Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. We are checking to see.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today in disbelief. The American public is searching for commonsense answers from its leaders on health care, and yet they are poised to receive an expensive, wholly inadequate, and simply illogical so-called solution. After weeks behind closed doors--including now--the majority has produced a bill thus far that raises taxes, makes drastic cuts in Medicare, and increases premiums to create a new government program, the so-called public option. I believe the public option is nothing more than socialized medicine and expanded government disguised as greater choice. Thus, I am adamantly opposed to this bill as it is written. I believe any legislation seeking to effectively address health care reform should have as its dual aims cutting costs and increasing access to quality care. But, amazingly, this bill just does the opposite on both counts. This proposed legislation is not going to solve our Nation's health care problems and yet likely will exacerbate them. The administration, it seems to me, seems to be determined to force the health care bill on the American people, which the majority of citizens do not want or need. I believe we have the best health care system in the world in the United States of America. While many have scoffed at such a suggestion, the United States, as we know, has the finest doctors, first-rate treatments, cutting-edge innovation, and low wait times. Think about it. People come from all over the world to take advantage of our revolutionary medicine and state-of-the-art treatments. The United States develops new drugs and medical devices years before the rest of the world, and American doctors are usually pioneers of new techniques in surgery and anesthesia. As a cancer survivor myself, I am especially proud of the great strides the United States has made in screening and treating cancer. The United States has one of the highest survival rates for cancer in the world and dwarfs survival statistics in Europe. In 2007, U.S. cancer survival was 66.3 percent, while Europe's was 47.3 percent. I believe the answer as to where to receive treatment in the world is clear: the United States of America. However, our current system, I would admit, is not perfect, and I have never said it was. But I believe we must seek to build upon rather than tear down these strengths we have. We need a bill that reduces costs and improves quality and level of care for the American people. Here, I believe, we get the exact opposite: a bill that grows big government by creating a costly new entitlement program, drives up private health care costs, and subsequently lowers overall quality and access to care. According to the Congressional Budget Office's Long Term Budget Outlook, the coming tsunami of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs is projected to push the Federal public debt to 320 percent of GDP by 2050 and over 750 percent by 2083. Does anyone truly believe this new legislation will not further add to our Nation's debt? When has history proven that our government can regulate more effectively than private industry or the marketplace, much less doing so without adding to the deficit? The reason: we simply overspend and overpromise. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Senate Democrats' health care proposal, as now written, will cost $849 billion over 10 years. While Americans will be hit immediately with new taxes and government mandates, the actual services and coverage promised in this legislation will not be implemented until 2014--a clear attempt to mask the true cost of reform. The proposal before us delays government subsidies for yet an additional year to hide the real cost of the bill and show so- called additional savings. Stalling implementation on a program set to run for an indefinite time horizon and calling it ``savings'' is nothing more than fiscal sleight of hand. Therefore, the Senate Budget Committee estimates the true 10-year cost of the proposal to be $2.5 trillion once fully implemented--$2.5 trillion once fully implemented. Let me say that again: $2.5 trillion--a lot of money. To pay for this $2.5 trillion worth of legislation, the government, I believe, will have no choice but to raise taxes to European welfare state levels or impose drastic restrictions on patient care or, most likely, both. The bill includes over $493 billion in new tax increases, as written, and probably another $464 billion in Medicare cuts, placing the burden of reform squarely on the shoulders of the middle class, small businesses, and the elderly. For the middle class, the proposal is a direct hit. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that in 2019, 73 percent of the so- called wealthy taxpayers paying the proposed excise tax on high premiums will earn less than $200,000 a year. I think the time is now to stop heaping debt obligations on the backs of the able bodied. The proposed tax on the so-called Cadillac plans--plans with high annual premiums--will not only be passed on to the consumer through higher premiums but will creep its way into the lives of many middle- class Americans. I have a little story. Mrs. Melanie Howard, of Pelham, AL, raised this point when discussing the idea of who actually receives Cadillac health care. Mrs. Howard spoke to me of the small nonprofit where she worked, which had to raise premium prices to offset a few workers who were battling cancer. In effect, she was paying for a Cadillac but still just getting a basic car. Because the tax is based on cost of coverage and not quality and breadth of coverage, many Americans could fall into this category. I believe it is a simple actuarial fact that smaller risk pools result in higher premiums. Thus, small businesses, such as Mrs. Howard's employer, are naturally going to bear the brunt of this ill- conceived Cadillac health insurance tax. As taxes increase to pay for the public option, so does the cost of premiums on health care plans. The Congressional Budget Office analysis on premium impacts estimates that family premiums would increase 28 percent--from $11,000 per family to over $14,000 per family by 2019. This is more than a $3,000 increase per family. The bill also imposes $28 billion in new taxes on employers who do not provide government-approved health plans, and it charges a penalty of $750 per uninsured individual--a form of double taxation. Furthermore, any opportunity to allow individuals to self-manage their care and plan for future health care costs has been eradicated from this proposal as now written. Flexible spending accounts help individuals and families pay for out-of-pocket medical expenses that are not covered by their health insurance plans with tax-free dollars. These are particularly important for individuals and families who have high medical expenses, such as seniors and those with chronic health conditions or disabilities. The current proposal before us will not only limit allowable flexible spending account contributions, but the limit is not indexed for inflation, which means the inflation-adjusted or real value of a flexible spending account will decline steadily over time until virtually worthless. What is also truly concerning about the current legislation is a massive reduction in care our seniors will face under this legislation. The proposal includes $120 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage, nearly $135 billion in Medicare cuts for hospitals that care for seniors, more than $42 billion in cuts from home health agencies, and nearly $8 billion in cuts from hospices, of all places. I believe this nearly $\1/2\ trillion in Medicare reductions simply must result--has to result--in vast reductions in the quality of our seniors' care. I do not believe massive tax increases, a rise in the cost of health care premiums, reduced flexibility in self-management of care, and cuts to seniors' health care is what the American people have in mind as a way to improve access and create affordable quality health care. We have already seen how this legislation will significantly increase costs and reduce coverage of care. But let's, for a minute, turn our attention to the quality of care because there is, indeed, a big difference between government-run health care coverage and actual access to medical care. As Margaret Thatcher once said: The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend. Medical rationing is inevitable under government-run health care. It has to be. Supporters of government-run medicine often cite Canada or Great Britain as models for the United States to follow. Yet medical rationing, such as is common in those countries, is inevitable under a government-run health care system as now proposed. These countries are forced to ration care or, in the alternative, have long waiting lists for medical treatments that lead to the same result. More than 750,000 Britons are currently awaiting admission to the National Health Service hospitals. Last year, over half of Britons were forced to wait more than 18 weeks for care or treatment. The Fraser Institute, an independent Canadian research organization, reported in 2008 that the average wait time for a Canadian awaiting surgery or other medical treatment was 17 weeks, an increase of 86 percent since 1983. Access to a waiting list is not access to health care. A study by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development showed that the number of CT scanners per million in population was 7.5 in Britain, 11.2 in Canada, and 32.2 in the United States. For magnetic resonance imaging--MRIs--there was an average of 5.4 MRI machines per million in population in Britain, 5.5 in Canada, and 26.6 in the United States. Government-run health care will undermine patients' choice of care. Citizens in those countries are told by government bureaucrats what health care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. I believe Americans need to understand that all countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments. Simply put, government financing means government control, and government control means less personal freedom. While we need to enact reforms to our health care system that will reduce cost and improve access, our Nation cannot withstand the deep deficits this colossal health care entitlement program, I believe, would create. Instead, we need a system that restores the patients and doctors as the center of every health care decision, rather than the government and insurance companies. By making insurance portable, expanding health care savings accounts, reducing frivolous lawsuits, emphasizing preventive care, reducing administrative costs, and making insurance more affordable to small business and individuals, I believe we can efficiently decrease the costs that currently burden Americans while expanding coverage. The result would be improved quality and affordable care. It appears that no matter how many thousands of letters my office receives in the Senate asking Congress to stop this legislation, this administration is determined to pass something--anything--no matter what the cost or how damaging the result. The latest CNN poll shows 64 percent of Americans oppose this health care reform as now written. The Associated Press reports that over 60 percent of Americans are against this type of reform. It has been said we would be committing Senatorial malpractice to pass legislation such as this. I agree. I simply do not believe the American people desire or deserve what government-run health care would result in: higher taxes, larger deficits, and rationed lower quality care. While we need to enact reforms to our health care system that will reduce costs and improve access to all Americans, our Nation cannot withstand the massive cost this colossal health care entitlement program will create. The health of this Nation will not be helped by risking our Nation's financial well-being. It has been said if you think health care is expensive now, wait until it is free. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I pay tribute to Pierre Pelham, a former colleague of mine in the Alabama State Senate, who recently passed away. He was a personal friend and, along with his family, I mourn his passing. A native of Chatom, AL, and a resident of Mobile, AL, Pierre was born on July 20, 1929, to Judge and Mrs. Joe M. Pelham, Jr. An incredibly bright student, he graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Alabama and received his J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School. During the Korean war, Pierre served as a captain in the Army and received both the Combat Infantryman Badge and Expert Infantryman Badge. After his service in the Army, Pierre returned to Alabama and began to practice law. Described by many as brilliant, Pierre often took on cases that other lawyers did not want. One of his more interesting cases involved representing Aristotle Onassis' wife in her divorce from the wealthy shipping magnate. In the 1960s, Pierre began to pursue his interest in politics. He served as the national campaign coordinator for Governor George Wallace and later as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention from Alabama's 1st Congressional District in 1960 and 1964. In 1966, Pierre was elected to serve in the Alabama State Senate. It was there that I had the distinct pleasure of working with him. In 1970, Pierre was elected to serve as president pro tempore of the Senate. Pierre was renowned by our colleagues as an excellent orator and an exceptionally persuasive State senator. When word would spread around the State capitol that Pierre was speaking on the senate floor, it was not uncommon for the gallery to fill with spectators and for members of the House to cross over to the Senate to watch what would surely be an extraordinary speech. His articulation and command of the English language were simply captivating. Although Pierre eventually retired from public life, as a fellow of Harvard's Kennedy Institute of Politics, he remained interested in national, State, and local affairs his entire life. Most people in Mobile will remember Pierre for his many contributions as a State senator to South Alabama, most notably his support for the creation of the University of South Alabama College of Medicine. I knew him to be honest, hardworking, and a committed State senator. He remained dedicated to his family and the people of Alabama throughout his life. Pierre is loved and respected and will be missed by his wife Eva Pelham; his sons Marc Pelham and Joseph Pelham, IV; his daughters Pierrette Prestridge and Patrice Pelham; and 12 grandchildren. I ask the entire Senate to join me in recognizing and honoring the life of my friend, Pierre Pelham.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, it is an honor to recognize Dr. William McCorkle, who after 52 years of extraordinary service to our Nation, is retiring from Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, AL. In the words of Napoleon Bonaparte, ``Victory belongs to the most persevering.'' Dr. McCorkle is a person who has used his perseverance, determination, and forthrightness not only to personally succeed in the Army but more importantly to do what is best for our warfighters. A 1950 graduate of the University of Richmond with a bachelor of science degree in Physics and a Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Tennessee in 1956, Dr. McCorkle came to Redstone in 1957 from a position at Tulane University. Not since Dr. Wernher von Braun has one man done more to promote rocket development at Redstone than Dr. McCorkle. Since he joined the Aviation and Missile Command, Dr. McCorkle has been a pillar in the aviation and missile research and development fields. As director of the Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center, Dr. McCorkle is an internationally recognized leader in aviation and missile technology, and has been involved in virtually every Army rocket and missile development program since 1956. He helped build the very foundation that has made the U.S. Army's aviation and missile programs so successful. Dr. McCorkle's efforts have been instrumental in taking engineering ideas and transforming them into weapon systems. Dr. McCorkle was key in the development of the Prototype Integration Facility which has transformed the Army's rapid response capability to meet the needs of the soldier in the battlefield. This facility is on the forefront of providing our servicemembers with quick solutions to critical problems they currently face in combat. Dr. McCorkle's work on this initiative has led to the building of a world-class research program at Redstone Arsenal valued at over $1.2 billion. More importantly, he has dramatically increased rapid prototyping efforts that have led to significant advancements to unmanned aerial vehicles at use today in combat. Dr. McCorkle has effectively championed the use and growth of unmanned aerial vehicles and the new capabilities that have increased their value in combat. In conjunction with the Air Force, Dr. McCorkle's team led the development of advanced technology to arm predator unmanned aerial vehicles with Hellfire missiles. This program is now one of the most successful weapon systems being used today in Afghanistan and Iraq. Under Dr. McCorkle's guidance, aviation research has also flourished. The Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center is heavily involved in the research and development initiatives behind many of the most utilized Army helicopter programs, including those on the Apache, Black Hawk, and Chinook helicopters. After the rapid development of blue force tracking, a new capability that tracks the location of friendly and hostile military forces, units overseas were able to install this technology directly in the field. Continuously, throughout Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was reported that blue force tracking systems were working flawlessly, even allowing troops to fly in formation during sandstorms and brown-out conditions. This is an invaluable advancement for our soldiers and Dr. McCorkle ensured it was delivered to our servicemembers in the field at a critical time. Dr. McCorkle's work has significantly improved technology development and reduced the time to field equipment, ensuring our warfighters are the best equipped fighting force in the world. His work has also reduced the cost of these programs for the taxpayer. Under his direction, the Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center developed the Department of Defense's Best Value Engineering Program, which has consistently achieved 70 percent of the Army Materiel Command's total savings and 30 percent of the Department's total savings. His Service Life Prediction Program has achieved over $8 billion in cost avoidance. Dr. McCorkle has been on the forefront of new technology to provide our warfighters with the best equipment and our nation the best defense from those who wish to threaten us. Under his guidance and leadership, the Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center was consistently recognized as an Army Materiel Command Laboratory of Excellence and formally recognized as the Army's best laboratory eight times. I thank Dr. McCorkle for his years of service to our Nation, the Army and, most importantly, the warfighter. He has been a genuine asset to both the Service and the warfighter. In everything he did, Dr. McCorkle strove for excellence in himself and sought to inspire the same in those around him. His leadership, experience, and expertise have advanced our rocket, missile, and aviation programs beyond what was ever imagined when he first came to work for the Army. I am proud to have worked with Dr. McCorkle for over 30 years, but I am even more honored to call him my friend. Dr. McCorkle, I wish you and your wife Nancy the very best as you enjoy your well-deserved retirement.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Ensign amendment. The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, a program that was not requested by this nor the previous administration, is currently overfunded in this bill at $228 million. With the Ensign amendment, we are being asked to add $172 million to a program that barely touches most of our States. Since 2004, five States have received 71 percent of the $2.1 billion in funding for this program. Let me say that again, 71 percent, or $1.5 billion of the amount for this program since 2004, has gone to five States. This can hardly be called a national program. In 2008, during the CJS Senate floor debate a year ago, this amendment was tabled and rejected by a vote of 68 to 25. I strongly oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. What is the pending business?

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for about 10 minutes.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to expand upon some of my earlier comments, and those of other Members of the Senate, in relation to NASA and the future of human space flight. I am concerned with aspects of the Augustine Commission's report that add credibility to far-reaching options for furthering our manned space flight program. If Congress and the public are to be asked to spend more for change, then it should be change that will give us the best chance to succeed and to continue to lead the world in human space exploration. The Chairman of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, Norm Augustine, announced that safety would be paramount. Yet, from reviewing the preliminary information, there is only one area where mission safety was examined in the report. The Augustine report contained no safety comparison for the various vehicles considered by the panel and no risk assessment based on each option. The only safety issue identified was an assessment of how ``hard'' the panel thought each overall mission would be to achieve--not the safest means to complete the mission successfully. Since safety is the most important issue, these omissions are starling to some of us. When making comparisons on the safety and performance of the various options, fundamental design differences cannot be lumped together and considered to be equal. Without an honest and thorough examination of the safety and reliability aspects of the various designs and options, the findings of this report are worthless. I would like to know why this blue ribbon panel did not examine these safety aspects. Constellation's vehicles have been planned and scrutinized by multiple stakeholders, all with a single goal in mind: to provide a safe and reliable human space flight system for our Nation. Flashy PowerPoint presentations and boisterous claims by potential commercial providers about their easy and simple science solutions to human travel into space sound like the answer to all of our problems. What sounds too good to be true usually is. Are these proposals subject to the same safety standards and testing that have resulted from the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, I would ask? Is there any evidence that the cargo rockets, promised to execute their first servicing mission sometime in 2010, are better than the manned rockets that have been under development for over 4 years? What do the experts say? NASA's own Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel issued a report in April of this year that stated that ``Commercial Orbital Transportation Services vehicles are not proven to be appropriate to transport NASA personnel.'' Will the current Administrator, Mr. Bolden, who helped write these words, now contradict his statement 6 months after putting his name to them? Further, I would ask, what happened to the April report findings in the Augustine Commission recommendations? Have there been findings since April that were available to the Augustine Commission that the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel was not privy to? If so, I would certainly look forward to reviewing this new data. The Augustine Commission states in its own report that while human safety can never be absolutely assured, it is ``not discussed in extensive detail because any concepts falling short in human safety have simply been eliminated from consideration.'' Yet we see the vehicles currently deemed unsafe for our astronauts being used in the Augustine Commission's report as a viable option to go to low Earth orbit. When asked on September 15, 2009, about the readiness of emerging space contractors to provide manned space flights, former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin said: To confuse the expectation that one day a commercial transport of crew will be there, to confuse that expectation with the assumption of its existence today or in the near term I think is--is risky in the extreme. Current and former NASA Administrators are on record registering their doubts regarding the safety of these new commercial contractors. Companies that are new contractors within the aerospace community have been provided a pathway that could potentially lead to billions in government funding to pursue opportunities to support International Space Station operations, starting with cargo. I believe the contractors wishing to pursue human launches to low Earth orbit should prove they can establish a reliable record of meeting the cargo and trash hauling responsibilities to support the station before we turn over the Nation's human space flight future to them. Pretty slides and unproven promises will not show us you have the right stuff to be entrusted with the lives of our astronauts. If these companies can be successful--and there is no reason to doubt that eventually, someday, somehow they will be--then NASA, the Congress, and the public might be willing to hand over launches to low Earth orbit. That day is not today and it will not be for years to come. But until that day arrives, I believe we should follow the path that has the safest manned vehicle, the vehicle furthest along in development, and, as mentioned several times by the Augustine Commission itself, the program that, given appropriate funding, will successfully provide a system that can not only go to the space station but to the Moon and beyond. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I wish to honor the International Fertilizer Development Center, IFDC, as it celebrates the 35th anniversary of its founding today, October 8. In the wake of the worldwide food and energy shortages of the 1970s, the IFDC was established in Muscle Shoals, AL, to be a national center of excellence with expertise in fertilizers to service the needs of developing countries. Since its inception, the IFDC has worked to address issues such as international food security, the alleviation of global hunger and poverty, environmental protection, and the promotion of economic development and self-sufficiency. Today, with staff members working in 30 nations throughout Africa, the Near and Far East, and Latin America, the IFDC is critical to ensuring underdeveloped countries have more efficient fertilizer and, therefore, food for their people. The IFDC has helped increase sustainable food production in more than 130 nations and has also contributed to the development of institutional capacity-building through training. I sincerely congratulate the IFDC on its anniversary and wish it continued success in Muscle Shoals and abroad.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I, along with Senator Feinstein, have offered this amendment that would make the U.S. Marshals and the ATF agents, who put their lives on the line in dangerous foreign countries to protect our Nation and our citizens, eligible for danger pay. The U.S. Marshals and ATF agents are actively assisting Mexican law enforcement and the Mexican military in one of the bloodiest wars in the world today--the Mexican drug war. There have been nearly 10,000 drug war murders and deaths in Mexico since January of 2007. President Calderon has deployed 45,000 troops and 5,000 Federal police to 18 Mexican States to help combat these cartels. Every week, we read about the gruesome murders of Mexican law enforcement officers, many of whom have our own Federal agents serving at their side. Currently, FBI and DEA agents receive danger pay in Mexico, while U.S. Marshals and ATF agents do not. I believe it is outrageous that these agents--our agents--serving their country and risking their lives on a daily basis, do not receive this compensation like their Department of Justice counterparts. This amendment I offer on behalf of myself and Senator Feinstein simply brings danger pay parity to the Department of Justice Federal law enforcement officers working in dangerous foreign countries. This amendment, I believe, has a lot of merit, and although Senator Mikulski is not here right now, I believe she would join with me in support of this amendment. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2625.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the recently restarted Air Force KC-X tanker competition. On February 29, 2008, after a lengthy competition, the U.S. Air Force announced that the team of Northrop Grumman and EADS was selected to deliver the best, most capable tanker to our warfighters, at a price of $3 billion less than their rival Boeing's offer. It was only after the GAO sustained a mere 8 out of 111 complaints submitted by the losing team--Boeing--that the award was overturned and the competition was placed in limbo. Even after GAO's recommendation, there is still nothing to suggest that the KC-45 was not the best tanker solution. This is a very important point to remember. The Air Force's contracting system may have been flawed, but nowhere did GAO state that the KC-45 is not the best tanker for our airmen. A year later, Defense Secretary Robert Gates terminated the award and canceled the entire tanker acquisition program. Secretary of Defense Gates' decision to cancel the Air Force's No. 1 acquisition priority outright clearly placed politics and business interests over the interests of the warfighter. While Secretary Gates may have characterized this decision as a ``cooling off'' period, it sent a clear message that only a Boeing tanker will be acceptable. The defense acquisition policy was unmistakable: No Boeing, no tanker. That is a fundamentally flawed policy that may please some Members of Congress from the States in which Boeing would build the tankers, but it fails to satisfy the critical need for the best new tankers for our warfighters. In that case, politics obviously trumped military necessity and troop welfare. After review of the September 24 draft RFP that begins the new tanker competition, I again have serious concerns that fairness and capability are being completely ignored. For a moment, let me elaborate. As a result of the last protest, Northrop Grumman was compelled to submit its proprietary, competitive- sensitive pricing data to the GAO, which, in turn, provided that critical information to Boeing. Let me say it again. Boeing now has all of Northrop Grumman's competitive pricing information. Yet they are going to be competing again. Boeing knows exactly how the Northrop Grumman team was able to offer the best deal to the Department of Defense during the last competition. Boeing knows all of Northrup Grumman's bidding strategies. In a competition for a defense contract, nothing is more carefully protected than a company's pricing and bidding strategy. Let me remind my colleagues here that Northrup Grumman/EADS offered a clearly better plane, at a price that was $3 billion less than Boeing. And now, today, Boeing knows how they did it. Northrop Grumman has repeatedly asked the Department of Defense to level the playing field by providing them--Northrop Grumman--with Boeing's pricing information from the previous competition. To date, the Pentagon has continually denied Northrop Grumman's requests. The Department of Defense has stated that Northrop Grumman's pricing and bidding strategies are not relevant issues in the current competition, and that the data is outdated. Not relevant? I could not disagree more. It is intuitively obvious to anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the concept of competitive government bidding that the Department of Defense, from the outset, is tilting the competition toward Boeing. Northrop Grumman is being severely penalized before the game even begins. This situation is inconceivable and must be changed. Further, after review of the draft RFP, it is becoming increasingly clear that this competition is not structured around what we call a ``best value'' competition that would ensure that our warfighter receives the best plane. Rather, it is structured around the lowest price technically acceptable competition that does one thing and one thing only--it reduces the chances that our warfighters will receive the most superior plane on the market. One would think that our Air Force's top priority would be to ensure that our men and women in uniform have the best, most capable equipment. It seems to me that is not the case. A lowest price technically acceptable procurement process focuses heavily on cost and does not take into account additional or advanced capabilities that may be available on the aircraft that will help us in the years to come. This means that price is more important than quality; that performance is not a critical factor; that added capabilities, technology that could help save the lives of our men and women in uniform and have an edge on the opposition, is not a key factor in the draft RFP. The fact that the draft RFP is structured so that cost is almost the only component considered in the competition makes the aforementioned pricing data issue even more relevant. When combined with Boeing's knowledge of Northrop Grumman's pricing data and not vice versa, it has become abundantly clear that the Department of Defense and the Air Force have their thumbs on the scale in favor of Boeing. As was clearly shown in the previous competition, Boeing has a less capable airframe, but Boeing now has all of Northrop Grumman's pricing data and a full understanding of Northrop Grumman's bidding strategies. This information is the holy grail for Boeing that provides them with everything necessary to surely submit a lower cost bid for their less capable aircraft. If this matter should not be a concern, then there should be no issue whatsoever with the Department of Defense providing Boeing's prior data to Northrop Grumman because Boeing, again, has Northrop Grumman's data, as they recompete. In order for this competition to be untainted, to be fair, to be at the level of openness and transparency that my colleagues and I were repeatedly assured would be the case, I believe it is imperative that Northrop Grumman be allowed to obtain Boeing's pricing data from the last tanker competition and that the competition shift away from purely a cost basis to what is best for the warfighter. It makes no sense for a procurement process that has been continually hampered by scandal, delays, and jail time for certain officials to begin the latest version of this competition with such an absurdly uneven playing field. As we go forward, it is my sincere hope that the safety of our warfighters and the security of our Nation will become the priority, as it has been in the past, this time and decisions will not be based on political pressures that unfairly tilt competition. Unless the Department of Defense and the Air Force live up to their commitment of impartiality and transparency, I am fearful that our warfighters will have to settle for second best. Apparently, that is just fine with some, as long as Boeing wins. I yield the floor. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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

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

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am pleased to present, with Chairwoman Mikulski, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriation bill for fiscal year 2010. First, I thank Senator Mikulski and her staff for their continued friendship and the hard work they have put into this bill. This is truly the most diverse appropriations bill we have, literally affecting all the expanses of our planet and into the outer recesses of the universe. It covers State and local law enforcement and counterterrorism efforts, oceanic and weather research, trade, standards research, and it keeps our Nation competitive through investment in science and space exploration. This bill funds the Department of Justice and Commerce, as well as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or NASA, the National Science Foundation or NSF; and a number of independent agencies, including the U.S. Trade Representative, the Legal Services Corporation, and International Trade Commission, to name a few. Nothing is more important than the safety of the American people. The committee's recommendation this evening for the Department of Justice is $27.4 billion, which is $311 million over the request. Senator Mikulski and I have worked to ensure that Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies receive the funding needed to protect our citizens and our communities. The Department of Commerce is funded in this bill at $14 billion, $254 million over the requested level. This department contains some of our Nation's most important business development, economic, science and research agencies, including the Economic Development Administration, which we know as the EDA, the National Institutes of Science and Technology or NIST, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which we call NOAA. Senator Mikulski and I have attempted to expand the foundation for our Nation's economic future, as well as providing researchers with the tools to assess our weather, oceans, and environment. Of the amount provided to the Department of Commerce in the bill before us, $7.3 billion is for the 2010 census and $4.8 billion for NOAA, an increase of $299 million over the request. These additional funds are directed toward research, observation, education, and conservation programs. For NASA, this bill provides $18.7 billion to move forward with the Agency's current exploration vision, while fully funding the ongoing activities of the space shuttle and the International Space Station. We are at a challenging point in time for the funding of NASA, particularly human spaceflight. As you well know, Mr. President, the space shuttle is successfully finishing the required deliveries to the space station in its few remaining flights. The International Space Station has a permanent crew of six, which will allow our astronauts to conduct science instead of just station upkeep. We are also on the verge of having a test flight of the rockets being developed by NASA to once again take humans beyond low Earth orbit. As NASA moves toward retiring the shuttle and leaving the Nation without our own human launch vehicle, I believe we must continue to develop our own capabilities, not only for missions to the space station but for future expeditions as well. While I commend the Augustine Commission for their hard work, I find many of the aspects proposed in their summary report to be unsatisfactory and perhaps disappointing. I am baffled by NASA's path forward on the Constellation Program. This program is built on a foundation of proven technologies using existing capabilities and infrastructure. The Ares I team will soon launch the first test flight, and the groundwork for the Ares V heavy lift vehicle is well underway. And yet, instead of simply providing Constellation with funds to move forward, it is delaying the current mission while seeking to have a do-over on plans that have been authorized by both a Republican and Democratic Congress. NASA and this administration should never forget that the support of Congress will still be necessary to authorize and provide funds as we move forward. Given the challenges and high cost of access to space, I agree that it is beneficial for NASA to look at all viable options that could be provided by U.S. industries to support operations on the International Space Station and future exploration. However, we must do so, I believe, in a realistic way. NASA must support the program that has the greatest likelihood of success. The benefits that our society has gained from the human spaceflight program are immeasurable. Almost every facet of our lives that we know today has been touched by discoveries with human spaceflight. Beyond the direct tangible benefits, there is also the intangible benefit that comes with knowing that America is leading the world in discovering and exploring new frontiers. I will not support any future NASA budget request that does not have a robust human exploration program. It must be a program that inspires, yet is also a program grounded in what is possible and not wishful thinking. If we no longer prioritize space exploration, we can be certain that others on this planet will. A number of the findings by the Augustine Commission would guarantee that other nations, such as Russia, China, and India, will be waving to us as they fly by the space station on their way to the Moon and other planets if we are not careful. We cannot cede our leadership in space, and we must have a viable human space exploration program. As we are losing global market shares in most industries, we are still the world leader in human spaceflight. I will not support a NASA that squanders that lead, and I hope the Senate will not. Simply put, if that were to happen, I would not support a visionless NASA, and I do not believe the Congress would. In conclusion, I thank again Senator Mikulski, the chairwoman of this committee, for her leadership on this bill. We have worked together on many issues throughout our years, both serving together in the House and the Senate, and this bill reflects our strong relationship. I ask my colleagues--as she will--to support this bill and to urge its swift passage this week.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I ask unanimous consent that the current amendment be set aside.

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, what is the pending business?

Mr. SHELBY. I call up my amendment No. 2594 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SHELBY. Iran and North Korea continue to pose a threat to our Nation and our allies because of their intense efforts at ballistic and nuclear development. My amendment before the Senate now supplements the committee's additional $50 million for ground-based midcourse defense. The amendment before the Senate is simple. It requires the Missile Defense Agency to conduct two reports related to the ground-based midcourse defense. We need to know the agency's plan for the ground- based interceptor funds in this bill before us. This report would provide further details into exactly what that plan is. I believe this is imperative. Congress and our Nation must fully understand how the Missile Defense Agency will utilize this critical capability for our Nation. The second report asks the Missile Defense Agency to outline the acquisition strategy for the ground-based midcourse defense system over the next 6 years from fiscal year 2011 to 2017. North Korea and Iran will continue their ballistic efforts, and I believe we must be able to counter those threats. In its budget request for the year 2010, the administration proposed several funding cuts and eliminations impacting our national missile defense, including a $700 million reduction to GMD. I appreciate Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member Cochran including an additional $50 million in the bill before the Senate for GMD, which will hopefully keep our GBI production line from going cold. Yet the threat is not diminishing. We must have a plan for countering nations that threaten our security. We need to know the Missile Defense Agency's plan for this fiscal year as well as the next years. Our enemies are still our enemies, and now so more than ever we should be cognizant of the fact that Iran and North Korea are working hard at technological advancement designed to destroy us and our allies. Despite nearly unanimous opposition in the international community, Iran has pressed on with nuclear ambitions and has shown no intention that I have known of abandoning this reckless path. Every day, Iran continues to add to the thousands of centrifuges it already has to enrich its uranium. It continues to test its ballistic missiles. In fact, the International Atomic Energy Association recently released a report stating that Iran is now working to conjoin ballistic and nuclear capabilities. I believe we need an integrated, layered national missile defense to deter this threat, and we need it now. Moving forward, I hope that the Missile Defense Agency will ensure our Nation's production line for ground-based interceptors and that their subsystems and components will not die on the vine if we ever have to meet this threat. The ground-based midcourse defense system and the interceptors in particular are valuable national assets. And I will continue to work with Chairman Inouye, Senator Cochran, and others on the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee to ensure that we have here in the United States a robust national missile defense system. It is my understanding in talking to the chairman that this amendment has been agreed to by Senator Inouye and Senator Cochran. I hope they will adopt it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, 1 week after commencing the $1 billion Cash for Clunkers Program, it is so popular that it has used up all its funds. Could it be that through this program, which entices car buyers with up to $4,500 to trade in their old cars, the government has finally devised a smart way to stimulate the economy? In a word, no. Instead, the Federal Government has sent another $1 billion of taxpayer funds into the economic abyss with $2 billion of taxpayers' funds to follow. It has robbed Peter to pay Paul, to give a kickback to the automotive industry. Advocates of the Cash for Clunkers Program state the additional $2 billion in funding is necessary because the program is such a great success. Of course it is. Who does not want free money? The Cash for Clunkers Program is simply another bailout to prop up a struggling industry wrapped in the political guise of an environmentally friendly program. While I agree that there are benefits to getting older, less fuel- efficient vehicles off the road, do not be fooled. That is not even what this program accomplishes. Let me explain. Under the Cash for Clunkers Program, it does not matter how big a difference in gas mileage there is between the car you are trading in and the car you are buying. The trade-in must only meet the 18 miles per gallon requirement to be considered a clunker. After that, environmental concerns end. As a result, under the Cash for Clunkers Program, replacing an 18 miles per gallon vehicle with one that offers 22 miles per gallon gets a subsidy. But you do not receive any Federal funds if you replace a 19 miles per gallon vehicle with one that gets 40 miles per gallon. If improving gas mileage is the goal, then a sliding scale that adjusted the subsidy with the difference in gas mileage between old and new cars would seem reasonable. Or if reducing emissions from older cars is the objective, the subsidy could be larger for trading in older vehicles. The Cash for Clunkers Program does not do either. So, if there are no significant environmental benefits, then the goal must be to help stimulate the economy. Yet the program has done little to actually stimulate the economy. Many of the individuals taking advantage of the program's subsidies are not new car buyers spurred by this incentive package, but instead those who put their purchase on hold waiting for the program to launch. Simply put, these buyers would have bought the car anyway. Edumunds.com, a noted online site for car sales, stated this number could be over 100,000 car buyers. Further, Edmunds also published an analysis showing that in any given month, 60,000 to 70,000 ``clunker-like'' deals happen with no government program in place. Therefore, the 200,000 deals the government was originally prepared to fund through the Cash for Clunkers Program were likely the natural ``clunker'' trade-in rate. This program squeezed months of normal activity into just a few days. When the backlog is met, interest in the program will fade, and the facade of economic benefit will disappear. The Cash for Clunkers Program is a shell game of transferring wealth from the pockets of one taxpayer to another. We should call it what it really is, another billion dollar auto bailout. This program is little more than a clunker itself.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to my good friend Joel Pierce Smith, Sr. He was a personal friend who passed away on July 30, 2009, and, along with his family, I mourn his passing. Joel was born on February 13, 1929, in Samson, AL. After graduating from Florida State University, he went to work at the Birmingham News- Post Herald in 1953. This would mark the start of a newspaper career that would span five decades. Following his work in Birmingham, Joel served as the editor of the the Geneva Reaper for 3 years. In 1958, Joel moved to Eufaula, AL, and was named editor of the Eufaula Tribune. A year later, he was named publisher. An avid journalist, Joel also edited and published the Cuthbert Times and News Record of Cuthbert, GA. In 1999, Joel handed over the editorial reins of the Eufaula Tribune to his son Jack, though he continued to write his weekly personal column, Candid Comments, until 2006. All told, Joel wrote Candid Comments for 51 years, never missing a week. He truly was an extraordinary newspaperman and, as such, garnered numerous state and national awards. These awards recognized both the quality of his work and his leadership in his community and amongst his peers. Among his honors were the Alabama Press Association's Community Service Award, General Excellence Award, and the Lifetime Achievement Award. Joel was active in both the Alabama Press Association and the National Newspaper Association throughout his career. He served as president for both the Alabama Press Association and the Alabama Journalism Foundation and he held a seat on the board of directors for the Alabama Press Association and the Georgia Press Association. Additionally, Joel served as the Alabama State Chairman of the National Newspaper Association for many years, chairing the latter's 1992 Governmental Affairs Conference in Washington, DC. Throughout his distinguished career, Joel remained an active voice for progressive change in Eufaula. Among other things, he encouraged the reorganization of the Chamber of Commerce, promoted tourism in the area, and crusaded for the preservation of Eufaula's architectural heritage. He served on the board of trustees at Birmingham-Southern College for more than 25 years, where he became life trustee, and at Andrew College in Cuthbert, GA. Joel served on the Board of Education of the city of Eufaula and as a trustee at the Lakeside School. His good work was not overlooked in the community and he was honored as the Eufaula Kiwanis Club's Citizen of the Year in 2002 and received the Alabama Historical Commission's Distinguished Service Award. Joel is loved and will be missed by his wife Ann Sutton Smith and his three sons, Joel Pierce Smith, Jr., Abb Jackson Smith II, and William Sutton Smith. Joel was an inspiration to many and will be remembered as an outstanding husband, father, editor, publisher, friend, and community leader. I ask the entire Senate to join me in recognizing and honoring the life of my friend, Joel Pierce Smith.