[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14491-14517]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           FAMILY SMOKING PREVENTION AND TOBACCO CONTROL ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 1256, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1256) to protect the public health by 
     providing the Food and Drug Administration with certain 
     authority to regulate tobacco products, and to amend title 5, 
     United States Code, to make certain modifications in the 
     Thrift Savings Plan, the Civil Service Retirement System, and 
     the Federal Employees' Retirement System, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Dodd amendment No. 1247, in the nature of a substitute.
       Schumer (for Lieberman) amendment No. 1256 (to amendment 
     No. 1247), to modify provisions relating to Federal employees 
     retirement.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, as I understand it, we are going to have a 
vote at 12:30. I ask unanimous consent the time between now and 12:30 
be equally divided between the minority and majority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (At the request of Mr. Dodd, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, later today, the Senate will 
vote to approve legislation that should have been enacted years ago--
authority for the FDA to regulate tobacco products, the most lethal of 
all consumer products.
  It has been a long and arduous path with many political obstacles. 
Fortunately, the legislative journey is nearing a successful 
conclusion. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a nearly 
identical bill earlier this spring. In May, the Senate HELP Committee 
approved the FDA Tobacco bill with the support of a strong bipartisan 
majority. On Monday, 61 Senators voted to invoke cloture on the 
committee-passed bill. President Obama is anxiously waiting to sign it 
into law. Passage of the legislation is much more than a victory for 
those of us who have long championed this cause. It is a life saving 
act for the millions of children who will be spared a lifetime of 
addiction and premature death.
  The need to regulate tobacco products can no longer be ignored. Used 
as intended by the companies that manufacture and market them, 
cigarettes will kill one out of every three smokers. Yet the Federal 
agency most responsible for protecting the public health is currently 
powerless to deal with the enormous risks of tobacco use. Public health 
experts overwhelmingly believe that passage of H.R. 1256 is the most 
important action Congress can take to protect children from this deadly 
addiction. Without this strong congressional action, smoking will 
continue at its current rate, and more than 6 million of today's 
children will ultimately die from tobacco-induced disease.
  Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in America. 
Nationally, cigarettes kill well over 400,000 people each year. That is 
more lives lost than from automobile accidents, alcohol abuse, illegal 
drugs, AIDS, murder, and suicide combined.
  The American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the 
American Lung Association, the American Medical Association, the 
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and eighty-six other national public 
health organizations speak with one voice on this issue. They are all 
supporting H.R. 1256 because they know it will give FDA the tools it 
needs to reduce youth smoking and help addicted smokers quit.
  A landmark report by the Institute of Medicine, released 2 years ago, 
strongly urged Congress to ``confer upon the FDA broad regulatory 
authority over the manufacture, distribution, marketing and use of 
tobacco products.''
  Opponents of this legislation argue that FDA should not be regulating 
such a dangerous product. I could not disagree more. It is precisely 
because tobacco products are so deadly that we must empower America's 
premier public health protector--the FDA--to combat tobacco use. For 
decades the Federal Government has stayed on the sidelines and done 
next to nothing to deal with this enormous health problem. The tobacco 
industry has been allowed to mislead consumers, to make false health 
claims, to conceal the lethal contents of their products, to make their 
products even more addictive, and worst of all--to deliberately addict 
generations of children. The alternative to FDA regulation is more of 
the same. Allowing this abusive conduct by the tobacco industry to go 
unchecked would be terribly wrong.
  Under this legislation, FDA will for the first time have the needed 
power and resources to take on this challenge. The cost will be funded 
entirely by a new user fee paid by the tobacco companies in proportion 
to their market share. Not a single dollar will be diverted from FDA's 
existing responsibilities.
  Giving FDA authority over tobacco products will not make the tragic 
toll of tobacco use disappear overnight. More than 40 million people 
are hooked on this highly addictive product and many of them have been 
unable to quit despite repeated attempts. However, FDA action can play 
a major role in breaking the gruesome cycle that seduces millions of 
teenagers into a lifetime of addiction and premature death.
  What can FDA regulation accomplish?
  It can reduce youth smoking by preventing tobacco advertising which 
targets children. It can help prevent the sale of tobacco products to 
minors. It can stop the tobacco industry from continuing to mislead the 
public about the dangers of smoking. It can help smokers overcome their 
addiction. It can make tobacco products less toxic and less addictive 
for those who continue to use them. And it can prohibit unsubstantiated 
health claims about supposedly ``reduced risk'' products, and encourage 
the development of genuinely less harmful alternative products.
  Regulating the conduct of the tobacco companies is as necessary today 
as it has been in years past. The facts presented in the Federal 
Government's landmark lawsuit against the tobacco industry conclusively 
demonstrate that the misconduct is substantial and ongoing. The 
decision of the Court states: ``The evidence in this case clearly 
establishes that Defendants have not ceased engaging in unlawful 
activity . . . Defendants continue to engage in conduct that is 
materially indistinguishable from their previous actions, activity that 
continues to this day.'' Only strong FDA regulation can force the 
necessary change in their corporate behavior.
  We must deal firmly with tobacco company marketing practices that 
target children and mislead the public. The Food and Drug 
Administration needs broad authority to regulate the sale, 
distribution, and advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.
  The tobacco industry currently spends over thirteen billion dollars 
each year to promote its products. Much of that money is spent in ways 
designed to tempt children to start

[[Page 14492]]

smoking, before they are mature enough to appreciate the enormity of 
the health risk. Four thousand children have their first cigarette 
every day, and 1,000 of them become daily smokers. The industry knows 
that nearly 90 percent of smokers begin as children and are addicted by 
the time they reach adulthood.
  Documents obtained from tobacco companies prove, in the companies' 
own words, the magnitude of the industry's efforts to trap children 
into dependency on their deadly product. Studies by the Institute of 
Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control show the substantial role 
of industry advertising in decisions by young people to use tobacco 
products.
  If we are serious about reducing youth smoking, FDA must have the 
power to prevent industry advertising designed to appeal to children 
wherever it will be seen by children. This legislation will give FDA 
the authority to stop tobacco advertising that glamorizes smoking to 
kids. It grants FDA full authority to regulate tobacco advertising 
``consistent with and to the full extent permitted by the First 
Amendment.''
  FDA authority must also extend to the sale of tobacco products. 
Nearly every State makes it illegal to sell cigarettes to children 
under 18, but surveys show that many of those laws are rarely enforced 
and frequently violated. FDA must have the power to limit the sale of 
cigarettes to face-to-face transactions in which the age of the 
purchaser can be verified by identification. This means an end to self-
service displays and vending machine sales. There must also be serious 
enforcement efforts with real penalties for those caught selling 
tobacco products to children. This is the only way to ensure that 
children under 18 are not able to buy cigarettes.
  The FDA conducted the longest rulemaking proceeding in its history, 
studying which regulations would most effectively reduce the number of 
children who smoke. Seven hundred thousand public comments were 
received in the course of that rulemaking. At the conclusion of its 
proceeding, the Agency promulgated rules on the manner in which 
cigarettes are advertised and sold. Due to litigation, most of those 
regulations were never implemented. If we are serious about curbing 
youth smoking as much as possible, as soon as possible; it makes no 
sense to require FDA to reinvent the wheel by conducting a new 
multiyear rulemaking process on the same issues. This legislation will 
give the youth access and advertising restrictions already developed by 
FDA the force of law, as if they had been issued under the new statute. 
Once they are in place, FDA will have the authority to modify these 
rules as changing circumstances warrant.
  The legislation also provides for stronger warnings on all cigarette 
and smokeless tobacco packages, and in all print advertisements. These 
warnings will be larger and more explicit in their description of the 
medical problems which can result from tobacco use. Each cigarette pack 
will carry a graphic depiction of the consequences of smoking. The FDA 
is given the authority to change the warning labels periodically, to 
keep their impact strong.
  The nicotine in cigarettes is highly addictive. Medical experts say 
that it is as addictive as heroin or cocaine. Yet for decades, tobacco 
companies vehemently denied the addictiveness of their products. No one 
can forget the parade of tobacco executives who testified under oath 
before Congress that smoking cigarettes is not addictive. Overwhelming 
evidence in industry documents obtained through the discovery process 
proves that the companies not only knew of this addictiveness for 
decades, but actually relied on it as the basis for their marketing 
strategy. As we now know, cigarette manufacturers chemically 
manipulated the nicotine in their products to make it even more 
addictive.
  An analysis by the Harvard School of Public Health demonstrates that 
cigarette manufacturers are still manipulating nicotine levels. Between 
1998 and 2005, they significantly increased the nicotine yield from 
major brand-name cigarettes. The average increase in nicotine yield 
over the period was 11 percent.
  The tobacco industry has a long dishonorable history of providing 
misleading information about the health consequences of smoking. These 
companies have repeatedly sought to characterize their products as far 
less hazardous than they are. They made minor innovations in product 
design seem far more significant for the health of the user than they 
actually were. It is essential that FDA have clear and unambiguous 
authority to prevent such misrepresentations in the future. The largest 
disinformation campaign in the history of the corporate world must end.
  Given the addictiveness of tobacco products, it is essential that the 
FDA regulate them for the protection of the public. Over 40 million 
Americans are currently addicted to cigarettes. No responsible public 
health official believes that cigarettes should be banned. A ban would 
leave 40 million people without a way to satisfy their drug dependency. 
FDA should be able to take the necessary steps to help addicted smokers 
overcome their addiction, and to make the product less toxic for 
smokers who are unable or unwilling to stop. To do so, FDA must have 
the authority to reduce or remove hazardous and addictive ingredients 
from cigarettes, to the extent that it is scientifically feasible. The 
inherent risk in smoking should not be unnecessarily compounded.
  Recent statements by several tobacco companies make clear that they 
plan to develop what they characterize as ``reduced risk'' cigarettes. 
Some are already on the market making unsubstantiated claims. This 
legislation will require manufacturers to submit such ``reduced risk'' 
products to the FDA for analysis before they can be marketed. No 
health-related claims will be permitted until they have been verified 
to the FDA's satisfaction. These safeguards are essential to prevent 
deceptive industry marketing campaigns, which could lull the public 
into a false sense of health safety. Only by preventing bogus claims 
will there be a real financial incentive for companies to develop new 
technologies that can lead to genuinely and verifiably safer products.
  This legislation will vest FDA not only with the responsibility for 
regulating tobacco products, but with full authority to do the job 
effectively. It is long overdue.
  Voting for this legislation today is the right thing to do for 
America's children. They are depending on us. By passing this 
legislation, we can help them live longer, healthier lives. I know that 
the Senate will not let them down.
  Mr. DODD. There are over 1,000 organizations that support H.R. 1256. 
I ask unanimous consent that some of these letters of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   March 26, 2009.
     Hon. Henry Waxman
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Waxman: We are writing to endorse the 
     ``Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act,'' which 
     you introduced on March 3, 2009. If enacted, this legislation 
     will make a significant contribution in our national campaign 
     to reduce the harm caused by tobacco and to protect our 
     children and public health.
       As you are aware, in the next 365 days, more than 400,000 
     Americans will die prematurely from tobacco use and more than 
     450,000 children, 12 to 17 years old, will become regular, 
     daily smokers and part of the next generation of grim 
     statistics. This year, under your leadership, the United 
     States Congress has an opportunity to bring about fundamental 
     change by enacting your legislation to regulate tobacco 
     products and their marketing.
       The ``Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act'' 
     is the kind of tobacco regulation that makes sense and that 
     is long overdue. It would prevent the tobacco companies from 
     marketing to children. It would require disclosure of the 
     contents of tobacco products, would authorize FDA to require 
     the reduction or removal of harmful ingredients, and would 
     require FDA to promptly address the complex issues raised by 
     menthol tobacco products. It would prohibit terms

[[Page 14493]]

     like ``light'' and ``low tar'' which have been used to 
     mislead smokers into thinking that those tobacco products are 
     less harmful. And it would force the tobacco companies to 
     scientifically prove any claims about ``reduced risk'' 
     products.
       Some have questioned whether FDA can take on this important 
     new task and whether it will have sufficient resources. 
     Having thoroughly studied this issue, we believe that the 
     bill gives the FDA the resources it needs to do the job 
     properly; and, without question, the FDA is the right agency 
     to implement this new regulation because it has a public 
     health mandate and the necessary scientific and regulatory 
     experience.
       The Congress can change the course of this public health 
     crisis by voting to enact your legislation to provide FDA 
     with authority over tobacco products. This is a strong bill 
     and would significantly advance the public health.
       Sincerely,
     Donna E. Shalala,
       Former Secretary of Health and Human Services.
     David Kessler,
       Former Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration.
     David Satcher,
       Former Surgeon General.
     Tommy G. Thompson,
       Former Secretary of Health and Human Services.
     Julie L. Gerberding,
       Former Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention.
     Richard H. Carmona,
       Former Surgeon General.
                                  ____

                                          American Cancer Society,


                                        Cancer Action Network,

                                     Washington, DC, May 18, 2009.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Kennedy: On behalf of the volunteers and 
     supporters of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action 
     Network (ACS CAN), the advocacy affiliate organization of the 
     American Cancer Society, we thank you for your leadership on 
     The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, S. 
     982. We fully support this legislation to give the U.S. Food 
     and Drug Administration long-needed authority to regulate the 
     production, marketing and sale of tobacco products.
       Every year, more than 400,000 Americans die from causes 
     related to the use of tobacco products. The annual direct 
     health care cost from tobacco use is $96 billion. Every day 
     3,500 kids smoke their first cigarette and each day 1,000 
     young people become regular smokers, one-third of whom will 
     die prematurely as a result.
       More than 1.4 million Americans will be diagnosed with 
     cancer this year and more than 550,000 will lose their battle 
     with the disease. There will be 159,000 lung cancer deaths 
     this year. Smoking is responsible for 87 percent of the 
     deaths from lung cancer.
       Despite the overwhelming evidence of harm to public health 
     and costs to the health care system, tobacco products remain 
     virtually unregulated. In the absence of government 
     intervention, the tobacco industry continues to market its 
     deadly products to children, deceive the general public about 
     the harm they cause, and fail to take any meaningful action 
     to make their products less harmful or less addictive.
       Your legislation would begin commonsense oversight of the 
     industry by giving FDA the necessary authority and resources 
     to regulate the manufacturing, marketing, labeling, 
     distribution and sale of tobacco products. The bill will give 
     FDA authority to prevent tobacco advertising that targets 
     children, prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors, 
     identify and reduce the toxic constituents of tobacco 
     products and tobacco smoke, and regulate industry health 
     claims about the risks of tobacco products.
       This is strong and effective legislation broadly supported 
     by the public health community. We assure you that ACS CAN 
     will work vigorously to protect the approach you have taken 
     and to see it enacted into law this year.
       Thank you again for your commitment to this critically 
     important and long overdue legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Daniel E. Smith,
     President.
                                  ____



                                    American Lung Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 14, 2009.
     Senator Edward M. Kennedy,
     Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Kennedy: The American Lung Association 
     commends the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and 
     Pensions for considering S. 982, the Family Smoking 
     Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Your legislation would 
     finally give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
     authority over tobacco products.
       This legislation will provide the FDA with the authority to 
     stop the tobacco companies from advertising to children, 
     making misleading health claims about their deadly products 
     and from manipulating their products to make them 
     increasingly more addictive. FDA authority over manufactured 
     tobacco products will finally allow our nation to begin to 
     take significant steps to reduce the tobacco-caused death 
     toll that claims more than 392,000 American lives each year 
     and results in $193 billion annually in health care costs and 
     lost productivity.
       The American Lung Association is grateful to you for your 
     leadership and we look forward to working with you to ensure 
     its passage by the Senate in June.
           Sincerely,
                                                Charles D. Connor,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                        Chicago, IL, May 11, 2009.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Chairman, Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, 
         U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the physician and 
     medical student members of the American Medical Association 
     (AMA), I am writing to express our strong support for S. 982, 
     the ``Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act,'' 
     and to urge the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 
     (HELP) Committee to approve S. 982 during its mark up of the 
     bill. This legislation would give the Food and Drug 
     Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate the 
     manufacture, sale, distribution, and marketing of tobacco 
     products. The AMA firmly believes that Congress must act this 
     year to protect the public's health by passing the Family 
     Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.
       Cigarette smoking remains the leading preventable cause of 
     death and disease in the United States. Each year, tobacco 
     use kills more than 400,000 Americans and costs the nation 
     nearly $100 billion in health care bills. As physicians, we 
     see daily the devastating consequences of tobacco use on our 
     patients' health. Patients suffer from preventable diseases 
     including cancer, heart disease, and emphysema that develop 
     as a result of the use of a single product--tobacco. The 
     evidence is overwhelming concerning the health risks of using 
     tobacco products, particularly when used over decades.
       Ninety percent of all adult smokers begin while in their 
     teens, or earlier, and two-thirds become regular, daily 
     smokers before they reach the age of 19. Each day, 
     approximately 4,000 kids will try a cigarette for the first 
     time, and another 1,000 will become new, regular, daily 
     smokers. As a result, one-third of these kids will die 
     prematurely. Despite their assertions to the contrary, the 
     tobacco companies continue to market their products 
     aggressively and effectively to reach kids, who are more 
     susceptible to cigarette advertising and marketing than 
     adults. Congressional action to provide the FDA with strong 
     and effective regulatory authority over tobacco products is 
     long overdue.
       We applaud you for your leadership on strong FDA regulation 
     of tobacco and other critical public health issues. The AMA 
     looks forward to working with you and your colleagues to 
     enact S. 982 and its companion in the House, H.R. 1256, into 
     law.
           Sincerely,
     Michael D. Maves.
                                  ____

         American Public Health Association,
                                     Washington, DC, May 13, 2009.
     Hon. Edward Kennedy,
     Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, 
         Senate Dirksen Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Kennedy: On behalf of the American Public 
     Health Association (APHA), the oldest and most diverse 
     organization of public health professionals and advocates in 
     the world dedicated to promoting and protecting the health of 
     the public and our communities, I write in strong support of 
     S. 982, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control 
     Act, legislation that would give the Food and Drug 
     Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate tobacco 
     products. In April, the House of Representatives passed this 
     legislation by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and we are 
     hopeful the Senate will move quickly to pass the bill.
       According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     (CDC), tobacco use is responsible for about 438,000 deaths 
     each year in the United States. In addition to this 
     staggering statistic, tobacco use costs more than $96 billion 
     each year in health care expenditures, and an additional $97 
     billion per year in lost productivity. Furthermore, 3,600 
     kids between the ages of 12 and 17 years initiate cigarette 
     smoking every day. In spite of this, tobacco products remain 
     virtually unregulated. For decades, the tobacco companies 
     have marketed their deadly products to our children, deceived 
     consumers about the harm their products cause, and failed to 
     take any meaningful action to make their products less 
     harmful or less addictive. Your bill would finally end the 
     special protection

[[Page 14494]]

     enjoyed by the tobacco industry and protect our children and 
     the nation's health instead.
       This legislation meets the high standard established by the 
     public health community for FDA tobacco regulation. 
     Importantly, the bill would create FDA authority to 
     effectively regulate the manufacturing, marketing, labeling, 
     distribution and sale of tobacco products, including the 
     authority to:
       Stop illegal sales of tobacco products to children and 
     adolescents
       Require changes in tobacco products, such as the reduction 
     or elimination of harmful chemicals, to make them less 
     harmful and less addictive
       Restrict advertising and promotions that appeal to children 
     and adolescents
       Prohibit unsubstantiated health claims about so-called 
     ``reduced risk'' tobacco products that discourage current 
     tobacco users from quitting or encourage new users to start
       Require the disclosure of tobacco product content and 
     tobacco industry research about the health effects of their 
     products
       Require larger and more informative health warnings on 
     tobacco products.
       Study and address issues associated with menthol tobacco 
     products
       We thank you for your continued leadership on this and 
     other important public health issues. We look forward to 
     working with you to ensure the legislation is passed by the 
     Senate and signed by the president this year.
           Sincerely,
                                              Georges C. Benjamin,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                               Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids,

                                     Washington, DC, May 14, 2009.
     Senator Edward M. Kennedy,
     Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Kennedy: We are very pleased that the Senate 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions will next 
     week undertake consideration of S. 982, the Family Smoking 
     Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, your legislation to give 
     the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority over 
     tobacco products. On April 2nd, the House passed this 
     legislation with a solid bipartisan vote of 298-112. We look 
     forward to its passage by the Senate in the near future.
       Tobacco use remains the leading cause of preventable death 
     in the U.S., killing more than 400,000 Americans each year 
     and costing our health care system an estimated $96 billion 
     annually. More than 1,000 kids become regular, daily smokers 
     each day--and one-third of them will ultimately die from 
     their addiction. Amazingly, tobacco products are virtually 
     unregulated by the federal government. Tobacco products are 
     exempt from basic health regulations that apply to other 
     consumer products such as drugs, medical devices and foods. 
     This special protection allows tobacco companies to market 
     their deadly and addictive products to children, mislead 
     consumers about the dangers of their products, and continue 
     to manipulate ingredients in order to make them more 
     addictive and attractive to children.
       There are more than 1,000 national, state and local 
     organizations that support this legislation (the full list of 
     supporting organizations can be seen at: http://www
.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/fda/organiza
     tions.pdf) and both the President's Cancer Panel and the 
     Institute of Medicine support Congress giving the FDA the 
     authority to regulate the manufacture and marketing of 
     tobacco products.
       We applaud your leadership on this important public health 
     legislation and look forward to working with you to ensure 
     its passage by the full Senate.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Matthew L. Myers,
     President.
                                  ____



                               American Academy of Pediatrics,

                            Elk Grove Village, IL, April 29, 2009.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the 60,000 
     pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists and pediatric 
     surgical specialists of the American Academy of Pediatrics 
     (AAP), I would like to express our support for the Family 
     Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (H.R. 1256), 
     legislation to protect child health by providing the Food and 
     Drug Administration (FDA) with strong authority to regulate 
     tobacco products. The bill made historic progress this year, 
     passing in the House early in the session by an overwhelming 
     bipartisan majority of 292-112. We urge the Senate to take up 
     and approve FDA tobacco legislation as soon as possible and 
     oppose the alternative offered by Senators Burr and Hagan.
       It is estimated that more than 3 million US adolescents are 
     cigarette smokers and more than 2,000 children under the age 
     of 18 start smoking each day. If current tobacco use patterns 
     persist, an estimated 6.4 million children will die 
     prematurely from a smoking-related disease. Smoking and 
     exposure to second-hand smoke among pregnant women cause low-
     birth weight babies, preterm delivery, perinatal deaths and 
     sudden infant death syndrome. Other effects may include 
     childhood cancer, childhood leukemia, childhood lymphomas and 
     childhood brain tumors. Well over 30,000 births per year in 
     the United States are affected by one or more of these 
     problems.
       The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act will 
     provide the FDA with broad new authority and resources to 
     regulate the manufacture, marketing, labeling, distribution 
     and sale of tobacco products, including advertising. The 
     marketing provisions include banning advertising near schools 
     and tobacco sponsorship of sporting events. The bill would 
     require tobacco company disclosure of cigarette constituents 
     as well as larger and stronger health warnings on cigarette 
     packs. It would also give the FDA the authority to regulate 
     the amount of nicotine in cigarettes, ban flavored 
     cigarettes, and prevent the marketing of products labeled as 
     ``reduced harm.'' This enhanced power can reduce tobacco use 
     by adolescents and young adults, thus limiting the number of 
     people exposed to tobacco's health-compromising and life-
     threatening risks.
       The Academy opposes the alternative tobacco regulation 
     legislation offered by Senators Burr and Hagan titled the 
     Federal Tobacco Act of 2009 (S. 579). It does not provide the 
     protections necessary to protect children from the harms of 
     tobacco. Rather than place tobacco regulatory authority in 
     the FDA, S. 579 would create a new and untested bureaucracy 
     to do the job. The bill does not contain the strong marketing 
     or labeling provisions necessary to prevent our nation's 
     youth from starting a lifelong addiction to tobacco. The 
     Federal Tobacco Act would also mistakenly assure tobacco 
     users of the safety of so-called ``reduced-risk'' tobacco 
     products, give the tobacco industry a voice in scientific 
     decision making, and prevent mandating meaningful changes in 
     tobacco product ingredients. We urge the Senate to oppose 
     this alternative and swiftly pass FDA tobacco legislation.
       Thank you for your dedication to the health and well-being 
     of children. We look forward to working with you to pass this 
     important legislation.
       Sincerely,
                                             David T. Tayloe, Jr.,
                                                        President.

  Mr. DODD. Let me take a couple of minutes. I know my colleague and 
friend from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, is coming to the floor as well. I 
think Senator Coburn is going to be here to make a point of order. I 
will keep an eye out so I do not exceed the time.
  I want to point out to my colleagues that this is now down to the 
last few votes on this matter. I had hoped we would have been able to 
consider some of the other amendments that were being offered. But as 
my colleagues, I think, are probably aware, one of the amendments to be 
considered was an amendment offered by my colleague Senator Lieberman. 
There was objection to that amendment coming up. As a result, we could 
not reach an agreement on allowing time for the other amendments to be 
considered, amendments offered by Senator Enzi, Senator Bunning, 
Senator Coburn, and Senator Hagan.
  In fact, an amendment offered by Senator Enzi--he and I reached an 
agreement on that. It is regrettable that we weren't able to get to it. 
I hope we can fix it at another time. That is an example of what 
happened when we couldn't get unanimous consent to go forward. 
Nonetheless, I hope the substitute will be adopted, cloture will be 
invoked, and we can schedule a vote for final passage, as I believe we 
will, in the next day.
  This is important. A lot of work has been done on this bill. As 
Senator Durbin, our friend from Illinois, pointed out, this is work 
that has gone on for decades between Republicans and Democrats. It is a 
bipartisan bill. We spent 2 days on markup, considering amendments, 
adopting some, accepting some. That brought us to the position we are 
in today with this legislation.
  As I have said over and over again over the last number of weeks as 
we have considered this bill, this is an unprecedented action we will 
be taking, an historic moment in many ways. For the first time ever in 
the history of our country, the 100-year-old regulatory agency, the 
Food and Drug Administration, which regulates all the food and products 
we ingest and consume as Americans, will now for the first time be 
allowed to regulate tobacco products.
  The FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, as I pointed out, not only 
regulates the food we humans consume but also pets--cat food, dog food, 
bird

[[Page 14495]]

feed, hamsters--all those products have to be approved by the FDA. One 
product we have not been able to legislate because of opposition from 
the tobacco industry is tobacco products. We are about to change that. 
My hope is with a vote today and tomorrow, and then agreement with the 
House, the President will be in a position to sign the legislation that 
will, first, give the Food and Drug Administration the opportunity to 
regulate these products and, as important, to determine and set 
guidelines and regulations dealing with the sale and marketing to young 
people.
  It has been said, I know, over and over again, maybe not often 
enough, 3,000 to 4,000 children begin smoking every day in America. 
Every day we delay having the FDA take on this responsibility and begin 
controlling the marketing and sale of these products, we run the risk 
of more and more children starting the habit. We know that of that 
3,000 to 4,000 who start smoking every day, 1,000 of them end up 
becoming addicted to the products. One in five high school students in 
my State of Connecticut today smoke. I suspect those numbers are 
probably fairly uniform across the country. Of that number I have 
mentioned, the thousand who become addicted, about one-third that 
number will die from smoking-related illnesses. Four hundred thousand 
people every year lose their lives as a result of tobacco-related 
illnesses.
  Again, this is a self-inflicted wound. Obviously we have known this 
for a long time. The Surgeon General has warned for years, every 
scientific study that has been done has cautioned about what happens if 
people develop the habit of smoking and the dangers associated with it. 
We talk about loss of life but there are also those who become 
debilitated through the contraction of various diseases associated with 
smoking.
  I apologize for making this case with numbers, but it is so important 
my colleagues understand where we are and how important this vote is, 
to be able to do this. We are now already beginning the debate about 
health care in the country. That debate is going to go on for the next 
number of months. A major feature of the health care debate is 
prevention, to try to prevent people from getting the diseases that 
cost them and their families and our country so much. What better way 
to take a step toward prevention than to deal with an issue like 
smoking and tobacco products, which causes so many deaths in our 
country, so many illnesses.
  In fact, if you take suicides, murders, AIDS, alcohol-related deaths, 
automobile accidents, drug-related deaths, and combine all of them, 
they do not equal the number of fatalities that occur every year as a 
result of the use of tobacco products.
  If we are truly interested in making real headway on prevention, what 
better way than to begin to deal with the issue of marketing and sale 
of tobacco products to young people. That is what a major part of this 
bill does.
  We also provide help to the producing States because we recognize 
that for farmers in these States, this will be a major adjustment for 
them economically. This bill accommodates that as well.
  I say to my friends on the other side, particularly, those who have 
offered--want to offer some of these amendments, we didn't have a 
chance to consider some of them, but I want them to know it was not 
objection on this side to that at all. There were objections to the 
Lieberman amendment going forward that created this problem. But, 
nonetheless, the work that has been done on this bill I think is 
deserving of our support. It is worthy of our unanimous adoption.
  As I said over and over again, if you were to collect all of the 
adult smokers in the country--and 90 percent of adult smokers began as 
children, by the way--but if you asked all of them their opinion on 
whether we ought to do something about marketing these products to 
children, I would be willing to venture a guess that 98 percent of 
adult smokers, if they could speak with one voice today, would tell us 
to pass this bill. The last thing a parent who smokes wants is their 
children to start smoking. They know the hazards, they know the damage, 
they know the heartache that comes with the illnesses associated with 
these products.
  On behalf of all parents in the country, smokers and nonsmokers, let 
us adopt this legislation and take a major step in dealing with the 
dreaded health problems associated with tobacco products.
  I see my colleague from Wyoming so let me stop here and give him the 
remainder of the time he needs to comment on this. I thank him and his 
staff who have been working on this. I am a late arrival. He worked 
with Senator Kennedy on this problem long before I was directly 
involved with it. I thank him for his work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, who is 
working as chairman on this committee, for his passion, enthusiasm, and 
for listening to us. We do have a few things that are in the bill, but 
there are several other things that ought to be considered. We want the 
bill to be as good as possible. When we do cloture, we cut off that 
possibility.
  I have a couple amendments that I think, if they were addressed--I 
know one is kind of accepted on both sides, but we cannot get them in. 
That is a frustration. We should not be having frustrations on 
something as important as this bill. It is important that we stop kids 
from starting smoking and that we get people already smoking to stop 
smoking. It is adding to the health care bills of all of us. It is a 
cost shift we are experiencing. It is not good for their health. Then 
there are family members who are having secondary smoke. People do not 
realize the problems they are giving to their family members by doing 
that.
  I do oppose cloture today. There are several amendments I would like 
to offer. They are all germane amendments. I am glad they were germane 
amendments. We have been trying to reach an agreement on offering these 
amendments but it has been without any success, and if we invoke 
cloture we will not have a chance to consider any of these amendments.
  I hope we have a way to give these amendments serious consideration. 
If we cannot, I have to oppose cloture and I ask my colleagues to do 
the same. I think we can get it worked out in a relative hurry but not 
unless the train stops for a moment, a little hesitation here.
  I want to get this bill done. I am hoping we can complete it. But I 
think there are some important points that have to be made on it.
  I yield the floor.


                         characterizing flavor

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, recent attempts by the tobacco 
industry to sell and market candy-flavored cigarettes are a real threat 
to our Nation's children. With flavors such as cherry, grape, and 
strawberry, these cigarettes are intended to get our children addicted 
to a deadly product that kills more than 400,000 people a year. The 
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act section 907 prohibits 
the use in cigarettes of flavors, herbs, spices, such as strawberry 
grape, orange, clove and cinnamon, when used as a ``characterizing 
flavor'' of the tobacco product or smoke. I applaud you along with 
Senator Kennedy for prohibiting these products.
  Mr. DODD. As you know, most new smokers start as children. Every day, 
approximately 3,500 kids will try a cigarette for the first time, and 
another 1,000 will become new, regular daily smokers. We should do 
everything possible to protect our children from the dangers of 
smoking.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. However, it is my understanding that the language in 
section 907 is not meant to prohibit the use of any specific ingredient 
that does not produce a ``characterizing flavor'' in a cigarette or its 
smoke; is that correct?
  Mr. DODD. The Senator from New Jersey is correct. While the term 
``characterizing flavor'' is undefined in the legislation, it is 
intended to capture those additives that produce a distinguishing 
flavor, taste, or aroma imparted by the product. Nothing in this 
section is intended to expressly prohibit the use of any specific 
ingredient that does not fall into this category.

[[Page 14496]]


  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator for this clarification.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I am pleased the Senate is taking up the 
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Act which will save hundreds of 
thousands of lives and more than $155 billion in health care costs 
every year. Currently, there are more than 44 million smokers, of which 
90 percent began smoking before the age of 18. Tobacco is a product 
that is responsible for 440,000 deaths each year, is the leading cause 
of preventable death, and yet, is not regulated.
  The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act will go a long 
way in regulating tobacco products, and will make it less likely that a 
child will establish a dependence on tobacco products. In the United 
States alone, every day approximately 3,000 minors take up smoking. 
Simply reducing the use of tobacco by these minors by even 50 percent 
will prevent more than 10 million children from becoming habitual 
smokers, saving over 3 million of them from premature death due to 
tobacco related disease.
  It is critical that the FDA gain regulatory authority over tobacco 
related products, in order to ensure that consumers are better informed 
of the possible risks, addictive qualities, and adverse health effects 
of these products. In addition, this legislation will create more 
transparency and, as in many other consumable goods, tobacco 
manufactures will be required to list all ingredients included in their 
tobacco products. This bill also gives the FDA the ability to set 
quality criteria for tobacco products, prohibit cigarettes containing 
any flavoring other than tobacco or menthol, as well as require the FDA 
approval for all labels before being put on the market.
  In 2005, cigarette manufactures spent more than $13 billion to 
attract new users, retain current users, and increase consumption. 
Children especially are exposed to tobacco advertising, seeing tobacco 
use glorified in movies, and advertisements and sponsorship of sporting 
events. This advertising misleads users, children and adults, to 
believe products are healthy, for example, ``light'' or ``low-tar'' 
designations. Our Nation stands to benefit greatly from this 
legislation, both in quality of life and revenue saved. The diseases 
and deaths caused by smoking are preventable, and every person has a 
stake in the issue, whether they smoke or not.
  I was disappointed in 1998 when the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of 
Appeals decided in Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation v. Food and 
Drug Administration, FDA, that the FDA did not have the authority under 
existing law to regulate tobacco as an addictive drug, and I am pleased 
the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act will take steps 
to address this lack of regulation. This bill has the support of over 
1,000 organizations and deserves our support.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I regret that the Senate was unable to 
reach an agreement with regard to consideration of the amendment which 
Senators Lieberman, Akaka, Collins, and Voinovich offered to H.R. 1256. 
The amendment, which was ruled nongermane, reformed several Federal 
employee retirement provisions. It made changes to benefit computation 
rules for certain Federal employees, including the ability to count 
sick leave and part-time service, and it authorized Federal agencies to 
reemploy Federal pensioners on a part-time basis.
  I cosponsored this amendment. Its importance particularly resonates 
with me as a large number of Federal employees work and reside in my 
home State of Maryland. But that is not why I cosponsored it. I 
cosponsored the amendment because it was the right thing to do for all 
of America's Federal employees.
  The Lieberman amendment would have extended to employees under the 
Federal Employees' Retirement System certain benefits which already 
apply to employees under the older Civil Service Retirement System. 
This bipartisan amendment had the potential to affect the lives of 
hundreds of thousands of Federal employees who work hard every day, 
many at modest pay grades, only to find that their benefits do not 
mirror those of their colleagues in the same positions.
  We had an opportunity to send an important message to America's 
Federal workers by bringing up this amendment. We had an opportunity to 
give them additional incentives to continue the missions they pursue on 
behalf of all of us, to demonstrate that Congress still cares about 
doing what is right and fair. I regret we were unable to consider this 
amendment because of the objections of a minority of Senators.
  I commend Senator Lieberman and the other Senators who worked so 
diligently on this amendment. We will have other opportunities. I 
pledge my continued support for America's Federal employees, just as 
they continue to work for America each and every day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Lieberman I ask 
unanimous consent, notwithstanding rule XXII, that I be permitted to 
call up amendment No. 1290 and that the amendment be modified with the 
changes at the desk; that once this modification is made, amendment No. 
1256 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DeMINT. I object. I make a point of order that the pending 
Lieberman amendment is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The point of order is well 
taken. The amendment falls.
  Under the previous order, the substitute amendment is adopted.
  The amendment (No. 1247) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. The pending matter will be a vote at 12:30, in a few 
minutes, on the cloture motion, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DODD. We will go to the vote right away. I appreciate the 
comments of my friend from Wyoming. I wish the Record to note there 
were no objections on this side to any of the amendments being offered, 
the germane amendments. My friend from Wyoming is absolutely correct. I 
regret that, that we didn't have an opportunity to debate those, but 
let me say there may be a time and opportunity for us to deal with 
these on other vehicles as well, but my hope is we can invoke cloture 
and move forward.
  I am prepared to yield back the time and proceed to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendment and third reading of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 47, 
     H.R. 1256, Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.
         Harry Reid, Christopher J. Dodd, Robert P. Casey, Jr., 
           Debbie Stabenow, Blanche L. Lincoln, Patty Murray, Ron 
           Wyden, Jack Reed, Sheldon Whitehouse, Maria Cantwell, 
           Roland W. Burris, Richard Durbin, Mark Udall, Edward E. 
           Kaufman, Tom Harkin, Benjamin L. Cardin, Bill Nelson.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call is waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that 
debate on H.R. 1256, Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, 
shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 67, nays 30, as follows:

[[Page 14497]]



                      [Rollcall Vote No. 206 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--30

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Kennedy
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 67, the nays are 
30. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I wish to thank my colleagues. This is, 
again, a strong bipartisan vote on this issue, and it allows us now to 
get to the final passage. We have had about, I think, three cloture 
votes on this bill. If we followed the regular order, the vote would 
occur at 6:05 a.m. tomorrow morning. I am sure the leader will not make 
us do that, but that may be the price you pay for all the cloture votes 
we have had to go through. But sometime tomorrow the vote will occur, 
and the leadership will obviously decide when.
  Let me again thank Senator Enzi and his staff and Senator Kennedy and 
his staff. They have gone back many years. I am a place-holder on this. 
I hope our friend from Massachusetts is watching this because he 
battled 10 years to get us to this point.
  If we can make a dent in those 3,000 to 4,000 kids who start smoking 
every day--the estimates are 11 percent will not start smoking because 
of what we are about to do on this bill. If we can make a difference in 
those 400,000 who lose their lives every year and those who contract 
emphysema and related illnesses, this may be the most important 
prevention step we take in the short term on our health care efforts.
  So for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have made this 
possible, this is a moment they can take great satisfaction in having 
made a significant contribution to the well-being of Americans. I thank 
all of them for that and urge a strong vote tomorrow for the passage of 
the legislation. Then we will work out--and we may not have to work out 
differences with the House--but if we do, we will then send this bill 
to the President for his signature, hopefully in the next few days. For 
the first time in the history of our country, the Food and Drug 
Administration will be able to regulate tobacco products, and that is a 
major achievement for our country's children.
  With that, Madam President, I thank my colleagues again and suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his request?
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I withhold that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to 
speak as in morning business for 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          SAFE Commission Act

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today to again call attention 
to the irresponsible and reckless fiscal path we find ourselves on as a 
nation and to urge my colleagues to act now to take the first step 
toward meaningful, comprehensive tax and entitlement reform through the 
enactment of the Securing America's Future Economy Commission Act, 
which I introduced with Senator Joe Lieberman.
  I urge my colleagues to take the time to read a recent letter from 
Senator Lieberman and I urging their support of this legislation.
  The SAFE Commission has broad bipartisan support outside of Congress, 
including the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, the Business Roundtable, 
the Concord Coalition, the National Federation of Independent Business, 
the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation--I think if you 
get the Concord Coalition and the Heritage Foundation to support a 
piece of legislation, it has to be pretty bipartisan and fair--and also 
the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. All of these 
organizations back the SAFE Commission concept as the way to tackle tax 
reform and our entitlement crisis.
  I say to the Presiding Officer, as you may know, recently Chinese 
Prime Minister Wen Jiabao publicly voiced his concern about the 
security of the ``huge amount of money'' China has invested in the 
United States, saying, ``To be honest, I am definitely a little 
worried.'' He then went on to call on the United States to ``maintain 
its good credit, to honor its promises and to guarantee the safety of 
China's assets.'' I hope this frightens you as much as it frightens me. 
China is the largest foreign creditor of the United States, holding an 
estimated $1 trillion in U.S. Government debt. Though it may be 
unlikely due to the complex interdependent relationship we have with 
China, if China were to call in that debt, sell off its holdings, or 
direct its foreign investments away from the United States, the impact 
on our economy and our national security would be devastating. I have 
been saying for years that we cannot allow countries that control our 
debt to control our future.
  The fact is foreign creditors have provided 70 percent of the funds 
the United States has borrowed since 2001. As a result, 51 percent of 
the privately owned national debt is held by foreign creditors--mostly 
foreign central banks. That is going to be increased significantly 
because of all the borrowing we are doing. These lenders are starting 
to express significant concerns about the status of our fiscal 
situation. To be frank, they should be concerned.
  Our spending is out of control. As a result, our debt is 
skyrocketing. When I arrived in the Senate in 1999, gross national debt 
stood at $5.6 trillion, or 61 percent of our GDP. The Obama 
administration recently projected the national debt to more than double 
to $12.7 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2009. From 2008 to 2009 
alone, the Federal debt will increase 27 percent, boosting the 
country's debt-to-income ratio--or national debt as a percentage of 
GDP--from 70 percent last year to 89 percent this year.
  As shown on this chart, here is where we were back when I came to the 
Senate in 1999. In 2008, last year, the national debt as a percentage 
of GDP was 70 percent. Today, it is at 89 percent. You can see we are 
going to be very close to 100 percent of our GDP on our national debt. 
I call this the Pac Man that is eating up our revenue--particularly the 
interest. We are going to pay money that could be used for other 
things.
  Alarmingly, the figures I just mentioned do not count our 
accumulated, long-term financial obligations. The Peterson Foundation 
recently pointed out that the Federal Government has accumulated $56.4 
trillion in total liabilities and unfunded promises for Medicare and 
Social Security as of September 30, 2008. That works out--listen to 
this--to $483,000 per American household or $184,000 for every man, 
woman, and child in the country to pay for these unfunded obligations. 
In other words, we have $56.4 trillion in total liabilities and 
unfunded promises for Medicare and Social Security. It is an unfunded 
liability. If you look at it per household, it is $483,000 per 
household, and if you look at it per individual, for every man, woman, 
and child in the United States, it is $184,000.
  To be completely fair to President Obama, our annual deficit and 
growing

[[Page 14498]]

national debt have been problems for some time now. And, folks, I have 
come to the floor of the Senate time and time again to talk about 
paying down debt, balancing our budget, and so forth.
  To my knowledge, President Bush never once mentioned the debt in any 
one of his State of the Union Addresses to Congress. But under the 
Obama administration, we have exacerbated the problem with an Omnibus 
appropriations bill that includes $408 billion in nonemergency funding, 
a $787 billion stimulus bill, and a 10-year proposed budget where the 
lowest deficit for a single year is larger than any annual deficit from 
the end of World War II to President Obama's inauguration.
  I know we are going through some tough times. Over the past year, we 
have been hit by an economic avalanche that started in housing, spread 
to the financial and credit markets, and then continued onward to every 
corner of our economy. I know it well. I am a Senator from Ohio. We are 
spending money to get out of this economic mess, but we cannot allow 
that to be an excuse to continue our reckless fiscal path. We have to 
start finding ways to work harder and smarter to do more with less. It 
does not take an economist to realize our course is unsustainable. I 
know it, the Obama administration knows it, the American people know 
it.
  The Obama administration knows we can no longer ignore this crisis. 
Peter Orszag, whom I consider a friend, the Obama administration's OMB 
Director, has even said:

       I don't want to sound like the boy crying wolf, but it is a 
     fact that, given the path that we are on, two things: One is 
     we will ultimately wind up with a financial crisis that is 
     substantially more severe than even what we are facing today 
     if we don't alter the path of Federal spending; and secondly, 
     that if we were on that path in the future and something like 
     we are experiencing today occurred, we would have much less 
     maneuvering room to fight those fires, because we will have 
     already depleted the fire truck.

  And I am disappointed that as OMB Director he has forgotten his 
commitment to entitlement and tax reform he so boldly and loudly called 
for when he was CBO Director. You would think a change in title would 
not cause such a memory loss on as important an issue as the financial 
health of our country. To me, it can only mean one thing: that Peter 
Orszag's boss, President Obama, must not be serious about addressing 
the growing national debt or, worse, does not understand our fiscal 
crisis or, even worse than that, that he just does not care.
  Just last Friday, the Washington Post ran an opinion piece taking the 
administration to task for lacking a plan on just how we start to dig 
our country out of this financial crisis. The article details Treasury 
Secretary Geithner's trip to Beijing 2 weeks ago, where he went to 
reassure China--the world's largest holder of our Treasury debt, as I 
mentioned--that lending money to the U.S. Government is still a wise 
thing to do.
  Mr. Geithner insisted that:

       In the United States, we are putting in place the 
     foundations for restoring fiscal sustainability.

  In a moment that all Americans should consider a wake-up call, Mr. 
Geithner was met with laughter--laughter--when he told a group of 
Chinese students that their country's assets were very safe in 
Washington.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record this Washington Post article. The title of it is ``No Laughing 
Matter, Why the U.S. needs to get serious now about long-term budget 
deficits.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, June 5, 2009]

                           No Laughing Matter

       The Obama administration inherited from its predecessor 
     both a tanking economy and a huge federal budget deficit. 
     Under the circumstances, it cannot be faulted for increasing 
     the deficit in the short run, because a mammoth recession 
     called for fiscal stimulus. Thus, it is neither surprising 
     nor irreversibly dangerous that the total federal debt held 
     by the public looks as if it will reach 57 percent of gross 
     domestic product by the end of fiscal 2009 on Sept. 30--well 
     above the previous four decades' average of about 40 percent. 
     What is more alarming is that, barring major spending cuts or 
     tax increases, President Obama's budget could drive that 
     figure to 82 percent by 2019, according to the Congressional 
     Budget Office.
       We are already getting a taste of the problems that could 
     develop if the president and Congress do not address this 
     soon. Since the end of last year, the interest rate on 10-
     year Treasury notes has gone up from 2 percent to over 3.5 
     percent. That number is within historical norms; indeed, 
     Treasury rates probably had been artificially depressed 
     during the financial panic of the fall. But the spike, which 
     will cost the government tens of billions of dollars, also 
     reflects mounting investor concern--at home and, especially, 
     abroad--about the U.S. fiscal situation. If government 
     borrowing costs continue to accelerate, they could kill 
     economic growth for years to come.
       It was a sign of the times that Treasury Secretary Timothy 
     F. Geithner had to travel to Beijing this week to reassure 
     China, the world's largest holder of Treasury debt, that 
     lending money to the U.S. government is still a wise thing to 
     do. Mr. Geithner insisted that, ``in the United States, we 
     are putting in place the foundations for restoring fiscal 
     sustainability.'' To be sure, China doesn't have many good 
     alternatives to parking its massive trade surpluses in 
     dollars. But it does have some, including commodities and the 
     debt of more fiscally prudent European governments. In a 
     moment that all Americans should consider a wake-up call, Mr. 
     Geithner was met with laughter when he told a group of 
     Chinese students that their country's assets were ``very 
     safe'' in Washington.
       The chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke, was 
     considerably more decorous than the Chinese students in 
     testimony before Congress on Wednesday but, in essence, only 
     slightly less skeptical. ``Even as we take steps to address 
     the recession and threats to financial stability,'' he said, 
     ``maintaining the confidence of the financial markets 
     requires that we, as a nation, begin planning now for the 
     restoration of fiscal balance.''
       Mr. Bernanke did not say explicitly that there is no such 
     plan in Mr. Obama's budget--at least not according to the 
     CBO, whose estimates of the president's budget show annual 
     deficits lingering indefinitely above 4 percent of GDP. Nor 
     did he point out that Congress has yet to come up with 
     credible financing for the president's desirable but 
     expensive health care proposal. He did not say that Mr. Obama 
     and Congress have done nothing so far to deliver on the 
     president's pledge of entitlement reform. But if the Fed 
     chairman had said those things, he would have been absolutely 
     right.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, this week, as you know, President 
Obama announced a plan to reenact statutory pay-as-you-go, pay-go. Now, 
what is ``pay-go''? Pay-go basically is this: If you want to spend more 
money, you either have to find other spending you are going to reduce 
or, in the alternative, you are going to have to raise taxes to pay for 
it.
  Unfortunately, the President's plan exempts things like the 2001-2003 
tax cuts, patching the alternative minimum tax, updating physicians' 
payments in Medicare--and last but not least, modifying the estate tax. 
These expenses would be exempt from pay-go.
  Folks, I believe this is intellectually dishonest. This does not 
reflect the high standards the President has set for his 
administration. In my opinion, it is more like the smoke and mirrors of 
the past that got us into the mess we find ourselves in today.
  Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal 
Budget, puts it like this:

       It is like quitting drinking--

  She was referring to the President's pay-go announcement. Here is 
what she says--

       It is like quitting drinking, but making an exception for 
     beer and hard liquor. Exempting these measures from pay-go 
     would increase the 10-year deficit by over $2.5 trillion. 
     That's not fiscal responsibility.

  Today, I am reiterating my call for President Obama and Congress to 
enact the first pillar of meaningful tax and entitlement reform through 
the enactment of the SAFE Commission Act. I am asking my colleagues and 
their staffs to step up and look at this legislation and read the 
``Dear Colleague'' letter Senator Lieberman and I sent this last week 
with materials from the Peterson Foundation. Those materials, for a 
Senator or for staff members, lay out what I am talking about today. In 
addition, there is a DVD that is called IOUSA that was put together by 
the Peterson Foundation. I think it takes about an hour to look at it, 
but I don't know of anything that is out there

[[Page 14499]]

today that depicts our financial crisis as well as that DVD does.
  The SAFE Commission we are talking about would create a vehicle, much 
like we do for the BRAC process, to take on the tough issues of Social 
Security, tax reform, and creating, by a vote of 13 out of 20 members--
there would be 20 members on the Commission; 2 of them would be from 
the administration, but it would take 13 out of 20--and if you have 13 
out of 20, the recommendations would be fast-tracked through a special 
process and brought to the floor of both Chambers.
  In other words, we would give it expedited procedure and then we 
would have to either vote up or down, just as we do on the BRAC 
process. It would break the logjam in Washington and show the American 
people and the world that we are serious about getting this Nation back 
on track.
  For the life of me, I cannot understand why President Obama doesn't 
support this concept. I know he is getting a hard time from Speaker 
Pelosi and from several other Members in the House of Representatives, 
although Steny Hoyer is in favor of the commission approach to solving 
our entitlement and tax reform crisis. We all know we can't get this 
done through the regular order of business. We know it. We would not be 
able to get it done. The proof of it is we haven't been able to do it 
thus far, so we are going to need the Commission. Everybody understands 
we are going to need it.
  I know the President wants to move on climate change. But he has to 
know that from a substantive point of view and a political point of 
view, he is going to have to do something about this long-term 
financial crisis in which we found ourselves. It would seem to me he 
could go forward with climate change, he could go forward with health 
care reform, and get the Commission formed. It will take the Commission 
at least a year to finish its business.
  Think of this: If the Commission is able to get 13 out of 20 members 
to come back with a bipartisan solution to dealing with tax reform and 
entitlement reform, that would be wonderful. It would take that issue 
off the President's plate. In other words, sooner or later, our 
President and his party are going to have to face up to the fact that 
the people of America are really worried--and so are the people of the 
world--about us doing something about tax reform and entitlement 
reform.
  Wouldn't it be great--I mean, if I were the Governor, as I was for 8 
years in Ohio, and somebody said: Governor, you know what. You have a 
real problem. And what we are going to do is, we are going to put a 
commission together on a bipartisan basis, and we are going to come 
back with recommendations to get the job done--I would kiss them and 
say: Wonderful. I could kind of forget about it, except for the two 
people in the administration who were working on it. If they came back 
with a bipartisan solution, wow. Get it through Congress and we deal 
with the substantive problem and we get a big political problem off our 
plate just before going into the next Presidential election. So I just 
hope there is some more thought being given by the administration, more 
thought given by the Congress.
  We all say: Oh, yes, we are concerned about the national debt. We 
have to do something about it. But when you go home, what are you going 
to point to for the people, your constituents? What are you going to 
point to and say: I am sincere about this; I want to do something about 
it. Then they are going to ask you: Well, what did you do? One of the 
things you can do is say: I supported a bipartisan commission. They are 
going to go to work during the next year. They are going to come back 
with recommendations, and this is the way we can deal with the problem 
that is going to be such a burden on the future of our country.
  I came here in 1999, and one of the reasons I came here was to deal 
with our deficits and with reducing our national debt. I am going to be 
leaving this place at the end of next year. I have three children, and 
I have seven grandchildren. I happen to believe that just like the 
pages who are here today in this room, they are going to have to work a 
lot harder, work a lot harder than I do in order to maintain the 
standard of living that I have been able to have because the 
competition in the world today is a lot keener than it was 15 or 20 
years ago. They are just going to have to work harder than they have 
ever had to work before to maintain the kind of standard of living that 
we would like to have for them and for my children and grandchildren. 
But if you think about it, if we don't deal with this problem I am 
talking about today, we are going to lay on their backs taxes that will 
break the bank.
  So we put them in a position where they are going to have to work 
harder to maintain a decent standard of living. Then, what we are 
saying to them is, we are going to let you pay for those things that we 
weren't willing to do without or pay for on our own. To me, that is 
absolutely immoral. It is absolutely immoral.
  One of the things I would hope is--and I feel like a broken record, 
but I would hope that the Holy Spirit would somehow enlighten us to 
face up to this very serious responsibility, one that if we don't face 
up to, will have a devastating impact on the future of our country and 
our children and grandchildren.
  I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his request?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes, I will.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Drug Reimportation And Reform

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, today I rise to speak on two crucial 
issues which I had hoped we would not only be debating in the context 
of this FDA bill currently before the Senate, but actually acting on in 
that context. So I have to say as I speak about these two issues I am 
disappointed we are not taking this obvious, major opportunity of 
acting on a major FDA bill to again not only have me speak, but all of 
us act together on the crucial issues of, No. 1, the reimportation of 
prescription drugs; and, No. 2, meaningful generic drug reform so that 
we get generics to market sooner as a lower cost alternative for 
American consumers. I wish to touch on each of these in turn.
  I was glad to support my friend, the distinguished Senator from North 
Dakota, and many Democratic and Republican colleagues, in introducing 
an amendment to the FDA tobacco bill to enact comprehensive 
reimportation of prescription drugs. This has long been an issue that 
has truly united, in a sincere bipartisan way, Democrats and 
Republicans. Many Democrats and many Republicans have agreed. I think 
at a time when, unfortunately, the partisan divide and sometimes 
divisive and bitter partisan rhetoric is at an all-time high, it is 
important to find areas where we can bridge that divide in a meaningful 
and sincere way.
  It is important to work on real issues and real solutions together 
and bridge that divide. Reimportation is a great example of that.
  Now, we have on record a clear majority in the Senate and well over 
60 votes for reimportation. We have a clear majority in the U.S. House 
for reimportation, and we have an administration and a President who 
are for reimportation, and he is on record in that regard in his 
service in the U.S. Senate. In addition, we have an important issue 
that can save all of us and can save our health care system billions of 
dollars as we go into health care reform. Surely, we need to be talking 
and acting in ways that can cut costs in health care without 
endangering the public, without hurting patient care, and this is a 
great opportunity.
  The CBO has estimated that Americans would save about $50 billion--
$50 billion with a ``b''--over the next 10 years if reimportation were 
enacted. So we have a true bipartisan issue which has true consensus 
support in the Senate, in the House, and in the administration, which 
can save all of us and our health care system $50 billion. Let's act. 
Surely, this is a recipe for

[[Page 14500]]

something we can act strongly on and produce positive results.
  So what is going on? Well, I am afraid what is going on is exactly 
what my colleague, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, suggested on 
the Senate floor last week. He stood bravely on the Senate floor and 
read directly from a lobbyist e-mail, a lobbyist of big PhRMA, the 
association which represents the biggest pharmaceutical companies, and 
read a detailed e-mail about how they were going to block and derail 
this effort of mine and Senator McCain's and Senator Dorgan's and 
others.
  I think seeing that come to pass, seeing this effort successfully 
blocked from the FDA bill--something that is clearly a major 
opportunity on which to pass reimportation, a big FDA bill--that has to 
grow the cynicism of the American public. Americans all across our 
country have to be out there thinking: OK, what is wrong with this 
picture? Reimportation unites Democrats and Republicans, a big majority 
in the Senate, a big majority in the House, the support of the 
President, saves the system $50 billion, obvious opportunity to pass it 
on an FDA bill, but, once again, it is cut off. It is blocked from 
consideration, from moving forward. That has to increase everybody's 
cynicism, and we have to work beyond that to pass this important 
legislation for the American people.
  I am happy the majority leader has generally said he would find time 
on the Senate floor for consideration of a reimportation bill. We need 
to move. We would like a date certain, Mr. Leader, a date certain for 
that important consideration. After so many years of waiting, after so 
many years of the big PhRMA lobbyists and others blocking us from that 
consideration, we would like that debate and that action as soon as 
possible. It is certainly appropriate as we go into a major debate on 
health care reform.
  I would underscore the same message with regard to the second crucial 
topic: reform with regard to generic drugs. For many months now, I have 
been working with several Members, most notably Senator Shaheen of New 
Hampshire, on bipartisan consensus generic drug reform.
  Once again, I was very hopeful that this FDA bill on the floor of the 
Senate now would be a prime opportunity, an obvious opportunity, to 
pass that consensus bipartisan reform. Once again, that door was closed 
to us. We are not going to have that opportunity, and I express real 
disappointment.
  But we need to act in that area. I look forward to continuing to work 
with Senator Shaheen, Senator Brown, and others in that important area. 
We have been focused on two things, in particular, that can make a huge 
difference.
  First, we need to clear up certain loopholes, quite frankly, in the 
law that allowed drug companies to make labeling changes when their 
patent protection is about to run out, when generic was about to be 
open to go on the market. They were able to make slight labeling 
changes to extend that protection longer, in my opinion, in a somewhat 
artificial way. We need to reform the law and clear up those loopholes 
so that generic can come to market and provide Americans with a lower 
cost alternative.
  Surely the drug companies need a period of protection so they can 
recoup their enormous investment in research and development. But what 
they don't need, and what we should not allow, in my opinion, is 
tweaking the labels at the eleventh hour and extending that protection 
in an artificial and, in my opinion, unreasonable way. That is a big 
area of reform I have been working on with Senator Shaheen and others.
  A second area of needed reform is to elevate the Office of Generic 
Drugs and its importance within the FDA. We need to give it more 
stature. We need to have the head of that office report directly to the 
head of the FDA, the Administrator. We need to fund it properly so 
that, again, we put the proper emphasis on generic drugs. Generics are 
a good, safe, lower cost alternative to millions of American seniors 
and other Americans. They provide that today. But they can provide that 
lower cost alternative to an even greater extent if we take these 
commonsense, consensus, bipartisan measures--if we do away with these 
loopholes that allow last-minute labeling changes to artificially and 
unreasonably extend a company's patent, and if we elevate the stature 
of the Office of Generic Drugs within the FDA.
  Again, it was an obvious opportunity to do just that in a bipartisan 
consensus way as we debate and act on this major FDA bill on the floor 
of the Senate now. I am sorry that door has been closed to us. I am 
sorry we have lost that opportunity. It is a shame. But we need to move 
on that issue, just as we need to move on reimportation now in the next 
few months this year in this body and in the House of Representatives.
  We desperately need important health care reform. We need savings in 
the system to make costs of the overall health care system more 
reasonable, without sacrificing patient care, without telling seniors 
they cannot get this treatment or they cannot get that operation. These 
are commonsense, achievable ways to do that, by stabilizing the cost of 
prescription drugs. That is one of the most significant costs in our 
health care system with one of the most significant growth patterns. So 
let's act on reimportation, let's act on generics reform, let's act in 
a bipartisan way, let's act for the best interests of American seniors 
and all the American people.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Sanders pertaining to the introduction of S. 1225 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Credit Card Fair Fee Act

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, yesterday I reintroduced the Credit Card 
Fair Fee Act. This legislation will provide fairness and transparency 
in the setting of credit card interchange fees.
  Several weeks ago, the Senate passed legislation that will crack down 
on abusive fees and practices that credit card providers impose on 
consumers and cardholders. It is landmark legislation. It was 20 years 
in the making. I was pleased to support it and glad it passed.
  We also need to take a hard look at the fees and the restrictions 
credit card providers impose on retailers. Retailers such as the 
restaurant down on the corner, the grocery store, the shop, these have 
to be looked at as well.
  Currently, banks and credit card companies impose a system of fees 
and restrictions on retailers that accept their cards as a form of 
payment. There is a growing recognition that many of these fees and 
restrictions are anticompetitive and unfair to businesses and 
consumers.
  Many people assume credit cards make their money off the customers 
who use them in direct payment, interest charges, and penalties. It 
turns out there is a whole level of fees that is imposed on retailers 
which, obviously, is passed on to consumers but have a direct impact on 
sales in America. If we do not address flaws in the system, many 
businesses will find it hard to make a profit, and the credit card fees 
cause consumer prices to go up as well. The most flawed element of the 
current system of merchant fees is the interchange fee. It is a fee 
merchants pay to card issuing banks on each debit or credit card 
transaction.
  Under the current system, card networks, such as Visa and MasterCard, 
unilaterally set the rates for these interchange fees. These fees vary 
from card to card, but they average about 2

[[Page 14501]]

percent of the transaction they cover. Card companies don't let their 
member banks negotiate with merchants over the fee rates, and they 
prevent merchants from encouraging customers to use cards that carry 
lower fees.
  Yesterday, the Secretary of the Treasury was in before my 
appropriations subcommittee. It turns out, we accept credit cards for 
some 200 different agencies in the Federal Government. I asked the 
Secretary how much we pay in interchange fees to these credit card 
companies--as we accept credit card payments for everything from taxes 
to purchases at the Government Printing Office. It turns out it is well 
over $200 million a year. The GAO did a study in which it was asked 
whether, in fact, the Federal Government bargains for lower interchange 
fees because of the volume of business we do. It turns out there is 
virtually no bargaining allowed, not even with the Federal Government.
  If merchants want to accept credit cards, those merchants simply have 
to abide by the rates, just like the Federal Government, that the card 
networks set, even when the rates are increased.
  In fact, card companies regularly increase their interchange rates. A 
report by the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City found that between 
1996 and 2006 Visa and MasterCard interchange rates increased from 
approximately $1.30 per $100 transaction to $1.80. That is about a 40-
percent increase over that 10-year period of time. The rates have gone 
up even further for cards that have rewards programs. The total amount 
of interchange fees collected last year was $48 billion, according to 
estimates of the National Retail Federation. It is a huge increase from 
2001, when the figure was $16.6 billion.
  Despite these rising fees, many merchants have no real choice but to 
accept these cards as a form of payment. Consumers use their credit and 
debt cards for over 40 percent of all transactions. Interchange fees 
cut into retailer profits and force many merchants to raise consumer 
prices or go out of business.
  As you think about it, what does it mean for the profitability of a 
company if the business is required to pay the credit card company 2 
percent of the sale price on every sale? Well, for some companies that 
operate on a very tight margin, it can be significant. Best Buy, the 
large and successful electronics retailer, has a net profit margin of 
only 2.2 percent. Whole Foods, a well-known grocery store, has a profit 
margin of 1.4 percent. The food and drugstore retail sector has a 
profit margin of only 1.5 percent, according to Fortune magazine.
  How can these companies continue to be profitable if rising 
interchange fees paid to credit card companies cut into their already 
small operating margins? In 2007, the National Association of 
Convenience Stores reported the entire convenience store industry had 
profits of $3.4 billion dollars; however, they paid credit card 
interchange fees of $7.6 billion. Over twice the amount of industry 
profit was paid to credit card providers.
  Of course, it has an impact on smaller businesses. Rich Niemann, a 
friend of mine, who is coming by my office this afternoon in 
Washington, runs Niemann Foods, a chain of 65 grocery stores based in 
Quincy, IL. Every year I meet with him, and every year he asks me for 
help with interchange fees. Last year, Niemann Foods made $6 million in 
profits but paid $3 million in interchange fees. Those fee payments are 
going up every year. He has no ability to negotiate any change in those 
fee amounts. It is a growing expense he can't control.
  Rising interchange fees cause many merchants to raise the price of 
their goods to cover these interchange fees. I don't want to drive 
small grocery stores out of business or small convenience stores. We 
don't want prices to go up for consumers across the board because of 
nonnegotiable credit card fees. The Credit Card Fair Fee Act will help 
restore fairness. The goal is simple. It incentivizes companies that 
provide credit cards and the merchants that accept them to sit down 
together and negotiate fees and terms both sides can live with.
  The bill establishes a framework for negotiations and gives both 
sides a legitimate voice at the table. Under the bill, merchants would 
receive limited antitrust immunity to negotiate collectively with the 
providers of card systems over the fees and terms for access to the 
system. The bill then motivates the merchants and card providers to 
work out voluntary agreements. It establishes a mandatory period for 
negotiations.
  If they fail to reach a voluntary agreement, the matter would then go 
to an arbitration-style proceeding before a panel of judges appointed 
by the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission. The judges 
would collect and disclose full information about credit card fees and 
costs and then order a mandatory settlement conference to attempt to 
facilitate a deal. If that fails, the judges would conduct a hearing 
where the merchants and card providers would each propose what they 
think is a fair set of fees and terms. The judges then would select the 
proposal that most closely represents what would be fairly negotiated 
in a competitive market. This set of fees and terms would govern access 
to the card system by merchants for a period of 3 years.
  The bill contains safeguards to ensure the judges can only select a 
set of proposed fees and terms that is fair and pro-consumer. But the 
ultimate goal is to reach a deal before the process gets to the point 
where the judges would need to issue a ruling.
  This is an archaic element of commerce in America that has a direct 
impact on consumers, the money we pay for goods and services, as well 
as the profit margins of a lot of businesses that are struggling. The 
credit card companies have been unable to justify their interchange 
fees in terms of the actual cost of processing credit card payments. It 
is a profit margin on their side for which they are not accountable.
  My legislation is supported by the Merchants Payments Coalition, a 
coalition of retailers, supermarkets, convenience stores, drugstores, 
fuel stations, online merchants and other businesses. The coalition's 
member associations collectively represent about 2.7 million stores 
nationwide, with approximately 50 million employees.
  I ask my fellow colleagues in the Senate to take a look at the 
legislation. I warn them in advance, if they are interested in looking 
at this issue of credit cards and interchange fees, be prepared. You 
are going to hear from every bank that issues a credit card, and they 
are going to tell you the Durbin legislation is the end of the world. 
But I hope you will also listen to the merchants and retailers in the 
States you represent. They will tell you this system is unconscionable 
and unsustainable.
  To have the credit card companies dictate these fees to their 
retailers all across America is fundamentally unfair. We should have 
arm's length negotiation. We should also have at the Federal Government 
level a negotiation to determine what is the best arrangement for 
taxpayers when it comes to paying these credit card fees to the 
companies that provide credit cards for transactions with the Federal 
Government. It is not an unreasonable approach.
  I hope my colleagues will take a look at this issue, and I hope they 
will listen to their merchants and retailers back in their States.


                               Guantanamo

  Mr. President, I wish to commend the Obama administration for the 
progress they have made to date on closing the detention facility at 
Guantanamo Bay. According to media reports today, the Obama 
administration has reached a historic agreement with the Government of 
Palau to transfer 17 Guantanamo detainees to this Pacific island. These 
17 detainees are Uighurs from China.
  The Bush administration determined that all 17 are not enemy 
combatants and do not pose any risk to U.S. national security. The Bush 
administration had determined the Uighurs couldn't be legally returned 
to China, for fear they would be imprisoned and tortured. A Federal 
Court looked at all

[[Page 14502]]

the classified evidence against these 17 Uighurs and found there was no 
legitimate reason to hold them and ordered them released. The 
President, this administration, is going to follow that court and 
follow the law.
  I commend President Obama and those working with him for finding a 
solution to what has been a vexing problem by convincing the Government 
of Palau to accept Uighur detainees. This is the kind of diplomacy we 
need to achieve a better standing in the world and a more peaceful and 
secure situation for the United States.
  Something else happened yesterday as well. There was an important 
development. The administration transferred Ahmed Ghailani to the 
United States to be prosecuted for his involvement in the 1998 bombings 
of our Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Those bombings killed 224 
people, including 12 Americans. I have been to Kenya. I saw the bombed 
building. It was devastating. It is hard to imagine what happened 
inside that building and nearby when those bombs were detonated. We 
know 224 people died, including 12 of our own.
  I wish to commend President Obama for his determination to hold Ahmed 
Ghailani accountable for his alleged crimes. For 7 long years, the Bush 
administration had failed to convict any of the terrorists who planned 
the 9/11 terrorist attacks. For 7 long years, only three individuals 
were convicted by military commissions at Guantanamo. Two of those 
individuals, incidentally, have been released. President Obama has been 
clear, it is a priority for his administration to bring to justice the 
planners of 9/11 and other terrorists who have attacked our country, 
such as Ahmed Ghailani.
  Unfortunately, this issue has become very political and very 
complicated over the last several months. Some of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle have expressed some things on the Senate floor 
which I don't think are consistent with the security of the United 
States. Senator McConnell, the distinguished minority leader, and 
Senator Kyl, the distinguished assistant minority leader, have argued 
we should not transfer suspected terrorists from Guantanamo to the 
United States in order to bring them to justice. They have argued we 
cannot safely hold any of these detainees in prison in the United 
States, even--one of their arguments--during the course of the trial.
  When you look at the failed track record of prosecuting terrorists at 
Guantanamo, it is pretty clear if Ahmed Ghailani isn't prosecuted in 
the U.S. courts, there is a good chance he will never be punished for 
his crimes. President Obama made it clear when he said:

       Preventing this detainee from coming to our shores would 
     prevent his trial and conviction. And after over a decade, it 
     is time to finally see that justice is served, and that is 
     what we intend to do.

  Even Senator Kyl appears to have softened his position. On the floor 
of the Senate yesterday, he spoke about Ahmed Ghailani and said:

       Everybody acknowledges that there are some people who need 
     to be tried for serious crimes, in effect, like war crimes, 
     and they should be tried in the United States.

  I commend Senator Kyl for this statement. I think it is a sensible, 
reasonable position. But let us acknowledge the obvious: If we are 
going to try these Guantanamo detainees in the United States, we are 
going to incarcerate them while we try them. There is no other 
reasonable alternative. If they are found guilty and face imprisonment, 
what will we do with them? I am glad Senator Kyl acknowledged the 
obvious. Of course, we have to bring these terrorists to justice, and 
an American court is the best place to do it.
  The U.S. Government frequently brings extremely dangerous individuals 
to the United States for prosecution. Ramzi Yousef--the mastermind of 
the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, captured in Pakistan--was brought 
to trial in the United States, convicted, and is now being held in a 
Federal supermaximum security prison, a convicted terrorist.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to 
argue we should not prosecute Guantanamo detainees in U.S. courts 
because no prison in America is safe to hold them. Ramzi Yousef was 
held in the Metropolitan Corrections Center in New York during the 
course of his trial for over 2 years--safely. My colleagues seem to 
think American corrections officers are not capable of safely holding 
terrorists. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who is a military 
lawyer, said:

       The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-
     plus detainees within the United States is not rational.

  What is the record? Today, our Federal prisons--and this is the most 
updated number from the Justice Department--hold 355 convicted 
terrorists, including al-Qaida leaders such as Ramzi Yousef, who 
masterminded the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. No prisoner has 
ever escaped from a Federal supermaximum security facility. Clearly, we 
know how to hold these terrorists safely and securely so no one in 
America is at risk.
  Unfortunately, some on the other side of the aisle continue to argue 
that we should keep Guantanamo open at all costs. I disagree. I 
believe, President Obama believes, and I think many Americans believe 
that closing Guantanamo is an important national security priority. But 
it isn't just the President--and President Bush, for example--who want 
to close Guantanamo. Among those military and security leaders calling 
for the closing of Guantanamo are: GEN Colin Powell, the former 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State; 
Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham; former Republican 
Secretaries of State James Baker and Henry Kissinger and Condoleezza 
Rice; Defense Secretary Robert Gates, first appointed by President 
Bush; ADM Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and 
GEN David Petraeus.
  Yesterday, Senator Kyl made a statement taking issue with some of my 
earlier comments about Guantanamo.
  Senator Kyl asked: ``What is wrong with the prison at Guantanamo?''
  Let me respond to Senator Kyl's question. What is wrong with 
Guantanamo is that it is a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda and other 
terrorists.
  That is not just my opinion. That is the opinion of our military 
leaders, based on their experiences fighting the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen said:

       The concern I've had about Guantanamo is it has been a 
     recruiting symbol for those extremists and jihadists who 
     would fight us. That's the heart of the concern for 
     Guantanamo's continued existence.

  General David Petraeus said Guantanamo is, ``a symbol that is used by 
our enemies to our disadvantage. We're beat around the head and 
shoulders with it.''
  And Defense Secretary Robert Gates said:

       Closing Guantanamo is essential to national security. It 
     has become a rallying cry and recruitment tool for our 
     enemies--endangering the lives of our soldiers in the field, 
     diminishing the willingness of American allies to help wage 
     the fight against al-Qaida and undermining the moral 
     authority of the country.

  Of course, Senator Kyl is entitled to his point of view and I respect 
him and count him as a friend. But he offers no evidence to support his 
view, certainly no evidence that compares with those I have quoted 
here, starting with Gen. Colin Powell.
  Not only is Guantanamo a recruiting tool for terrorists in the Middle 
East. There is evidence that al-Qaida is actually recruiting terrorists 
in Guantanamo itself. McClatchy Newspapers conducted an extensive 
investigation and concluded:

       Instead of confining terorists, Guantanamo often produced 
     more of them by rounding up common criminals, conscripts, 
     low-level foot soldiers and men with no allegiance to radical 
     Islam . . . and then housing them in cells next to radical 
     Islamists.

  McClatchy found that, ``Guantanamo became a school for jihad'' and 
``an American madrassa.''
  Rear Admiral Mark Buzby, the former commander of Guantanamo's 
detention facility, said, ``I must make the assumption that there's a 
fully

[[Page 14503]]

functioning Al-Qaeda cell here at Guantanamo.''
  Senator Kyl also continues to claim that no one was abused at 
Guantanamo and that there is no connection between the abuses at Abu 
Ghraib and Guantanamo. I commend him for his reading of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee Report.
  But the Senate Armed Services Committee issued a bipartisan report 
that reached a different conclusion. Senator Levin, the chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee, and Senator McCain, the ranking member of the 
committee, found, ``Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's 
authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at 
Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there.''
  Senators Levin and McCain also concluded, on a bipartisan basis, that 
there was a connection between the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. 
They said:

       The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not 
     simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own. 
     Interrogation techniques such as stripping detainees of their 
     clothes, placing them in stress positions, and using military 
     working dogs to intimidate them appeared in Iraq only after 
     they had been approved for use in Afghanistan and at GITMO.

  And, as I said yesterday, Susan Crawford, a top Bush administration 
official, concluded that Mohammad Al-Qahtani, the so-called 20th 
hijacker, could not be prosecuted for his role in the 9/11 attacks 
because he was tortured at Guantanamo Bay.
  For many years, President Bush said that he wanted to close the 
Guantanamo detention facility, and there were few, if no complaints 
from the Republican side. But the President never followed through on 
his commitment.
  Now that President Obama has made that same call, we hear this chorus 
of opposition. I think President Obama has accepted the challenge--the 
challenge to make certain that these detainees are treated in a 
responsible way; that those who should stand trial will stand trial for 
their crimes and war crimes; that those who cannot be brought to 
article 3 courts in America should be tried before reformed military 
tribunals that have rules of evidence and procedure more consistent 
with our values and laws; that some will be returned, like the Uighurs, 
if they pose no threat, to places where they cannot threaten the United 
States and that some will be kept in detention because they continue to 
be a threat to our Nation. That is a responsible course of conduct. It 
deserves bipartisan support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.


                     THE SECOND ``CAR CZAR'' AWARD

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, this is the ``Car Czar'' award for 
Wednesday, June 10, 2009. It is a service to taxpayers from America's 
new automotive headquarters: Washington DC.
  It is the second in a series of ``Car Czar'' awards to be conferred 
upon Washington meddlers who distinguish themselves by making it harder 
for the auto companies your government owns to compete in the world 
marketplace.
  On Monday, I presented the very first ``Car Czar'' award to the 
Honorable Barney Frank of Massachusetts for interfering in the 
operation of General Motors. Congressman Frank, who is chairman of the 
House Financial Services Committee, intervened last week to save a GM 
distribution center in his Massachusetts congressional district. The 
warehouse, which employs some 90 people, was slated for closing under 
GM's restructuring plan. But Mr. Frank put in a call to GM CEO Fritz 
Henderson and, lo and behold, the facility has a new lease on life 
according to the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Frank, of course, is chairman 
of the House committee that recently orchestrated paying $62 billion in 
taxpayer dollars to give the U.S. Treasury 60 percent ownership of 
General Motors and 8 percent ownership of Chrysler.
  Now, for this second ``Car Czar'' award, there are many deserving 
contenders.
  For example, this afternoon the Honorable Chris Dodd, Mr. Frank's 
Senate counterpart, is chairing a Banking Committee hearing featuring 
two of the administration's chief meddlers in Washington-owned car 
companies: Mr. Ron Bloom, a senior advisor on the auto industry at 
Treasury and Mr. Ed Montgomery, White House Director of Recovery for 
Auto Communities and Workers.
  Tomorrow, over in the House, the Financial Services Committee will 
hold a hearing on salaries of workers in companies the government owns.
  Another obvious contender for the award is the administration's new 
Chief-Price-Fixer for the cost of labor, Mr. Kenneth Feinberg who will 
review and approve how managers of car companies are paid. According to 
the New York Times article on June 8, Mr. Feinberg is likely not just 
to tell Government-owned car companies and banks how much to pay 
people, it is likely ``everyone else's compensation will be monitored, 
too.''
  But there is time next week to honor all these worthy contenders. 
Today's ``Car Czar'' award clearly should go to the Members of the 
Wisconsin and Michigan and Tennessee congressional delegations, each of 
whom met today in Washington with GM executives, imploring them to 
build small cars in our home States. In Tennessee's case, of course, we 
were talking about the Saturn plant in Spring Hill, recently placed on 
standby.
  In other words, I am giving the ``Car Czar'' award today to, among 
others, myself--the senior Senator from Tennessee.
  Now, in my own defense, as Mr. Frank's spokesman said when Mr. Frank 
was caught calling GM about the warehouse in Massachusetts--I was 
``just doing what any other Congressman would do'' in looking out for 
the interests of his constituency. But that is precisely the reason for 
these ``Car Czar'' awards. As the Wall Street Journal put it, ``. . . 
that's the problem with industrial policy and government control of 
American business. In Washington, every Member of Congress now thinks 
he's a czar who can call ol' Fritz and tell him how to make cars.''
  But consider for a moment the implications of all 535 of us in 
Congress regularly participating in such incestuous behavior. It is one 
thing, as I did in 1985 as Governor, to argue to General Motors to put 
the Saturn plant in Tennessee right next to the Nissan plant. That was 
an arm's length transaction.
  It is quite another thing for me as U.S. Senator and a member of the 
government that owns 60 percent of the company, to urge GM executives 
to build cars in my State. I can pretend I am making my case on the 
merits: central location, right to work laws, four-lane highways, 
hundreds of suppliers, low taxes, a successful Japanese competitor 40 
miles away. But my incestuous relationship as owner taints the entire 
affair.
  So I will continue to confer ``Car Czar'' awards--seeking to end the 
incestuous nature of these meetings and time-wasting hearings--until 
Congress and the President enact my ``Auto Stock for Every Taxpayer'' 
legislation which would distribute the Government's stock in GM and 
Chrysler to the 120 million Americans who paid taxes on April 15. Such 
a stock distribution is the fastest way to get ownership of the auto 
companies out of the hands of meddling Washington politicians and back 
into the hands of Americans in the marketplace. It is also the fastest 
way to allow the car company managers to design, build and sell cars 
rather than scurry around Washington--under oath--answering questions 
and being instructed by their political owners how to build cars and 
trucks.
  Distributing the stock to the taxpayers also may be the fastest way 
for Congressmen to get themselves re-elected. According to the 
Nashville Tennessean, an AutoPacific survey reports that 81 of 
Americans polled agree ``that the faster the government gets out of the 
automotive business, the better.''
  Now, here is an invitation for those who may be listening: if you 
know of a Washington ``Car Czar'' who deserves to be honored, please 
email me at [email protected], and I will give you full 
credit in my regular ``Car Czar'' reports here on the floor of the 
United States Senate.

[[Page 14504]]

  And after you write to me, I hope you will write or call your 
Congressman and Senators and remind them to enact the ``Auto Stock for 
Every Taxpayer Act'' just as soon as General Motors emerges from 
bankruptcy. All you need to say when you write or call are these eight 
magic words, ``I paid for it. I should own it.''
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Health Care

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am glad we are now engaged in the health 
care debate, but this debate is long overdue. I congratulate the Obama 
administration for taking on the tough issues. This is not an easy 
subject in order to reach the type of consensus necessary in order to 
pass major legislation. There are a lot of special interests that are 
going to make it difficult for us to move forward.
  I am proud this administration is taking up this issue because we are 
in a health care crisis in America. I say that because the cost of 
health care is not sustainable. We spend twice as much as the next most 
expensive nation in the world per capita on health care--$2.4 trillion 
a year, 15 percent of our gross domestic product. Those numbers are 
increasing dramatically each and every year. The cost of health care is 
not sustainable.
  We had a great deal of discussion here about fiscal responsibility 
and bringing our budget into balance. President Obama is correct. If we 
do not deal with the escalating cost of health care, it is going to 
make it virtually impossible for us to bring our budgets into balance 
in the future--whether it is a Medicare budget or Medicaid budget or a 
household's budget. We have to do a better job in reining in the cost 
of health care. America needs to be competitive internationally. We 
cannot be competitive internationally unless we find a way to bring 
down the cost of health care.
  Family insurance premiums have gone up threefold in the last 8 years 
alone--much faster than earnings, three times as fast as earnings. The 
consequences for Marylanders is that they are going into bankruptcy. 
You have heard it said that we are only one health incident away from 
filing bankruptcy in America for many families. They have to make 
difficult choices: Should I really go see a doctor? Is it really that 
important, because do I really have the money to lay out? It is not 
covered by my insurance, or I don't have insurance, what do I do?
  We have 46 million Americans today who have no health insurance, and 
it is very costly in the way they enter the system. They use the 
emergency rooms. They don't get preventive health care. They spend a 
lot of money. It increased 20 percent over the last 8 years.
  In my State of Maryland, we have 760,000 Marylanders, 15.4 percent of 
our nonelderly population, without health insurance.
  We need to reform our health care system. We need to build on what is 
right in our health care system and correct what is wrong.
  What is right is that we have some of the highest quality health care 
in the world. I am proud that people from all over the world travel to 
my own State of Maryland to visit Johns Hopkins University or the 
University of Maryland Medical Center or NIH in order to get their 
health care needs met or to train their health care professionals. We 
want to maintain that edge in America, of leading-edge technology to 
keep people healthy. We have choice in our health care system. I 
believe that is good. You can choose the health plan in many cases. You 
certainly can choose your provider in many cases. That adds competition 
to quality of care in our system.
  We have to correct what is wrong. The first thing we have to correct 
is the cost. We have to bring the cost down.
  The first way to bring down the costs is for everyone to be in the 
system to deal with the uninsured. I congratulate our committee for 
coming forward with proposals that will include every American in our 
health care system. I think that is the prerequisite to health care 
reform.
  Second, the proposals that are coming forward that recognize the 
advantage of preventive health care. In 1997 we amended the Medicare 
bill to include preventive health care services. Well, that has kept 
our seniors healthier, living better lives, and being less costly to 
the system itself by detecting diseases at an earlier stage. In some 
cases we can even prevent diseases by preventive health care.
  That is what we need to do. It saves money. Preventive health care 
services cost in the hundreds of dollars. Surgery related to diseases 
not caught in the early stages are in the tens of thousands of dollars. 
It makes sense economically.
  President Obama is right to invest in health information technology. 
That will save money. It also manages an individual's care in a much 
more effective way. So there are a lot of ways we can bring down the 
cost of health care. But let me talk about one issue that has gotten a 
lot of attention on this floor by some of my colleagues who seem to be 
opposing health care reform before we even have a bill before us, and 
that is the conversation about a public insurance option. I am somewhat 
bewildered by this discussion because I do not hear too many of my 
colleagues suggesting that the Medicare system should be done away 
with.
  Now, the last time I checked, Medicare was a public insurance 
program. So let me differentiate because I think this point has been 
misleading on this floor.
  When there is a government option, it does not mean the government 
provides the health care; it means it pays for the health care, as it 
does in Medicare. The doctors our seniors and disabled population go to 
are private doctors and private hospitals, as it should be. They have 
choice, as they should. The public insurance option just provides the 
predictability of a plan that will always be there.
  My constituents in Maryland remember all too well the private 
insurance companies within Medicare who were here one day and gone the 
next day. Thank goodness they had the public option available to them 
in order to make sure they had coverage. Well, that is not true in Part 
D today. We do not have a public insurance option.
  That was a mistake. We need a public insurance option, first and 
foremost, to deal with cost. We have to bring down the cost of health 
care. We have 46 million people without health insurance today. Are we 
going to let them try to figure out what private insurance to go to 
without the controls on cost? That is going to add to the cost in this 
country, not bring it down.
  We have to at least have a comparison on a fair competition between 
public insurance and private insurance. I favor private insurance. But 
I want to have a public insurance option because I want the people of 
Maryland and around the Nation to have choice, to be able to choose the 
plan that is best for them.
  They can stay in the plan they have now if they are satisfied with 
it. We want them to, and we encourage them to. But we want them to have 
a choice. We want the market to work. That is why the public insurance 
option has become more and more important.
  Let me point out the two programs that we recently changed. Medicare 
Advantage. Well, Medicare Advantage is the private insurance option 
within Medicare that our seniors have the option, voluntarily, to join.
  Well, when Medicare Advantage started, Medicare Plus Choice, it was a 
savings to the taxpayers because we paid the private insurance company 
95 percent of what we paid the fee-for-service companies within the 
public option, saving money for the system. It made sense.
  Well, guess what. Today we are paying the Medicare Advantage plans, 
the private plans, 112 to 117 percent of what we pay those who are in 
the traditional public option in Medicare. In other words, every person 
who picks private insurance costs the system money.

[[Page 14505]]

  The Congressional Budget Office, which is a nonpartisan objective 
scorekeeper, says the Medicare Advantage premium we pay over what we 
would pay if they were in fee for service costs the system $150 billion 
over 10 years. So the public option is not only to offer choice to the 
people of our country between a plan that they want and it is available 
to them, whether it is a private plan or a public plan--remember, the 
providers are going to be private. This is not who provides the 
benefits; it is who pays for it, who puts together the plan. It will 
save the system money.
  Part D: There is no public option in Part D. Many of us raised that 
issue back then, that we could have saved taxpayer money and saved 
Medicare money if we at least tried to keep the private insurance 
companies honest by having a public plan where we know what is being 
charged and paid for prescription drugs. Most of it is the cost of 
medicine. Why can we not have transparency? Why do we have to pay the 
high overhead costs of private insurance without the competition of a 
model that could save the taxpayers money and save our system money?
  This is not a government takeover, as some of my colleagues have 
said. Medicare was not a government takeover. Medicare pays for the 
private doctors and hospitals so the disabled and seniors can get 
access to health care in America. I think those who make the arguments, 
which are basically scare tactics, are not adding to the debate 
anything that is worthy of this issue. This is a very important issue 
to the people of our Nation. This is our opportunity to fix our system 
by improving what is right, building on it, and correcting what is 
wrong.
  But let's strengthen the good parts of our system. Let's strengthen 
those coverages that people are happy about, the employers who are 
providing health benefits to their employees, where it is working. But 
let's correct the runaway costs in our system, and let's provide a 
reasonable way that those who do not have health insurance can get 
health insurance.
  If we can work together, Democrats and Republicans, this is an 
American problem. This is about America's competitiveness. This is 
about American families being able to afford their health care. This is 
about balancing our budgets in the future so America can continue to 
grow as the strongest economy in the world. But it starts today in this 
debate about fixing one of the underpinnings of our economy that is out 
of whack.
  We need universal coverage. We need to have options available that 
will keep health care affordable for all people in this country and 
provide quality care for each American. That is what this debate is 
about.
  I applaud our committees that are working on this issue. I applaud 
all of the Members of this body and the House who are seriously 
engaging in this discussion.
  I think we can all learn from each other. If we work in good faith, 
we can develop a health care reform proposal that will maintain quality 
but provide access and affordability to every family in America. That 
should be our objective. I hope we will all work toward that end.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  asme

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the American 
Society of Mechanical Engineers on the 125th anniversary of their codes 
and standards.
  As the only serving Senator who has worked as an engineer--indeed, I 
have a degree in engineering and worked as a mechanical engineer--I was 
proud to sponsor a resolution acknowledging the lasting impact ASME 
codes and standards have had on our Nation and on other parts of the 
world.
  Now to non-engineers, codes and standards developed by and for 
mechanical engineers may sound like a lot of jargon and, candidly, like 
pretty boring stuff.
  But as an engineer, I am proud to say that I believe that the nuts 
and bolts of how to build things, how to create, how to standardize and 
grow equipment and industries have been at the very heart of the 
American economic growth-engine for more than a century.
  That kind of nuts and bolts thinking and creativity will be what 
leads America out of this recession and toward sustained economic 
growth once again.
  So I'm pleased that the Senate has joined me in celebrating a success 
story of American engineering.
  This story begins when ASME was founded in 1880. ASME currently 
includes more than 127,000 members worldwide.
  It is a professional organization which promotes the art, science, 
and practice of mechanical and multidisciplinary engineering and allied 
sciences.
  One of its chief functions since its founding has been the 
development of tool and machine part standards, along with uniform work 
practices to ensure mechanical reliability.
  This week, ASME will celebrate its 125th anniversary of codes and 
standards development.
  This is a tribute to the dedicated service of technical experts and 
engineers, whose efforts resulted in internationally accepted 
standards--standards that not only enhance public safety but also 
promote global trade.
  Its first published performance test code was entitled ``Code for the 
Conduct of Trials of Steam Boilers.''
  Since then, ASME has developed more than 500 technical standards for 
pressure vessel technology, electric and nuclear power facilities, 
elevators and escalators, gas pipelines, engineering drawing practices, 
and numerous other technical and engineered products and processes.
  At present, ASME codes and standards, as well as conformity 
assessment programs, are used in more than one hundred countries.
  Does engineering sound boring to you? Let's hope America's youth 
don't think so. We need to excite the young minds of thousands and 
thousands of young Americans about the possibilities of being an 
engineer, because engineers have always been the world's problem 
solvers. It is impossible to ignore the effect ASME's codes and 
standards have had on global development.
  During the period of rising industrialization, as machines were 
expanding in use and complexity on farms and in factories, ASME 
standards helped to ensure the safety of engineers and workers using 
these machines.
  Today, in our global economy, these codes and standards are 
continually revised and updated to reflect changes in technology. As a 
result, ASME's codes and standards are accepted across the globe and 
help to advance international commerce. The American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers has adapted to meet the changes and challenges in 
the engineering profession. I commend their accomplishments and 
contributions to the health, safety, and economic well-being of our 
Nation.
  I am pleased that the Senate yesterday approved S. Res. 179.
  When I went to college I wanted to be a mechanical engineer, in part 
because 52 years ago, after Sputnik, the United States was supporting 
science and engineering on an unprecedented level. America's 
competitive spirit helped us meet the challenges of those times. 
Thousands of innovations created myriad new opportunities for growth 
and development. We can do this again.
  The financial crisis should lead to a cultural shift back to the 
strong foundations of innovation and know-how that have always been the 
American way. I am glad that the federal government is again investing 
strongly in supporting the basic scientific, medical, and engineering 
research that will spur the discovery and innovations to create 
millions of new jobs and shape a bright American future.
  I thank my fellow Senators for joining with me in celebrating one 
small

[[Page 14506]]

chapter in the American economic success story, with hope that we can 
inspire similar successes in the coming years.


                            Brian J. Persons

  Mr. President, I wish to speak about our excellent Federal workforce.
  In my years of government service, I have met so many wonderful 
people who give so much of themselves for the benefit of us all. That 
is why I believe it essential for the American people to have 
confidence in our Federal employees.
  Americans need to know that they can place their trust in those 
charged with carrying out the people's work.
  Our government is filled with talented individuals performing their 
jobs with excellence.
  I cannot count--I literally cannot count--the Federal employees who 
deserve to be praised here in this Chamber, because that number is so 
great. But I hope to share one story today that is exemplary of our 
civil servants overall.
  The ancient philosophers used to compare the government of a state 
with that of a vessel at sea.
  In order to keep the ship afloat, to keep it headed in the proper 
direction, it required a captain and crew who were disciplined and 
responsible. Moreover, everyone on board--down to the lowest rank--had 
a job to do, and every task was critical.
  So it is with government.
  Every Federal employee, no matter how large or small one's job, keeps 
our ship of state afloat and sailing ever onward.
  I have not chosen to reference this analogy by chance. Rather, it 
fits well with the story of a hardworking and accomplished civil 
servant whom I wish to recognize today.
  I spoke earlier about the effect of engineers on our economy and our 
communities. The Federal employee I honor today has spent more than a 
quarter of a century working as a civilian engineer for the Navy 
Department.
  Although today Brian Persons has risen to become executive director 
of the Naval Sea Systems Command, or NAVSEA, he began his public 
service as a ship architect at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. A 
Michigan native and graduate of Michigan State with a degree in civil 
engineering, Brian went to work in 1981 for the Navy Department, 
designing and maintaining the ships of our fleet. Brian distinguished 
himself in the design division at Long Beach, and he was made a 
supervisory architect within a few years. While there, he worked on 
overhauls of surface ships, including the great battleships U.S.S. New 
Jersey and the U.S.S. Missouri. In 1988, when the U.S.S. Samuel B. 
Roberts struck a mine in the Persian Gulf, the Navy sent Brian to Dubai 
to provide analysis and repair options.
  Although he was only asked to spend a week in the gulf, Brian 
remained with the stricken vessel for 45 days until it was again 
seaworthy.
  Describing the experience years later, he said:

       I am still amazed at the authority I was given to execute 
     this project. I was lucky to have such an opportunity at such 
     an early stage in my career.

  I want our Nation's graduates to know that careers in public service 
are full of opportunities like the one given to Brian.
  Federal employees at all levels get to work on exciting and relevant 
projects every day.
  After his superb performance in Dubai, Brian was given a series of 
challenging jobs in the NAVSEA Commander's Development Program. Just 10 
years after he first began his career, the Navy Department promoted 
Brian to be the director for maintenance and modernization under the 
assistant secretary for research, development, and acquisition. In this 
role, which he held for 5 years, he was responsible for overseeing 
policy on ship maintenance and modernization as well as the Navy's 
nuclear, biological, and chemical protection programs.
  Brian returned to NAVSEA in 1996 and has worked in various roles 
there over the past 12 years. For his dedicated service in government, 
Brian was honored with a Meritorious Presidential Rank Award in 2004 
and won the prestigious Distinguished Presidential Rank Award last 
year. This year, he was appointed as executive director of NAVSEA, its 
most senior civilian executive.
  In addition to his work as an engineer and a manager, throughout the 
years Brian has served as a role model for those working with him, 
including a number of colleagues from traditionally underrepresented 
minority groups, whom he has mentored as they sought leadership 
positions in the Department.
  This is truly the kind of service and mentorship we need to promote 
among engineers and other science professionals. Engineers can play an 
important role in bettering our communities and promoting education 
among our students.
  I am glad we were able to include funding for service opportunities 
of this kind in the Serve America Act earlier this year. I call again 
on my colleagues and on all Americans to join me in recognizing the 
contributions of Brian Persons and all of the engineers, scientists, 
and technicians who continue to ensure that our ships of state remain 
seaworthy and on a forward course.
  I honor their service and that of all our hard-working Federal 
employees.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative 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.
  Mr. WICKER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, of all the complex issues the United 
States will deal with in this Congress, none will be more important 
than health care reform. Of all the momentous decisions we will make 
over the next few months, none will be more consequential or long-
lasting than the votes we may take regarding the one-sixth of the 
American economy which comprises our health care system. If we get it 
right, we could devise a program that makes health care more accessible 
and affordable, provides health coverage to millions of Americans who 
are currently without health insurance, relieves Americans from worry 
about the effect changing jobs will have on their health care, saves 
lives through an increased focus on prevention and wellness, saves 
money by curbing the out-of-control growth in government health care 
programs, keeps patients and families in control of their health care 
choices, and makes doctors the decisionmakers on treatment options.
  We have a great opportunity before us to improve the American health 
care system, but we run a perilous risk if we do not act wisely and 
carefully. We can fix our broken health care system by making it more 
accessible and affordable for Americans, and we can do so without 
jeopardizing quality, individual choice, and personalized care.
  The American people need us to act on this issue, but they do not 
need or want us to act rashly. We do not need to enact a Washington 
takeover or a scheme that would inevitably lead to a government 
takeover of one-sixth of our gross domestic product.
  I recently spoke with a resident of a country that is a major U.S. 
ally. He espoused the benefits of his country's government health care 
program, explaining in particular detail how the program works there. 
But then I posed a question: What happens in your country if you get 
cancer? He smiled and said: If I get cancer, I am going to the United 
States. He is going to the United States. It was a very telling answer 
that points up a profound truth: There are many things we need to fix 
about American health care, but there are a number of things we do 
right. There are a number of things right about our system, and we 
don't need to risk losing those things that today give Americans the 
highest quality health care system in the world.
  Nine out of ten middle-aged American women have had a mammogram--

[[Page 14507]]

90 percent of American women--compared to less than three-fourths of 
Canadian women. More than half of American men have had a prostate test 
compared to less than one in six Canadians. Nearly one-third of 
Americans have had a colonoscopy compared to less than 5 percent of 
Canadians. These are statistics we need to be proud of as compared to 
our Western allies.
  In addition to this focus in America on prevention, we also spend 
less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United 
Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long--
sometimes more than a year--to see a specialist. We don't need health 
care reform that moves us in that direction. Mr. President, 827,429 
people today, at this very moment, are waiting for some sort of 
procedure in Canada, and 1.8 million people in England are waiting for 
a hospital admission or outpatient treatment. They are having to wait 
for that in England.
  We Americans also have better access to new technologies such as 
medical imaging than patients in Canada or the United Kingdom. 
Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care 
innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals--only five top U.S. 
hospitals--conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any 
other single developed country. Only the top five outrank any other 
country in the world in clinical trials. We ought to be proud of that. 
We ought not to enact any program that would jeopardize that type of 
innovation.
  Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has 
gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other 
countries combined. We get results based on our innovation and our 
research in the United States of America.
  All these numbers translate into one very important fact: Americans 
have a better 5-year survival rate than Europeans for common cancers. 
For example, in the area of colon cancer, we have a 65-percent, 5-year 
survival rate in America, compared to only 50 percent in the United 
Kingdom. For prostate cancer, we have a 93-percent survival rate for 5 
years in the United States; only 77 percent in the United Kingdom. In 
breast cancer, 90 percent of Americans who suffer from breast cancer 
have a 5-year survival rate; only 82 percent in the United Kingdom. For 
thyroid cancer that figure is a 94-percent, 5-year survival rate and 
only 75 percent in the United Kingdom.
  Put another way, breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in 
Germany with their government-run system than in the United States, and 
breast cancer mortality is 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom with 
their government-run health care system. Prostate cancer mortality is 
604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in 
Norway. Is there a genetic predisposition for the people of Norway to 
die of prostate cancer or of German women to have breast cancer? I 
don't think so. I think these numbers, these stubborn facts reflect 
that our American system of innovation and detection and treatment is a 
good thing, and as we improve and fix our system, we need to be careful 
to maintain that type of quality.
  There are broken parts of our system, to be sure, but my point today 
is to urge this body to consider the consequences of all the options we 
will consider. There is no question we need to make health care more 
affordable and we need to expand access. Republicans support providing 
affordable access to coverage for every American, and we can do that 
without a Washington, DC, takeover of health care. What we cannot 
afford the risk of doing is eroding the quality of care in pursuit of 
our goals this year. The surest way to destroy quality is to hand the 
reins of health care over to the Federal Government.
  I recently had the opportunity to discuss health care with a member 
of the British House of Commons. That member of Parliament said: 
Whatever you do, do not do what we did in the United Kingdom.
  A Washington takeover of health care would result in a stifling of 
innovation. I am convinced it would result in long waits. As we 
consider a so-called public option, a public plan, we need to ask 
ourselves: Will it lead, as I believe it will, to a one-size-fits-all 
Washington takeover of health care and inevitably mean that our 
citizens will be denied and delayed the health care we need? We need to 
be careful as we answer that question. I regret to say the plan I see 
taking shape on the other side of the aisle would result in either a 
politician or a bureaucrat making your health care decisions instead of 
you and your doctor. I urge my colleagues to protect innovation and to 
protect quality.
  I am convinced we can protect the doctor-patient relationship and 
make health care more affordable and accessible for all without 
jeopardizing the quality I have spoken about this afternoon. I believe 
all of us in this body want a solution that works for Americans. There 
is common ground to be found that would continue the opportunity for 
the United States to be that world leader in quality. Congress and the 
American people need to pay close attention as we proceed this summer 
and this fall on one of the most important debates in our time.
  Thank you. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Obstructionism

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wanted to say this to the occupant of the 
Chair personally, but I will take the opportunity to say it now. The 
presentation the Senator made on the floor regarding health care was 
stupendous, terribly impressive. I am going to take much of what the 
Presiding Officer said today and use it in the information I give 
people in Nevada and the presentations I am making on the floor. It was 
very good.
  As the health care debate has heated up this week, Republicans have 
once again rolled out one of their standard, stale talking points: They 
question the efficiency of our government. When all else fails, all 
they do is berate the government.
  But if Republicans want to have an honest debate about how our 
government operates, I think one of the first things I would suggest is 
that they should start looking in the mirror at themselves.
  Today, Republicans are wasting more taxpayer time and more dollars 
for no good reason. The tobacco bill on the floor right now is both 
responsible and overdue. After making us wait out all the 30 hours of 
procedural time before even moving to the bill--Mr. President, the 30 
hours isn't all of it. To get to that point, you have to file cloture, 
which takes 2 days, and then we have the 30 hours--a total waste of 
time. Republicans are now making us wait another 30 hours before we can 
vote on this bill. So it is 30 hours just to move to it, and then 30 
hours once we are on it.
  Let me reiterate how important the bill we are wasting time on not 
doing is to the American people. Every day, 3,500 Americans try a 
cigarette for the first time, and the vast majority of them are 
children. Nationwide, 3\1/2\ million high schoolers smoke; 3\1/2\ 
million boys and girls in high school smoke. That is more kids than 
participate in athletics in our schools who are smoking. Tobacco 
companies make money hand over fist by marketing and selling their 
poisonous products to our kids.
  The bill before the Senate takes smart steps to keep our children and 
families healthier and keep the tobacco companies honest. It will make 
it harder for those companies to sell tobacco to children; help those 
who smoke overcome their addictions; it will make tobacco products less 
toxic for those who cannot or do not want to stop.
  We have tried in good faith since last week to reach agreement with 
Republicans on amendments to this bill. Our floor staff has given the 
Republican floor staff a finite list of both Democratic and Republican 
amendments that we wanted to vote on as we consider the bill. With rare 
exception, the amendments were germane. If not germane, they were 
arguably germane.

[[Page 14508]]

But no. These amendments included three from Senator Hagan, and one 
each from Senators Coburn, Enzi, Bunning, and Lieberman.
  Unfortunately, despite repeated efforts to move forward, our 
Republican colleagues have said no every time.
  Republicans are also slowing down our government in another way. In 
the few short months since President Obama took office, Republicans 
held up many of his nominees for crucial positions. There are 25 being 
held up right now, as we speak. Let me give you a few of them. We have 
had to have cloture votes this year on the Secretary of Labor; the 
Deputy Attorney General, the No. 2 person for a massive Justice 
Department; the Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior, 
which is like the Chief of Staff for the Department of the Interior; 
two members of the Council of Economic Advisers; and, incredibly, 
America's Ambassador to Iraq, Chris Hill. They held him up for a long 
time. Every time I spoke to Secretary Gates, he wanted to know where 
his Ambassador was, somebody to run that country--at least American 
interests in that country.
  Today, they are holding up 25 or more qualified and noncontroversial 
nominees, including Rand Beers, nominated to be Under Secretary of the 
Department of Homeland Security, a pretty important position; Cass 
Sunstein, nominated to head the Office of Management and Budget's 
Information and Regulatory Affairs division. You could go to any law 
school in America today and ask them to name the top 10 academics in 
law schools, and Cass Sunstein's name will be one of the 10 on 
everybody's list. But he is not good enough for the Republicans to get 
him cleared; Hilary Chandler Tompkins, nominated to be the Solicitor 
for the Department of the Interior. That is the lawyer there. They have 
70,000 employees. Secretary Salazar thinks it is a good idea that he 
has a lawyer there. They are not going to allow that; William Sessions, 
nominated to be Chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Listen to this 
one. We have been told the reason he is not going to be approved is 
because he is from Vermont, and Senator Leahy is chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee. They want to embarrass a friend, the chairman of 
that committee, Chairman Pat Leahy; Harold Koh, nominated to be the 
State Department's legal advisor. Just like the Interior Department, 
the State Department, Secretary Clinton wants a lawyer there, in that 
huge, most important office. But no. Robert Grove, nominated to be 
Director of the Census--no.
  I have only mentioned five. There are 20 others. The Republicans 
recklessly refuse to confirm our new Ambassador to Iraq. Listen to what 
they are doing now. They are holding up LTG Stanley McChrystal, an 
eminently qualified soldier, whom President Obama and Secretary Gates 
chose to be our new commander in Afghanistan. I met him in my office 
the other day. This is a man with the military in his blood. His father 
was a great general. His father won five Silver Stars fighting for our 
country around the world. Stanley McChrystal is an expert in 
counterinsurgency, which we need so badly in Afghanistan. But, no, we 
are not going to get him approved--at least for now.
  Republicans are so opposed to everything, they even oppose putting 
people in some of the most important positions in our government. We 
believe--the majority, Democrats--that those who have been chosen to 
serve our country must be able to get to work without delay.
  Republicans across the country agree with that, also. But we have 40 
Members of this body--Republicans--who don't represent Republicans 
across this country. Republicans, if given a chance, wouldn't they 
approve LTG McChrystal? Of course they would. And the other people I 
mentioned. We believe those who have been chosen to serve our country 
must be able to get to work without delay. President Obama was elected. 
Shouldn't he have the people he wants to work with him? Perhaps those 
listening think this is how the Senate always operates. The occupant of 
the chair is a new Senator. This isn't how it used to operate.
  Let me put these delays into context. In the first 4 months of the 
Bush administration--the second Bush administration--I am sure it was 
the same in the first Bush administration--when the Senate was 
controlled by the President's party, and we were in the minority, there 
wasn't a single filibuster of a Bush nominee--not one. But in the first 
4 months of the Obama administration, Republicans have filibustered 
eight of his nominees. Those are the ones we had to file cloture on. I 
have indicated that there are many others. With the constraints we have 
in the rules of the Senate, I cannot file cloture on every one of 
these. Those filibusters in the first 4 months of Senator Obama's 
administration are twice as many as President Bush faced in his first 4 
months.
  I hope people who are listening or watching understand this: We are 
not berating Republicans in Oregon or in Nevada or across the country. 
What I am saying is the Republicans here in the Senate--40 of them--are 
not being fair to our President and our country.
  Last year, after Republicans held up the work of the Congress more 
than any other time in history--remember, we had 100 filibusters last 
year--the American people rejected the Republican status quo. They said 
no to Republicans' just-say-no strategy. I would hope they would learn 
that the American people don't like this--Independents, Democrats, and 
Republicans don't like it. We want to work together.
  Take health care. They have seats at the negotiating table. We want 
to work with them. Energy, the same thing. There is no question the 
American people are taking notice, and they are fed up with petty 
partisan games. There is no question that these reckless tactics have 
consequences.
  Republicans delay and delay and delay to their own peril. The truth 
is that all Americans suffer. It is time that the Republicans let us 
get to work and allow President Obama to have his nominees, and let's 
get this bill off the floor. Every day we wait, 3,500 more people are 
subject to being addicted to tobacco.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. BURRIS. 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. BURRIS. Mr. President, I would like to speak for about 3 or 4 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, for far too long, this Nation's broken 
health care system has limped along badly and in need of serious 
reform. Many in Washington have lacked either the foresight or the 
political will to take on this issue. For those who have tried, it has 
been almost impossible to get anywhere. Even today, the President's 
health care proposal is under attack from both the right and the left. 
I think we need to do better. Controversy should not drown out 
conversation.
  The time has come to cast aside the constraints of partisanship, stop 
bickering, and start talking about real change. The American people 
have had enough. It is time to get to work.
  The facts are plain: tens of millions of Americans are uninsured and 
underinsured. Many of these are children. Even employer-sponsored 
coverage is in jeopardy. Businesses are being drained by skyrocketing 
costs, and many have cut benefits. High premiums, rising copayments, 
and expensive prescription drugs are driving American families to the 
brink.
  Can we stand by and watch as unreasonable health care costs cripple 
families who are already struggling? No, we cannot.
  Can we allow this crisis to deepen, leaving more and more hard-
working Americans behind? No, we cannot.
  It is the solemn duty of this Congress to follow President Obama's 
lead and enact swift, responsible reform. We can cut costs and improve 
coverage. We can make the system smarter and less wasteful. We can 
empower individuals and families to make important decisions, not giant 
corporations or government bureaucracies. We can and we

[[Page 14509]]

must make quality, affordable health care available to every single 
American.
  While I support the role insurance companies play in our health care 
system, I strongly believe a public option should also be available. 
This would restore accountability to the system and increase 
competition, driving prices down and making good coverage, private or 
public, more affordable for everyone.
  American businesses and families have waited far too long for 
meaningful health care reform. The time to act is now.
  Some of my colleagues have been working to fix our broken system for 
many years. Senator Kennedy has been a leader on this issue throughout 
his career. This is the moment he and many others have been working 
toward. We must seize this opportunity to reform health care in 
America. I urge my colleagues to work with President Obama, as well as 
Senator Kennedy, to make sure everyone has access to quality, 
affordable coverage.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          Sotomayor Nomination

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to assure our Members, the 
American people, and Judge Sotomayor that our committee is going to do 
its best to have a hearing on her confirmation that would be worthy of 
the serious responsibility we have and that the American people will 
feel is fair. I hope they will say it is the best hearing we have ever 
had.
  I have to tell you, though, things are moving faster than I would 
like to have seen them move, and it does cause some difficulties for 
us. As I discussed on the floor yesterday, the Republican members of 
the Judiciary Committee are deeply concerned about this process being 
moved this rapidly. Yesterday, Chairman Leahy unilaterally announced 
that the hearings would begin on July 13, some 48 days from the 
announcement of this nomination. I won't go into a lot of detail, but I 
would note that in the recent three Supreme Court nominees, Justice 
Breyer's hearing was 60 days after the announcement, Justice Roberts'--
the one that has been most cited and was the shortest--was 55, and 
Justice Alito's was 70. And I would note that Justice Roberts had 370 
cases, whereas Judge Sotomayor has 3,500-plus cases to review. So I 
think, to quote Senator Schumer and Senator Leahy in remarks they made 
previously, it is better to do it right than to do it too fast.
  I would note that late last week, the White House sent her answers to 
the questionnaire we send to all the nominees, requiring a good deal of 
information, and that is done on a bipartisan basis. Those answers were 
sent forward with great fanfare. In a press release from the White 
House Counsel's Office, the Obama administration proclaimed that they 
set a record by completing the process in just 9 days. But this is a 
confirmation process, not a confirmation race. I think the White House 
should focus more on having thorough and complete answers to the 
questionnaire, not on entering the ``Guinness Book of World Records'' 
for the fastest response from a Supreme Court nominee.
  We know now that Judge Sotomayor omitted or failed to include key 
information and has provided incomplete and sometimes contradictory 
responses to the questionnaire. The responses are not satisfactory. So 
today all seven Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, who have 
been through this--most of them--for some time and seen these issues 
develop before, have written to ask that the nominee fulfill her duty 
to provide clear and complete answers to our questions in order to 
obtain quite a bit of information that is now not available and should 
have been included.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                    Washington, DC, June 10, 2009.
     Hon. Sonia Sotomayor,
     Office of the Counsel to the President,
     The White House.
       Dear Judge Sotomayor: Thank you for providing your 
     questionnaire, assembled materials, and June 6, 2009 
     questionnaire supplement to the Judiciary Committee. 
     Committee staff are reviewing your questionnaire responses 
     and attachments and have noted a number of apparent 
     omissions. In addition, we believe that some of your 
     responses are incomplete. In view of these concerns, we would 
     respectfully ask that you revisit the questionnaire and 
     provide another supplement as soon as possible. If you 
     believe that your questionnaire is fully responsive, we would 
     appreciate an explanation to that effect.
       To assist you in completing your questionnaire, below are 
     some of the potential omissions detected to date:
       (1) Question 6 asks for your employment record. Although 
     you indicate that you were a member of the board of directors 
     of the State of New York Mortgage Agency, it appears that you 
     also served on the Administration and Personnel Committee (or 
     the Program Committee) and as a member of the board of 
     Community Planning Board #6. In addition, you indicate that 
     you served as a member and vice president of the board of 
     directors of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund; 
     however, in response to Question 25, you indicate that you 
     served as First Vice President. Please clarify your response 
     and supplement as necessary.
       (2) Question 12(a) requires lists and copies of materials 
     written or edited. You have been widely described as an 
     editor of the Yale Law Journal and as Managing Editor of the 
     Yale Studies in World Public Order. However, you have not 
     provided any copies of materials from either publication. 
     Please provide the Committee with copies of any materials you 
     edited during your tenure as an editor of both law reviews.
       (3) Question 12(b) requires copies and or/descriptions of 
     certain reports, memoranda, or policy statements prepared by 
     specified organizations. You have stated that ``As a member 
     of various court committees, I have prepared and contributed 
     to numerous reports and memoranda on court issues, which 
     relate to internal court deliberations and are not available 
     for public dissemination.'' However, the question is not 
     limited to publicly available reports. Please provide such 
     reports and memoranda.
       (4) Also with respect to Question 12(b), you initially 
     omitted a report concerning the death penalty that you 
     drafted during your time on the Board of the Puerto Rican 
     Legal Defense & Education Fund. We would appreciate 
     confirmation that a thorough review of those records has been 
     completed, given the initial omission, and that you have 
     provided all relevant documents to the Committee in response 
     to this question.
       (5) Question 13(g) requires a brief summary of and 
     citations for all opinions where decisions were reversed by a 
     reviewing court or where the judgment was affirmed with 
     significant criticism. For opinions not officially reported, 
     copies are requested. Although you indicate with respect to 
     Bernard v. Las Americas Communications, Inc., that there was 
     no formal opinion, you make no such representation with 
     respect to the United States v. Gottesman opinion or the 
     United States v. Bauers opinion--yet it does not appear that 
     copies of these opinions have been provided. Please clarify 
     your response.
       (6) Question 16(d) asks about trial experience and requires 
     ``opinions and filings'' for cases going to verdict, 
     judgment, or final decision. For three cases you have 
     indicated that ``The Manhattan District Attorney's Office is 
     searching its records for information on this case.'' Please 
     provide us with this information as a supplement to the 
     questionnaire.
       (7) Also with respect to Question 16(d), you state: ``I 
     tried an additional 14 cases during my time as an assistant 
     district attorney, from 1979 to 1984. The Manhattan District 
     Attorney's Office is searching its records for further 
     information on these cases.'' Please provide us with this 
     information as a supplement to the questionnaire.
       (8) Question 16(e) asks about appellate practice. Nominees 
     are asked to provide copies of briefs and (if applicable) 
     oral argument transcripts. You state: ``I have requested the 
     briefs and any available transcripts from these cases from 
     the Clerk of the Court of the Second Circuit on May 30th and 
     will forward to the Committee as soon as I receive them.'' 
     Please provide us with this information as a supplement to 
     the questionnaire.
       We are also concerned that some of your responses fail to 
     provide the Committee with the information to which it is 
     entitled in reviewing your nomination.
       (1) In response to Question 11(b), you state that you are a 
     member of an organization, the Belizean Grove, that 
     discriminates on the basis of sex. However, you indicate that

[[Page 14510]]

     you ``do not consider the Belizean Grove to invidiously 
     discriminate on the basis of sex in violation of the Code of 
     Judicial Conduct.'' Please explain the basis for your belief 
     that membership in an organization that discriminates on the 
     basis of sex nonetheless conforms to the Code of Judicial 
     Conduct.
       (2) Question 12(d) requires a list of speeches, remarks, 
     lectures, etc., given by the nominee or, in the absence of 
     prepared texts/outline/notes, then a summary of the subject 
     matter (not a topic or a description). We believe that 
     numerous entries in your list do not provide a ``summary'' of 
     your remarks; instead, they set forth general topics. For 
     example:
       ``I spoke on Second Circuit employment discrimination 
     cases'';
       ``I spoke at a federal court externship class on Access to 
     Justice'';
       ``I spoke on the United States Judicial System'';
       ``I participated in a symposium on post-conviction relief. 
     I spoke on the execution of judgments of conviction'';
       ``I spoke on the implementation of the Hague Convention in 
     the United States and abroad'';
       ``I participated in an ACS Panel discussion on the 
     sentencing guidelines'';
       ``I participated in a roundtable discussion and reception 
     on `The Art of Judging''';
       ``I contributed to the panel, `The Future of Judicial 
     Review: The View from the Bench' at the 2004 National 
     Convention. The Official theme was `Liberty and Equality in 
     the 21st Century.'''
       This list is not exhaustive.
       In addition, we are concerned about the fact that you have 
     failed to provide a draft, video, or transcript for more than 
     half of your speeches, remarks, lectures, etc. According to 
     your questionnaire, you have identified 191 occasions 
     responsive to the questionnaire. For 98, you stated that you 
     could not locate any record, for one you stated that you gave 
     a standard speech, for two you cross-referenced a different 
     speech, for 81 you provided a draft or video, and for eight 
     you provided news clippings instead of a draft, transcript or 
     remarks. We are particularly troubled because there may well 
     be transcripts available for certain remarks: for example, a 
     transcript of the 2004 panel entitled ``The Future of 
     Judicial Review: The View from the Bench'' was available 
     online.
       Please advise us of the process you undertook to search for 
     these speeches, and for those that you are unable to provide 
     to the Committee, please provide a more thorough explanation 
     of the content of each speech.
       Although you have provided a great deal of information to 
     the Committee, and we appreciate your efforts, it is 
     important that your information be complete to permit the 
     Committee to properly evaluate your record in the short time 
     that has been provided.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look 
     forward to your receiving your supplemental answers as soon 
     as possible.
           Sincerely,
     Jeff Session.
     Chuck Grassley.
     John Cornyn.
     Jon Kyl.
     Tom Coburn.
     ------
     Orrin Hatch.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the judge has provided our committee 
with a good deal of information. We also appreciate that the judge has 
already once recognized that her quick questionnaire was incomplete. 
The issue was raised, and she provided the committee with additional 
information on June 6 which really should have been in the first 
response. However, we are still concerned with several aspects.
  As I have already said, the minority leader reiterated this morning 
that members of the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate need a 
complete and thorough record in order to make informed judgments on 
this nomination.
  This is a lifetime appointment. It is our one chance in Congress to 
get it right. A Justice on the Supreme Court, if not faithful, has the 
power to actually alter the Constitution in addition to faithfully 
follow it, and sometimes I think that is what they have done.
  We need to know what kind of judges we are going to get. Does this 
judge understand that he or she will be under the law, subordinate to 
the law, one who must faithfully follow the law or do they believe they 
are above the law and have the freedom and the ability to interpret it 
in new and novel ways which might seem to further some agenda he or she 
might have, if they are on the bench? I think the American people are 
concerned about that. I think they are right to be concerned about 
that. Decisions have been rendered, in my opinion, that are not 
faithful to the Constitution, not required by the Constitution.
  Those are things we need to talk about and do it in a fair way and do 
it at a high level. There is no need to be personal about it.
  The oversights and errors in this questionnaire are the product of 
trying to rush through a nominee with one of the most lengthy records 
in recent history, maybe ever, to the Supreme Court, in one of the 
shortest timeframes in history.
  I think we should try to get it right. I believe a fair and thorough 
process, in the best spirit of this Chamber and in the best interest of 
this Nation, is what we should look forward to. I want to see we get 
the complete record and get back on the right track. I believe we can 
do that and it is important we work at it.
  I promise, as I said, to do what I can, and I believe we will have a 
very fair and objective hearing. But it is also important that we are 
fair to the American people. They are depending on us to carefully 
scrutinize anyone who comes up for confirmation. We cannot do that 
without a complete questionnaire.
  There are a number of things I raised the other day, yesterday, about 
the shortfall. I will briefly make a point or two. The letter sets 
forth in some detail quite a number of areas we set forth. It is eight 
different items and some other comments that we believe are inaccurate 
and we call for additional information. There are some significant 
matters there.
  When the judge supplemented her initial questionnaire on June 6 by 
providing us with a report concerning the death penalty article she 
drafted during her time on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense 
Education Fund, she had initially omitted that from the report. We 
would appreciate confirmation that a thorough review of those records 
has been completed, given the initial omission, and that she has 
provided all the relevant documents to the committee in response to 
this question.
  There are other questions of writings, reports, and speeches. 
Question 12(a) requires the nominee to provide copies of materials 
written or edited. Judge Sotomayor has been widely described as one of 
the editors of the Yale Law Journal and, as managing editor, Yale 
Studies in World Public Order. However, we have not received any copies 
of either publication that she has edited. We need to see copies of 
those materials.
  The questionnaire also requires copies of reports, memorandums, and 
policy statements prepared by specified organizations. The judge 
responded:

       [a]s a member of various court committees [she has] 
     prepared and contributed to numerous reports and memoranda on 
     court issues, which relate to internal court deliberations 
     and are not available for public dissemination.

  I don't think those are the kind of documents that are secret. I 
think they can be obtained, and I believe the questionnaire calls for 
all of those.
  Paragraph 12(d) talks about a list of speeches and lectures providing 
the text of those speeches or, if that is not available, outlines or 
notes and, if not that, a summary of the subject matter involved in the 
speeches. About a third of those speeches have not been prepared and 
the summaries are inadequate. I will give an example. This was a 
response to one of them:

       I spoke on Second Circuit employment discrimination cases.

  There is no summary of what it was about, no outline or other 
information on that speech.
  Another one:

       I spoke at a federal court externship class on Access to 
     Justice.

  Another one:

       I spoke on the United States Judicial System.

  Another one:

       I participated in a symposium on post-conviction relief. I 
     spoke on the execution of judgments of conviction.

  Another one:

       I spoke on the implementation of the Hague Convention in 
     the United States and abroad.

  It goes on. There are several others. But those are inadequate 
responses, probably as a result of rushing the questionnaire through. I 
hope the nominee will go back and see, first of all, if she can find 
the written speech

[[Page 14511]]

she gave and provide us a copy of it. That would be helpful as we 
review these matters because there have been some questions about 
speeches that the nominee has made.
  I will not take any more time. I will let the letter speak for 
itself. I tried to call the judge earlier this afternoon, but she will 
not be available until sometime later, to tell her this is coming 
forward. I believe her staff may have already been notified of it, the 
White House Counsel's office.
  These are not little bitty matters. They are important matters. If we 
are going to move forward in a recordbreaking timeframe, the least we 
can expect is complete and full answers to these questions. It is 
appropriate that we insist this questionnaire be properly and 
completely answered. I hope and believe it will be. Certainly that is 
what our request is.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROBERTS. 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. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for about 12 
or 13 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Health Care

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about health care 
reform. What else in regard to the interests of the American people and 
what we are doing here?
  As the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, has pointed out in 
several floor speeches over the past week or so, the desire for health 
care reform on both sides of the aisle is one that unites this Chamber 
across both political and geographic boundaries.
  Our system of health care produces some of the best care in the world 
and it is the driver of a substantial share of the medical innovations 
that have wiped out diseases, improved our comfort, and extended our 
time on this Earth.
  However, this system is not truly accessible to everybody, and that 
is the problem. That is what this entire debate boils down to: your 
ability to have access to a doctor, to go see the doctor of your choice 
when you need to see that doctor.
  Solving this problem of access is exceedingly complicated, partly 
because it evidences itself in so many diverse ways all across the 
country, so many geographical areas. For example, in our rural areas in 
Kansas, we are struggling with attracting and retaining doctors and 
keeping the doors open to our hospitals, to our pharmacies, and 
clinics. We talk about recruiting athletes. My goodness, the business 
of recruiting doctors and health care professionals is equally as 
competitive.
  In our urban areas such as Kansas City and Wichita, our providers 
face very different challenges which are just as daunting and which 
threaten a patient's ability to access health care.
  On top of that, although some 250 million Americans have health 
insurance, somewhere in the neighborhood of 27 to 47 million, depending 
on who you are counting and who is talking, do not. That makes 
accessing health care expensive and very challenging for them.
  In addition, the government-run Medicare Program, which is on the 
verge of bankruptcy, by the way, does not pay doctors and pharmacists 
and ambulance drivers and nurse clinicians--pardon me, clinical lab 
folks and home health care providers and almost every health care 
provider that you can name--they do not pay them enough to cover their 
cost. Unless these providers have a non-Medicare population to recoup 
their losses, they cannot stay in business and their patients lose 
out--a de facto rationing of health care.
  As a member of both the Finance and HELP Committees, and the cochair 
of the Senate Rural Health Care Caucus, I am able to participate and 
have been participating, along with staff, in this complex and very 
difficult effort. We must reform our health care system into one that 
guarantees meaningful access for all Americans, and guarantees that 
patient-doctor relationship. However, this effort to date has been a 
tale of rhetoric versus that of reality, the promise of cooperation 
contrasted with the unfortunate but real fact of partisanship, 
something I do not like to say.
  Let me explain. President Obama, who ran as a ``postpartisan'' 
candidate, has made many overtures to Republicans indicating a desire 
for this process to be bipartisan. He just met with some members of our 
leadership and obviously the leadership on the other side of the aisle 
as of today.
  Others in the Senate have declared their goal to be a bill that 
attracts upward of 70 votes. Is that possible? I would hope so. It 
could be. That would be a tremendous victory for the Senate of the 
United States and the American people.
  But the reality is something very different. Today in the HELP 
Committee, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, we have 
just begun the process of walking through a 615-page bill that we are 
scheduled to mark up next Tuesday.
  This bill does not have one single Republican contribution, as far as 
I can tell. Moreover, it is incomplete, with many details missing. For 
example, the small detail of how much it will cost. There is no cost 
estimate to this bill of 615 pages, just going through it as of today, 
going to try to mark it up next Tuesday.
  Come on. That is not the way we should be doing business. The Finance 
Committee has conducted a parallel and I think, quite frankly, a better 
process so far, and I wish to thank Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member 
Grassley and their staffs for their efforts. But we still have not seen 
a detailed proposal or cost estimate, and we are being pushed to mark 
something up in the next few weeks as well.
  I want everyone to understand why process is important. Health care 
reform is important, to be sure. Getting things done obviously is 
important. But so is process. It is not because I do not want health 
care reform, nor is any Member in this body in a position to say they 
do not want health care reform. I want every single Kansan, every 
single American, to be able to see the doctor of their choice when they 
want to, especially when they have to.
  I speak today because this health care reform bill will likely 
involve one of the biggest, most important votes that I or any one of 
my colleagues will cast during the time we are privileged to serve in 
the Senate of the United States. This health care reform bill will 
affect the lives of every single American. It will reform a system that 
drives one-sixth of our economy, over 16 million American jobs. It will 
have consequences for medical science and innovation that improve the 
lives of not only those of us in this great country but all across the 
world. When people are really sick, they come to the United States.
  This bill will spend upwards of $2 trillion--$2 trillion--our 
children and grandchildren will have to some day repay. If we are going 
to do this, we cannot afford to get it wrong. For this reason, I 
initiated a letter about a week ago on behalf of all of my Republican 
colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee and on the HELP Committee. I 
asked the chairmen of those respective committees, the distinguished 
chairman, Senator Dodd, who is now serving in Senator Kennedy's 
absence, to give this process the time and the careful consideration it 
deserves. That was the message of the letter: Give us the time and the 
very careful consideration this vital issue deserves.
  It seems to me our requests have been extremely reasonable. First, 
please provide us with your detailed plan with enough time for us to 
read it, to understand it, and get feedback from our constituents back 
home, the people the bill will affect.
  We have done this in the Finance Committee. Goodness knows, I do not 
know how many panels we have had, how many walk-throughs, how many

[[Page 14512]]

slide presentations. Boy, that is tough in the afternoon to turn the 
lights off as Senators and try to pay attention to fact after fact 
after fact and suggestion after suggestion after suggestion and policy 
objective after policy objective on each day as we go through the 
legislative swamp, to try to get this from here.
  Our requests, again, I think--I want to say it again. First, you 
should provide us with your detailed plan with enough time for us to 
read it, understand it, get feedback from our constituents back home, 
the people the bill will affect. The reason I said that twice is that 
every day we had one of these slide shows, every day we had a 
PowerPoint, every day we got more information, our office would send it 
back to the providers of health care in Kansas, much in the same 
fashion as members of the committee would send to it their people, and 
say: Hey, is this going to work? These are the people who actually do 
provide the health care.
  I know the arguments that say: Well, now, wait a minute. We need to 
cut out fraud, waste, and abuse, and we need to be much more cost 
conscious. We need better practices in regard to better medical 
practices. We need a lot of things to either suggest or to incentivize 
or to maintain what the health care providers do.
  But in the end result, if that person is sick, they are going to have 
to see a doctor, and they are going to have to see a nurse or some 
health care provider. So in the end result, we better at least be doing 
something that the providers say, yes, this makes common sense or you 
are going to see either one of two things: You are going to see a 
political revolt when they say, no, we are not going to go down that 
road or else you are going to see a continuation of rationing where 
providers say: No, I am not going to take part anymore in the Medicare 
Program, because I am not getting reimbursed up to cost.
  You can have the best government program in the world, you can have 
the best government card in the world. But if you cannot find a doctor 
who provides service or a home health care provider who will provide 
service, or any provider who will provide that service well, where are 
you?
  Second, I would like to see provided the cost estimates from the 
Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Tax Committee. Let us know 
how much all of this is going to cost. That is extremely important. We 
are hearing anything from $1 to $2 trillion.
  Then, lastly, how will it be paid for? I know we are into an era now 
where basically we have the printing presses rolling, and we have an 
Economic Recovery Act and we have many facets of that, we have the 
stimulus, the omnibus, we had the President's budget and we had TARP, 
and we had four different other acronyms under TARP, and we did not 
worry too much about the pay-fors and who was going to pay for it. We 
let the printing presses roll, because nobody wanted to see economic 
Armageddon.
  Could we have done it better? I think so. But that is yesterday's 
decision. So we should identify how this will be paid for or are we not 
going to pay for it. Are we simply going to go ahead--there has been 
some discussion about some aspects of it that you would not pay for. 
There are other aspects that we need to go into, because they involve 
probable tax increases, and now is not the time to be increasing taxes, 
especially on the small business community, despite the need for health 
care reform.
  I think asking for these details is absolutely fair. I think it is 
necessary under the circumstances. In fact, I would be ignoring my 
responsibilities to my constituents in Kansas if I did not demand these 
conditions be met.
  Every single Republican member of the Finance Committee and HELP 
Committee signed the letter. Every single one expressed a desire to 
work with our colleagues to achieve bipartisan health care reform.
  That brings me back to today's HELP Committee walk-through of 615 
pages of an incomplete draft, the rushed HELP and Finance markup 
schedule, Tuesday, and then in about a week or two, the arbitrary floor 
debate deadlines that we hear from leadership. I hope our letter will 
slow this hurried dash to an imaginary finish line. Slow it down. Slow 
it down. I know it is extremely important that we pass good health care 
reform legislation. It is also extremely important to prevent bad 
legislation from passing and get America saddled with it for about 20 
or 25 years. I wish at the end of every committee room, if in fact the 
bill gets to committee, the committee of jurisdiction, that we can hold 
appropriate hearings, we would have a sign that says, ``Do no harm.'' 
And then right below it perhaps we could put ``whoa,'' until everybody 
can slow down and read it in regard to process, and cost, and specifics 
of the bill, and trying to work together to get a good product.
  There is no reason why the Senate should rush through a bill that has 
this much at stake. So time out. Time out. Time. Slow down. Give us the 
details. That is all we are asking for. The people of this great Nation 
deserve nothing less. Let's get health care reform and let's get it 
right.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Pay-Go

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, there is a disturbing pattern emerging in 
Washington, DC, which I don't think is being lost on the American 
people. We have seen, since the beginning of this year, with the new 
administration coming into power, the new Congress taking control of 
the leadership in both the House and Senate, an enormous amount, an 
unprecedented amount of spending, borrowing, and taxing. To bear that 
out--this information has been used before--if you actually look at the 
numbers, you have to go back a long ways in American history, go back 
to the foundation of our country, go back to 1789, and you take it up 
to today, 2009, 220 years of American history, the total amount of debt 
that has been accumulated over that period of time, literally since the 
Presidency of George Washington through the Presidency of George Bush 
will be equaled in the next 5 years.
  We will double the amount of Federal debt, public debt in this 
country in the next 5 years. We will triple it in 10 years. We are 
borrowing and spending money around here on a spree that literally is 
without precedent in American history.
  It should be of concern to all Americans for the obvious reason. They 
have a share of that debt. In fact, according to USA Today, if you just 
take the amount of debt that has been accumulated since the beginning 
of this year, with the passage of the stimulus bill, with the new 
appropriations bill that passed, an 8.3-percent increase over the 
previous year, which was twice the rate of inflation, and all the other 
spending that is going on with the various bailout programs and 
whatnot, the average family's share of the debt this year alone is 
$55,000. The average family's share of the Federal debt is $55,000 per 
family in debt accumulated just since the beginning of this calendar 
year.
  The amount of borrowing is without precedent. The amount of spending 
that is being done is without precedent. All under the guise of this is 
an emergency, and we have to react this way. But I think as more of 
this spending and more of this debt accumulates, the American people 
have become more convinced that the spending isn't solving the problem 
it was supposed to solve, which was we were going to create jobs, get 
the economy growing and expanding again. We haven't seen any of those 
effects.
  What we have seen, of course, is more debt, more interest, and a bill 
that we will hand to future generations that is not fair to them 
because we should not be penalizing future generations and

[[Page 14513]]

pushing them because we haven't been able to live within our means.
  The most recent response to that by the administration was yesterday. 
They came out and announced they are going to implement pay-go. So we 
are going to have pay-go regulations or pay-go policies now in place 
with respect to the Federal budget and the way we operate in Congress. 
Incidentally, even when pay-go was in effect, it was not very effective 
because much of the budget, much of the spending that occurs in 
Washington is outside the realm or outside the net of pay-go.
  In fact, if you look at what pay-go does in terms of its design, it 
exempts all discretionary spending, would allow all current entitlement 
programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, to continue 
to grow on autopilot. It affects only new entitlements or tax cuts that 
may be created in the future. Pay-go also allows expiring entitlement 
programs to be extended without offsets but not expiring tax cuts.
  So it is clearly biased in favor of higher spending and higher taxes. 
In fact, if it does not apply to discretionary spending and if, in 
fact, it does not in a meaningful way apply to entitlement reform--in 
other words, it simply puts sort of a cap on how much entitlements can 
grow, but it doesn't get at the fundamental issue that these programs 
continue to grow unabated--it is simply one thing: a statutory excuse 
to raise taxes. That is essentially what pay-go is.
  The new administration came out with the news bulletin yesterday that 
this is somehow a bold, new step and that they are going to attack and 
take on this deficit and this debt we have. Of course, what they didn't 
tell us is--sort of the expression we use in my part of the country--it 
is like closing the barn door after the horse is already out of the 
barn because we have already got all this spending this year that 
wasn't covered by pay-go. The stimulus bill, which was $800 billion in 
new borrowing, was outside of pay-go. In fact, over the past several 
years now that the Democrats have been in power in the Congress, they 
have consistently violated the pay-go standard, about 15 times, to the 
tune of about $882 billion in all this new spending that was done 
outside of pay-go.
  So now it is like all of a sudden coming to the conclusion and 
realization that now we are going to get serious about deficits, now we 
are going to get serious about spending, now we are going to somehow 
clamp down on all these new programs that are out there. Somehow, at 
least rhetorically, subscribing to pay-go as a concept is going to be 
the solution and the answer to that.
  I think we all know better than that. As I mentioned, pay-go has been 
routinely sort of ignored in the past. Even if it were to apply, as I 
mentioned earlier, it does not capture much of the spending that goes 
on here in Washington. It is simply nothing more than a statutory 
excuse to raise taxes.
  Having said that, I mentioned before much of the spending that has 
already occurred here in Washington. Yet the big-ticket items are still 
looming out there on the horizon in the future. By that I mean health 
care reform, which is a big priority of the administration. We are 
starting to see more details, get a little bit of a glimpse of what 
that might entail.
  We know, for one thing, based upon the statements that have been made 
by the President and by the Democratic leaders in the Congress, they 
want it to include a government plan, purely and simply. They want a 
government plan, which means one thing; that is, that the government 
takes over health care in this country. Because you cannot maintain a 
private insurance program, you cannot maintain a private-sector 
delivery system, a market-based health care system in this country if 
you are going to have a government plan.
  The government plan is where everybody, according to studies that 
have been done, eventually would end up going. They would gravitate 
there. More and more small businesses either would be forced to pay 
fines, if they did not have insurance themselves or offer insurance. 
The suggestion is--and I think it is a fair one based upon the analysis 
that has been done by a lot of the independent outside groups--you will 
see more and more small businesses giving up their health care coverage 
and having their employees move and transition into the government 
plan. The government plan will become the repository for all the 
employees who are currently covered in employer-provided health care 
plans in this country.
  So the government component of this will continue to grow, and 
eventually you will have a system that very much models or is very 
similar to what we see in other places around the world. Some people 
talk about Canada, some people talk about Europe and all these great 
systems. But the reality is, a lot of the people in those countries 
come to the United States. The reason they come here is because we have 
the highest quality care and because they can get access to it.
  The one thing that happens when the government runs health care is 
the government decides what procedures are covered. The government 
decides what treatments are going to be part of the coverage. The 
government will decide how soon you can get access to those treatments. 
What you find in other countries around the world are long lines, long 
waits, and that is fairly typical of the countries I mentioned.
  The thing that makes the American system so unique in all the world 
is its dependence upon and its foundation upon a market-based system. 
It has led to incredible innovation. It has led to incredible research 
and development, new treatments, new therapies, and has provided all 
kinds of opportunities for people of this country to receive health 
care, and, frankly, as I mentioned before, for people from other 
countries who come here to get their health care.
  So why we would want to throw out that part of our health care system 
that is so good and replace it with a government-run system--which, 
frankly, again, the government is going to get in the middle of the 
decision between the consumer of health care or the patient and their 
provider, the physician, and make those decisions. It seems to me that 
is not a model we want to emulate in the United States.
  As I said, we have a system that needs reform. We have flaws in the 
way our current system works. But the fact is, it is the very best 
health care system in the world, and I think it would be a big mistake 
for us to go down a path that shifts and moves more and more people 
into a government-run, government-controlled system, where the 
government decides what procedures are going to be covered and how soon 
you are going to have access to them.
  I think it does one thing: It obviously would lead to a rationing of 
health care. By that I mean, simply again, that the government would 
have to try the clamp down on costs, limit the access of people to have 
certain types of therapies, certain types of treatments, and I think 
you would find less and less choice available in health care in this 
country. That is what I think a government-run system would give you in 
the end.
  Most of us on this side have laid out a number of proposals, 
alternatives to a government-run system. Everybody says: Well, come up 
with a plan of your own. We have a number of them out there. We have a 
Coburn-Burr plan that has been introduced. Senator Gregg from New 
Hampshire has a plan that has been introduced. There is a Bennett-Wyden 
bill, which is a bipartisan bill, that has been introduced out there. 
But there are a number of alternatives that have been put forward by 
Republicans.
  To date, we have only seen little sort of generalities about the 
Democrat plan. All we simply know is they are going to insist upon a 
government-run component to that. Again, it simply is nothing more and 
nothing less than a government takeover of health care, which is going 
to lead to all kinds of outcomes that I do not think most people in 
this country are prepared for and, frankly, if they had the 
opportunity, would not support.
  But they have entrusted us with the responsibility to look for ways 
to make health care more affordable in this

[[Page 14514]]

country. There are lots of good suggestions which, as I said before, 
Republicans are putting forward. But it is going to be very difficult 
if the bright red line that is put forward by the Democrats in the 
Senate and in the House of Representatives is a government-run program, 
a government-run plan or else. I certainly am not going to subscribe to 
that sort of a solution for America's health care system. Nor do I 
think it is going to be in the best interests of patients and consumers 
around this country or providers, for that matter, to do that.
  So health care debate is one debate that is out there. The reason I 
raised that issue is because it ties back into my point earlier that 
the amount of spending and borrowing and taxing that is going on here 
is--if you look back at what has already been done, it is enormous, it 
is enormous by any comparative standard in American history. But the 
big-ticket items are still out there because the health care plan, as 
we understand it--again, it has only been conceptual. We have not seen 
the details emerge from any of the Democrats' ideas. They are starting 
to roll more of it out. But one thing is clear: It is going to have a 
huge price tag. We are talking about anywhere from $1 trillion to $1.5 
trillion to $2 trillion. Of course, if they are going to adhere to the 
newly announced pay-go standard, that means this new entitlement 
program has to be paid for.
  So where does that $1.5 trillion or $2 trillion come from? Well, 
obviously, it is going to come from some revenues raised from some part 
of our economy. That means a lot of hard-working Americans are going to 
see their taxes go up to finance this new government takeover of health 
care, which is going to give them fewer options, and get in the way of 
the patient-doctor relationship and cost them a lot more in the form of 
higher taxes.
  I think even though much of the spending I have already referred to 
is in our rearview mirror--all that is left is to pay the bill for 
that. We still have to pay the bill. We are borrowing, which means 
somebody is going to pay the bill. We are going to hand off the bill to 
the next generation of Americans because, obviously, when you borrow $1 
trillion, someday it has to be paid back. In the meantime, when you 
continue to rack up that kind of borrowing and when you continue to do 
all the other things we are doing in our economy in terms of 
interventions, whether it is with regard to financial institutions or 
auto manufacturers--you can kind of go down the list--insurance 
companies now that the government actually has an ownership interest in 
that--we are acquiring enormous amounts of exposure and debt for the 
taxpayers of this country.
  The health care plan is going to be another $1.5 trillion or $2 
trillion on top of that. When you borrow that amount of money, you do 
have to pay it back. By the way, I should mention, too, the interest on 
the amount of debt we are going to rack up in the next 10 years alone 
is about $5 trillion. Think about that. That is just to pay the finance 
charge on the debt we have in this country. Think about the enormous 
burden that places on the American taxpayers and the American economy.
  What generally happens in a case such as that is, when you borrow 
that much money, there is a lot more pressure out there, and the people 
who are buying that debt are, at some point, going to start demanding a 
higher interest rate. When interest rates go up, with the higher return 
on their investment, generally inflation follows with it. So you have 
all kinds of economic problems that are created by the level of 
borrowing we have already incurred. And we are going to add a new 
health care entitlement on top of that. It literally is breathtaking 
the amount of intervention we are seeing in the private marketplace 
today.
  I talked about some of the spending and some of the borrowing that 
has been done. But in the taxes that are going to be associated with 
health care--and I could go down a list. There is a three-page list of 
the various, what we call pay-fors or ways of raising revenue to help 
finance health care. But there is also another big tax looming on the 
horizon, and that is the carbon tax, what we call the national sales 
tax on energy. If this climate change bill, which is currently moving 
through the House of Representatives, reaches the Senate, and if it 
does, in fact, pass the Congress this year, that, too, will entail an 
incredible amount of taxation, because there is no way in this country 
you can attach, essentially, a cost to carbon per ton and force 
companies that emit to buy the credits that would be associated with 
that without them passing it on. They are going to pass it on. 
Everybody admits that. The President has admitted that. The leadership 
on the other side has admitted that. All the utility companies in the 
country will tell you that.
  A carbon tax, a national sales tax on energy, would hit places such 
as where I am from in the Midwest the hardest because we are, by and 
large, proportionately more dependent upon coal-fired power than are 
many other areas in the country. We have a sparse population, which 
means we have a ``higher carbon footprint,'' which means people in the 
Midwest, in States such as mine, are going to pay way more for energy 
under any kind of a climate change bill or what we call a cap-and-trade 
bill or cap-and-tax bill.
  However you want to refer to it, there is no way of getting around 
the fact that it is going to cost an enormous amount every single year 
for families in this country, for businesses in this country, for 
industrial users, for school districts. I have seen the statistics from 
school districts in my State, from commercial users, from residential 
users about what those costs are going to be. They are stunning.
  So that is another tax that is still out there. Add that to the 
health care tax that will come with whatever health care bill is passed 
through here, and the amount of taxation is going to start to rival the 
amount of spending and borrowing that is going on in Washington.
  But it brings me to my final point, and that is what I am concerned 
about and what I am starting to hear more and more from people in my 
State of South Dakota--in many cases unsolicited--who come up to me and 
raise this issue of the amount of government ownership of our private 
economy. We are seeing, again, unprecedented levels. If there is one 
bedrock principle in American history, it is the adherence to the 
ideals of private enterprise.
  In recent months, however, the United States has substantially 
deviated from this historical pattern, and the Federal Government now 
owns substantial shares of major U.S. corporations. We own--the 
taxpayers; I mean you and I and all of us here--we are now shareholders 
in a lot of major U.S. corporations. The taxpayers--the Federal 
Government--own 79 percent of AIG, 75 percent of General Motors, 10 
percent of Chrysler, 36 percent of Citibank, 80 percent of Freddie Mac 
and Fannie Mae. And it goes on and on and on.
  So we have all this spending, borrowing and taxing and now, on top of 
that, increasing the amount of government ownership of America's 
private economy. If there is one thing Americans are clear on, it is 
that the government should not be taking over bigger and bigger shares 
of the American economy.
  There was a survey recently by Rasmussen that said 75 percent of 
Americans agree the Federal Government should not take over the U.S. 
banking system. That was a poll done in February. More recently, 60 
percent say that the bailout loans given to GM and Chrysler were a bad 
idea. That was an April 21 poll. A new poll, done on May 31, just 
recently, shows that 67 percent of Americans are opposed to providing 
General Motors with $50 billion and giving the government a 70-percent 
ownership interest in GM. Mr. President, 56 percent of voters said it 
would be better to let GM go out of business. None of us want to see 
that. But I think none of us, at least most Americans do not want to 
see the government owning more and more of American companies. The 
Federal Government is inevitably going to use that ownership stake to 
push its own agenda.

[[Page 14515]]

  In a moment of extreme candor, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich 
declared that if the government is an active shareholder, they should 
``push management to take actions that are not necessarily geared 
toward higher shareholder return.''
  Think about that statement. The government owns more and more of 
American businesses. They should ``push management to take actions that 
are not necessarily geared toward higher shareholder return.'' In other 
words, the government should use its newly acquired power in formerly 
private companies to further its own agenda.
  Both the political process and the free markets are going to be 
distorted if that happens. In fact, in the New Republic, Noam Scheiber 
recently wrote that ``government ownership invariably politicizes 
management decisions which could be a fiasco.'' The article notes that 
a coalition of unions is lobbying against providing bailout dollars to 
Principal Financial Group because of its opposition to ``card check.'' 
You find more and more of these pressures on now because the government 
has a bigger and bigger stake in the government dictating day-to-day 
management decisions in American business. That is not a path I would 
argue we want to go down.
  The Economist commented on the government-forced Chrysler bankruptcy:

       In its haste it has vilified creditors and ridden roughshod 
     over their legitimate claims over the carmaker's assets. At a 
     time when many businesses must raise new borrowing to 
     survive, that is a big mistake. . . . The Treasury has also 
     put a gun to the heads of GM's lenders.

  In a recent Bloomberg article, Bradley Keoun warns of some of the 
problems that Citigroup--and other banks incur in accepting bailout 
money--may encounter as a result of the partial government ownership. 
Among them he cites government pressure for stricter compensation 
rules, directives to focus on ``State-approved social objectives,'' 
instead of increasing earnings, scrutiny of advising or being forced to 
``exit risk-taking businesses that are profitable competitors.''
  I think there is plenty of thought out there from people who 
understand the economy and the importance of the private market, its 
tradition, its contribution to the success of the American economy, and 
the prosperity we enjoy today, as well as lots of anecdotal and other 
evidence that when the government gets into these particular situations 
where it is trying to influence the day-to-day decisions of private 
business in this country, those who are trying to manage our private 
businesses in this country, leads to all kinds of fiascos and disaster.
  I would mention one other point and that is, according to Bloomberg, 
after demands from lawmakers, Citigroup consented to support cramdown 
legislation, even though this policy was opposed by others in the 
banking industry.
  It is pretty clear these types of interventions into the private 
marketplace, into the free market economy in this country, lead us down 
a path that is not good for the American taxpayer, not good for the 
American economy, and that it stifles innovation and entrepreneurship. 
In fact, I would argue it kills the entrepreneurial spirit in this 
country to have government taking bigger and bigger ownership 
interests, bigger and bigger ownership stakes in the American economy, 
and further dictating the decisions, the day-to-day decisions which 
American businesses make that are designed to grow their companies, to 
get a better return for their shareholders, to become more profitable, 
to make America more prosperous, to raise our standard of living, and 
to deliver more benefits to their employees--all these things that have 
driven this economy and made it the envy of the world. I don't think we 
want to go down a path or stay down a path that gets us deeper and 
deeper into ownership of the private economy.
  I am going to be introducing and filing a piece of legislation 
tomorrow which addresses this issue and which provides an exit strategy 
for the Federal Government and for the taxpayers to begin to get out of 
all these ownership interests they have in the American economy, and I 
will have the opportunity on the floor to talk more about that at a 
later time. But this afternoon, I wished to touch on these issues as we 
begin the debate which has sort of captured this city and the Congress 
and the administration and I think very soon will engage the American 
public over health care reform and the trillions of dollars of new 
taxes and revenues that are going to be necessary to finance the 
proposal the new administration has for health care reform and how that 
takes us even further down the path of government intervention and a 
level of nationalization of our private economy--in this case health 
care--and that pattern that just seems to be continuing and which I 
think more and more Americans are reacting to and more and more 
Americans, I believe, are going to become engaged in.
  Members of Congress on both sides are going to be hearing from their 
constituents about what they perceive to be a real threat to the long-
term viability, the long-term prosperity, and the long-term protection 
of the taxpayers' interests.
  I hope they will become more engaged. I certainly hope we will be 
able to defeat proposals that come before the Senate that call for 
greater governmental ownership, greater governmental intervention, 
greater expansion of governmental powers in Washington that will limit 
the choices of Americans, limit their access to health care 
opportunities, health care therapies, health care treatments that all 
too often are lost, I believe, in a system where the government rations 
care.
  I yield the floor, and 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded,
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         McChrystal Nomination

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, in my office a few minutes ago, I received a 
call from Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I 
wrote down what he asked and what he said. He said: Senator, there is a 
sense of urgency that General McChrystal be able to go to Afghanistan 
tonight.
  There is no commander in Afghanistan.
  Admiral Mullen said--and I wrote it down: Admiral McChrystal is 
literally waiting by an airplane. It is 2 o'clock in the morning 
Thursday in Afghanistan. Dawn will soon be breaking and our troops will 
not have a commander there.
  Is this what the minority wants? Why can't they come and approve this 
man to go defend us in Afghanistan? I am without words to try to 
explain my consternation at the fact that General McChrystal, one of 
our most eminent, prominent, outstanding, qualified soldiers, a man 
whose father won five Silver Stars, a man whose record is one of being 
the leading person in our military to do counterinsurgency--that is 
what he is an expert in doing.
  Let's get the man approved tonight so he can leave in an airplane and 
get over there and take care of his men and women.
  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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Guantanamo

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it wasn't that long ago that the Senate 
voted almost unanimously to oppose bringing any terrorists at 
Guantanamo to the United States. But earlier this week, the 
administration ignored the will of the American people as expressed 
through that Senate vote by transferring a Guantanamo detainee named 
Ahmed Ghailani to New York. The purpose of the transfer is to try

[[Page 14516]]

Ghailani in a U.S. civilian court for his role in the African embassy 
bombings of 1998. The administration's decision raises a number of 
serious questions.
  First, Ghailani has already admitted that he attended a terrorist 
training camp in Afghanistan and assisted those who planned and carried 
out the embassy attack, but says he did so unintentionally. In a U.S. 
civilian court, if you're found not guilty, you're allowed to go free. 
So if we are going to treat this terrorist detainee as a common 
civilian criminal, what will happen to Ghailani if he's found not 
guilty? And what will happen to other detainees the administration 
wants to try in civilian courts if they are found not guilty? Will they 
be released? If so, where? In New York? In American communities? Or 
will they be released overseas, where they could return to terror and 
target American soldiers or innocent civilians?
  Second, if Ghailani isn't allowed to go free, will he be detained by 
the government? If so, where will he be detained? Would the 
administration detain him on U.S. soil, despite the objections of 
Congress and the American people?
  Third, why does the administration think a civilian court is the 
appropriate place to try Ghailani? Congress enacted the military 
commissions process on a bipartisan basis as a way to bring terrorists 
to justice without disclosing information that could harm national 
security. Some have complained that the previous administration moved 
too slowly on military commissions, but a lot of that delay was due to 
the constant legal challenges that were leveled against the process, 
including by some in the current administration. In fact, Ghailani's 
case was already being handled by the military commissions process--to 
the point that a judge had established a trial schedule for him. I ask 
unanimous consent that the trial schedule be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  United States of America v Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani (a/k/a ``Fupi'', 
       ``Haytham'', ``Abubakar Khaflan Ahmed'', ``Sharif Omar'')

                   Schedule for Trial, Amendment One

                             4 March, 2009

       1. The following trial schedule is ordered. Times when 
     listed are local Eastern United States.
       a. 1 June 2009: Discovery completed.
       b. 15 June 2009: Discovery Motions due to the military 
     judge and opposing counsel. If counsel intend to submit more 
     than ten (10) discovery motions, counsel shall inform the 
     military judge and opposing counsel of the total number of 
     law motions which counsel intend to present NLT 1200 hours, 8 
     June 2009. If appropriate, the military judge will advise 
     counsel of a revised schedule to present the motions.
       d. Week of 6 July 2009: Hearing in GTMO re: Discovery 
     Motions.
       e. 20 July 2009: Law Motions due to the military judge and 
     opposing counsel. In general, law motions are those which 
     require no evidentiary hearing to determine. If counsel 
     intend to submit more than ten (10) law motions, counsel 
     shall inform the military judge and opposing counsel of the 
     total number of law motions which counsel intend to present 
     NLT 1200 hours, 13 July 2009. The military judge will advise 
     counsel of a revised schedule to present the motions.
       Note 1: Motions will have as their underlying legal premise 
     no more than one legal basis. If there is more than one legal 
     basis, then there should be more than one motion. Law motions 
     include motions relative to sentencing.
       Note 2: Motions, response, and reply due dates are a No 
     Later Than date. Counsel for both sides are advised that any 
     motion, response, or reply which is ready for submission 
     prior to the due date should be submitted when completed. The 
     efficient and proper process of motion practice will NOT be 
     enhanced by delivering multiple motions, responses, or 
     replies to the Commission or opposing party at the last 
     possible moment.
       e. Week of 3 August 2009: Hearing in GTMO re: Law Motions 
     and Witness Production issues or any unresolved matters.
       f. 10 August 2009: Defense Requests for Government 
     Assistance in Obtaining Witnesses for use on the merits. See 
     R.M.C. 703.
       Note: The Government response to any witness request will 
     be due within five business days of the submission of the 
     request. Any Defense motion for production of witnesses in 
     conjunction with a motion will be due to the court and 
     opposing counsel within five days of receipt of a denied 
     witness request.
       g. Week of 24 August 2009: Hearing re: unresolved Witness 
     Production Motions and/or any unresolved matters.
       h. 31 August 2009: Evidentiary Motions due. Evidentiary 
     motions due to the military judge and opposing counsel. In 
     general, evidentiary motions are those which deal with the 
     admission or exclusion of specific or general items or 
     classes of evidence. If counsel intend to submit more than 
     ten (10) evidentiary motions, counsel shall inform the 
     military judge and opposing counsel of the total number of 
     evidentiary motions which counsel intend to present NLT 1200 
     hours, 24 August 2009.
       Note 1: Generally, see Paragraph ``e'', Notes 1 and 2 
     above.
       Note 2: Defense witness requests associated with any 
     motions should be submitted to the trial counsel in 
     accordance with R.M.C. 703 simultaneously with the filing of 
     the motion (or Defense response in the case of a Government 
     motion) in question. The Government response to any witness 
     request will be due within five days of the submission of the 
     request. Any Defense motion for production of witnesses in 
     conjunction with a motion will be due to the court and 
     opposing counsel within five days of receipt of a denied 
     witness request.
       i. Week of 14 September 2009: Hearing in GTMO regarding 
     Evidentiary Motions.
       j. 23 September 2009: Requested group voir dire questions 
     for Military Commission Members due.
       Note: The military judge intends to conduct all group voir 
     dire questioning of the members per R.M.C. 912. The military 
     judge's group voir dire will take counsel's requested 
     questions into account as appropriate. The military judge 
     will also conduct the initial follow-up individual voir dire 
     based on responses to the group questions. Counsel will be 
     permitted to conduct additional follow-up voir dire.
       l. 24 September 2009: Proposed members instructions due.
       m. 5 October 2009: Assembly and Voir Dire for Panel 
     Members.
       n. 9 October 2009: Beginning of trial on the merits lasting 
     potentially as late as 13 November 2009.
       2. Counsel should direct their attention to the Rules of 
     Court, RC 3, Motions Practice, and specifically Form 3-1, 3-
     2, and 3-3, for the procedures I have established for this 
     trial. All motions, responses and replies shall comport with 
     the terms of RC 3.6 in terms of timeliness. Any request for 
     extension of any response or reply deadline associated with 
     this hearing will be submitted before the deadline for the 
     reply or response.
       3. Requests for deviations from the timelines for hearings 
     or for submission of motions established by this order must 
     be submitted not later than 20 days prior to the date 
     established, except for law motions for which requests for 
     deviations from the due date must be submitted within 7 days 
     prior to the date established.
       4. Monthly Status Conferences will be scheduled throughout 
     the pendency of this action or as needed under the 
     circumstances. Counsel should anticipate the fluidity of the 
     process of this action and be vigilant to alterations. 
     Counsel requiring hearings or conferences not specifically 
     anticipated herein should make a written request as soon as 
     practicable in order to maintain the efficient and fair 
     administration of justice. Court hearings designated as 
     ``during the week'' is for planning purposes and actual 
     hearings dates are commensurate with logistical, courtroom 
     accessibility and transportation availability.
                                               Bruce W. MacKenzie,
                                    CAPT, JAGC, USN Military Judge

  Mr. McCONNELL. This schedule would be well underway if the 
administration had not suspended all military commission proceedings 
several months ago. Now we will have to start the process for Ghailani 
over again in civilian court.
  The administration made the right decision by reconsidering its 
position on military commissions and deciding to resume their use. So 
why did the administration decide to stop the military commission 
proceedings against Ghailani that were being conducted in the modern, 
safe, and secure courtroom at Guantanamo and move him to the U.S. to 
try him in civilian court? Is it because the Administration doesn't 
think that by deliberately targeting innocent American civilians 
Ghailani violated the law of war? Does it think he should be treated as 
just another domestic civilian defendant?
  Fourth, how will the administration ensure that trying Ghailani in a 
U.S. court doesn't damage our national security? As we've seen in the 
past, trying terrorists in the U.S. has made it harder for our national 
security professionals to protect the American people.
  During a previous trial of suspects in the African embassy bombings, 
evidence showed that the National Security Agency had intercepted cell 
phone conservations between terrorists. According to press reports, 
this revelation caused terrorists to stop using cell

[[Page 14517]]

phones to discuss sensitive operational details.
  And during the trial of Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 
World Trade Center attack, testimony given in a public courtroom tipped 
off terrorists that the U.S. was monitoring their communications. As a 
result, these terrorists shut down that communications link and any 
further intelligence we might have obtained was lost.
  On the question of Guantanamo, it became increasingly clear over time 
that the administration announced its plan to close the facility before 
it actually had a plan. If the administration has a plan for holding 
Ghailani if he is found not guilty, then it needs to share that plan 
with the Congress. These kinds of questions are not insignificant. They 
involve the safety of the American people. And that is precisely why 
Congress demanded a plan before the administration started to move 
terrorists from Guantanamo. The American people don't want these 
terrorists in their communities or back on the battlefield. But that is 
exactly where Ghailani could end up if he is found not guilty in a 
civilian court. Before it transfers any more detainees from Guantanamo, 
the administration needs to present a plan that ensures its actions 
won't jeopardize the safety of the American people.
  Finally, earlier today, the Senate majority whip came to the floor 
and claimed there is evidence that al-Qaida may be recruiting 
terrorists within Guantanamo. I am glad to see that the majority whip 
appears to be acknowledging the FBI Director's concerns that Guantanamo 
terrorists could radicalize the prison population if they were 
transferred into the United States. The fact that these terrorists 
might be able to recruit new members and conduct terrorist activities 
from behind bars is an important one. I also find it preposterous that 
the majority whip would assert that because I and others--including, by 
the way, members of his own conference--want to keep dangerous 
terrorist detainees away from American communities, we will enable 
terrorists to escape justice. Keeping these terrorists locked up at 
Guantanamo, and trying them using the military commissions process, is 
the best way to deliver justice while protecting the American people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I have yielded the floor. The Senator can feel free to 
make a statement.
  Mr. DURBIN. I was hoping to ask the Senator from Kentucky a question.

                          ____________________