the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i rise to speak -- the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mrs. gillibrand: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: today i rise to speak about an issue of great importance to millions of my constituents in new york, our nation's public transportation system. particularly public transit. this is the very life line that millions rely on to get to and from work, to bring their paychecks home every single day to their families at night. investigators proposals put forward throughout the course of the debate in both the house and senate would actually slash funding for mass transit. the proposal advanced by the house republicans last month to eliminate the mass transit account of the highway fund was a stunning misunderstanding of our nation's transit needs.

cutting off public transit from its traditional funding source without providing viable alternatives is just irresponsible. in fact, former congressman and now transportation secretary ray lahood called the house bill the worst transportation bill he'd ever seen. let me state some clear facts. new york's metropolitan transit authority is the nation's largest public transportation system, operating over 8,000 rail and subway cars and nearly 6,000 buses. on an average weekday, nearly 8.5 million americans ride these trains, subways and buses prayed operated by the m.t.a. to commute to work, to visit the city which generates enormous economic revenue, not just for new york but for our country. moving these riders into cars flies in the face of any sound environmental public policy and furthers our dependence on

middle eastern oil. neeftion cost for our nation's transit riders should be rejected out of hand by the u.s. senate. i will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure we plaintain transit funding to encourage the use of mass transit and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. i understand, mr. president, that we have many, many very difficult decisions to make as we debate this bill, but i think stopping new york's transit system in its tracks is just simply not a credible solution. i also have a few amendments for this bill, and each of them is equally important and addresses different issues. but the first one that i want to address affects me as a mom of two young boys who will be want to be driving at 16, kids all across america can't wait for that day when they get their driver's license but there are terrible statistics about teen deaths. in fact, one showed 11 teens die every single day because of car accidents and i know every

family in america has been affected by those horrible high school tragedies of kids dying in a car accident on their way home from the big game, on their way to the prom, every scenario you can imagine in your own mind. so what we have to do is we have to give our teens better tools, better training so that when they get to become full-time drivers and have all of the investigators permissions -- various permissions allowed they're ready for that. you can imagine the scenarios. think about texting while driving. you can't imagine how deadly distracted driving is in our country. imagine the young driver who doesn't have a lot of judgment. imagine a young driver who has five other kids in the car and they're coming back from the big game and they're all excited and listening to music and it's at nighttime. those are riskier situations that we know if you give that driver more training before they're in those risky situations, that they will be able to handle them better.

experts agree that the graduated driver's license basically gradually phasing in teens into the driving experience with different responsibilities and different permissions as they get older is the way to begin to address some of these risks. it's been a proven, effective method in many states that have already instituted graduated driver's license so i think we need a national priority, a priority that says you must, you must as a state put in some basic training requirements, some measure of graduated driver's license to ensure that when these kids get on the road they have the skills and tools they need to keep themselves safe, the passengers safe, and the other drivers on the road. i think as parents, i think as people who set public policy for our nation we should be making the safety and well-being of the lives of at least those 11 teens every single day who die our priority and i think this is a proven way to do it and we can do it. the second amendment is

something that i think basically increases economic opportunity. now, new york is unique in that we are a border state, and we share a border with canada. and there are -- is so much opportunity for cross-border transactions and cross-border commerce and so all this change is very simple, gives authority to our states to invest in critical border crossings such as freight and passenger rail systems. by providing this simple change, very simple change states like new york, california, vermont and texas will be able to choose to enhance hans these crossings and i think increase many more economic engines to address our tough economy. and the last amendment equally as important, it's about jobs. how do we create the economic engine to get america working again. well, one way is to increase our pipeline. actually do better training for jobs that are available. one of the ways we can do that is this pilot program that's already been proven effective

elsewhere called the construction careers demonstration project, amendment 1648. basically it's a scons, proven -- commonsense, proven strategy, at-risk workers and give them an opportunity to be trained in the building and construction trades they provide for their families and we reduce unemployment. it's just a pilot program and i urge my colleagues to support these three amendments and to really focus on how we can pass a good, useful, beneficial transportation bill which will get our economy moving. thanks so much,, mr. president. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, i ask the quorum call be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection.

mrs. mccaskill: i ask to speak in morning business for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. mccaskill: i rise to speak about a new program for at-risk students in st. louis. it's about my friend, judge jimmy edwards and his school. before i talk about the school and the incredible work judge edwards has done in the community, i would like to spend a minute talking about his childhood roots. judge edward grew up on the north side of st. louis in the shadows of a public housing complex. the residents of this housing project faced many challenges, including drug and gang activity, violence and sometimes acute poverty. but through discipline, hard work and determination, judge edwards rose above these circumstances. he earned both his bachelor's and law degree from st. louis university before being appointed to the state bench in 1992, and for four years, he has served as the chief judge of the st. louis family courts juvenile division. during his service on the bench,

judge edwards became increasingly concerned by the number of young, repeat offenders coming into his courtroom time and time again, only to be sent back to the same troubled environment that negatively influenced their behavior in the first place. from his own experience, he knew that offering these kids the opportunity for a proper education and for mentoring was absolutely critical to breaking the cycle. in 2009, judge edwards, together with the st. louis public school district, the family court juvenile division and the nonprofit organization murs, goodwill industries, founded innovative concept academy, a unique educational opportunity for juveniles who had already been expelled from the city's public schools and who were on parole. these young people who many would have given up on found a formidable advocate in judge edwards and the academy. from the beginning, innovative concept academy has been devoted to helping at-risk youth achieve

success through education, rehabilitation and mentorship. its mission, to enrich the learning environment for some of our most troubled kids, has resulted in second chances for these young men and women to dramatically improve their lives. at the start, judge edwards planned on providing educational and mentoring students to 30 kids who had been suspended or expelled due to missouri safe schools act. when he asked the st. louis public school for a building to use for the program for 30 students, they asked him if he wouldn't mind taking on the responsibility of 200 more. this was a challenge, and he accepted with his usual enthusiasm and can-do attitude. during the first year of his existence, the academy saw 246 students move through its doors. today the academy teaches at-risk youth between ages 10-18 and has an enrollment of over 375. some of these students are visiting our nation's capital

this week with judge edwards, his wife stacy, his daughter ashley and his son john, along with chapper owns. here -- chaperons. here with us today along with judge edwards and the chaperons are the students daron smith, nadia jones and others. these are young men and women who have turned their lives around with the help of judge edwards and his academy and who serve as an inspiration to others in the community and frankly an inspiration to me. i am so proud of what they have been able to accomplish. the innovative concept academy provides these students and many like them with so many important services. a quality education in a safe environment, one-on-one mentoring with school staff, counselors, deputy juvenile officers and police. an array of extra curricula and after-school activities, many of which are often new experiences for these students, including golf, chess, dance, classical music and creative writing.

uniforms, meals and so many other necessities are also provided, and with tough love and important lessons about discipline, respect, anger management, goal setting and follow-through. all of this allows the students to meet their full potential and st. louis has seen positive results already. the academy has an attendance rate of over 90%. let me repeat that. the academy has an amazing attendance rate of over 90%, and we are seeing significant improvement in these young people's grades. and the students are responding positively. for example, at the end of the first semester at the academy, the suspensions of 40 of the students ended and the students were supposed to return to their home school. almost every student asked if they could stay at the academy because they knew that the academy is a special place where they can improve their lives. the innovative program has also garnered national attention. judge edwards has appeared as a

guest on a number of major network shows and most recently was honored by "people" magazine as one of its 2011 heroes of the year. but for him, it's not about the magazines, it's not about the interviews. for him, it's still about the kids. i'm proud that judge edwards hails from my home state of missouri and from my hometown of st. louis. his compassion for those who society may have given up on his commonsense and innovative approach to solving the problems facing some of our young men and women are inspirational. he is compelled by his duty to serve and lift up the next generation no matter what the circumstances. he said it best when he observed if the community -- and that includes judges -- does not take it upon itself to educate the children, then our community and what we stand for will be no more. this notion that we can all succeed when we work together with a common cause and unified

purpose is central to our american identity. i ask my distinguished colleagues to join me in congratulating the innovative concept academy and judge jimmy edwards. the success of the academy and judge edwards' dedication and service to the st. louis community should be an inspiration for everyone serving in this chamber. if we could have a little bit of judge jimmy edwards' attitude about working together, not worrying about taking the credit and a can-do attitude, it is amazing what we could accomplish on behalf of the american people. and i would yield the floor to my distinguished colleague, the senator from missouri, senator blunt. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, i also would like to speak as if in morning business for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: and would thank my colleague for all the comments she has made about judge edwards, about his family, about the school. this is truly a remarkable story. i know both of our staffs have been telling us for some time now of incident after incident

of young people's lives that are being changed by this school by a judge who decided that he needed to get outside the courtroom to make a difference in the lives of kids. in fact, people calls this the school of last resort. and it's a chance, it's an opportunity that many are taking advantage of. judge omer he, the presiding judge of the circuit where judge edwards worked, put out the following statement. he said, "the editors of "people" magazine have selected st. louis juvenile court judge jimmy edwards as one of the publication's heroes of the year for 2011. judge edwards was profiled in a recent issue of the magazine and the announcement was made in november of 2011." according to the magazine, quoted here in this comment from his colleagues, the magazine says, "we choose men and women who reached across boundaries to help strangers or work within

their communities to deepen bonds. from logan, utah, to judge jimmy edwards in st. louis, who started a school for wayward teens, the 2011 winners never let daunting odds stand in their way," said the managing editor of "people" magazine, larry hackett. in 200, after watching a string of teen offenders come through his courtroom, judge edwards decided to take action. although the 45 communities -- along with 45 community partners, he he took over an abandoned -- he took over an abandoned school that he and i were talking about earlier today and opened the innovative concept academy, providing strict discipline, counseling, and programs like, as my colleague mentioned, music, chess, creative writing. and the center literally has changed life after life of young person after young person. giving them the opportunity to graduate from high school and lead successful lives after they've been expelled from high school at an earlier time. these winners each received an

award of $10,000. thethey were able to use for their -- their favorite causes, and certainly judge edwards has this cause and others. i'm -- i'm thrilled -- quoting judge edwards, "i'm thrilled that our school has received this recognition but also amazed at other individuals across america profiled by the magazine." judge edwards is married to stacy and stacy's here today in washington with two of their three children. their children, amy, ashley and john. his -- his colleagues at the circuit court admire what he's done. the families involved, the teachers involved, the community partners involved admire what's happened here. mirrors goodwill, the st. louis public schools, according to the judge himself, court employees, all the teachers and staff and volunteers at the school have made a dirches in the concept acted -- difference in the concept academy.

judge edwards said, "by supporting our school, st. louis is refusing to give up on troubled juveniles. and, in turn, the students are proving that hope for a better life is a universal dream." what -- what a great story this is. his colleagues see him as a hero among us. "people" magazine has talked about this. i notice in the "people" magazine article, i liked what they referred to as judge jim each's rules -- jimmy's rules. here are three of judge jimmy's rules, mr. speaker. one headline is no saggy pants. no saggy pants. and then it says, like mumbling, bad grammar, rudeness, droopy pants are all big no-noes at this school. kids need to understand what it means to be civilized, said edwards. no loitering, another rule. edwards wears his kids out with afterschool activities. i expect them to be so tired

that they can't do anything but go home and go to sleep and get back and start the day the next day. and then maybe the best rule of all, no quitting. as long as they're trying, says the judge, they're succeeding this is being proven time after time, day after day. one person can make a difference and the way this one judge has made a difference is inspiring a lot of other people to come together and make that difference. and then inspiring these kids and -- and others who air about them to -- who care about them to decide that this is the school of last resort but the school of last resort can produce lots of great results. and we're seeing that happen. and i am proud that this is going on in our state and hope that judge edwards' example becomes an example for community after community around this country. and i would yield back the floor. and note there's an absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: it's

unelected, it's a group of unelected bureaucrats that will decide how to fund the care that is covered by medicare. so i come to the floor with my colleague, senator cornyn, and he's been traveling around the state of texas, as i've been traveling around the state of wyoming, talking to seniors, visiting with them, asking about their needs. they have great concerns about what is happening with this health care law to the point that this week the house of representatives is actually working in a bipartisan way to repeal this board, these unelected washington-appointed bureaucrats. to me, it's the commission

that's going to ration seniors' care and make it harder for our seniors to see a health care provider and get the care that they need. and i know senator cornyn is leading the effort in the senate to work with the house in an effort to repeal this. and i know, senator cornyn, you're doing this in an effort to protect our seniors, to make sure our seniors get the care they need. i would ask that you possibly share with me and others the concerns that you have, the concerns that you've heard and the way that you're hoping to address that. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'd be happy to respond to my colleague from wyoming, senator barrasso, who has been not only a united states senator but a medical doctor and what has been on the receiving end of government policy that while it may be well-intended backfires. and particularly this deposit support now -- this bipartisan support we've seen in the house energy and commerce committee

yesterday where they voted to repeal this independent payment advisory board. independent payment advisory board, ipab. not ipod. ipab. the reason why this is so important, and i'd like to ask my colleague from your long experience as a medical practitioner, the purpose of this 15-member unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy to actually set prices for health care, what happens if to the exclusion of all other health care reform that's ipab or the federal government generally cuts reimbursement to providers. it would seem to me that you'd get a phenomenon where you have the illusion of coverage but you have no real access to health care. the experience we've had in texas, is, for example, medicaid. and the president's health care

bill puts a whole lot of people into medicaid. only about a third of medicaid patients can find a doctor who will see a new medicaid patient in the dallas, fort worth area, one of the most populous parts of our state. i know in many rural areas -- and i know washington has a rural area as well. many doctors don't want to see a medicare patient because the rates are so low. i want to ask the senator from wyoming what his experience has been. mr. barrasso: my experience has been what you described. you said the words the illusion of coverage. when the president talked about the health care law, so often he wasn't actually talking about care. he was using the word "coverage" and he was trying to use those words interchangeably. but coverage is not care. because someone has a card that doesn't mean they can actually see a doctor.

we see that with medicaid now with its low levels of reimbursement. and with seniors already having trouble getting in to see a physician, this has a significant impact when an independent -- when a board, an independent payment advisory board, 15 unelected bureaucrats decide they're going to decide how much to pay for a doctor's visit, how much they're going to pay a hospital for bypass surgery or for a hip replacement, which is an area of my specialty. that hospital gets to decide if they're going to continue to provide that service. that doctor gets to decide whether they're going to see that patient. in rural communities, if the reimbursement is so low -- and i've heard this from hospital administrators in wyoming. if the reimbursement is so low for a procedure that is primarily, if not exclusively done on people of medicare age, and you can think of those things more likely to happen with people over the age of 65,

the hospital may ultimately decide that we cannot continue to afford to provide those services and keep the doors open to the hospital. so that seniors in a community will then be denied access to care in their own community because the hospital will no longer do or provide that service, whether it's bypass heart surgery, whether it's total joint replacement. and that senior then has to travel greater distances to try to find someplace to do that. a hospital may look at reimbursements for a procedure or different kinds of technology and say the reimbursement is so low, we're not going to upgrade our erbgs x-ray equipment. we heard many communities where one in ten communities would be so financially distressed by the health care law they may have may end up having to close their doors over the next ten years.

i'm hearing that in wyoming, but it's because of this board that the president wants to be the ones to essentially do what looks to me to be the rationing of care. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'd like to ask the senator from wyoming, it seems to me that what the intent is behind this independent payment advisory board and the president's health care law, sometimes called the patient protection and affordable care act, i think it needs to be named "unaffordable care act" for reasons we can go into later. but the purpose behind it, we can all understand, and that is to try to contain health care costs and spending by the federal government. because, of course, health care inflation is going up much faster than regular inflation, the consumer price index. it strikes me that as in a lot of the policy debates we have here in washington in congress, we all agree that we need to do something to contain costs, but we disagree about the means to

achieve that affordability that we all know we need and to contain the inflation of health care costs. and i just would like to ask my colleague rather than have congress outsource its responsibility in this area to an unelected, unaccountable group of 15 bureaucrats from which there is no appeal and which would have the consequence, as you say, of limiting people's access because if all you're going to do is cut provider payments to hospitals and doctors, then fewer and fewer doctors and hospitals are going to be able to see those patients. do you see an alternative that would perhaps help contain costs more by using transparency, patient choice, good old-fashioned american competition. i'm thinking in particular about the rare success we've had in the health care area containing costs in the medicare part-d

program. to me, perhaps a model even where seniors have a choice between competing health care plans, where they get their prescription drugs, but pwauflt choices that -- but because of the choices that they have and the natural competition that occurs, you get market forces disciplining costs. indeed it's a very popular program but the projected cost for medicare part-d has come at about 40% less than what was originally projected. it strikes me that that's one of the missing elements here with this outsourcing of this responsibility to this unelected, unaccountable group of bureaucrats where the only thing they try to do is cut provider payments. do you see the alternative along the line of medicare part-d or otherwise? mr. barrasso: i think the two key words i heard the senator from texas say are "choice" and "competition" because those things put the patient at the center.

it is patient-centered care. not government-centered care. not insurance company-centered care. but patient-centered care. it's something we've been talking about for years on the senate floor, at least on this side of the aisle, to put the patient at the center, to give them the choice as well as have the availability of the competition. the concern i have -- and i was at a statewide meeting in wyoming and a number of our veterans and their families, and i asked this simple question: how many of you believe under the health care law that passed you're ultimately going to end up paying more for their health care? every hand went up. every hand. over 100 people there in caspar. over 100 hands went up, and they all believe they're going to end up paying more under the president's health care plan than they would had it not been passed. and that's what we're seeing from a lot of the research as well. the admittance that care costs are going up even faster under the health care law than if it

hadn't been passed. then you ask the critical question that the senator from texas has referred to about the availability of care, the quality of care, if you ask the question how many of you believe that the availability of your care and the quality of your care under the president's new health care law will go down? again, every hand in the room went up. these are all people that believe that this health care law, crammed through congress, crammed down the throats of the american public at a time when they were shouting, no, we don't want this, that they believe, the american people, it made it worse. they're going to end up paying more and getting less for something that they didn't ask for at all. the american public did have concerns from the beginning, which is what generated the whole discussion about health care and reform. and what patients are looking for is the care that they need from the doctor that they want at a cost they can afford. and under the president's health care law, they're losing all

three. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i would just like to thank the senator from wyoming for his response. i think that's been -- it shows there is an alternative to this outsourcing of our responsibilities to try to make care more affordable to this group of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats and cutting provider payments which actually limit access to health care. but i had -- i tell my colleague from wyoming, i had an experience a couple of years ago visiting with some folks at whole foods, the grocery chain that's headquartered in austin, texas, where i live, they vote each year, i believe -- john mackey, the c.e.o., is very proud of this, they vote each year on their health care plan. what they have chosen, the employees choose year after year is a high-deductible insurance coverage for catastrophic losses, but then to cover the rest of their care it's a health

savings plan that actually whole foods makes contributions into this health savings account which is owned by the worker and can then be used to pay for their health care for the regular sort of routine needs. and i remember sitting at the table with a number of the workers and talking about why they liked this alternative so much, and it's clear because it gave them the choices that we all would want for ourselves and our families in terms of the doctor we want and the kinds of treatment we want. and it provided incentives because people were spending not the government's money, some sort of a credit card that they would never see the bill for, but they remember spending their own money in their health savings account, thus realigning incentives for not only providers, but also for consumers in a way that creates more transparency, more choices

and the kind of market discipline to hold down the cost.i would just ask my colleae was great division in congress over the passage of the patient protection and affordable care act -- what some people call obamacare -- 60 democrats voted for it, 40 republicans voted against it in the senate, that on this issue, on the ipab -- the independent payment advisory board -- there is support to take out that particular provision because people now, on further examination, have seen why it could actually backnier limiting people's access to health care. and i would ask my colleague, do you see a way for us to, on a bipartisan basis, to narrowly address that provision while we continue to wait on the supreme

court of the united states to rule on the constitutionality of the individual mandate? we don't know how things like the state-based insurance exchanges will operate and subsidies, and whether those will be affordable or not. but on the narrow issue of repealing the independent payment advisory board, do you see the appeal for bipartisan support for the that? mr. barrasso: we see bipartisan support in the house. i'd like to see bipartisan support in the senate, because when you look fundamentally at what this board does, it -- they make recommendations, and it's practically impossible for the recommendations not to automatically become law. and we were elected to make laws, not have an independent party make the laws. american patients are going to be forced to accept whatever this unelected board's recommendations are, very hard for congress to override. so i would expect in a

bipartisan way, people would say, let's go and completely eliminate this board, which i know your piece of legislation is designed to do. the -- american patients, people all across the country, if they suffer from the recommendations of the board the way that the law is written, they can't challenge this unelected board in court. americans variety to challenge things, but not this unelected board, as was written into the health care law. so those are the sorts of things that i hear about, when people say, well, what if i can't get a doctor, what if i can't get the care i need because of the decisions made by the board? and this fundamentally gets to the issue of the whole health care law, which took $500 billion from our seniors on medicare, not to save and strengthen medicare but to start a whole, new government program

for someone else. and this board that i think we should eliminate -- this board, which i think is going to be hurtful for our seniors, is the group that is responsible for making the sorts of very challenging cuts from our seniors on medicare; again, not to help save medicare but to start a program for someone else, which is why this health care law is even more unpopular today than it was the day it was passed. so i think we do have a bipartisan reason to eliminate this, and that's why i'm supporting your legislation. mr. cornyn: i would just like to ask my colleague one final question, perhaps. whenever we talk about reforming, saving, and securing medicare so that we can keep our promise that we've made to seniors that when people reach the appropriate age, that they can actually qualify for this benefit and it actually will be there for them -- and in fact people do in fact pay into this

fund; they expect to bet their money's worth back -- that sometimes the charge is made that various reform proposals will destroy medicare as we know it. but i would like to ask the senator from wyoming, a medical doctor by profession, whether medicare as we know it, as currently constructed under the president's health care bill with this ipab provision in place, does it have any chance of survival as it currently operates now, with this new board of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats setting prices and limiting access because doctors and hospitals simply can't afford to provide the service at that compost? -- at that cost? does that have the potential to radically change medicare as people have come to know it?

mr. barrasso: my view is that people will still get a medicare card in the mail. but whether there are people in hospitals, doctors in hospitals, nurse practitioners and others who will accept that card is another concern. because what this board may do, and is likely to do under the deed manneds of the health care law -- under the demands of the health care law, those on medicare and those coming on medicare may have a harder and harder time finding a doctor and hospital to care for them. let's face it. about 10,000 baby boomers will turn 65. yesterday about 10,000 baby boomers turned 65. tomorrow about 10,000 baby boomers will turn 65. we need to make sure that medicare is there and secure for the current generation as well as the next generation, generations to come, and my concern is that this board that i know you're trying to repeal -- i'm trying to repeal -- is

going to make it that much harder for our seniors to receive the care that they neerksd the doctor that they want -- the care that they need, the doctor that they want, at a cost that they can afford. mr. cornyn: mr. president, as we approach the two-year anniversary of the patient protection and affordable care act, otherwise noaf known as obamacare, there's a lot of things that you're going to hear from both across the street from the supreme court and the constitutional challenge to this individual mandate, which is a very important constitutional question for the scooter supret to decide, whether there is no limit of the power of the federafederal government ch it s to forcing you to buy a product approved by the federal government and penalizing you if you don't do it. and then there are other important questions about the workability of the law, the affordability of the law. but i think we can today just say, if we can work together in a bipartisan way to repeal the

ipab requirement -- and senator reid is the only one, as the majority leader, who can bring it to the floor, but hopefully because of the bipartisan support it has gotten on the house floor, i hope we can encourage him to do that and help ensure that people when they qualify for medicare just don't get a card but actually have a good chance -- or i should say, better than a good chance; they will be able to find a doctor who will treat them for the price that the government is willing to pay. mr. barrasso: well, thank you for the efforts on your part to repeal this, i think, terrible idea that was a fundamental part of the president's proposal and it's one why i think the health care law is even more unpopular today than it was the day it was passed and signed into law

almost two years ago. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll of the united states senate. quorum call:

senator mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, is not frr wisconsin is recognized. or senator i also ask this aask unanimous consent that michael johnson, be granted floor privileges for today. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i will ask to speak in morning business for up to ten minutes.

the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized. mr. johnson: i have come to the floor to pay tribute to america's sons and daughters who have fallen in the line of duty. citizens who gave their lives to preserve the liberties upon which america was founded. the finest among us who, because they cherished peace, risked their lives by becoming warriors on our behalf. what could be more sacrificial than the lives our servicemen and women choose to lead? they love america, so they spend long years separated from their loved ones, deployed in faraway lands. they revere freedom, so they sacrifice their own se so that e may be free. they defend our right to live as individuals by yielding their own individuality in that noble cause. they value life, yet bravely

ready themselves to lay down their own in humble service to their comrades in arms, their families, and the nation. for more than 234 years, our service men and women have served as guardians of our freedom. the cost of that vigilance has been high. since the revolutionary war, more than 42 million men and women have served in our military, and more than one million of those selfless heroes have given their lives. wisconsin has borne its share of that great sacrifice. since statehood, 27,000 of wisconsin's sons and daughters have died in military service since september 11, 2001, we have lost 143 brave souls with ties to wisconsin.

and since i took office last january, 13 more have perished. statistics can't possibly convey the weight of these losses. after all, statistics are really numbers that can never fully communicate the qualities of these fine men and women whose promising lives were cut far too short. statistics say nothing of their unfulfilled hopes and dreams. so instead of numbers like one million, 27,000, 143 or even 13, i'd like to ask everyone to think for a moment about a much smaller but still staggering number, the number one. each of these men and women was a loved one cherished by family

and friends. each was a loss to their community and to this great nation. each paid a price that we must never forget. we must also remember the sacrifice made was not theirs alone. every family member and friend left behind experiences profound loss, sadness and grief. the tragedy multiplies. it is not contained. for those left behind, the pain may slowly subside but the wound will never heal. two weeks ago, i had the privilege of bearing witness to the sacrifice of one of wisconsin's fallen heroes and the courage of those he left behind. on february 22, a grateful

nation laid first lieutenant dave johnson of mayville, wisconsin, to his final rest at arlington national cemetery. i was honored to join david's loving and proud parents, laura and andrew and his sister emily and his brothers matthew and michael as they said their final goodbyes. out of sheer coincidence, michael was already scheduled to intern in my office this week and is with us today in this chamber. it is fitting that we acknowledge his loss and sacrifice. the johnson family loved their brother and son. they loved him dearly and our hearts go out to them. i pray that they find god's peace and comfort today and in the tough times ahead as they deal with this overwhelming and tragic loss. lieutenant johnson was only 24 years old when he died of

injuries suffered after encountering an improvised explosion device on january 25 while leading his men in kandahar province, afghanistan. in addition to lieutenant johnson, today i would also like to pay tribute to the other wisconsin heroes who gallantly gave their lives since i took office last january. since then, wisconsin has lost staff sergeant jordan baer, u.s. army. staff sergeant baer, age 25 of elton, wisconsin, died march 1, 2012, in kandahar province, afghanistan. staff sergeant joseph j.altman, u.s. army. staff sergeant altman, age 27, of marshfield, wisconsin, died

december 25, 2011, in kunar province, afghanistan. specialist jacob j.rowley, u.s. army. specialist rowley, age 24, of darlington, wisconsin, died september 21, 2011, in kandahar province, afghanistan. sergeant garrett l. eppinger jr., u.s. army reserve. sergeant eppinger, age 15 of appleton, wisconsin, died september 17, 2011, in parwaw providence, afghanistan. sergeant chester g.stoda, u.s. army. sergeant stoda, age 32, of black river falls, wisconsin, died september 2, 2011, while on recreational leave from duties

in support of the war in afghanistan. corporal michael c. nolan, u.s. marines. corporal nolan, age 22, of spring valley, wisconsin, died june 27, 2011, in helmand province, afghanistan. specialist tyler r. krantz, u.s. army. specialist krantz, age 21, of blight, wisconsin, died june 28, 2011, in arusegan province, afghanistan. private ryan j. larsen, u.s. army. private larsen, age 19, of friendship, wisconsin, died june june 15, 2011, in kandahar province, afghanistan. sergeant matthew d. hermanson,

u.s. army. sergeant hermanson, age 22 of appleton, wisconsin, died april 28, 2011, in wardock province, afghanistan. specialist paul j. ateam, u.s. army. specialist ateam, age 27 of green bay, wisconsin, died april 16, 2011, in nimroz province, afghanistan. corporal justin d. ross, u.s. army. corporal ross, age 22, of green bay, wisconsin, died march 26, 2011, in helmand province, afghanistan. and finally, first lieutenant darrin m. hidalgo, u.s. army. first lieutenant hidalgo, age

24, of waceshaw, wisconsin, died february 22, 2011, in kandahar province, afghanistan. may god bless and comfort their loved ones with his peace. may he watch over those who have answered the call and are serving today and those who will serve in the future. may god bless america. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president, i also note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll of the senate. quorum call: call.

the presiding officer: without objection. the senator is recognized. mr. nelson: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, this friday will mark five years since f.b.i. agent bob levinson disappeared while on a business trip as a retired f.b.i. agent. he was on a business trip to kisch island in the persian gu gulf. it's a part of iran. that's five long years that his wife, christine, has been without her husband and five long years that her seven children have been without their father. over those five years, i've spoken so many times about bob

from the floor of the senate and so many other venues. bob, a retired f.b.i. agent and a resident of south florida, just yesterday i met with his wife christine, and she joined the then-f.b.i. director bob muramueller, and deputy directo, shawn joyce, in announcing a million-dollar reward for information leading to bob's safe return. and so soon in southwest asia, billboards will start to appear announcing that million-dollar reward, and it is southwest asia that we know where bob is being held. well, today i want to talk about his children.

because tomorrow in miami, the society of former special agents of the f.b.i. will honor bob's two youngest children, his son, doug, and his daughter, samant samantha, both of whom ago, long with their other -- both of whom, along with their other siblings, have persevered through this very, very difficult time. doug was in the seventh grade when bob disappeared. this year he will graduate from hietion on his way to college. he's grown athletically and academically and has grown to almost his father's height. bob will be shocked at how tall doug is. but he will be even more proud of all that his son has accomplished.

samantha, bob's daughter, was in high school when bob disappear disappeared. and in just a few weeks, she'll graduate from college. samantha's been a resident advisor and a proud member of her sorority. she interned at disney, where she hopes to work after graduation. and, again, when her father returns, he will be so proud. so to honor bob's children and standing in solidarity with one of their own, the society of former special agents of the f.b.i. will award to doug and samantha scholarships to assist with the cost of college. i want to thank that society, those agents that have protected

us so much over the years. i want today to thank them for their service. i want to thank them for their kindness. and i want to congratulate doug and samantha for all that they have accomplished under such very difficult circumstances. to christine levinson, this heroic woman who has stood so strong in the midst of great adversity for five years, i want to say to christine and to her children that this government will not rest, none of us will rest until we have brought bob home. i look forward, as do so many, to that day of celebrating with them and celebrating with all of bob's friends and his former

colleagues. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll of the senate. quorum call:

a senator: prpt. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized. mr. enzi: thank you. i'd reich to ask unanimous consent james ward from my

office be granted floor privilege for the duration of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. enzi: i thank the chair. first, mr. president, i want to say how important roads and bridges are. we are on the highway bill, and that is one of the main advantages the united states has had, having excellent transportation. and of course that's particularly important in my own state because we want people to get to the first national park, which was yellowstone national park and another gorgeous park, grand teton national park and a place called fossil butte national 340u789 where people can fish for 60 million year old fish and we have a spot in the middle of the state where people can dig up dinosaur bones and if you dig one up by yourself you get it named after you. or the first national monument, devil's tower, which is up in the northeast attorneyer. and of course we're a corridor between those western states, too. so we know how important roads

and bridges are. and we need to do that and we need to do it now. but we should do it the right way, so i want to refer to an amendment that i've filed, number 1645. my amendment is very simple and straightforward. it would allow the gas tax to be adjusted with inflation. not with the price of gas, with inflation. this isn't a new idea and it certainly isn't a very popular discussion point. but this is the debate the senate needs to have. the long-term viability of the highway trust fund is incredibly important to our states. the underlying proposal the senate is debating would pay for transportation and and infrastructure projects and programs for the next two years but it doesn't address the future of these programs. nor do the financing proposals fit within the time frame of the bill. i have serious objections to

paying for two years of spending with ten years of revenue. let me stop on that issue for a moment. we are spending money in two years that it will take us ten years to generate. how can we tell the american people that we're serious about the deficit and serious about spending when we allow money to be spent five times as fast as it comes in? if the senate wants to keep the highway program viable through a trust fund instead of subjected to the general not fund which any accountant or bank we're say is bankrupt, we need to cut spending or generate more revenue. those are the two choices. a lot of work has gone into the bill before the senate. four committees have worked on it. four committees have filed amendments that have been included in the version that we're seeing. i appreciate that many of my colleagues are trying to reduce the mandates on the states as well as consolidate and eliminate programs. that's good. those are steps we need to take. even with some serious

streamlining, however, the highway trust fund will not have the revenues needed to meet the current obligations his of the fund. we can certainly give states flexibility in how they prioritize the funds they receive. we should not and cannot ignore that with this bill we're just buying time. buying time is something the federal government has been doing for decades and that's gotten us into this serious financial mess. we're buying time with borrowed money, and the borrowing's pretty dubious, and some of it's from country we'd rather not be borrowing from. i want to share some charts with you. you may only be able to discern what i say, and what i say is what appears in the senate journal, not the charts. these have a lot of numbers on them. i'm an accountant, so i get really excited over numbers. but too many numbers it, still makes the point. what we have here are the highway trust fund balances.

starting in 1993, the last time a gas tax was passed by us -- and that was 18.3 cents. this column shows the troeflgts knew re -- total revenue receipts. for the most part they have been going up, which means more gas has been bought. but here are the expenditures. you'll see what effect that's had on the closing balance in the trust fund. we've had quite a few years when there was some money in there right after 1993, when the gas tax more closely matched up with the cost of construction. and as we get out here into 2001, we can see that it drops significantly and keeps dropping. and the balance at the end of 2012 is going to be 11.4 billion dollars. we're spending more than that just in this one bill. next year it will be a minus 2.8 billion, then 18.7 billion, then

34.7 billion. these are deficits i'm talking about, deficits in the trust fund, which means in those year we're going to have to get the money from somewhere else. it winds up in 2016 it being a $50.7 billion deficit to the trust fund. that's what we're doing generally with all of our accounting. but it shows up here in something that i don't think anybody in america denies is absolutely necessary. we have to have the roads and bridges. so if my amendment were enacted, what kind of adjustment to the tax rate would we see? if this amendment had been enacted last year, in 2011, this january -- the tax doesn't go into effect until the january after the inflation is measured, this january the tax would have been increased by one half of one penny. one half of one penny. the price of a gallon fluctuates more than that on a daily basis. tph-fbgs, i was watching -- in

fact, i was watching on television and the lady was showing the high price of gas and showed a sign in front of the pumps. just as she was about to leave, she said wait a minute, while i've been talking the price has gone up 20 cents. we're seeing some huge changes there, but not with the gas tax. if we had enacted the indexing in 1993, the last time congress adjusted the gas tax, there would have been an increase of 11 cents in the gasoline tax over 19 years. excluding the one tenth of a cent for the leaking underground stourpblg storage tank, the rate would be 29.5 cents per gallon today. that's what this chart shows. it shows the amount of inflation that there was each of those

years, and so the amount that the gas tax would have gone up in each of those years to provide -- to provide a fund that would actually help us with building the roads and bridges. it would be 25.5 cents per gallon today. in that same time frame gasoline prices have risen from $1, $1 per gallon to $3.50 per gallon or more. that was $4 in that example i was getting off of television. if we enacted in 2005 under the last highway bill there have been a 3.5 cents per gallon adjustment. i estimate there would have been increased revenue in the highway trust fund by over $18 billion from the gas tax alone. so this is the chart that shows what would have happened had we indexed it in 2005, what the

c.p.i. index would have been and what the adjustment would have been. that would have been the changes, 3.5 cents per gallon. hardly noticeable in the price of gas that we have today. the trust fund would have had $18 billion, which is what we need to have to be able to spend. it's very important, in 1993 the gas tax of 18.3 cents was included in -- included in the $1 of gas, and the state taxes included in the $1 of gasoline price. 18 cents out of a dollar. now the 18 cents is part of $4 a gallon. don't you think construction costs have increased based on the cost of a gallon of gas alone? remember the gas tax is what's paid for roads and bridges, but can't anymore, causing us to use very bad financing methods. stealing from pension funds with

no way to pay it back. using ten years of projected revenue to pay for two years of construction. what do we do for the money in two years? roads and bridges will always need construction. our economy runs on construction. the construction industry has mixed feelings about my proposed amendment. they are for it as long as it does not bring the bill down. my intent is not to bring the bill down, but rather to make it a viable bill. of course my amendment will not make it a viable bill all by itself. the simpson-bowles deficit report said we needed to increase the gas tax by 5 cents a year for three years to have a viable fund. here are the quotes from that deficit commission. the president appointed the deficit commission. they looked at everything. on highways and bridges alone, this is what they came up with: 15 cents per gallon increase in the gas tax over a three-year period. limit spending to match the

revenues the trust fund collects. that's what we're failing to do in this current bill. once fully kpwhrepltd, a -- implemented a 15 cent increase would generate an additional $24 billion to $27 billion per year. each one cent increase would generate about 1.6 billion dollars to 1.8 billion dollars per year. that's from the deficit commission trying to figure out how to get us out of the hole we're in right now. this is what they came up with just for the highway fund. so with my amendment, my amendment that just indexes its inflation -- it doesn't start until next year -- is just a way to test the water to see if there's enough courage in this body to take a very minimal step. my amendment doesn't solve the shortfall of the highway trust fund nor fully pay for this legislation.

it is just a small step in the right direction. it is a step in getting the highway trust fund back to what it was created to be, a dedicated pot of money to pay for the roads funded by those who use the roads. we need to take this step and a lot of other steps if we're going to fix our money problems and fund programs as intended. the national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform -- that's that simpson-bowles commission -- supported a 15 cent increase in the gas tax to be gradually adjusted over a three-year period. once fully implemented, a 15% increase, as i said, would provide $24 billion to $27 billion per year. that's what we need for roads and bridges. the commission also recommended that congress enact a limitation so thalt spending could not -- so that the spending could not go beyond revenues. seems like a fairly commonsense approach, spend only what you generate. we could really use that around here. of course that principle is something we need to enact in the overall budgeting in washington. let's be clear here, the tax

rate and gas prices are two very separate issues. folks might think that as the price of fuel goes up, so does the federal gas tax. and that is not true. whether the price of gas is $1 per gallon or $4 per gallon, the federal tax remains the same. again, the fund collected 18.3 cents for every dollar of gas in 1993. construction costs have increased and now we only collect the same 18.3 cents for a $4 gallon of gas. and if we were really being successful at some alternate means of transportation, the amount of gas would go down as people use those other ones. but it isn't. i'm sensitive to the fact that the gas prices are high right now and i'm always looking for ideas on how we can work to bring those prices down. with the distances we have to travel in wyoming alone, high fuel prices have a disproportionate effect on the residents of my state. the president said there isn't a

silver bullet to bring the prices down. that's certainly true if you look at his administration's policies with having done everything possible to increase the price of fuel. while there might not be a silver bullet, there is a number of actions that will make a real difference. one reason that gas prices are high is that the supply is limited and tensions in the middle east further strained that supply and encouraged speculators. to fix the supply problem, we should be producing american energy wherever it's possible instead of blocking production, the president should be encouraging us to develop american energy in alaska and the outer continental shelf and on federal lands. yes, production is up, but it's not from federal lands. that's shut down. it's coming from private land where a permit doesn't take a lifetime of investment and delay. federal lands are down 12% in production. we should be enacting policies that encourage energy production on public lands in wyoming and other western states, rather

than relying on oil from the middle east and venezuela. president obama should approve the keystone x.l. pipeline so we can get as much supply as possible from friendly nations like canada before they feel forced to sell it all to china, who is buying up energy worldwide. china understands that in 20 years the country with the energy will have the power. and i'm not talking about electrical power. i'm talking about world power. gas prices are high because of the regulatory uncertainty created by the administration's relentless pursuit of policies that are designed to make energy more expensive under the guise of halting climate change rather than arguing over new taxes for the oil and gas industry, we should be working to rein in the environmental protection agency to stop those regulations that make it impossible for businesses to plan. we have a permitting problem. when i hear the lecture that the number of acres leased for exploration but not being

drilled, i get angry. and i'm usually not angry. these parcels include land that has no oil. when you buy a lease, you buy a package. and then you drill where the oil or gas is within that package. also there are millions of acres ready to be drilled, but the lease holder can't get the bureaucrats to turn loose of the permits. of course energy secretary chu recently confirmed that his energy policy is to create conservation by having our gas prices reach the same level as europe. well, unless we do something with the gas tax at his desired $7 a gallon we will stoeupbl get 18.3 cents a gallon for the highway fund. if we were trying to match cost with instruction to revenue the solution would be a userer fee -- you don't drive on the road, you don't drive on the roads, you don't need to pay the tax -- but it would be a percentage of the cost of a gallon of gas if we were really

being radical. but be clear, we are not doing that. probably not doing any of this. we need to do everything we can to lower gas prices. and i'm working to do just that. in fact, we're debating some of those issues on this legislation because the majority refuses to debate them using regular order. however, the issue of gas prices is entirely separate from the issue of determining how we should pay for highways. we've set up a trust fund that's supposed to take care of road and bridge needs, and i might mention that changing the formula to miles driven would just be to increase the gas user fee while hiding the increase. that's not the way to do it. we should be honest about whatever kind of an increase we're putting on this user fee. that's the wrong way to do it. if we don't add more revenue to the trust fund, we should cut our spending to the amount of money we have in the trust fund. that's, again, what the simpson-bowles report said. i know there are a lot of

sensitivities in talking about the rate of gas tax or any other tax. there's no doubt that individuals and businesses are still stressed in this economy and are struggling to make ends meet. people in rural states like wyoming have few options driving long distances for many of their needs. several of my colleagues have said to me this just isn't the time to be talking about the gas tax. i must ask, when will the time be right? members of congress don't want to tackle this topic when the economy is strong, nor do they want to tackle the topic when we have economic challenges. when revenues to the highway trust fund were meeting the needs of the highway program, no one wanted to consider that there might be a time when the revenue couldn't keep up with the needs to maintain our highway system. we are pennies away from insolvency of the highway trust fund. when's the right time to talk about the revenue stream for the highway trust fund? we need to start today. my amendment's a small step to address this long-term viability

of the highway trust fund. it's a small step to get us moving to living within our means and maintaining our roads with the money we have, not the money we wish we had. i i probably can't get a vote on this minimum increase. we cannot continue to kick this conversation down the road for another two years. we cannot lie to our constituents about the state of the highway trust fund. we shouldn't steal from other trust funds, and we shouldn't do unapproved long-term financing for short-term projects. we have a mechanism to pay for the road programs, a dedicated funding stream paid for by those who use the roads. i hope my colleagues will take a hard look at my amendment, take a look at the plan under simps simpson-bowles, study the numerous idea ideas out there. let's have a debate on how to to

preserve this dedicated funding for our roads. in wyoming, the construction project is stated and the people get to sphroart the increase in their taxes. now, as long as the money is used to fire the promised projects, the voters continue to approve additional projects with additional taxes. it's happened for 30 years in wyoming. people will allow focused taxes for what they know they need if they believe that that's what it'll be spent for. and i say that they know the need for roads and bridges. when is it the wrong time to do the right thing? i believe most everyone in this chamber knows this is the right thing. most american constituents will see it that way, too. a vocal few won't, but the reason congressional approval is at a record low is that so many of us live in fear of taking the

votes that will fix the problems. we have a chance to change that with this amendment. i hope my colleagues will take a serious look at it and fund the highway fund the way it was intended. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. kyl: mr. president, awrn that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you,

mr. president. last week i came to the floor to talk about how free enterprise helps people achieve earned success and thus helps them pursue true happiness. today i want to talk about another moral benefit of free enterprise. its effectiveness in reducing poverty and promoting economic mobility. this is an important conversation to have since president obama has made income and class inequality the centerpieces of his reelection campaign. for example, in hisasatawami, kansas, speech last year, he said -- and i quote -- "this is a make-or-break moment for the middle class and all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. i believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share and when everyone plays by the same rules." he followed up with similar themes in the 2012 state of the union speech, saying that he believes -- again quote -- "in an america where hard work paid off, responsibility was reward

rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried, no matter who you were, where you came from or how you started out." of course, these are quintessential american values, and no dispute. but the president's soaring rhetoric is at odds with his main policy, which is to achieve greater economic equality not by equal opportunity but through forced redistribution of wealth. for example, the president has proposed a litany of tax increases, such as the so-called buffett rule, higher marginal income tax rates and higher taxes on investment. now, these don't -- these new taxes don't lift anybody up but they do tear some people down. so the president also proposes more government spending to redistribute the new tax dollars collected. redistributionist programs, of course, have a role as government safety nets. they help, for example, people who are ill, temporarily down on their luck or not able-bodied. but, unfortunately, they do not cure poverty.

if they did, poverty would no longer exist in america. the only permanent cure for poverty and the only system capable of producing massive increases in economic mobility is free enterprise. senator marco rubio put it well when he said -- and i quote -- "the free enterprise system has lifted more people out of poverty than all the government antipoverty programs combined." as we'll see in a moment, economic data confirm this is true. as arthur brooks and peter werner wrote in their book called "wealth and justice: the morality of democratic capitalism," before the rise of free enterprise -- that is, for most of human history -- life was -- and i'm quoting now -- "bleak, cruel and short." life expectancy was low. infant mortality was high. disease was rampant. and food was scarce. education was only for the wealthy. indeed, the wealthy were the only people who lived in relative comfort.

but the emergence of free enterprise roughly two centuries ago helped to change all that. as the free enterprise system took root, particularly in western europe, protectionist measures eased, trade increased, and businesses accumulated capital to grow and create new jobs. people pursued their self-interests, free of state coercion or corruption, and the economic benefits flowed to every strata of society. as brooks and werner wrote -- quote -- "markets, precisely because they are wealth generating, also end up being wealth distributing." by every universal measure, life has improved dramatically in free market societies. literacy, basic living standards and life expectancy have increased while disease and starvation have plummeted. child labor has been eradicated. as free enterprise has spread during the last two centuries, the world's average per-capita

income has skyrocketed by about 10 times. these are major moral achievements. yes, some people are richer than others and that is true in all nations, whether characterized as market economies or not. but where it exists, free enterprise has helped make the poor make tremendous gains and they continue to climb. in the modern era of globalization, we've seen this on an unprecedented scale. since 1970, as economic freedom has grown in developing countries like china and india, the number of people living on a dollar a day has plunged 80%, according to a recent study. what about president obama's arguments that free enterprise has harmed middle-class prosperity? over the past quarter century, economic studies have shown otherwise. indeed, as hoover institution fellow henry knew pointed out in a reasonable "wall street journal" article, middle-income earners have become richer and

many have leaped into the upper middle class. between 1980 and 2007, a period that kneu calls the great expansion, the united states grew by more than 3% per year and created more than 50 million new jobs, massivel massively exa middle class of workers, in his words. and he continues, "per-capita income increased by 65% and household income went up substantially in all income categories." in the past three decades, households making more than $105,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars doubled to 24% from 11%. these are remarkable increases in wealth. what policies produced this expansion? quote -- "precisely the free market policies of deregulation and lower marginal income tax rates that president obama decries."

kneu writes. if the president truly wants to increase class mobility and prosperity and build on the successes of the great expansion, then he must turn away from the statist policies that have dominated his three years in office. as brooks and warner write, the answer is not less capitalism, it is better capitalists, end of quote. i would add that that includes the president and his advisors. most fundamentally, our policies must reward hard work and merit. for the simple reason that people are more successful and industrious when they get to keep more of the fruits of their labor. that's what we call earned success. their prosperity flows to others when they open businesses, create jobs and new products, compete for workers, raise wages and invest their products which can then be led to other entrepreneurs. but when market forces are restricted, when taxes are too high and regulations are too stifling, entrepreneurship loses

its appeal. if people think outcomes are predetermined by the government, they don't have incentives to compete. a 2005 study by economist alberto alacino and george alitos underscores the point. they found that meritorious rewards are self-fulfilling. they concluded that if a society thinks people have the right to enjoy the fruits of their effort, it will choose low taxes or have low tolerance for redistribution. effort will be high in these places. conversely, they found that if citizens believe that the system is rigged and that luck and connections, not merit, are the key determinants of success, then they will demand forced wealth redistribution and effort will be lowered in these places. simply put, if people think the system is inherently unfair, it will wind up that way. that's precisely what has

happened in countries like spain and greece where outcomes are divorced from effort and to a large measure, bureaucrats and special interests dictate who gets economic rewards. since everyone does better when reward -- when effort is rewarded, then protecting merit-based success is a moral issue. indeed, the first american immigrants left countries with too little opportunity for advancement to come here and earn rewards based on merit and be the masters of their own destiny. polls have shown that over the years, americans have not grown tired of the merit-based system but instinctively support it. u2 singer bono colorfully explained why individual determinism in america is so great." in america, the guy looks up at the mansion on the hill and says one day if i really work hard, i will live in the mansion on the hill. in dublin, they look at the

mansion on the hill and say one day i'm going to get that guy." end of his quotation. free markets breed a culture of aspiration and mobility in which people reject the politics of envy and instead focus on their own advancement and their own success. if our goal is to foster such a positive culture of achievement, then we must eschew class warfare. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president, i move that we suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: i ask that i be recognized. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i want to speak today about an amendment that i have offered with my friend, senator casey, from pennsylvania on the highway bill. it's amendment numbered 1540. in my state and i think in the whole country, the question that we hear over and over again is where are the private sector jobs, what can we do to get the economy back on track. there are really very few places the federal government can create private sector jobs. one of the few maces we can do that is in a public works like the highway bill where most of

the work to build a new bridge or new highway is done by competitive bid and by private sector employers and private sector employees, and while we probably take a different approach to how we get there, i think all of us understand it's critical we work together to find common ground to create jobs and to create economic growth. this infrastructure bill could be and i hope turns out to be a good start. there is no doubt that infrastructure is the foundation of our economy. quality transportation is vital to connect people and communities, to connect people to the places they work, to connect the things they make to the places they need to go, and that doesn't happen without a good -- good infrastructure program and one that maintains and expands as needs to be the

infrastructure that we have. i'm very hopeful that this bill can provide that additional element to getting our economy back on track. at the heart of the problem for small towns and for local governments in so many states and particularly in missouri is the bridge system that is not part of the federal structure. it's the so-called off-system bridge network where local communities are responsible for bridges. i think missouri has perhaps more bridges than any other state. i was in one of our counties just recently where the county itself -- and we have 115 counties, so unlike some of our western states, the counties aren't huge. they are designed to be compact and people can -- could get across them in the 1830's -- the 1820's and 1830's in one day

with -- before automobiles, so we have lots of counties, and one of them has 148 bridges. our smallest county by population with only 4,000 people has 100 bridges. so every 40 people in that county are essentially responsible for maintaining a bridge, and bridges are an expensive thing. that off-system bridge network carries school buss, emergency vehicles, lots of agricultural products, families going about their daily routine, and without those bridges, that local infrastructure just doesn't work. now, what we're suggesting in this amendment and calling for in this amendment is simply to continue the current policy -- we're not talking about any new money for bridges. we're not talking about any new program for bridges, but the bill itself doesn't continue the

15% of the bridge funds that has been allocated for some time now to local government. this would just continue to have that same 15% going to local governments. there are almost 600,000 bridges in the country. 50% of those are considered off-system, and approximately 28% of those -- of that 50% is currently considered deficient. 32% of the bridges in missouri in the off-bridge system are considered deficient. they either aren't adequate for the traffic they now carry or are in need of repairs. one out of three bridges in our state needs an investment. the new penalty section, the underlying bill that would replace the current off-system

bridge program really makes that program even more uncertain at times when communities and job creators need it the most. without our amendment, states would only have to sustain the previous number of deficient bridges every other year in order to avoid investing in their off-system bridges. it's a formula that doesn't work. it might work in big communities that have lots of miles that they maintain, but i doubt that. i think this really makes an inconsistent investment in bridges all over the country. our amendment ensures that counties are not left bearing the full responsibility of these off-system bridges, and if they are left bearing that full responsibility, most of these bridges or many of these bridges just won't be fixed. this has been a major source of funding for counties working on

bridges. this amendment would give states and counties the proper tools and resources and the assurance of a steady flow of funding in order to invest in the nation's bridges. additionally, the amendment establishes a procedure where the transportation secretary can rescind this requirement if state and local officials determine they have inadequate needs to justify these expenditures. in other words, if they can't justify spending the money in their state, then the federal government clearly doesn't have to allocate that 15% to local communities and to states for the off-system program. when i listen to community leaders and certainly when i listen to county commissioners, this is a topic that comes up in most of our counties with great concern. in the counties it doesn't come up wouldn't have to apply for the money. that 15% allocated appropriately

will make a big difference. community leaders and job creators are looking for things that allow them to prepare for a more certain future. they need the ability to look beyond six months or a year to plan and anticipate how they're going to repair bridges, which bridges they are going to look at this year, which bridges they will then put off until next year, but right now they really would have no way of knowing whether there would be any federal assistance to these communities or not. we need to be sure that we provide this certainty for our off-system bridges if we're going to promote job creation and economic development. we have to work together here in the nation's capital to make smart investments in our nation's transportation system if we're going to provide communities and job creators with greater certainty to prepare for the future. i want to thank senator casey for his hard work on this issue. i'm glad to join him in this amendment. it's critical to the state of

missouri and many other states. the national association of counties, the national league of cities, the national conference of mayors, the national association of county engineers, the american public works association, the national association of regional councils and the national association of development officials are all in support of this amendment, and i hope we have it included in the amendments we get to vote on, and i urge my colleagues to join in this bipartisan effort to create more certainty for local governments. as i yield back, mr. president, i notice there is not a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: mr. alexander: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. alexander: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without

objection, so ordered. mr. alexander: madam president, i ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. alexander: thanks, madam president. madam president, today in the "wall street journal," there coincidentally was an editorial on the subject about which i speak, and this was entitled "republicans blow with the wind another industry wants to keep its tax subsidies." it's about the possibility that the senate will be asked maybe as early as the next few days, during the debate on the transportation bill, to extend yet one more year the federal taxpayers subsidy for large wind turbines. i would like to take a few minutes to say why i don't believe we should do that. and i'd like to ask consent that following my remarks that the

"wall street journal" editorial be included. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. alexander: madam president, i believe it's time for congress to stop the big win gravy train. a subsidy of developers for huge wind turbines will cost taxpayers $14 billion over five years between 2009 and 2013. $14 billion. this is according to the joint tax committee and the treasury department. this is more than the special tax breaks for big oil which congress should also end. $6 of the big wind subsidies will come from the production tax credit for renewable energy which congress temporarily enacted in 1992. the prospect for the expiration at the end of this year for this tax break has filled the capitol

with lobbyists hired by investors wealthy enough to profit from the tax breaks. president obama even wants to make these tax breaks permanent. according to the "wall street journal," this is a -- quote -- "make-or-break moment for wind power companies." there are three reasons why the big wind subsidies should go the way of the $5 billion ethanol subsidy which congress allowed to expire last year. first, we can't afford it. the federal government borrows 40 cents of every dollar it spends. it just cannot justify such a subsidy, especially for what the nobel prize-winning united states energy secretary calls a -- quote -- "mature technology." second. wind turbines produce a relatively puny amount of expensive, unreliable electricity. wind produces 2.3% of our

electricity. despite all these government subsidies, less than 8% of our pollution-free electricity, one alternative, of course, is natural gas, abundant, cheap and very clean as a way of producing electricity. another alternative is nuclear. reactors power our navy and produce 70% of our pollution-free electricity. madam president, using windmills to power a country that uses one-fourth of all the electricity in the world would be the energy equivalent of going to war in sailboats. finally, these massive turbines too often destroy the environment in the name of saving the environment. when wind advocate t. boone pickens was asked whether he would put turbines on his texas ranch, mr. pickens answered, no, they're too ugly. a new documentary movie, "windfall" chronicles upstate new york residents debating

whether to build giant turbines in their town. a "new york times" review of this new documentary film reported the following -- quote -- "turbines are huge. some are 40 stories tall. with 130-foot blades weighing seven tons and spinning at 150 miles an hour. they can fall over or send parts flying. struck by lightning, say, they can catch fire. their 24/7 rotation emits nerve-racking low frequencies like a pulsing disco amplified by rain and moisture and can generate a disorienting strobe effect in sunlight. giant flick kerring shadows can tarnish a sunset's glow on landscape. this is "the new york times" reporting in its film review of the documentary movie "windfall." let's consider the three arguments one by one. first, the money. for all we hear about big oil, you may be surprised to learn

that special tax breaks for big wind are greater. during the five years, from 2009 to 2013, as i said, federal subsidies for big wind equal $14 billion. here i'm only counting the production tax credit and the cash grants that the 2009 stimulus law offered to wind developers in lieu of the tax credit. an analysis of that stimulus cash grant program by green wire found that 64% of the 50 highest dollar grants awarded, or about 2.7 billion, went to projects that had begun construction before the stimulus measure started. steve ellis, vice president of taxpayers for common sense told green wire -- quote -- "it's essentially funding economic activity that would occurred anyway." so it's just a pure subsidy. unquote. according to president obama's new budget, big oil receives

multiple tax subsidies. doing away with them would save about $4.7 billion a year in fiscal year 2013, or about $22 billion over five years, according to the president's budget. so far it sounds like big oil with $22 billion in subsidies, is bigger in its subsidies than big wind with $14 billion. but here is the catch: many of the subsidies that the president is attacking oil companies for receiving are regular tax provisions that are the same or similar to those other industries receive. for example, xerox, microsoft, caterpillar all benefit from tax provisions like the manufacturing tax credit, amortization or depreciation of used equipment that the president is counting as big-oil subsidies. and, of course, wind energy companies also benefit from many similar tax provisions. but the production tax credit that benefits wind is in

addition to the regular tax code provisions that benefit many companies. so the only way to make a fair comparison to look only at subsidies that mostly benefit only oil or only wind, and by that measure wind gets more breaks than oil. the heritage foundation has done an analysis. it shows that in big oil -- if big oil received the same type of production tax credit as big wind, then the taxpayer would be paying big oil about $50 per barrel of oil when adjusted for today's prices. and according to a 2008 energy information administration report, big wind received an $18 federal subsidy per megawatt-hour. $18 federal subsidy per megawatt-hour, 25 times as much per megawatt-hour as subsidies for all other forms of electricity combined. madam president, the production tax credit became law in 1992.

it was supposed to be temporary. its goal was to jump-start renewable energy production. while it is advertised as a tax credit for renewable energy, according to the joint committee on taxation, 75% of the credit goes to wind developers. here's how it works. for every kilowatt hour of electricity produceed from wind, turbine owners receive 2.2 cents in a tax credit from the federal taxpayers. for example, if a texas utility buys electricity from a wind developer at, say, six cents a kilowatt hour, the federal taxpayer, you and me, will pay the developer another 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour. this 2.2 cent subsidy continues for the first ten years that the turbine is in service. and this 2.2 cent credit is worth 3.4 cents per kilowatt hour in cash savings on the tax

return of a wealthy investor. wind developers often sell their tax credits to wall street banks or big corporations or other investors who have large incomes. they create what is called a tax equity deal in order to lower or even eliminate taxes. this is the scheme that our president, who is championing economic fairness, would like to make permanent. energy expert daniel urgan, pulitzer prize winner, said the price of oil last year during 2011 when adjusted for inflation is higher than at any time since 1860. it, therefore, makes no sense whatsoever to give special tax breaks to big oil. neither does it make sense, madam president, to extend special tax breaks to big wind, a mature technology. for every $3 saved by eliminating these wasteful

subsidies, i would spend $2 to reduce the federal debt and $1 to double research for new forms of cheap, clean energy for our country. now the second problem with electricity produced from wind is there's not much of it. since the wind blows when it wants to and for the most part it can't be stored, it's not reliable. for this reason, the claims in newspapers about how much electricity wind produces are misleading because of the difference between the capacity of an energy plant and its actual production. daniel yurgan says the u.s. installed capacity for wind power grew at an average rate of 40% between 2005 and 2009. in terms of absolute capacity, yurgay writes in his book that growth in capacity was the equivalent to adding 25 new nuclear plants. that's pretty impressive. we only have 104 new nuclear

plants. but in terms of generation of lech treus tickers it was more like -- electricity, it was more like adding nine reactors. this is because nuclear operates 90% of the time while wind turbine operates about one-third of the time. here's an example from the area where i live, the tennessee valley authority constructed a 29-megawatt wind farm on buffalo mountain at a cost of $60 million to its ratepayers. those of us who pay the electric bills. it's the only wind farm in the southeast because the wind doesn't blow very hard in the southeastern united states. you read in the papers about a 29-megawatt wind farm, and you'll think that's pretty good, but that's not its real output. in practice, buffalo mountain only generated electricity 19% of the time since the wind doesn't blow very much down there. this wind farm, sounding like a 29-megawatt power plant, only generates six megawatts. t.v.a. considers buffalo

mountain to be a failed experiment. in fact, looking for wind power in the southeast is a little like looking for hydropower in the desert. one problem with this big wind set of subsidies is that it has encouraged developers to build wind projects in places where the wind doesn't blow or the wind doesn't blow very much. finally, there's the question of whether in the name of saving the environment wind turbines are destroying the environment. these are not your grandma's windmills. they are taller than the statue of liberty. their blades are as long as a football field. their blinking lights can be seen for 20 miles. not everyone agrees with t. boone pickens that they are ugly, but when these towers move from television advertisements to your neighborhood, you might agree with mr. pickens. energy sprawl is the term conservation groups use to describe the march of 45-story

wind turbines on to the landscape of america the beautiful. if the united states generate 20d% of our electricity from wind as some have suggested, that would cover an area the size of west virginia, with 186,000 wind turbines. it would also be necessary to build 12,000 new miles of transmission lines. and where do transmission lines go? through conservation easements, through backyards, through scenic areas. the late ted kennedy and his successor senator scott brown both complained about how a wind farm the size of manhattan island will clutter the landscape around nantucket island. robert bryce told the "wall street journal" that the noise of turbines, this, in his words, infer sound issue is the most problematic for the wind industry. mr. bryce said "they want to dismiss it out of hand but the low frequency noise is very

disturbing." he explained "i interview people all over, and they all complained with identical words and descriptions about the problems they were feeling from the noise." madam president, theodore roosevelt was our greatest conservation president and his greatest passion was for birds. birds must think that wind turbines are cuisinarts in the sky. last month two golden eagles found dead in california's pine tree wind farm bringing the total count of dead golden eagles at that wind farm is eight carcasses and "the los angeles times" reports that the u.s. fish and wildlife service has determined that the six golden eagles found dead earlier at two-year-old wind farm were struck by blades from the wind turbines. this puts the death rate at three times higher than at

california's altamoc pass which kills 57 golden eagles each year. now, apparently eagle killing has become so commonplace that the united states department of interior -- and i am not making this up -- has a process in place to grant wind developers hunting licenses for eagles. in good hugh county, minnesota, a company wants to build 48 turbines on the one hand 50 square miles of land and to do that it has applied for a eagle take permit which will allow to kill a certain number of eagles before facing penalties. now, i have studied this benefit not been able to find out how such a hunting license for eagles squares with federal laws that have existed for nearly a century that will put you in prison or fine you if you kill migratory birds or eagles. nor have i figured out how it squares with the fish and

wildlife service fining exxon $600,000 in 2009 when oil development harmed protected birds. do the laws apply both to big wind and to big oil? surely, madam president, there are a ppropriate places for wind foul in a country that needs clean energy. but if reliable, cheap, and clean electricity without energy sprawl is you are a goal, then four nuclear reactors each occupying one square mile would equal the production of a row of 50 storied wind turbines strung along the entire 2,178 appalachian trail. and a 1,000 megawatt natural gas power plant would take up about 15 acres while a comparable wind

farm would take up 48,000 to 60,000 acres. and of course even if you built all those turbines and strung them from maine to georgia, you'd still need the nuclear or gas plant plants for when the w- for when the wind doesn't blow. it is what our energy policy ought to be. double the $5 billion federal double energy budget for research on new forms of cheap, clean, reliable energy. in 2008, made an address at the oak ridge national laboratory and suggest add new manhattan project. i'm talking about such research for the 5000-mile battery -- for the 500-mile battery for electric cars, solar power installed at less than $1 a watt, or even offshore wind turbines. second, we should strict limit and support a handful of

jump-start research and development projects to take new technologies from the research and development phase to the commercial phase. i'm thinking here of projects like arpa-e, as we call it which is modeled after the defense department's little agency darpa that led through its work to the internet, to the stealth, and other remarkable technologies. or the five-year program for small modular nuclear reactors that congress approved just this year. third, we should end wasteful long-term special tsm breaks, such as those for big oil and those for big wind. the savings from ending those subsidies should be used to double clean energy research and to reduce our federal debt. madam president, for a strong america, we need large amounts of cheap, reliable, clean energy and we need a balanced budget.

this is an energy policy that can help us do both. madam president, i thank you, and i yield the floor. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: