Mark Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Dean Harold Hongju Koh to serve as Legal Adviser to the Department of State. Dean Koh is a close friend of mine, whom I have known and respected for many years. His distinguished career reflects a long history of public service and bipartisanship. For example, Dean Koh served in both Republican and Democratic administrations, beginning his career in government in the Office of Legal Counsel during the Reagan administration and at the Department of Justice and as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor in the Clinton administration. Dean Koh also has strong academic and professional credentials. He was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, a Marshall scholar and a law clerk for the Honorable Harry A. Blackmun of the U.S. Supreme Court. He has been awarded with several honorary degrees and more than 30 human rights awards. Dean Koh's established expertise in international law makes him a strong candidate for the position. I am certain that he will protect the U.S. Constitution and execute the job with extraordinary professionalism. I strongly support his nomination.

Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss bipartisan legislation that I am cosponsoring with my colleague Senator Corker concerning the Federal Government's recently acquired ownership stake in a number of private companies. I think we all know the taxpayers have been on a roller coaster ride for the past 9 months, and from their perspective, each twist and turn has left us more deeply invested in troubled markets and oftentimes troubled companies. Americans are concerned about getting their money back and want to keep politics out of how we manage these investments we have had to make over the last few months. Last week, Senator Corker and I introduced S. 1280, the TARP Recipient Ownership Trust Act. What will this bill do? Three very simple things. First, it will remove politics from our management of taxpayer investments in private companies. Second, it will ensure these investments are managed in order to maximize taxpayer returns. Third, it will allow us to plan for removing the government from the private sector by setting a date certain for selling these investments. To achieve these goals, Senator Corker and I are proposing that if the government owns more than 20 percent of a private company we place that ownership stake in an independent trust. This trust would be run with a fiduciary duty for taxpayers by three independent directors appointed by the President. These directors would agree to perform this work for free as a service to the country and in doing so would give the American taxpayers what they deserve: the upside of the massive investments they have provided over the past 9 months. The trust wouldn't be an open-ended ownership in these companies; the trust would have to sell all of these assets by the end of 2011, though they could ask for a brief extension if it were, again, in the interest of the taxpayers' return. In this way, taxpayers can know we won't own stock in these companies for the next 20 years. In practice, this means that taxpayer ownership of AIG, Citigroup, and General Motors would be managed in order to maximize the return on these taxpayer investments. We have all seen how political and contentious the TARP program is becoming. I know back when we voted on this matter earlier this year how controversial it was. I still think it was unfortunate that we got into this circumstance but fortunately the right thing to do. While there are a lot of challenges about how we got into this program, if we did look around--actually, Steven Pearlstein of the Washington Post pointed out in an article recently that if 9 months ago, if 6 months ago, or even 3 months ago, back in the middle of March when the stock market was at its all-time low in terms of reacting to this crisis, any economist would have said by the end of June, would you be willing to look at a circumstance where the market was up 25, 30 percent--although it was a little bit down today--if many of the banks we had invested TARP funds in were actually trying to repay those TARP funds, and if we had seen the housing market, at least in many communities, start to stabilize, would we view that as a good outcome. Well, that is basically where we are. While we have enormous problems, we are seeing some progress. But one needs only to look at the number of TARP-related amendments that have been filed in the Senate in these past months. As a matter of fact, the leader was speaking today about the number of TARP amendments that could potentially be on the travel bill that we will have before us to know that this has become a lightning rod. Some of the reasons for this concern are truly relevant and they are because the American people don't know when and how the TARP program is supposed to end. The American people, unfortunately, who invested in individual companies--some of the companies that now we have invested in--don't know how much we as the public will get back, or whether we, as the public investment, will politically interfere with the management of these companies. That is, again, why we need to implement this legislation Senator Corker and I have laid out that will put these ownership shares in this independent fiduciary trust. I don't support cutting off TARP right now or limiting the tools it currently provides the administration, including the limited reuse of money that is repaid to the government. TARP already has a sunset date after which more funds cannot be spent, and since markets are not back to normal, even though there is improvement, we shouldn't prevent the use of the tools we currently have. But we do need to set parameters for managing our investments and winding them down in order to take the politics out of this program. American taxpayers deserve to have their investments managed in order to maximize their returns. That is what the trust will do, and I hope we will consider using this model for other investments as well. This trust will also help us take some of the politics out of the TARP program, and that is why I am proud of this legislation as bipartisan and led by my friend from Tennessee, Senator Corker. I hope my colleagues will join in supporting this bipartisan legislation, S. 1280, the TARP Recipient Ownership Trust Act. While this measure won't resolve all of our concerns surrounding TARP, I hope it can serve as a model to maximize the taxpayer returns on their investment. Let me also take one additional moment to speak about another investment-related matter. Under the leadership of Senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island, when the initial investments and the initial TARP plan were put together, Senator Reed, I think appropriately, said if we invest in banks in addition to getting a traditional return, we, the public, who are taking these risks ought to see some upside potential for taking the risks in terms of warrants. Luckily, the Congress went along with that and we did receive warrants from a number of the banks we invested in. I personally am very happy to see that a number of these banks are starting to repay the investments the public made. However, there remains the question: What are we going to do with the warrants? Senator Reed and I have asked Secretary Geithner a number of times, and we hope he would also consider placing these warrants into some type of independent trust as well so that, again, we, the taxpayers, can receive the upside of these investments. We took the risks with these banks during these troubled times. I am happy to see these banks return these funds. However, for the banks to buy back or sell back these warrants at what I believe today is still a discounted price would not allow us, the taxpayers, to maximize our investments. So, again, I hope Secretary Geithner responds to the requests that Senator Reed and I have made in making sure that these warrants are appropriately put into the same type of independent fiduciary trusts that I am proposing for the private investments we have made under TARP. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am not sure whether we are in a quorum call.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the state of our financial system and to provide some thoughts on systemic risk regulation, as we set about crafting an overall reform to our financial regulatory approach. Yesterday, Treasure Secretary Timothy Geithner and the Director of the National Economic Council, Lawrence Summers, published an editorial in the Washington Post laying out the broad outline of their proposal for regulatory reform. I share their views on how we arrived at this moment. I share the broader goals they discussed and look forward to working with the administration on comprehensive and timely regulatory reform. However, I wish to speak today about one area where I disagree, and that is how to address systemic risk. Let me step back for a moment. In the past 2 years we have witnessed events that have shaken our financial system to its core, altered our markets in ways that we still struggle to understand, and imposed costs that will burden our economy and our taxpayers for decades to come. We have grown numb to the news, but let me briefly recount these events. The investment banking sector that built our capital markets has collapsed. Two of our largest investment banks have failed. Another has merged with a commercial bank to avoid failure. Two others became commercial banking organizations. Our residential mortgage finance sector has collapsed. The largest mortgage banks in the country have failed. Our two largest savings and loan associations have failed. Our two largest housing GSEs are operating under Federal Government conservatorship. Our commercial banking sector has avoided collapse only through the infusion of hundreds of billions of dollars in equity support from the U.S. Treasury and massive liquidity support from the FDIC and the Federal Reserve. And despite these interventions, some of our largest commercial banks continue to face an uncertain future and dozens of smaller commercial banks have failed. Our insurance sector has been badly damaged. The largest insurance organization in the United States has been nationalized to avoid collapse. Other major insurers have received billions of dollars from the Treasury. The magnitude of the events of the past 2 years strains comprehension. I believe what we have seen over the last couple years is the equivalent, in economic terms, of the 100-year flood. Millions of families and retirees have lost their financial security. Millions of people are out of work. Each day, we read about more layoffs, more losses, more bankruptcies, and more bank failures. We call this a financial crisis, but for the American people it is a very personal crisis of lost homes, derailed careers, forgone education, deferred retirement, communities less cared for, and at its core, the confidence of the American people has been shaken. This crisis has uncovered the flaws of our current regulatory model and has revealed a shadow financial system which lies beyond the current regulatory structure. We all share the hope that we will soon return to healthy, competitive financial markets and a vibrant economy. We have seen some positive signs that markets are stabilizing. But for our long-term prosperity, we do need a new model. What has happened to our financial system and our economy should not have happened. We must find and adopt reforms that will ensure that it never happens again. We cannot shrink from the needed reform because it will be difficult or because some will oppose it. Right now there is a lack of faith in our system or its long term prospects. You can see that in our bond markets. We are not turning to the financial sector as a source of positive innovation so that the broader economy can grow. You can see that in the lack of credit in our markets, and the jobs lost every month. To innovate and create jobs, not only in the financial system but across our whole economy, we do need comprehensive reform. Quality will attract capital, but only change will restore the quality of our markets. This is the fundamental challenge facing the Banking Committee, of which I am a new member. However, before I joined this Banking Committee, before I joined this August body, I did spend 20 years in the private sector around the financial system, taking companies public, looking at and learning about the markets. So I came to this body, I believe, with some background. But only since that time have I learned how complex the problems and the challenges are of trying to get financial reregulation or financial reform right. Since joining the Banking Committee, I have been working to educate myself, meeting with a range of experts to learn more about the issues and to collect their thoughts on potential solutions to financial reregulation. There are a number of things we must do, including providing full regulatory coverage for all markets, ending too big to fail with a robust resolution authority, and ending regulatory arbitrage. Today I would like to speak about one issue I discussed at length with these experts--systemic risk regulation. I hope, in the coming days, to come back to the floor and discuss other parts of securities and banking regulation. ``Systemic risk'' is a term that, quite candidly, probably most of us even around the financial markets had not even heard of or thought very much about until the last couple years. Obviously, systemic risk is not the only area we need to address, but it is an area in which the current system has unequivocally failed. Systemic risk is a tricky concept. Systemic risk is not a specific kind of risk at all. It is a catchall phrase that includes risks of all kinds, united only by the possibility that if left uncontrolled, they could have consequences for entire markets or even our entire financial system. Counterparty exposures can present systemic risk. So can interest rate shifts. So can bad laws and regulations. Because they come in all shapes and sizes, we should not expect to control systemic risks with a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach. Our current system has failed to provide checks and balances and has replaced healthy competition with a system where a handful of firms are called too large to fail, and these so-called too-large-to-fail firms can threaten the safety of the entire system and, unfortunately, enjoy an implicit or even now even more explicit government guarantee that destroys any notion of market competition. Secretary Geithner and Professor Summers have proposed empowering the Federal Reserve to manage systemic risk. But as I have discussed this approach with a number of experts, they have raised a number what of what I think are very serious and legitimate concerns. My primary concern with placing this added new responsibility with the Federal Reserve is structural. There are already tensions between the Federal Reserve's responsibilities for the conduct of monetary policy and its responsibilities for bank supervision. No less an authority on this matter than Paul Volcker told the Joint Economic Committee last year that broadening the Federal Reserve's responsibilities ``would be a way of destroying the Federal Reserve in the long run, because it does need independence.'' Adding this additional responsibility on the Federal Reserve, I believe, is a step too far. My other concern is rooted in the governing philosophy of this country, which I think has, quite honestly, served us well. That philosophy is that too much economic power placed in one place puts our system of government at risk. Our Founding Fathers opposed that concentration of power, economic or otherwise, and favored a system of checks and balances. Thomas Jefferson famously wrote that ``[t]he Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution.'' That is why America, unlike so many European countries, never created a single, all-powerful national bank. We have, consequently, even since that time, resisted creating that all-powerful central bank. The experience of countries which have concentrated too much power in one entity I think should serve as cautionary tales. Also, we should not ignore that the Fed has had some responsibility for systemic risk regulation under the current structure. Over the course of the past year, we have seen the Federal Reserve and the Treasury strike private deals with our largest and most powerful financial institutions--deals that might have protected the shareholders and creditors of those banks, but, consequently, by those actions, put smaller and less powerful and often better run institutions at a competitive disadvantage and undermining the long- term vitality of our financial system. An old African proverb says that when elephants dance, the grass gets trampled. We have a trampled grass problem at this point, and I don't think we can solve it with bigger elephants, whether those bigger elephants are regulators or institutions. If we do not give the Federal Reserve the responsibility for systemic risk regulation, what should we do instead? I believe the answer to this question has two parts. The first part is that many systemic risks already lie squarely within the responsibilities of the day-to-day financial regulators. We did not just discover systemic risks. We have been discovering them for generations. We have passed laws to deal with them, and we have entrusted those laws to the administration of substantial regulatory agencies. We need to make sure our current regulators, the folks who, for the most of the last century, have done their jobs well, have clear missions, including managing risks within their regulated institutions and markets, and we must ensure that these regulators do their jobs. But that is only half the problem. Even if we get the day-to-day prudential regulator to be more efficient in evaluating particular institutions' risk profile, we have to recognize that some part of systemic risk may lay outside of the regulator's day-to-day responsibilities and actually fall between the cracks of our existing regulatory system. Working with folks across the financial spectrum, they have suggested the creation of a systemic risk council. I don't mean to claim on this floor that a systemic risk council is a silver bullet, but it avoids the pitfalls of entrusting the systemic risk responsibility in one agency that already has responsibilities and can be a potential source of conflict. Instead, a council can see across the horizon and gather all the information and expertise can flow to it, thereby addressing our stovepipe problem of our various regulatory agencies and making sure, as well, by having this council, it would have the intrinsic conflicts that would come if you also have to have responsibility for monetary policy. Making sure we have this council would also avoid the very real challenge of regulatory capture. Let me briefly outline this concept. Our belief would be the systemic risk council would consist of the Treasury Secretary, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the heads of the major financial regulatory agencies. It would be charged with the responsibility for working to improve our understanding and control of systemic risks and, in a narrow set of circumstances or emergencies, it would have the ability to act. People would say: What does this look like? It builds on the model of the President's working group on financial markets. The idea is, the systemic risk council would have an independent chair appointed by the President and approved by the Congress and supported by a permanent staff. The best analogy of the systemic risk council might be the resemblance it might bear to the National Transportation Safety Board or the National Security Council. Just as the NTSB leaves rulemaking on a day-to-day basis to the FAA, the systemic risk council would leave most of the day-to-day rulemaking to the financial regulatory agency. I understand criticism of the council's approach today is we don't just want a debating society at moments of crisis. That is why it needs this independent chair, independent staff, and resources. We must ensure it could act. It would have the authority to review every bit of information that the individual, prudential, day-to-day Federal regulatory agencies possess, to require those agencies to collect information from the institutions they regulate. It would also have, as I mentioned, an independent staff capable of analyzing this data, understanding how the pieces of the regulatory system work together, and then at that council level, at that staff level, feed that information up to the council so it could identify weaknesses or gaps within our system or potential systemic risks that might be arising outside the purview of the independent Federal regulatory agency. The council would also have the authority to require the financial regulators to develop clear, written plans for dealing with potential financial crises. In effect, it would have the potential to ask any institution to come forward with a winddown resolution plan for its particular circumstances. These plans would be created in advance of any crisis, maintained and even simulated from time to time to make sure they are adequate. Again, if we put in place these kinds of credible plans to handle the potential failure of every systemically important financial institution, then we will no longer have the excuse that we have constantly heard over the last few months: Gosh, it is tough we have to put up this much public money to support this institution, but it is too big to fail. As we have seen time and again in this crisis, because we didn't have these plans in place, unfortunately, the American taxpayers have taken on unfounded, quite honestly, financial risk in shoring up these institutions. Because a systemic risk council would not directly interact with our major financial institutions on a day-to-day basis, it would be less prone to capture than the financial regulatory agencies. During normal times, the council could help to determine how to regulate new products and markets in order to minimize regulatory gaps, regulatory arbitrage, and the blind spots that currently exist in our system. As we know at this point, too many of those blind spots exist and have allowed the creation of some of the financial products that led to the financial meltdown we have seen. The council will not identify firms that are too big or too large to fail but instead will work to prevent firms from becoming too large to fail. It would do this specifically in two ways. First, it would have the authority to establish systemwide, counterparty exposure limits, increased capital requirements, reduced leverage, and strengthened risk management requirements--all of these, in effect, to put not an absolute prescription but at least barriers on those institutions that choose to get so large that they might potentially fall into that ``too big to fail'' category. Second, it would ensure that the resolution authority would be able to resolve any institution that got to that size and then potentially posed a systemic risk. In a crisis, the council could work with its member organizations to promote coordinated and comprehensive responses. The systemic risk council's responsibilities would be clear and focused. Systemic risk would be its only job. Using a council, prudential regulators would remain empowered and responsible for systemic risks that arose in their jurisdiction. If they encountered a risk that extended beyond their authority they could go to the council to ensure coordinated and comprehensive action. On top of that, if the evidence of risk is spread across different agencies like pieces of a puzzle, the council would have the information and expertise to spot it, and the ability to coordinate action in order to address it. What I am proposing today boils down to a simple, commonsense idea. If we want to do something constructive about systemic risk, we should create a mechanism that can help ensure our regulators do their jobs on a day-to-day basis, avoid conflicts of interest, and fully leverage our existing regulatory resources to promote the proactive identification and control of systemic risks. Let me acknowledge at the outset that there are many details that still need to be worked out, and I will, as I mentioned, have a series of other ideas of how we can modernize our financial system in the coming weeks ahead. But I believe the general approach I have outlined today, in terms of a systemic risk council, hopefully, will spark the debate so we do not simply default to further empowering an already extraordinarily important and critical institution, in terms of the Federal Reserve, without a thorough debate about this issue.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution in support of the goals and ideals of National Alzheimer's Disease Awareness Month and National Memory Screening Day, including the development of a national health policy on dementia screening and care. As co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, and as someone with a mother who has been diagnoses with disease, I strongly believe that our health care system needs to do a much better job of promoting early detection of dementia and other memory problems. Events such as National Memory Screening Day are a meaningful step in raising the awareness needed to move us in that direction. The National Institute on Aging, NIA, estimates that between 2.4 million and 4.5 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease--a progressive degenerative disorder that attacks the brain's nerve cells, resulting in loss of memory, thinking and language skill, behavioral changes, and ultimately, death. Alzheimer's disease is not a normal part of aging; however, age is the greatest known risk factor with the incidence doubling for every, 5 year interval beyond age 65. Alzheimer's disease exacts a huge toll on caregivers. Nearly 60 percent of individuals with the disease live at home under the care of family members. Caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer's disease face a variety of challenges and spend more time providing assistance than caregivers of people with other types of diseases, from helping loved ones with bathing and dressing to managing their legal and financial affairs. Alzheimer's disease drains more than $148 billion from the nation's economy each year. If the prevalence of Alzheimer's disease continues to increase as expected, the $91 billion spent in 2005 on Medicare costs for care of individuals with Alzheimer's disease and dementia patients is projected to increase to $189 billion by 2015. There are serious deficiencies in our current healthcare system related to diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. A 2006 editorial in the Journal of the American Geriatric Society estimated that missed diagnoses represent greater than 25 percent of the dementia cases and may be as high as 90 percent. This precludes many from getting early treatment which most researchers agree leads to optimal therapy with available and emerging medications. Screening is a simple and safe evaluation tool that assesses memory and other intellectual functions to determine whether additional testing is necessary. Memory screening can be done in a medical environment, e.g. dementia clinic, physician's office, or in a community setting, e.g. senior center, pharmacy. Such screenings are not a diagnosis, but can indicate whether a complete medical evaluation would be beneficial. Memory can be affected by a number of factors, ranging from stress, lack of sleep, vitamin deficiencies, depression and thyroid problems, to such illnesses as Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia. In general, the earlier the diagnosis, the easier it is to treat these conditions. Memory screenings are one of the major focal points of the Alzheimer's Foundation of America's, AFA, national initiatives. Since 2003, AFA has sponsored National Memory Screening Day, NMSD, annually in collaboration with community organizations to promote early detection of memory problems as well as Alzheimer's disease and related illnesses, and encourage appropriate intervention. It has been held each November to coincide with National Alzheimer's Disease Awareness Month. On November 18, 2008, qualified health care professionals at nearly 2,200 sites nationwide offered free confidential memory screenings to an estimated 54,000 participants, as well as follow-up resources and educational materials about dementia and successful aging. In 2009, AFA will hold National Memory Screening Day on November 17. Most people are not inclined to discuss memory concerns with their health care providers. A survey conducted during AFA's 2007 National Memory Screening Day found that 68 percent of respondents had concerns about their memory. However, while more than 44 percent had visited their primary care physician within the last 6 months, fewer than one in four of those with self-identified memory problems had discussed the issue with their physician. Primary care providers might be more likely to recommend further evaluation if individuals presented their abnormal memory screening results from events like National Memory Screening Day. Community screenings such as National Memory Screening Day generally educate participants about questions to ask their health care providers and empower them to begin a dialogue. With this resolution I hope we can draw attention to these efforts and further this important cause. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of National Alzheimer's Disease Awareness Month and National Memory Screening Day by cosponsoring this measure.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about legislation to help seniors navigate through a complicated and often overwhelming health care delivery system. Because of the fragmented nature of our health care system, we often fail to provide patients, their families, and caregivers with the necessary tools, information, and support to both age well and with dignity in the setting of their preference, oftentimes their homes. I believe if we provide patients with better information about advanced care planning in noncrisis situations, they will make decisions for themselves and their families that result in better care and a better quality of life. Today I am introducing the Senior Navigation and Planning Act of 2009 to help seniors and their families navigate through a complex system and to help them make informed medical decisions. My legislation would provide access to an advanced illness care management benefit, a benefit that does not exist currently in our health care delivery system. My legislation, as well, would increase the awareness of advanced care planning through a national education campaign and clearinghouse. It would also reduce legal hurdles to the enforcement of advanced directives. It would create incentives for hospitals and physicians to get accredited and certified in palliative care. It would increase compliance with medical orders and discharge instructions. Too often a patient may leave a hospital, not do the appropriate actions afterwards, and not follow the discharge information, which can result in the patient being readmitted to the hospital or ending up with their health care provider not having the appropriate followup. We have to make sure we put an end to that. My legislation would also educate entities, including faith-based organizations, on advanced care planning issues. Oftentimes an individual or family, when dealing with end-of-life issues, will turn not only to their medical provider but oftentimes to their priest or rabbi or minister. We want to make sure folks in the faith-based community understand the challenges and opportunities people have with advanced care planning. My legislation, as well, would increase coordination and integration between the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. Too often these programs that both deal with seniors, their health care issues, and aging issues do not cooperate or collaborate. Collectively, these initiatives will create a more accessible environment for seniors to receive the care they need when they need it, and in the setting they prefer. Let me be clear, this legislation does not deny or withhold services. However, it does recognize that overall health reform should include a thoughtful process that informs patients, their families, and caregivers on how to navigate and think through difficult decisions about when and how to pursue treatments at the end of life. By enacting these reforms, we will begin to develop a culture in which all of us will have the ability to age well, with dignity, and, again, in the setting of our choosing. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support from the following organizations: the AARP, the Alzheimer's Foundation, the Duke University Divinity School, the Institute on Care at the End of Life, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, UnitedHealth Group, and Aetna.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help seniors navigate through a complicated and often overwhelming health care delivery system. Because of the fragmented nature of our healthcare system, we often fail to provide patients, their families, and caregivers with the necessary tools, information, and support to age well and with dignity in the setting of their preference. I believe that if we provide patients with better information about advance care planning in non-crisis situations, they will make decisions for themselves and their families that result in better care and better quality of life. Our health care system is in need of sweeping reforms that will not only provide broader coverage but will also increase value and efficient access to quality care. As we provide meaningful reforms for the healthcare system, we should take the opportunity to refine and enhance those parts of the Medicare system that work well for seniors. Currently, Medicare beneficiaries with advanced illnesses have a good option in the Medicare hospice benefit to receive care, family support, and counseling during the last six months of life. For those who are ill or in need of advanced illness care, but are not eligible for the hospice benefit, there are very few options for counseling and services that would help them make informed choices about their care options. Often, they are left in the dark about their treatment alternatives and without the support they and their family members need to prepare and plan for the care they want and need. Frankly, it is unconscionable to leave it to families to resolve these extraordinarily difficult decisions, often in moments of crisis, without appropriate information, materials and supportive services. The Senior Navigation and Planning Act of 2009 will help seniors and their families navigate through an extremely complex system and will help them make informed medical decisions. My legislation would provide access to an advanced illness care management benefit, increase the awareness of advance care planning through a national education campaign and clearinghouse, reduce legal hurdles to the enforcement of advance directives, create incentives for hospitals and physicians to get accredited and certified in palliative care, increase compliance with medical orders and discharge instructions, educate entities including faith-based organizations on advance care planning issues, and increase integration and coordination between the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Collectively, these initiatives will create a more accessible environment for seniors to receive the care they need, when they need it, in the setting they prefer. Specifically, the advanced illness care management benefit would allow Medicare beneficiaries who have been diagnosed with a life expectancy of 18 months or less to have access to the guidance and expertise of a hospice team and receive services such as consultations on palliative care, advance care planning that is patient-centered, and counseling, respite, and care giving training for their family members. This new advanced illness care management benefit will provide seniors with the support they need to make informed decisions. This initiative builds upon the efforts of the hospice community and the private sector. For example, United Health Group has created an Advanced Illness model in their benefit design and offers this program to the seniors they serve in Medicare Advantage and Special Needs Plans. They have found by providing access to the hospice and palliative care teams earlier, patients experience an increase in the quality of their life and duplicative or futile care is reduced. Aetna and Kaiser Permanente have also implemented these types of programs with similar results. In addition to the impact a lack of advance care planning and access to supportive services has on a patient's quality of life, inadequate access to advance care planning services contributes to 27 percent of Medicare costs spent in the last year of life. Advanced illness, palliative, and hospice care have been shown to improve quality of care at a reduced cost. Specifically, studies demonstrate that if an additional 2 percent of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries received palliative care, direct cost savings to the Medicare program would be $1.57 billion. Given health care costs are growing at an alarming rate and that seniors may not be getting the necessary information they need to make appropriate treatment decisions, we need to act now to provide them with access to advanced illness and advance care planning services. I believe that rather than deny or withhold healthcare services, overall health reform should include a thoughtful process that informs patients, their families, and caregivers on how to navigate and think through decisions about when and how long to pursue treatments at the end-of-life. By doing this, we will provide a culture in which all of us will have the ability to age well, with dignity, in the setting of our choosing. It is my hope that this legislation will be incorporated into the broader health care reform effort that is underway in the Finance and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committees. I look forward to working with Chairmen Baucus and Kennedy to implement these meaningful reforms so seniors have access to the information and services they need to receive the care they deserve.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help seniors navigate through a complicated and often overwhelming health care delivery system. Because of the fragmented nature of our healthcare system, we often fail to provide patients, their families, and caregivers with the necessary tools, information, and support to age well and with dignity in the setting of their preference. I believe that if we provide patients with better information about advance care planning in non-crisis situations, they will make decisions for themselves and their families that result in better care and better quality of life. Our health care system is in need of sweeping reforms that will not only provide broader coverage but will also increase value and efficient access to quality care. As we provide meaningful reforms for the healthcare system, we should take the opportunity to refine and enhance those parts of the Medicare system that work well for seniors. Currently, Medicare beneficiaries with advanced illnesses have a good option in the Medicare hospice benefit to receive care, family support, and counseling during the last six months of life. For those who are ill or in need of advanced illness care, but are not eligible for the hospice benefit, there are very few options for counseling and services that would help them make informed choices about their care options. Often, they are left in the dark about their treatment alternatives and without the support they and their family members need to prepare and plan for the care they want and need. Frankly, it is unconscionable to leave it to families to resolve these extraordinarily difficult decisions, often in moments of crisis, without appropriate information, materials and supportive services. The Senior Navigation and Planning Act of 2009 will help seniors and their families navigate through an extremely complex system and will help them make informed medical decisions. My legislation would provide access to an advanced illness care management benefit, increase the awareness of advance care planning through a national education campaign and clearinghouse, reduce legal hurdles to the enforcement of advance directives, create incentives for hospitals and physicians to get accredited and certified in palliative care, increase compliance with medical orders and discharge instructions, educate entities including faith-based organizations on advance care planning issues, and increase integration and coordination between the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Collectively, these initiatives will create a more accessible environment for seniors to receive the care they need, when they need it, in the setting they prefer. Specifically, the advanced illness care management benefit would allow Medicare beneficiaries who have been diagnosed with a life expectancy of 18 months or less to have access to the guidance and expertise of a hospice team and receive services such as consultations on palliative care, advance care planning that is patient-centered, and counseling, respite, and care giving training for their family members. This new advanced illness care management benefit will provide seniors with the support they need to make informed decisions. This initiative builds upon the efforts of the hospice community and the private sector. For example, United Health Group has created an Advanced Illness model in their benefit design and offers this program to the seniors they serve in Medicare Advantage and Special Needs Plans. They have found by providing access to the hospice and palliative care teams earlier, patients experience an increase in the quality of their life and duplicative or futile care is reduced. Aetna and Kaiser Permanente have also implemented these types of programs with similar results. In addition to the impact a lack of advance care planning and access to supportive services has on a patient's quality of life, inadequate access to advance care planning services contributes to 27 percent of Medicare costs spent in the last year of life. Advanced illness, palliative, and hospice care have been shown to improve quality of care at a reduced cost. Specifically, studies demonstrate that if an additional 2 percent of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries received palliative care, direct cost savings to the Medicare program would be $1.57 billion. Given health care costs are growing at an alarming rate and that seniors may not be getting the necessary information they need to make appropriate treatment decisions, we need to act now to provide them with access to advanced illness and advance care planning services. I believe that rather than deny or withhold healthcare services, overall health reform should include a thoughtful process that informs patients, their families, and caregivers on how to navigate and think through decisions about when and how long to pursue treatments at the end-of-life. By doing this, we will provide a culture in which all of us will have the ability to age well, with dignity, in the setting of our choosing. It is my hope that this legislation will be incorporated into the broader health care reform effort that is underway in the Finance and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committees. I look forward to working with Chairmen Baucus and Kennedy to implement these meaningful reforms so seniors have access to the information and services they need to receive the care they deserve.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator. Pesticide Regulation

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the bill before us grants standby authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to regulate ``tobacco warehouses.'' Because the bill already draws a bright line between tobacco companies that actually manufacture tobacco products and those, including growers and ``tobacco warehouses,'' that do not manufacture, I would expect that the Secretary would utilize the standby authority to regulate tobacco warehouses only under unforeseen and unanticipated circumstances that give rise to public health concerns.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to reauthorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's important programs to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its aquatic resources. This measure is a companion to H.R. 1771, a bill recently introduced in the House by Representatives Sarbanes, Wittman and Kratovil. Joining me in sponsoring this legislation are my colleagues Senator Webb from Virginia and Senators Mikulski and Cardin from neighboring Maryland. Throughout my public career, I have been a strong advocate for protecting our natural resources. One of the most important efforts in Virginia's environmental history has been preservation of the Chesapeake Bay, the nation's most important estuary. I am proud that we brought record funding to efforts related to cleaning the Chesapeake Bay and the toughest regulations for water quality yet. The Commonwealth's 3,300 miles of coastal resources provide significant economic contributions to tourism, recreation, commercial and sport fisheries, and wildlife enjoyment within our State. Yet the safety of the Bay is still in great jeopardy; pollution, habitat loss and other factors have taken their toll. NOAA has been a principal partner with the Bay region states and other Federal agencies in efforts to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem since 1984. Its mission is focusing NOAA capabilities in science, service, and stewardship to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay. Congress formally authorized NOAA's participation in the Bay in Public Law 98-210 enacted in 1992 and reauthorized the program in 2002, Public Law 107-372. That authority expired 3 years ago, in 2006, and must be reauthorized. Over the years, NOAA's work in the Chesapeake Bay has focused on three critical and interrelated areas--ecosystem science, coastal and living resources management, and environmental education--all part of an ecosystem approach for Bay restoration and management. The agency's science and research programs, conducted in collaboration with major academic institutions, are helping decision-makers survey and assess trends in living resources, understand and evaluate the responses of these resources to changes in their environment, and establish management goals and progress indicators. Through the Chesapeake Bay Observing System and the next-generation Chesapeake Bay Integrated Buoy System, NOAA is providing monitoring data on environmental conditions and water quality in the Bay necessary to track Bay restoration progress. The NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office's fish, shellfish and habitat restoration programs are helping to restore native oysters, blue crabs, and bay grasses throughout the watershed. And NOAA's pioneering Bay Watershed Education and Training program, B-WET, is making hands-on watershed education and training available to students and teachers throughout the watershed, bringing marine and weather sciences into the classroom and helping to foster stewardship of the Bay. NOAA administers its work throughout the 64,000 square mile, 6 State watershed from offices in Maryland and Virginia, which collaborate with State and other Federal agencies, academic institutions, and nongovernmental organizations to support Bay protection and restoration goals. In Norfolk, Virginia, the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office's science and education programs are incorporated into exhibits at Nauticus, our State's premier maritime center, which receives more than 350,000 visitors annually, and helps inform the public about NOAA's programs and activities. At the College of William and Mary's Virginia Institute of Marine Science, VIMS, NOAA is collaborating with a major academic partner to improve understanding of Bay fisheries and support improved oyster restoration. At Stingray Point, Norfolk and Jamestown, NOAA has deployed first-of-its-kind CBIBS interpretive buoys that are not only providing critical real-time data streams for scientists, but multidisciplinary education tools to users of the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Water Trail. Throughout the Virginia and Maryland waters of the Chesapeake Bay, NOAA is assisting watermen impacted by reductions in blue-crab harvests. But NOAA's work and responsibilities to the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort are far from complete. The partners in the Bay restoration need the agency's continued help and support. Throughout the Bay, ecologically important fish species are in decline or at risk due to disease, habitat loss, and other factors. Underwater grasses that once provided habitat to sustain these fisheries are at a fraction of their historic levels. As advanced as our science is, Chesapeake Bay managers still do not have adequate information about the estuary and its habitats to manage its living resources or mitigate diseases in fish and shellfish. The legislation I am introducing today builds upon previous authorizations of the NOAA Bay Program and addresses several urgent, continuing or unmet needs in the watershed. The bill seeks to achieve five main objectives. Increasing collaboration between the various programs and activities at NOAA to further NOAA's coastal resource stewardship mission. Improving Bay monitoring capabilities and the coordination and organization of the substantial amounts of data collected and compiled by Federal, State, and local government agencies and academic institutions through further development of an integrated observations system and the Chesapeake Bay Interpretative Buoy System. Strengthening the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Education and Training Program, B-WET, the competitively based program which provides students with meaningful Chesapeake Bay or stream outdoor experiences and teachers with professional development opportunities for Bay-related environmental education. Supporting and encouraging public-private partnerships to restore finfish and shellfish populations, submerged aquatic vegetation and other critical coastal habitat through aquaculture, stock enhancements, propagation and other programs. Ensuring that Federal funds are spent wisely and effectively on projects that have scientific and technical merit and are peer reviewed. This legislation enhances NOAA's commitment to further scientific data collection, develops fishery management practices and habitat restoration, and strengthens Chesapeake Bay environmental education programs. Mr. President, the Bay is a national treasure and its restoration should be a national priority. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to reauthorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's important programs to restore the Chesapeake Bay and its aquatic resources. This measure is a companion to H.R. 1771, a bill recently introduced in the House by Representatives Sarbanes, Wittman and Kratovil. Joining me in sponsoring this legislation are my colleagues Senator Webb from Virginia and Senators Mikulski and Cardin from neighboring Maryland. Throughout my public career, I have been a strong advocate for protecting our natural resources. One of the most important efforts in Virginia's environmental history has been preservation of the Chesapeake Bay, the nation's most important estuary. I am proud that we brought record funding to efforts related to cleaning the Chesapeake Bay and the toughest regulations for water quality yet. The Commonwealth's 3,300 miles of coastal resources provide significant economic contributions to tourism, recreation, commercial and sport fisheries, and wildlife enjoyment within our State. Yet the safety of the Bay is still in great jeopardy; pollution, habitat loss and other factors have taken their toll. NOAA has been a principal partner with the Bay region states and other Federal agencies in efforts to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem since 1984. Its mission is focusing NOAA capabilities in science, service, and stewardship to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay. Congress formally authorized NOAA's participation in the Bay in Public Law 98-210 enacted in 1992 and reauthorized the program in 2002, Public Law 107-372. That authority expired 3 years ago, in 2006, and must be reauthorized. Over the years, NOAA's work in the Chesapeake Bay has focused on three critical and interrelated areas--ecosystem science, coastal and living resources management, and environmental education--all part of an ecosystem approach for Bay restoration and management. The agency's science and research programs, conducted in collaboration with major academic institutions, are helping decision-makers survey and assess trends in living resources, understand and evaluate the responses of these resources to changes in their environment, and establish management goals and progress indicators. Through the Chesapeake Bay Observing System and the next-generation Chesapeake Bay Integrated Buoy System, NOAA is providing monitoring data on environmental conditions and water quality in the Bay necessary to track Bay restoration progress. The NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office's fish, shellfish and habitat restoration programs are helping to restore native oysters, blue crabs, and bay grasses throughout the watershed. And NOAA's pioneering Bay Watershed Education and Training program, B-WET, is making hands-on watershed education and training available to students and teachers throughout the watershed, bringing marine and weather sciences into the classroom and helping to foster stewardship of the Bay. NOAA administers its work throughout the 64,000 square mile, 6 State watershed from offices in Maryland and Virginia, which collaborate with State and other Federal agencies, academic institutions, and nongovernmental organizations to support Bay protection and restoration goals. In Norfolk, Virginia, the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office's science and education programs are incorporated into exhibits at Nauticus, our State's premier maritime center, which receives more than 350,000 visitors annually, and helps inform the public about NOAA's programs and activities. At the College of William and Mary's Virginia Institute of Marine Science, VIMS, NOAA is collaborating with a major academic partner to improve understanding of Bay fisheries and support improved oyster restoration. At Stingray Point, Norfolk and Jamestown, NOAA has deployed first-of-its-kind CBIBS interpretive buoys that are not only providing critical real-time data streams for scientists, but multidisciplinary education tools to users of the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Water Trail. Throughout the Virginia and Maryland waters of the Chesapeake Bay, NOAA is assisting watermen impacted by reductions in blue-crab harvests. But NOAA's work and responsibilities to the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort are far from complete. The partners in the Bay restoration need the agency's continued help and support. Throughout the Bay, ecologically important fish species are in decline or at risk due to disease, habitat loss, and other factors. Underwater grasses that once provided habitat to sustain these fisheries are at a fraction of their historic levels. As advanced as our science is, Chesapeake Bay managers still do not have adequate information about the estuary and its habitats to manage its living resources or mitigate diseases in fish and shellfish. The legislation I am introducing today builds upon previous authorizations of the NOAA Bay Program and addresses several urgent, continuing or unmet needs in the watershed. The bill seeks to achieve five main objectives. Increasing collaboration between the various programs and activities at NOAA to further NOAA's coastal resource stewardship mission. Improving Bay monitoring capabilities and the coordination and organization of the substantial amounts of data collected and compiled by Federal, State, and local government agencies and academic institutions through further development of an integrated observations system and the Chesapeake Bay Interpretative Buoy System. Strengthening the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Education and Training Program, B-WET, the competitively based program which provides students with meaningful Chesapeake Bay or stream outdoor experiences and teachers with professional development opportunities for Bay-related environmental education. Supporting and encouraging public-private partnerships to restore finfish and shellfish populations, submerged aquatic vegetation and other critical coastal habitat through aquaculture, stock enhancements, propagation and other programs. Ensuring that Federal funds are spent wisely and effectively on projects that have scientific and technical merit and are peer reviewed. This legislation enhances NOAA's commitment to further scientific data collection, develops fishery management practices and habitat restoration, and strengthens Chesapeake Bay environmental education programs. Mr. President, the Bay is a national treasure and its restoration should be a national priority. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, last month, we honored an American hero, Elisha ``Ray'' Nance of Bedford, VA, who passed away at the age of 94. Mr. Nance was the last surviving member of what has come to be known as ``The Bedford Boys''--members of Company A, 116th Infantry, 29th Division. For those who do not know the story, Mr. Nance was among 38 National Guardsmen from the close-knit community of Bedford who were called to active service in World War II. On June 6, 1944, 35 young men of Bedford's Company A were in the first wave to hit ``Omaha Beach'' at Normandy. Nineteen young men from Bedford died in the opening battle during the early morning of June 6, and two more Bedford boys died a few days later in the ensuing Normandy campaign. ``We Bedford boys,'' Nance recalled, ``competed to be in the first wave. We wanted to be there. We wanted to be the first on the beach,'' he would write as he recovered from his own severe wounds. The loss of 21 of the 35 soldiers from that small community of 3,200 people designated Bedford as the town that suffered the highest proportional losses on D-Day. On Saturday, we marked the 65th anniversary of the Allied invasion at Normandy. And as we reflect upon all that was lost on Omaha Beach--and, ultimately, all that was gained as Allied forces successfully liberated Europe during World War II--it is appropriate to reflect for a moment on the heart-wrenching sacrifice made by this small town in the Blue Ridge Mountains of central Virginia. In 1996, Congress designated Bedford as the most appropriate spot for the National D-Day Memorial. The Memorial, built upon a mixture of sand from Omaha Beach and farm dirt from central Virginia, and dedicated by then-President George W. Bush on June 6, 2001, and it now stands as a striking tribute to the valor, fidelity, and sacrifice of the Allied forces on D-Day. The historical events surrounding the Normandy landing provide the broad context for the story the Memorial attempts to tell, but the National D-Day Memorial is not about war: it is about service to our nation--the duties of citizenship--and subjugating oneself for a greater good. In short, it is about the character and patriotism we find in all of our small communities across America. The Memorial has attracted over one million visitors since it opened in 2001, with over 50 percent visiting from out of state, and more than 10,000 students participate in the D-Day Memorial's educational programs each year. However, expenses run just over $2 million each year, and the Memorial takes in less than $600,000 a year in admission fees and gifts. Recently, the non-profit foundation that operates the Memorial announced it does not have adequate resources to remain open through the end of the year. We must take action now, or we risk losing an important landmark that pays tribute to the unbelievable sacrifices our young men and their families during that fateful landing. Therefore, I am introducing this legislation that would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the National D-Day Memorial in Bedford, Virginia, as a unit of the National Park System. This proposal is cosponsored by my esteemed Virginia colleague, Senator Webb. I urge you to support this measure, which would protect and preserve this important monument to our D-Day veterans and their families and future generations of Americans.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, last month, we honored an American hero, Elisha ``Ray'' Nance of Bedford, VA, who passed away at the age of 94. Mr. Nance was the last surviving member of what has come to be known as ``The Bedford Boys''--members of Company A, 116th Infantry, 29th Division. For those who do not know the story, Mr. Nance was among 38 National Guardsmen from the close-knit community of Bedford who were called to active service in World War II. On June 6, 1944, 35 young men of Bedford's Company A were in the first wave to hit ``Omaha Beach'' at Normandy. Nineteen young men from Bedford died in the opening battle during the early morning of June 6, and two more Bedford boys died a few days later in the ensuing Normandy campaign. ``We Bedford boys,'' Nance recalled, ``competed to be in the first wave. We wanted to be there. We wanted to be the first on the beach,'' he would write as he recovered from his own severe wounds. The loss of 21 of the 35 soldiers from that small community of 3,200 people designated Bedford as the town that suffered the highest proportional losses on D-Day. On Saturday, we marked the 65th anniversary of the Allied invasion at Normandy. And as we reflect upon all that was lost on Omaha Beach--and, ultimately, all that was gained as Allied forces successfully liberated Europe during World War II--it is appropriate to reflect for a moment on the heart-wrenching sacrifice made by this small town in the Blue Ridge Mountains of central Virginia. In 1996, Congress designated Bedford as the most appropriate spot for the National D-Day Memorial. The Memorial, built upon a mixture of sand from Omaha Beach and farm dirt from central Virginia, and dedicated by then-President George W. Bush on June 6, 2001, and it now stands as a striking tribute to the valor, fidelity, and sacrifice of the Allied forces on D-Day. The historical events surrounding the Normandy landing provide the broad context for the story the Memorial attempts to tell, but the National D-Day Memorial is not about war: it is about service to our nation--the duties of citizenship--and subjugating oneself for a greater good. In short, it is about the character and patriotism we find in all of our small communities across America. The Memorial has attracted over one million visitors since it opened in 2001, with over 50 percent visiting from out of state, and more than 10,000 students participate in the D-Day Memorial's educational programs each year. However, expenses run just over $2 million each year, and the Memorial takes in less than $600,000 a year in admission fees and gifts. Recently, the non-profit foundation that operates the Memorial announced it does not have adequate resources to remain open through the end of the year. We must take action now, or we risk losing an important landmark that pays tribute to the unbelievable sacrifices our young men and their families during that fateful landing. Therefore, I am introducing this legislation that would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the National D-Day Memorial in Bedford, Virginia, as a unit of the National Park System. This proposal is cosponsored by my esteemed Virginia colleague, Senator Webb. I urge you to support this measure, which would protect and preserve this important monument to our D-Day veterans and their families and future generations of Americans.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to pay appropriate tribute today to an American hero--Elisha ``Ray'' Nance--of Bedford, VA. He passed away last Sunday at the age of 94, and memorial services are being held today. Mr. Nance was the last surviving member of what has come to be known as ``The Bedford Boys''--members of Company A, 116th Infantry, 29th Division. Mr. Nance was among 38 National Guardsmen from the close-knit community of Bedford who were called to active service in World War II. On June 6, 1944, 19 were killed when they landed on Omaha Beach at the start of the D-day invasion. Two more died later. ``We Bedford boys,'' Nance recalled, ``we competed to be in the first wave. We wanted to be there. We wanted to be the first on the beach,'' he would write as he recovered from his own severe wounds. Bedford recorded 21 casualties out of 38 men who served, all from the same small town of 3,200 people located in central Virginia. That overwhelming loss led to Bedford's selection as the site of the National D-day Memorial--a worthy project I was honored to support, both as a private citizen and as Virginia Governor. But Ray Nance's public service did not end with his military service. To honor his fallen brethren, Nance returned home to Bedford and helped reorganize Company A of the Virginia National Guard, and served as its first commander. He then built a career as a rural postal carrier, and served in the Elks. At the end of his life, he was a proud resident of the Elks National Home in Bedford. In recent years, he visited the D-day Memorial often to help teach younger generations about the service, courage and sacrifice demonstrated by ``The Bedford Boys'' and others of the ``greatest generation.'' Ray Nance's life and example demonstrate the very best qualities--and the responsibilities--of citizenship. My thoughts and prayers are with his widow Alpha and their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. A grateful Commonwealth and Nation thanks them for their lifetime of support for Ray Nance--a hero--and the last of ``The Bedford Boys.''

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to state a principle that is known well by those of us who have served in the private sector, and that principle is simply this: What gets measured gets done. This week, as my colleague from New Hampshire has already stated, we begin work on the Federal budget even as we are implementing the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. Both of these actions can either confirm the claims of critics, the skeptics who always say that Washington simply is not capable of managing the taxpayer's money responsibly or it could present us with a tailor-made opportunity to demonstrate that we can combine bold action with innovation and transparency as we work to get our economy and our country back on the right track. In the near term, the targeted investments included in the Recovery Act are designed to create millions of new jobs. The President's budget proposals, if they are enacted, will allow us to make longer term investments through the expanded use of electronic health records, the build-out of the smart grid, and through energy- saving improvements to millions of homes and businesses. Now, I do not think the American people expect miracles--but they can, and they should, expect competence. So we must put in place the people with the right skills, insist on appropriate measurements, and then demand transparency and accountability. When I became Virginia's Governor at the peak of an earlier recession, back in 2002, I inherited a $6 billion revenue shortfall in Virginia's $34 billion annual budget. Our administration made the painful spending cuts, but then we did something else: we used that opportunity to enact long-term budget reforms that continue to save taxpayer money today. For instance, we renegotiated a number of our State contracts and leveraged our purchasing power. We reduced the cost of light bulbs from 32 cents to 23 cents. Now, saving nine-cents per bulb will not close a $6 billion shortfall, but the State buys an awful lot of light bulbs. We found similar savings in procurement across much of State government, bundling our purchasing power the same way many major businesses do. We examined and then eliminated outdated boards and commissions. We consolidated our State information technology activities. We took a whole new portfolio approach to managing our real estate holdings and our vehicle fleet, just as any business would. These business-like reforms produced almost immediate taxpayer savings. And it accomplished something else as well: it created an expectation of transparency and accountability that resulted in Virginia being independently designated as the Nation's best managed State, and the best State for business investment. I do not rise today to brag on the Commonwealth of Virginia well, perhaps a little bit. Instead, I rise today to suggest that this same approach--straight talk, tough choices, and an insistence on commonsense reform and accountability--is critically important here and now in Washington, DC. President Obama has made it clear to Governors and mayors across the country that we need their help for this Recovery and Reinvestment Act to succeed. I commend the administration for insisting that accountability does not simply stop at the State capital, once a Governor releases funds to localities. We must have the same high standards of accountability at the local level as well. I also am pleased that the administration's recovery.gov Web site conveys a lot of useful information to the taxpayers in a clear and user-friendly way. And by midweek, all but a handful of States are expected to launch similar Web sites of their own. But as they launch these Web sites, we must make sure that they have standard metrics so we can actually compare progress from one State to another. It is also imperative that we keep the pressure on officials at every level of Government to continue to aggressively look for even more creative ways to make these sites more useful. In recent weeks, I have spoken to key administration officials about what other steps we might take to promote transparency and accountability in implementing the Recovery Act. If we do this right, it could build a solid foundation to promote longer term fiscal responsibility as we move forward in the Federal budget process. For instance, I believe we should drill-down and reach consensus on commonsense definitions and metrics. Let me give you an example. When I chaired the National Governors Association in 2005, we launched a major effort to reform our high schools. I was astonished to learn there was no common definition across the States of `high school graduate.' So we spent months working with educators, academics and policymakers to reach a common definition so we could determine whether a high school graduate in Alaska or in New Mexico was meeting the same kind of qualifications as a high school graduate in Virginia. That now allows us to look at those programs that work--and those that don't--across all of the States. I believe that experience provides a useful model as we work to develop a common set of metrics that allows us to honestly and effectively track Federal spending, especially with the stimulus dollars where we are ramping up so many new initiatives in such a short time-frame. To do this, we will need to work through existing organizations, such as the National Governors Association, the Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, and others, as we work to design effective measurement tools. For example, most of us agree that expanding high speed Internet broadband to rural communities will create jobs. It will allow folks in every region of our Nation to have an opportunity to compete and win in the global economy. Obviously, as we roll out broadband, we will track our progress by noting how many communities are served and the number of Internet connections that are added. But what if we also came up with a way to capture information about how many rural businesses were able to launch or grow because of this expanded access to broadband? That information would allow us to measure the true value of broadband to the longer term economic viability of our rural communities. Or consider our commitment to dramatically expand weatherization improvements to the homes of lower-income Americans. Now, certainly we will tally the number of structures that undergo these energy-saving upgrades, and it should be relatively easy to document the number of workers in the weatherization program. But couldn't we also come up with some way to measure what one would reasonably expect to be a reduction in the annual demand for Government-funded heating and cooling assistance? And wouldn't that information be helpful as we consider funding levels for LIHEAP and similar assistance in the years to come? In short, I believe every level of Government should go the extra mile in laying out exactly how the Federal dollars are being spent, and we should honestly measure and disclose program outcomes. I also think, as we roll out these major expenditures, it is a good idea to link disbursements with predetermined timelines and checkpoints to better track our progress. Let's not wait until all of the money is spent before we determine whether the program works or not. Consequently, if we do not see appropriate progress, we could delay or defer future payments. In addition, Federal and State governments also should be encouraged to reach outside their comfort zones and challenge individuals in the private sector to step-up and provide specialized expertise. Again, within the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we are going to be ramping up a series of important new initiatives on a very short timeline. How do we get the expertise from the private sector to engage in this effort? For example, this could be part of the Serve America Act, which we will consider and vote on this week, which will promote and expand public service opportunities for our citizens. We must try to draw upon the best and brightest to bring them into Government service, even if it is on a part-time basis, as we ramp up these new initiatives. I am talking about men and women with proven management capabilities, individuals who can move with the speed of venture capitalists to embrace new ideas, or recently retired military leaders who have successfully overseen relief efforts. This is the type of expertise we need to draw upon if we are going to ramp-up these programs successfully. And as we do this, we must also have the courage to cut back or eliminate programs that cannot prove their worth. As a former Governor who enjoyed line-item veto authority, I wholeheartedly support President Obama's pledge to conduct a line-by- line review of the federal budget to identify waste and fraud. I also encourage the administration to conduct a broad-based review of Governmental programs--a review that is horizontal, not just vertical. Based upon my experience as Governor, and the experiences of countless Fortune 500 companies, I know that an enterprise-wide review could reveal additional opportunities to wring-out significant budget savings. Typically, one can find sustainable savings in three areas: procurement, technology, and human resources. That is why it is vitally important that the administration move quickly to appoint its chief performance officer, and that CPO must have the authority to act quickly, along with the chief information officer and chief technology officer. These individuals must have a mandate to work across multiple Federal agencies, and I hope they ruffle a few feathers. Mr. President, I will say it again: what gets measured gets done. In the short term, creating an expectation of transparency and accountability will maximize our `bang for the buck' as we continue to implement the Recovery Act. And over the longer-term, this focus and genuine commitment to fiscal responsibility will demonstrate that Washington can, in fact, act with both confidence and restraint when it comes to spending the taxpayer's money. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment. The amendment (No. 637) was rejected.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, Senators should expect a series of rollcall votes in relation to amendments to the appropriations bill beginning at 5:30 p.m. Monday.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the Record remain open until 1 p.m. for the purpose of submitting statements and cosponsors.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Bond.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.