[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 28, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4770-S4774]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               The Budget

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the soon to be 
pending issue of the budget. We are told that the Democratic membership 
of the House and Senate reached agreement last night on the budget 
proposal. They didn't seek our advice or counsel on it. It is pretty 
much the outline of the budget as requested by the President.
  There has been a lot of discussion about whether the President 
inherited a terrible situation. I think he did, from a fiscal 
standpoint. He has had difficult issues to confront relative to 
stabilizing our financial industry and trying to get the economy going 
and addressing the issues which most Americans are concerned about, 
which is their jobs, the value of their homes, the ability to pay their 
bills, and to send their kids to college.
  What the President inherited is important, but what he is bequeathing 
to the next generation is even more important. This budget he proposed 
is an outline of where he sees the Government going and where he sees 
this Nation going.
  Regrettably, the budget as proposed by the President, which has been 
worked on here by the Senate Democrats and the House Democrats, puts 
forward a picture that basically almost guarantees our children will be 
inheriting a nation with a government that is nonsustainable. The 
President's budget proposed a trillion dollars of deficit, on average, 
for the next 10 years. That is a number that is hard to comprehend. But 
to try to put it into perspective, the effect of that number is that 
the debt of the United States will double in 5 years and triple in 10 
years. If you want to put it in another perspective, take all the debt 
created since the founding of our Nation, from George Washington 
through George W. Bush--all that debt that has been added to the backs 
of the Nation's people--and President Obama's budget doubles that debt 
in 4 years, which is a staggering event.
  The implications are pretty dramatic for the next generation. The 
public debt of the United States will go to 80 percent of GDP fairly 
quickly under this proposal. The historic public debt of this country 
has been 40 percent of GDP. That means the amount of debt out there in 
relation to the size of the economy will have doubled.
  That has dramatic ramifications. For example, at that level of public 
debt through the economic activity in our country, we as a nation would 
not be allowed to enter the European Union because we wouldn't meet 
their standard for fiscal responsibility. Countries such as Latvia, 
Lithuania, and Ukraine, which all have very serious issues, might 
qualify for the European Union, but we would not because of the fact 
that our debt was so high as a percentage of our economy. It means our 
people, who have to pay that debt, will have to pay an inordinate 
amount of taxes in one of two ways to pay that debt off. Either they 
will have to pay more taxes because the Federal Government will inflate 
the money supply in order to pay off this debt, which is the worst tax 
there is--inflation--because it takes away the savings of all of the 
American people or you will have to significantly increase taxes on 
every American, not just the high-income Americans, as was represented 
by this President that he wants to do, and the Democratic Congress and 
Senate said they want to do; all taxes will have to go up 
astronomically in order to pay for the debt.
  What is driving this massive expansion of debt our children and we 
are going to have to pay as a result of this budget that is proposed by 
the President? Well, it is spending. Very simply, it is spending. The 
President proposed, and the Democratic Congress will bring forward, a 
budget that significantly increases the spending of the Federal 
Government. Historically, the spending

[[Page S4771]]

of the Government has been about 20 percent of the GDP. Under this 
budget, it goes to 22 percent, 23 percent, 24 percent, 25 percent--it 
gets up to levels that have never been seen, except during the time of 
World War II. They are unsustainable levels of spending. It is being 
done with a pure purpose, which is, I guess, to Europeanize the 
American economy and the American Government, to basically have the 
Government become the largest and most significant player in our 
economy and to dominate all aspects of our economy because of its size.
  The President is very forthright about this. He says he believes that 
by growing the Government significantly, he can create more prosperity. 
Those on our side of the aisle disagree with that. We believe a 
government has to be affordable for a nation to have prosperity. We 
also think prosperity doesn't come from the Government, it comes from 
individuals who are willing to take risks and go out and create jobs by 
taking those risks. This is a fundamental disagreement. This budget 
lays that out precisely.
  We are going to hear from the other side of the aisle the most 
disingenuous discussions about how they have been much more responsible 
on the budget, while they claim they are doing exactly what the 
President is doing in his budget. The reason they make that statement 
is because they cook the books. At least the President was forthright 
and he came forward with a budget--except in the area of defense--which 
set forth in a reasonably honest way what the costs to the Government 
were going to be and, as a result, it reflected the fact that because 
of his huge commitment in new spending programs, the cost of Government 
was going to be extraordinary, and the amount of debt that was going to 
be added to the books of the Government and the backs of the American 
people was going to be untenable and unsustainable.
  The other side of the aisle, I guess because they recognize they are 
going to be up for election before the President, doesn't want to have 
those numbers out there. So they have gone back and played a lot of 
games with the numbers the President sent up. For example, the 
President honestly represented the fact that we are not going to get 
revenues from the alternative minimum tax, because every year we 
basically limit the amount of applicability of the AMT. But the 
baseline reflects a huge income of the AMT. It says 20 million people 
are going to pay it. But we are not going to allow that to happen, 
because it wasn't designed to affect 20 million people but the top 
income producers in this country--probably less than a million people. 
So every year we basically change the law so that for that year the AMT 
doesn't apply. The President was forthright and said I know that will 
happen and I am not going to account for this revenue that never comes 
in. So he scored the AMT fairly. The other side of the aisle games that 
number.
  In the area of the doctors' fix, every year we know we are going to 
have to pay doctors a reasonable amount for their services under 
Medicare. Unfortunately, we have a law in place that keeps cutting that 
amount. This year it will be cut almost 20 percent over the baseline, 
in an arbitrary and foolish way. We should fix this permanently, but we 
don't have the courage to do it because of the effects on the budget. 
So we have used all sorts of gimmicks over the years--and everybody 
admits to this--so that we didn't have to fix that over a long period 
of time and correct that problem, even though we know every year we are 
going to adjust and make that payment to doctors.
  Well, the President was forthright and he said, listen, that is not 
fair, honest accounting. We are going to tell you exactly what the 
doctors' fix costs, and we are going to account for it in the budget.
  What does the other side of the aisle do? They hide that number 
again. They go back to the old rules. Those two items alone represent 
$100 billion of annual spending, which is being put under the rug. The 
President was honest enough to talk about it, but this Democratic 
Congress and Senate, in an attempt to obfuscate the issue for the 
American people, because they don't want to tell the people how much 
money they are spending, they stick that $100 billion under the rug.
  Then there is the health care reform. At least the President--even 
though I disagree with some of his philosophies, and I hope we can have 
a bipartisan approach, and I support the Wyden-Bennett bill floating 
around this Congress--at least the President, in proposing his health 
care reform, said he was going to account for paying for half of it--
$600 billion he put into the budget to pay for his health care reform. 
He acknowledges that is about half the cost of a $1.2 trillion program 
over the time of his budget.
  What does the other side of the aisle do when they bring this budget 
forward? They don't account for any of it--none of it. It disappears 
off the books. Not only is the $1.2 trillion not there, the $600 
billion is not there. How outrageous, to claim they are going to bring 
the deficit down to 3 percent of GDP in 2014, when they have basically 
hidden under the rug the AMT cost, the doctors' fix cost, and the most 
significant fiscal issue, health care reform. It is so disingenuous, it 
is almost unbelievable. But they are going to do that, and I suspect it 
won't be covered in any depth. To claim they are going to cut the 
deficit in half, which is a classic example of language over substance, 
will be the mantra of the day. They say they are going to cut the 
deficit in half. They claim they are going to cut it by 75 percent, 
because they are going to take a $1.8 trillion deficit and allegedly 
cut it to $550 billion in 4 years.
  Let me point out to you that $550 billion is too big. It is like 
saying we are going to take six steps backward and two steps forward 
and claim we are moving in the right direction. Of course they are not. 
Equally important, the $500 billion number is a total fraud. It is a 
fraud on the American people brought forward in this budget.
  Please, please, please do not subject the American people to this 
sort of disingenuousness. At least have the integrity the President had 
when he presented the budget of accounting for what we know are real 
numbers, such as AMT, the doctors fix, and the health care reform 
initiative proposed by the President and supported by the other side of 
the aisle.
  That is the substantive problem with this budget; that it creates all 
this debt, all this spending. It takes the Government of the United 
States and lurches it to the left. It Europeanizes our Nation, for all 
intents and purposes, and passes on to our kids a government that is 
not sustainable.
  It is ironic that we hear from the Budget chairmen, both in the 
Senate and the House, that the outyear numbers are unsustainable under 
this budget. The outyears are so unsustainable under their budget that 
they eliminated the last 5 years of the budget. The President sent up a 
10-year budget to have some integrity around here. The other side of 
the aisle said: My goodness, we can't tell the American people what is 
going to happen to them over the second 5 years. It is bad enough what 
we are going to do to them in the first 5 years. We are going to 
eliminate the second 5 years and do a 5-year budget and not tell them 
about the second 5 years.
  Both Democratic chairmen of both committees in the House and Senate 
have said we are on an unsustainable path. What do they do about the 
unsustainable path? They hide the numbers under the table, they do not 
admit to the spending, they allow the spending to go up radically, and 
there is absolutely zero--zero--savings on the spending side of the 
ledger, especially in the entitlement accounts which is at the core of 
what is driving the outyear problem.
  Ironically, a couple of the ideas the President sent up to save money 
were dropped, simply dropped. For example, he proposed some savings in 
the agriculture accounts which were very reasonable. They disappeared. 
He proposed some savings in the Medicare accounts which were very 
reasonable. They disappeared. But that is a minor story compared to the 
trillions of dollars of new debt that is going to be put on the backs 
of our children.
  By the time this budget has run its course, it will have added well 
over $9 trillion, under the President's calculations, to the debt of 
the United States. Who is going to pay that? Who is going to pay that? 
First off, who is going to lend us the money? At some point, the 
countries that are lending us this

[[Page S4772]]

money, the international community that looks to us and lends us money 
so we can run these massive deficits, is going to say: Why? Hold it. We 
don't know if they can pay off all this debt. At that point, the value 
of the dollar is at risk. At that point, the ability of us to sell debt 
is at risk. At that point, our Nation starts a downward fiscal spiral 
which will be extraordinarily disruptive and dangerous for us as a 
nation. This is not a good path to be on.
  There are also a couple technical points that should be pointed out 
because they are procedural points that have massive policy 
implications. First, of course, is this really pyrrhic claim they are 
using pay-go as a disciplining mechanism. How many times have we heard 
that pay-go is going to be used to discipline spending. My goodness, in 
the last Congress, which was dominated by the Democratic Party, if I 
recall correctly, the House and Senate both being democratically led, 
pay-go, which was supposed to discipline the fiscal process around 
here, was waived almost 20 times--either waived, avoided or 
circumvented almost 20 times. Those exercises cost us almost $400 
billion in spending that should have been offset. So pay-go became 
``Swiss cheese-go.'' It had no value and was a worthless purpose, other 
than to make a political speech and claim on the stump: Oh, I am for 
fiscal discipline. I am for pay-go. Of course, when you voted in the 
Senate over the last 2 years, if you made that speech and up for 
reelection and you were a Democrat, you basically waived pay-go, 
circumvented pay-go or avoided pay-go to the tune of $400 billion in 
new spending.
  Now we have the House Blue Dogs saying: We are going to get tough 
pay-go language back in place. I have to explain something to the House 
Blue Dogs: They didn't get it. They didn't give it to you. The budget 
that is going to come to the floor of this Senate is going to have 
structural changes which allow pay-go to be avoided for up to $2.5 
trillion, at least that is what the House budget had in it, and the 
Senate budget was pretty close. Mr. President, $2.5 trillion will 
circumvent pay-go.
  The most egregious exercise will be in the health care area, where 
they have formally ended pay-go's applicability during the first 5-year 
window. They basically say openly: We are not going to comply with pay-
go on health care.
  Health care is going to be the single biggest fiscal event this 
Congress has probably taken up in the last 20 years, maybe 30 years, 
maybe 40 years, maybe ever. Restructuring the health care of this 
country is a pretty doggone big exercise since it represents 17 percent 
of our economy. To say they are not going to apply pay-go to that 
exercise, to that effort, to that undertaking is to drive a hole 
through the pay-go concept that is so big it becomes not ``Swiss 
cheese-go'' but a great big, huge onion ring; there is basically 
nothing left but air in pay-go.
  When the Blue Dogs on the other side of the aisle start marching 
around: We have pay-go, we have pay-go, somebody ought to point out to 
them that their banner does not have a flag on it. Pay-go was taken 
down under health care rules and under the rest of this bill. It may 
make for a good press release, but it sure as heck doesn't have any 
substance to it.
  The second procedural event, of course, is this issue of 
reconciliation, which is a major issue for us on our side of the aisle, 
and it should be for the Senate. When the Senate was constructed, when 
our constitutional form of Government was put together, the idea was to 
have balance so we had a House of Representatives where things might 
happen quickly, but when it got to the Senate, there would be an 
airing, a hearing, consideration, and there would be due diligence on 
issues. That is why it was George Washington who described the House as 
the cup with the hot coffee in it and the Senate as the saucer into 
which the hot coffee is poured so it can be cooled down a little bit.
  The Senate is institutionally and constitutionally structured to be 
the place where we have debate, we have discussion, and we have 
amendments. That is the whole concept behind the Senate, especially on 
issues of massive public policy implications, and there is probably 
nothing we are going to take up on the domestic side of the ledger that 
has a bigger public policy implication than the rewriting of our entire 
health care system.
  Yet what is being proposed is that this rewrite of the entire health 
care system be done in a way that allows the Senate only 20 hours of 
debate, with essentially no amendments and with an up-or-down vote, yes 
or no, on something that affects 17 percent of the gross national 
product of this country, that affects every American in every walk of 
life in a very significant way, and that is how is their health care 
system delivered.
  Why wouldn't we want to have a full and clear, hopefully, and 
significant discussion of what we are doing to the American public and 
what the policy implications of health care reform are on the floor of 
the Senate? If we are going to get a good piece of legislation, we are 
going to have to have bipartisanship and going to have to have the 
American people believe it is fair. You cannot pass something as 
significant as health care and do it in a crammed-down manner, in a 
manner where it is totally partisan. Yet reconciliation is structured 
to accomplish just that.
  You have to have every stakeholder at the table. Granted, we are not 
going to win all our points, but we may have some points that are 
constructive to the debate. Let us at least be at the table and make 
those points on the floor of the Senate through the amendment process. 
Don't shut this Senate down and don't make us into the House of 
Representatives and don't essentially convert our constitutional form 
of Government, which is checks and balances, into a parliamentary form 
of Government, where there are essentially no checks and balances on 
the majority once it has an overwhelming position. That is what is 
being proposed in the bill when it pushes reconciliation as an option 
for the majority party in the area of health care reform. It is 
unfortunate.
  I appreciate the courtesy of the Chair.
  I ask unanimous consent that all quorum calls during debate on the 
Sebelius nomination be equally charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. 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. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Merkley  pertaining to the introduction of S. 911 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, what is the order of business? Are we in 
morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the Sebelius 
nomination.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I have a statement that will take about 
15 minutes on Governor Sebelius.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about the 
nomination of Governor Kathleen Sebelius to serve as our next Secretary 
of the Department of Health and Human Services. I will not be able to 
support Governor Sebelius's nomination to this position and will be 
voting no. I wish to take a few minutes to explain my opposition to her 
confirmation.
  First, I have always been pro life. I believe that life begins at 
conception and that every life is precious. I believe that we, as a 
society, have a responsibility to protect those who cannot protect 
themselves and speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. That

[[Page S4773]]

is why I am so strongly opposed to abortion. Abortion kills the most 
fragile, most vulnerable, and most needy among us. These children 
cannot defend themselves, so they desperately need us to protect them.
  To me, abortion is about whether defenseless babies have a right to 
live. The answer, clearly, is, yes, they do. I don't understand how 
people can come away with any other conclusion than that one. 
Unfortunately, too many people do. According to the National Right to 
Life, there have been more than 49 million abortions in the United 
States since 1973, with about 1.2 million in 2005, the year they have 
the most recent data. These numbers are staggering and saddening.
  I cannot support the nomination of someone to be the leader of our 
Health and Human Services Department who does not respect human life. 
That is why I will be voting against Governor Sebelius. Her record as 
Governor of Kansas on abortion issues is dismal. She has vetoed 
multiple pieces of legislation passed by the Kansas legislature dealing 
with abortion, including bills in 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2008. In fact, 
last week she vetoed yet another bill.
  These were commonsense bills that I think most Americans could agree 
with, such as creating standards for abortion clinics that require 
clean and sterilized rooms and equipment, counseling before and after 
abortion, and medical screening for patients. Several of the bills 
dealt with changes to the Kansas late-term abortion laws, including one 
vetoed last week. That bill required certain information to be reported 
to the State when doctors perform late-term abortions, including the 
specific medical reason the abortion was performed. Another bill would 
have given women about to undergo an abortion the opportunity to listen 
to the baby's heartbeat and see an ultrasound of their child, along 
with several other provisions. Governor Sebelius vetoed all of these 
bills.
  I am also greatly concerned about Governor Sebelius's relationship 
with Dr. George Tiller, an abortion doctor from Wichita, who 
specializes in late-term abortion. On Dr. Tiller's Web site he says 
that his clinic has ``more experience in late-term abortion services 
over 24 weeks than anyone else practicing in the Western Hemisphere, 
Europe, or Australia.'' This is not something to be proud of.
  I know that pro-abortion supporters like to make the argument that 
unborn babies are a clump of cells and not yet a human being. They 
couldn't be more wrong. These unborn babies are developing, growing, 
can feel pain, and certainly have the will to live. Let me briefly give 
a description of the development milestones that babies reach as they 
grow to 24 weeks. This is according to the Mayo Clinic's Web site--the 
Mayo Clinic: At 5 weeks, the heart begins to beat. At 8 weeks, eyelids 
are forming, along with the ears, upper nose, fingers, lips, and toes. 
At 9 weeks, the baby begins to move. At 12 weeks, fingernails and 
toenails are forming. At 16 weeks, the baby's eyes are sensitive to 
light. At 18 weeks, the ears start working and the baby can be even 
startled by loud noises. At 19 weeks, the kidneys are working. At 20 
weeks, most mothers can feel their babies move. At 22 weeks, taste buds 
are forming. At 23 weeks, the baby begins to practice breathing so she 
will be ready once she is born. At 24 weeks, the baby weighs about a 
pound and a half, has footprints, and fingerprints, and starts to have 
regular waking and sleep cycles.
  The Web site says that babies formed at 24 weeks have a 50 percent 
chance of survival. And this is where Dr. Tiller steps in and aborts 
the baby. How can you hear these development milestones and believe 
these babies are expendable; that these babies' lives are less 
important than someone else or that they simply can be killed and 
thrown away?
  Think of the difference between two babies at 24 weeks--one is 
wanted, one is not. For the child born early, whose parents love and 
want her, she would be rushed to a neonatal intensive care unit after 
delivery, where she would be given round-the-clock intensive medical 
care until she was big and strong enough to go home. Every day in this 
country, premature babies cling to life and fight for survival. I think 
most of the parents of premature babies would tell you that their 
child's will to live is courageous and inspiring.
  For the poor babies who have parents who choose to abort them, their 
life is about to end. According to Planned Parenthood, a procedure 
called dilation and evacuation--or D and E--is generally performed in 
pregnancies over 16 weeks. Let me read how the National Right to Life 
organization describes this procedure:

       Forceps with sharp metal jaws are used to grasp parts of 
     the developing baby, which are then twisted and torn away. 
     This continues until the entire baby is removed from the 
     womb. Because the baby's skull has often hardened to bone by 
     this time, the skull must sometimes be compressed or crushed 
     to facilitate removal.

  That is disgusting, and anyone who tries to justify it should be 
ashamed. Abortion and the callous disregard for human life in this 
country is a real tragedy. George Tiller's work greatly concerns me. 
Governor Sebelius's ties to George Tiller greatly concern me. The late-
term abortion doctor has donated tens of thousands of dollars to 
Governor Sebelius, and she has even honored him at the Governor's 
mansion in Kansas.
  Governor Sebelius hasn't always been upfront about their relationship 
as well. In answering questions before the Finance Committee, Governor 
Sebelius originally said that Tiller had donated about $12,000 to her. 
A few days later, she had to go back to revise that amount because 
somewhere an additional $23,000 in donations from the abortion doctor 
had been overlooked and not accounted for. While she said this was an 
inadvertent omission, it seems to me that you would remember that sum 
of money from one of your most controversial donors.
  I certainly realize that President Obama would not nominate someone 
to be Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services who is 
pro life. However, Governor Sebelius's record on right-to-life issues 
along with her ties to the late-term abortion Dr. Tiller cannot be 
overlooked. The leader of the Department of Health and Human Services 
should be balanced and reasonable. There is nothing in Governor 
Sebelius's record that makes me think she is either when it comes to 
protecting the life of the unborn.
  The second major reason I am opposing this nomination is that I don't 
believe Governor Sebelius has the experience to be Secretary of the 
Department of Health and Human Services. HHS is an enormous 
bureaucracy, responsible for everything from the Medicare Program to 
the National Institutes of Health, to the Food and Drug Administration. 
The Department has 11 operating divisions, over 64,000 employees, and a 
budget of $707 billion. According to HHS's Web site, it allocates more 
grant dollars than all of the other agencies combined. This is a 
tremendous responsibility, and the Department needs someone with hands-
on experience.

  As Governor of Kansas, she appointed someone to run their health and 
human services department and was not directly responsible for the day-
to-day operation. As Congress considers major health care reform 
legislation this year, we need someone with extensive experience in 
setting health policy for the entire country.
  I fundamentally disagree with Governor Sebelius on life issues, and I 
do not believe she has the experience to lead such a large department. 
I will be voting no on her nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise in support of the 
nomination of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to be Secretary of HHS. I do so 
enthusiastically. I do so as a personal friend of Kathleen's. I do so 
as a fellow public servant who has observed her considerable public 
service to her State of Kansas and to the people of this country.
  A dozen years ago--a little more; it was actually about 14 years 
ago--she was elected, unusually, as a Democrat in Republican Kansas, to 
a statewide office known as insurance commissioner. It is a little-
known and thankless job but one that has traditionally been under the 
thumb of the insurance industry. She came out of the Kansas 
Legislature, so she had a good schooling in the art of political craft. 
Indeed, that started long before she ever entered the Kansas 
Legislature because her dad was the Governor of Ohio. So it

[[Page S4774]]

is in her genes. Her father-in-law was the longtime Republican 
Congressman from Kansas. In that very Republican State, they elected a 
Democrat as the insurance commissioner. It was not a close election, 
but it was one in which, once she was installed as insurance 
commissioner, she started showing people who was boss. The elected 
representative of the people of Kansas was going to administer the laws 
with regard to the protection of consumers, which is the purpose of 
having an insurance advocate for the people.
  Only a few States continue to elect their insurance commissioner. It 
is known as the office of the revolving door since most of the 
insurance commissioners are appointed. The revolving door starts with 
the insurance industry having a representative who is appointed by the 
appointing authority, usually the Governor, because someone who is 
knowledgable about insurance has to be insurance commissioner. But, 
indeed, the door continues to revolve, and the average time of service 
for an appointed insurance commissioner is less than 1 year. As a 
result, as you watch the door revolve, they come in from the insurance 
industry, become the top regulator of the insurance industry, and on 
the average, in less than a year, the door revolves and they are out 
the door and they are back in the very industry from whence they came. 
That is not the smartest way to have an insurance regulator.
  Kathleen Sebelius defied that model. As the elected insurance 
commissioner of Kansas, she stood up for consumer rights and she 
cracked the whip to get the insurance companies to offer this product 
that has now become a necessity, not a luxury. Why? You can't drive a 
car without insurance. You can't own a home, if you have a mortgage, 
without insurance. You better have some life insurance if you are 
planning for your family.
  By the way, we have not even talked about health insurance. A huge 
percentage, well over a majority of the people in this country, get 
their health insurance through their employer. As we approach the issue 
of health care reform, what to do about insurance is going to be front 
and center, and Governor Sebelius is uniquely qualified to address this 
issue. We have 47 million people in this country who do not have health 
insurance, but they get health care. Where do they get health care? 
They get it from the most expensive place, which is the emergency room, 
and they get it at the most expensive time, which is when their 
symptoms have turned into a full, raging emergency. Therefore, because 
they did not have health insurance, they were not seeing a doctor for 
preventive care, and all of this additional cost, plus the additional 
costs of being treated in an emergency room--guess who pays. All of us 
pick up that tab. That, additionally, is plowed back into the costs we 
pay for health care, in large part through the insurance premiums we 
pay.
  Governor Sebelius is someone who has been there, she has done that. 
She knows how this insurance system operates. She knows the parameters 
in which you have to offer health insurance to people in order to make 
it work. She understands the financing behind it. She is uniquely 
qualified for this position of Secretary of HHS.
  Since I have the privilege of being a personal friend, I have known 
her over these 14 years in our capacities as elected insurance 
commissioners, she from Kansas and me from Florida, and then as I have 
continued to see her in her public service, then having gone from 
insurance commissioner to Governor, she comes at a time when this 
Nation is begging for health care reform. The President has chosen 
Kathleen in this exceptionally important position to not only use her 
skills as a former regulator where she can crack the whip but to use 
her skills as a person who can bring people together, who can 
reconcile, who can build consensus--which she has honed over the years 
and I suspect honed those skills at the knee of her father as she was 
growing up. She honed those skills as a public servant--as a 
legislator, as an elected statewide official, as the Governor, and now 
she will be the right person at the right time whom this Nation needs--
a very good Secretary of Health and Human Services.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________