mr. coburn: can i yield? mr. begich: yes. mr. coburn: the federal government has $90 billion worth of government not being taken care of and we have a budget gimmick, that says an agency needs a new building, because we're going to account for that building in the year they buy it and charge it to the agency what are we doing? we could lease buildings. we can own them much cheaper than we can lease them. what we should be doing is changing that and getting rid of the excess property. lowering the cost to maintain it. there's nine out of the 1,500 that we have right there. and change the way that we purchase the federal buildings for the government. instead of leasing. it costs over the life of the building twice the life versus owning. mr. begich: if the senator would yield back, i would agree. as someone who has been in the real estate business for 30 years, there is enormous opportunity equipment we're not talking about -- opportunity. we're not talking about parks. we're talking about sites that are no longer in use put them ba

mr. coburn: thank you. i have no problems at all with my senior senators' modification of the leahy amendment, and i'm going to ask that we have a voice vote on this to accommodate everybody, recognizing the late hour, but i want to make a point. what senator leahy is want to go do is great, to help people, but the one question we have not asked and we're going to be asked to ask it all the time here forward given where we lie is is it a federal responsibility to supply these benefits? you can't find it in the constitution, you can't find it anywhere, and when we go and look at the hard decisions we're going to make over the next two years in terms of trimming both mandatory programs and discretionary programs, when we set an example that we're going to expand something that's not in our constitutional role, we're making a mistake and we're setting ourselves up for failure. with that, i ask for the yeas and nays, a voice vote. the presiding officer: is all time yielded back? mr. coburn: i would ask unanimou

mr. coburn: thank you, mr. president. i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: i've come to the floor today to talk about the amendment that senator mcconnell brought forward in terms of repealing the health care bill. i'm probably going to approach this different than a lot of my colleagues have. i don't doubt that the intent of what was passed a year ago last december was well intentioned, with the thought of really solving the health care problems in this country. my experience as 25 years as a physician and the ten years before that as a manufacturer in the medical device field gives me a little bit different take on what the consequences are associated with this bill. and during that hearty debate that we all had, i made some claims that people doubted in this chamber which have become absolutely apparent and true. costs are going through the roof faster than what we thought. plans -- portions of people can't tolerate the plans, so we're giving them exemptions because it won't work in the business model

mr. barrasso: madam president, i would be happy to, as a matter of record, submit for the record the government accountability office study that was reported by senator coburn outline the entire study and the reason that i am objecting today. thank you, madam president. mr. brown: fair enough. madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: senator barrasso, if you'd be willing to give us more specifics, i -- first of all, 155,000 workers are -- i'm willing to go on the record with that. it's fact. it's very important to those 1 155,000 workers. i know a lot of them live in pennsylvania and ohio. i don't know how many of them live in wyoming. i could certainly find that out too. could you give us -- i understand your criticism of the recovery act. that's a debate for another time. i understand senator coburn's disagreement and perhaps yours too with -- with worker training programs. i'd like to see a better consolidation. this president is actually beginning to do that, something that president bush never i don't believe ever really attempted. but more precisely, what exactly did -- strip away all the other discussions of the recov

mr. president, as part of my effort to strengthen oversight of this program, i have asked the government accountability office along with senator coburn and senator mccaskill to audit the feca program and report on the length of time individuals remain on the program, the number of recipients who exceed the standard federal retirement age and how the federal program compares to state workers compensation's best practices. i expect that these findings will lead to additional reform proposals as the bill proceeds through the senate. i also intend to work with stakeholders to determine if changes in the federal employee retirement system, the fers system, as opposed to the old civil service retirement system, are necessary to make sure that workers comp recipients would be treated fairly when they are converted to fers retirement benefits under this bill. for example, this may require the department of labor to administer the thrift savings plan contributions for recipients or to require social security contributions from workers comp recipients. what is clear, however, is that this program is in need of urgent reform. the program is cos

mr. chairman. >> thank you. according to the list i was given here, i'm next, and then senator wyden, senator coburn, and senator menendez in that order. then a long list after that. madame secretary, thank you for being here. let me ask about the issue of state flexibility under the law and familiarly in relation to health insurance exchanges. i know one the issues that governors have been writing to you about, i have a letter here signed by, i think, 21 republican governors complaining about various aspects of the law. urging you to waive provisions in the law which you don't have authority to waive, at least as i understand the law. and then saying that if you don't agree to do this, hhs should begin making plans to run exchanges under it's own auspices. that's their suggestion. my understanding, when we were doing health care reform, was that we built a lot of flexibility into the laws so that states would design the health insurance exchanges to meet their own requirements. and to accommodate the concerns that they had. it seems to me very short sided for a state to be urging you to take that responsibility

mr. wicker: i yield myself five minutes. and, of course, i rise in support of the wicker amendment. senator collins, who spoke earlier, is a cosponsor of this amendment. i might also note that senator coburn has joined as a cosponsor also. the wicker amendment has everything to do with public safety. it has everything to do with preventing excessive litigation when it comes to the definitions of the roles of our t.s.a. workers. it has everything to do with preventing increased deficits here in the united states and in the federal government. and for that reason, groups that support the wicker amendment today and urge -- and i -- urge an eye vote include -- yea include americans for tax reform. now, just a little history for those who haven't followed this debate over the last several days, currently t.s.a. employees are not allowed to collectively bargain. that has been the policy of the federal government since the inception of the transportation security administration. for a decade t.s.a. employees have not been allowed to collectively bargain. their rights and considerations and -- and morale issues have been taken care of in other ways. since the creation of t.s.a., its employees hav

mr. coburn, proposes amendment number 81. mr. coburn: mr. president, this is another amendment on essential air service. this amendment eliminates essential air service when the average emplanements are less than 10 a day. 10 a day. there's no way we can afford, given our financial situation, to subsidize essential air service for the airport that's have 10 a day. i know that's a disagreement around us, and amongst us, especially those that are having the benefit of that subsidy today. and, by the way, the subsidy posed to be limited to the $200, but when you actually take what actually goes and happens on many of these, it's over $400. one of them $482 per person federal subsidy in airports that have less than 10 emplanements today. it's a common sense given the realities of where we are. the realities of a $1.68 trillion deficit now predicted by the white house for this year. it makes common sense that we would do this. mr. president, i call up amendment number 91 and ask unanimous consent. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the

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

mr. chairman. >> thank you. according to the list i was given here, i'm next and then senator wyden, senator coburn and senator menendez in that order. madame secretary, thank you for being here. let me ask about this issue of state flexibility under the law and particularly in relation to health insurance exchanges. i know one of the issues that governors have been writing to you about, i have a letter here signed by i think 21 republican governors. complaining about various aspects of the law, urging you to waive provisions in the law which you don't have authority to waive, at least as i understand the law. and then saying that if you don't agree to do this, hhs should begin making plans to run exchanges under its own ospasis. that's their suggestion. my understanding when we were doing health care reform was that we built a lot of flexibility into the law so that states could design these health insurance exchanges to meet their own requirements. and to accommodate the concerns that they had. it seems to me very short-sided for a state to be urging you to take that responsibility. i don't know if you have any comme

coburn to see if we can condense his five amendments. we're on a path to being able to finish this legislation, and i hope we can finish it today. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: yesterday republicans in the house and senate led by senator hutchison introduced a resolution of disapproval under the congressional review act to repeal the so-called net neutrality regulations recently adopted by the federal communications commission. we believe, as most americans do, that the internet has transformed our society precisely because people have been free to create and to innovate free from government intrusion. as americans become more aware of what's happening here, i suspect many will be alarmed, as i am, at the government's growing involvement in this area, in this particular area of our lives. we wonder if this is a trojan horse for further meddling by the gove