[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 11, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3002-S3003]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on February 24, President Obama said:

       [N]early a century after Teddy Roosevelt first called for 
     reform, the cost of our health care has weighed down our 
     economy and the conscience of our nation long enough. So let 
     there be no doubt: Health care reform cannot wait, it must 
     not wait, and it will not wait another year.

  I could not agree more with our President. Our next big objective is 
health care reform. Comprehensive health care reform is no longer 
simply an option, it is an imperative. If we delay, the problems we 
face today will grow even worse. If we delay, millions more Americans 
will lose their coverage. If we delay, premiums will rise even further 
out of reach. And if we delay, Federal health care spending will soak 
up an even greater share of our Nation's income.
  In the Finance Committee, we have now held 11 hearings preparing for 
health care reform. We held our latest hearing yesterday. The Director 
of the Office of Management and Budget, Dr. Peter Orszag, testified to 
the Finance Committee about the President's health care budget.
  Yesterday, Director Orszag told the committee the cost of not 
enacting health care reform is enormous. He said:

       The cost of doing nothing is a fiscal trajectory that will 
     lead to a fiscal crisis over time.

  Director Orszag said if we do not act, then we will further 
perpetuate a system in which workers' take-home pay is unnecessarily 
reduced by health care costs. Director Orszag said if we do not act, 
then 46 million uninsured Americans will continue to be denied adequate 
health care. According to the Center for American Progress, the ranks 
of the uninsured grow by 14,000 people every day--14,000 more people 
uninsured every day. And Director Orszag said if we do not act, then a 
growing burden will be placed on State governments, with unanticipated 
consequences. For example, health care costs will continue to crowd out 
State support of higher education. That would have dire consequences 
for the education of our Nation's young people.
  We must move forward. Senator Grassley and I have laid out a schedule 
to do just that. Our schedule calls for the Finance Committee to mark 
up a comprehensive health care reform bill in June. We should put a 
health care bill on the President's desk this year.
  The President's budget makes a historic downpayment on health care 
reform. Over the next 10 years, the President's budget invests $634 
billion to reform our health care system.
  Reforming health care means making coverage affordable over the long 
run. It means improving the quality of the care. And I might say, our 
quality is not as good as many Americans think it is, certainly 
compared to international norms. It means expanding health insurance to 
cover all Americans. We need fundamental reform in cost, quality, and 
coverage. We need to address all three objectives at the same time. 
They are interconnected. If you do not address them together, you will 
never really address any one of them alone.
  Costs grow too rapidly because the system pays for volume, not 
quality. Quality indicators such as lifespan and infant mortality 
remain low. Why? Because too many are left out of the system. Families 
do not get coverage because health costs grow faster than wages. And 
without coverage, health insurance costs increase because providers 
shift the cost of uncompensated care to their paying customers. It is a 
vicious cycle. Each problem feeds on the others.
  We need a comprehensive response. Let us at long last deliver on the 
dream of reform Teddy Roosevelt called for nearly a century ago. Let us 
at long last lift the burden of health care costs on our economy and on 
the conscience of our Nation. And let us at long last enact health care 
reform this year.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous 
consent that the time consumed during the quorum call be charged 
equally against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S3003]]

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I would like to say a few words in 
opposition to the nomination of David Ogden to be Deputy Attorney 
General at the U.S. Department of Justice.
  There is no doubt that Mr. Ogden is an experienced lawyer. However, I 
have serious concerns about Mr. Ogden's views and some of the cases he 
has argued. Mr. Ogden is an attorney who has specialized in first 
amendment cases, in particular pornography and obscenity cases, and has 
represented several entities in the pornography industry. He has argued 
against legislation designed to ban child pornography, including the 
Children's Internet Protection Act of 2000 and the Child Protection and 
Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1998. These laws were enacted to protect 
children from obscene materials in public libraries and to require 
producers of pornography to personally verify that their models are not 
minors. I supported both these important pieces of legislation.
  In addition, Mr. Ogden authored a brief in the 1993 case Knox v. 
United States, where he advocated for the same arguments to shield 
child pornography under the first amendment that the Senate unanimously 
rejected by a vote of 100 to 0 and the House rejected by a vote of 425 
to 3. In the Knox case, the Bush I Justice Department successfully had 
prosecuted Knox for violating Federal antipornography laws; but on 
appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Clinton Justice Department 
reversed course and refused to defend the conviction. After significant 
public outrage, President Clinton publicly chastised the Solicitor 
General, and Attorney General Reno overturned the position. At the 
time, I was involved in the congressional effort opposing this switch 
in the Justice Department's position on child pornography.
  Mr. Ogden also has filed briefs opposing parental notification before 
a minor's abortion, opposing spousal notification before an abortion, 
and opposing the military's policy against public homosexuals serving 
in uniform.
  Significant concerns have been raised in regard to Mr. Ogden's 
nomination. I have heard from a very large number of Iowa constituents, 
including the Iowa Christian Alliance, who are extremely concerned with 
Mr. Ogden's ties to the pornography industry and the positions he has 
taken against protecting women and children from this terrible scourge. 
The Family Research Council, Concerned Women of America, Eagle Forum, 
Fidelis, the Alliance Defense Fund, and the Heritage Foundation, among 
others, have all expressed serious concerns about Mr. Ogden's advocacy 
against restrictions on pornography and obscenity.
  The majority of Americans support protecting children from 
pornography exploitation, protecting children from Internet pornography 
in libraries, and allowing for parental notification before a minor's 
abortion. So do I. I feel very strongly about protecting women and 
children from the evils of pornography. I have always been a strong 
supporter of efforts to restrict the dissemination of pornography in 
all environments. As a parent and grandparent, I am particularly 
concerned that children will be exposed to pornographic images while 
pursing educational endeavors or simply using the Internet for 
recreational purposes. Throughout my tenure in Congress I have 
supported bills to protect children from inappropriate exposure to 
pornography and other obscenities in the media, and I support the 
rights of parents to raise children and to be active participants in 
decisions affecting their medical care. Mr. Ogden has consistently 
taken positions against these child protection laws and this troubles 
me.
  Because of my concerns, I must oppose the nomination of David Ogden.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I didn't make a complete request, as I 
should have, for a quorum, so I ask unanimous consent that the time be 
evenly divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business for as much time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.