John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Veto Wasteful Spending and Protect Taxpayers Act of 2010 which establishes a constitutional line-item veto by creating an expedited rescissions process. Yesterday, the Obama administration unveiled the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010. This legislation is very similar to my proposal which I first introduced in 2006. They both provide for an expedited rescission process. The line-item veto is not a panacea for record level deficits, but it will provide the President with the necessary tool to reduce wasteful spending. Both bills will give the President the ability to target projects that have been added in spending bills that benefit special interests or are not necessary. I applaud President Obama for addressing this issue. I have been a long-time advocate of the line-item veto. It has been a successful tool at the state level and I think it can effectively reduce spending on the Federal level. We have made progress with earmark reform and I think expedited rescission would result in further spending reductions. The major difference between my legislation and the Administration's proposal is that the Veto Wasteful Spending and Protect Taxpayers Act of 2010 would allow the President to suspend and propose cancellation for discretionary spending, new direct spending, and limited tax benefits. The Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010 focuses on discretionary spending. If we really want to tackle wasteful spending, I think we need to look at new entitlement spending and limited tax benefits, not just discretionary spending. In 1996, the Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Line Item Veto Act, P.L. 104-130. Two years later, however, in Clinton v. City of New York the Supreme Court concluded that the method used to give the President line-item veto authority was unconstitutional. The Court noted that presidents may only sign or veto entire acts of Congress. The Constitution does not authorize presidents to enact, to amend or to repeal statutes. We can restore the line item veto and be consistent with the Constitution. The key difference between what I am proposing and what the Supreme Court struck down is the legal effect of the President's actions. The Line Item Veto Act allowed the President to cancel provisions in their entirety, but the Supreme Court rejected this arrangement. My legislation will empower the President to suspend provisions until the Congress decides to approve or disapprove the suspension of that provision with an up or down vote. The provisions are not cancelled out of the legislation. I believe this change addresses the Supreme Court's concerns. My legislation also does not include a mechanism which allows a provision to be suspended for a lengthy time period. Under the Veto Wasteful Spending and Protect Taxpayers Act of 2010, the President has 10 calendar days to submit to Congress a special message. The President may transmit two messages per bill, but a provision may only be proposed for suspension or cancellation one time. The House and Senate would consider the special message under a special process which does not allow for amendments or motions to strike. I believe that the line-item veto is a valuable tool that should be made available to any President regardless of political party. For this reason, the Veto Wasteful Spending and Protect Taxpayers Act of 2010 is permanent, rather than sunsetting after a few years. It is time to reinstate the line-item veto. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to return to the President the authority to rein in wasteful spending.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in order to protect the economic health of our Nation and the security of the financial system on which it depends, I will support the financial reform legislation before the Senate today. I want to thank Majority Leader Reid and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Dodd for their efforts to bring to the floor legislation that is so critical to our Nation's prosperity. Over the past decade, the greed on Wall Street has destroyed millions of jobs and wiped out the life savings of too many Americans. That greed turned our Nation's financial markets into a casino where fairness and full disclosure were lost in complexity of riskier and more lucrative new financial products. Unfortunately, even those running the casino didn't understand the dangerous hand they were dealing to unsuspecting consumers. As a result, American taxpayers had to bail out the big financial companies that made the mess. It didn't seem fair and nobody liked it, except those getting the bail out. But it had to be done in order to stop the economy from going over the cliff not just ours but the whole global economy. It all started in 2008 with the Federal Government stepping in to prevent financial institutions, investment banks, mortgage providers, and insurance companies from going under. Even though these steps were necessary, they certainly reinforced the view of many Americans that bad behavior was being rewarded with taxpayer bailouts. The experience made it clear that Congress needs to update our outdated financial regulatory scheme and reestablish transparency, fairness and long-term stability to our financial system. We have an obligation to restore responsibility and accountability to our financial system to insure this never happens again. We have got no choice. Strong medicine is needed to avoid a future economic catastrophe. I believe this critical legislation will reign in Wall Street, create jobs on Main Street, and protect consumers from fraud and abuse. It also will help restore confidence in our capital markets and our financial institutions. We have to make sure that taxpayers never again pick up this tab. And this bill does just that. Under this legislation, firms that are supposedly ``too big to fail'' can be shut down and liquidated before their systemic failure endangers our financial markets. No more taxpayer bailouts that increase our Federal debt. The Financial Reform Act creates the Federal Stability Oversight Council to identify and address systemic risks posed by large, complex companies, products, and activities before they threaten the stability of the economy. It also imposes new capital and leverage requirements that make it more difficult for financial companies to become ``too big to fail''. It will require such companies to periodically submit so called ``funeral plans'' for their rapid and orderly shutdown should they fail. And those who fail to submit acceptable plans will be subject to higher capital requirements as well as restrictions on growth and activity. A critical part of this legislation deals with the costs of future bank failures. There is no rationale for banks to continue gambling with taxpayer-backed funds in the stock market or anywhere else. I am pleased the bill includes a recommendation from the Obama administration, called ``the Volcker rule'' after the former Federal Reserve Bank Chair and current National Economic Recovery Advisory Board Chairman, Paul Volcker. The Volcker rule will stop financial institutions from using their assets to invest in the stock market or engage in privately owned trading operations, unrelated to serving customers for its own profit. Banks can once again focus on lending, especially to small businesses, which is why they receive special access to the Federal Reserve in the first place. Some of the things that have happened on Wall Street are unbelievable. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission alleges that that Goldman Sachs worked with a third party, Paulsen and Company, to select pools of subprime mortgages sold the securities to investors without telling them they were designed to fail. Then both Goldman Sachs and Paulsen bet against those securities. How can that be fair? Over the past decade, irresponsible lending, irresponsible borrowing and a lack of basic oversight and effective regulation put millions of families in homes they could not afford. Too many Americans took unreasonable risks to buy a home when markets were booming. Too many financial institutions lowered their lending standards but didn't plan appropriately for increased risk. At the same time, some borrowers inflated their incomes and misrepresented themselves in order to buy expensive homes that they could not afford. The damage has been staggering. Millions of homeowners are facing foreclosure. The loans financing these homes are now frozen on the balance sheets of banks and other financial institutions, preventing them from providing new loans. Today we are living with the consequences: an economy teetering on the edge. One of the most importation provisions of this legislation sets up a new independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive and abusive financial products and practices. The goal of the new bureau is to insure that when families apply for a mortgage, a bank loan or other complicated financial products, they will also receive clear information that they need to make the best decision possible. With a watchdog in place, families will be less likely to enter into mortgages they don't understand or be a victim of unfair and deceptive loan practices. It will increase fairness and help reduce the casino atmosphere of too many financial products. Another crucial ingredient in today's crisis is the use of complex financial derivatives. Warren Buffett has called them `` financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal.'' These complex financial maneuvers hidden from the view of most Americans have quietly become a crucial part of managing risk in our economy. In May, the Bank for International Settlements estimated that the total value of derivative contracts was approximately $600 trillion. To put this speculation in context--that's 200 times larger than the Federal budget. Derivatives are essentially bets on future economic behavior: financial contracts which can gain or lose value as the price of some underlying commodity, financial indicator or other variable changes. Unfortunately their rise to prominence in our economy was not matched with an increase in regulation or transparency. The legislation gives the SEC and CFTC the authority to regulate over-the-counter derivatives to stop irresponsible practices and excessive risk-taking. It requires central clearing and exchange trading for derivatives that can be cleared. It requires margin for uncleared trades in order to offset the greater risk they pose to the financial system and encourage more trading to take place in transparent, regulated markets. It increases data collection and publication through clearing houses or swap repositories to improve market transparency and provide regulators important tools for monitoring and responding to risks. When you add it all up, the financial crisis is a result of failures over the past generation to provide appropriate regulation and supervision of the financial services industry. During the Bush administration, however, what was effectively a trend toward deregulation turned into a stampede. We have an obligation to prevent another stampede. We have an obligation to restore responsibility and accountability to our financial system. We have an obligation to make sure America's taxpayers are not left with the casino's bill. So I urge my colleagues to support this financial reform legislation because it will protect the continued health of our economy. It will revamp our regulatory practices, fix the derivatives market, and provide liquidity for small businesses and families looking to buy a home. More importantly, it will rebuild the trust that the American people have lost in our financial system.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, we are currently being visited in Washington by the President of Afghanistan. He has been in the Senate engaged in a luncheon with Senators. I ask unanimous consent that the President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, be permitted the privilege of coming on the floor to be greeted by the Senate, together with his Ministers who are here for a series of important meetings.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the votes on the nomination of Nancy D. Freudenthal to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Wyoming and Denzil Price Marshall Jr. to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. If I were able to attend today's session, I would have supported both nominees.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am deeply troubled by the increasing number of sexual assaults in the U.S. military. Not only is sexual assault a crime that is incompatible with military service, but it also undermines core values, degrades military readiness, subverts good will and forever changes the lives of victims and their families. We know from the Defense Department's 2009 Report on Sexual Assault in the Military that the number of reported sexual assaults in the military increased substantially last year--a trend that has continued for the last couple of years. Unfortunately, according to the Pentagon, we also know that while improvements have been made, the number of sexual assaults in the military actually reported is far below the estimated number of assaults that have actually occurred in the military. It is estimated that only 10 to 20 percent of sexual assaults in the military are actually reported. Obviously, more needs to be done. That is why I have introduced the Defense, Sexual Trauma Response and Good Governance, STRONG Act of 2010. This legislation builds on many of the common sense solutions that were included in the December 2009 Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, a report from the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services. The Defense STRONG Act of 2010 would guarantee legal counsel from a Judge Advocate General to all sexual assault victims, whether or not they file restricted or unrestricted reports. Currently, anyone who files a restricted report cannot seek legal counsel. Seeking legal counsel triggers an investigation, which, in turn, makes that report unrestricted--that is, it is no longer confidential and the chain of command is notified. A directive issued by the Department of Defense in 2005 omitted Judge Advocate Generals and civilian lawyers trained in military law from the list of individuals that a victim can seek guidance and assistance from. The only individuals on the list are Sexual Assault Response Coordinator's, SARCs, Victim Advocates, VAs, health care personnel, and chaplains--none of whom are likely to have legal training. But it is my belief that the victim of a sexual assault should have the right to legal counsel no matter what. In its report, the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services also found that victims are not offered appropriate privileged communications. The report noted that there are 35 states that currently have a privilege for communications between Victim Advocates and victims of sexual assault. However, because no privilege exists in military proceedings, defense counsel are able to identify Victim Advocates as a potential defense witness in a court-martial. There have been multiple occasions in which information was obtained from Victim Advocates in court-martial proceedings and used to try to undermine the credibility of a victim with cross examinations highlighting inconsistencies in prior statements. There are certain roles that I believe are inherently governmental and certainly one is the role of Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, which should be filled by either a uniformed servicemember or a DoD civilian employee, not a contractor. The Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services agreed. So this legislation would require one Sexual Assault Response Coordinator per brigade, filled by either a full-time military servicemember or a DoD civilian employee. Moreover, this legislation also would require that Victim Advocates be either a uniformed servicemember or a DoD civilian employee. At the battalion level, there are usually two part time Victim Advocates. The Defense STRONG Act would require that there be at least one-full time Victim Advocate at each battalion, or battalion equivalent. Another issue that has long plagued the DoD's ability to adequately respond to and prevent sexual assaults in the military is the lack of standardization amongst the services. The Defense STRONG Act would require the DoD to standardize much of their certification programs in a manner modeled after the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, training Sexual Assault Response Coordinators as well as Victim Advocates. Standardization and professionalization would drastically impact readiness. This legislation would also require the Department of Defense to develop modules specific to each level of Professional Military Education. By doing so, we could ensure that military leadership is aware of all available resources. This provision would also encourage the Department of Defense to craft each level of Professional Military Education to the level of responsibility as military leadership get promoted. Elevating the Director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office to the Senior Executive Service level was another recommendation put forth by the Defense Task Force Report. A senior leader in this office is necessary in order to obtain resources and provide the attention this issue requires, much like the Defense Military Equal Opportunity Office and the Office of Military and Community Family Policy. Leadership at the senior level has already proven instrumental in helping advance the DoD's efforts in overcoming domestic violence and discrimination and could be just as helpful in combating sexual assaults. While there is no magic formula for solving a problem that has long plagued the Department of Defense, I believe these provisions will strengthen the DoD's ability to respond to cases of sexual assault and prevent future cases from occurring.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am deeply troubled by the increasing number of sexual assaults in the U.S. military. Not only is sexual assault a crime that is incompatible with military service, but it also undermines core values, degrades military readiness, subverts good will and forever changes the lives of victims and their families. We know from the Defense Department's 2009 Report on Sexual Assault in the Military that the number of reported sexual assaults in the military increased substantially last year--a trend that has continued for the last couple of years. Unfortunately, according to the Pentagon, we also know that while improvements have been made, the number of sexual assaults in the military actually reported is far below the estimated number of assaults that have actually occurred in the military. It is estimated that only 10 to 20 percent of sexual assaults in the military are actually reported. Obviously, more needs to be done. That is why I have introduced the Defense, Sexual Trauma Response and Good Governance, STRONG Act of 2010. This legislation builds on many of the common sense solutions that were included in the December 2009 Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, a report from the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services. The Defense STRONG Act of 2010 would guarantee legal counsel from a Judge Advocate General to all sexual assault victims, whether or not they file restricted or unrestricted reports. Currently, anyone who files a restricted report cannot seek legal counsel. Seeking legal counsel triggers an investigation, which, in turn, makes that report unrestricted--that is, it is no longer confidential and the chain of command is notified. A directive issued by the Department of Defense in 2005 omitted Judge Advocate Generals and civilian lawyers trained in military law from the list of individuals that a victim can seek guidance and assistance from. The only individuals on the list are Sexual Assault Response Coordinator's, SARCs, Victim Advocates, VAs, health care personnel, and chaplains--none of whom are likely to have legal training. But it is my belief that the victim of a sexual assault should have the right to legal counsel no matter what. In its report, the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services also found that victims are not offered appropriate privileged communications. The report noted that there are 35 states that currently have a privilege for communications between Victim Advocates and victims of sexual assault. However, because no privilege exists in military proceedings, defense counsel are able to identify Victim Advocates as a potential defense witness in a court-martial. There have been multiple occasions in which information was obtained from Victim Advocates in court-martial proceedings and used to try to undermine the credibility of a victim with cross examinations highlighting inconsistencies in prior statements. There are certain roles that I believe are inherently governmental and certainly one is the role of Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, which should be filled by either a uniformed servicemember or a DoD civilian employee, not a contractor. The Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services agreed. So this legislation would require one Sexual Assault Response Coordinator per brigade, filled by either a full-time military servicemember or a DoD civilian employee. Moreover, this legislation also would require that Victim Advocates be either a uniformed servicemember or a DoD civilian employee. At the battalion level, there are usually two part time Victim Advocates. The Defense STRONG Act would require that there be at least one-full time Victim Advocate at each battalion, or battalion equivalent. Another issue that has long plagued the DoD's ability to adequately respond to and prevent sexual assaults in the military is the lack of standardization amongst the services. The Defense STRONG Act would require the DoD to standardize much of their certification programs in a manner modeled after the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, training Sexual Assault Response Coordinators as well as Victim Advocates. Standardization and professionalization would drastically impact readiness. This legislation would also require the Department of Defense to develop modules specific to each level of Professional Military Education. By doing so, we could ensure that military leadership is aware of all available resources. This provision would also encourage the Department of Defense to craft each level of Professional Military Education to the level of responsibility as military leadership get promoted. Elevating the Director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office to the Senior Executive Service level was another recommendation put forth by the Defense Task Force Report. A senior leader in this office is necessary in order to obtain resources and provide the attention this issue requires, much like the Defense Military Equal Opportunity Office and the Office of Military and Community Family Policy. Leadership at the senior level has already proven instrumental in helping advance the DoD's efforts in overcoming domestic violence and discrimination and could be just as helpful in combating sexual assaults. While there is no magic formula for solving a problem that has long plagued the Department of Defense, I believe these provisions will strengthen the DoD's ability to respond to cases of sexual assault and prevent future cases from occurring.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to thank Dr. Joseph W. Bascuas for his invaluable contributions as interim president to Becker College and for his dedication to quality education and high academic standards. Becker College, which traces its history to 1784, is comprised of two separate campuses only 6 miles apart, one in Leicester and the other in Worcester, MA. The college serves more than 1,700 students from 18 States and 12 countries, and offers more than 25 diverse, top-quality bachelor degree programs in unique, high-demand career niches and serves as an invaluable community partner. In September of 2008 the Becker College Board of Trustees named Dr. Bascuas as interim president and since that time he has served admirably. Dr. Bascuas brought more than 25 years of experience in higher education to Becker College. In addition to his teaching and leading experiences, he has written and coauthored numerous papers on psychological topics and has presented at symposia and conferences. Dr. Bascuas served as president of Medaille College, Buffalo, NY; founding president of Argosy University Atlanta, GA, campus; and held administrative and teaching positions at the Georgia School of Professional Psychology, Antioch University, Nova/Southeastern University and Salve Regina University. Moreover, he served recently as a site visit team chair for the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, and served on the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III Presidents Council. He received a B.A. from LaSalle University and an M.A. and a Ph.D. from Temple University. Dr. Bascuas took on the role of interim president during a challenging time and was not content with simply being a placeholder. Dr. Bascuas was willing to tackle serious issues including technology, financial aid, and improving retention and graduation rates. He successfully positioned the College for significant growth rates and progress in the future, and for that, the citizens of Massachusetts greatly appreciate and commend him for his efforts. Mr. President, I would like to wish Dr. Joseph W. Bascuas continued success in the future. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Dr. Joseph W. Bascuas for his services at Becker College.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Dr. Lael Brainard to be Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs. This is a vital role and it is important that we fill this position during this time of immense global challenges. The filling of this position is long overdue. Dr. Brainard is highly qualified and we are fortunate that a candidate of her quality is willing to serve. The Under Secretary for International Affairs is critical to the administration's efforts to engage China on economic issues, stabilize the global economy following the financial crisis, expand export opportunities, and pursue reforms and effective U.S. investments in the multilateral developments banks. Dr. Brainard attended Wesleyan University before receiving a Master's and Doctorate in Economics from Harvard University. She is the recipient of a White House Fellowship and Council on Foreign Relations Fellowship. During the Clinton administration, Dr. Brainard served as Deputy National Economic Adviser and chair of the Deputy Secretaries Committee on International Economics. Prior to joining the Clinton administration, she was an associate professor at the MIT Sloan School. She currently serves as vice president and founding director of the Global Economy and Development Program at the Brookings Institution. During her tenure with the Clinton administration, Dr. Brainard faced global economic challenges, including the Asian finance crisis, the Mexican financial crisis, and China's entry to the World Trade Organization. She helped shape the 2000 G8 Development Summit that for the first time included leaders of the poorest nations and laid foundations for the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB, and malaria. Over the years, Dr. Brainard has written extensively on international economic issues. In recent years, she has focused on the links between U.S. competitiveness and climate change policy. As we address climate changes issues, it will be helpful to have someone with her knowledge as part of our team. President Obama nominated Dr. Brainard back in March and I appreciate her patience with the process. I look forward to working with Dr. Brainard to address the international economic challenges that we face.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the recently enacted health reform law will extend quality, affordable health coverage to 32 million Americans and cover 95 percent of legal residents within the next decade. Many Americans, including Christian Scientists, rely on provisions in current law that recognize spiritual care as a medical expense eligible for a medical care tax deduction. Nothing in the recently enacted health reform law prevents insurance companies from covering care that is currently recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as eligible for a medical care tax deduction through health insurance plans in the exchanges. Further, the new health reform law does not reduce existing provisions in the law that recognize spiritual care. As we work to implement comprehensive health reform, I believe it is important to ensure that the needs of Americans relying on religious and spiritual care are addressed. I know these views are shared by my colleagues, Chairman Harkin and Senator Sherrod Brown, and I look forward to continue working with them on this issue.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the FAA bill we are considering contains important new changes in both the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program, DBE, and the Airport Concessions Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, ACDBE, program. While we have made progress, discrimination in airport related business remains pervasive. Both of these programs are critical to our Nation's efforts to level the playing field in airport related contracting. Over the past couple of years, both in my role on the Commerce Committee and Aviation Subcommittee and in my former role as chairman of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have received an enormous amount of evidence about the ongoing existence of race and gender discrimination against minority and women owned businesses. Discrimination impacts every aspect of the contracting process, every major industry category and hurts all types of disadvantaged business owners including African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and women. Here in the Congress, we have received a great deal of evidence about the discrimination that specifically impacts minority and women owned businesses in the airport business context. In September of 2008 the Committee on Small Business heard testimony from diverse perspectives about the ongoing problem of discrimination in lending and access to capital across the disadvantaged business perspective, including discrimination against minority and women businesses in airport related business issues. In March of 2009, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure conducted an extensive hearing focused on the DBE and ACDBE programs. They heard testimony about discrimination and needed program improvements from the administration, researchers, advocates and minority and women businesses themselves. And the Senate Aviation subcommittee itself received similar testimony and evidence in our May 2009 hearing--including a large number of disparity studies outlining extremely compelling statistical testimony of discrimination in airport related contracting. The present day effects of past discrimination, and ongoing current discrimination, continue to be barriers to minority and women owned businesses. Even in the context of the highest constitutional scrutiny required by the Supreme Court, this powerful evidence of discrimination makes the maintenance of these programs imperative and constitutional. It also makes all the more important the changes we have proposed to improve the programs--adjusting the personal net worth cap for inflation, prohibiting excessive and discriminatory bonding, and improving certification training. The disturbing fact is, discrimination is still a major impediment to the formation, growth and success of minority and women business owners. That is unacceptable. Race and gender discrimination are bad for minority and women business owners, bad for our economy and morally wrong. With this bill, we are seeking to remedy that wrong in the FAA context. vote explanation

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Murray for her work on this amendment. Today, almost 15 million Americans are unemployed, 9 million can only find part-time work, and 25 percent of our Nation's teenagers and 42 percent of African-American teenagers are unemployed. Both the TANF Emergency Fund and the summer jobs program provide desperately needed jobs to our Nation's families who are the most vulnerable to our economic downturn. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, extending the TANF Emergency Fund will save more than 100,000 jobs. And providing up to $1.3 billion in funding for the summer jobs program will create 500,000 summer jobs. I promise my colleagues, provide these summer jobs, and it will save far more than that money in the criminal justice system and in other social services. This is money well invested.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee and the manager of this bill. I wanted to take just a few moments to talk about an amendment I have filed to extend the TANF emergency fund; that is, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Fund. I hope I can work with the majority leader, who is already working with us to work through some of the difficulties in terms of the overall funding levels, to hopefully have a vote on this at the earliest possible time. We have the opportunity to extend a proven program that provides genuinely desperately needed assistance to the Nation's poorest families and their children, the people who are the most vulnerable to an economic downturn. I am joined by Senator Specter in offering this amendment to extend the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Fund, the TANF as we call it, the emergency contingency fund, which was included in last year's economic stimulus legislation. I am glad to say this policy is supported by Majority Leader Reid, by Chairman Baucus, Senator Schumer, Senator Feinstein, Senator Specter, and others. It is my understanding this amendment is fully offset. Senate Finance Chairman Baucus and Majority Leader Reid have been integral to the development of this amendment. I am very grateful to them and their staff for the assistance they have given us and for their help on this important issue. This is not the moment in our economic recovery effort to walk away from the neediest families in the country, from a successful program that has bolstered the safety net and created jobs for the unemployed. What my amendment does is simply extend a program that is already working, and working effectively. It extends a program that was specifically put into the economic stimulus package because it is so critical, so sustaining in support for these neediest families at a level where it is even harder to get jobs and break back into the recovery. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, more than 30 States are currently using TANF emergency funds to create subsidized jobs. By this summer, these programs are going to have provided subsidies for more than 100,000 jobs. That number could grow substantially with more time and more money. Let me just share with colleagues sort of the breadth of these kinds of things, some of the examples of the job placements that have been made and created by the TANF emergency fund range from administrative jobs: project management secretary, legal secretary, data entry clerks, merchandise listers, dispatchers, marketing sales, and so forth; construction: painters, laborers, installers, land development, general laborers, surveyors, and so forth; customer service: porters, cashiers, housekeeping, front desk clerks; food service: restaurant managers, catering managers, food preparation, food delivery; health care: medical billing, medical record clerk, receptionist, and so forth. There are maintenance jobs, production jobs, human service positions. It covers the full range of the American economy, and it makes a difference in communities to people's, literally sustainability, and to families being able to hold together and stick together. Some States are using the TANF fund to extensively help offset higher basic assistance costs and to extend a variety of short-term emergency aid to struggling families, such as heating assistance, housing assistance, domestic violence services, and transportation help. This amendment maintains the current policy of reimbursing States for 80 cents on every dollar spent on subsidized employment or basic assistance or short-term or emergency aid. The amendment aids a fourth category of programs that can receive emergency funds, and those are work programs. As families continue to struggle to find jobs with the high unemployment that we are facing, this category has been added in order to give States new options for bolstering employment and job preparation. Finally, this amendment would provide States with a maximum allocation for fiscal year 2011 equal to 25 percent of the State's annual TANF block grant. I am pleased to say that Massachusetts has been one of the top five States in using these emergency funds. We have currently used 65 percent of our available funds. It does not mean we are using someone else's funds; those are the funds available to us. But it shows you that where the need is important and necessary what a difference it makes. We are on track to draw down 100 percent of the emergency funds that are allowed under the Recovery Act by September of this year. We are using this fund to maintain key existing safety net programs for cash assistance, emergency housing, rental vouchers, job programs, and family services. This basic assistance helps the economy because the families receiving it spend virtually every cent of it in their local economy to immediately meet their basic needs. A 1-year extension of the TANF emergency fund could provide us with an additional $60 to $108 million to accommodate the 10-percent TANF caseload increase we have seen since the start of the recession. I believe this is a fundamental continuation of the social contract that exists in this country where we have all come to understand that communities are sustained, an enormous difference is made in the lives of children particularly but in families, the neediest families in our country, many of whom have the hardest time finding jobs because they are at the bottom end of the entry level of job levels in many cases, and those are the jobs that have been lost the fastest and the quickest and they are the slowest to come back in many cases. I am pleased to say this legislation is supported in a bipartisan way from bipartisan organizations, including the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislators, the American Public Human Services Association, and the National Association of State TANF Administrators. This fund has caused both direct job creation and has provided an enormous amount of necessary activity in local communities. A vote against this amendment would leave an awful lot of folks unemployed, low-income parents without work opportunities or without the vital assistance of basic necessities. I hope all colleagues will support the amendment when the time comes. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that time under the quorum call be divided equally between both sides.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, our country has recently taken great steps forward to support the principles of mental health parity. In 2008, Congress has enacted two important pieces of legislation to end discrimination against people suffering from mental illnesses. Congress passed the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, MHPAEA, to prohibit the establishment of discriminatory benefit caps or cost-sharing requirements for mental health and substance use disorders. That same year Congress also passed the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Protections Act, MIPPA, which included legislation introduced by Senator Snowe, and myself, the Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act. This legislation prevented Medicare beneficiaries from being charged higher copayments for outpatient mental health services than for all other outpatient physician services. Unfortunately, even with the passage of MIPPA, a serious mental health inequity remains in Medicare. Medicare beneficiaries are currently limited to only 190-days of inpatient psychiatric hospital care in their lifetime. This lifetime limit directly impacts Medicare beneficiaries' access to psychiatric hospitals, although it does not apply to psychiatric units in general hospitals. This arbitrary cap on benefits is discriminatory to the mentally ill as there is no such lifetime limit for any other Medicare specialty inpatient hospital service. The 190-day lifetime limit is problematic for patients being treated in psychiatric hospitals as they may easily exceed the 190-days if they have a chronic mental illness. That is why Senator Snowe and I are working together once again to address the last remaining mental health parity issue in Medicare. Today, we are introducing the Medicare Mental Health Inpatient Equity Act. Our legislation would eliminate the Medicare 190-day lifetime limit for inpatient psychiatric hospital care. It would equalize Medicare mental health coverage with private health insurance coverage, expand beneficiary choice of inpatient psychiatric care providers, increase access for the seriously ill, and improve continuity of care. This legislation is supported by 46 national organizations that represent hospital associations, seniors' organizations and the mental health community. I would like to thank a number of organizations who have been integral to the development of the Medicare Mental Health Inpatient Equity Act and who have endorsed our legislation today, including the AARP, the American Hospital Association, the National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems, and the American Psychological Association. Congress has now acted to address mental health parity issues for group health plans and for outpatient Medicare services. It is time to end this outmoded law and ensure that beneficiaries with mental illnesses have access to a range of appropriate settings for their care. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to achieve mental health parity in Medicare.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, in 25 years in the Senate, this is the first time I've seen a vote on a nominee to the National Labor Relations Board fraught with such controversy and subject even to a filibuster. But I regret to say it is controversy manufactured by the Senate minority for only one reason--a filibuster as political tactic to stonewall President Obama at every turn. Consequently, this nomination is an important test of the minority, a test of all those who for years under President Bush repeated and repeated demands for ``up or down votes'' on nominees, and got them without the kind of 8-month delays that have scuttled Craig Becker's nomination. It is also a test of whether the Senate minority will accept the President's overtures to work together for the benefit of the American people or whether they will continue to vote strictly along party lines to obstruct those efforts for no reason other than political gains for their party. No one disputes that Craig Becker is one of the preeminent authorities on labor law in the United States. He has taught at Georgetown, UCLA, and the University of Chicago and has authored numerous articles on labor and employment issues. He is a skilled litigator, who has advocated for workers' interests in virtually all Federal courts of appeals, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Some of my colleagues have expressed concern about Mr. Becker's nomination because of his academic writings. It is true that Mr. Becker has published numerous articles on labor and employment law in scholarly journals, including the Harvard Law Review and the Chicago Law Review. His extensive writings argue for law labor reforms to allow workers to exercise their rights to associate and organize. But since when has there been anything disqualifying about taking a critical approach to existing law and challenging convention in his field? Some in the minority object to Mr. Becker simply because he is a union lawyer--a counsel to both the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union. But that hardly disqualifies him. The Senate has consistently confirmed Board members with backgrounds in unions as well as in management. And Mr. Becker has repeatedly said that he will approach all the matters before the Board impartially and with open mind--just what we need and expect at an agency as independent as the NLRB. Here is what he said at his confirmation hearing: As an attorney, I have sat across the table from management and also on the same side of the table, in both postures gaining an understanding of employers' concerns and often finding common ground between labor and management. It is this range of experience that, should I be confirmed, I will draw on in collaborating with my fellow Board Members to fairly, efficiently and faithfully apply the law. Mr. Becker is widely respected by the legal community and management lawyers alike. Last month, 66 labor law professors from the Nation's top law schools wrote Senate leaders urging his immediate confirmation and attesting to his ``integrity, fairness, and dedication to advancing Congress' purposes in adopting federal labor law and to the role of the NLRB.'' And yet it has taken almost 8 months for us to get to this point-- just to reach the point of finally getting to vote on his nomination. It is an 8-month journey that underscores just how committed the minority has been to prevent President Obama from staffing the executive branch of government or moving any agenda forward. Mr. Becker was nominated by the President in July 2009, and in October the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee approved his nomination--and it did so with bipartisan support from Senator Enzi and Senator Murkowski. But after that, Senator McCain placed a ``hold'' on his nomination, forcing the President to resubmit it last month. And then, at the insistence of the Senate minority, the HELP Committee was forced to hold a hearing the nomination, something the Committee hasn't had to do for an NLRB nominee since 1980. Moreover, Mr. Becker dutifully answered hundreds of written questions from Republicans--more questions than Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor had to answer during her confirmation process. And when the Committee voted a second time on Mr. Becker, not one Republican voted for him, not even those who had supported him the first time around. Critics have attacked Mr. Becker for his work on behalf of unions in the past. But most labor lawyers devote their careers either to representing unions and workers or to representing management. This avoids conflicts of interest. We have historically confirmed NLRB nominees from both backgrounds, and indeed the package of nominations before the Senate includes Brian Hayes, who practiced for many years as a management-side labor lawyer and has served as Republican HELP Committee labor counsel. The fact of the matter is that the minority want to turn this nomination into a litmus test on legislation we have yet to consider-- legislation on reforming how workers exercise their right to organize. The criticism repeated most often of Mr. Becker is that he would use his position on the NLRB to institute a binding system for organizing that would allow workers to select a union by signing cards. That system is backed by organized labor. But here is what is important. Making a card check system binding on employers is something Craig Becker has said he would not and could not do. He is being filibustered over something he has specifically pledged not to do--and which is not the question before us today. It is no surprise that in his role as a labor lawyer, Mr. Becker has been a strong supporter of a legislative proposal to make it possible for workers to organize by signing cards in favor of a union. But he has clearly stated--and accurately stated--that only Congress can take such action. This confirmation is not, nor should it be about the Employee Free Choice Act legislation that we have yet to debate and consider. This is about ensuring that the NLRB can operate. And it is about whether or not a qualified aspiring public servant will be allowed to serve. As you know, the NLRB plays a critical role in protecting workers' rights. And yet, in the last 2 years, the NLRB has operated with only two of its five members. And the courts are split on whether a two-member NLRB can validly issue decisions. The Supreme Court is set to decide the matter later this year. Meanwhile, though, the NLRB struggles along with a majority of its seats vacant--and I am sorry to be forced to acknowledge that may be exactly what our Republican colleagues want. Well over a year after President Obama's inauguration, nominees to key positions in the executive branch are still awaiting confirmation because they have been placed on ``hold'' by the minority. In most cases, the objections to the nominees have nothing to do with the nominee's qualifications and everything to do with parochial interests. Whether holding a nominee to try to steer a Federal contract to a State or to express opposition to Canadian tobacco legislation, the minority is turning the Senate's power to advise and consent into the power to bully and extort and, above all, to prevent Barack Obama from having the people in place necessary to govern effectively. And those who lose in this game are not Democrats, it is the American people. They need the executive branch to execute the laws we have passed and we should let it. I think in the elections of 2006, 2008, and yes in the special election in Massachusetts in 2010, we have witnessed a rejection of the polarized and too often murky ways of doing business in Washington. But I regret to say, there is no better example of that kind of Washington backroom business than the way the minority has behaved on the nomination of Craig Becker. And so, I respectfully ask my Republican colleagues to put aside the gamesmanship on this nomination and take a hard look at Craig Becker, his testimony, his record and his commitment to the rights of working men and women. He doesn't have to be your first choice to head the NLRB. But you have to acknowledge that the President has the right to make his choice. Advise and consent is not a blank check to delay and obstruct. And voting along party lines, especially on this nomination, with no regard for the broader national interest is not what any of us were sent here to do.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I wish to thank my colleague, Paul Kirk, for his eloquent and important comments to the Senate. He said a moment ago he hoped a newcomer's perspective would be a constructive contribution to the debate. I think all my colleagues would agree that whether in the caucus or in his maiden speech before the Senate or in his comments just now, Paul Kirk has made an important contribution to the Senate. Shortly after his oath of office last September, I said Paul was smart, modest, polite, civil, and willing to share credit, and despite all that, I still thought he would be a terrific Senator. I think all of us would agree he has been a terrific Senator in a short span of time. At a time of enormous upheaval in Massachusetts, a time of mourning, there was no one who was more suited for the moment than Paul Kirk, and there was no one who understood the meaning of the moment better than Paul Kirk--Ted Kennedy's friend of 40 years. Everyone would agree Paul hit the ground running. He was familiar with Teddy's staff and was able to bring highly qualified people himself. He had a command of all the issues that were facing the Senate. He had a special understanding of the politics that are played in Washington. Paul was always aware, as he said with his dry wit, that he was a short-timer, but in his months here he didn't decide to come and be satisfied to simply serve out the term. He led, just as he expressed to us he knew people expected him to. He cast an all-important vote, obviously, in the Senate's historic passage of comprehensive health care reform. But, frankly, much more important than a decisive vote, he provided a clear and compelling voice in the Democratic caucus for important features of the health care reform bill, especially the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act--or the CLASS Act, as it is known. That is an act Paul fought hard for, based on his commitment to providing much needed insurance support to Americans with disabilities, allowing them to live independently in their communities. It was a cause, I might add, that marked Ted Kennedy's life but also Paul's. Paul didn't just work on health care reform. As a Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he asked tough and prescient questions of the Secretary of State, of the Defense Secretary, of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, about the military mission in Afghanistan--the kind of questions of which I know his mentor, Ted Kennedy, would have been proud. He also cosponsored legislation to achieve greater parity in domestic partner benefits between the Federal workforce and the private sector employees. He worked with me to extend unemployment insurance benefits that will benefit as many as 40,000 Massachusetts residents, as well as get $80 million in Federal grants for community health care centers in Massachusetts. In all this--and Paul spoke about it a few minutes ago--he was served by this amazing array of staff who are assembled behind him. He was served superbly by Senate staffers he inherited from Ted Kennedy and those he brought to the Senate. These outstanding men and women deserve our thanks, as he has given them all our thanks in the Senate and well wishes for the next chapter in public service. In one of his early speeches in the Senate, Paul Kirk spoke at length about his friend, Ted. He said Senator Kennedy was not one to sit idly by--he acted; he acted to help as many people as possible. Well, the same can now be said also of Senator Paul Kirk, though obviously for a much shorter period of time. He was not one to sit idly by. In the short time he has been here, he did act, and he has helped as many people as possible. When he was selected to replace his friend in the Senate, I was reminded then--and I think I mentioned this on the floor--of Ted Kennedy's fondness for the poet Robert Frost and a line from one of his poems. Frost wrote: Men work together, I told him from the heart, whether they work together or apart. Teddy and Paul worked together for much of their lives. Even though they have been apart these past months, they have never stopped working together in the spirit and in the causes that Paul has embraced in his time here. As I think about the comments he just made, in talking about what we need in the Senate, I couldn't help but look across the aisle and not see a Senator there. I regret that. Senator Inouye, seated to my right, has served here much longer than most of us--and Senator Leahy, who was just here, and Senator Dodd--but I think we were all part of the Senate a number of years ago when that never would have been the case. So it is what it is. I hope they hear his comments. I hope all our colleagues will reach for this moment Senator Kirk has asked us to and, in doing so, will keep faith not just with his service but with the service of our dearly beloved friend, Ted Kennedy. I wish to thank Paul Kirk for his service to the people of the country and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the way in which he kept faith with the spirit of the law which sent him here. I think he has served us all well, and we will miss him. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this vote is a difficult one for procedural and process reasons. Many of us worry about the precedent of circumventing key Senate committees on such vital issues where Congress's responsibility is clear and compelling. Still, a larger and looming reality is staring us in the face. This is no ordinary moment. We cannot continue our current fiscal path and rely on China to finance our debts for decades. With the Federal budget deficit at $1.4 trillion this year alone and the Federal debt at above $12 trillion, it is undeniable that we must together address soaring Federal spending and revenue issues, and we must also find real answers that preserve critical programs like Social Security and Medicare for future generations. We have been in difficult fiscal circumstances before. When I first came to the Senate, we were saddled with then-record deficits and I broke with many in our caucus to support the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. That initiative wasn't perfect but it was a start--and it marked a break with an attitude that the sky was the limit for spending. During the 1990s, I supported spending cuts and fiscal restraint that helped lead to budget surpluses. Unfortunately, in 2001 we began an 8-year period where the Vice President of the United States himself famously advised that ``deficits don't matter.'' Run-away spending coupled with massive tax cuts for those at the top helped turn projected surpluses into all too real record deficits. Two wars, and a near-financial collapse, bail-out, and a needed stimulus have all added to the situation we face today. We need to put aside partisan differences and work together to control the deficit. That is why I have voted in favor the Conrad/Gregg amendment which creates a bipartisan fiscal task force. These issues cannot be ignored. There are many ways we must tackle them in the years ahead--and this commission should be just one of them, and I also believe Congress should have the opportunity to amend the task force recommendations. I will continue to work with Senate Budget Committee Chairman Conrad and President Obama to develop a task force that will put our Federal budget on a sustainable path. In the past, I have introduced line-item veto legislation and cosponsored legislation to address corporate subsidies. These ideas need to be revisited. We should be open to all ideas that will reign in looming deficits. The bottom line is undeniable: these questions cannot be deferred or denied, they must be addressed, and that will require more--much more--than this single vote by the Senate.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I appreciate Senator Reid's commitment to move forward with this legislation and his support of the progress we are making towards a UC agreement. We all share the goal of creating maximum leverage in our efforts to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon--this is a vital national security goal of the United States, and obviously of critical importance to our allies in Israel and around the world. I believe that this legislation has the potential to make an important contribution to that effort. Having the Senate stand united with the administration behind this legislation would send a very strong and positive signal. That is why many of us are committed to working with the administration and the bill's sponsors to craft an amendment that all can agree on. I know these discussions will be continuing during recess with the intention of reaching a mutually agreeable resolution so that this legislation can be considered as soon as possible when we get back.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, let me begin by commending the Senator from California for an outstanding presentation regarding this legislation. I was listening to her in my office before I came over to the Chamber. I listened to her over here. She laid out in a very careful, deliberate, and thoughtful way the realities about this legislation before us. I thank her for a terrific presentation. I wish to pick up a little bit where she has left off. But let me inquire so I understand where we are. How much time is remaining on the majority side?

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. Let me begin by saying I also listened to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, particularly the Senator from South Dakota, just a little while ago. I was really struck by the chart they put up showing Medicare going up and up and up, and then they talk to Americans, basically scaring them, trying to say: If you pass this bill, it is not going to do anything to reduce the crisis in Medicare down the road. The reality is, that is all they present, is the scary picture of a future which they are not even describing accurately. They have had a year and a half--a year and a half--that we have been working on this legislation, since it was announced in the Finance Committee, on which I serve, and we held a day-long--I think a 2-day long conference over at the Library of Congress and within the committee where we began the work, laying the groundwork and foundation for a new Presidency and for the work that has gone on this year. Many of their Members took part in that. So there is no secret here as to where we are. This is a debate that has gone on in the United States of America since Harry Truman was President of the United States and before. We all know that President Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, put before the country the notion that every American should be able to have their sickness dealt with. Nobody has ever contemplated that you ought to go bankrupt in order to have health care. But, as we know, we have more bankruptcies in America--health care bankruptcies--every year than any other nation on the planet. I think we are the only nation that really knows health care bankruptcy. The stories we have heard--countless stories. Earlier this morning--I guess to get my times correct--when we were here at 1 in the morning, we heard the majority leader talk about those very poignant, moving situations of individuals in Nevada. We heard the Senator from California. There are stories from every Senator, from every State. Yet it is only this dividing line, right here down the center of this Chamber--it is only the Senators on this side of that dividing line who seem to be prepared to try to address this issue. The fact is, the managers' amendment, which is now the pending business before the Senate, brings us even closer to being able to address many of the major concerns we have. Senator after Senator has come to the floor and described the way in which this bill does not do everything we want it to do. I have been a passionate supporter, as was Ted Kennedy and a lot of our colleagues, of a public component of this plan. Why? Because I believe that is the best way to create the kind of competitive pressure that will restrain a group of insurance companies that have shown no predilection to restraining themselves over these past years. If you are for the status quo, then you will vote no, the way our colleagues have voted. But the American people are not satisfied with the status quo. People in America understand that health care costs are breaking the backs of families. They are breaking the backs of businesses. They are a huge albatross around the neck of American competitiveness. Many of our companies have a harder time competing because there is a health care premium tax, if you will, for the uneven distribution of being sick in America. Obviously, if you are sick in America, you get care at some point in time. It may well be that point in time is when you are on your deathbed or when you are so sick that you finally go into the hospital, into an emergency room, and the emergency room becomes your first contact with the medical system or it becomes your primary care facility. We have almost 50 million Americans for whom that is true--50 million Americans who don't have health care. So they do not get an early screening, they do not get an early determination of what may be wrong with them. They do not get what somebody who has a health care plan gets, which may be a mammogram or a Pap smear or a PSA test for prostate cancer, or any number of evaluations, perhaps early detection of diabetes. We spend almost $100 billion in the United States for unnecessary dialysis and/or amputations that take place because people weren't able to go to a doctor earlier and learn that they had a type of diabetes that might have been able to be treated in a far less expensive and dramatic and personally costly way. The word ``history'' gets thrown around in the Senate probably more than it ought to. We often refer to something as being historic, where sometimes it is a reach. There is no question that we are on the threshold of an unbelievably historic moment in the Senate. This is history we are living here now. When I think of what we tried to do in 1993 and 1994, when President Clinton was in office and we tried to pass health care--we got beaten back by false advertisements--Harry and Louise--scare tactics, and I might add a plan that didn't quite pull the pieces together as effectively as we have. We have learned a lot of lessons since then. We have had many fits and starts, with children's health care, portability, and trying to deal with certain gender discrimination or other discrimination within the systems. We have gotten little pieces done. But all the time, the basics of the system have been without the reform necessary to bring down costs and make health care more accessible to more Americans. So I have no doubt we are reaching a moment of historic importance here. This is a moment where we are going to finally provide access to almost all Americans. Thirty-one million Americans are going to gain health care coverage through this legislation when we pass it, and that will bring us up to 94 percent. To give an example, in Massachusetts, where we passed health care reform a couple of years ago, we mandated that everybody be covered and we created a penalty for companies that don't offer the insurance, but we have a pool that helps provide coverage to people who can't afford it. We now have 97.6 percent of all our citizens covered in the State of Massachusetts. The fact is the premiums in the individual market, which is where it is most expensive for Americans to go out and buy health insurance, went down by 40 percent. The premiums went down by 40 percent in Massachusetts for a quality of care that people love. The premiums in the rest of the country went up 14 percent. That is a 54- percent spread in the cost of premiums between those who got health care reform and those who did not. That is precisely what we are going to be able to provide Americans-- beginning to provide Americans with this. One of the reasons we can't provide it as effectively as in Massachusetts is because there are certain things we do in Massachusetts that the other side, or some folks, have prevented us from being able to do here. Let me sort of lay it out here. There are a couple of things that bother me about this. We keep hearing from our colleagues--and I heard this from the Senator from South Dakota--that we are not going to be able to save money in the legislation we are going to pass. In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. All of us know, as a matter of common sense, that many of the measures in this legislation are going to reduce the cost of health care, and one of the reasons is that the CBO analysis is generally limited to the Federal budget. It doesn't attempt to account for savings in the health care system that come from policies that are implemented through reforms. For example: The CBO found only $19 billion in government savings from transitioning toward post-acute bundled payments in Medicare. But recent research in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that bundled payments--bundled payment, for somebody listening who doesn't understand, is when you take all the payments that come to a hospital or to the providers who provide the care, and the payments are all put together for the various services that you get and they have to decide how to provide you those services in a cost-effective way based on the whole universe of money that has been put on the table. It is different from what we do today, where we don't bundle it and say: Take care of this patient, and all of your various parts have to fit into a whole. Today, we pay each of the separate parts without relationship to what their connection is to the total care of a patient. It is unbelievably wasteful, ineffective, sometimes redundant, it is noncommunicative, and that is one of the reasons why in America we don't get the same outcomes for less money that people get in Europe or in some other countries. But we have learned from the New England Journal of Medicine, which is a highly respected medical journal, that the bundled payments for chronic diseases and for elective surgeries could reduce health care spending by as much as 5.4 percent from 2010 to 2019. Yet we don't credit for that savings. They do not talk about it. But common sense tells us, because we have seen it where they have done these bundled payments, that you are going to reduce the costs. In addition, even if such savings only applied to half of the spending in the health care sector, the result would be more than $900 billion of savings over the next 10 years. If bundled payments get expanded beyond the post-acute care, and even half of the potential savings from bundled payments were realized in the Medicare Program during the upcoming decade, these savings would translate to an additional .2 percent of savings per year or reduction in program expenditures, and that would be more than $190 billion between 2010 and 2019. I have talked about $1 trillion--$1 trillion--of savings that does not even get formally presented to the American people as part of this process because of bureaucratic technical rules about what the budget applies to. Everybody on the other side of this aisle knows, as a matter of common sense, if you look at the experience, the way it has already been proven in the marketplace, and if you apply your thinking to this, we are going to reduce the cost of health care. Similarly, large reductions in Federal health care expenditures are plausible from the combination of other delivery system reforms. A lot of Americans aren't aware of this, but here is what we have. Accountable care organizations. We don't have that today. Suddenly, we are going to have an accountability in the care organizations delivering service. That is going to provide savings. We have incentives to reduce hospital-acquired infections. One of the biggest single fears people have today in America when they go to the hospital is that they are actually going to get an infection in the hospital, and the chances of coming up with a staph infection or some other kind of infection are very real and very high. There are actually different practices between different hospital operations. I happen to know this on a personal basis because my wife recently had an operation in one hospital system and they had a certain procedure to try to deal with the MRSA infection, and a certain washing and disinfection process you went through, and I know other hospitals where they do not do the same thing. In addition, we are going to have health information technology reform adoption. There is going to be administrative simplification that would standardize and streamline insurance paperwork. I mean, if you go to the ATM machine and pull out some money, it is about a penny or half a penny per transaction. If you go to the hospital, where they do not have technology managing the records and people are doing it, it is about $20 to $25 per transaction to pull the records. In the age of computerization and information technology, it doesn't make sense, and all of us know that. But we also know that because we are putting money on the table and incentives in place to help do that, we are going to be able to get additional savings; all of the savings that are on top of the $1 trillion of savings I have already talked about, and none of which gets measured when our colleagues come to the floor to say what a terrible bill this is. CBO has also grossly underestimated savings in the past. I am not picking on CBO. They have had an incredibly hard job, and they have done an incredible job. They have been completely overworked on any number of efforts, where we have been asking for models and analyses. But it is automatic in a process that you are going to lose some things. According to the Generic Pharmaceutical Association: In 1984, it was predicted that the Hatch-Waxman Act would save our country $1 billion in the first decade. Now, generic medicines save more than that every three days. Every 3 days we do what was predicted to happen in savings every 10 years. In the mid 1990s, the Congressional Budget Office released an analysis showing that in 1994--the tenth anniversary of the Hatch- Waxman Act--annual savings of generics had reached approximately $8 billion to $10 billion. The new data released showed that by 1999--15 years after Hatch-Waxman became law--generics were generating $49 billion in annual savings. In the last decade alone, generics have saved consumers, businesses, State and Federal governments $734 billion. I haven't even talked about the wellness provisions or the prevention provisions that are in here. When we start getting all of America more tuned in to the things we can do to prevent diseases by taking actions in our lives, our lifestyles, in our diet, and any other number of things, we can bring the cost of health care down in America. We keep hearing about the secrecy and how this legislation has been hidden from folks for a long period of time. Again, that is not true. There is nothing in this legislation that we haven't been working on or talking about or wrestling with in committee, out of committee, in hearings, in the public debate for over a year now. If the minority had taken a little less time to have press conferences and spending their time doing news conferences denouncing what they hadn't analyzed, they would have a better sense they might have been able to read the managers' amendment on the Internet for over a month--excuse me, the managers' amendment was on the Internet on Saturday, and many of us looked at it, because many of us have worked on provisions and we wanted to make sure they were in there. It wasn't hard to read it to see what was and wasn't included in it. In addition, the underlying bill has been posted on the Web for over 1 month. But the fact is the minority has made a fundamental political calculation here. They do not want to work with us. In all the time we were in the Finance Committee trying to mark it up, we never had people come to us--as I often have here in the 25 years I have been here when you are legislating seriously--and say, hey, if you include this or if you work this a little or if you tweak this, I think I could support this bill. There is just a fundamental political divide, a fundamental philosophical divide. We are looking at a party whose opposition to health care for Americans is not new. My colleague from California talked about it a few minutes ago. In 1935, they tried to kill Social Security and succeeded in preventing health care from being included in the bill at that time. They argued in 1935 the same thing they argue now. Madam President, may I ask how much time we have?

Mr. KERRY. How much time do I have?

Mr. KERRY. And is that predesignated? Is the 15 minutes remaining predesignated, Madam President?

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, in fairness, I was not aware; I thought I had the full amount of time, but I do not. I want the Senator from Connecticut to be able to share his thoughts also. Let me just say, and I will wrap it up here, that the insurance industry, which they sought to protect, survived the passage of the Social Security Act. In 1965, we passed Medicare. Medicaid came afterward. They opposed it. They opposed Medicare, one of the most important programs in the United States of America, that lifted countless numbers of seniors out of poverty. They said no. The insurance industry survived Medicare and Medicaid. They are doing very well. According to CBO, the gross cost of the managers' amendment is, over the next 10 years, $871 billion--less than the $1 trillion we started with in our committee. But it buys a lot. I will talk at some time, perhaps tomorrow or afterward, about what this bill provides in addition. But I think it is critical for people to follow the truth, to look for the facts, and to measure the reality of the positive ways in which this legislation will provide additional help to seniors, will reduce premiums for many Americans, will help people afford coverage who do not have it today, will spread risks throughout the system more effectively, will improve care and delivery within the hospitals, will prevent people from being denied insurance if they have a preexisting condition, will prevent them from being kicked off insurance they paid for and thought they had when they get sick and they suddenly get that letter that says: Sorry, you are not covered anymore, and families go bankrupt--that is over. That alone is an enormous step forward for this country. CBO has underestimated savings before. According to the Generic Pharmaceutical Association . . . ``In 1984, it was predicted that the Hatch-Waxman Act would save our country $1 billion in the first decade. Now, generic medicines save more than that every three days.'' In the mid 1990s, the Congressional Budget Office released an analysis showing that in 1994, the 10th anniversary of the enactment of Hatch-Waxman, annual savings from generics had reached approximately $8 billion to $10 billion. The new data released showed that by 1999--15 years after Hatch- Waxman became law--generics were generating $49 billion in annual savings. In the last decade alone, generics have saved consumers, businesses, and State and Federal Governments $734 billion. According to a December 14 report by the President's Council of Economic Advisors: CBO's analysis is generally limited to the Federal budget, and does not attempt to account for savings in the health care system more broadly from policies implemented through reform. For example, the CBO found only $19 billion in Federal Government savings from transitioning toward post-acute bundled payments in Medicare. However, recent research published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that bundled payments for chronic diseases and elective surgeries could reduce health care spending by as much as 5.4 percent from 2010 to 2019. Even if such savings applied to only half of spending in the health care sector, the result would be more than $900 billion of savings over the decade. If bundled payments were expanded beyond post-acute care and even half of the potential savings from bundled payments were realized in the Medicare program during the upcoming decade, these savings would translate to an additional 0.2 percent per year reduction in program expenditures, or more than $190 billion between 2010 and 2019. Similarly large reductions in Federal health care expenditures are plausible from the combination of other delivery system reforms, including: Accountable care organizations, incentives to reduce hospital-acquired infections, health information technology adoption, and administrative simplification that would standardize and streamline insurance paperwork. This will help cut down on the $23-$31 billion time cost to medical practices of interacting with health plans and their administrators. Another potentially significant cost saver within the Senate bill is the Independent Medicare Advisory Board--IMAB. The IMAB would recommend changes to the Medicare program that would both improve the quality of care and also reduce the growth rate of program spending. The CBO score of the Senate bill estimates that the IMAB would reduce Medicare spending by $23 billion from 2015 to 2019, with the savings likely to continue in the subsequent decade. The IMAB has the potential to increase the savings from many of the delivery system reforms described above, which may not be fully captured by the CBO estimates for the reasons previously mentioned. Taken together, the combination of Medicare- and Medicaid-related provisions in the Senate's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are estimated to reduce the annual growth rate of Federal spending on both programs by 1.0 percentage point in the upcoming decade and by an even greater amount in the subsequent decade. These savings would increase national savings and improve the long-run performance of the U.S. economy.