[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16202-16215]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF HAROLD HONGJU KOH TO BE LEGAL ADVISER TO THE DEPARTMENT 
                                OF STATE

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the 
following nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Harold Hongju 
Koh, of Connecticut, to be Legal Adviser of the Department of State.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to the nomination of Mr. Harold Koh to be the Legal Adviser 
to the Department of State. My concerns with Mr. Koh arise primarily 
from his own statements, writings, and testimony before Congress. In my 
opinion, he seems more comfortable basing his legal conclusions on 
partisan political opinions and trendy arguments rather than the facts 
and the law. We do not need more legal theorists in government. We need 
more legal realists in government, someone who pays attention to the 
hard work we do in this body to pass laws. The Department of State and 
the country deserve better than that kind of advice.
  Let me provide a few quick examples. On September 16, 2008, Mr. Koh 
testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. 
His written testimony included the following statement:

       A compliant Congress repeatedly blessed unsound executive 
     policies by enacting nominal, loophole-ridden ``bans'' on 
     torture and cruel treatment and rubberstamping without 
     serious hearings presidentially introduced legislation 
     ranging from the PATRIOT Act to the Military Commissions Act 
     to the most recent amendment of the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act.

  In the same testimony, he argued that Congress should revisit the 
hastily enacted FISA Amendments Act with less emphasis on the issue of 
immunity for telephone and Internet service providers. He obviously was 
not paying attention.
  Besides his condescending and inappropriate tone, I think his 
statements reflect a poor understanding of some of the most important 
pieces of national security legislation that have been passed since the 
September 11 terrorist attacks and passed on a bipartisan basis in both 
Houses.
  As my colleagues may know, I was heavily involved in the legislative 
process surrounding the passage of the FISA Amendments Act. I can 
assure you that certainly was not the result of a congressional 
rubberstamp that was enacted hastily. We began working on the first 
one, the Protect America Act, debated it, and passed it in the summer 
of 2007. When we came back in the fall, the Senate Intelligence 
Committee went to work on a bipartisan basis, and we worked for months 
to get a truly bipartisan bill that came out of the committee. In that 
bill, we added many additional protections to American citizens to 
assure their rights would be protected from warrantless surveillance, 
even if they were overseas. We added that. And we added further 
protections. That bill passed the Senate. It went to the House, and it 
was stalled for months.
  In the spring of 2007, I sat down with the Republican whip and the 
Democratic whip in the House of Representatives--Steny Hoyer of 
Maryland and Mr. Roy Blunt of Missouri. We went through and took 
account of all of the concerns they had on both sides in the House of 
Representatives. We worked with lawyers from the Department of Justice, 
from the intelligence community, and lawyers for the majority staff in 
the House of Representatives. It took us several months. What we 
finally came up with was a piece of legislation that overwhelmingly 
passed the House on a bipartisan basis and came back and passed the 
Senate on a bipartisan basis.
  Another key aspect of the FISA Amendments Act was to ensure the 
intelligence community could continue to collect timely intelligence 
that could be used to prevent future terrorist attacks. Another key 
aspect of the legislation was the carrier liability provisions that 
were designed to end frivolous litigation against companies alleged to 
have responded to requests for assistance from the highest levels of 
government. I don't know what planet Mr. Koh is living on, but if he 
thinks we can accept electronic communications without being able to 
give legitimate orders to the carriers of those communications, he 
doesn't understand the real world. That is where we find out what the 
terrorists' plans are, who the terrorists are, and where they are 
likely to strike. If we cannot say we are not going to have frivolous 
lawsuits against those who respond to lawful orders from the Federal 
Government, then we are not going to be able to have access to that 
information.
  I am happy to report that earlier this month, the U.S. District Court 
for the Northern District of California, which had raised questions and 
entertained legislation, rejected the constitutional challenges to the 
carrier liability provisions and dismissed all but a few of the 
lawsuits involved in the multidistrict litigation. They found that, 
contrary to Mr. Koh, they were constitutional, and a well-reasoned 
opinion said they were right. A bipartisan majority in both Houses of 
Congress said they were right.
  Let me be clear, the FISA Amendments Act was a necessary and 
important piece of national security legislation that is keeping us all 
safe. But despite the overwhelming bipartisan approval, apparently Mr. 
Koh does not see it that way. I urge my colleagues, even those who 
voted for cloture, to go back and think again, to see if legislation 
worked on for a year in this body on a bipartisan basis and passed by 
this and the other body should be dismissed as hastily approved.
  In his book, he condemns the Democratic leaders in the Senate who 
played a leading role in making the improvements to the FISA Act. And 
to the Republicans, he condemned everybody who worked on it. 
Apparently, decisions need to be made in the Department of Justice, not 
through the elected will of those of us who represent the people of 
America. I think his charges and his disregard of Congress warrant a 
hard look at him.
  Another example of Mr. Koh's partisan legal scholarship can be found 
in his May 2006 article in the Indiana Law Journal, where he wrote:


[[Page 16203]]

       We should resist the claim that a War on Terror permits the 
     commander in chief's power to be expanded into a wanton power 
     to act as torturer in chief.

  While that might appear to be a nice media sound bite in winning 
partisan plaudits, I think it is a bit premature to conclude that the 
United States illegally tortured detainees. We know the Department of 
Justice's Office of Legal Counsel reviewed the proposed interrogation 
procedures on several occasions and found them to be lawful. We in the 
Senate Intelligence Committee are conducting a review of those 
practices to make sure what was done complied with the law. Where 
American soldiers violated all standards--not only of law but of 
decency--and performed unspeakable acts on detainees at Abu Ghraib 
prison, they were rightfully punished and sent to prison, as they 
should have been. That is what we do even with our brave soldiers who 
step out of bounds.
  Here is another clever sound bite from Mr. Koh. In an article for the 
Berkeley Journal of International Law back in 2004, he wrote:

       What role can transnational legal process play in affecting 
     the behavior of several nations whose disobedience with 
     international law has attracted global attention after 
     September 11--most prominently, North Korea, Iraq, and our 
     own country, the United States of America? For shorthand 
     purposes, I will call these countries the ``axis of 
     disobedience.''

  To my fellow colleagues, I ask: Do you accept the fact that the 
United States is part of an ``axis of disobedience''? Do you really 
think fighting back against the terrorists who struck us on 9/11 was 
disobedience? Do you think we should have a Legal Adviser in the State 
Department who believes international law--ill-defined, not 
applicable--should be applied to affect his political judgments on 
America?
  The Legal Adviser for the State Department should be an advocate for 
the Nation not a detractor. If I remember correctly, after September 
11, by a vote of 77 Members in the Senate, plus a majority in the 
House, we made the determination to go to war in Iraq to make sure we 
didn't suffer further attacks. It was in compliance with a U.N. 
resolution. Oh, I say, by the way, that was a legal international 
resolution.
  A lot of people will say Mr. Koh had a distinguished career in 
government service and legal academia. I am concerned he spent a little 
too much time in the ivory tower, and I wish he would return to that 
jurisdiction.
  Given my previously stated concerns, I cannot and will not in good 
conscience vote in favor of his nomination. I recognize that Mr. Koh 
may be headed for confirmation, but I would ask those who may have 
previously voted for cloture to go to this nomination and think about 
what he said about Congress, about the work we have done, and about 
what he has said about America. Are you comfortable having him as a 
Legal Adviser to the State Department after what he said about America 
being part of the ``axis of disobedience''? Are you comfortable with 
what he said about those of us who voted for the war resolution, about 
those of us who voted for the FISA Amendments Act? I certainly am not.
  If he is confirmed, I would hope for his and our country's sake, if 
he returns to the State Department, his legal advice will be based on 
facts rather than political rhetoric.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                        Honoring Denise Johnson

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, once again I rise to honor a Federal 
employee whose service to our Nation is exemplary. Before I do, I want 
to thank my distinguished colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, 
for his June 11 statement about Federal employees. It is my great 
pleasure to join with him and other Senators to recognize the enormous 
contributions to the security and prosperity of our country by those 
who work in the Federal Government.
  Madam President, last week, I shared the story of a Federal employee 
who spent his career working at the Redstone Arsenal in Alabama. He 
helped design and test the advanced missile systems used by our 
military to defend our ideals overseas. This week, I wish to share the 
story of a Federal employee who also works to advance our interests 
overseas--that of humanitarian good works. Both are vital to our global 
leadership.
  I have spoken before about the groundbreaking medical research 
performed by Federal employees at the National Institutes of Health. 
The advances in medicine and biotechnology pioneered by those working 
at NIH keep America's health care the most innovative in the world. Yet 
making breakthroughs and developing treatments are only a part of how 
the Federal Government is helping to promote global health. One of our 
foreign policy and humanitarian priorities is to expand access to new 
medications and health technologies among those who live in the 
developing world.
  The hard-working men and women of the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention are at the forefront of initiatives to bring lifesaving 
medicines to those in greatest need. Foremost, the CDC monitors, 
prevents, and, if necessary, contains the outbreak of deadly diseases 
in the United States, such as West Nile and Swine Flu. Part of this 
effort is a push to eradicate some of the most dangerous viruses 
throughout the world.
  With the lens of Congress now focused on our health care system, so 
much has been said about its shortcomings. Yet for all the problems we 
face on this front, Americans are blessed with freedom from fear of 
diseases that afflicted previous generations.
  When I was young, tens of thousands of children each year were 
stricken with polio. In the early part of the 20th century, polio 
outbreaks occurred in the United States with deadly frequency. Parents 
used to keep their children home and away from their peers. Many became 
paralyzed or had to make use of the iron lung. We have all seen those 
famous images of President Franklin Roosevelt seated behind his desk in 
the Oval Office signing New Deal programs into law and overseeing a 
World War against the enemies of liberty. But at the same time, few 
Americans knew that behind that desk our President sat in a wheelchair, 
his legs paralyzed from his own battle with polio.
  Today, in parts of Africa and South Asia, hundreds of children each 
year still develop polio. While children in developing nations 
routinely receive the Salk or Sabin vaccines, this is a luxury for 
rural villagers in places such as India, Nigeria, Afghanistan, and 
Somalia. The CDC has set a goal of vaccinating every child on Earth. 
Leading this charge over the past decade, Denise Johnson serves as the 
Acting Chief of the CDC's Polio Eradication Branch.
  Before she was recruited to direct this project, Denise served for 6 
years as the manager of the CDC's Family and Intimate Partner Violence 
Prevention Program. In this role, she oversaw the promotion of 
nonviolent, respectful relationships through community and social 
change initiatives. This was around the time that Congress passed the 
Violence Against Women Act, which was one of the proudest achievements 
of my friend and predecessor, Vice President Joseph Biden, during his 
career in the Senate.
  When asked why Denise was highly sought after to work on the polio 
project, one of her supervisors at the CDC said:

       If you do a good job keeping women and children from being 
     beaten, you can eradicate polio.

  With Denise at the helm, the Polio Eradication Branch has been 
working in close concert with the World Health Organization and UNICEF 
to promote

[[Page 16204]]

immunization. In her first few years alone, Denise and her team helped 
immunize over a half billion--let me repeat that, a half billion--
children in 93 countries.
  From her office in Atlanta, Denise oversees a staff of over 40 
professionals working overseas. Her effective leadership has proven to 
be a key factor in the program's success. Denise administers the 
purchase and distribution of over 200 million doses of the oral polio 
vaccine--bought for a mere 63 cents per dose--and routinely serves as a 
field consultant in polio hotspots around the world. In fact, Denise is 
in Kenya right now, taking the fight against polio straight to the 
front lines.
  Twenty years ago, there were over 350,000 cases of polio in 125 
countries, but today there are fewer than 2,000 cases. That is 350,000 
cases down to 2,000 cases because of the diligent work performed by 
Denise and the rest of her team at the CDC's Polio Eradication Branch. 
It is only a matter of time before this disease no longer threatens our 
world's children.
  Madam President, Denise is just one of so many Federal employees who 
have dedicated their lives to serving the greater good. She and her 
team are truly engaged in what President Obama has called ``repairing 
the world.'' Their work saves lives and helps demonstrate our Nation's 
commitment to humanitarian leadership in the global community.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Denise Johnson and her 
team for their outstanding work, as well as the important contributions 
made by all of our excellent public servants.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Groves Nomination

  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, in the Constitution, we see laid out 
before us a framework of how our government is supposed to work, with 
three branches--legislative, executive, judicial. We also find in the 
Constitution what our relative responsibilities are, not with great 
detail but with some definitiveness.
  Ironically, one of the requirements the Constitution provides for us 
in this country is that every 10 years we try to count everybody. We 
have a census. Most nations do that. We have been doing that really for 
over 200 years. It does not get any easier. In fact, every 10 years it 
gets harder, and it also gets to be more expensive.
  The Director of the Census does not serve a finite period of time. 
The Director of the Census really serves at the pleasure of the 
President, and we have had Census Directors who have served as little 
as 1 year and some Directors who have served maybe 4 or even 5 years.
  This is particularly appropriate to speak about today because we do 
not have a Director of the Census. We had a Dr. Murdock, from down in 
Texas, who served for about the last year of the Bush administration as 
our Census Director. He did a very nice job. But at the beginning of 
this year, Dr. Murdock resigned. We do not have a Census Director. What 
we do have coming down the railroad tracks is the requirement to do the 
census.
  Next April 1--I call it a little bit like D-day. At Normandy, we sent 
all of our troops ashore, and they scrambled off of those landing 
vessels. They stormed the beaches. That took place after literally 
months of planning, months of preparation, and finally the day of 
execution came.
  In a way, the census is like preparing for the Normandy invasion. The 
efforts are underway now. They have been underway for months and will 
continue up to April 1 and beyond that day, as we try to count 
everybody. Yet, at this critical time, as we approach the need to 
conduct our census, to do it in an accurate, cost-effective way, we do 
not have a leader there. We have some good people, but they lack a 
Director.
  Last month, I held a hearing of our Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Subcommittee, and we invited people who had been 
high-level officials in, I think, every census since 1970--the 1970 
census, the 1980 census, the 1990 census, and the 2000 census. We asked 
them to come in and talk to us about how they thought we were doing in 
terms of the preparation for the 2010 census. At the end of their 
testimony, I asked each of them to give to us on our committee two 
names of people who they thought would be excellent Census Directors, 
and they were good enough to do that. I think every one of them 
included in their recommendations the name of a fellow from Michigan--I 
am an Ohio State guy, but they recommended a fellow from Ann Arbor 
whose name is Dr. Robert Groves.
  Dr. Groves is an expert in survey methodology. He has spent decades 
working to strengthen the Federal statistical system, to improve its 
staffing through training programs, and to keep the system committed to 
the highest scientific principles of accuracy and efficiency. Having 
once served as Associate Director of the Census Bureau a number of 
years ago, Dr. Groves knows how the agency operates and what its 
employees need to successfully implement the decennial census and other 
programs. He knows because he has been there. He is not just an 
academician--one of the most respected people in his field in the 
country--he actually helped run the Census Bureau at an earlier time. 
The combination of those experiences has prepared him well to lead the 
Bureau at a time when rapid developments and changes are occurring.
  As a manager, he elevated the University of Michigan's Institute for 
Social Research to a premier survey research organization, respected 
throughout the country--actually, respected around the globe. Numerous 
Federal and State agencies and policymakers have sought his expertise 
in survey design and response. His work has received professional 
recognition through awards from various professional associations, 
including the 2001 American Association for Public Opinion Research 
Innovator Award and more recently the 2008 American Statistical 
Association Julius Shiskin Award for original and important 
contributions in the development of economic statistics. Ultimately, 
his deep expertise in survey response will help the Census Bureau focus 
on the most important goal of the 2010 census, which is to encourage 
all people to respond to the census.
  Dr. Groves will undoubtedly face a host of operational and management 
challenges as we move closer to the 2010 census. However, I remain 
confident he is well equipped--remarkably well equipped--to understand 
the agency's inner workings, to lead his staff--he has led a large 
organization already; he served at a senior level at the Census Bureau 
before--and to also be a national spokesperson for the 2010 census and 
the agency's other equally important ongoing survey programs. It is for 
these reasons that I hope the full Senate will support his nomination 
and move it quickly.
  Let me just reiterate, we are now about 8 months away from when the 
first forms go out as part of the start of the 2010 census. The Bureau 
has already completed something we call address canvassing--an 
operation in which 140,000 people on the ground nationwide were making 
sure the address lists we have to do the census are accurate.
  Since the 2000 count, the population in this country is estimated to 
have increased by over 40 million people, with increased numbers of 
minorities and an increase in the number of languages spoken. Further 
complicating the 2010 decennial operations is the mismanagement and 
lack of preparation that occurred in past years, most notably in the 
failure of the field data collection automation contract, resulting in 
a last-minute decision to return to paper-based questionnaires, 
ultimately adding billions of dollars to the census budget. And it is 
only going to get harder the longer the Senate delays the confirmation 
process.
  The reason we do not have a Census Bureau Director is not because we 
do

[[Page 16205]]

not have a qualified candidate. It is not because our Subcommittee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has not endorsed his 
candidacy. We have done so unanimously, and actually we have endorsed 
him with acclaim. We are just lucky, very fortunate in this country to 
have--at a time when we are about to try to meet our constitutional 
responsibility to count everybody accurately and in a cost-effective 
way--to actually have somebody with his gifts and his talents to bring 
to the job. What we do not have is the permission to bring his name up 
for a vote in the Senate. If we leave here today without having had the 
opportunity to vote up or down on the nomination of Dr. Groves, we will 
have made a very grave mistake.
  I understand our Republican friends are uncomfortable, unhappy with 
the pace for the confirmation process for Judge Sotomayor, who has been 
nominated, as we know, to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme 
Court. I voted for Chief Justice John Roberts a couple of years ago. 
The timetable for approving his confirmation was almost the very same 
from the day he was nominated by former President Bush to the day we 
voted for him here, it was almost the same number of days we are 
talking about with respect to the Sotomayor nomination. The timetable 
on Justice Alito: almost the same from the day he was nominated by 
President Bush until the day we voted here in the Senate--at least a 
majority of our colleagues did--to confirm him. It was almost the same 
number of days. I realize some of our colleagues are unhappy that we 
are providing the same kind of timetable for Judge Sotomayor that we 
provided for Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. I, for the life 
of me, do not see what the beef is.
  Just as I believe we are fortunate to have someone with Dr. Groves' 
credentials to serve as our Census Director, I think we are lucky to 
have somebody with Judge Sotomayor's credentials to serve on the 
Supreme Court. I have had the opportunity to meet with her. I know a 
number of my colleagues have too. I must say, among the things I most 
like and respect about her: She is up from nothing. She was a kid born 
in the Bronx, raised in the Bronx, and very humble, from a humble 
setting, a humble beginning. She worked hard, won herself a scholarship 
to Princeton, went there, excelled, and later went off to law school at 
Yale--two of the finest institutions we have in our country.
  After that, she was a prosecutor for a number of years; beyond that, 
a corporate litigator; and finally nominated by a Republican 
President--George Herbert Walker Bush--to serve as a district court 
judge. By all observers, she did a superb job. She was not just so-so. 
She was an exceptional judge--so good, in fact, that a few years later, 
when there was a vacancy on the circuit court of appeals in her 
district, a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, said: I think she ought 
to get the nod. He nominated her for that position, and she was 
confirmed by a wide margin. So she has actually been through this 
process not once but twice. I think she has gone on to serve longer as 
a Federal judge--when you add together the district court time and the 
circuit court of appeals time, I think she has served longer as a 
Federal judge than anybody in the last 100 years who has been nominated 
to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  I have read the comments some of her colleagues have to say about 
her, including colleagues who were also nominated by Republican 
Presidents. They have been uniformly complimentary, very gracious in 
their remarks, very laudatory as well.
  So I would say to my Republican colleagues, while you struggle to get 
over the fact that we are going to set the same timeline or try to set 
the same timeline for the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor that we set 
for the nominations of Judges Alito and John Roberts--I just don't 
understand the angst you feel.
  I do know this: Apparently, the nomination of Dr. Groves is being 
held up along with 25 to 30 other names, all of whom have cleared 
committees, I think, by wide margins. We can't move forward on those 
nominations. Some of them maybe are not of grave consequence. The 
nomination of Dr. Groves is of grave consequence. If we have the 
opportunity later today in the course of business to actually consider 
a number of nominations that are before the Senate, that are awaiting 
our consideration, I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle to allow the nomination of Dr. Groves to come here for a vote and 
to give us the opportunity to vote him up or down. I am sure we will 
vote him up, and I am equally sure he will make us proud with the 
service he will provide as the Director of the Census Bureau for our 
country in the years ahead.
  With that having been said, I yield the floor and note the absence of 
a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, just before walking into this Chamber, I 
attended a historic rally on health care reform across the street. 
Today, thousands of Americans--some from every State in this country--
traveled to Washington for one of the largest health care lobby days in 
the history of the Nation. I joined these citizens--volunteers, almost 
all--representing more than a thousand organizations and more than 30 
million people who are fighting to ensure that every American has 
access to affordable health care coverage.
  I am inspired by their activism and energy and by the message I hear 
from these Americans. I am hearing from hundreds of thousands of 
middle-class Ohioans, and their message is: Don't let the special 
interests hijack this health insurance reform.
  The message I hear is to make sure health care reform includes a 
strong public option. I will tell you about individuals, Americans like 
Joseph from Powell, OH, who are demanding they change. Joseph, an 
ordained pastor and doctor of psychology, wrote to me that as a child 
he suffered a stroke and became paralyzed and blind. His father's 
insurance expired and his family had no coverage. They struggled to 
provide the care he needed. As an adult, he is concerned that too many 
Americans are not receiving the medical care they need. Joseph wishes 
to see a public insurance option that will bring down costs and help 
all Americans lead a productive life.
  The spirit and energy of the people I met today--thousands from 
around this Nation demanding change--reaffirms why health care reform 
is so important.
  Health care reform is about keeping what works and fixing what's 
broken. Middle-class families from all over the country are demanding a 
health care system that reduces costs, enhances quality of care, and 
provides choice--choice either of a private insurance plan or of a 
public option. It is their choice. The existence of both will make the 
other behave better and make the other work better and will improve the 
quality of care for all Americans. Good old American competition.
  People are reminding elected officials in the Senate and House about 
Americans like Ken from Findlay, OH. He lost his manufacturing job a 
few years ago, after working in the industry for nearly 30 years. 
Shortly before losing his job, Ken began having serious health issues--
unexplained seizures and memory loss. In and out of the hospital, and 
out of a job, Ken was forced to find expensive private insurance after 
being denied Social Security disability and not yet old enough to be 
eligible for Medicare. Unfortunately for Ken, the price of the private 
insurance was simply too high.
  After a near-death seizure a few years ago, Ken was hospitalized 
again and diagnosed with lupus. After a

[[Page 16206]]

month-long hospitalization, Ken entered a nursing home for 
rehabilitation.
  All this treatment was done without insurance. With tens of thousands 
of dollars in medical expenses, Ken had to withdraw from his 401(k) 
savings early--facing tax penalties, I might add--ultimately draining 
his lifetime, hard-earned savings, and putting his retirement security 
in jeopardy.
  It is unacceptable that Ohioans such as Ken, who worked hard all 
their lives, have to fight for health insurance simply to take care of 
their disability. That is why the time for health care reform is now.
  The HELP Committee has accomplished a lot on quality, on prevention 
and wellness, in part thanks to the contribution and efforts of the 
Presiding Officer from North Carolina. We have done well with the 
workforce shortages issue. We have good language on fraud and abuse. 
Clearly, most important, the most difficult work is in front of us. We 
have more work to do to make sure health care reform is about providing 
people with affordable, quality health insurance that protects them, to 
protect what works and to fix what is wrong.
  I need some of my colleagues to explain to me something that is 
pretty confusing. As we talk about this public option, I hear the 
insurance industry tell us over and over they can do things better, 
that with their marketing, their skills, their bureaucracy, their well-
paid executives and all the things they do they can do things better. 
As they argue against the public option, they say the government cannot 
do anything right. What puzzles me is why the insurance industry is so 
afraid that the public option will put them out of business. They tell 
us the insurance business does things better, the government cannot do 
anything right, but yet they are afraid the public option will put them 
out of business. I don't understand.
  I encourage all of the grassroots volunteers whom I met today to keep 
moving forward to remind your elected officials this legislation is not 
about helping out the insurance companies. Health care reform is about 
helping people such as Cheryl from Cleveland.
  Cheryl is 59 years old and was recently diagnosed with diabetes. Her 
husband died just 4 months ago, and with no income, her insurance costs 
more than $400 a month. With no income, Cheryl cares for a disabled 
adult son and an autistic granddaughter. She writes that she has no 
choices and that our system is broken and unaffordable for her, for 
some of her neighbors, and for too many Americans. She writes that she 
needs health care reform now before all her savings are lost. That is 
why it is so important we do this now.
  President Obama is right we not wait for next year or the year after. 
Some people say the economy is bad; we cannot do it now. The same 
people said when the economy was good: We cannot do it now. As Chairman 
Dodd repeatedly said in the committee that Senator Hagan and I sit on, 
14,000 Americans every day are losing their health insurance.
  It is people such as Cheryl I talked about and Ken and Kathleen and 
Joseph--Kathleen, I will speak about in a minute--people who are losing 
their health insurance every day, 14,000 Americans every single day. 
For us to wait an additional 6 months or a year, or some people say 
let's wait until the next election until the voters, again, say we need 
health care reform, 14,000 people every day are losing their insurance.
  Health care reform is about helping small business owners such as 
Kathleen from Rocky River, OH, west of Cleveland. One of Kathleen's 
finest employees suffers from rheumatoid arthritis. Kathleen's premiums 
have increased to $1,800 a month, and after trying to purchase another 
plan, she was turned down because of her employee's arthritic 
condition.
  Keep in mind, if you have a small business of 10, 20, 50 employees, 
and you have a decent insurance plan, if one of them gets very sick to 
the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, everybody's premium goes 
up because it is such a small insurance plan. Then so often the small 
business person has to give up and cannot insure their employees. 
Kathleen is being victimized, as are her employees, by that phenomenon. 
She does not want to fire her finest employee, nor should she have to.
  I stand ready to work with my colleagues to design a public insurance 
option that will help provide middle-class families with economic 
stability, with stable coverage, with stable costs, with stable 
quality. I stand with the thousands of volunteers who were here today 
across the street demanding real change in our health care system. They 
are showing the world how change in America happens. Their activism is 
important--the stories of the people they are fighting for, people I 
just mentioned--Joseph, Ken, Cheryl, and Kathleen. That is why we 
cannot wait any longer. We need health care reform now, and we need a 
strong public option now.
  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 bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. 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. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Aid to Pakistan

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to speak on the record in support 
of the Kerry-Lugar legislation that was passed by this body basically 
without objection--by voice vote. It went through so quickly, to me it 
demonstrates the power of the bill, and so I want to congratulate 
Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar for this piece of legislation.
  To the public, what I am talking about is an aid package to Pakistan 
of I think it is over $1.5 billion a year for the next 5 years. I know 
we need money here at home. Trust me, in South Carolina we have the 
third highest unemployment in the Nation. Times are tough. But all I 
can tell the taxpayers and the American people is that what happens 
overseas does matter.
  September 11 was planned in Afghanistan. It was an area of the world, 
quite frankly, that we ignored. Pakistan has been an ally in the war on 
terror generally. It is a regime with nuclear weapons. It is a country 
that has been hit incredibly hard by the downturn of the world economy. 
There are millions of people in Pakistan who are looking to find a 
better way. The government is fighting forces that are aligned with the 
al-Qaida movement--the type of people who would impose a period of 
darkness in the Middle East that would affect the quality of our lives. 
So $1.5 billion is a lot of money, but it will do a lot of good in 
Pakistan and it will help this government and the Pakistan military 
combat the growing threat of terrorism in Pakistan. The aid package is 
going to help the government provide a better quality of life for its 
people. Where the government fails to provide a decent quality of life 
in Afghanistan and Pakistan, you will have a vacuum that will be filled 
by the Taliban. The Taliban is not in favor with the Afghan people, but 
when the government of Afghanistan cannot deliver justice, provide the 
basic necessities of life, that allows the drug dealers and the Taliban 
to come along and fill in the vacuum.
  Pakistan is a large country with nuclear weapons. It is in our 
national security interest to make sure that the government is stable, 
that the military will be supportive of civilian control of the 
government and will be able to defeat the forces of extremism we have 
seen. We know what they can do when left unchecked. So this bill is an 
aid package which focuses on civil capacity.
  The bill also makes sure that we know where the money is going to go. 
It is not a $1.5 billion check to Pakistan that could be stolen through 
corruption. It is a very accountable system that follows the money. It 
makes an effort to upgrade the Pakistan military to deal with 
counterinsurgency,

[[Page 16207]]

because they do not have the capacity now that they need. Again, it 
provides assistance to the Pakistani people and the government to 
improve the quality of their lives.
  I think we are getting something for our money. I think we are going 
to get a good return if we can stabilize Pakistan. It helps us in 
Afghanistan, where we have thousands of American troops stationed and 
fighting as I speak.
  So to Senators Kerry and Lugar, congratulations on being able to get 
this bill through the Senate so swiftly. To Senators McConnell and 
Reid, I applaud them both, the minority and majority leaders, for 
working for the common good here. The administration has also been very 
supportive. I have had my differences with this administration, and I 
will continue to have them, but I want to acknowledge that Ambassador 
Holbrooke, who is now in charge of monitoring Pakistan and Afghanistan 
as a unit, has done a good job of focusing on what we need to do in 
both countries, because one does affect the other.
  The Kerry-Lugar bill, according to the Ambassador and General 
Petraeus, would be the most important thing the Congress could do to 
aid the Pakistan Government and the Pakistan military at this crucial 
time. So I am glad to see that in a bipartisan fashion we responded to 
that call from our general and from our Ambassador, and hopefully this 
will become law soon.
  To the American taxpayer, I know times are tough. I know money is in 
short supply. But quite frankly, this is an investment we have to make. 
We have soldiers serving in Afghanistan. If we can make Pakistan more 
secure and less of a safe haven for terrorists who are attacking our 
troops, that makes their lives better. If we can stabilize Pakistan and 
put it in the column of moderation and not extremism, not only will our 
Nation prosper now, but future generations will be able to prosper. It 
is impossible for us as a nation to have a strong, vibrant economy and 
to enjoy the freedom we enjoy today and pass it on to our kids and 
grandkids without confronting these problems head on. Anytime you 
ignore problems such as Pakistan and Afghanistan, they always come back 
to bite you.
  This is a wise investment at a time that it matters. The tide is 
turning in Pakistan, it is turning our way, and I hope this aid package 
will allow it to accelerate and get a result in Pakistan that helps us 
in Afghanistan.
  Every American should be proud of the history and tradition of our 
country. We have been blessed in many ways. The challenges we face are 
enormous, but we have to remember we are the most blessed nation on 
Earth and this is a chance for us not only to help ourselves but help 
the world at large.
  I am proud of the Senate. I look forward to working in the future 
with Ambassador Holbrooke and the administration on Afghanistan, Iraq, 
and Pakistan, to find ways to make sure we are successful. This is not 
a Republican or Democratic problem, this is a problem for anyone who 
loves freedom. This is a problem that needs to be addressed and the 
Kerry-Lugar bill does address the problem of Pakistan in a reasoned 
way.
  With that, I yield the floor and 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. 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 ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Struggle For Equality

  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, this June we celebrate our diversity as 
Americans as we mark Pride Month. In many ways, the struggle for 
equality is a singular thread that is woven through the fabric of 
American history.
  From the Declaration of Independence, to the Emancipation 
Proclamation, to women's suffrage, from school integration, to 
Stonewall, the story of this Nation is a story of a long, slow march 
toward equal rights for every citizen. It is a story of ever greater 
inclusiveness--a tribute to the enduring promise of the American dream.
  Together, we can reduce discrimination based on race, ethnicity, 
religion, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
  I believe we can achieve equal rights for all. I believe our next 
step in this ongoing struggle must be to secure the rights of the gay, 
lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community. We must start by stepping 
up our efforts to prevent hate crimes.
  It is hard to believe that it has been over a decade since Matthew 
Shepard was brutally beaten and left to die on a bitterly cold Wyoming 
road. His story rightly sparked intense national debate about the 
nature of hate. It reminded us that if Matthew was vulnerable, anyone 
could be vulnerable to such a vicious attack.
  The thing that is particularly heinous about hate crimes is that they 
are not just an assault on an individual, they are intended as an 
indiscriminate assault on an entire community.
  Our government has a moral obligation to say this is wrong, and we 
need to make sure our law enforcement officers and our courts have all 
of the resources they need to deliver justice.
  That is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bill inspired by 
Matthew's tragic story. I do not want to see another year go by without 
the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Act as the law of the land.
  But we must not stop there. Far too many gay and lesbian Americans 
face not just violence but other forms of discrimination in their daily 
lives.
  We are fortunate in Illinois to have laws on the books to protect our 
citizens from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender 
identity. I believe those equal protections should be Federal law. I am 
also a proud cosponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. It is 
the fair thing to do, and it is the right thing to do, and it is far 
overdue.
  Passing ENDA will not end all forms of discrimination. One of the 
worst forms of discrimination is not only destroying people's careers 
and lives, it is undermining our national security.
  I am talking about the military's ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy.
  To all of those who have served, and to those currently serving in 
our Armed Forces, let us say: Thank you--thank you to those who have 
served. We honor your service. We honor your sacrifices. And we honor 
your courage.
  This Nation is a better, safer place because of them. They fight for 
this Nation every day. We should end this offensive and discriminatory 
policy so they can be the best soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines 
they can be, while living their lives openly and honestly.
  Especially in this time of war, when we face terrorist threats, we 
must welcome the service of every patriotic man and woman who signs up 
to defend our freedom. When we dismiss the sacrifices made by those 
with a different sexual orientation, we determine the strength--we 
undermine the strength--of our fighting forces.
  When we fail to recognize the brave contributions that gay and 
lesbian servicemembers continue to make every single day, we diminish 
ourselves as much as we diminish their service.
  Senator Ted Kennedy has long been a leader on this issue, and I know 
he wants to see legislation passed to end the ban. I support his 
important work and I will do all I can to support those efforts.
  We will see justice, and not just in the military, but also for gay 
and lesbian families.
  Last week, President Obama took a first step toward ending the 
inequality of gay and lesbian families when he extended certain 
benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees. For the first time, 
same-sex partners can be included in the Federal Long Term Care 
Insurance Program. Now any employee will be able to use sick leave to 
care for a same-sex partner, just as an employee can take time off to 
care for an opposite-sex spouse.
  I applaud the President for beginning to tear down these inequities, 
but

[[Page 16208]]

while this Executive order represents an important initial step, there 
is so much more to be done. The U.S. Government is far behind the 
private sector on this front. A large number of Fortune 500 companies 
already offer comprehensive benefits to same-sex couples. They have 
done so for many years, sometimes for over a decade. This allows them 
to compete for the best and brightest, attracting talented 
professionals regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. We 
need to make sure the Federal Government is able to compete for the 
same talented people.
  I am proud to support a bill that would extend additional benefits to 
the domestic partners of Federal workers. This legislation, introduced 
by my friend Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins, will extend 
the full range of benefits to these couples. This includes access to 
the same Federal health and retirement plan currently available to the 
recognized spouses of government workers. As the free market has shown, 
extending these benefits to same-sex partners is not only the right 
thing to do, it also makes good business sense.
  I know that this week, the many Pride events around the country mean 
a lot of different things for people in the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and 
transgender community. For some, it is a chance to reflect on the 
progress and accomplishments made by this community and to organize for 
the future. For others, it is an opportunity to reflect and to honor 
those who have been lost to AIDS. And still for others, it is a chance 
to feel safer, to feel empowered to celebrate a part of something 
bigger than themselves, and to be reminded that everyone should be 
proud of who they are. However each of us celebrates Gay and Lesbian 
Pride Month, we must remember that gender equality is far from over. 
But just as the Emancipation Proclamation set this country on the path 
to racial equality, just as women's suffrage paved the way for gender 
equality, so that singular refrain throughout our history will be taken 
up again. The struggle for equality will not be easy, and it never has 
been, but if we keep at it, we will get there.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, might I inquire what the status is?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the executive nomination of Harold 
Koh.
  Mr. ENZI. Are there time restrictions?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in postcloture, which requires debate 
on the pending matter.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business for such time as I might consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need to 
reform our Nation's health care system. If we are to be successful, we 
must undertake this effort with the greatest care and deliberation.
  When it comes to health care reform, we have started down this road 
before. Last Congress, I proposed legislation called Ten Steps to 
Transform Health Care in America in an effort to provide a blueprint 
from which we could begin to address the challenge of improving our 
health care system.
  I might mention the way that came about is that Senator Kennedy as 
the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, 
and I as the ranking member, worked together on a number of bills. In 
fact, I have quite a record for being able to work in a bipartisan way 
to get bills completed. We were very busy on the Higher Education Act 
and other education issues, so I took some leadership in the health 
area, and we talked about principles we wanted to achieve. Then I 
collected ideas from both sides of the aisle and put together this 
package of 10 steps that will transform health care in America as a 
blueprint to improve and address this challenge of improving our health 
care system. So it isn't something on which he or I just started 
working.
  After I introduced the bill, I took my message of health care reform 
directly to the people in my State. I traveled 1,200 miles and held a 
series of events in March of last year to provide the people of Wyoming 
with the chance to see what I was working on and to voice their 
concerns with our current system. Everywhere I went, I heard the same 
message repeated over and over, and that was that people want change. 
They want a system that will provide them with a health care system 
that is affordable, more available, and easier for them to access. 
Simply put, the people of Wyoming, as do people all across the country, 
want more choices and more control over their health care. That was the 
goal of my Ten Steps bill. It was drafted with the aim of leveling the 
playing field in tax treatment of health insurance. It was also 
intended to provide a helping hand to low-income Americans in the form 
of subsidies that would ensure access to quality, affordable health 
insurance.
  As I traveled through the State, I also heard from members of the 
small business community. They made it clear that they wanted greater 
equity and access to a plan that would allow cross-State pooling so 
they could band together with small business owners in other States and 
get better rates on the health insurance they provide to their 
employees.
  In the end, no matter whom I spoke with, they all had one message 
they wanted me to bring to the Senate: Keep costs down and under 
control. There have to be limits. That is why, as the only accountant 
in the Senate and as a member of the Budget Committee, I was and remain 
very concerned with the effect any health care reform proposal will 
have on our Federal budget, both in the short and the long term.
  I can't be the only one who heard those things when I was back home. 
I think my experience on the road was very similar to that of almost 
every one of my colleagues. Last year, whether they were campaigning 
for themselves or for other members of our party, we logged on a lot of 
travel miles. We met with and spoke to people from all walks of life 
who came from every imaginable background. Some were from large cities 
and towns with large populations and others came from the smaller 
cities and some very small towns with fewer people and resources. 
Whomever we spoke to and wherever we were, we all heard the same 
concerns: We need a better health care system, and we need it now.
  In response, I was pleased to join with several of my colleagues as 
we continued to work on health care reform this year. As the ranking 
member on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions and in my service on the Senate Finance Committee, I have been 
working to foster and facilitate a constructive dialog with my 
colleagues on both committees. I have also met with the President and 
administration officials on numerous occasions so we could share ideas 
on how to best craft a strong, bipartisan bill. As the debate on health 
care reform proceeds, I continue to stand ready to work on this 
critical issue.
  This is likely to be the most important legislation we will ever work 
on as Members of the Senate, no matter how many terms we serve. How 
well we handle this crucial issue will have an impact not just today 
but for many tomorrows and countless years to come. If we fail to 
provide the change that is needed, it may be a long time before the 
Senate will ever try to do this again.
  I am convinced we have a perfect storm before us as we face this 
issue. The time is right, the political winds are with us, and we have 
the support and encouragement of the current administration and the 
people of this Nation to get something done. That is why a good bill 
and a bipartisan effort are well within our grasp.
  If we are to do the work that is before us and do it well, however, 
we can't have one side or the other try to grab the reins and lead the 
effort exclusively in their direction. The American people are looking 
for us to solve the problem, and they want to know we wrote this bill 
together, amended it together, and, most importantly, finished

[[Page 16209]]

it together. They know no one side has all the answers, so they do 
expect us to put partisanship aside. This is too important an issue not 
to follow a path that will produce a bill that will have the support of 
75 or 80 Members of the Senate. I have every belief we can do that, and 
that is why I am so strongly committed to bringing massive change to 
the policies laid out in the recently filed Kennedy bill. I will 
continue to try to bring that change to the work being done by the 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and in the Finance 
Committee.
  Let me be very clear about what I believe we can do if we put 
partisanship aside and work together. We can draft a good bipartisan 
bill, one that will draw a large majority to its side, and we can get 
it done this year.
  Last week, the HELP Committee began to mark up a very flawed piece of 
legislation. I understand the difficult circumstances that brought 
Senator Dodd to chair this extraordinarily complex bill, and I 
appreciate Senator Dodd's willingness to take on the task, as he also 
chairs the Banking Committee. However, the legislation we are 
considering in the HELP Committee is broken, almost to the point of 
being beyond repair. It is too costly and it is incomplete. Of course, 
we are promised we will get the other pieces of the bill. Arguments 
made about the unfairness of estimating the cost of an incomplete bill 
show that in the race to revamp our health care system, this bill was a 
false start. In order to get this right, we should slow down, and in 
some areas we need to start over.
  This shouldn't be a matter of speed. To stay with the analogy of 
health care, no one goes to a doctor or a surgeon based on how fast 
they can operate or conduct an examination. It never matters how long 
it takes. All that matters is that they get it right. We should do the 
same.
  I am not suggesting that we come up with a new process to develop 
this legislation. All I am saying is that we need to make better use of 
the one we already have in place, the way we have always done things in 
the Senate when we want to make sure we get it done right.
  For instance, it wasn't all that long ago that we had to do something 
about our Nation's pension system. We worked together. We talked about 
what we had to do together. Then we came up with a way to get there, 
together. The result was a bill that when it came to the floor was over 
1,000 pages long and it had the immense involvement of two committees--
the same two committees we are talking about with health care, the HELP 
Committee and the Finance Committee. Those two committees came together 
on a bill of over 1,000 pages. When it came to the floor, we already 
had an agreement between the two committee members which was taken to 
the leaders, which meant we had an agreement with everybody in the 
Chamber that there would be 1 hour of debate, two amendments, and a 
final vote. I asked the Parliamentarian when the last time was that 
there was a bill of that complexity that had that kind of an agreement 
before we even debated it, and that person said: Not in my lifetime. 
That is what is possible around here if we work together. That is what 
we did with the Nation's pension system.
  I think we were talking about the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corporation being short a drastic $24 billion. Boy, that doesn't look 
like much money anymore, does it? No. We are talking about some errors 
on this one that are over $58 billion. That pensions bill wasn't so 
long ago. We worked together, we talked about what we had to do 
together, and then we came up with it together. The result was a bill 
that only had the two amendments offered to it because the agreement on 
both the illness and the remedy was so strong.
  As we prepared to begin the markup of this bill last week, we 
received a troubling preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget 
Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation regarding the costs and 
coverage figures associated with the legislation. In its review of the 
proposal, the CBO found that enacting the proposal would result in an 
increase in spending of about $1.3 trillion, with a net increase to the 
Federal budget deficit of about $1 trillion over the 2010-to-2019 
period. This cost estimate did not include the promised ``significant 
expansion of Medicaid or other options for subsidizing coverage for 
those with an income below 150 percent of the poverty level.'' As the 
markup continues, we will be asking the CBO for an official analysis of 
the impact of the addition of such a policy on the Federal budget 
deficit.
  We are having more and more seniors moving into the category of long-
term care--and we have a proposal before us, which we will debate when 
we get back. The Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, ranking member 
on the Budget Committee, pointed out that the only part of that 
proposal that gets scored are the premiums people would pay in over 
that first 10 years for their long-term care, which comes to about $59 
billion, which shows a surplus of $59 billion. But what it doesn't take 
into consideration is the obligation to those people who are paying in 
those premiums that they will get long-term care.
  The expected cost of that long-term care to those people paying in 
that $59 billion is $2 trillion. The proposed payment doesn't match the 
proposed costs, and it would not be sustainable beyond the 10 years. 
Whether or not people actually start taking long-term care benefits 
right away, we will have another Federal Government program with a 
budget deficit. At the same time we received notice of the preliminary 
analysis of the Kennedy bill, we got word the Finance Committee was 
postponing the markup on health care legislation, after reports 
surfaced that the CBO was preparing an estimate of its legislation that 
projected an increase to the Federal deficit of $1.6 trillion over the 
next 10 years. All of this was on the heels of President Obama's speech 
last week at the American Medical Association, in which he said:

       Health care reform must be and will be deficit neutral in 
     the next decade.

  The bill we have before us misses the target of this commitment by 
more than $1 trillion. Again, the bill is still missing language in 
three key areas.
  I will take a few moments to speak about our Nation's deficit and 
overall fiscal and economic condition. My concern about the runaway 
spending in the Kennedy bill--I should call it the Kennedy staff bill; 
I know the Senator, had he been able to work with me, would have come 
up with some different conclusions on the bill. My concern with the 
runaway spending in the Kennedy staff bill is not simply a concern that 
it breaks faith with the President's health care reform commitments. 
Rather, I am deeply troubled by the direction this bill would take us 
during a truly perilous fiscal age.
  I was elected to this body in 1996. In my first years in Congress, we 
moved from a budget deficit to a budget surplus. I am deeply 
disappointed that nearly 13 years later, our projected deficit for this 
fiscal year exceeds $1.84 trillion, and our national debt exceeds $11.4 
trillion. That is bad. People are starting to take notice, and that, 
unfortunately, includes our creditors. Add to this the losses to our 
gross domestic product and an unemployment rate heading toward 10 
percent and the news is worse. Again, there have to be limits. People 
have them in their families, municipalities have them, and most States 
have them. The Federal Government doesn't.
  According to the Federal Reserve, the level of debt-to-GDP ratio is 
estimated to reach the highest levels it has since immediately after 
World War II. The increasing spread between short-term and long-term 
treasuries is evidence that global investors are increasingly concerned 
about our Nation's level of debt and the real potential for future 
inflation.
  In recent weeks, Treasury Secretary Geithner traveled to China to 
attempt to ease growing concerns about our ability to pay off our 
growing debts. When Geithner told an audience of Chinese students at 
Peking University that ``Chinese assets are very safe,'' reports are 
that this statement drew loud laughter.
  It is really not a laughing matter for us. It is serious. Tough 
action, not ``I

[[Page 16210]]

will tell you what you want to hear'' speeches, is what we need.
  On the State and local front, our economic indicators are equally 
troubling. On Thursday, the Rockefeller Institute of Government issued 
a report on State personal income tax revenues for 2009. They are 
falling fast; 34 of the 37 States in the report saw declines in tax 
revenue, indicating that it will be increasingly more difficult than 
expected for States to close their widening budget gaps. I can hear 
calls for more bailouts, but my question is, who is going to bail out 
the Federal Government?
  These numbers provide the critical backdrop as we consider the new 
deficit spending included in the Kennedy staff bill. Recently, Fed 
Chairman Bernanke stated that ``achieving fiscal sustainability 
requires that spending and deficits be well controlled.'' He went on to 
note that ``unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal 
sustainability in the longer term, we will have neither financial 
stability nor economic growth.'' For these reasons, the Kennedy 
proposal requires an entire rewrite with respect to its impact on our 
Federal budget deficit.
  Just as troubling as this bill's impact on the deficit is its failure 
to help tens of millions of Americans get the health insurance they 
need. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, if enacted, this 
bill would only provide health insurance for one-third of the Nation's 
uninsured. Let's see, $1 trillion for 16 million people. This number 
falls far short of the President's stated goal of ``quality, affordable 
health insurance for all Americans'' in his recent letter to Chairmen 
Kennedy and Baucus.
  Of even greater concern, the CBO projects that about 10 million 
individuals who would be covered through an employer's plan under 
current law would not have access to that coverage under the Kennedy 
legislation. This figure breaks President Obama's often-repeated 
promise during both the 2008 campaign and since taking office that 
under his health care plan:

       If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep 
     your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no 
     matter what.

  Under the Kennedy plan, that promise rings hollow for millions of 
Americans, and that is simply unacceptable. I know the President has 
already scheduled an event on one of the networks to push his health 
care ideas. When it airs, I am sure we will hear him repeat the line 
over and over: If you like the health care plan you already have, you 
can keep it.
  If he makes that promise again, every time we hear him say that, we 
should remind ourselves that the White House has already admitted that 
such statements aren't to be taken literally. I think that means they 
are not true.
  I cannot recall ever hearing something like that from the White 
House, but those are their words. Maybe they should be applied to the 
whole presentation--that none of it should be taken literally.
  I know one thing that can be taken literally, and we ought to give it 
straight to the American people, and that is this: Under the Kennedy 
proposal being rolled out, you would not be able to keep the care you 
have right now. Washington bureaucrats will be able to deny you and 
your family the care you need and that you fully deserve.
  Unfortunately, that is not the only thing that we are in denial 
about. We are also in denial when it comes to the cost of the 
Democrats' health care plan and our ability to work our way out of a 
hole of debt that only promises to grow deeper and deeper for a long 
time and for many years to come.
  A lot of times we talk about how we are spending our kids' and 
grandkids' money. I really feel compelled to point out that we are 
already spending our seniors' money. Why is that? Well, normally, what 
happens in this country is that a little bit is taken--well, a bunch is 
taken--out of your check for Social Security, which is matched by the 
employer. That amount of money each month has always gone to pay the 
seniors who are retired, their pensions, and to have a little bit of 
surplus. But do you know what? It is not doing that anymore. We are 
having to take money out of the trust funds now to supplement that to 
be able to pay the people who are retired now--and we are not even to 
the baby boomers yet. So we have a problem.
  Unfortunately, that is not the only thing we are in denial about. 
Having shown the devastating impact of the Kennedy bill on the Federal 
deficit, and the failure of it to provide access to adequate health 
coverage for millions of Americans, I want to turn to one of the three 
foundational principles of my 10-step plan; namely, improving the 
quality of care.
  On this front, I think the Kennedy plan again fails to live up to the 
promise laid out by President Obama to ``improve patient safety and 
quality of care.'' That is very important--to improve patient safety 
and quality of care.
  I am deeply troubled by the real possibility that comparative 
effectiveness research, which is mentioned in the bill and has been 
debated in the committee, and which has been held intact in there, will 
be used as a cost-containment measure to ration care under this 
legislation. The result would be, for millions of Americans, a Federal 
bureaucrat would dictate the type of care they receive and interfere 
with the doctor-patient relationship.
  As the Kennedy bill proceeds through Congress, I will fight to strip 
those provisions that will delay and deny needed health coverage to 
Americans. I spoke at length in committee about the truly horrible 
stories of rationing care that we hear about from the United Kingdom. I 
will continue to speak out to make sure this type of so-called care is 
not imported to the United States.
  Finally, I am deeply troubled with a number of other policies 
advanced in the Kennedy bill. I believe the community rating provisions 
will result in skyrocketing premium costs for younger Americans. I am 
troubled that the bill doesn't provide incentives to encourage 
individuals to make healthier choices. There are a lot of choices we 
can make to improve our health ourselves.
  As we complete the second week of the HELP Committee markup, we are 
still missing the guts of the Kennedy proposal. We expect that the 
final proposal will include a government-run plan, a mandate on 
employers to provide insurance, and a provision dealing with 
biosimilars. It is difficult to comment on these provisions until they 
are released.
  Proponents of the government-run option--including the President--
consistently argue that a public plan is necessary to keep the 
insurance companies honest and to foster competition. With respect to 
provisions dealing with preexisting conditions, rate bands, and other 
reforms, we are all committed to taking action to keep insurers honest 
and make sure people with preexisting and chronic diseases can get 
insurance. The creation of a new government program at a time when the 
experts and Medicare trustees tell us that Medicare stands on the brink 
of insolvency, does nothing to foster honesty; it fosters fiscal 
irresponsibility. We are borrowing to pay for the government-run 
programs we have now. If you already have trouble making your mortgage 
payments, why would you go out and buy a boat and an RV?
  With respect to the notion that we will be fostering competition with 
the creation of a government-run health plan, I think the public is 
growing tired of government intervention in our day-to-day lives. 
First, there was our involvement in the mortgage system and then the 
banking system and then we got more involved in our Nation's automotive 
industry. It is certainly more than a possibility that the government 
has taken on more than it can handle. We are operating at more than the 
maximum capacity already. Having government take over our Nation's 
health care system may be the last straw.
  Think about that--about all the things that just this year the 
government has decided to take over. The comment I get at home, and in 
other places I have traveled across the United States, is, doesn't the 
government have a little bit of trouble just running government?

[[Page 16211]]

  There is certainly a role for government as a strong regulator of 
free market enterprise, but the inclusion of the government as a 
principal player in our competitive markets is entirely inconsistent 
with our Nation's capitalist economic system. I will forcefully oppose 
the creation of a government-run health plan.
  Before I conclude, I would like to say a few words about the current 
process of health care reform in the Senate Finance Committee. I said 
at the outset that I am committed to working toward bipartisan health 
care reform. As a member of the Finance Committee, I have witnessed and 
have been a part of at least the foundations of such reform. There are 
many hurdles to remain, but I thank Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member 
Grassley for their very hard work on this extremely complex, difficult 
issue. We have never had an issue that involved as many people in this 
country--100 percent of the people. It is important we get it right, 
that we take the time to get it right. Ranking member Grassley has been 
cooperative and Chairman Baucus has been open and that has been 
extremely helpful. We have spent hours upon hours in that committee 
receiving inputs and options from both sides on how to reform our 
Nation's health care system.
  This stands in great contrast to the partisan process that has, 
unfortunately, unfolded in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee we have been tediously working through. There have been 
comments about how many amendments we turned in. We had 388 amendments. 
I had to remind them that if you don't get any piece of the drafting, 
you have to get your opinions in somehow and you do it through multiple 
amendments. Probably half those amendments were to fix grammatical 
errors, punctuation, typos--about half of them. Those were accepted.
  It is my hope that the difference in process will result in a 
difference in substance between the Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee legislation and the Finance Committee legislation. I 
will continue to work in the Finance Committee to shape legislation 
that improves the quality of our health care, reduces costs, is 
responsible in its budgetary impact, and increases access to care for 
all the American people.
  As I have said, there is a long way to go on that committee and many 
differences to resolve, but I continue to work in good faith and hope 
for bipartisan, responsible health care reform. I am holding out hope a 
better, more inclusive process will emerge as we continue our work in 
the HELP Committee. I hope that a change will come about soon, but the 
bill we currently have before us is a clear sign that just as we have 
been excluded early on in the health care reform effort, it looks like 
we will continue to be excluded as the process continues. There is time 
to get us included. There is an important reason to get us included. 
But we will see.
  In the end, for me and many people across this country, our 
discussions about health care can be summed up in a short story with a 
simple moral. I was reading a book about a Wyoming doctor who came home 
and decided to settle in a town called Big Piney. He found some ranch 
land he liked, and he decided to make it his home. When he was 
attending a local rodeo, one of the cowboys competing in the contest 
looked at him and said: You aren't from here, are you?
  He said: Well, I am going to be, I am a doctor.
  Unable to control his enthusiasm, the cowboy walked away shouting to 
all within earshot: Hey, we finally got ourselves a doctor.
  That is what health care is all about in Wyoming, the West, and 
countless towns and cities all across our country.
  I have to tell you, this doctor spent most of his life in the Congo. 
He studied Ebola and established a lot of health clinics over there. 
When he retired, he did move to Wyoming. He did health care the old-
fashioned way. He made house calls. He sat with people while they were 
dying. He had a lot of friends over there. Incidentally, he did not 
take Medicare or Medicaid. He said there were too many strings attached 
to it. He set up a foundation, and people he worked with could make a 
donation to his foundation instead. That way he wouldn't violate any 
Federal rules about treating some people and taking money. He was a 
tremendous doctor. Unfortunately, we lost him this year. So that area 
is once again without a doctor. If you can send me one who likes 
rodeos, we would be happy to have him there. That is what health care 
in Wyoming is about.
  In the big cities and towns of Chicago, New York, Boston, and Los 
Angeles, it seems to me there is a hospital or doctor's office on 
almost every corner. In States such as Wyoming, however, they are few 
and far between, which makes health care a very precious commodity. I 
always tell people the statistics are we are short every kind of 
provider in Wyoming, including veterinarians, which always brings the 
comment: Surely, veterinarians don't work on people. We say: Yes, if 
you are far enough from a regular doctor, you are happy to have a 
veterinarian. You just hope he doesn't use the same medicines!
  If we are not careful with this legislation, it will not make health 
care more plentiful and abundant, it will make it even more rare and 
difficult to obtain, and when health care gets more expensive and less 
available in places such as the big cities in this Nation, imagine what 
it will be like in the small towns of Wyoming and the West. People back 
home know what it will be like--another one-size-fits-all policy that 
did not fit so well into the rural areas of this country to begin with. 
That is why people are worried right now. The only way we can assure 
them they do not have to worry is if we take the time to make sure we 
get it right the first time. Then, and only then, will the American 
people feel like they will be getting what they said they wanted during 
our campaigns last year--not just change but change for the better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
as in morning business for the time I consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me say of my friend, the senior 
Senator from Wyoming, he does articulate this issue well. He has spent 
countless hours working on it. When you listen to him, his depth of 
knowledge and trying to work out something that would give improvements 
and avoid a total socialization of medicine, he knows what he is 
talking about.
  When I go back to my State of Oklahoma, it is not all that different 
than from when he goes back to his State of Wyoming and people ask the 
question: If government isn't working well now, why do we want to put 
all the rest of these things in government, whether it is health care 
or the banking industry, the insurance industry, oil and gas and the 
other takeovers we are witnessing right now?
  I do think you can summarize what he said very simply by merely 
saying, if there is a government option, of course, this is a moving 
target. For those of us who are not on a committee that is dealing with 
health care reform, we are not sure what is going on there, and I am 
not sure anyone else does either because it is a moving target. From 
one time to another, we hear different things that are going to be in 
the bill, and then they change their mind.
  One thing we know, though, they keep saying there is going to be a 
government option. If there is a government option, we are going to see 
a huge impact on insurers, private companies that offer insurance, and 
you will see that market dwindling. You can't blame them for that.
  The other thing that is a certainty in this whole issue of the 
Kennedy bill and what they are trying to do, what the administration is 
trying to do with the health delivery system in America is they would 
be putting Washington between the patient and the doctor. That gets a 
response when I am back in Oklahoma of we don't want that to happen.

[[Page 16212]]

  So we have right now a lot of invasions on the systems that have 
worked well in America.


                          National Energy Tax

  I wish to talk about one other issue since tomorrow the House is 
scheduled to vote on what is known as the Waxman-Markey bill, which is 
the Democrat's answer to the worst recession in decades, a national 
energy tax, a tax designed to impose economic pain through higher 
energy prices and lost jobs or as a recent Washington Post editorial 
put it:

       The bill contains regulations on everything from light bulb 
     standards to the specs on hot tubs and it will reshape 
     America's economy in dozens of ways that many don't realize.

  In other words, this would be, if it were to pass, the largest tax 
increase in the history of America. I know a little bit about this 
issue because I started working on this issue back in the late nineties 
when they were trying to get the United States to ratify the Kyoto 
treaty. The Kyoto treaty is very similar to the proposals we have had 
since that time. We know what that would have cost at that time. 
Somewhere between $300 billion and $330 billion a year as a permanent 
tax increase.
  There have been proposals on the floor of the Senate in 2003, 2005, 
2007, 2008, and now this time. We in the Senate have more experience in 
dealing with this issue than the House does because this is the first 
time they have ever had it up for consideration.
  Over the past several weeks, Speaker Pelosi has been facing an 
insurrection within her own ranks. We have been reading about the 
Democrats who are pulling out saying: We don't want to be part of the 
largest tax increase in the history of America. More and more people 
are jumping in and saying we cannot have it. As of yesterday, the 
American Farm Bureau came in opposing, the strongest opposition to this 
legislation.
  Let me say, if the Democrats are having trouble passing this bill in 
the House, where the majority can pass just about any bill it wants, 
then there is no hope for a cap-and-trade bill to come out of the 
Senate. I think we know that. We watched it.
  Right now, by my count, the most votes that could ever come for this 
largest tax increase in the history of America would be 34 votes--34 
votes. They are not even close.
  I say that because there are a lot of people wringing their hands: 
She wouldn't bring this bill up in the House on Friday unless she had 
the votes. Maybe she will have the votes. There has been a lot of 
trading, a lot of people getting mad. Nonetheless, she may have bought 
off enough votes to make it a reality.
  The fact is the Waxman-Markey bill is just the latest incarnation of 
very costly cap-and-trade legislation that will have a very devastating 
impact on the economy, cost American jobs by pushing them overseas, and 
drastically increasing the size and scope of the Federal Government.
  In the Senate, we have successfully defeated cap-and-trade 
legislation in the years I mentioned. Four different times it has been 
on the floor. I remember in 2005, I was the lead opposition to it. 
Republicans were in the majority at that time. It had 5 days on the 
Senate floor, 10 hours a day, 50 hours. It was the McCain-Lieberman 
bill at that time. It was defeated then and by larger margins ever 
since then.
  Just a year later, with the economy in a deep recession, it is hard 
to believe that many more Senators would dare vote in favor of 
legislation that would not only increase the price of gas at the pump 
but cost millions of American jobs, create a huge new bureaucracy, and 
raise taxes by record numbers. It is not going to happen.
  I appreciate that my Democratic colleagues desperately want to pass 
this bill. They argue that cap and trade is necessary to rid the world 
of global warming and to demonstrate America's leadership in this noble 
cause. But their strategy is all economic pain and no climate gain. 
This is a global issue that demands a global solution. Yet cap-and-
trade advocates argue that aggressive unilateral--unilateral, that is 
just America; in other words, we pass the tax just on Americans--
aggressive unilateral action is necessary to persuade developing 
countries--now we are talking about China, India, Mexico, and some 
other countries--to enact mandatory emission reductions. In other 
words, we provide the leadership and they will follow. But recent 
actions by the Obama administration and by China and other developing 
countries continue to prove just the opposite. They continue to confirm 
what I have been saying and arguing for the past decade, that even if 
we do act, the rest of the world will not.
  If you still believe--and there are fewer people every day who 
believe that science is settled--that manmade gases, anthropogenic 
gases, CO2, methane are causing global warming--there are a 
few people left who believe that. If you are one of those who still 
believes that, stop and think: Why would we want to do something 
unilaterally in America? It doesn't make sense. The logic is not 
difficult to understand.
  Carbon caps, according to reams of independent analyses, will 
severely damage America's global competitiveness, principally by 
raising the cost of doing business here relative to other countries 
such as China, where they have no mandatory carbon caps. So the jobs 
and businesses would move overseas, most likely to China.
  This so-called leakage effect would tip the global economic balance 
in favor of China. A lot of them are saying China is going to follow 
our lead, they are going to do it. Look at this chart. This person is 
the negotiator for the administration. His statement is: We don't 
expect China to take a national cap-and-trade system. This is the guy 
who is supposed to be in charge of seeing to it that they do. This is 
Todd Stern. He is admitting it.
  I wish those people who come to the floor and say: Oh, no, we know 
that if America leads the way, China is going to follow us--they are 
sitting back there just rejoicing, hoping we will go ahead and have a 
huge cap-and-trade tax to drive our manufacturing jobs to places such 
as China where they don't have any real controls on emissions, and the 
result would be an increase in CO2. In other words, if we 
pass this huge tax in this country, it is going to have the resulting 
effect of increasing the amount of CO2 that is in the 
atmosphere.
  By itself, China has a vested interest in swearing off of carbon 
restrictions in order to keep its economy growing and lifting its 
people from poverty. Add unilateral Federal U.S. action into the mix, 
and we give China an even stronger reason to oppose mandatory 
reductions for its economy. And China understands this all too well. I 
believe they will actively and unfailingly pursue their economic self-
interest, which entails America acting alone to address global warming.
  Consider that in other realms, whether on intellectual property 
rights or human rights. The Chinese have conspicuously failed to follow 
America's example. We have tried to get them to do it, and they haven't 
done it. All the human rights efforts we have gone through to try to 
get political prisoners released and all these other things we have 
said to them to do it--we have threatened, we have asked, we have 
begged--and they do not do it. So why would they do this? So for China, 
climate change will be no exception.
  My colleagues in the Senate are rightly focused on the economic 
effects this bill will have on their States and their constituents. But 
with China and other developing countries staunchly opposed to 
accepting any binding emissions requirements, we should be asking a 
more fundamental question: What exactly are we doing this for? If the 
goal of cap and trade is to reduce global temperatures by reducing 
global greenhouse gas concentrations, and if China and other leading 
carbon emitters continue to emit at will, then how can this supposed 
problem be solved?
  Well, if I accept the alarmist science that anthropogenic gases are 
causing a catastrophe, then reducing global greenhouse gas 
concentrations is a solution. But the unilateral Federal solution, 
again, that America must first act to persuade China and others to 
follow--please follow us, please pass a tax

[[Page 16213]]

in your own country, and then they are going to be following our 
example--there is no evidence that has ever happened before or that it 
would happen again. The only thing America gets by acting alone is a 
raw deal and a planet that is no better off.
  Now, my Democratic colleagues want to sweep this reality under the 
rug. They argue that cap and trade--and I hope everyone understands 
what cap and trade is. I have often said, and other people have said--
including some of the advocates of this--that they would prefer to have 
a carbon tax over cap and trade. Well, if you are going to have one or 
the other, I would too. But the only reason they use cap and trade is 
to hide the fact that this is a tax--a very large tax increase. So they 
argue that cap and trade will not only be at least to pull China along, 
but also it will solve our economic woes, create millions of new green 
jobs, and promote energy security.
  Of course, these are laudable goals, and Republicans have a simple 
answer to this: Let's provide the incentives rather than the taxes and 
mandates to produce clean, affordable, and reliable sources of energy.
  I am for all of the above. I want to have renewables, I want nuclear, 
I want wind, I want solar, I want clean coal, and natural gas. We need 
it all. Cut the redtape and encourage private investment. Let all 
technologies compete in the marketplace. However, that is not what the 
Democrats are proposing in the Waxman-Markey bill.
  I am talking on the Senate floor about a House bill, and I am doing 
that because it is scheduled to pass tomorrow and then there will be an 
effort over here. We have had experience with this legislation. As I 
have said before, it is not going to pass here, but it is a very 
significant thing. Anytime one House is proposing to pass the largest 
tax increase in history, we have to be concerned.
  This bill does the exact opposite. It closes access to affordable 
sources of energy by trying to price certain kinds of energy out of the 
market. It picks winners and losers that leave places such as the 
Midwest and the South paying higher energy prices to subsidize areas in 
the rest of the country. We have a chart that shows how much this would 
raise in the way of taxes in Middle America as opposed to the east 
coast and the west coast, and it creates more bureaucracy that will 
only increase the costs that consumers bear and add more layers of 
regulation to small business.
  We have to ask: Why, then, do my colleagues believe creating a 
national energy tax is necessary? It is all rooted in fabricated global 
warming science. In fact, just last week, the administration produced 
yet another alarmist report on global warming--which, of course, is 
nothing new--that takes the worst possible predictions of the United 
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment 
Report--is what it is called.
  By the way, these assessment reports are not reports by scientists. 
They are reports by political people, policy people. I have to also 
say--and I have said this on the floor of the Senate many times 
before--a lot of the things that come out and that are not in the best 
interests of the United States come from the United Nations. That is 
where this whole thing started, back in the middle 1990s.
  It was the IPCC of the United Nations where it all started. So it is 
no surprise that such a report was released just in time for the House 
vote on Waxman-Markey. However, what is becoming clear is that despite 
millions of dollars spent on advertising, the American public has 
clearly rejected the so-called ``consensus'' on global warming. There 
was a time when this wasn't true. I can remember back between the years 
of 1998 and 2005, when I would be standing on the Senate floor and 
talking about the science that rejects this notion. Since that time, 
hundreds and hundreds of scientists who were on the other side of the 
issue have come over to the skeptic side, saying: Wait a minute, this 
isn't really true.
  I can name names: Claude Allegre was perhaps considered by some 
people to be the top scientist in all of France. He used to be on Al 
Gore's side of this issue back in the late 1990s. Clearly, he is now 
saying: Wait a minute, we have reevaluated, and the science just isn't 
there. David Bellamy, one of the top scientists in the U.K., the same 
thing is true there. He was on the other side and came over. Nieve 
Sharif from Israel, same thing. So there is no consensus on the fact 
that they think anthropogenic gases are causing global warming.
  Of course, the other thing is, we don't have global warming right 
now. We are in our fourth year of a cooling spell. But that is beside 
the point. I am not here to address the science today but on the 
argument advanced by my colleagues, which is that U.S. unilateral 
action on global warming will compel other nations to follow our lead, 
as I have documented in speeches before since 1998.
  By the way, if anyone wants--any of my colleagues--to look up those 
speeches, they can be found at inhofe.senate.gov. If you have insomnia 
some night, it might be a good idea to read them. They are all about 2 
hours long. But I think many would find it very troubling indeed, that 
even if they believe the flawed IPCC or United Nations science, that 
science dictates that any unilateral action by the United States will 
be completely ineffective. The EPA even confirmed it last year during 
the debate on the Lieberman-Warner bill, and the same would hold true 
for this year's bill.
  Put simply, any isolated U.S. attempt to avert global warming is a 
futile effort without meaningful, robust international cooperation. No 
one disputes this fact. The American people need to know what they will 
be getting with their money: all cost and no benefit. This chart shows 
that U.S. action without international action will have no effect on 
world CO2. This is assuming there is no change in the 
manufacturing base, which we know there would be.
  This brings us to a key question as to whether a new robust 
international agreement can ever be achieved. In addition to the 
domestic process ongoing in Congress, the United States is currently 
involved in negotiations for a new international climate change 
agreement to replace the flawed Kyoto treaty. This process is scheduled 
to culminate in Copenhagen this December. This will be the big bash put 
on by the United Nations to encourage countries to buy into their 
program.
  The prospects of such an endeavor are bleak at best. Following the 
conclusion of the climate meeting in Bonn recently, the U.N.'s top 
climate official--Yvo de Boer--said it would be physically impossible--
now this is the chief advocate of all this--to have a detailed 
agreement by December in Copenhagen. This is ironic to say the least, 
considering that President Obama was supposed to bring all the parties 
together to transcend their differences and to produce a treaty that 
would save the world from global warming. But the reality of the cost 
of carbon reductions has intervened, and now a deal appears--as it 
always has to me and others--far from achievable.
  We must not forget where the Senate stands on global warming. As 
Senators may recall, in 1997, the Senate voted favorably, 95 to 0--95 
to 0 doesn't happen often in this Chamber--on the Byrd-Hagel 
resolution. That stated simply that if you go to Kyoto and you bring 
back a treaty, we will not ratify that treaty if it, No. 1, would 
mandate greenhouse gas reductions from the United States without also 
requiring new specific commitments from developing countries--China--
over the same compliance period; or, No. 2, result in serious economic 
harm to the United States.
  Well, obviously, we have talked about the serious harm to the United 
States and the fact there is no intention at all of having China have 
to be a part of this new treaty now, what, 15 years later they are 
going to be talking about. So I think the Byrd-Hagel resolution will 
still stand strong support in the Senate; therefore, any treaty the 
Obama administration submits must meet the resolution's criteria or it 
will be easily defeated.
  Remember that criteria: If they submit something in which the United 
States is going to have to do something

[[Page 16214]]

that the rest of the world--or the developing world--doesn't have to 
do, then it is not going to pass; and, secondly, if it inflicts 
economic harm on this country.
  Proponents of securing an international treaty are slowly 
acknowledging that the gulf is widening between what the United States 
and other industrialized nations are willing to do and what developing 
countries such as China want them to do. I suggest the gulf has always 
been wide but will continue to widen. Recent actions by the United 
States and China continue to confirm my belief.
  Take China's initial reaction to the Waxman-Markey bill. The bill, 
hailed on Capitol Hill as a historic breakthrough, went over with a 
thud last week during the international negotiations. Get this: Waxman-
Markey, which will be economically ruinous for the United States, was 
criticized by China for being too weak.
  Another troubling aspect coming out of those meetings was the U.S. 
Government's official submission. Many in the Senate may be surprised 
to learn that this administration's position is to let China off the 
hook. You might wonder, why would China look at this thing that would 
destroy us economically and say they do not think it is strong enough; 
that they want it stronger? Because the stronger it is, the more 
manufacturing jobs will leave the United States to go to China. They 
have to go someplace where they are producing energy. Nowhere in the 
submission to the conference do we require China to submit to any 
binding emission reduction requirements before 2020. In fact, before 
2020, the submission only asks for ``nationally appropriate'' 
mitigation actions, followed by a ``low carbon strategy for long-term 
net emissions reductions by 2050.''
  I would submit this proposal is typical of the United States to say: 
Well, we have to do some face-saving, so at least let's put them in an 
awkward position of having to ``try'' to do something. It doesn't say 
they ``have'' to do anything; they have to try. So China can sit back 
and say: We are trying. Meanwhile, they enjoy all the jobs that are 
coming from the United States to China.
  So what, then, is the Chinese Government's idea of a fair and 
balanced global treaty? Well, the Chinese believe the United States and 
other Western nations should, at a minimum, reduce their greenhouse gas 
emissions by 40 percent below the 1990 levels by 2020. For comparison's 
sake, Waxman-Markey, which could become the official U.S. negotiating 
position, calls for a 17-percent reduction--not 40 percent--below the 
2005 levels by 2020.
  Despite the positive spin the administration is putting on actions by 
the Chinese Government to reduce energy intensely or pass a renewable 
energy standard, while laudable, the official position of the Chinese 
in their submission to the United States remains as such, which I will 
read.

       The right to development is a basic human right that is 
     undeprivable. Economic and social development and poverty 
     eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the 
     developing nations.

  So China is talking about themselves and India and other developing 
nations.

       The right to development of developing countries shall be 
     adequately and effectively respected and ensured in the 
     process of global common efforts in fighting against climate 
     change.

  That is their written statement, and that speaks for itself.
  Finally, and the most telling of all, the Chinese and other 
developing countries collectively argue that the price for reducing 
their emissions is a massive 1 percent of GDP from the United States 
and other developed countries. What does that tell us? That tells us 
they are not willing to pay anything.
  So let me get this straight. China opposes any binding emission 
reduction targets on itself; China wants the United States to accept 
draconian emission reduction targets that will continue to cripple the 
U.S. economy; and on top of that, China wants the United States to 
subsidize its economy with billions of dollars in foreign aid. In the 
final analysis, one must give China credit for seeking its economic 
self-interest. I sure hope the Obama administration will do the same 
for America.
  Despite this reality, some here in the Senate will continue to tout 
the fact that China's new self-imposed emissions intensity reductions, 
which do not pose any type of binding reductions requirements, will 
somehow miraculously appear--will somehow suffice for binding 
requirements. I believe, however, that position will fail to satisfy 
the American people as acceptable justifications for passage of a bill 
that will result in higher United States energy taxes and no change in 
the climate.
  I do not blame them. If I were in China, I would be trying to do the 
same thing. I would be over there saying we want the United States to 
increase their energy taxes, we want a cap-and-trade bill, an 
aggressive one that is going to impose a tax--now it is expected to 
be--MIT had figures far above the $350 billion a year.
  That is not a one-shot deal. I stood here on the Senate floor 
objecting last October when we were voting on a $700 billion bailout. I 
can't believe some of our Republicans, along with virtually most of the 
Democrats, voted for this. I talked about how much $700 billion is. If 
you do your math and take all the families who file tax returns, it 
comes out $5,000 a family.
  At least that is a one-shot deal. What we are talking about here is a 
tax of somewhere around $350 billion every year on the American people 
and the bottom line is, China wants no restrictions for theirs. They 
want the highest reductions for the United States and they want foreign 
aid on top of that.
  I want to mention one other thing that just came up in today's 
Chicago Tribune. I read this because the Chicago Tribune has 
editorialized in favor of the notion that anthropogenic gases are 
responsible for global warming. I will read this:

       Democratic leaders need to slow down. This proposed 
     legislation would affect every American individual and 
     company for generations. There's a huge amount of money at 
     stake: $845 billion for the federal government in the first 
     10 years. Untold thousands of jobs created--or lost. This 
     requires careful study, not a Springfield-style here's-the-
     bill-let's-vote rush job.

  Then:

       The bill's sponsors are still trying to resolve questions 
     over whether and how to impose sanctions on countries that do 
     not limit emissions. That's crucial.

  That is exactly what we have been saying. Even the Chicago Tribune 
agrees with that.

       That's crucial. Those foreign countries would enjoy a cost 
     advantage in manufacturing if their industries were free to 
     pollute, while American industries picked up the tab for 
     controlling emissions. The Democrats need to delay the vote. 
     Otherwise, the House Members should vote no.

  That came out today in the Chicago Tribune. Even the Chicago Tribune 
says there should not be a vote, but there is going to be a vote. I 
can't imagine that Speaker Pelosi would bring this up for a vote unless 
she had the votes.
  What is the motivation for this, knowing full well it will not pass 
the Senate? I mentioned Copenhagen a moment ago--the big meeting of the 
United Nations, all these people saying America should pass these tax 
increases. They have to take something up there that will make it look 
as though America is going to be taking some kind of leadership role. 
They are not going to do it. If they take the bill passed out of the 
House, I expect one will be passed out of the Senate committee--because 
that committee will pass about anything--they will take that to 
Copenhagen. Everyone will rejoice up there and come back only to find 
out we are not going to join in.
  I am sure there is going to be some type of a treaty that is given to 
the Senate to ratify. We will all have to remember what happened in 
1997. We voted 95 to 0 against ratifying any treaty that is either 
harmful to us economically or is not going to impose the same hardship 
and taxes on developing countries such as China as it does on the 
United States.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). The clerk will call 
the roll.

[[Page 16215]]

  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________