John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the TARP Taxpayer Protection and Corporate Responsibility Act of 2009. Recently, it was reported that the Northern Trust Corporation threw lavish events in conjunction with the Northern Trust Open. Last year, Northern Trust Company received approximately $1.6 billion in funds from the Troubled Relief Asset Program and laid off almost 450 employees. At a time when banks are not lending and need federal assistance, they should not be treating themselves to lavish parties with performances by Sheryl Crow. I supported the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 because I believe that we need to help our financial institutions in order to stabilize our economy. However, I firmly believe that every institution receiving funds has a responsibility to appropriately use the federal assistance provided by taxpayers. I am sick of hearing about financial institutions that are receiving funds and behaving inappropriately. CEOs need to exert leadership during these trying economic times. If they don't, they should repay taxpayers out of their own pocket. Now is not the time to be throwing lavish parties, giving out excessive bonuses, and spending on unnecessary renovations. It is time to focus on how best to restore the economy and for the banks, this means responsible lending. Northern Trust is not the first TARP recipient company to spend foolishly, but I want it to be the last. For this reason I am introducing the TARP Taxpayer Protection and Corporate Responsibility Act of 2009 which would prohibit TARP recipients from sponsoring, hosting, or paying for entertainment or holiday events during the year in which they receive assistance or the following year. The legislation would give the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to issue waivers and would become effective as of March 1, 2009. I applaud the action the Obama Administration has taken to address executive compensation and the provisions included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, but I believe we must do more. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act requires the Treasury Department to publish guidelines on the use of funds. However, I believe we need to do more than providing guidelines for the use of these funds. As we all know, money is fungible and a TARP recipient can always explain that TARP funds were not used for questionable purposes. During these difficult economic times, we need to send a message to the American people that we are responsible stewards of public funds. We must try to help companies, but only if they operate in an appropriate and responsible manner which values the assistance of the American taxpayer. At a time when banks are not providing enough lending to small businesses and others, they should not be throwing lavish parties at taxpayer expense, and the claim that these ``parties'' came out of ``operating expenses'' rather than taxpayer funds does not pass the laugh test. I urge my colleagues to review this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the TARP Taxpayer Protection and Corporate Responsibility Act of 2009. Recently, it was reported that the Northern Trust Corporation threw lavish events in conjunction with the Northern Trust Open. Last year, Northern Trust Company received approximately $1.6 billion in funds from the Troubled Relief Asset Program and laid off almost 450 employees. At a time when banks are not lending and need federal assistance, they should not be treating themselves to lavish parties with performances by Sheryl Crow. I supported the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 because I believe that we need to help our financial institutions in order to stabilize our economy. However, I firmly believe that every institution receiving funds has a responsibility to appropriately use the federal assistance provided by taxpayers. I am sick of hearing about financial institutions that are receiving funds and behaving inappropriately. CEOs need to exert leadership during these trying economic times. If they don't, they should repay taxpayers out of their own pocket. Now is not the time to be throwing lavish parties, giving out excessive bonuses, and spending on unnecessary renovations. It is time to focus on how best to restore the economy and for the banks, this means responsible lending. Northern Trust is not the first TARP recipient company to spend foolishly, but I want it to be the last. For this reason I am introducing the TARP Taxpayer Protection and Corporate Responsibility Act of 2009 which would prohibit TARP recipients from sponsoring, hosting, or paying for entertainment or holiday events during the year in which they receive assistance or the following year. The legislation would give the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to issue waivers and would become effective as of March 1, 2009. I applaud the action the Obama Administration has taken to address executive compensation and the provisions included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, but I believe we must do more. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act requires the Treasury Department to publish guidelines on the use of funds. However, I believe we need to do more than providing guidelines for the use of these funds. As we all know, money is fungible and a TARP recipient can always explain that TARP funds were not used for questionable purposes. During these difficult economic times, we need to send a message to the American people that we are responsible stewards of public funds. We must try to help companies, but only if they operate in an appropriate and responsible manner which values the assistance of the American taxpayer. At a time when banks are not providing enough lending to small businesses and others, they should not be throwing lavish parties at taxpayer expense, and the claim that these ``parties'' came out of ``operating expenses'' rather than taxpayer funds does not pass the laugh test. I urge my colleagues to review this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, every day millions of Americans are faced with significant challenges when it comes to meeting their own personal needs or caring for a loved one who needs substantial support. Many elderly Americans and individuals of all ages with disabilities need long-term services and supports, such as assistance with dressing, bathing, preparing meals, and managing chronic conditions. They prefer to live and work in their community, and it is time that the Federal Government and states act as better partners to provide improved access to home and community-based long-term care services, HCBS. The Medicaid program, administered by the States but jointly financed with the Federal Government, is our nation's largest payer for long- term care services. Medicaid spends about $100 billion per year on long-term services. Despite recognizing that per person spending is much lower in community settings, and that people generally prefer community services, Medicaid still spends 61 percent of its long-term services spending in institutional settings. This disparity is due, in large part, to a strong access and payment bias in the program for institutional care. Where Medicaid does offer HCBS, it is often in short supply, with more than 280,000 Medicaid beneficiaries on waiting lists for HCBS waiver services. Further, eligibility for HCBS waiver services requires beneficiaries to already have a very significant level of disability before gaining access, and they must meet a level of functional need that qualifies them for a nursing home. This not only contributes to the unmet needs of those in the community but it also prevents states from providing services that can help prevent beneficiaries from one day requiring high-cost institutional care. While institutionalized care may be an appropriate choice for some, it should be just that: a choice that individuals and families are allowed to make about the most appropriate setting for their own care. The result of Medicaid's ``institutional bias'' is that, according to the Georgetown Health Policy Institute, ``one in five persons living in the community with a need for assistance from others has unmet needs, endangering their health and demeaning their quality of life.'' This is simply unacceptable. The lack of long-term care options available to families has a significant impact on their lives. Many of my constituents are affected, as are countless Americans across the country. Take the parents living in Newton who continue to wait for their physically disabled daughter, Julia, to have the opportunity to live independently. Julia is a young adult and instead of starting out on her own, she must watch as her peers move away and begin their independent lives--something she yearns to do as well. Growing up, Julia was able to attend Newton schools and keep a similar schedule to other children in the community but now has limited social interaction, as there is no other option but to live at home with her parents. Julia's parents are her full time caregivers and would like to see her able to live in an environment more conducive to both her needs and their own. Community-based care or home-based care in an apartment she could share with a roommate are options Julia and her parents would mutually benefit from. As the opportunities for the future grow for her peers, Julia's options continue to shrink because housing and home- based supports for adults with disabilities are limited at best. I have heard many stories similar to that of Julia, which emphasizes the urgency in which HCBS is needed. In addition to individual lives being put on hold, entire families must deal with the consequences of inadequate services available to their family members. Access to HCBS affects individuals in all stages of life, including Americans dealing with conditions such as Alzheimer's. Take Ann Bowers and Jay Sweatman for example. Without access to HCBS services, Jay, who suffers from early onset Alzheimer's, was forced to first move into assisted living and then a nursing home. By the time Jay was approved for HCBS it was too late and he was no longer able to live independently. Ann had worked tirelessly to coordinate her husband's care and get additional HCBS support but the process was so difficult that by the time help came, it was simply too late. This is just one case of many where early HCBS intervention would have not only saved time, money, and stress for family members, but would have made a significant impact on the quality of life and personal independence for Jay and Ann. Today I am introducing, with my colleague from the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, the Empowered at Home Act, a bill that increases access to home and community-based services by giving states new tools and incentives to make these services more available to those in need. It has four basic parts. First, it will improve the Medicaid HCBS State Plan Amendment Option by giving states more flexibility in determining eligibility for which services they can offer under the program, which will create greater options for individuals in need of long-term supports. In return we ask that states no longer cap enrollment and that services be offered throughout the entire state. Second, the bill ensures that the same spousal impoverishment protections offered for new nursing home beneficiaries will be in place for those opting for home and community-based services. In addition, low-income recipients of home and community-based services will be able to keep more of their assets when they become eligible for Medicaid, allowing them to stay in their community as long as possible. Third, the Empowered at Home Act addresses the financial needs of spouses and family members caring for a loved one by offering tax- related provisions to support family caregivers and promotes the purchase of meaningful private long-term care insurance. Finally, the bill seeks to improve the overall quality of home and community-based services available by providing grants for states to invest in organizations and systems that can help to ensure a sufficient supply of high quality workers, promote health, and transform home and community-based care to be more consumer-centered. I want to say a word about the Community Choice Act, legislation long-championed by Senator Harkin that would make HCBS a mandatory benefit in Medicaid. I am a strong supporter and co-sponsor of this landmark legislation, and look forward to working for its enactment as soon as possible. The legislation I am introducing today seeks to supplement--not supplant--the Community Choice Act by increasing access to HCBS for those who are disabled but not at a sufficient level of need to qualify for nursing home services. These two complimentary bills will finally make HCBS a right while vastly improving HCBS availability to vulnerable citizens of varying levels of disability. I would also like to thank a number of organizations who have been integral to the development of the Empowered at Home Act and who have endorsed it today, including the National Council on Aging, the American Association of Retired Persons, AARP, the Arc of the United States, United Cerebral Palsy, the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, the Alzheimer's Association, the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, the American Geriatrics Society, ANCOR, the Trust for America's Health, and SEIU. Improving access to a range of long-term care services for the elderly and Americans of all ages with disabilities is an issue that must not stray from our Nation's health care priorities. I believe this legislation can move forward in a bi-partisan manner to dramatically improve access to high-quality home and community-based care for the millions of Americans who are not receiving the significant supports and services they need.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, every day millions of Americans are faced with significant challenges when it comes to meeting their own personal needs or caring for a loved one who needs substantial support. Many elderly Americans and individuals of all ages with disabilities need long-term services and supports, such as assistance with dressing, bathing, preparing meals, and managing chronic conditions. They prefer to live and work in their community, and it is time that the Federal Government and states act as better partners to provide improved access to home and community-based long-term care services, HCBS. The Medicaid program, administered by the States but jointly financed with the Federal Government, is our nation's largest payer for long- term care services. Medicaid spends about $100 billion per year on long-term services. Despite recognizing that per person spending is much lower in community settings, and that people generally prefer community services, Medicaid still spends 61 percent of its long-term services spending in institutional settings. This disparity is due, in large part, to a strong access and payment bias in the program for institutional care. Where Medicaid does offer HCBS, it is often in short supply, with more than 280,000 Medicaid beneficiaries on waiting lists for HCBS waiver services. Further, eligibility for HCBS waiver services requires beneficiaries to already have a very significant level of disability before gaining access, and they must meet a level of functional need that qualifies them for a nursing home. This not only contributes to the unmet needs of those in the community but it also prevents states from providing services that can help prevent beneficiaries from one day requiring high-cost institutional care. While institutionalized care may be an appropriate choice for some, it should be just that: a choice that individuals and families are allowed to make about the most appropriate setting for their own care. The result of Medicaid's ``institutional bias'' is that, according to the Georgetown Health Policy Institute, ``one in five persons living in the community with a need for assistance from others has unmet needs, endangering their health and demeaning their quality of life.'' This is simply unacceptable. The lack of long-term care options available to families has a significant impact on their lives. Many of my constituents are affected, as are countless Americans across the country. Take the parents living in Newton who continue to wait for their physically disabled daughter, Julia, to have the opportunity to live independently. Julia is a young adult and instead of starting out on her own, she must watch as her peers move away and begin their independent lives--something she yearns to do as well. Growing up, Julia was able to attend Newton schools and keep a similar schedule to other children in the community but now has limited social interaction, as there is no other option but to live at home with her parents. Julia's parents are her full time caregivers and would like to see her able to live in an environment more conducive to both her needs and their own. Community-based care or home-based care in an apartment she could share with a roommate are options Julia and her parents would mutually benefit from. As the opportunities for the future grow for her peers, Julia's options continue to shrink because housing and home- based supports for adults with disabilities are limited at best. I have heard many stories similar to that of Julia, which emphasizes the urgency in which HCBS is needed. In addition to individual lives being put on hold, entire families must deal with the consequences of inadequate services available to their family members. Access to HCBS affects individuals in all stages of life, including Americans dealing with conditions such as Alzheimer's. Take Ann Bowers and Jay Sweatman for example. Without access to HCBS services, Jay, who suffers from early onset Alzheimer's, was forced to first move into assisted living and then a nursing home. By the time Jay was approved for HCBS it was too late and he was no longer able to live independently. Ann had worked tirelessly to coordinate her husband's care and get additional HCBS support but the process was so difficult that by the time help came, it was simply too late. This is just one case of many where early HCBS intervention would have not only saved time, money, and stress for family members, but would have made a significant impact on the quality of life and personal independence for Jay and Ann. Today I am introducing, with my colleague from the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, the Empowered at Home Act, a bill that increases access to home and community-based services by giving states new tools and incentives to make these services more available to those in need. It has four basic parts. First, it will improve the Medicaid HCBS State Plan Amendment Option by giving states more flexibility in determining eligibility for which services they can offer under the program, which will create greater options for individuals in need of long-term supports. In return we ask that states no longer cap enrollment and that services be offered throughout the entire state. Second, the bill ensures that the same spousal impoverishment protections offered for new nursing home beneficiaries will be in place for those opting for home and community-based services. In addition, low-income recipients of home and community-based services will be able to keep more of their assets when they become eligible for Medicaid, allowing them to stay in their community as long as possible. Third, the Empowered at Home Act addresses the financial needs of spouses and family members caring for a loved one by offering tax- related provisions to support family caregivers and promotes the purchase of meaningful private long-term care insurance. Finally, the bill seeks to improve the overall quality of home and community-based services available by providing grants for states to invest in organizations and systems that can help to ensure a sufficient supply of high quality workers, promote health, and transform home and community-based care to be more consumer-centered. I want to say a word about the Community Choice Act, legislation long-championed by Senator Harkin that would make HCBS a mandatory benefit in Medicaid. I am a strong supporter and co-sponsor of this landmark legislation, and look forward to working for its enactment as soon as possible. The legislation I am introducing today seeks to supplement--not supplant--the Community Choice Act by increasing access to HCBS for those who are disabled but not at a sufficient level of need to qualify for nursing home services. These two complimentary bills will finally make HCBS a right while vastly improving HCBS availability to vulnerable citizens of varying levels of disability. I would also like to thank a number of organizations who have been integral to the development of the Empowered at Home Act and who have endorsed it today, including the National Council on Aging, the American Association of Retired Persons, AARP, the Arc of the United States, United Cerebral Palsy, the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, the Alzheimer's Association, the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, the American Geriatrics Society, ANCOR, the Trust for America's Health, and SEIU. Improving access to a range of long-term care services for the elderly and Americans of all ages with disabilities is an issue that must not stray from our Nation's health care priorities. I believe this legislation can move forward in a bi-partisan manner to dramatically improve access to high-quality home and community-based care for the millions of Americans who are not receiving the significant supports and services they need.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 2 of Senate rule XXVI, I ask to have printed in the Record the rules of the Committee on Foreign Relations for the 111th Congress adopted by the committee on February 5, 2009.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona. There is an awful lot to try to respond to and to put into appropriate perspective. I want to start to try to do that as clearly, and hopefully as succinctly, as I can. The Senator has suggested that this has been a ``partisan process.'' I have to tell him as a Senator who has now been here--this is my 26th year here, having witnessed in the last 8 years an unprecedented level of changes of the rules, breaking of the rules, refusal to hold conferences so we get together and do the normal procedures here, unwillingness even to have accountability hearings to allow this side to hold hearings, call witnesses--I mean, I can run a long list to describe the desert that has been the last 8 years. I remind my colleagues, and I do not want to spend too much time on this because it is important to go forward, but you cannot go forward and have a legitimate discussion of what is real here unless you put things in their appropriate and honest context. The fact is, the Republican President, President Bush, just left office a few weeks ago. For 6 of the 8 years he was in office, the Republicans ran the Senate. I think we were down as low as around 43 Senators at one point. We did not have conferences. We were given bills that we were ``jammed'' and had to vote on that were rewritten completely in conference committee and they came to the floor. Notwithstanding all of that, notwithstanding that experience, Senator Reid came to the floor of the Senate and completely opened the amendment process. He did not fill the tree, he did not use any parliamentary procedure to prevent the Republicans from bringing an amendment, and, indeed, some of the amendments of our friends on the other side of the aisle were agreed to. Senator Isakson has a major amendment in here with respect to housing that is a very expensive amendment. It added spending to this bill. Senator Specter and a few others added some $12 billion for the National Institutes of Health. So, please, let's put this in an appropriate and proper perspective. Did they lose some votes on things they wanted to do? Yes, because the American people voted in November to change the makeup of the Senate. The American people experienced what happened over the course of the last 8 years, and they are feeling the pain today. I am hearing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep coming over and saying: My gosh, what a terrible thing it will be to add a burden to the debt of every family in America. You better believe that it is a tragedy. But where were they for the last 8 years when that debt was being taken from $5 trillion in 2000 up to $10 trillion today? Not once did the President of the United States--not once did he veto an appropriations spending bill. Their President--their majority leader could have said: We are not accepting this bill. Mr. President, you have to veto it. It never happened. Now, the reality is we have an economy that is hurting. The President of the United States has appropriately said that if we do not do something, this may lead to a catastrophe. I believe that, and my colleagues believe that. Some people on the other side of the aisle believe that. This is an unprecedented economic cycle in which we find ourselves. Economist after economist, on both sides of the aisle--Mark Zandi of Moody's economy.com--he is a Republican economist--strongly suggests we have to spend this kind of money in order to get the economy moving again. We need to examine that a little bit and examine some of the comments of my colleague from Arizona. First of all, he claims we rejected housing. I tell you, if it were not so--it just really amazes me to hear that. Last January at the White House--Senator Kyl was there, Senator McConnell was there, Senator Reid was there, Senator Durbin and a few others of us, Speaker Pelosi was there, John Boehner was there and the President, the Vice President, Secretary Paulson. And everybody went around and said what they had to say about that, the stimulus package that we were then talking about putting in place, a stimulus package a year ago. They went around the table, and it finally came my chance to say something. I looked at the President, and I said: Mr. President, this may be a little unorthodox because I know we are talking about this stimulus bill, but nobody here has mentioned housing. I have to tell you, I just came from Brockton, MA, where the mayor is struggling with 1,000 foreclosures. There are 400 more coming at him. This is pandemic. If we do not keep people in their homes, this is going to get worse. I then turned to the Secretary of the Treasury, and I said: Mr. Secretary, you could be negotiating mortgages now and keeping people in their homes at the revalued value of the homes, the devalued value of the home, because they can afford to stay in it if they are paying 13.5 percent or 9.5 percent. But if they get to pay a percentage like most of the other people in America who have some influence and access--you know, I have not met a business executive in America who is paying 13 percent or 9 percent, but average Americans were, and they were being run out of their homes because of it. Well, they all nodded and said, well, that sounds reasonable. We have to take a look at it. I came back with Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon and together, as members of the Finance Committee, we put it into the Finance Committee stimulus package. It came to the floor of the Senate, and guess what. My friends on the other side of the aisle opposed it. They stripped it out. We had a $15 billion mortgage revenue bond to help keep people in their homes, and the administration opposed it, even 1 week after the President of the United States went to the well of the Congress, and in his State of the Union speech said: We need mortgage revenue bonds. Everybody applauded, but they came back and stripped it out. From that day forward, until, I think it was August or September, 10,000 people a day were foreclosed on. That is 10,000 Americans a day who lost their homes, kicked out, locks changed. No wonder we are where we are today. With that many homes, street to street to street to street, losing their value, and then the homes next to them losing their value, and the people got scared, they lost their jobs--and we have lost jobs at a record rate. There were two point-some million jobs lost, 568,000 last month alone. So I have to tell you, there are a lot of people a lot smarter than me to whom I try to listen, and everybody I talk to who is in the business of business, of making deals--I am not talking about Wall Street theorists or people who arbitrage and play the market, play the game; I am talking about people who go out and create wealth, invest; people who make judgments about risk, risk taking, and take new ideas and turn them into jobs, which is what has always made America great. Those people tell me they cannot get the lending; they cannot get the credit. Banks that have money are scared to lend the money because if they look at the marketplace and they make what a banker has to make, which is a prudent judgment about, hey, if I lend the money, are my shareholders and the board of directors going to come to me and say, why were you so stupid to lend that money when the economy is going down, and you did not have a chance of getting it repaid. That is the psychology of the marketplace, and Government is the one instrument that has the ability to change the psychology. That is why it is so important we ``spend'' some money. Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say this is a huge spending bill. They are going to spend. You know, well, I have to tell you, I asked my friend from Alabama yesterday: OK, let's be real about this. You say you do not want to borrow the money. What a terrible act it is of Government to be for borrowing. Well, what is the alternative to borrowing? There are only two alternatives: you can raise taxes--and there is not one of them who will vote to do that--or you can cut spending. This is not the moment to cut spending; this is the moment to prime the pump. This is the moment you have to get money flowing into the system. Now, therefore, we are stuck. We have to borrow some money, and we have to borrow it on the presumption, on the judgment, that we are investing this money we borrow in the most intelligent way to break the downward psychology of the market and to encourage the creation of new jobs. Now, I would agree with my colleagues, I do not want to spend money on a project that just vanishes, poof, and there is no payback to the economy in the long run. We are not going to see long-term benefits to our country. But that is not what we are doing here. What we are doing here is creating jobs. I mean, how do we get products from point A to point B? We drive them on roads or we put them on a train or we fly them in airplanes, but our infrastructure that supports all of that is falling apart. Other countries are investing far more than we are into their public transit systems, into their air systems, and so forth. We have about a $1.6 trillion deficit in terms of our infrastructure investment. So what we are doing is saying: We are going to invest in some of those things now, tomorrow. We can put people to work tomorrow morning. All across this country we have projects that are shovel-ready, signed on the dotted line. We can do the bidding. In fact, many of them are already bid. They do not have the money. There are 45 States in the United States of America that have shortages in their budgets, and those States are required, unlike the Federal Government, to balance their budget. So facing the need to balance their budget, what do they do? They cut service, they cut firefighters, they cut police, they cut teachers, they cut the road projects. That adds to the downward spiral. Everybody hears their neighbors saying: Wow, I just lost my job. Then they start to fear for their job. As they fear for their job, they retrench in spending: I am not going to spend this week. We cannot go out to dinner this week. We cannot take that vacation. We cannot take that house. We are not going to travel to see the family at Christmas or Easter or whatever it is. People stop spending. As more of the ripples of job loss go, the more afraid people become. So they hunker down for the possibility that they may be the next to lose their jobs. That is part of the downward psychology. So you have to break it. And, I will tell you, there is nothing worse than doing too little to fix it. Nothing would be dumber than coming out here and spending too little billions of dollars and not knowing that we are doing enough to change the psychology and get the job done. Now, on the housing package, the Senator from Arizona said: We offered a housing package. Well, you know, they did offer a housing package. But just because we rejected it does not mean we do not think housing is important or we have to do it with what I said earlier about housing. We are going to do housing. The President and Larry Summers, who has been here meeting, is talking about how we are going to approach housing. But the program they offered, first of all, opposed any kind of bankruptcy relief so we can actually negotiate keeping people in their homes, which is inefficient. It did not target the money in an effective way. It had a 4-percent mortgage for everyone in the system so that people who do not even need the money wind up getting a break in terms of their mortgage. So it was not targeted. Moreover, it did not even require the banks to make a loan modification or even write down some of the bad loans they had. It was not comprehensive. So the fact that it is rejected does not display that this is partisan. It simply is a statement by the majority of the people representing the people that we do not think it was a very good idea, and we are going to come back and fix it; the same thing with this issue. Incidentally, let me share with a few of my colleagues why this is sort of this old ideology versus new. The Senator talked about the tired ideology of the past. What is it? Well, I think today Michael Steele, the new chairman of the Republican National Committee, made a statement on behalf of the Republican Party. He said: For the last 2 weeks, we have been trying to force a massive spending bill through Congress under the guise of economic relief. Well, we are having votes. This is a democracy. We are not forcing anything. We are trying to get the job done because there is an urgency to getting it done. But then he says: The fastest way to help those families is by letting them keep more of the money they earn. Individual empowerment, that is how you stimulate the economy. That is a big ideological/philosophical difference about how you most rapidly stimulate the economy. Let's think about it for a minute, the individual empowerment. OK, we turn around and we give every family in America the great big tax cut that the Republicans are talking about. Here is what he says: We want to give--the first 16,000 bucks you make, you are going to be taxed at a lower percentage. Terrific. We lose revenue at the Federal level that we could put into schools, fire, police, education, energy investment, investment in airports, rail, all of those things for which we do not have enough money. But we give it back to the people. Then he says: They will go out and buy things. They probably will. Some of them may save it. What are they going to buy? Is there a guarantee they are going to go out and buy energy-efficient materials? No. Is there a guarantee they will go out and buy an American car that is a hybrid, that actually does better? No. They could go out and buy a car made in China or Japan or Germany. That does not help us a lot. Or what if they pay off their credit card bill because it is so big that they need the money to pay the bill? That is just paying for past things already purchased, for services already given. It does not stimulate the economy. Please. And if they do have some money to invest, there is no guarantee they will choose to invest it in the United States of America. They might think it is much better to invest it in some international mutual fund that is investing in a country that has a better economy right now. So that is a tired old philosophy. That is what we did in the 1980s and many of us opposed it. I voted against that tax cut. You know what. We took the deficit of this country to an unprecedented level, crowding out the private marketplace in terms of borrowing, and we did not invest in the things in which we needed to invest in the country. Let me share and say to my colleagues that we have a multi-headed crisis we are looking at. This is only one part of the package. I also want to address the question where the Senator from Arizona said this would be a recession way down the road. Well, I disagree with that. We are in a recession now. We have to do everything possible to break out of the reversion. Now, the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would ``have an immediate and substantial impact on the U.S. economy, most noticeably in terms of job growth and GDP growth.'' That is the Congressional Budget Office. They say: In our efforts in this bill, our No. 1 priority is to put people back to work. If tomorrow we spend money on a road construction effort so people who go to work at that site will have a job, the people who drive the truck to bring the asphalt and the materials will have a job, the people who supply the materials to those people will suddenly be ordering again. They will pay taxes. They will take home a paycheck over the next year or two and that will begin to change the psychology of what we are looking at here. You have to spend some money. That is what Franklin Roosevelt did. This situation cries out for it just as powerfully as that did. The CBO report says the recovery package, as reported out of the Senate--I emphasize the Senate, the Senate Appropriations and Finance Committee-- would create between 900,000 and 2.4 million new jobs in 2009, this year; between 1.3 and 3.9 million jobs next year; and between 600,000 and 1.9 million jobs in 2011. These jobs would correspond to an unemployment rate reduction of .5 percent to 1.3 percent in 2009; .6 to 2 percent in 2010; and .3 percent to 1.0 percent in 2011. Additionally, the report estimates that the legislation would grow the U.S. domestic product, our GDP, by 1.4 to 4.1 percent this year; 1.12 percent to 3.6 percent next year in 2010; and .4 to 1.2 percent in 2011. So there is job-creating potential in this. We need to transform the American economy. What is most exciting about what we have put together in this bill, it is the first big, legitimate effort to do that that I have seen in years. In the height of the oil crisis last summer, we were sending over $1 billion a day to Saudi Arabia. I would rather send that billion dollars a day down to the Southwest, to Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado. There is this unbelievable ability to be developing solar thermal in America. We have a solar thermal plant in Nevada now. We could produce electricity without using oil and gas and fossil fuel. I am told--because the Senator from Arizona raised the question--that the water tables down there are creating a self-serving cycle, a contained cycle so that the water can be reused in a way that doesn't disturb water demand. But you can drive electricity. We can produce six times the electricity needs of the United States from that region alone. Why aren't we doing it? If we produce six times the electricity needs of the United States from one part of the country and modernize our grid, then people can start buying electric cars. We will have an electric car that goes 100 miles an hour and gets 100-plus miles to the charge which doesn't solve all long-distance problems, but for most Americans, the commute is 40 miles a day. So you could actually do most of your week on electricity, never touching a drop of gas and oil which would reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, raise our security, raise health standards, meet our environmental standards, and do an enormous amount to meet the challenge of global warming. If we don't send a billion dollars to another country, we are using it here at home to develop more renewable energy and more jobs and future jobs in robotics, artificial intelligence, communications, and life sciences. There are jobs to be created. It depends on how intelligent we are in investing the money in the right places. That is what this legislation does. Let me share this with my colleagues. We have $40 billion going to the Department of Energy for development of clean, efficient American energy from advanced battery systems for energy efficiency, conservation grants, weatherization assistance, all kinds of research for clean coal technology. We are about to have a breakthrough technology that I believe will allow us to burn coal clean and create a construction material called calcium carbonate that can be used as cement, concrete for building. It contains the CO2, and it helps us to deal with this crisis. Those are new jobs, countless new jobs. I hope our colleagues will recognize that what is happening is a very legitimate, philosophical, perhaps ideological difference. But this is not old over here. This is new. This is what America voted for this year, a change of direction, in order to get it right. We are staring at an economy where health care premiums increased approximately 80 percent. Gas prices reached historic highs. They are now down temporarily, but they will not stay there. College education costs have risen 70 percent. Housing affordability, we all understand, is a huge problem across the economy. We will deal with that. Wages of average Americans who are working are declining. The benefits they work for are declining. Their retirement accounts have been wiped away. Workers' earnings for college degree graduates are declining. Job creation is the worst in America since Herbert Hoover's administration. The unemployment rate rose to the highest level since 1993, and it is still rising. We are told it will rise further. The deficit-financed Bush tax cuts weren't paid for. They were deficit financed, and we have wound up with the least job growth we have had in any kind of recovery in modern history. Today more American families and children face severe financial problems than at any time. That is why this is urgent. It is only a part. We have to come back and do housing in a matter of weeks. We have to fix the banks in a matter of weeks. I am confident if we do this, we are going to turn this around. We are going to have the most exciting economy we have had in years. There is no question in my mind that if we release American entrepreneurial and creative genius to create new products and move us to that future, we will do what America has always done--we will continue to lead. That is what this debate is about, a new direction, a new time, and a new moment. I hope our colleagues will embrace it.

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me ask my friend from Arizona what his intentions are at this point because it seems to me it might be advantageous to perhaps have those who oppose this bill state their case in the beginning, and maybe we can even have some discussion back and forth, in the best traditions of the Senate, about that. Then, we can, on this side, come back and perhaps offer a few alternatives and then go back and forth. I would ask the Senator from Arizona, does that make sense?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I think that would be great. Perhaps what we could agree upon, so we don't have an imbalance, and we are not talking beyond each other, is perhaps have some kind of reasonable limitation on the back and forth so we do get to have a legitimate kind of debate. I will yield the floor and wait for my colleague from Arizona and then perhaps come back.

Mr. KERRY. I appreciate that, Mr. President.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, with the permission of the manager, I yield myself the time that I use this morning.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will only take 2 minutes and then yield to a colleague. I think it is good to have this back and forth, frankly, because it is a way to shed a little more light on these things. First, I did not say, in quoting Mr. Steele, that individual empowerment is not important. I didn't say that we are not for it. I am quoting him: Individual empowerment, that is how you stimulate the economy. That is his program. Forty-two percent of this bill is tax cuts. I have voted for countless tax cuts in the Senate. I was one of the authors of zero capital gains for new investments. I believe in tax cuts. We have terrific tax cuts in this bill. But clearly, there is no discussion in Mr. Steele's comments about what we ought to be spending it on, how much we ought to be spending, how spending will make a difference. Secondly, on the deficit doubling in the last couple years, yes, it did. No. 1, because we have a war in Iraq and a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq that many of us here believed spending $12 billion a month wasn't worth, and the American people believed wasn't. But nevertheless, that is one reason. Secondly, we passed a stimulus. We passed it outside of the budget process, because nobody wanted to pay for it. We needed to begin to stimulate the economy already. Third--and the Senator knows this--we did a fix to the alternative minimum tax so that millions of Americans would not be taxed unwittingly and inappropriately. We tried to pay for it. I signed on to Senator Conrad's amendment. We had a vote on the floor of the Senate. We lost, because the Republicans decided they didn't think we should pay for the alternative minimum tax fix. That is why we doubled the deficit. We had pay as you go in the Senate. We put it back in place to restore fiscal responsibility, and it is important to put that in the proper context.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman for his efforts on this bill and on this issue as a whole. I have been listening for the last few days to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk as if the last 8 years hasn't happened, as if they have no responsibility for it, and then come back to the floor of the Senate today, and in the last few days, with proposals that have already been tested and, frankly, proven hollow and empty and inadequate. It is kind of surprising to me to see the absence of common sense that has been at the center of the arguments over the course of the last couple of days. Let me give an example. We keep hearing about how the spending, spending, spending is too big and it is a problem. In fact, spending itself, we have heard in the arguments, is not going to solve this problem. Well, over 40 States in this country now have budget shortfalls--40 States--and the Governors in those States are already cutting essential services. They face the choice of cutting police, fire, teachers, and other critical services. The fact is that as they cut, those people are not able to pay mortgages, not able to go to the store and buy whatever it was they planned to buy, because they are out of a job and therefore lacking cash. They may even become at risk for foreclosure on their homes. So if you want to contribute to toxic assets, the best way to do it is to continue to adopt the policy that you don't put cash into the hands of Americans. Now, that alone is not going to solve the problem. The normal debt ratio of a household in our country is about--income to household debt--50 percent. Right now, the average household in America is carrying a debt-to-income ratio of about 150 percent. And if all you do is give a tax cut that puts cash into the hands of people--which I understand, incidentally, our proposal does give a tax cut--if that is all you do, a large percentage of that is going to simply go to paying for past acquisitions, for past services provided. It is going to be used by taxpayers to pay off their credit card bills, to pay their debt, but it isn't going to create the kind of spending and consumption that is at the heart of the American economy. Mr. President, 72 percent of American GDP comes from consumption. Unless we recognize how you stop the tailspin and begin to turn things around, we are ignoring reality. I have heard a lot of talk about we ought to do a tax cut, we ought to do a tax cut. I have supported many tax cuts during my years here, and there are tax cuts in this proposal. But a tax cut is nontargeted. If you put a tax cut into the hands of either a business or an individual today, there is no guarantee they are going to invest their money. There is no guarantee they are going to invest their money in the United States. They are free to invest anywhere they want, if they choose to invest. Let's look at that. When you have a tailspin in the economy, as we do today, and confidence is declining, as it is today, if you are a banker and if somebody comes in to borrow money from you, you have to look at the prudent lending practices and standards by which you are going to make that loan. In today's climate, the inclination of a prudent banker is not to make the loan. Why? Because they see consumerism contracting, because they see the tailspin in housing, because they see the lack of new building, new contracts, and you are locked into a vicious cycle-- not a virtuous cycle, a vicious cycle, a downward cycle. This effort is to break that cycle. Almost every major economist has suggested that it is going to take a very significant component of that ugly word ``spending'' in order to prime the pump and begin to shift the psychology and turn things around. Now, is that all we need to do? No. And President Obama has said that is not all we need to do. To the Senator from Tennessee, who has been talking about housing and you have to stop the housing slide first, let me say to him respectfully that I sat in the White House a year ago with Secretary Paulson, President Bush, and Vice President Cheney, and I was the only person in the room who said: Mr. President, if you are going to do a stimulus now, you ought to put housing into this package. And I turned to the Secretary and I said: Mr. Secretary, you could be negotiating right now to keep people in their homes at a fixed mortgage rate and a new valuation, and you should do it. And their heads nodded, and they said: That sounds like a good idea. Gordon Smith and I came back to the Senate, and we put in a $15 billion provision in the Finance Committee, which passed the Finance Committee 20 to 1. It came to the floor of the Senate, and guess what. The very people who are here on the floor now saying we have to do housing stripped it out of that provision. The President and the administration opposed it. And for 9 months they sat there while 10,000 homes a day were being foreclosed, and they allowed us to slide into where we are today. So when I hear my colleagues come and say we have to fix housing now, they are about 10 months to a year late on that effort. They have created, because of their indifference a year ago, a situation where it is out of control. Every major economist in the country is now telling us: You have to stop the fall. If 40 States in our country are facing a predicament, it is incumbent on us to help those States not lay off those firefighters, not lay off those teachers, and help them go with a readymade project. I have heard colleague after colleague say: Well, what job is going to be created through this spending? Well, let me tell you very directly. If you have a shovel-ready project, we can put that into place tomorrow. There are thousands of them across the country ready to go. We have a $1.6 trillion infrastructure deficit. While other countries have been investing in high-speed rail transportation, schools, and other parts of their economy, we haven't. We have been giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the country. And the price of that is that today we have the largest gap between the middle class and the wealthy that we have ever had in this country. The fact is, none of those people are guaranteed to invest that money in any of the new projects the way we are. So Government--yes, Government--has the ability to be able to make a decision that the private sector won't necessarily make today. I have supported almost every private sector effort through here over the years. I have supported 100 percent a zero capital gains reduction so that we could excite investment and venture capital into new enterprises with respect to energy and alternative fuel and new materials and nanotechnology and communications and artificial intelligence--all the things that would provide the high value-added job base of the future for our country. And most economists will tell each of my colleagues, without a party label, that if we were to invest now in those future efforts, we would be creating a much stronger base for our jobs in the future. That is what this seeks to do. This bill, this stimulus effort, seeks to break the downward cycle and encourage investment in those kinds of products that provide a high value-added job and strengthen America's economy for the long run. The fact is that doing the stimulus and doing housing aren't going to fix this crisis either. The truth is that the majority of our banks in this country are fundamentally insolvent. Paul Krugman has referred to a number of large banks as zombie banks because their assets and liabilities are almost either even or negative. But if you look at those assets in many of them, they are in the toxic category. And if they legitimately mark their books today at the value of the marketplace, they would not be, according to most standards, solvent. So we are going to visit on this floor within a short period of time how we are going to recapitalize the banks. This effort will not be satisfied with what we are doing here alone. But I guarantee you, every day that we dawdle, every day we keep this going, forgetting about reality and debating what are old and, frankly, discredited approaches to the economy, we are going to create more toxic assets, more people are going to lose their jobs, and more confidence will be lost as we continue to go down. Frankly, the difference between $50 billion on this bill or $100 billion--let's get it moving--that is not going to make the difference to the economy. What will make the difference to the economy is whether we express on this floor a real understanding of what is happening and a real concentrated effort across party lines to address it. That is what the American people are waiting for. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. I hope we are going to get to the common sense that is at the center of this and do what we need to do for the American people quickly.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for purposes of a question?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, would it be in order at this point to lock in a time to speak after the tranche of votes?

Mr. KERRY. Are we limited to 5? Would it be possible to get 10 minutes?

Mr. KERRY. I appreciate that.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we all know how important this legislation is to the health of our Nation's economy. I commend the managers of this bill for focusing on job creation and projects that are focused on America's future. Large-scale infrastructure projects such as new schools and better roads and bridges will benefit all of us, but when it comes to the men and women tasked with building them, I believe we have a responsibility to ensure that those most in need of work are put at the front of the line. That is why I introduced an amendment to express the sense of the Senate that, to the extent possible, contractors using funds made available through this act should hire individuals from vulnerable and underserved populations. By focusing on helping veterans, at-risk youth, low-income people, and those trying to start a new life for themselves through a reentry or career training program, we can not only help build the future economy, but we can help these individuals become sustainable and productive members of that economy. These populations have been most affected by the downturn in the economy the most--many have lost their homes in the housing crisis or have been laid off. My amendment also encourages the State and local agencies that receive stimulus funds to look to local organizations such as labor unions, community groups, and faith--based organizations to help them find workers. These groups can serve as an invaluable partner in our effort to stimulate the economy. So I ask my colleagues as we debate this bill that they stay mindful of the people who need our help the most and support my amendment to ensure that we put America back to work. Amendment No. 248

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, each year an estimated 500,000 people are treated for burn injuries, with 40,000 requiring hospitalization. It is time that we do more to aid those who suffer from disabling burns, which is why I am introducing the Social Security and Medicare Improved Burn Injury Treatment Access Act of 2009. I am pleased to join my colleague from Massachusetts, Congressman Richard Neal, who introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives. This legislation provides a waiver of the 24-month waiting period now required before an uninsured individual becomes eligible for Medicare coverage for disabling burn injuries. It also provides a waiver for the five-month waiting period for Social Security disability benefits. This will help provide greater assistance to those who suffer from burn injuries and much needed support for the burn centers that treat them. Burn care is highly specialized and expensive. Since approximately 40 percent of burn victims are uninsured, this places a great financial strain on burn centers, causing some of them to close. At a time when we are asking burn centers to be prepared to deal with catastrophic cases, and expand their capacity, we also must provide the support they need. Chemical fires, explosions, terrorist attacks, and major accidents are scenarios where burn centers play a critical role in public health. Over one-third of those hospitalized in New York following the September 11 terrorist attacks had severe burn injuries. This legislation will provide immediate Medicare coverage for uninsured patients suffering serious, disabling burn injuries. It follows an approach already taken with other conditions such as End Stage Renal Disease, ESRD, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease, both of which result in waivers of the 24-month waiting period for Medicare eligibility. This legislation has important cost containment measures. To prevent shifting the burden of care, no one with public or private insurance at the time of their burn injury will be eligible for the 24-month waiver, and state public insurance programs will not be allowed to restrict coverage for burn patients as a way to shift the responsibility to Medicare. Each individual's disability status is required to be reevaluated at least once every three years to ensure that those who have made a full recovery are not allowed to stay on Medicare indefinitely. We cannot allow our Nation's burn centers to continue closing due to a lack of financial resources. They are a vital resource and through them, we have the opportunity to give burn victims the best possible chance at recovery. I ask all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Finance Committee chairman. Let me suggest to colleagues why this is not common sense, and I think experience tells us it is not common sense on this bill at this time, where the purpose is to create jobs and to try to get the maximum return on our investment of the American taxpayers' dollar. The fact is, I voted for this, too, back in 2004. This was the America Jobs Creation Act of 2004. At the time, it was argued that this was going to create jobs. I, personally, believe in macro tax policy. If we were reforming tax policy, it might make sense to suggest that repatriated profits ought to be taxed at a lower rate as part of a broader tax reform and that policy of deferral ought to be revisited but not as part of this legislation. The reason for that is very simple. During the 1-year period during which U.S. multinational corporations were able to bring profits back at a lower rate, the result was simply not what was promised by the supporters. Yes, it did result in a substantial increase in the repatriation, but it did not increase domestic investment or employment, and that is the measure by which we ought to be making a judgment. The 2004 provision resulted in $312 billion being repatriated. In fact, one-third of all offshore earnings was repatriated. Ten firms accounted for about 42 percent of that repatriation. The fact is that many of the firms that benefited from this during that period of time laid off workers after they brought that money back. They passed on the benefits to their shareholders. Pfizer repatriated approximately $37 billion and cut 3,500 jobs in 2005. Another company that benefited cut 7,000 jobs. So the bottom line is, common sense tells you, if you tried something once and it didn't work, don't repeat the same mistake. Secondly, with respect to what the Senator from New Mexico said, don't repeat a mistake so soon after you have already made it so that the message to everybody is: Oh, you can go overseas, you can create any company you want and, eventually, Congress is going to fold and wind up giving you a much lower tax rate when you bring it home. Moreover, the provisions in here that suggest there is some limitation on how the money is going to be spent do not get the job done. One of the limitations is that you put it into research and development. You have an existing research and development entity that doesn't create a job, certainly not in the near term. You also can do acquisitions of a business entity for the purpose of retaining and creating jobs. That could be just about anything. You can argue that is the purpose, but it doesn't necessarily have the impact and there is absolutely no enforcement mechanism and no way to measure it. At a time when we are fighting over diminished resources and what we are going to do, it seems to me this provision is simply not going to guarantee us the kind of provision of jobs we need. Past history shows that very few companies actually benefit. I think having this tax holiday again so soon without broader tax reform is not the way we ought to be approaching this issue. By almost every measurement, I suggest to my colleagues that common sense says this is not the time, this is not the piece of legislation, and this is not the plan to put people to work. I yield back whatever time I have to the chairman.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, each year an estimated 500,000 people are treated for burn injuries, with 40,000 requiring hospitalization. It is time that we do more to aid those who suffer from disabling burns, which is why I am introducing the Social Security and Medicare Improved Burn Injury Treatment Access Act of 2009. I am pleased to join my colleague from Massachusetts, Congressman Richard Neal, who introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives. This legislation provides a waiver of the 24-month waiting period now required before an uninsured individual becomes eligible for Medicare coverage for disabling burn injuries. It also provides a waiver for the five-month waiting period for Social Security disability benefits. This will help provide greater assistance to those who suffer from burn injuries and much needed support for the burn centers that treat them. Burn care is highly specialized and expensive. Since approximately 40 percent of burn victims are uninsured, this places a great financial strain on burn centers, causing some of them to close. At a time when we are asking burn centers to be prepared to deal with catastrophic cases, and expand their capacity, we also must provide the support they need. Chemical fires, explosions, terrorist attacks, and major accidents are scenarios where burn centers play a critical role in public health. Over one-third of those hospitalized in New York following the September 11 terrorist attacks had severe burn injuries. This legislation will provide immediate Medicare coverage for uninsured patients suffering serious, disabling burn injuries. It follows an approach already taken with other conditions such as End Stage Renal Disease, ESRD, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease, both of which result in waivers of the 24-month waiting period for Medicare eligibility. This legislation has important cost containment measures. To prevent shifting the burden of care, no one with public or private insurance at the time of their burn injury will be eligible for the 24-month waiver, and state public insurance programs will not be allowed to restrict coverage for burn patients as a way to shift the responsibility to Medicare. Each individual's disability status is required to be reevaluated at least once every three years to ensure that those who have made a full recovery are not allowed to stay on Medicare indefinitely. We cannot allow our Nation's burn centers to continue closing due to a lack of financial resources. They are a vital resource and through them, we have the opportunity to give burn victims the best possible chance at recovery. I ask all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I support the incoming chairman of the Commerce Committee as well as the President in the effort to delay the digital television transition date because I believe that the Federal Government's first responsibility in administering this transition is to the consumers who stand to lose television reception in just 22 days. On January 4, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA, announced that the program designated to distribute coupons to consumers in need of digital converter boxes did not have sufficient resources to meet program demand. Just over 2 weeks later, more than 2.6 million requests for coupons, representing nearly 1.5 million American households, have been placed on a waiting list. Without an infusion of additional funds for this program, these coupons will not be delivered. Senator Rockefeller is advocating legislation to postpone the upcoming DTV transition date from February 17, 2009, until June 12, 2009. I am a cosponsor of the Rockefeller bill. The legislation is a response to a January 8 letter sent by President Obama's transition team co-chairman, John Podesta, which clearly stated the President's belief that the DTV transition should be delayed. A high percentage of Americans who rely on over the air broadcast television are low-income or elderly and do not have the financial means to purchase a converter box without a coupon. If these households do not have a converter box when the statutorily mandated switch to digital television takes place, they will be left without access to critical news, information and emergency broadcasts. To ensure that every request for a coupon is met, Congress will need to appropriate additional funds for the coupon program. I support efforts to provide additional funding necessary to cover each and every coupon request. I also support making additional funds available for the outreach and education efforts that will be necessary to ensure as smooth a transition as possible. In the coming weeks, the Senate will consider economic stimulus legislation, and I hope this additional funding will be included in this bill. Before we reach that point however, it is imperative that Congress delays the transition date so consumers currently on the waiting list have sufficient time to receive and redeem their coupons. There is no question that delaying the date will come with considerable cost to some parties. The Nation's broadcasters and cable operators have made considerable efforts to educate the public as to the current date, and these efforts should be commended. A delayed transition date will undoubtedly result in some increased cost to those responsible for facilitating the transition. I am also aware that licenses have been granted to operate in this spectrum after the transition date. These licenses were issued to the winning bidders in last year's 700 MHz spectrum auction, which resulted in nearly $20 billion in Federal revenues. Additionally, public safety organizations across the country have been issued licenses to operate in portions of the spectrum following the February 17 statutory transition date. Congress, NTIA, and the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, should work to mitigate economic injury wherever possible for all parties involved in the ongoing effort to execute a smooth transition. I also agree with Ranking Member Hutchison's proposed changes to the chairman's legislation, which would permit the NTIA to reissue expired coupons that go unused, extend the term of auctioned licenses by 116 days, and clarify broadcasters' ability to transition to digital-only transmission early, as well as the ability for public safety entities to have access to narrowband channels prior to the new deadline. These are important changes that will help to make the transition go smoothly. I urge all of my colleagues to support the DTV Delay Act.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today is a very significant day for the rule of law in the United States of America, and a powerful statement that the United States again stands for the time-honored principles and values that have made us a beacon to the world. This morning, the President of the United States signed Executive orders ordering the closure of Guantanamo Bay prison within a year; suspending all military commissions at Guantanamo Bay; closing secret third-country prisons; and placing interrogation in all American facilities for all U.S. personnel under the guidelines of the Army Field Manual. In a season of transformational changes, these are among the most profoundly meaningful because they will sustain the long-term health of the most cherished ideals of our Republic: respect for the rule of law, individual rights, and American moral leadership. The threat our Nation faces from terrorism is all too real. And we should all agree that sometimes, in the name of national security, it is necessary to make difficult ethical decisions to protect the American people. However, I believe that the use of torture and indefinite detention have not only tarnished our honor but also diminished our security. In this global counterinsurgency effort against al Qaida and its allies, too often our means have undercut our efforts against extremism. In this struggle, the people are the center of gravity. And too often we have wasted one of the best weapons we have in our arsenal: the legitimacy we wield when we exercise our moral authority. Efforts to justify, explain away, or endorse the use of torture have played directly into a central tenet of al Qaida's recruiting pitch: that everyday Muslims across the world have something to fear from the United States of America. From Morocco to Malaysia, people regularly hear stories of torture and suicide at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and other overseas prisons. The result has been a major blow to our credibility worldwide, particularly where we need it most: in the Muslim world. Torture and lawlessness are not easily contained. Once the strictures are loosened, the corner-cutting practices spread. The Pentagon used high-level Guantanamo detainees to test coercive interrogation techniques, but such techniques eventually found their way to low-level detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. While images of Abu Ghraib have long faded from American minds and media, they remain fixtures, years later, across the Arab and Muslim world. As Senator McCain has argued, the use of techniques like waterboarding--invented in the Spanish Inquisition and prosecuted by the American Government as a Japanese war crime after World War II-- leaves its scars on a democratic society as well. Torture, which flourishes in the shadows, depends on lies--not just from those who seek to avoid torture, but from those who seek to conceal it. After years of Orwellian denials and legalistic parsing, what a relief it was to hear our new Attorney General-designee Eric Holder finally acknowledge on behalf of the United States Government what we all know to be true: that yes, ``waterboarding is torture.'' As we move forward, President Obama is wise to ``reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals''--but moving beyond this framework does not mean that this administration will not face real and difficult choices about how best to keep Americans safe while honoring our values. The American people should know that closing Guantanamo will not be easy. Conceived to be outside law, reclaiming the prison and its inhabitants into our legal system from what Vice President Cheney called ``the dark side'' will be an enormous challenge and a thicket of thorny legal and policy issues. However, we are already seeing the international system reorganize itself around an America that is willing to be a moral leader. Countries such as Portugal and Ireland have made welcome offers to join Albania in resettling detainees who cannot be returned to their home countries. Already we are seeing the fruits of a good-faith effort with our allies. Still, it will take time and effort to overcome numerous hurdles. The new administration faces tough challenges handed over from the previous administration. Looming questions must be addressed about the inadmissibility of evidence improperly coerced. It is difficult or impossible in some cases to return detainees--including many cleared for departure--who would face torture or worse in their home countries; and we already know that some released from Guantanamo have returned to the battlefield. In some cases we simply lack evidence to charge men we know to be extremely dangerous and threatening to the American people. And we owe it to those we believe made grave mistakes to acknowledge the urgency of the moment they inherited, the sacred responsibility to protect American lives, which they strove to honor, and the humbling reality that there are no easy answers when it comes to such life-and- death matters. But the American story is one of perfectibility and striving for ever-greater fidelity to our ideals--it is a journey from Colony to Republic, from slavery to freedom, from sexism to suffrage, from stark poverty to shared prosperity. The President himself famously said, ``the union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected.'' It is true that today we face unprecedented, unorthodox, and vastly destructive enemies that respect neither borders nor rules of war. But it is equally true that we have done so before. This is not the first new challenge America has evolved to meet. Sometimes that evolution requires us to admit mistakes, learn from them and grow as a nation. Our progress in response to new threats and new fears has been halting but real, and our setbacks have always been followed by a strong corrective impulse. The desire to do better has always been a core part of America's greatness. Today Barack Obama and his administration wrote a new chapter in that old story. I commend them and look forward to helping them make good on their goals, keep Americans safe, and usher in a new era of America's moral leadership. Today's Executive orders were a promising sign of things to come-- America will again honor the values that make us strong.