added to the health department offering implementation for the class act. it is commune limited services

and support. the president appointed this commission about a year ago to say let's look into the debt. and people thought that was a bold move, bipartisan group, a lot of people coming together to take a look at this debt. and for a year the president said, well, we have a debt commission looking into this. so he didn't deal with the debt. and now that the debt commission came out with its report in december, the president's mostly ignored it. but, yet, the debt commission, it was bipartisan, chaired by erskine bowles, a former chief of staff from the white house for bill clinton, they came out and they took a look at the health care law and specifically honed in on this class act, which one of the members of this senate, a colleague on the opposite side of the aisle, someone who voted for the health care law, called a ponzi scheme that bernie madoff would be proud of. the president's budget commission, the bipartisan budget commission looked at it and they have significant

concerns about the sustainability of the program and called the program to either be repealed or reformed because it is not sustainable. they have raised concerns. people on both sides of the aisle have been -- raised concerns. but, yet, the secretary of health and human services has in her budget money for 30 additional staff members added to the health department offices. why? to go over the details of this act that people say want to be repealed because as it says the details of the class act will -- they want to spend $93.5 million informing and educating people about the class act. well, i can tell them right now it's unsustainable, it's irresponsible, and it's something that should be repealed. but, yet, the department of health and human services wants to spend over $93 million of

taxpayer money to inform and educate the public about this component of the health care law that people on both sides of the aisle think needs to go away. now, mr. president, finally, i will tell you today, as someone who believes this health care law's bad for patients, bad for providers, the nurses and doctors who take care of those patients and bad for the taxpayers, that what we saw in the president's budget that came out monday -- coming out for next year asking for over 1,000 new i.r.s. agents to go ahead and implement the various components and responsibilities that have been put upon their heads by this health care law, this is only the beginning. because the entire health care law doesn't really come into full play until 2014. and that's when americans are going to have more i.r.s. agents, more money being spent,

looking into their own personal lives, looking into what kind of insurance they have. is it acceptable to the government? is it government approved? that's why senator graham and i have introduced a piece of legislation called the state health care choice act. to let states decide. let states decide if washington ought to be telling the people in their states that they must buy -- that every individual must buy government-approved insurance. let the states make that decision. let the states opt-out if they'd like. let states decide if everyone in their state, all the businesses must provide government-approved insurance to their workers. let the states decide whether medicaid, a program for low-income americans, which is being expanded significantly by cramming 16 million more americans into medicaid, which governors all across the country in a bipartisan way are saying

our states can't afford this. when a "new york times" story shows pictures of jerry brown from california and andrew cuomo from new york complaining about the demands of medicaid on their states in terms of taxes, in terms of the mandates and what it's going to do for the people of this state who are trying to educate their kids and the cost and the pressure on education dollars because they're getting shifted to medicaid. the cost of dollars shifted away from public safety, from firefighters, from police officers, other public service -- public safety officers. this health care law, i think people at the state level ought to decide, no, we don't want this to apply to us. that's why, mr. president, i come today as a physician who practiced medicine in wyoming for a quarter of a century, took care of thousands and thousands of patients and families, trying to help people get better, all

in a way that now i think is being taken in the wrong direction by this health care law and why i think we want to continue to look for ways to make sure people get the care they want from the doctors that they need at a price they can afford. the health care law that was passed by this body fails in all of those respects and now we see with the president's budget a request for money for another 1,000 i.r.s. agents. not to help people get better. not to help people get the care they need from a doctor they want at a cost they can afford. no, not at all. but to audit the health care of the american people. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

>> the president's budget proposal lays out a $3 trillion spending proposal land claims $1.1 trillion in spending cuts over the next ten years. the proposal contained the five year freeze on domestic discretionary spending which the white house says will save

$400 billion. you can read that budget proposal as well as get department by department breakdowns and watch all budget hearings any time. it is available for you at c-span.org/budget.

quorum call:

three things this afternoon. number one, there are a lot of politicians and pundits and economists who are procee exroa

claiming all -- proclaiming all over the country that the recession is over and they have some economic models by which they determine that the recession is -- is over. i would suggest to those pundits and economists and politicians to take a look at the booklet that we recently produced in my office. it's called "struggling through the recession: letters from vermont." and we've also received letters from other states, people in other states as well. and what these letters tell us -- and i remembered tell you that we sent out a request for people to tell us as we enter the third year of this recession what is happening in their liv lives, and we got from my small state over 400 responses. that's a lot from a small state, and we got probably an equal number from around the rest of the country. and one of the problems that i had with these letters, that some of them are so painful to read that it's hard to read more

than a few at a time because you really -- you know, you get sick to your stomach seeing what good and decent and hard-working people are -- are going through. and i -- i just want to take a few moments today, mr. president, to read just -- just a few, a handful of the letters that i'm receiving from vermont in answer to the question, "is the recession over?" this comes from a young lady from central vermont and she says -- quote -- "i have been fortunate to hold on to my job throughout the past three years, especially since i have about $42,000 remaining on my school loans." mr. president, one of the recurring themes that we hear from all over vermont -- and i suspect that it is true in new mexico and all over this country -- is a lot of young people are graduating with a heck of a lot of debt, and the jobs that they are getting are not sufficient in terms of pay

to help them pay off that debt. and she writes, "any way, what i to want write isn't about me, it's about my boyfriend, a talented mechanical engineer who graduated about $80,000 in school loans." so we're telling the young people of this country, go out and get an education, they're coming out with huge loans having a hard time getting a job. "he was laid off in november 2009 and it has not only caused financial hardship but it has put all of our future plans on hold. he fortunately has temporary employment now after nearly a year of searching, but my qualm is with the high cost of education and how people in their 20's are supposed to move forward with their lives with school debt lingering over the them." and that is a very significant point. here's another one, another -- this is a young man from berry, vermont, in the central part of our state. "in 2002, i received a

scholarship to saint boneventure university, the first in my family to attend college. upon graduation in 2006, i was admitted to the dickinschool of law at penn state university and graduated in 2009 with $150,000 of student debt." not uncommon. "in western new york, i could find nothing better than a $10-an-hour position stuffing envelopes." another example of a young person graduating from college, doing all of the right things and yet ending up with very sufficient debt. that's from some of the younger people. then we got some letters from middle-aged people. and this is a woman, again from the central part of our state -- quote -- "my husband lost his job in 2002 and has been self-employed as a carpenter ever since due to the lack of jobs in central vermont."

and i should tell you, mr. president, the recession has had -- been less disastrous in element is vment than in many -- vermont than in many other parts of the country, and these are stories from a state that has not been hit a as hard as some other states. "he's had no insurance and we have not saved a cent since 20 2002. we've depleted our savings accounts paying for property taxes. we've been burning wood to save money heating the house. the cost of fuel for the house and vehicles puts a huge burden on making ends meet. being self-employed is extremely challenging due to the economic situation." again, she is touching on an issue that millions of people are aware of -- price of gas to goat work is going up. price -- to get to work is going up. price of home heating fuel in states like vermont is going up, wages are low for millions of people. how do they survive in that crisis? we also have stories from older

people and this is from a woman named beth who lives in the northeastern part of our state, very rural part of vermont. and she says she is 69 years of age. she says, "i don't know what kind of a future my grandkids will have. how will they be educated if we can't help them? it is great that there are loans out there for education but they are being charged more for the schools than i paid fo for my house. they will be in debt their whole lives." is here's a woman who's worried about her grandchildren. here's another woman, ellen, lives in rutland county. quote -- "all i can say is i still have a job, for all it's worth. i feel making $8.81 cents an hour at 17 hours per week is ridiculous." this woman is 63 years of age. "i don't bring home enough to help out with the major

household expenses i used to pay half on. i'm lucky if my paycheck reaches $130 a week. by the time i pay a few bills, gas up and pick up a few needed items, i'm lucky if i have any left for spending. i earn less than -- i earned less than $8,000 this year. it's just about what i made back in the 1970's and lived better." so point here is, a, if folks tell you the recession is over, read some of these stories. these stories are available on my web site sanders.senate.gov. these are mostly from vermont but i think they touch the same themes that exist all over our country. for millions and millions of people. not only those who are unemployed, those who are underemployed, those who are working full time and not making a living wage, trust me, the recession is not over. and, mr. president, the reason i ask people to send me this

letter -- these letters is that i think it's important as a senate to understand that we have got to address these economic issues. when 16% of our people are either unemployed or under employed or given up looking for work, when millions more are working at inadequate wages, we cannot say that we should not be vigorously going forward in creating millions and millions of jobs that our people desperately need. mr. president, i also wanted to say a word on social security. and what i wanted to say is i get very tired about watching the tv or hearing some of my colleagues tell me that social security is going bankrupt. social security will not be there for our kids. or social security is part of the serious deficit and national debt problem that we face. so let me just say a few words on that. number one, social security has

existed in this country for 75 years. and it has been an enormous success. we take it for granted. but for 75 years social security has paid out every nickel owed to every eligible american in good times and bad. when wall street collapsed a few years ago, millions of americans lost all or part of their retirement savings when the stock market crashed. all over america during the last 10, 20 years corporations that had promised the fine benefit pension plans to their employees rescinded on that promise. people working for years expecting a pension from that company, that pension never came. and, yet, during all that period social security has paid out

every nickel owed to every eligible american at minimal administrative cost. that is a pretty good record. and our job now is to make sure that social security is strong and vibrant 75 years from now just -- and continues to do the excellent job that it has done in the past 75 years. now, people say social security is going broke. social security is in crisis. and a lot of people believe that because they hear it over and over again and it's repeated in the media again, again, and again. what are the facts? so the facts are that not only is social security not going broke, social security has a $2.6 trillion surplus. $2.6 trillion surplus, which, by the way, is going to go up before it goes down. social security, according to the social security administration, and the

congressional budget office can pay out every nickel owed to every eligible american for the next 25, 26, 27 years at which point they will pay out between 75% and 0% of all of the -- 80% of all of the benefits. the challenge we face, therefore, is how in 25 years or 30 years, do we make up that 20% gap? that's the challenge. so social security is strong. will pay out every benefit owed to every eligible american for the next 25 or 30 years. people say, oh, yeah, that's worthless i.o.u.'s that social security trust fund. absolutely not true. the united states government from the day of its inception has paid its debt. social security is backed by the faith and credit of the united states of america. we have never yet -- and i

certainly hope we never will -- default on our debt. so, mr. president, the first point that i want to make is social security is strong. social security will pay out benefits for the next 26 years. and for people to come forward and say we've got to privatize social security, we've got to raise the retirement age, we have to lower benefits is absolutely wrong to my mind. we made a promise to the american people regarding social security and that's a promise we have to keep. now, what also takes place in the dialogue around washington is people love the very serious problem of a $1.5 trillion deficit and $14 trillion national debt with social security. so let's ask a very simple question. how much has social security contributed to our national debt? how much? and the answer is, not one penny.

not one penny. because social security is not paid out from the u.s. treasury. social security comes from the payroll taxes that workers and employers contribute into the social security trust fund. and that trust fund today has a $2.6 trillion surplus. so when people say, we have got a very significant national debt and, therefore, we have to cut social security, that is absolutely a wrong thing to say. so, mr. president, let me just say that i will do everything i can to protect a program that has worked extremely well for the american people. now, why are we hearing all of this opposition? -- opposition against social security? where does it come from? it doesn't come from ordinary people. they know that social security has been successful. that it is worth preserving. worth protecting. and, by the way, as we'll all know social security is not just there for the elderly, the

retirees, it's there for people with disability, it's there for widows and often for survivors. where is all this opposition coming from? it's coming from two places, i think. number one, it's coming from folks on wall street -- from wall street who are saying, gee, we could make many, many billions of dollars if we ended the social security system right now and americans had to invest in retirement accounts on wall street. and we can make all kinds of commissions doing that work. and that's one of the areas -- one of the sources of the opposition to social security. second, is from many of my very conservative republican friends. and, very honestly, they do not believe the government should be playing a role in making sure that elderly people have a secure and dignified retirement. they do not believe much in government. they don't think government should be playing a role in

those areas. and they want to get government out of those areas. i understand where they're coming from. it's an honest position. i strongly disagree with that. i think in a civilized democratic society, we have got to make sure that when you get old, it has to be guaranteed -- guaranteed as it has been for 75 years that you are going to get the help that you need. i believe government should be playing that role. and i would remind you, mr. president, that before social security was developed in the mid-1930's, that 50% of the elderly people of our country at that point lived in poverty. today that number is too high, but it is 10%. 50% before social security. 10% today. that is a pretty good record. so i would respectfully disagree with my republican friends who say, well, if people want a retirement account, let them invest in wall street, let them do it through private sector. i don't agree with that. i think social security has

worked well for 75 years. we've got to make sure that it works well for another 75 years. i will do everything that i can as chairman of the new deficit -- the new social security -- defending social security caucus to make that happen. last point i want to make, mr. president. i want to talk about the deficit and our national tet. i think it is a appropriate for the american people to be reminded about how we got into the very difficult situation we're in right now. i have to tell you i find it a bit amusing that some of the loudest -- quote -- "deficit hawks" in the congress are precisely the same people who help drive up the deficit and the national debt. the same people. so let's figure out, try to determine how we got into the recession. number one, in the midst of a recession by definition, less money is coming in. and that is obviously an

important part of why we have the deficit and the national debt we have today. but there are other factors. mr. president, you will recall that this country during the bush administration began two wars. a war in afganistan, a war in iraq. the war in iraq is estimated by the time we take care of the last veteran to run up a tag of about $3 trillion. does anybody quite remember how we paid for that -- those wars? well, the answer is, we didn't pay for those wars. those wars were put on the credit card. president bush said, we're going to go to war, but we don't have to worry -- we don't have to worry about how we pay for them. second area, as a result of president bush's tax policies, which have recently been extended, against my vote, and the obama administration, we've provided many, many hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to millions air ins and

billionaires. the wealthiest people in country are doing phenomenally well. the effective tax rate for the wealthiest people in this country is the lowest than any time on record, lower than what working people are paying. yet we decided, against my vote to give them hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks, driving up the deficit. congress voted against my vote to bail out wall street. unpaid for, drove up the deficit. some years ago congress, against my vote, decided to pass an insurance company written medicare part-d prescription drug program, very expensive program, unpaid for. so in all of these -- we have all of these things unpaid for, the national debt goes up, the deficit goes up and our republican friends say, oh, my goodness, we have a very large deficit. what are we going to do? we're going to have to cut back on programs that are important to working people and lower-income people. and i think that that is absolutely unacceptable.

so the first point that i would make is i regard it -- is incomprehensible that there are folks who are supported hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires and then they tell us that they are concerned about the deficit and the national debt. that is absolute hypocrisy. and, in my view, the united states congress should not be about cutting back on programs for low and moderate income people after we have given huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country. second of all, i think the time is long overdue that we start ending a lot of the corporate tax loopholes which now are preventing this country and this government from getting the

revenue that we need. before we talk about major cutbacks for our kids or for the elderly, maybe we should end the absurdity of the tax havens that exist in the cayman islands and bermuda where the wealthiest people in this country an large corporations are stashing -- and large corporations are stashing their money away to the tune of about $100 billion a year - year -- $100 billion a year in tax that's are not being paid because of the tax havens that exist. i would also argue that it is somewhat absurd that we have a situation where last year exxonmobil paid no federal income taxes at all, go got $156 million rebate from the i.r.s. after earning $19 billion in profits. so, mr. president, what i would say is, yes, deficit and national debt are very, very

important issues. but it is important for us to understand how we got to where we are. it's important for us to understand how the top 1% earn more income than the bottom 50% and have enjoyed huge, huge tax breaks. so before we start slashing programs that the middle class and working families. this country need, let's take a look at those issues as well. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from texas is recognized. mrs. hutchison: i have a modification of my amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the amendment will be so modified. mrs. hutchison: thank you, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection; the senator's recognized. mr. sessions: i ask to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator's recognized. mr. sessions: mr. president, we had sort of a dustup, i guess you could say in the budget committee yesterday with mr. lew, who is with the office of management and budget. a likable gentleman. but we had a disagreement, a fundamental matter that i don't think can be brushed over and needs to be confronted and settled. there's -- settled. there's only one way to settle it and that's mr. lew and the

president ceasing the budget does not add to the debt. it somehow changes the trajectory on which we're going. mr. lew on a sunday morning program said, "our budget will get us over the next several years, to the point where we can look the american people in the eye and say we're not adding to the debt anymore." our budget will get us to the.where we can look to people in the eye and say we're not adding to the debt anymore. we're spending money that we have each year and then we can work to bring down our national debt. now, that's my goal. i believe that's achievable, but it is clear this budget doesn't do that. troubling additionally was the president in his radio address saturday said the same thing and then, again, yesterday while we were having this discussion

presumably at a similar time. the president said this, "what my budget does is to put forward some tough choices, some significant spending cuts so that by the middle of this decade -- 2015 -- our annual spending will match our annual revenues." our annual spending will a match our annual revenues. we will not be adding more to the national debt. that is an unequivocal statement. no matter what -- and it can can have only one meaning to american citizens who hear it. that his budget calls for a situation in which we -- our annual spending will match our annual revenues and we'll not be adding to the national debt. now, those of us who have been wrestling with the budget know

how hard it is. i believe we can achieve that in 10 years, but it is very hard, i have to admit. i wish it weren't. the presiding officer on the budget committee knows how hard that would be. it would be a heroic effort, i think we can do it. i think the american people are ready to do it, but it's not easy. the president says that's what we're going to do and that's his budget. that's his plan. but, sadly, it's not correct. and i asked mr. lew, was he not concerned and was not misleading to the american people who heard it and he refused to say his statement was misleading. so what does the budget do? these are the numbers in his budget. the document that they presented to us written by the white house, the president's budget he's required by law to submit to congress. and this what happens to the

debt. the quote up there again is "we will not be adding more to the national debt." we add more under his plan to the national debt every single year. and the numbers are stunning in size. and they're consistent and, unfortunately, in the outer years of his 10-year budget, his numbers show the annual debt -- annual deficit increasing, not going down. and so this is what it amounts to in terms of total debt. now, -- so his plan by his own budget that they submitted to us would add, without dispute dispute, $13 trillion in new debt. doubling it to $26 trillion. it started out at $13 trillion and in 10 years it doubles to $26 trillion. so how can this possibly be a position where you will not be

adding more to the debt? what world are we living in? what kind of fan tass kal accounting situation can occur that we can make such a statement as that? i'm going to ask my colleagues in the senate, any single one of them that can defend this statement, i'd like them to come down here and do so. otherwise we need to call on the president to be honest with the american people. we have a serious debt crisis. to waltz out there in a press conference yesterday to go out and speak on his radio program saturday or to have his budget director sunday, and even in our committee hearing yesterday, insist somehow they're not adding to the debt is not a way to begin a dialogue about how to confront the serious problems this country has. i just have to say. so i don't think it's a little bitty matter. i don't think it's subject to

gentleman disagreement. i don't think it's subject to anything other than black and white. yes or no? is that an accurate statement or not? it's not true. the debt is added to every year and, in fact, president bush was criticized for his deficits, and i think rightly so. the highest deficit he ever had was $450 billion, $460 billion. the lowest deficit in 10 years by the president's own budget document he sent to us is ove over $600 billion. the lowest. it average $720 billion a year in added debt. this is why we're on a dangerous course. and so the essence of what we're talking about is, can we get off this wrong road? can we get on the road to prosperity? can we get on the road to

progress that gets us out of the debt disaster area we're headed? let me just read a couple of things because this is the real test of the budget. we can argue over the finer details, but the question is, can we continue at the rate we're going? now, what i would say about the budget is that these numbers -- this $13 trillion added debt is what was being predicted before. according to the president it would have been $14 trillion, he refused it to $13 trillion. it's not enough change if it were to happen. but what the congressional budget office independently scores the president's budget, it's going to show that it doesn't have a $1.1 trillion reduction in spending. probably none. probably no reduction in the debt. so i guess what i'm saying is, this budget keeps us on the course we were on.

i don't think that can be disputed. it does not alter the basic debt totals each year than what has been projected. and those are the numbers, the debt totals that are unsustainable. for example, in 2009, president obama called the current deficit spending on this basic trend unsustainable himself. and warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if u.s. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries. this is bloomberg. quote -- "we can't keep on just borrowing from china" obama said at a tawn hall meeting in rio rancho, new mexico, outside albuquerque -- quote -- "we have to pay interest on that debt and

that means we are mortgaging our children's future." that's correct. mr. bernanke, the chairman of the federal reserve board, warned in june of -- of last year that -- quote -- "the federal budget appears to be on an unsustainable path." close quote. mr. geithner, the secretary of the treasury, in february -- february 15th, a couple of days ago on abc said, this is what mr. obama's secretary said -- quote -- "our deficit are too high. they are unsustainable. and left unaddressed, these deficits will hurt economic growth and make us weaker as a nation. we have to restore fiscal responsibility and go back to living within our means." peter orszag, who was president

obama's office of management budget said that the c.b.o. report, he said this june of last summer, concludes that we are on an unsustainable fiscal course. about this there is no ambiguity. we're on an unsustainable fiscal course, no doubt about it, said mr. orszag last summer. so what i would say to you is the president's budget does not change that direction. and we have to change it. and we've got to be honest with the american people that we're not changing it. the president's plan is his plan for future. he can change the numbers any way he wants to. he can -- he can change the trajectory we are on. it's a voluntary thing. the numbers he put forth are his numbers and they're a call for our country to follow his plan.

and so that's not an acceptable plan. just not an acceptable plan and we've got to change it. and briefly i will add this: the warnings that are out there. alan greenspan, our former chairman of the federal reserve board, said in december that, "it's a little better than 50-50, but not much that we won't have a debt crisis in this country in two to three years." moodies, the organization most famous for rating public debt and private company debt -- triple-a being the highest rating -- moodies in december sent a warning letter that unless the united states changes its trajectory of debt that our

debt could be downgraded from triple a in less than two years. the international monetary fund has said we've got to reduce our structural deficits more than greece. they have got to go a 9% improvement. we've got to go 12% improvement. only japan, says the international monetary fund, is worse off than we are and has to take stronger action. so this budget is no action at all. it's no alteration of the trajectory. it's unacceptable, as congressman ryan said it's debt on arrival. we cannot pass this budget. it's unthinkable that we would. the american people are ready for change. they're supporting governors and mayors around the country who are making tough choices, bringing their states and cities

up to speed and being more effective. they're doing that. these cities aren't ceasing to exist. we increase discretionary spending, non-defense discretionary spending in the last two years under president obama's leadership in the democratic majority in both houses, 24%. 12% a year on average. well, it's 7% a year increase, the total budget doubles in ten years. i guess at 12% it probably doubles in six or seven years. this is the trend we're on. we need to come off that. we're going to have to reduce those numbers because we don't have the money. i'll tell you, this economy has vibrancy. it's trying to come out of this recession. if we create some stability and permanence in our rules, eliminate unnecessary

regulations, allow our energy prices to be competitive and create more american energy and all the things that make sense to bring down cost and increase productivity, bring this debt under control, we'll be surprised how strong we can bounce back. but this is not the path to do it. this is the unsustainable path that can lead to danger. the closer we get to it, the more dangerous we are. and so i believe it's time to change course. where we're going to go, i just can't say. i'm rather stunned at the president's budget. i didn't expect a very strong budget, but i expected one that would make a lot more progress than this. so i guess we're all befuddled right now what our choices will be. all of us will work at it, though, because the future of our country is at stake.

i thank the chair and yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: thank you. do we have a pending amendment? the presiding officer: yes, the second-degree amendment hutchison amendment to the inhofe amendment is pending. mr. coburn: thank you. let me confine my remarks for a few minutes as to how i see where we are and hope i can get some amendments pending and discuss with the chairman -- i just discussed with the ranking member -- the disposition of those. i wonder if the chairman has comments on that. mr. rockefeller: i will be objecting to your amendments because you objected to the pending amendments, and there will be no reason to add more

unless you lift your objection. mr. coburn: i told -- mr. rockefeller: i'm very happy to listen to what you have to say. mr. coburn: all right. i told senator leahy last night i would be happy to lift my objection once my amendments were pending, and we could have a debate on his nongermane amendment. mr. rockefeller: i think that the order has to be reversed. mr. coburn: if the chairman will assure me that i'll have the opportunity to, number one, debate senator leahy's amendment -- mr. rockefeller: i cannot assure that at this point. mr. coburn: i will continue with my amendment -- mr. rockefeller: you have amendments that you wish to offer, i think five, i'm constrained to object to them. mr. coburn: it's interesting, we have a nongermane amendment that is outside the bound of the constitution, doing something that's not the role of the federal government, that we're going to expand the cost at a time when we're bankrupt, and five germane amendments that actually lower the cost of the airport improvement fund,

actually help nextgen, generation in terms of money, help preserve the airport trust fund and we're not going to be allowed to bring them up. if that's the way we're going to operate, you can count on phaoerbgs knowing procedure -- me, knowing procedure around here, we'll have a very difficult time everything moving to a leahy amendment. mr. president, i came to the floor to discuss what we're trying to do and to be helpful in moving that along. i've now heard that i will not be allowed to offer these amendments or at least bring them up. i'm going to discuss each one of them, and i will object to any unanimous consent moving forward on any area until we have an opportunity as the senate tradition is to have a debate and bring amendments up. if we're not allowed to do that, i'm sure we're going to start going backwards again. passing an f.a.a. authorization bill, as the chairman and ranking member have tried to do, is a significant priority for

congress. we have a system of air traffic control that needs to be modernized. we have moneys that are putting forward to that. we've not had the oversight, according to the inspectors general that is necessary for those programs. in this bill, we have authorizations for moneys that are not priorities for this country at the time we're facing a $1.6 trillion deficit. we have an unemployment rate in excess of 9%, and interest rates are going to rise in the future. and my amendments, of which i'm happy to have voted on and voted down, lead us to a path that secures and enhances the airport improvement fund and the trust fund, makes common sense that 99% of the american people would agree with, excludes alaska because they are a totally different animal twhe comes to essential -- when it comes to

essential air services requirements, and will in fact enhance the trust fund. i'm very sorry that the chairman refuses to allow my amendments to come up, but i will offer them and have him object in total. what has to happen with every program in this country is wasteful spending, low priority spending and duplicative spending has to be eliminated. and although i think the chairman and ranking member did a fairly good job on this bill, there's areas where we can eliminate wasteful spending. there's areas where we can eliminate duplicative spending. and there's areas we can say this can't be a priority now given the financial fix we find ourselves in. during our current budget deficit, the revenues coming into the airport trust fund are lower than expected, and we have this very real need on nextgen

development. congress has to limit somewhere and make a priority nextgen. and i think they've tried to go in that direction in these amendments will do such a thing. the first amendment i'd like to talk about is the airport improvement federal cost share reduction amendment. we now have across this country money being spent on low-priority projects in airports that have very little traffic or minimal traffic, and we're not spending money on the airports for safety and for the airports where we have the mass majority of funding -- of traffic. we've seen one program in particular where billions of dollars of low-priority projects have been spent.

i would just tell you, if we're ever going to get out of the jam we're in, some common sense has to be applied that we can't do everything that everybody wants. and there's going to have to be some sacrifice in these areas. the whole goal of this first amendment is to discourage low-priority, wasteful aviation projects that would not be funding by increasing the nonfederal cost share to just 25% over three years. in other words, it's 5% now. it's 95% of the government's money. and all we do is over three years move it to where you have to pay 25%. it's going to discourage a lot of low-priority projects because the communities or the states have to have greater participation. there is no program in the federal government that has a grant process and a funding process where the federal government pays 95% other than this program. not one.

so we're encouraging money to be wasted on low-priority projects by maintaining 95% federal funding. and this gives us three years to adjust to what 75%, which probably should be 50%. but 75%, given our fiscal issues that we find. when nonprimary airports could initially have up to 90% of the airport improvement projects covered by the federal government, in recent years we raise that under public law 108-176 to 95%. this is 20% higher than the same cost share for other airports qualifying for this $4 billion program. it's $4 billion a year. lest you think that i'm too critical, let me give you some examples. two flights a day, noncommercial

flights, two flights a day are the average for kentucky's whitley county airport. we spent $11 million to build an airport with a 5,500 lighted runway and hundreds of acres for growth even though it doesn't have one airline passenger and averages two flights a day. tell me, if you ask the average american should we spend $11 million there or should we make sure that we can take care of the kids that don't have what they need in this country? should we spend $11 million or not borrow another $11 million from the chinese? should we spend $11 million there or should we in fact make sure the airport trust fund has the money to do the high-priority projects like large airports or like nextgen? which one? which one would the average american we should do. lest you think i'm picking on kentucky, halliburton field in duncan, oklahoma, got $700,000

for a pilot room and reception room. we're building for private aviation with taxpayer money and low priority. we're building a nice pilot room and reception room for the private pilots that fly in. tell me how that's a priority in our country today. that's my own state. we're sending money down a hole because we refuse to make tough choices. and all this amendment does is say let's move it from 95% over three years to 75% so that we don't get the lower-priority projects funded because we are too generous with what the federal government contributes. the chairman may not like it, but i bet you the average american thinks it is a pretty smart thing to do given the state we're in. all bets are off on the politics of this. i've never been accustomed to playing the politics of it at all. but there are just as many people on the left who think we ought to cut spending as there are on the right.

america gets it. the only place that doesn't get it is here. and this doesn't do anything except enhance what can be done for higher-priority issues within our aviation community. that's all it does. it's a small, simple step. and by rejecting or not allowing an amendment like this to come forward, what we're saying is we're going to keep kicking the can down the road. we're not going to pay attention to the american public. we're going to hide from the reality that is coming very soon for this country that will undermine. we won't have any money to put into airport improvement programs. we won't have the money to fund a nextgen program. it will become a low-priority program unless we wake up and start doing what the rest of america recognizes we have to, and that's start living within our means.

the next amendment is an amendment that's a bipartisan amendment between the senator from alaska and myself. it's an earmark rescission amendment. and all it says is the earmarks that have been out there that money hasn't been spent over nine years, given one year for the agencies to decide whether they think that's so, should be rescinded. it puts $500 million, a half a billion dollars at a minimum, back into the public treasury. why would we not want to do that? we got $2.6 million sitting in atlanta that can't be spent on anything except the 1996 olympics in atlanta. why wouldn't we take that $2.6 million back? it was earmarked. it didn't get spent. but it's sitting out there in a hold and we can reverse --

the estimates are we'll save $1 billion. the conservative estimate, at a minimum, $500 million. we're not going to allow this amendment to be considered? we're not going to allow it to be considered? it makes no sense. the next amendment colls calls on us to sacrifice a little bit -- the next amendment calls on us to sacrifice a little bit. the essential air service program has multiple subsidies where people can drive an hour and 20 minutes to get to a regional airport that doesn't require any subsidies. all this did is notifies to 100 miles and says if you're less than 100 miles, you ought to have to not be eligible for us

-- sometimes to the tune of teds 400 or $500 per person per flight -- have a subsidized flight when you could drive 70 minutes, 80 minutes and have access to a ton of flights. again, it's priority. is it a priority for us to continue to spend money on a small group of airports -- 36 -- that in no way pay for themselves, that are readily accessible throughout the country to major airports and spend the kind of money that we're spending? another amendment says that if you have less than 10 enplanements a day, maybe we ought to think twice about whether or not we're disiebsing essential air service. there's two amendments on essential air service. all they're saying is, will we make the tough decisions? we can't do everything we want to do. is it nice that we have an essential air service program so some people don't have to drive

an hour? i guess so. what are we willing to sacrifice to get our house in order? and so these are little bitty amendments that will send a wonderful signal to the american public that we get it. we absolutely get it. and that because we get it, we're going to make choices about priorities. we're going to enhance the airport trust fund. we're going to enhance the airport improvement program, because we're going to take lower priorities off the board, which is exactly what they want us to do. they want us to focus on the big things, the important things, and they want us to cut the spending that's not absolutely necessary. now, i can till it's not absolutely necessary that we -- now, i can tell you that it's not absolutely necessary that we subsidize to the tune -- some of these smaller areas that are very close to regional airports or have less than 10 passengers a day. it is not absolutely -- so what w will we ask some amero

sacrifice? yes. but we're not going to have to sacrifice before we get through this. the problem is the resistance in this chamber and in the city is that we don't want it. we don't want to make the hard choices. so it is disappointing that we've not done that. we're going to have do that. and we're either going to do it or somebody from the outside is going to tell us what we're going to do. and then a fifth amendment -- and i know that the chairman will be against this amendment because it's his program that i'm trying to eliminate -- but in the year 2000 we created another program called the small community air services program, and this is an amendment to repeal that. it tbas geared to help smaller communities -- tbas geared to help smaller communities, to

enhance the air service. to try to promote the utilization which it is a good idea except it's not working. and when we see the funds from this program after the grant is over, you know what happens? the airlines leave. they don't stay. they leave. so we're just kind of spending mona market that won't sustain what we're trying to put there, and then we're putting more money on top of it to try to promote it, and when it doesn't work, what happens? we loo lose the essential air service anyway. and it's happened in oklahoma. the other thing i would tell you is that in this day and time that we live, we have to have an f.a.a. bill. we can't continue to not have an f.a.a. bill. so even if my amendments are

voted down, considering that they're going to get a vote, i'll probably support this bill, but it should be noted that we haven't gone far enough. and we haven't made all the tough choices that we need to make. and i'm highly disturbed that we take amendments that are absolutely germane and say they can't be offered because a time agreement, even though it's been agreed to, isn't disagreed to yet in terms of the formal -- because the senator from vermont isn't on the floor -- we can't offer amendments. so i'm going to offer amendments and let the chairman object, and then i'll utilize the procedures that are available to me as a member of the senate, as i do that, aid like unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment

number 91. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. rockefeller: there is objection. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. objection is heard. mr. rockefeller: and i would say to the senator from oklahoma, most of the pending amendments which are now pending have been objected to from your side of the aisle. and i don't have any objection to looking at some of your amendments and seeing if we can vote on them. but i can't do that right now. i obviously can't give you any kind of consent right now. and, you know, it's a very difficult situation. i mean, there's a sort of rolling veto-type situation. if an objection is made, we can't have votes on amendments which are pending, and you now i'm -- i am willing to look at what you have suggested, us a talked through some of them,

they sort of stung pretty hard in my state of west virginia. but i'm willing to look at it. but i can't do that without consent from folks on my side. so for the time-being, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. coburn: we will, i thank the chairman -- well, thank the chairman and i'm going to go on. it will be in the record to see- in the record that i did attempt to offer them. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. coburn: unanimous consent to set aside the amendment and call up amendment number 81. the presiding officer: objection is heard. burn birnld ask unanimous consent to call up amendment 28 and set the pending allot aside. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. coburn: i thank the chairman for his words. i will take him at his word and i will work with him and allow limb to lact some of these. there's only two airports in

west virginia that this would have an impact on. both are less than 75 miles from a regional airport. and they both have minimal enplanements daily, minimal. there are over 10 but not far over there. but the point is we ought to help who we can help and it ought to make economic sense and they're not targeted because there are 6 airports that are in there that actually the average american would say, it's nuts to spend the kind of money we are. so i thanks for the time and i notice the eans absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

you i

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. nelson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. nelson:zy that the quorum call being dispenses with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: madam president, i rise today in order to speak in support of the essential air service program and explain why the program truly is essential, especially in rural states.

in nebraska, our two largest airports are separated by only 63 miles in a state that covers 77,000 square miles. this means that thousands of nebraskans are hours away from the large or even medium-sized airport to allow them to take a flight. many nebraskans rely on essential air service to keep themselves and their communities connected to the nation's transportation network. in nebraska, we have essential air service airports in many communities including my hometown of mccluke, and scotts bluff. without an e.a.s. program, you would see the many hours that it already takes to get to any type of air service increase slig for people in those rural areas. the cost to travel on one of these flights would become so cost-prohibitive that many would not even be able to afford to

travel. quite frankly, there would probably be many cases where the e.a.s. airports would struggle to exist. but the e.a.s. program isn't about cutting hours off a driver's time to make a flight, it is also about economic development in rural areas and job creation. e.a.s. promotes accessibility and growth in rural communities and surrounding rural areas. i have seen firsthand the impact air service can have on a community's ability to attract employers. when i was governor of nebraska, one of the first questions many companies would ask is did you want to bring a manufacturing plant to town would be, what's their air service situation in a area? because of these e.a. se airports, i could respond that the area provided an air service transportation option which gave these communities a job creation reciting edge. but don't just take my word for

it. thereon what other nebraskans who have been in a similar situation are saying and the same things that they're point out about how important the essential air program is to their communities. for example, john cheesicky asaid, "as the mayor and lifetime resident of the town, i bleb it is essential to it to insupport the essential air service program. as a community, we are active in the recruitment of new business. i firmly believe we've unique atmosphere to offer to businesses looking to move or to expand. our county was recently identified as the poorest in the state and any limitations placed on us by reducing e.a. se support will only hinder our hopes of growth. " end of his quote. darwin skeleton, the airport director at a regional airport has said, "essential air service is very important to western nebraska regional airport and western nebraska as a whole.

without this funding, we would not have commercial air service to our community. we have many businesses in this community that use this airport. vortex regional medical center, twin center development, just to name a few. when they are told of this plight, i'm sure you'll be receiving letters of support from many businesses, organizations from around the area, small, more rural markets need air service to grow and maintain connections with larger hubs, and doing away with essential air service would be saying to rural america that they're not valued as an important part of air service in the united states." that's the end of his. now, kyl patoff said, "having access to commercial air service is critical to the economic stability of communities like mccook and without this service, it would make recruiting new businesses very

difficult." as a statement that i've recently heard is that economic development does not come by bus or train. it comes by air. this statement could int not bee true." that's the understand of his quote. finally, dave glenn said, "with the economy finally showing signs of improvement, loss of e.a. se funding for airports like north platte would be disastrous. it serves 18 hospitals and clinics in western nebraska, northwest kansas and northeast colorado to. provide the medical care -- the medicare-required pathologist services we leigh rely on using our plane base at the north platte airport. our hospital is also recently started a medical helicopter service which helps meet the need and the health care needs of patients. without e.a. se funding, our business and the heflt our citizens would be negatively

impacted." that's the understand of his quote. madam president, i will a we will aware that the essential air service does have its critic who are concerned about providing government funding support to keep air service in rural america. certainly a review of all government-supported programs to find efficiencies and ways to make a program run better are proposals i'm always open to reviewing. but to simply try and eliminate essential air service program which is a driver of economic activity in my state and in other states as well, as you can clearly see from these nebraskan stories, is absolutely the wrong approach. essential air service truly is as its name would imlierks essential to rural nebraska and rural america and that is why i oppose any efforts to eliminate this important program. and, madam chair, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call: