Department Of The Interior, Environment, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

Floor Speech

Department Of The Interior, Environment, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the majority leader, Mr. President, because a lot has been said in this health care debate that needs to be clarified. I have been on the floor--how many times--when the Republican leadership has come to the floor and told us that if we are not careful in health care reform, we will end up with a government-run health insurance program. They have warned us: Be careful. Government run health insurance, it is socialism, too much government. I am waiting for the first Republican Senator to come to the floor and say: So we should abolish Medicare; we ought to get rid of Medicaid, which is for the poorest people, and we ought to get rid of veterans health care, another government program, and the Children's Health Insurance Program that makes health insurance affordable all across the United States. If one follows the Republican logic, they are all government health insurance programs.

Traditionally, the Republican Party has not embraced the concept. Let's be honest about it. They have a different view. They would like government to step aside and let the market work its will. Have you noticed what the market is working? The market is working its will in health insurance, and we are seeing private, for-profit health insurance companies making a fortune, denying one out of five people the coverage they thought they had, raising their costs every single year. That is the reality of the private market.

When it comes to Medicare, a program created under President Lyndon Johnson more than 40 years ago, 45 million Americans have the peace of mind to know they have basic health insurance protection. Do you know who these people are? They are folks who worked their whole lives, paid money out of their paychecks to be part of Medicare so that they would have not only the peace of mind but quality health care in their retirement years. It is not just the peace of mind of having access to good health care, it is the peace of mind of knowing that all the money you worked for your entire life to save, the money you wanted to live on in comfort after retirement would not disappear because of medical bills. Medicare gives people peace of mind and protects their assets so they can live independently, comfortably, in the kind of style most of us dream of for all Americans who have worked so hard for many years.

We hear the other side tell us how bad those government health insurance programs are. The administrative costs of Medicare are dramatically lower than the cost of private health insurance. It is obvious. Medicare is a not-for-profit entity. It is managed at a cost of about 3 percent. Do you know what happens with health insurance companies? They load up with costs for profit. They load up with costs for advertising and marketing.

They load up with people who get on the telephone to say: No--no to your doctor. You know what I am talking about. When the doctor says: I think the best thing for you is this procedure, and you are under private health insurance, that last stop in that medical decision is not at the hospital or in the doctor's office; the last stop is a long-distance phone call to some clerk sitting out in Omaha, NE, with a manual in front of him or her, and the first words at the top of the page say: Say no. Raise questions. Tell them you will get back to them.

Am I making this up? I am not. I have example after example from my home State of Illinois, from people I have met during the course of my service in the Senate and the House, and people I met this last summer who will verify that.

So when the Republicans come to the floor to criticize us and say they are the guardians of Medicare, it does not square with their traditional position of opposing Medicare, with their efforts to cut Medicare over the years and the fact that when we talk about Medicare and its future, they are nowhere to be found.

This is a critical health care debate we are facing. I admit the President has stuck his neck out a mile. It takes some courage to do it because he knows it is a controversial issue. President Obama said to us in a joint session of Congress: If this were easy somebody would have done it a long time ago. But he is going to take this on, and he said to us publicly and privately he will spend every penny of political capital he has to get it done. It means that much to him and to our Nation.

So for seniors this is a critical debate. A lot of seniors are being misled by things that are downright awful. I saw the videotape. This Republican Congresswoman went to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives and said that: Oh, these Democrats want to create death panels. Sarah Palin said that those death panels would take the life of one of her children or something. That is an outrageous statement and not true.

Do you know what they are talking about? They are talking about an amendment offered by a Georgia Senator--a Republican Georgia Senator--JOHNNY ISAKSON--a reasonable amendment. Do you know what it said? Under our health care reform, people should be allowed to go to a doctor and, in privacy and in confidence, sit down and say the words that need to be said--words like: Listen, I don't want to be hooked up to some machine. When the time comes, I want to go peacefully. I don't want extraordinary things done for me. That is my wish and, doctor, I want you to know that wish. I am going to tell my family, but I want you to know.

Is that an important conversation? Any one of us--and so many of us fit in this category, who have been through one of those situations with a parent, a member of our family, or someone we love--wants to know what they want.

So Senator Isakson proposed that amendment. It was a thoughtful, reasonable amendment that we brought into this debate. What happened to it? You know what happened: death panels. Oh, they are going in there. They are going to mandate that they pull the plug on Granny. That is sad. It is unfortunate. It shows a lack of maturity and judgment by those who are making those charges. And we have heard them from the halls of Congress and outside. What we are talking about here is health care reform this country needs but health care reform that will actually benefit Medicare beneficiaries.

As shown on this chart, this is basically what we hope to do for seniors when it comes to health insurance reform.

First, we want to lower the cost of medicine. Ask seniors about Medicare's prescription drug plan, and they will tell you: Well, it is good, but if you have a lot of drugs and they are very expensive--somehow or other Congress dreamed up something called the ``doughnut hole.'' What it basically means is, for some period of time each year, those seniors who need drug protection the most are on their own. They have to start spending out of their pocket. We close the doughnut hole, lowering the cost of medicine for seniors under Medicare.

We provide for that free yearly checkup that can make all the difference in the world. A senior who gets to go in and check up with the doctor regularly is one who is likely going to spot something before it becomes serious where it can be treated successfully. That makes good sense. Seniors across America will appreciate that. That is part of our plan.

Preventive care is free. We are talking about mammograms, colonoscopies, blood tests for prostate cancer. These things will be free under the health care reform we are talking about for senior citizens and for virtually everyone in America.

Giving doctors who treat seniors compensation for the care they are providing. We want doctors who are professional enough to include Medicare patients in their practice to be compensated fairly.

Finally, cut waste from Medicare. I want to say a word about this. I got on this ``Meet The Press'' program. I get on there once in a while on Sunday mornings. I think they put me on because I am free. But for whatever reason, I was on there, and I was in debate with Newt Gingrich. You know Newt Gingrich, former Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, the spokesman for many parts of his party today.

I said: It bothers me when people say health care reform is going to cut Medicare. Let me tell you what we have in mind. A few years ago, the private insurance companies came to us and said: We can do a better job at a lower cost in providing Medicare benefits. Well, some people were skeptical.

They said: Let us prove it. The government is doing this all wrong. Let the private health insurance companies do it. We will show you, and we will call it Medicare Advantage.

Off they went providing these Medicare Advantage programs that were to match the benefits under Medicare. The jury came in a few years later, and, do you know what, many of these plans cost up to 14 percent more than Medicare. They did not save us money. It ended up these private health insurance companies not only did not make their point about being cheaper, they cost the taxpayers more money than we should have paid out. They did not provide additional benefits for Medicare recipients that they needed.

They want us to continue to subsidize these private health insurance companies that have failed in their offer to beat Medicare at its own game. So when we say, and the President says, we want to cut the subsidy to health insurance companies under Medicare, that is what he and we are talking about. If they did not keep their end of the bargain to provide medical care at the same cost or less cost than Medicare, why should we continue to subsidize them? I do not think we should.

I said that on the show, and the next person to speak was former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who said: Well, that proves our point. DURBIN wants to cut Medicare.

Well, fortunately for me, Dr. Howard Dean, the former Governor of Vermont, was on the panel, and he corrected him. He said: Mr. Gingrich, he didn't say cut Medicare. He said cut the subsidy to the health insurance companies that are taking advantage of Medicare to profiteer, take that extra money and provide the kind of care we need for seniors, and make sure, in the process, we save the Medicare Program.

Untouched, our Medicare Program is going to suffer from the same thing everybody else suffers from in America: the escalating cost of health care. We have to do something. We have to keep our promise, not only to the seniors today, but to the many who will come after them, that Medicare will be there when they need it, that when they reach the age of 65, they will have the peace of mind of knowing they can still go to their doctor, still go to their hospital, get quality care, and not have a catastrophic illness that wipes out their savings.

This is a debate which is worth getting into. I hope those who follow it understand this party on this side of the aisle fought to create Medicare, fought to protect Medicare, and now is fighting to save Medicare. Do not let those who come before us, misleading us about what we are trying to achieve here, mislead the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Ms. COLLINS. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator about her amendment. The first thing I would like to ask is, her amendment does not specify how many czars--I think that is the term she used on the floor--how many czars she thinks there are in the administration or what their titles are. Could the Senator from Maine tell me how many czars we are going to try to impact with her amendment?

Ms. COLLINS. I will be happy to. Mr. President, I say to my friend that I have a list of 18 positions which I have talked repeatedly about and which I have inserted into the Record. As I have said, I am not one who has used this term in the way some have to include individuals with broad authority across various agencies, such as the Director of National Intelligence. But that is the position that is established or recognized in law and is subject to Senate confirmation. I did not include those. In fact, in the language of my amendment, I specifically say it does not apply to positions established in law.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield and share a copy of that list with me, I would appreciate it. But in the meantime, I ask the Senator, it seems that the czar watchers on her side of the aisle, Senator Hutchison, for example, found 32 czars when she went looking. One of the advisers to some politicians--and I will not include the Senator from Maine; she can speak for herself--the noted guru Glenn Beck has identified 32 czars as well.

I ask the Senator from Maine before we get into the propriety of her amendment under Senate rules, who is going to define who is covered by her amendment, if her colleague from Texas found 32, Glenn Beck found 32, and she found 18?

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I will be glad to respond to the question of my colleague. My colleague did not have the benefit of being on the Senate floor when I first presented my amendment, and I addressed this very issue.

I was very careful in drafting this amendment to make clear that I was not talking about positions that are recognized in law. Some of my colleagues legitimately have taken a different approach. But that is not the approach that is before the Senate now. Rather, I have taken into account the issues that have been raised by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, such as Senator Byrd--who certainly knows more about the Constitution than I think any of us who are serving at the present time--who has expressed concerns about the proliferation of czars. I have taken into account concerns expressed by Senator Feingold, by Senator Feinstein. I have done a careful, narrowly tailored amendment that does not attempt to sweep in positions that are recognized in law, nor does it sweep in positions that are subject to Senate confirmation.

That is why it is so disappointing to me that my colleagues are not unanimously adopting my amendment, which it looked like they were going to do earlier this week before the White House weighed in, because I did not take a broad sweeping approach. I took a very narrow, careful approach that aimed at the promise the President talked about, the lack of oversight, transparency, and accountability.

Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield further for a question, I would like to ask the Senator--I have been told that using the definition of ``czar'' that Mr. Beck, political adviser to some, and Senator Hutchison, and even you use, that under President George W. Bush, the previous Republican administration, one could characterize his officials and advisers in the Executive Office of the President and other agencies as an Afghanistan czar, an AIDS czar, a drug czar, a faith-based czar, an intelligence czar, a Mideast peace czar, a regulatory czar, a science czar, a Sudan czar, a TARP bailout czar, a terrorism czar, and a weapons czar, under the previous administration. I ask the Senator from Maine if she proposed this amendment under a Republican President who clearly had his own stable of Muscovite czars of a lot of different versions?

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I, again, will be happy to attempt to clarify this issue for my colleague and friend--and he is my friend--from Illinois. I realize he has his role to play in this debate. But the fact is, he has just listed several positions that are established by law. The intelligence czar is the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair. Joe Lieberman and I wrote the law that established that position in 2004, and he is confirmed by the Senate.

The regulatory czar--he is referring to Cass Sunstein in this administration and John Graham in the previous one--it is established by law. It is part of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within OMB. I am not talking about those positions no matter in whose administration it is. I am talking about perhaps other positions on his list. Regardless of whose administration they are in, I would apply the same standards.

The Senator may say why didn't I offer this amendment in the previous administration. The answer is, we did not have this proliferation of czar positions in the previous administration. But I would say to my colleagues, regardless of whether it is a Democratic President or a Republican President, a Democratic Congress or a Republican Congress, I think this is an institutional issue, and I think all of us as Members of Congress should be very concerned about organizational structures that make it impossible for us to conduct effective congressional oversight; that insulate these officials who have significant policy responsibilities from ever coming to testify, from going through the vetting and the confirmation process.

I think that is a problem regardless of who the President is, and I am not the only one who thinks it. That is why Senator Robert C. Byrd wrote to the White House, wrote to the President, as this press release says, questioning the Obama administration on the role of White House czar positions because, as he says:

Too often, I have seen these lines of authority and responsibility become tangled and blurred, sometimes purposely, to shield information and to obscure the decision-making process.

I am not saying this is part of a plot to obscure information, but what I am saying is we have an obligation to exercise our constitutional duties, and the proliferation of these unaccountable positions in any administration makes that impossible for us to do so.

Mr. President, if I may complete the end of my statement--before we got into this good little colloquy. And I do appreciate the opportunity to clarify whom my amendment would cover, who would be covered by it and who would not. As I said, I was willing to work with the White House to make this even clearer. My staff was here many hours last night. I had conversations with White House officials and, unfortunately, at the last moment, they decided not to try to propose revisions to the text.

I am not going to seek to overturn the Chair's ruling on this amendment which will be forthcoming, and I know how it will go. But I do think it is unfortunate that a procedural tactic is being used to block a vote on this amendment. I do want to tell my colleagues that I think this is a real issue. I am very pleased the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, under Chairman Lieberman, is going to hold a hearing to explore this issue because it does have constitutional ramifications and it does involve the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. The ruling the Chair is going to make is not going to be the last word on this subject.

The administration needs--any administration--to fully explain the responsibilities and authorities of these czars. Until all of these czars are made available to testify before and provide information to Congress, until Congress is fully consulted on the decisions to create these positions in the first place, I will continue to press forward on this issue.

I believe the amendment I drafted is a very reasonable, balanced one, and it would have been a significant step toward establishing an oversight structure for these positions that would provide the transparency, accountability, and oversight our Nation expects from its leaders. I am dismayed the Senate is about to choose a point of order over these principles.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me point out at the outset my friendship and respect for Senator Collins. These are terms tossed around on the Senate floor sometimes in meaningless context, but this is meaningful. We have worked together on many issues. I respect her very much and believe when she was chairman of the then Governmental Affairs Committee, later to be the Homeland Security Committee, that she did extraordinary work with Senator Lieberman, particularly when it came to the creation of a new intelligence agency. After 9/11, it was one of the toughest political assignments ever given, and Senator Collins handled it with professionalism, in a bipartisan way. I commend her for it. I think she is exceptionally talented, and I am happy to have her as my ranking member on the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee where we continue to work closely together.

She raises a legitimate inquiry. The legislative branch should ask whether the executive branch has gone beyond its constitutional authority. I think it is a legitimate question. Unfortunately, before she came to the Senate floor, the waters had been muddied by statements made by our colleague, Senator Hutchison, in the Washington Post on September 13 as to when she went searching for czars in the Obama administration, she found 32 of them. The political wise man, Glenn Beck, found 32 as well but went on to say on his Web site--he is a major champion on this issue, incidentally--``since czar isn't an official job title, the number [of czars in the Obama administration] is somewhat in the eye of the beholder.''

That is why this becomes a pretty difficult amendment to consider at this moment in time. The Senator from Maine has been kind enough to add a page in the Record that lists her findings of 18 of these so-called czars. I don't know if others would find the same number, more or less. Whether there are 57 known czars or whether there are 18, I just don't know.

This amendment would prohibit funds for the administrative expenses of White House advisers--and that is a term usually used by those not partial to Russian history--unless those positions were created through express statutory authorization.

Further, the amendment requires the President to certify to Congress that the adviser will respond to all reasonable requests to testify before or provide information to any congressional committee with jurisdiction over such matter.

The adviser must give a report every 6 months, kind of a work-in-progress report, a diary of what they are doing. So in addition to working on issues such as health care reform, they need to prepare a report sent to Congress every 6 months to let us know they are showing up on time at their desks and actually doing what they are supposed to do.

The President doesn't need statutory authority to appoint advisers, and it doesn't make sense to require an assistant to the President, who has an otherwise pretty serious workload, to fill out these reports to Congress every 6 months to make sure they are showing up as promised.

But the amendment does touch on accountability in a way that I agree with. Public officials, including those who serve at the pleasure of the President, should be responsive to congressional inquiries. That is why Senator Collins and I, through our appropriations subcommittee, bring in leaders from the administration. And I can't say for certain, but I am virtually certain we have not been turned down by any at this point. The committee expects officials employed in whole or in part by the Executive Office of the President and designated by the President to coordinate policy agendas across executive departments and agencies to keep Congress fully and currently informed. We ask that of them, and so far we have received their cooperation.

Over the past several weeks, there has been this new interest in the czars and czarinas in the Obama administration, according to Mr. Beck and others. Some Members have asked serious questions about the makeup of the White House staff. The bulk of the noise being heard right now began with partisan commentators like Mr. Beck, suggesting this is somehow a new and sinister development that threatens our democracy.

Unfortunately, this czar issue didn't start with the Obama administration. It goes back much further in history, and it certainly includes the previous Bush administration, which was not subjected to an amendment such as is being offered at this moment. Many of the officials cited by conservative commentators--and I don't include Senator Collins because I haven't seen her list of 18--are Senate-confirmed appointees or advisory roles carried over from the Bush White House. Many are advisers to the President's Cabinet Secretaries. Many hold policy jobs that existed in the Bush administration. Some hold jobs that involve coordinating the work of agencies on President Obama's key policy priorities: health insurance reform, energy and green jobs, and building a new foundation for a longlasting economic growth.

I might say that in the past the same concern and furor hasn't arisen. Darrell Issa, a Congressman from California, was recently on FOX News and was asked what kind of investigation he had made into the Bush administration about czars, and he said he hadn't done so. He hadn't raised any objection, although he now thought it was a pretty important issue under President Obama. In fact, if you adhere to the definition of czar held by many Members--and I won't include Senator Collins in this group but other Members in the Senate--the Bush administration had 47 czars--budget czars, faith czars, manufacturing czars, to name a few.

Many of the Members who now decry the practice have called on Presidents in the past to appoint czars. Senator Robert Bennett of Utah, a friend and recognized colleague who worked hard on the Y2K concern, asked for a czar to be appointed, and he said he had worked with that person to maintain ``bipartisan and across-the-government communication.'' Even the ranking member of the Appropriations Interior Subcommittee, Senator Alexander of Tennessee, has had words said about czars in this administration. But during remarks delivered on the Senate floor in 2003, captured in the Congressional Record, Senator Alexander said, ``I would welcome [President Bush's] manufacturing job czar.'' That same day in the Senate, he also expressed support for President Bush's AIDS czar, Randall Tobias.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would ask the distinguished assistant Democratic leader if he is aware that the manufacturing czar in President Bush's time was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and testified before the Senate? And I wonder if he is also aware that the AIDS czar was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and testified before the Senate?

Senator Collins has been careful--I believe he is aware; I wonder if he is aware--that she is not talking about any czars whom we confirm and the President appoints and who testify, and she is only talking about the 18 new czars under the Obama administration, just as Senator Byrd did in February.

I wonder if the Senator is aware of those things?

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for the question, and I am aware of that fact, and I would respond to him, that is why I was trying to clarify how many czars are in this Muscovite conspiracy because one of his colleagues from Texas, Senator Hutchison, identified 32, as did Mr. Glenn Beck, and they included 16--pardon me, 7 of these so-called czars are people who have--pardon me, 9 have been confirmed by the Senate. So it appears that some of your colleagues do not share your definition that Senator Collins referred to on the floor.

The point I am trying to make is that this is a legitimate inquiry, it is an important inquiry, but it has been muddled by statements made by some Members of Congress and certainly by those in the political commentary realm.

The good news for Senator Alexander and Senator Collins and everyone else concerned about this issue is that a trusted friend and colleague, Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, has promised a hearing on this issue. I know he will engage Senator Collins, as ranking Republican member, on it, and serious questions which have been presented will be considered by Senator Lieberman. We respect him in that capacity.

So the reason I am objecting to this amendment isn't because I don't think Senator Collins has at least a legitimate inquiry, but I think it should be taken in the greater order of things rather than considered in this fashion on an appropriations bill.

So, Mr. President, I make a point of order that the Collins amendment, No. 2498, violates rule XVI, paragraph 4, legislating on an appropriations bill.

Excuse me, Mr. President, I missed one procedural step.

I call for regular order on the pending Collins amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source