Scott Brown

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to repeal the tax imposed on medical device manufacturers. As my colleagues know, this 2.3 percent sales tax imposed on medical device manufacturers--a tax that will ultimately be passed on to consumers--is part-and-parcel of the Federal health care reform bill that passed last Congress. Like others in this chamber, I am extremely concerned that this tax could threaten jobs in my State, reduce domestic investment in research and development and ultimately diminish access to life-saving medical devices for patients. Medical technology companies employ more than 375,000 workers in the United States. In Massachusetts alone, we have more than 225 medical device firms, which employ more than 20,000 workers, and contribute nearly $1 billion in payroll. Medical devices are one of our State's top exports, contributing $6 billion to our State's economy. These are powerfully good numbers. These are the numbers that make my State tick, help drive our economy, and keep people working. I want to make certain that what happens in Washington does not reverse these numbers, does not undermine my State's ability to compete, and does not hamper our chances to grow and hire workers. Massachusetts' position as an industry leader, a hub of innovation and entrepreneurship must be preserved. That has been and will continue to be my focus in the U.S. Senate. So how do I intend to accomplish this? For starters it means working to eliminate the medical device tax, which I believe will diminish our ability to compete, will increase costs for consumers, and could result in our medical device and technology jobs being sent overseas, where the costs of labor and production are cheaper. The effort that I am spearheading--and that I ask my colleagues to join--eliminates the medical device tax in a way that does not add to the deficit. I propose eliminating this harmful tax--a tax that will stifle innovation, be passed on to consumers, and increase the cost of care--and propose that we offset the cost by using unobligated discretionary dollars. This is the same source of funding, the same offset, that 81 of my colleagues supported yesterday. As my colleagues know, I worked on an amendment that would repeal the medical device tax last Congress. I will continue this work because the harmful effects of this tax are the last thing Massachusetts needs-- more industry jobs lost, our workers at a competitive disadvantage. But the medical device tax doesn't just lead to job uncertainty, it leads to investment uncertainty as well, which results in private capital staying on the sidelines rather than being invested in Massachusetts based companies and their workers. The medical device tax, coupled with other provisions in the Federal health reform bill, increases the level of uncertainty at a time when businesses, consumers and investors are craving the exact opposite. For example, some medical devices are approved as combination products, both as medical devices and drugs and/or biologics. The Secretary has yet to determine how these medical devices will be captured under the law, how they will be taxed. I pledge to work with my Senate colleagues--and during the Medical Device User Fee Modernization Act reauthorization slated for next year--to ensure that the medical device companies whose products are approved as combination products by the FDA are not double-taxed by way of the medical device tax and the pharmaceutical tax. With the rolling implementation of the Federal health care reform bill, this Congress will provide many opportunities for me to protect the interests of and work on behalf of Massachusetts families, Massachusetts taxpayers, Massachusetts workers, and Massachusetts businesses. I hope my colleagues will join my efforts to find opportunities to correct what is wrong with the Federal health reform law--to protect innovation, the jobs, and the development and growth that can occur in a sector that is vitally important to our Nation's health. I know that a robust medical device sector translates into a healthier America--physically, economically, and socially. The same is true for Massachusetts.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Mr. Wyden, to introduce legislation that will protect Massachusetts by allowing it to waive out of specific requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. As my colleagues know, my single priority is and has always been to ensure that what we do here in Washington does not harm my State of Massachusetts, or the people of Massachusetts, and that we are responsible stewards with every tax dollar. This has been true when it comes to voting against raising taxes on families and businesses. It has been true when it comes to fighting for commonsense, progrowth policies that will create jobs in Massachusetts. And it has been true in my efforts to be sure that the Federal health care reform bill does not diminish or harm the health care innovations that have occurred in Massachusetts. Today we get to make a correction to the Federal health care reform bill to be sure that we are doing the right thing, not just for the State of Massachusetts but for other States who seek to waive out of certain requirements of the Federal health care reform law. In many ways, Massachusetts has been on the forefront of implementing health care reform--expanding access, designing systems to increase market participation and choice, and increasing transparency for consumers and providers. We continue to learn lessons every day in Massachusetts about what works and doesn't work in health care reform. And this is an important point because it speaks directly to the purpose of the 1egislation that I am introducing today with my colleague, Mr. Wyden from Oregon. As difficult as it is for me to admit this, not every State wants to be like Massachusetts. Massachusetts is a great State, with the best hospitals, physicians, researchers and health care providers in the country and the world. But I recognize that my colleague from Oregon is interested in protecting the reform efforts of Oregon. He doesn't want to be like Massachusetts because Oregon is different from Massachusetts. Oregon's insurance market is different, its provider network is different, its beneficiaries and population are different from Massachusetts. Oregon might want to implement reforms or create a coverage mechanism that I do not like or that would not work in a State like Massachusetts. The same is true for the other 49 States--each State is different, unique-- and each State should be able to find solutions that work for their citizens and their State budgets. Which is why the legislation that I am introducing today with Mr. Wyden--the Empowering States to Innovate Act--is so important. Right now, as provided under section 1332--``The Waivers for State Innovation''--of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, States can waive out of provisions of the Federal reform law. That's the good news. The bad news is that this waiver authority is not scheduled to take effect until 2017, a full 3 years after PPACA is scheduled to be fully implemented. That makes no sense, so we are going to fix it. The first thing our bill does is to allow States to waive out of specific parts of PPACA in 2014 rather than 2017. This makes sense not just from an operational standpoint--because PPACA takes effect in 2014--but also from an economic and fiscal standpoint. Why should Massachusetts be delayed in obtaining a waiver from the Federal reform bill when it may have already met and or exceeded specific provisions of PPACA? Holding Massachusetts back--limiting my State's ability to innovate, remain flexible and responsive to the health care market-- costs money; it costs taxpayer money. That doesn't make sense. So our legislation fixes that. The second piece our bill does is to provide States with certainty with the waiver process. Not every State will be eligible for a waiver and not every waiver will be granted. But our bill provides some certainty for those States who apply for a waiver by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to begin reviewing applications within 6 months of enactment of this bill. The earlier a State knows whether it has received a waiver, the earlier it can begin implementing its specific plans and proposals. Taken together, these two changes are good for Massachusetts. They are good for other States who are trying to innovate and advance in the areas of health care reform, cost containment, and coverage. During Wednesday's Finance Committee hearing, Dr. Berwick, who is from the State of Massachusetts, I might add, said this about State innovation and flexibility. And I quote: The cliche about states as laboratories of democracy is not just a cliche, it's true. The diversity of approaches that we're seeing emerge state by state has been there for a long time. I think we should be doing everything we can to encourage it. I couldn't agree more. I am a strong supporter of state rights and for allowing States to solve problems without the Federal Government's interference. We should be encouraging State innovation, not hampering it. And that is what the Empowering States to Innovate Act does--it helps ensure that States aren't held back from innovating and seeking solutions that work for their citizens, their taxpayers, their providers, and their communities. Finally, Mr. President, I want to associate myself with Mr. Wyden's comments about how our bill fits into the Federal health care reform debate. Enacting this legislation is the right thing to do because it is good for States like Massachusetts. It is good for States like Oregon and Utah, who have begun to make changes and reforms at the State level. The legislation provides flexibility and says that a one-size-fits- all health care system doesn't fit the needs of every State. I know a Federal standard isn't in the best interest of my State of Massachusetts, which is why passing this bill is the right thing to do. I thank my colleague, Mr. Wyden, for his thoughtful remarks and urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation that I think both parties can and should agree on.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Mr. Wyden, to introduce legislation that will protect Massachusetts by allowing it to waive out of specific requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. As my colleagues know, my single priority is and has always been to ensure that what we do here in Washington does not harm my State of Massachusetts, or the people of Massachusetts, and that we are responsible stewards with every tax dollar. This has been true when it comes to voting against raising taxes on families and businesses. It has been true when it comes to fighting for commonsense, progrowth policies that will create jobs in Massachusetts. And it has been true in my efforts to be sure that the Federal health care reform bill does not diminish or harm the health care innovations that have occurred in Massachusetts. Today we get to make a correction to the Federal health care reform bill to be sure that we are doing the right thing, not just for the State of Massachusetts but for other States who seek to waive out of certain requirements of the Federal health care reform law. In many ways, Massachusetts has been on the forefront of implementing health care reform--expanding access, designing systems to increase market participation and choice, and increasing transparency for consumers and providers. We continue to learn lessons every day in Massachusetts about what works and doesn't work in health care reform. And this is an important point because it speaks directly to the purpose of the 1egislation that I am introducing today with my colleague, Mr. Wyden from Oregon. As difficult as it is for me to admit this, not every State wants to be like Massachusetts. Massachusetts is a great State, with the best hospitals, physicians, researchers and health care providers in the country and the world. But I recognize that my colleague from Oregon is interested in protecting the reform efforts of Oregon. He doesn't want to be like Massachusetts because Oregon is different from Massachusetts. Oregon's insurance market is different, its provider network is different, its beneficiaries and population are different from Massachusetts. Oregon might want to implement reforms or create a coverage mechanism that I do not like or that would not work in a State like Massachusetts. The same is true for the other 49 States--each State is different, unique-- and each State should be able to find solutions that work for their citizens and their State budgets. Which is why the legislation that I am introducing today with Mr. Wyden--the Empowering States to Innovate Act--is so important. Right now, as provided under section 1332--``The Waivers for State Innovation''--of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, States can waive out of provisions of the Federal reform law. That's the good news. The bad news is that this waiver authority is not scheduled to take effect until 2017, a full 3 years after PPACA is scheduled to be fully implemented. That makes no sense, so we are going to fix it. The first thing our bill does is to allow States to waive out of specific parts of PPACA in 2014 rather than 2017. This makes sense not just from an operational standpoint--because PPACA takes effect in 2014--but also from an economic and fiscal standpoint. Why should Massachusetts be delayed in obtaining a waiver from the Federal reform bill when it may have already met and or exceeded specific provisions of PPACA? Holding Massachusetts back--limiting my State's ability to innovate, remain flexible and responsive to the health care market-- costs money; it costs taxpayer money. That doesn't make sense. So our legislation fixes that. The second piece our bill does is to provide States with certainty with the waiver process. Not every State will be eligible for a waiver and not every waiver will be granted. But our bill provides some certainty for those States who apply for a waiver by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to begin reviewing applications within 6 months of enactment of this bill. The earlier a State knows whether it has received a waiver, the earlier it can begin implementing its specific plans and proposals. Taken together, these two changes are good for Massachusetts. They are good for other States who are trying to innovate and advance in the areas of health care reform, cost containment, and coverage. During Wednesday's Finance Committee hearing, Dr. Berwick, who is from the State of Massachusetts, I might add, said this about State innovation and flexibility. And I quote: The cliche about states as laboratories of democracy is not just a cliche, it's true. The diversity of approaches that we're seeing emerge state by state has been there for a long time. I think we should be doing everything we can to encourage it. I couldn't agree more. I am a strong supporter of state rights and for allowing States to solve problems without the Federal Government's interference. We should be encouraging State innovation, not hampering it. And that is what the Empowering States to Innovate Act does--it helps ensure that States aren't held back from innovating and seeking solutions that work for their citizens, their taxpayers, their providers, and their communities. Finally, Mr. President, I want to associate myself with Mr. Wyden's comments about how our bill fits into the Federal health care reform debate. Enacting this legislation is the right thing to do because it is good for States like Massachusetts. It is good for States like Oregon and Utah, who have begun to make changes and reforms at the State level. The legislation provides flexibility and says that a one-size-fits- all health care system doesn't fit the needs of every State. I know a Federal standard isn't in the best interest of my State of Massachusetts, which is why passing this bill is the right thing to do. I thank my colleague, Mr. Wyden, for his thoughtful remarks and urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation that I think both parties can and should agree on.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, today I rise to celebrate the bicentennial, January 6, 2011, of the birth of U.S. Senator Charles Sumner, who so ably represented the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in this body from 1851 until his death in 1874. While I am honored to serve the people of Massachusetts from the physical desk once occupied by Senator Sumner, I rise today in recognition of Charles Sumner's tireless and often solitary quest for racial equality, education reform, and social justice. By all accounts, Senator Sumner was one of this body's greatest orators; Sumner didn't give speeches, he unleashed them. According to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Sumner delivered remarks ``like a cannoneer ramming down cartridges.'' The target of Sumner's verbal fusillade was almost always injustice, especially slavery and the men and institutions that sought to expand or perpetuate it. Yet, even among fellow mid-19th century abolitionists, Charles Sumner's views on racial equality were considered utopian. Years before the Emancipation Proclamation, Sumner called for the abolition of slavery. Decades before the 15th amendment declared that the ``right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude'' and nearly a century before the Voting Rights Act, Sumner insisted that all Black men should have the rights of citizenship. Charles Sumner was not born into a powerful or wealthy Massachusetts family; his upbringing in Boston was at best modest. Yet his parents insisted that Charles receive the best education available, and he was fortunate enough to attend the acclaimed Boston Latin School, where he excelled and went on to receive degrees from Harvard College and Harvard Law School. Sumner spent his late twenties travelling through Europe and England, where his intellect and education impressed leading officials with whom he formed lasting relationships that proved invaluable to the Union years later when Sumner served on the Foreign Relations Committee. In May of 1856, Sumner became the victim of one of the most unfortunate incidents in Senate history. Days after Sumner delivered a vitriolic speech against Kansas-Nebraska Act coauthor Andrew Pickens Butler, the South Carolina Senator's nephew, a Member of the House of Representatives, approached Sumner while he was sitting at his Senate desk and beat him unconscious with a metal tipped cane. The attack left Sumner gravely injured, and he did not return to the Senate for 3 years. Sumner's ``Crime Against Kansas'' speech, and the violent retribution for it, further eroded the already strained relations between representatives of free and slave States. In his day, Senator Charles Sumner was considered an extreme, a wild-eyed dreamer whose vision of a society free of institutional racism seemed as unachievable as it was radical. Today, 200 years after his birth, we are the heirs of Charles Sumner's vision. Dozens of streets, schools, and towns across our country bear the name of this outspoken Senator from Massachusetts. Today, the issue of education reform looms large in our Nation's consciousness. Too many of our public school systems are failing our children. We would be wise to look at the legacy of Senator Sumner. He was one of his era's most vocal advocates for high-quality public schools and argued in the Massachusetts courts for the integration of the Commonwealth's schools. He based his argument on the--at the time-- novel concept that the inferior schools to which many children were relegated had lasting effects on their development. In fact, a century later this very argument would underpin our Nation's most famous civil rights case. In 1954, a young Black girl named Linda Brown was prevented from enrolling in an all-White public school that was much closer to her home than the all-Black school she was forced to attend. Her father joined a class action suit against the city's school board, and the resulting case would forever transform American society. The city was Topeka, KS. The case was Brown v. Board of Education. Ironically, the school where she had been denied was known as the Sumner Elementary School. Peering down from somewhere on high, Senator Sumner must have been pleased that injustice was not allowed to stand in his name. At the time of his death in 1874, Sumner was still agitating for school reform and Federal legislation to repeal all discriminatory laws against Blacks and the tens of thousands of Asians who had immigrated to America and helped build our transcontinental railroad system. The late Senator Robert C. Byrd, a noted historian of the Senate, once wrote, ``After Clay, Calhoun and Webster, no nineteenth-century senator stood higher on the political horizon than did Charles Sumner, nor did any garner more praise, condemnation and controversy than that eloquent Massachusetts senator.'' Today, I am proud to celebrate the bicentennial of Sumner's birth and his incredible service in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to congratulate my colleagues on their leadership and their willingness to come to the table to find a workable solution to ensure that we do not forget those who risked their lives on September 11, 2001. Today, the Senate reached an agreement to move forward on legislation that would create a program dedicated exclusively to provide screening and treatment to the first responders and other men and women who participated in rescue efforts at the World Trade Center. As I have said repeatedly, the work of my colleagues, Ms. Gillibrand and Mr. Schumer, are honorable and good. As I have said in every meeting that I have held--whether meeting with firefighters and police officers in Massachusetts, whether it be with Mayor Bloomberg of New York City or New York City Police Commissioner Kelly--I support their efforts and their good work and dedication to make sure that none of the heroes from September 11, 2001 are left behind or forgotten. I support this agreement because it represents what the Senate should be about: coming together, working together, and finding common ground and workable solutions. Today, in the final hours of the 111th Congress, we did just that by providing benefits to the first responders in a realistic and pragmatic way. But, M. President, I continue to have reservations regarding the offsets that are used to provide these benefits. As I have said to my colleagues, I am concerned because I am not 100 percent confident that the suggested offsets will materialize because of potential legal challenges or questionable trade implications. We should not forget the lives that were lost on September 11, 2001. The lives that were risked that day. And those who continue to live with scars from that day. And I can assure you, we won't. I am supporting this legislation because it provides access to the health care and treatment that our heroes deserve. And I greatly appreciate the input and patience of so many firefighters and first responders from my own state of Massachusetts, for whom I have tremendous respect and gratitude for all that they do. Thank you, Mr. President. And I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act, which passed the Senate today. I have heard from a broad coalition of universities, businesses, and educators in my home state of Massachusetts about the positive impact of the COMPETES Act on our economy. I have listened closely to my constituents' concerns and have concluded that reauthorization of this legislation is absolutely necessary to the long-term economic health of Massachusetts and the United States as a whole. To continue to lead in the 21st century, we must make sure that the United States has the most competitive economy and education system in the world. The COMPETES Act goes a long way to achieving that end, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of today's legislation. This bill reauthorizes Federal funding to support science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research. The original COMPETES bill was enacted with strong bipartisan support in 2007 and was based upon the recommendations contained in the National Academies' report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' That report correctly stated that: Having reviewed trends in the United States and abroad, the [National Academies] is deeply concerned that the scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength. We strongly believe that a worldwide strengthening will benefit the world's economy--particularly in the creation of jobs in countries that are far less well- off than the United States. But we are worried about the future prosperity of the United States. Although many people assume that the United States will always be a world leader in science and technology, this may not continue to be the case inasmuch as great minds and ideas exist throughout the world. We fear the abruptness with which a lead in science and technology can be lost--and the difficulty of recovering a lead once lost, if indeed it can be regained at all. The fears of the authors of ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' are as relevant today as they were prior to the original authorization of COMPETES. We must keep our foot on the gas pedal if we want to win the global race for jobs, economic growth, and new opportunities for our children and grandchildren. Massachusetts is an innovation-driven economy and has significantly benefitted from the COMPETES Act. A 2009 independent study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, found that Massachusetts is home to nearly 7,000 companies founded by MIT alumni. These types of companies exist in part because of the federal research funding that the COMPETES Act provides to universities like MIT. According to the study, those 7,000 businesses have created nearly one million jobs in my State, generating $164 billion in worldwide sales, 26 percent of the total sales dollars of all Massachusetts companies. I know that many of my Senate colleagues hail from States with similar success stories. Many of the jobs that stem from the COMPETES Act funding are in export-intensive sectors, such as my State's world-class semiconductor industry. I agree with President Obama that we must double U.S. exports in 5 years. But we can only achieve this worthwhile goal if we encourage students and leading thinkers to make our industries cutting edge so that the worldwide demand for our products grows significantly. Only then will we have sustained economic growth and get our country moving again. Since arriving in the Senate I have carefully scrutinized every bill with our Nation's fiscal concerns in mind. The compromise struck in this reauthorization recognizes the fiscal climate of today while still making meaningful investments in our future. For example, the bill sunsets nine programs, eliminates several other duplicative programs, and includes an authorization level that is only half of the House's proposal. I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join in supporting passage of the America COMPETES Act.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I come to the floor today because I have not forgotten what happened on September 11, 2001. I have not forgotten the brave men and women who risked their lives and lost their lives on that fateful day when 19 men brought the fight against terrorism to our American shores. Today the Senate held a procedural vote on whether to proceed to a House bill that would create a program dedicated exclusively to provide screening and treatment to the first responders and other men and women who participated in rescue efforts at the World Trade Center. As I have said repeatedly, the intent of the House bill and the work of my colleague, Mrs. Gillibrand, are honorable and good. As I have said in every meeting that I have held--whether meeting with firefighters and police officers in Massachusetts, whether it be with Mayor Bloomberg of New York City or New York City Police Commissioner Kelly--I support their efforts and their good work and dedication to make sure that none of the heroes from September 11, 2001, are left behind or forgotten. We should not forget the lives that were lost that day. The lives that were risked that day. And those who continue to live with scars from that day. And I can assure you, we won't. I agree with my colleague, Mrs. Gillibrand that the House bill is a good start on how we can provide benefits to the first responders but that we need to do so in a realistic and pragmatic way. Like many of my colleagues, I do not agree with how the House proposes to pay for these benefits. Taxing businesses--especially in this economic environment--is not a realistic way to generate revenue. And I think my colleague from New York and others agree that raising taxes on businesses to the tune of billions of dollars is neither appropriate nor realistic. I am encouraged that the Senators from New York are serious about seeking a compromise and finding an alternative mechanism to provide a funding source. They have offered additional ideas for how we can provide these benefits. And I have offered ideas on how we can provide these benefits. This is not an easy task. Finding nearly $8 billion in funding that will garner enough support in the Senate is not easy. I remain committed to working with my colleagues on this issue.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise today to continue to urge my colleagues for quick passage of my legislation that would restore access to life-saving medicines for children's hospitals. As my colleagues are aware, I introduced independent legislation in September that would protect the lives of the most vulnerable among us--our Nation's children--by immediately restoring access and ensuring children's hospitals across the country are able to purchase orphan drugs at a discount. Children's hospitals lost access to these medicines when Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That wasn't right. And so my legislation sought to fix it and restore access to these life-saving medicines for children's hospitals. Without this fix, children's hospitals across the country will be faced with higher drug costs. I introduced this legislation with the support of several of my Republican colleagues. And I know that my Democratic colleagues support the intent of my legislation too. Unfortunately, and despite passage in the House, the Senate has not passed legislation to correct this flaw in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But I am hopeful that the Senate will take action soon. I continue to work with my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee and with Senate leadership to ensure that the Senate acts swiftly to correct this error in the Federal health care reform bill. As my colleagues are aware, access to orphan drugs are critically important to children, many of whom, if they are ill, suffer from rare diseases or conditions. Orphan drugs, by definition, are designed and developed to help and treat diseases or conditions that affect fewer than 200,000 people, many of whom are children. On a daily basis, the Children's Hospital of Boston uses most of the 347 medicines that are designated orphan drugs. I will say again that my legislation has the support of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. And I have this support because fixing this provision and restoring access to life-saving medicines is the right thing to do. My legislation restores and protects the ability for children's hospitals to access those outpatient medicines through the 340B drug discount program authorized in the Public Health Services Act. Access to this program and the corresponding discount saves the Children's Hospital of Boston nearly $3 million annually, but more importantly, Children's Hospital of Boston is able to save lives as a result. Hospitals and doctors at children's hospitals are able to access life- saving medicines, children live better lives, and families are given peace of mind. Passing my bill quickly is the right thing to do and I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to act swiftly to enact my legislation to ensure that children's hospitals can once again receive discounted pricing on these life-saving medicines. There is no cause for delay. The House has passed this restorative language twice already. The Senate needs to do the same. And we should do so before the end of this year. I believe quick passage is possible--quick passage should be possible--because of the support and efforts that I have seen demonstrated by my fellow Senators.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I object. And I have a pay-for alternative on which I would like to speak.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Rhode Island, who passionately spoke about his proposal, his bill to deal with a very important problem we are facing in the United States. I am not the new person here anymore. Somebody came in yesterday. But I will say that it is still new to me that here we are, with 6\1/2\ hours before the benefits will expire, and we are now discussing this. God forbid we actually think ahead and spend a little bit of forethought in preparing and working together to try to come up with some type of solution before being faced with a 6\1/2\-hour deadline before the benefits expire. So, once again, I know I am not the newest guy anymore, but I have to say that this is not the way to do business in the Senate. And if it is, it needs to change. So here we are. The Senator just spoke about our needing to do this to keep the economy moving. No, we have to start focusing on jobs. That is what we have to do to get this economy moving. We have to start focusing on the things that are important--the deficit, the spending. Yesterday, we couldn't even pass the 1099 fix--something small businesses and all businesses in this country are clamoring for. We could not do that one thing--one thing. Now all of a sudden we are going to do another extension. I have complete and total sympathy and understanding for this. I want to help. More than anybody here, I want to help. But to just keep throwing money at a problem when it is not paid for, with 6\1/2\ hours left, to put people on the spot instead of doing it the right way-- working together, getting together in an office with the leadership and the people who care about these issues and coming up with a common solution--makes no sense to me. The reason we are having this high unemployment which my colleagues keep referring to--9 percent unemployment--is because there is no certainty in business. There is so much uncertainty right now in the business world, whether it is with the financial services people or the estate planners. Right now, we have zero percent. If you die--folks say it is a good year to die because next year it could be 55 percent or it could be less. Who knows. So there is so much money on the sidelines right now that we don't know what to do. It is not coming in to get the economy moving. We can't do the 1099 fix, we can't do the R&D tax credits, we can't work on accelerated depreciation, and we haven't repatriated any of the monies that are offshore. What do we do? We put up more and more roadblocks for businesses, so they do not want to hire these people off the unemployment rolls. Yet here we are with 6\1/2\ hours left, people aren't hiring, and we spent 7 days on food safety. Listen, I love to eat as much as the next guy, but give me a break. We should have spent 7 days working on the one thing the people who voted in November wanted--and they sent us a very powerful message--and that is getting our economy moving again; focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs; streamlining the regulatory process; and firing away to get this economy moving. But we needed to work on food safety. Oh my gosh, that was so important. I am glad I rushed back from our break to work on food safety. Now, I know we have some issues in that regard, but don't you think the 1099 fix and unemployment benefits and all these other things are a little bit more important? Some of my colleagues will say--the Senator from Illinois just said it--that we are here debating tax cuts. No, we are not. We are not debating tax cuts. I have been here for every vote we have had. I have been to every meeting since I have been back here. Where were we talking about tax cuts? Am I missing something? No, we haven't been talking about tax cuts. We haven't debated or discussed anything to do with business and getting our businesses and our economy moving again. The recent job numbers in Massachusetts reflect over 280,000 people unemployed in my State alone--over 8 percent of the Massachusetts workforce. As the Senator from Rhode Island mentioned--and I know Rhode Island well; I eat in Federal Hill regularly--the unemployment is much higher there. They have very serious problems. And one of the reasons we have problems is because we are not focusing on anything to do with business. We are not giving them the tools and resources they need to actually hire the people on the unemployment rolls. It is like a catch- 22. Nearly 15 million people across the country are unemployed, 6 million of them having been without work for 6 months or more. That is roughly five people for every one job opening. Families in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Illinois are all struggling. They sent that very powerful message a couple of week ago. They are struggling to make ends meet and, as the Senator from Rhode Island said, to buy food, to buy shoes, to buy extra Christmas presents. I understand that. But if they had a job and had the pride of going out and working hard each day and if businesses had that certainty of hiring that new employee, they could do that and a lot more. They could actually invest in the future of our country. We are in the midst of a historic economic crisis. I realize that. People are unable to find work, and I recognize that as well. The longer they are out of work, the harder it is to actually find work and become employable. I could go on and on as to how Congress has chosen to spend its time. I remember that before we went on break, before the elections, we wasted so much time on stuff that did nothing to help the economy. So here we are. I figured that when we came back, after the message was sent, we would get it loudly and clearly--big change over in the House. Here we are. We are going to get right back to the economy. But what do we do? We do food safety. Are you kidding me? People deserve better. The people who are unemployed deserve better. The consequences of our failure to act are the 15 million unemployed workers in our country because they are unable to find that job. So here we are, 6\1/2\ hours before the benefits are going to expire. And I do not want to see that happen. Let me make it very clear to anyone listening or watching or however the press wants to regurgitate my statements: I don't want this to happen. It doesn't need to happen. As many of my colleagues know, if we fail to act today, 60,000 Bay Staters will see their unemployment checks evaporate at the end of the week and 800,000 workers will see their checks disappear. That number will increase to 2 million by the end of December. So we are faced with another important decision, as we are with every other decision we make here: Do we provide the important benefits by burdening future generations, by adding on to that almost $14 trillion national debt, or do we provide the important benefits by raising taxes on businesses that are already struggling? If you want to talk about the Bush tax cuts, listen, that was a tax policy proposed by a President, supported by Congress, and it has been the tax policy for the last 10 years. To put a tax increase on anybody in the middle of a 2-year recession is going to add to these unemployment numbers and will be an absolute job killer. So is there a better way? Of course. There is always a better way, especially when we work together. We can always find a better way, as I have tried to work with the Senator from Oregon and other Senators to find commonsense solutions to our very serious problems. That is why I am once again offering an offset extension of unemployment benefits. The funny thing is that the proposal--and this is what I find so ironic. I will see where everyone wants to stand. If my colleagues want to do something today, I say to the Senators who are here and listening, we can provide that 1-year extension. In fact, I am offering an offset that was supported by 21 Democrats yesterday when we tried to do the 1099 offset bill, which I supported. I was a cosponsor, in a bipartisan manner. I supported both the Republican and the Democratic proposal just hoping, God forbid, we could get one thing done--just one. Twenty-one Democrats supported that bill. So here I am with my offer. My proposal is to offset the unemployment insurance--sorry, I need to take a breath here--the offset they supported yesterday would rescind unobligated discretionary funding. It is the same offset we did yesterday. So what is the difference? Do you know what the difference is? People are hurting, and they need the help in 6\1/2\ hours. The 1099 fix we can address down the road, but others need it in 6\1/2\ hours. So for those who supported it yesterday, I am certainly hopeful that they will support it again today. I don't know, is it me? I ask my colleagues to join in and be cosponsors. Is it because I am a Republican that we will not pass it? It is because it is my idea? I am the almost new guy. I get that. But what about looking past party politics, as I have done since the day I got here, to try to find commonsense solutions for people who are hurting. And trust me, there are a lot of people hurting. Why don't my colleagues join me in supporting this proposal that 21 other Democrats proposed yesterday and who actually went down in the well and voted on? This is a truly bipartisan proposal that we should be able to rally around. I am confident that we can work together, as the people demanded only a couple of weeks ago. As we enter the final weeks of this 111th Congress, there are several priorities that lie ahead. As I said earlier--I know I am getting worked up, but it just incenses me--we are here with 6\1/2\ hours remaining, and we just found out really today, or late yesterday, that we were even going to talk about this. We have to provide that certainty to businesses, from small mom-and-pop businesses all the way to the biggest corporations. They need to know what is up. They need to know they can actually rely on us to set policy that allows them to plan for the future, so they can get those 9-plus percent people off of unemployment. Do you think we are going to keep creating more and more government jobs; that is it? We are just going to keep printing the money and there is no consequence? There is plenty of consequence. The consequence is not on our grandchildren now; we are at our great-great- grandchildren as to paying this obligation back. We still have to ensure that the Federal Government keeps running. Let me see: We have the estate tax issue, we have dealing with tax proposals or policy at all, we are trying to get the regulatory scheme in place so we can give businesses the incentive to maybe bring money back from the offshore accounts they are holding so they do not invest in other businesses in other countries, we have this issue--we have a lot of other things on the table and we have done nothing. We spent time on food safety. I love to eat. I have seen many people around here, we all love to eat. I want my food safe, make no mistake about it. I do not want to belittle that effort. But we need to provide money so people can actually go out and buy the food we are trying to make safe. We cannot keep spending and borrowing with no regard to our future, to our fiscal future. We need to be fiscally responsible and find ways to pay for the initiatives and policies that we think are important. When you talk about the money--listen, it is not the government's money. It is people's money. When they have money, they traditionally invest it, and they invest in businesses and they continue to get that economic engine going. It is not the government's money. It is also very clear to me that people want to work and they want us to focus on that one issue. I do not know why we are avoiding it--I do not. Did you know we are avoiding that one issue that can get our country back on track? Let's just say we took all the recommendations from the debt commission that have been proposed. If we do not do the other things, it is going to be short-lived, if it works at all. Creating jobs and supporting policies that improve economic growth have been my priority and will continue to be my focus in the Senate. There is nothing more important. I encourage the administration to immediately drop everything and focus on the economy. It is the one thing that is our ticket out of the economic mess we are in right now; instead, we are doing food safety. I also think we need to give people that lifeline in order to get them through the tough times. Make no mistake, I agree they need help. But I look at it, are we going to do it from the bank account or are we going to put it on the credit card--bank account, credit card? How about you folks up there--bank account, credit card? OK. I know what I want to do. I will use the bank account. Let's use money that is already in the system and put it to good use immediately by 12 o'clock tonight. Let's do it. We can settle this tonight. We can provide that extension of benefits tonight. My bipartisan idea will allow that to happen and will prevent millions of Americans from losing their benefits. Providing this 1-year extension will allow us to focus on the many other important priorities we have and that we have to handle before the end of the year. You want to stay through the holidays and everything. Hey, I am here. Whatever. My kids are grown; they do their own thing anyway. Do I want to stay here? Sure, I will stay. We will stay and we will go out and celebrate Christmas here. Whatever. But we have so many things we need to do and we could do them right now. I am glad food safety is done. We do not have to do it anymore. So what is next? Let me see--just pick something. I guarantee, I bet--I know betting is illegal here--I will bet we do not do anything that has to do with the economy. I will bet you. I encourage my colleagues to join with me and stop using the credit card and burdening additional generations with this tremendous debt that we cannot afford. Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4915 I ask unanimous consent the Finance Committee be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4915; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I yield.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, once again, make no mistake, I have great respect for the Senator from Rhode Island. We worked on many regional issues--fishing and military issues. I respect his service not only to the military but also to his State. But I have to respectfully disagree with his presentation and representation on some of the issues. He keeps referring back to the tax cuts for the rich. That is great. We are not dealing with that right now. It is not something we are dealing with because we have not dealt with anything to do with any tax policy or structure since I have been here--zero. We have not done the estate tax, we have not done any tax policies, we have not done anything. Now you want to kind of muck it up and talk about if you do this, we should not do that. Listen, we are here, we have 6 hours and 15 minutes to deal with this issue. I am not quite sure why it took so long to get to this point. Why couldn't we have spent the last 7 days, when we were doing food safety, dealing with this? Why? Because there is no priority in taking care of people who are hurting and dealing with the issues that are affecting our economy and our country on a very real and personal basis. My colleague says there have been delays, we should just do it for longer than 1 year. He wants to do it for longer than 1 year? Great. Pay for it. The reason there have been delays is because we wanted to find a funding source. We could have initially taken it out of the unallocated stimulus dollars that were being used as special slush funds for folks and agencies. That was one of the delays, I remember, being part of that. That didn't pass. I think I got two Democrats. Yesterday, we did a 1099 fix and 21 Democrats supported it. What is the difference? Now we are talking about real people--about kids. It is about the kids. I keep saying it is about the kids. It is not just about the kids who are here right now; it is about the future generations who are going to have to try to figure out a way to pay for this insurmountable debt. I reiterate, it is pretty simple--bank account, credit card. That is all I am saying. Happy to help, folks. The folks up there listening, go back and say to your friends and family: Senator Brown of Massachusetts said bank accounts, credit card. It makes sense. I want to help. But I also want to streamline, consolidate this, weed out any fraud, waste, abuse, any money we are not using properly, and get it out the door into businesses and families and get the economy moving again. So here we are. I am very curious to see what is next. I enjoyed the food safety. I voted for it. I gave some input on it, and I voted for it. I am happy to help. It is not going to be implemented in 6 hours and 15 minutes. The people need our help right now. Madam President, I appreciate your paying attention and leading us. I am just hopeful that we can come together and use some common sense and start to focus on the economy. It is the economy, period. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about a provision that was included in the Federal health care reform bill. It is a provision that adversely impacts small businesses and entrepreneurs, both an engine of job growth in Massachusetts and across the country. I support Mr. Johanns' efforts and leadership to repeal this provision of the law. I am proud to be a cosponsor of his efforts to do just this. The provision that I am referring to--section 9006 of the Federal health care reform bill--requires that every business, charity, and local and State government entity submit a 1099 form for every business transaction totaling $600 or more in a given year. It has been estimated that this mandate would affect approximately 40 million entities across the country. Under the law, businesses will be required to report purchases of items such as office equipment, food and bottled water, gasoline, lumber, and plumbing supplies if payments to any vendor in the course of a year total at least $600. They will, in many cases, also have to report payments for things such as travel and telephone and Internet service. To comply with the mandate, businesses--especially small businesses-- would have to institute new, complex record-keeping data collection and reporting requirements that track every purchase by vendor and payment method. The provision will increase accounting costs, expose businesses to costly and unjustified audits by the IRS, and subject more small businesses to the challenges of electronic filing. So what does all of this really mean? And why does this provision need to be repealed? Well, what it means is that small businesses and entrepreneurs will be busy completing paperwork, filling out forms, and complying with government mandates. The provision needs to be repealed because when small businesses are focused on keeping the government at bay, they aren't creating jobs or making investments that spur economic growth. This is a policy we can all agree on--from both sides of the aisle. It is a policy that I have supported from the very start and that I will continue to support and fight for. Passing this amendment is the right thing to do--for small business owners, for entrepreneurs, and for every business that is eager to hire workers, expand its business, and grow. I commend my colleague's leadership on this issue. My colleague, Mr. Johanns has been leading this effort since the Federal health care reform passed earlier this year, and I support him fully. And I urge my fellow Senators to repeal this job-and investment-killing mandate.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the need for Congress to resolve an issue of importance to millions of Americans: specifically, the need for a bipartisan agreement on taxes. As the end of the year approaches, Americans face an extraordinary level of uncertainty regarding a number of tax issues: the 2001/2003 tax cuts, including the tax rates on dividends and capital gains, the alternative minimum tax, the estate tax, and last but not least, the extension of many expiring tax provisions affecting individuals, businesses, nonprofit organizations and even members of the U.S. Armed Forces. During this lameduck session, Congress and the White House have an opportunity to work together to develop a package that addresses all of these. In my view, we should not be raising taxes on any business or individual during a fragile economic recovery. The private sector--this country's job creation engine--continues to struggle, lacking the required stability and confidence needed to expand and hire new workers. Individuals, in turn, have been significantly impacted, further inhibiting economic growth. Uncertainty is a major factor, and one way to reduce uncertainty is to lock down our tax policy for the next few years, giving taxpayers a clear sense of what to expect as we enter 2011. On the tax extenders, I bring to the Senate's attention a letter just sent to Congress today from over 1,200 organizations located around the country. These are businesses, nonprofit organizations, and organizations representing our men and women in uniform. It points out the crucial nature of the expiring provisions, and asks Congress to extend them before the end of the year. This is a remarkable letter. We often hear from the business community about the importance of tax extenders for job creation, but here we have not only the business community speaking up, but also affordable housing organizations, community development organizations, and the National Education Association and the National Science Teachers Association. The letter is signed by the Alliance to Save Energy and numerous renewable energy organizations. It includes the Association of the United States Navy and the Reserve Officer Association. It includes agricultural organizations and technology councils. In short, this is a statement from a breadth of organizations which do not often work together. I think we have to take this kind of letter very seriously and consider its message carefully. And its message is that these provisions are very important to millions of Americans, and that our failure to extend them could have a significant dampening effect on the economy. And I also want to be clear about something: this should be a ``clean'' extension of these policies--we shouldn't be raising taxes on other businesses at the same time and thereby blunting the impact of this important action for the economy. One of the best known of the extenders is the R&D tax credit. It actually expired at the end of 2009, so America's innovative companies--many of them with operations in Massachusetts--have been wondering all year if Congress is going to reinstate the most visible public policy that encourages new ideas and technologies in this country. This is an area where our commitment should not be in doubt. There are incentives for the production of domestic alternative energy sources and energy efficient products such as hybrid vehicles, energy efficient appliances, homes, and windows. Without these incentives, many producers will not be able to make these products. In fact, many have already discontinued operations in the absence of credits which expired at the end of 2009. The deductions for donations of funds, property, food, and equipment to charities is also hanging in the balance of this package. There is the deduction for State and local sales taxes. Think about individuals losing the ability to deduct State and local taxes from their Federal taxes. There is the deduction for teacher classroom expenses. Teachers spending their own money for their classrooms is more common than we like to think about, and the least we can do is allow them to deduct those expenses from their tax bill. There is the credit for employers who continue to pay employees while on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces. This is an important support mechanism for our men and women in uniform, and we should ensure that it remains in place. These are just a few of the tax provisions which have expired or will soon expire. I invite my colleagues to review the Joint Tax Committee's list of the expiring provisions. It is crucial for Congress to act this year to extend as many of them as possible. Ultimately, I believe we need to reform our Tax Code to lower tax rates and broaden the base. I know Senators Baucus and Grassley have already begun that process with a Finance Committee hearing on tax reform earlier this year, and I salute them for starting that conversation. We look forward to working on such a package of reforms on a bipartisan basis in the 112th Congress, but for now, extending the expiring provisions should be a top priority for the remainder of this Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the November 16 letter from over 1,200 organizations from around the country to which I referred.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I rise today and join my colleague, Senator Wyden, to speak about legislation we have introduced that will protect not only his State but my State of Massachusetts and other States by allowing them to waive out of specific requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. As my colleagues know, my single priority is and always has been to ensure that what we do in Washington does not harm my State of Massachusetts or the rest of the country, and that we are responsible stewards with every tax dollar that flows from the States into the Federal Government. This has been true when it comes to voting against raising taxes on families and businesses. It has been true when it comes to fighting for commonsense, progrowth policies that will create jobs in Massachusetts. It has been true in my efforts to be sure that the Federal health care reform bill does not diminish or harm the health care innovations that have occurred in Massachusetts. It is my belief that Congress needs to be held responsible for its actions, for the policies it advocates, and the legislation that ultimately passes through these Halls to become law. When Congress passes legislation that is harmful--in this case the Federal health care reform legislation, which I did not support--or there is an unintended consequence--which I think is the case when it deals with Massachusetts and the innovations we have had for years, where we have 98 percent of our people already insured--Members need to be bold enough to stand up and fix it regardless of party affiliation and regardless of whether it is popular. I commend the Senator who is about to speak after me for his leadership on this matter. Senator Wyden has been working very diligently on addressing the concerns for his State. Today I get a chance to do the same. Today we get an opportunity to make a correction to the Federal health care reform bill to be sure we are doing the right thing, not just for Massachusetts but for other States that seek to waive out of certain requirements of the Federal health care reform law. In many ways, Massachusetts has been on the forefront of implementing health care reform: expanding access--as I mentioned, 98 percent of our people are already insured--designing systems to increase market participation--from the Cadillac plan, all the way to the fully subsidized Commonwealth Care Program--and increasing transparency for consumers and providers. We continue to learn, however, lessons every day in Massachusetts about what works and what does not work, and we are continuing to work on those very issues to make sure we can do it better. This is an important point because it speaks directly to the purpose of this piece of legislation that I have introduced in a bipartisan manner with Senator Wyden from Oregon. As you know, the health care reform efforts of Massachusetts are our own. We were one of the first States in the country to take this upon ourselves to address the very serious problem we had in providing funds to hospitals that were providing care for people who were making a good wage but who were not paying the bills. As a result, the citizens had to subsidize the hospitals to the tune of over $1 billion. So we believed it was imperative for us to get something done. As difficult as it is to admit this, not every State wants to be like Massachusetts. I understand that. They may not want to be like Oregon either. Massachusetts is a great State, with, I believe, the best hospitals, physicians, doctors, nurses, treatment facilities, research facilities in the country and around the world. There is a reason why people come to Massachusetts for the care and coverage they need so badly. But I recognize that my colleague from Oregon is interested in protecting reform efforts in Oregon as well. He does not want to be like Massachusetts because Oregon is different from Massachusetts. Oregon's insurance market is different. Its provider network is different. Its beneficiaries and population are different than in Massachusetts. Oregon might want to implement reforms or create a coverage mechanism that I do not like or that I would not want to work in the State of Massachusetts, but that is OK. That is what this bill is about. It allows the individual States to have the right to do what they believe is imperative and important for their particular State, which is why the legislation we have introduced--the Empowering States to Innovate Act--is so important. Right now, as provided under section 1332--the Waivers for State Innovation--of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, States can waive out of provisions of the Federal reform law. That is the good news. We are allowing States to participate in the process and allowing them not to have duplicate processes or maybe potentially have lesser care and coverage if the Federal health care bill is implemented. So it allows us to continue to provide the care and services we want to provide to our citizens in Massachusetts. The bad news is, this waiver authority is not scheduled to take effect until 2017. So what are we doing until then--a full 3 years after the PPACA is scheduled to be fully implemented? For me and my dear friend from Oregon it does not make any sense. When I see something that does not make any sense in Washington, I do my best, regardless of party affiliation, to fix it. The first thing our bill does is to allow States to waive out of specific parts of the PPACA in 2014 rather than 2017. This makes sense not only from an operational standpoint, because the PPACA takes effect in 2014, but also from an economic and fiscal standpoint. Why should Massachusetts be delayed in obtaining a waiver from the Federal reform bill when it may already have met or exceeded, in many cases, the provisions of the act? So holding Massachusetts back by limiting my State's ability to continue to innovate and remain flexible and responsive to the health care market costs money, and it costs the taxpayers money at a point right now where we don't have a whole heck of a lot of money to go around. The second piece our bill does is to provide States with certainty with the waiver process. Not every State will be eligible. Let me repeat that: Not every State will be eligible for a waiver and not every waiver will be granted. But our bill provides some certainty for States that apply for a waiver by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to begin reviewing applications within 6 months of the enactment of this bill. I hope this bill is enacted quickly. The earlier a State knows whether it has received a waiver, the earlier it can begin implementing its specific plans and proposals. It makes fiscal sense. Taken together, these two changes are not only good for Massachusetts but potentially for other States. They are good for the other States that are trying to innovate and advance in the areas of health care reform, cost containment, and coverage. That is what it should be. It should be a symbiotic relationship between the Federal Government and the States. The States should have the right to determine what they want to do for their citizenry. Do we think maybe some States could do it better than the Federal Government? I believe when we deal with health care, Massachusetts is second to none, with all due respect to the other Senators in this Chamber. During Wednesday's Finance Committee hearing, Dr. Berwick, who is from the State of Massachusetts, I might add, said this about State innovation and flexibility: The cliche about states as laboratories of democracy is not just a cliche, it's true. The diversity of approaches that we're seeing emerge state by state has been there for long time. I think we should be doing everything we can to encourage it. I couldn't agree more. I am a strong supporter of States rights, especially when it makes sense, and for allowing States to solve problems without the Federal Government's interference. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Massachusetts Hospital Association in support of my efforts today.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Thank you, Madam President. We should be encouraging State innovation and not hampering it, and that is what the Empowering States to Innovate Act does. It helps ensure that States are not held back from innovating and seeking solutions that work for their citizens, their taxpayers, and their communities. Finally, I wish to associate myself with the comments of the Senator from Oregon when he makes them about how our bill fits into the Federal health care reform debate. Enacting this legislation is the right thing to do because it is good for States such as Massachusetts and Oregon and Utah that have begun to make changes and reform at the State level that make sense for their citizens. The legislation provides flexibility and says one size fits all is not appropriate and it does not always meet the needs of that individual State. I know the Federal standard is not in the best interests of the people of Massachusetts, which is why passing this bill is the right thing to do. Let me say I deeply appreciate the Senator from Oregon and his effort to weed through the quagmire of rules and regulations and come up with a commonsense solution. I am hopeful others in this Chamber will learn from our example, that we can work together in a bipartisan manner to tackle problems and try to solve them without the rhetoric and without the bomb throwing and just solve problems. Because right now, we need more people like the Senator from Oregon to do just that.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I am here to talk just briefly about an issue to which I think I have actually found the solution, the one thing that I think we can all agree on, and maybe either before we leave or during the lameduck we can work together on something I think is troubling for everybody of both parties. I rise to speak today about an extremely important issue that has bothered me as somebody who continues to serve in the military, and others who have any affiliation with the military or care deeply as to how our military servicemembers are treated after they give the ultimate sacrifice; that is regarding the severe mismanagement of the Arlington National Cemetery, which has resulted in the mishandling of remains of many of America's fallen heroes who have served our country and given their lives to keep our Nation safe and our citizens free. I want to first take a moment to recognize the work of Senator McCaskill, the chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on contracting oversight on this issue. She and I have held a hearing on this matter. I have to tell you, it was one of the more frustrating hearings I have ever participated in, to listen to some of the responses, the cavalier answers and lack of dignity paid to the reason we are all here. Then to learn that through investigation, the causes of the absurd mismanagement and oversight lapses at the cemetery. During that July 29, 2010, hearing, we took the first step of getting to the bottom of what was going on and working to identify real solutions that will make sure this never happens again. I am pleased to be on the Senate floor today to announce the introduction of legislation, Mr. President, I hope you will jump on and cosponsor to address these issues and to remedy the problems at Arlington National Cemetery, which I am proud to sponsor with Senator McCaskill. I am sure I do not have to remind everybody listening and watching and anyone who serves here after all the reports that continue to be in the news about Arlington National Cemetery that has suffered from severe dysfunctional mismanagement and lack of established policies and procedures. I was shocked. I remember during the hearing that they actually still keep all of the information on little cue cards, on little index cards. I mean, I have something that is a piece of modern technology that we can keep everything on in an instant, the way that we communicate around the world in an instant. My kids are using it; my grandkids are using it. Yet here we are, in one of the most historic cemeteries in our country, honoring the people who have given their lives through service, and we are on index cards. Not only that, we are burying them in the wrong grave. Some graves do not even have bodies in them. I mean, come on. Give me a break. This bill establishes strict and recurring congressional reporting requirements for the Secretary of the Army to provide progress on correcting the management, operations, burial discrepancies, and contracting issues at the Arlington National Cemetery. The act also requires the Comptroller General to report on the management and contracts of Arlington National Cemetery and the feasibility and advisability of transferring Arlington National Cemetery to the Veterans' Administration. The enactment of this act will also provide the appropriate congressional oversight to make certain that those responsible for managing the cemetery are being held accountable and meeting the highest standards when it comes to ensuring the proper burial of America's fallen men and women. We absolutely cannot let this happen again at Arlington National Cemetery or any other cemetery. As I said earlier, as a 30-year member of the Army National Guard, I have tremendous respect for the men and women serving in our Armed Forces. I know you do, too, and every other person in this Chamber does who has made the ultimate sacrifice, as well as the families who provide the support to allow them to do their jobs. These systematic problems at the cemetery have tarnished the sacred trust and are extremely troubling. Everyone entrusted with the solemn obligation has to ensure that the heroes buried at Arlington National Cemetery receive the utmost dignity and respect this country can offer. Our legislation will help restore that so servicemembers' families will never, ever again have to endure such devastating emotional turmoil. I can't even imagine what it would be like to say: I am going to visit my loved one, and walk in the cemetery and learn the place you have been going for years, your loved one isn't even there or is maybe over there. The cavalier attitude of the people controlling this operation makes me deeply troubled. Our legislation will provide assurances to our military members and their families that corrective actions are expeditiously implemented and that management of the cemetery will be fixed and fixed soon. I am hopeful my Senate colleagues will join me and Senator McCaskill in supporting this very important piece of legislation. I hope this is one piece of legislation we can all agree on and get done and send a powerful message to the families and the service men and women who are serving that we are not going to let this happen any longer. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his question. I commend his constituents on having the foresight to instruct him and let him know they are hurting. The people in my State are hurting also. They are absolutely concerned about the disconnect between Washington and the State I represent. What I notice not only in Massachusetts but my travels throughout the country is that they believe the people in Washington go around saying: You are great, you are great, everything is wonderful, there is no recession in Washington. All the restaurants are full. The housing market is great. Everything is great around here. But outside that, they say: He doesn't get it; she doesn't get it; we are going to make a statement pretty darn soon. They are absolutely looking for fiscal leadership. Listen, there is absolutely a role for government. Government needs to know when to get out of the way also. It needs to know when to get out of the way and let free enterprise and the free market take shape and let us get the economy going through something besides government-created jobs. I thank the Senator for his question. I agree wholeheartedly, yes, there is a great concern that we are overspending, we are overtaxing, we are overregulating, and we need to make sure this gesture, this 5 percent--I do not want to throw billions around like it is not money, but compared to the trillions we are all used to dealing with here, it is not big money. But I tell you what, it is a very good start. It sends a very powerful message to the people in Massachusetts and throughout the rest of this country and the world that a group of Senators have finally gotten together and have sent a message to the rest of the administration and to the folks that we are going to start to do one thing--just one thing: to start to get our fiscal house in order.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I stand here in support of the Thune amendment and thank him for his leadership on this good first step. To me, it is pure common sense. I agree with everything he has said in terms of we have overspent. It is time to draw a line in the sand, lead by example, and show the American people that they are doing without, and we can do without. We are only talking about 5 percent. It is $22 billion. I remember-- it seems like 10 years ago I got here. I remember being in the Massachusetts Legislature, and we were throwing around millions. Here they throw around trillions like it is nothing. I know it is only $22 billion we can save, which is still real money where I come from, and so over $300 billion potentially over a 10-year period. It is time. It is time to start leading by example. It is time to show we can also make some cuts. Quite frankly, I do not think they will hurt. We need to send a signal to our constituents and to the rest of the world that we are trying to finally get our fiscal house in order. I just met with representatives from Great Britain. They are doing across the board a 25-percent cut. They recognize they do not want to be in a similar financial predicament as other countries in that part of the world. They are sending a very powerful bipartisan message to the people in that country that they have to get their fiscal house in order. We need to start sending that very same powerful fiscal message to do the same thing. I remember when I got here back in the beginning of January, the national debt was about $11.95 trillion. As Senator Thune just pointed out, it is almost $13.3 trillion or $13.4 trillion right now. That is less than 7 months. Our deficit is over $1 trillion. At what point do we eliminate the inefficiencies and duplications throughout our Federal Government, as Senator Coburn has identified cuts in many wasteful programs? I agree with him. We have to start somewhere. Can we not do just one thing--just one, that is it--to show the American people that, yes, we get it, we feel your pain, we get it. It is time. They are sending a very powerful message. They sent it in January and they are sending it again that they are tired of overspending, they are tired of deficit spending, they are tired of overtaxing. We have to get our fiscal house in order. I thank Senator Thune for his leadership and Senator Coburn for taking the time to find all these duplicate programs.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Yes.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about a bill that I am introducing today along with several of my Senate colleagues. My bill protects the lives of the most vulnerable among us our Nation's children by ensuring children's hospitals across the country are able to purchase orphan drugs at a discount. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues: Senators Snow, Bennett, Corker, Collins, Voinovich, Alexander, and Chambliss today, to stand together to provide for and protect the ability of children's hospitals to access medicines for their patients at a reduced price. As my colleagues are aware, access to orphan drugs are critically important to children, many of whom, if they are ill, suffer from rare disease or conditions. Orphan drugs, by definition, are designed and developed to help and treat diseases or conditions that affect fewer than 200,000 people, many of whom are children. On a daily basis, the Children's Hospital of Boston uses most of the 347 medicines that are designated orphan drugs. The bill my colleagues and I are introducing today restores and protects the ability for children's hospitals to access those outpatient medicines through the 340B drug discount program authorized in the Public Health Services Act. Access to this program and the corresponding discount saves the Children's Hospital of Boston nearly $3 million annually, but more importantly, Children's Hospital of Boston is able to save lives as a result. Hospitals and doctors at children's hospitals are able to access life-saving medicines, children live better lives, and families are given a piece of mind. Passing this bill quickly is the right thing to do and I encourage the Senate to act swiftly to enact my legislation to ensure that children's hospitals can once again receive discounted pricing on these life-saving medicines. There is no cause for delay. The House has passed this restorative language twice already. The Senate needs to do the same. I believe quick passage is possible quick passage should be possible because of the support and efforts that I have seen demonstrated by my fellow Senators. Senator Sherrod Brown has been a thoughtful leader on this issue and I respect and admire him for his work. Because of his leadership and perseverance, he was able to secure the support of sixteen Democratic Senators in favor of this legislation, all of whom signed a letter to the Majority Leader, expressing their support to restore access to this very important program. I am hopeful that Senator Sherrod Brown and I can continue to work across party lines and with all of our colleagues to reach agreement and find resolution on this. My door is always open to my colleagues who are willing to work together to solve common problems. In this instance, our Nation's children deserve that we come together and protect their access to medicines that will save their lives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about a bill that I am introducing today along with several of my Senate colleagues. My bill protects the lives of the most vulnerable among us our Nation's children by ensuring children's hospitals across the country are able to purchase orphan drugs at a discount. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues: Senators Snow, Bennett, Corker, Collins, Voinovich, Alexander, and Chambliss today, to stand together to provide for and protect the ability of children's hospitals to access medicines for their patients at a reduced price. As my colleagues are aware, access to orphan drugs are critically important to children, many of whom, if they are ill, suffer from rare disease or conditions. Orphan drugs, by definition, are designed and developed to help and treat diseases or conditions that affect fewer than 200,000 people, many of whom are children. On a daily basis, the Children's Hospital of Boston uses most of the 347 medicines that are designated orphan drugs. The bill my colleagues and I are introducing today restores and protects the ability for children's hospitals to access those outpatient medicines through the 340B drug discount program authorized in the Public Health Services Act. Access to this program and the corresponding discount saves the Children's Hospital of Boston nearly $3 million annually, but more importantly, Children's Hospital of Boston is able to save lives as a result. Hospitals and doctors at children's hospitals are able to access life-saving medicines, children live better lives, and families are given a piece of mind. Passing this bill quickly is the right thing to do and I encourage the Senate to act swiftly to enact my legislation to ensure that children's hospitals can once again receive discounted pricing on these life-saving medicines. There is no cause for delay. The House has passed this restorative language twice already. The Senate needs to do the same. I believe quick passage is possible quick passage should be possible because of the support and efforts that I have seen demonstrated by my fellow Senators. Senator Sherrod Brown has been a thoughtful leader on this issue and I respect and admire him for his work. Because of his leadership and perseverance, he was able to secure the support of sixteen Democratic Senators in favor of this legislation, all of whom signed a letter to the Majority Leader, expressing their support to restore access to this very important program. I am hopeful that Senator Sherrod Brown and I can continue to work across party lines and with all of our colleagues to reach agreement and find resolution on this. My door is always open to my colleagues who are willing to work together to solve common problems. In this instance, our Nation's children deserve that we come together and protect their access to medicines that will save their lives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.