[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10819-10827]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, TO BE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 
                                SERVICES

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Kathleen Sebelius, of 
Kansas, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 8 hours of debate equally divided and controlled between the 
leaders or their designees.
  The Senator from Montana is recognized
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senate confirmed the first member of 
President Obama's Cabinet more than 3 months ago. Today, we are here to 
finish the job.
  It has taken some time to get here. But now we have a great nominee 
to be Secretary of Health and Human Services.
  Today, we will vote to confirm the nomination of Governor Kathleen 
Sebelius to be Secretary of HHS. She is the right person for the job.
  Governor Sebelius comes to us with a long list of qualifications. She 
is a true public servant. For more than 6 years, she has served as 
Governor of Kansas. For 8 years, she served as the Kansas Insurance 
Commissioner. And for 8 years before that, she served in the Kansas 
State Legislature.
  Governor Sebelius has devoted a career to serving the public. She 
understands the legislative process. She understands the administrative 
process. And she has experience working with the private sector, too. 
Governor Sebelius has earned the respect of Republicans and Democrats 
alike.
  Governor Sebelius knows a lot about health care. She is committed to 
protecting people and getting them the health care that they need. As 
Governor, she worked hard to make sure that Kansans--especially kids--
had access to quality health insurance that they could afford. And as 
Insurance Commissioner, Governor Sebelius blocked a merger that would 
have made insurance unaffordable.
  In addition to protecting consumers, Governor Sebelius also 
recognizes the need to bring businesses together to make our health 
care system work.
  As Governor, she worked hard to make health care costs more 
manageable for businesses. And she worked to get more small businesses 
to offer health insurance coverage. Governor Sebelius doubled the small 
business tax credit.
  Governor Sebelius' record shows that she approaches problems from all 
sides. She is prepared to try creative solutions. She is forward-
thinking. She is willing to work with everyone. And she is not afraid 
to lead--even when faced with difficult choices and resistance to 
change. That is just the kind of leadership that we need in the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
  Governor Sebelius has proven that she is willing to work hard and it 
is a good thing because we have a lot of work to do.
  Our health care system is broken. We spend more than any other 
country on health care--more than $2.4 trillion annually--and we don't 
even cover all Americans.
  Forty-six million Americans lack health insurance, and another 25 
million Americans are underinsured--they have some coverage but not 
enough to keep their medical bills manageable. That is why medical debt 
contributes to half of all bankruptcies--affecting about 2 million 
people a year.
  American families are struggling to keep up with the high costs of 
health care. And American businesses are straining to absorb these 
rising costs while trying to stay competitive at home and abroad.
  The path that we are on is not sustainable. We must inform our health 
care system and we must do it now. Failure to address problems in the 
health care system will undermine our efforts to restore the economy.
  We need a health care system that meets all of our needs. A high-
performing health care system would guarantee all Americans affordable, 
quality coverage no matter their age, health status, or medical 
history.
  Health care reform will help to stabilize our economy and it will 
make sure that we are prepared to handle our long-term fiscal 
challenges.
  Congress has made a good start toward reform. But there is still a 
long way to go.
  Last year, we in the Finance Committee started the process by holding 
ten different health reform hearings. We learned about the problems in 
our current system and started to develop solutions.
  In June, along with my colleague Chuck Grassley, I hosted a day-long 
health care summit for the Finance Committee at the Library of 
Congress.
  We engaged our colleagues in the process early on. In November, I 
released a white paper, ``A Call to Action,'' to outline my vision for 
health care reform. Since then, I have been working closely with 
Senator Grassley and the Senators on the Finance Committee. I have been 
working with other Senators as well, especially Senator Kennedy and the 
HELP Committee, to come up with meaningful, comprehensive health reform 
legislation we could pass this year.
  Last week, the Finance Committee held the first of three roundtables. 
We discussed delivery system reform. Tomorrow we are walking through 
some policy options. In the coming weeks, we will have two more 
roundtables and work through other policy options in other areas.
  Senators will weigh the options. They will contribute to the process. 
By June, we will be ready for a Finance Committee markup. We are 
working together to make good progress, but Congress cannot do this 
alone. Congress needs a strong partner at HHS to pass comprehensive 
health reform.
  We are developing a framework that will change how health care is 
delivered. But we need a first-class Secretary and team at HHS to help 
get reform off the ground and to make it work. I look forward to 
working with Governor Sebelius to make sure our bill can be 
implemented. I wish to make sure we send the Secretary a product that 
sets the rules of the game. We wish to make sure we also give the 
Department and agencies the flexibility they will need to play their 
part effectively.
  It will be a long and iterative process, with a lot of back and 
forth. I am

[[Page 10820]]

pleased we will be able to get started quite soon.
  Governor Sebelius is the right person for the job. She has political 
experience, determination, and a bipartisan work ethic to get the job 
done. She has been an insurance commissioner, and she knows the nuts 
and bolts of the health care system. She has been a Governor, so she 
knows how to work with Democrats and with the Republicans; that is her 
inclination anyway.
  I have no doubt Governor Sebelius will continue to show her 
commitment to public service as Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
and the American people will benefit from her service. Let us finish 
the job in confirming President Obama's Cabinet. Let's place a fine 
public servant in office, and let's confirm Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to 
be Secretary of HHS.
  Mr. President, I wish to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Virginia, Mr. Warner, for him to speak when he can get recognition. 
Pending that recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Baucus.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of 
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mr. 
President, let me say at the outset how grateful all our Senate 
colleagues are for your leadership on the terribly important issue of 
health care reform.
  As we think about economic recovery, I think most Members of the 
Senate realize there will not be true comprehensive economic recovery 
in this country unless we can also take on the massive challenge of 
reforming our health care system. The current costs of our health care 
system, $2.4 trillion and rising, are costs that are not sustainable 
over the long term.
  I applaud the President's activities in this effort and his efforts 
to try to bring about the kind of bipartisan consensus on health care 
reform the Nation so desperately needs. That is why I think it is so 
important that later today the Senate act rapidly in the confirmation 
of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.
  I have had the opportunity to get to know Governor Sebelius during my 
tenure as Governor of Virginia. I have worked closely with her on a 
range of issues, particularly issues revolving around Medicaid reform. 
There is no issue that confronts States across the country more than 
the rising cost of Medicaid.
  As we take on health care reform at the Federal level, reform of 
Medicaid is a critical component, and Governor Sebelius has a long 
record of working with other Governors all across the country, from 
both parties, in this important area.
  As the Presiding Officer laid out, she brings a unique set of skills 
to the challenge: Former State legislator, former State insurance 
commissioner, and now a two-term Governor of Kansas. As we strive in 
this body to try to reach bipartisan consensus on this terribly 
important issue, no one brings a better record of working across the 
aisle to reach that bipartisan consensus than Governor Sebelius.
  Governor Sebelius has a legislature that is overwhelmingly of the 
opposite party, but her overwhelming reelection and her ability to show 
tangible efforts in the area of health care reform in Kansas gives her 
the appropriate background to take on this challenge in the national 
debate.
  For example, Governor Sebelius worked with her legislature and her 
small business community to significantly increase tax benefits to 
small business for healthcare; employees in this area of our economy 
are oftentimes left behind. Governor Sebelius recently worked with her 
legislature as well on a dramatic expansion of the SCHIP program, a 
legislative initiative that was actually introduced by the Republican 
legislative leadership. Again, she worked in concert with the opposite 
party.
  As we move forward on the issue of health care reform, which I know 
the Presiding Officer will take the leadership on in the Senate, we 
need, and President Obama needs, someone who has a long-term record of 
building bridges between parties.
  Health care reform is too important not to have this kind of 
consensus-building activity. Governor Sebelius has the background. 
Governor Sebelius has the track record in health care. I can speak, 
personally, that she has the temperament to work to try to bring both 
sides together.
  I would also add, I think most of us in these last few days have not 
been able to pick up a newspaper or talk to our constituents back home 
without hearing about growing concern about the possibility of a swine 
flu pandemic.
  This challenge has already paralyzed the country of Mexico and is one 
that we all are following very closely, particularly the possible rise 
of cases in the United States. This challenge, potentially confronts 
our Nation in a very dramatic way.
  It is essential for the health of the Nation that President Obama has 
in place, and the Nation has in place, a strong Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to make sure our Federal efforts on this potential 
pandemic are ably coordinated--one more reason why it is critical this 
body moves quickly to confirm the nomination of Governor Sebelius. I 
know we will act on this later today.
  But I believe, from a personal standpoint, Kathleen Sebelius will be 
a great addition to President Obama and to his Cabinet and will be a 
great partner to you, Mr. President, and our colleagues in making sure 
we bring about health care reform quickly, rapidly, and properly this 
year.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and ask that the time of the quorum 
call be charged equally against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. 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. COBURN. Mr. President, over the past 8 weeks, there has been a 
Senator in here who has struggled with the birth of twin granddaughters 
born at 30 weeks, to a first-time mom, his son's wife, and went through 
a struggle that was near death multiple times.
  But yet today, I am pleased to announce that those two baby girls are 
at home with their parents, thriving, thriving now, life held in the 
balance, brought out of that balance by modern medicine. Now they will 
be successful, contributing citizens, with potential that will be 
manifested in millions and millions of ways that we can all look 
forward to and accept as a natural response to our procreative 
abilities.
  Why do I bring that up? There was not anybody in this room, and 
probably anybody listening, who did not smile when we talked about the 
potential of two new young children, two new young girls who are going 
to make an impact, maybe just locally, maybe just in their family, 
maybe nationally. But the fact is we have joy when we see that kind of 
outcome.
  The reason I tell that story is because it fits who we are as human 
beings. It fits with our idea of the pursuit of life, of liberty, and 
of happiness. That right is guaranteed to us under the Constitution.
  Kathleen Sebelius is, undoubtedly, a public servant to be honored for 
her years of commitment in the roles she has held. But I believe she 
has a drastic and fatal character flaw and it is this: She still 
believes that if a woman came with those twins at 30 weeks, to a doctor 
in Kansas, and she wanted to abort them, even though they are viable, 
that would be fine.
  Now we are about to put someone in charge of Health and Human 
Services of this Nation who has this vital flaw of not recognizing the 
value of these two young children's lives. What does it say about where 
we are going to go? What does it say about the judgment

[[Page 10821]]

process under which we applaud her service but do not recognize this 
one critical flaw that says: Individuals can decide what individuals 
have life.
  We do that collectively under the law. But we do not do it 
collectively and discriminately on the basis of making decisions that 
someone ought not to have life at the very beginning.
  I believe that is a disqualifier. I believe as we embrace more and 
more people into leadership roles in our Government who walk away from 
this very basic characteristic of human existence, this very basic 
necessity that recognizes the value--we are not talking about a first-
trimester abortion, we are talking about snuffing life from viable 
children.
  I am also unsettled as to her beliefs under the conscience protection 
for health care providers. If, in fact, you think it is OK to take a 
36-week child in the womb who is an inconvenience for someone and that 
we, as a society, can't handle that, our choice is to snuff it out, how 
far does it go before we require the provider community to snuff it 
out? There were no assurances given in her testimony that that will not 
happen. We have already seen the Obama administration work to look at 
reversing the guidelines from the last administration clarifying 
particularly what the providers' roles are. It says a lot about where 
we are as a society, about our misplaced values.
  The other problem I have--it is one I have never voiced before from 
this Chamber--is the idea that we as politicians embrace somebody for a 
position because they are a politician, because they have spent years 
being a career politician, and that that qualifies them, the Governor 
of a very small State population-wise, to handle and lead on all these 
areas of health care. It does not recognize the complexities of the 
management organization at HHS, the difficulties they have in terms of 
carrying out their charges. It recognizes past performance in a 
political arena and equates that as capability in a management arena. 
If we continue to measure political success and confuse it with the 
ability to have management success, we will continue repeating the same 
mistakes in both Republican and Democratic administrations.
  My largest worry is not in the short term, it is in the long term. 
What our country lacks today, what it yearns for today, what it 
deserves today is courageous, moral leadership, not political 
leadership. It is OK to have a debate about the controversies society 
faces. It is not OK for us to run because we are going to get hit by 
the press because we take a position that is different from that that 
is politically correct but is based on moral certitude that all life 
has value. Yet we run from the debate, the true Lincoln-Douglas type 
debates that held open the soul of America, so we can decide not on the 
basis of opinion but on the basis of historical fact. The basis of 
historical fact is this: When societies quit valuing life, societies 
fail to flourish.
  We have a nominee who, for whatever reason, vetoes a bill that says: 
If you are a doctor, you ought to explain yourself if you are going to 
take the life of a 26-week infant in utero. You should have to get a 
second opinion. You ought to demonstrate that you are doing what is in 
the best interest of the mother and child.
  It is hard to demonstrate a best interest for a child when you turn 
it around in the womb, deliver it two-thirds of the way out, and then 
destroy it. That is a debate we ought to have. It doesn't just apply to 
the issue of abortion and unwanted pregnancy; it is a barometer of the 
soul of the Nation. We offer no excuse that can be recognized as 
valuable for the betterment of society when we don't have that 
fundamental debate.
  There is a flaw, a critical defect in this nominee. If you are going 
to be charged with the health and services that relate to health and 
humans in this society, that you are confused on this issue about 
transparency and accountability of taking the life of an unborn child 
is a nonstarter with me, not because I dislike Kathleen Sebelius. She 
is a wonderful lady. But she lacks part of the moral clarity that is 
required to lead this Nation in the future and to correct where we are 
off course on so many issues. Her ability from the start, the first day 
she is sworn in, will be compromised by her position on this issue. The 
confidence she will require of the Members of Congress who relate to 
this foundational principle of liberty as an inalienable right and life 
as an inalienable right will undermine her from the start.
  I have no doubt she will be approved today. I mark it as another 
signpost on the way to oblivion as a nation when we empower those who 
don't recognize the value of life in positions that should be guarding 
that very precept and foundational principle of the Republic. My hope 
is that the American people, who by 88 percent think this is an 
atrocious procedure and should never be done, no matter what parameters 
are put on it, will wake up and say: What are we doing? What are we 
doing?
  For those reasons, and those reasons alone, I will vote against the 
nomination of Kathleen Sebelius.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that time 
under the quorum call be divided equally.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. 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.


                               The Budget

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we are in the midst of a nomination 
discussion, and that takes place in the midst of a health care 
discussion. Last night, the House and Senate conferees struck an 
agreement on the budget resolution that will clear the way for final 
votes later this week, but it includes reconciliation instructions for 
health care and student loan forms which are quite controversial. We 
are told the reconciliation would not be used until after October 15, 
and some might find that reassuring. I am not one of those who does 
because if we are going to deal with the health care problem, we must 
recognize that it is enormously complex.
  Health care spending is projected to be 17.6 percent of our GDP, 
which is nearly one-fifth of our economy, and a bill dealing with that 
is going to have to be scored by the CBO before any committee can 
report it out. At the moment, there is only one bill with respect to 
health care that has received a CBO score. It is the bill offered by 
Senator Wyden and myself, along with 12 cosponsors, known as the 
Healthy Americans Act. It has been scored by the CBO as revenue-neutral 
during its first 2 years and then saving money for the Federal 
Government thereafter. With 12 cosponsors--a mixture of both 
Republicans and Democrats--it would seem to me that this would be the 
bill from which we begin our discussions in a truly bipartisan manner, 
and it would not require the straitjacket of reconciliation to make it 
possible for the majority to move ahead. We have a score. We have a 
framework. We have language. It is not perfect. Even some of the 
cosponsors have indicated that in its present form they might vote 
against it, but at least it is a place to begin. It is a place to start 
the conversation. We do not need the kind of enforcement of majority 
rights that reconciliation would give us.
  To start over again fresh with a proposal from the administration 
would mean that a bill has to be drafted--something we have already 
done; the bill would have to be referred to CBO--something we have 
already done; CBO would have to go through the difficulties of scoring 
it--an enormous challenge. I don't believe they would be able to get 
all that done in a timely fashion. Then we would be told on the floor: 
Well, we have run out of time. We have to deal with health care so we 
are going to move to reconciliation as the way to jam the thing through 
in a hurry. Let's understand right here in the beginning that that kind 
of activity is not required.

[[Page 10822]]

  Let's turn to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and her role with respect to the 
health care debate. My normal pattern has always been to say that the 
President has the right to whomever he wants, and I have not voted 
against Presidential nominees unless I felt they were completely 
inappropriate or incapable of carrying out their duties.
  I have respect for Governor Sebelius. I think she is a valuable and 
potentially productive appointment for the President, but I have 
reluctantly come to the conclusion that she is the wrong appointee for 
this particular assignment. She has backed a partisan process for 
health care reform. She refuses to support patient safeguards and 
comparative effectiveness research, and, perhaps most strongly for me, 
she has already endorsed a Government-run public health care plan, 
something I would have to vote against. I think most of my colleagues--
if not all of my colleagues on the Republican side--would vote against 
it, not for partisan reasons but for the flat fact that it doesn't 
work. We have seen examples of that throughout the world, and we 
understand it doesn't work.
  I have constituents who have relatives and friends in Canada who come 
to me and say: Based on our experience with our relatives and friends 
in Canada, we absolutely do not want a Canadian system. This is just an 
anecdote, but it is illustrative of the kind of thing that goes on in 
the Canadian system where they ration care by delay. They don't ration 
it by regulation, they simply ration it by delaying the ability of 
people to get access. As has been reported to me, if you can 
demonstrate as you go into the Canadian system that there is some 
problem related to heart disease, you get moved to the head of the 
line. So some of my constituents have told me that their relatives in 
Canada have discovered that if they go to see a doctor with a cold or 
with the flu or with some other problem, they always say, ``And this 
threatens my potential for heart disease'' in an effort to get ahead of 
the line and move forward in the Canadian system that would otherwise 
delay their access to a doctor. If you haven't learned that trick, you 
wait for 3 months, 6 months, whatever. This is the kind of Government-
run public health plan Governor Sebelius has indicated that she would 
support.
  There is also the troubling problem that she failed to disclose 
relevant information to the Finance Committee with respect to her 
taxes. We have had that happen with other Cabinet nominations, and it 
has become something of a cause celebre with many Americans who are 
following this. It has become the butt of jokes on the late-night talk 
shows. It is unfortunate that she has fallen a victim to that as well.
  She has also been less than forthcoming with respect to her 
relationships with some of her political donors. She had a political 
relationship with a doctor who was involved in partial-birth abortions 
and was obviously anxious to see to it that he had access to public 
officials who would support him in that. That is an issue which carries 
a great deal of influence with my constituents, and it is another one 
that troubles me.
  So while I think Governor Sebelius might be well qualified for some 
other position, I do not intend to support her for this position. As we 
deal with health care problems, the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services is a key player in helping us solve this problem, and I 
believe she carries a little bit too much baggage for this particular 
assignment.
  So once again we have the framework for a bipartisan solution. It can 
be the beginning point of the discussion. A bill has been written 
around it, and it has been scored by the CBO. Why don't we start with 
that instead of threatening reconciliation for a whole new program that 
might start with the administration?
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from New York 
wishes to be recognized for 5 minutes, so I ask unanimous consent that 
I be recognized for 10 minutes following the Senator from New York.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as 
in morning business for 5 minutes and that Senator Gregg be recognized 
following my remarks.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Sojourner Truth

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, today is a very special day for me. 
As a woman and a New Yorker, it thrills me that today we are honoring 
one of the earliest and greatest figures in the history of women's 
rights and civil rights: Sojourner Truth. We are placing a statue of 
Sojourner Truth in Statuary Hall today--the first African-American 
woman to have a statue in the Capitol. She will be the 12th woman 
depicted in works of sculpture among the 92 sculptures of our male 
leaders. From this day forward, Sojourner Truth's groundbreaking work 
advancing the basic rights of women will be given its due prominence 
beside so many other great Americans in the seat of our democracy.
  Sojourner Truth was born Isabella Baumfree as a slave in 1797 who 
never learned to read or write, yet became an all-important messenger 
for truth and equality. Although beaten and branded, she responded with 
dignity and faith rather than hatred and violence. Her views were 
shaped not only by her personal hardships--enslavement, daily beatings, 
grueling work, and seeing her 13 children kidnapped and sold away--but 
also from an innate understanding that equality is an inalienable 
American right and should not be ascribed based on gender or color.
  Once freed from bondage in 1817, she changed her name to Sojourner 
Truth, telling her friends that the spirit had called her to speak the 
truth for justice. She then traveled our Nation speaking honest words 
about the shortcomings of the American dream--the stain that slavery 
and injustice imposed on America's life and laws and noting for all to 
see where the reality failed to reflect the noble tenets of our 
Founding Fathers. She dedicated her life, indeed, she risked her 
freedom, to oppose the trappings of injustice and prejudice.
  Despite being born into slavery, stripped of any legal standing, 
protection, or property, and denied any access to education, Sojourner 
Truth understood that freedom and equality are fundamental rights. 
Embracing our greatest traditions and arguing with simple passion that 
neither gender nor color could overpower justice, she demonstrated a 
courage and a conviction that compels us to act today, almost 125 years 
after her death.
  Sojourner Truth raised her voice without a chorus of women behind 
her. Most abolitionists questioned her determination to link women's 
rights with the abolition of slavery. She rejected their concerns, 
asking them the direct question they couldn't avoid: ``And ain't I a 
woman?'' With those few words, she refused to parse justice. With those 
few words, she forced audiences past and present to recognize that 
human dignity and respect are part and parcel of who we are as 
Americans--male or female, African-American or Caucasian, educated or 
not. Sojourner Truth represents the courage that the American ideal 
imparts and calls all of us to action.
  As we honor this bold, daring New Yorker today, I am also proud that 
New York has time and time again helped to foster those who have chosen 
to carry on her fight. Today, I can think of at least two others 
committed to justice who, though from very different backgrounds, 
continually risk themselves for justice and human rights.
  The battles fought by Sojourner Truth were not left only as lessons 
of history, but they stood as a beacon of hope for the next generation 
to carry the torch one mile further. One of the next in our history to 
carry on the cause for equal justice was Eleanor Roosevelt.
  Eleanor Roosevelt could have been content with a life defined by 
privilege

[[Page 10823]]

and limited education. But like Sojourner Truth, she travelled the 
nation and indeed the world to fight for equality and human rights. 
Like Sojourner Truth, Eleanor Roosevelt raised her voice to attack 
segregation and gender bias. Like Sojourner Truth, she risked her life 
to practice what she preached and to hold us accountable when we wanted 
to turn our back on justice and American ideals. Like Sojourner Truth, 
Eleanor Roosevelt told us that we ``must hazard all we have'' to make 
the American dream real. She told us that employment, housing, 
education, health care policies that favored the privileged undermined 
us all, that women had a critical role and responsibility, and 
encouraged women to run for office, to organize, to get out the vote, 
and to reach across party, gender, and racial lines to get the work 
done.
  Eleanor Roosevelt took this same determination with her to the United 
Nations where, like Sojourner Truth, she used strength and grace to 
advance the recognition of equal rights. Embracing her responsibility 
as the only woman on the American delegation and one of the few women 
delegates to the General Assembly, she played an instrumental role in 
drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, especially 
the concept as stated in article 1, that ``all human beings are born 
free and equal.''
  Just as Sojourner Truth had done in a century before and Eleanor 
Roosevelt had done decades earlier, the cause was enlisted by another 
great woman. Recognizing that equality had not yet been achieved, 
Hillary Clinton stood and fought for the rights of women. As first 
lady, Hillary Clinton understood the political costs of speaking out 
forthrightly for women's rights and human rights. Yet like Sojourner 
Truth and Eleanor Roosevelt before her, she would not ignore the rights 
and needs of women despite the possible diplomatic repercussions.
  She travelled to China in 1995 and stood before the world to oppose 
injustice and to proclaim that ``once and for all, women's rights are 
human rights and human rights are women's rights.''
  How Sojourner Truth must have relished that moment. From Akron, OH, 
Beijing, China--from newspapers to the Internet and C-SPAN--their 
message spanned the globe.
  Hillary Clinton played an instrumental role in the dedication we 
celebrate today. Hillary Clinton and Sheila Jackson-Lee were inspired 
by the efforts of Dr. C. Delores Tucker, former chair of the National 
Congress of Black Women, to formally recognize Sojourner Truth in the 
U.S. Capitol. They felt that the unfinished portion of the monument to 
suffragists was surely intended to hold the image of Sojourner Truth. 
After long consideration, it was determined to carve a unique place for 
Sojourner Truth--appropriately so as the first statue in Emancipation 
Hall.
  And now it stands erect in the Capitol Visitors Center for all to 
see. As the Senator from their home state, I am so grateful to be here 
today to honor Sojourner Truth. Her courage and her vision are timeless 
and bold and brave--Her statue will be a constant reminder that our 
rights must never be take for granted and that with these rights come 
the responsibility to enforce them.
  To honor Sojourner Truth and all women before us, we continue that 
struggle as there is still much to do. Today the fight is for equal pay 
and recognition in the workplace. Even in 2009, for every dollar a man 
earns, a woman makes just 78 cents. And the disparity is even worse for 
women of color, with Latino women earning only 53 cents and African-
American women earning 62 cents on the dollar. Working women and their 
families stand to lose $250,000 over the course of their career because 
of pay inequity. It is unacceptable, and it needs to change. The 
Paycheck Fairness Act introduced by then-Senator Hillary Clinton and 
Rep. Rosa DeLauro is an important step towards that goal. I proudly 
join in helping carry Secretary Clinton's work towards equality here in 
the Senate.
  These steps towards equality for all are our duty. As Eleanor 
Roosevelt often said, ``we are all on trial to show what democracy 
means.'' We have made such important strides, but we still have a long 
way to go.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from New 
Hampshire is recognized.


                               The Budget

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the soon to be 
pending issue of the budget. We are told that the Democratic membership 
of the House and Senate reached agreement last night on the budget 
proposal. They didn't seek our advice or counsel on it. It is pretty 
much the outline of the budget as requested by the President.
  There has been a lot of discussion about whether the President 
inherited a terrible situation. I think he did, from a fiscal 
standpoint. He has had difficult issues to confront relative to 
stabilizing our financial industry and trying to get the economy going 
and addressing the issues which most Americans are concerned about, 
which is their jobs, the value of their homes, the ability to pay their 
bills, and to send their kids to college.
  What the President inherited is important, but what he is bequeathing 
to the next generation is even more important. This budget he proposed 
is an outline of where he sees the Government going and where he sees 
this Nation going.
  Regrettably, the budget as proposed by the President, which has been 
worked on here by the Senate Democrats and the House Democrats, puts 
forward a picture that basically almost guarantees our children will be 
inheriting a nation with a government that is nonsustainable. The 
President's budget proposed a trillion dollars of deficit, on average, 
for the next 10 years. That is a number that is hard to comprehend. But 
to try to put it into perspective, the effect of that number is that 
the debt of the United States will double in 5 years and triple in 10 
years. If you want to put it in another perspective, take all the debt 
created since the founding of our Nation, from George Washington 
through George W. Bush--all that debt that has been added to the backs 
of the Nation's people--and President Obama's budget doubles that debt 
in 4 years, which is a staggering event.
  The implications are pretty dramatic for the next generation. The 
public debt of the United States will go to 80 percent of GDP fairly 
quickly under this proposal. The historic public debt of this country 
has been 40 percent of GDP. That means the amount of debt out there in 
relation to the size of the economy will have doubled.
  That has dramatic ramifications. For example, at that level of public 
debt through the economic activity in our country, we as a nation would 
not be allowed to enter the European Union because we wouldn't meet 
their standard for fiscal responsibility. Countries such as Latvia, 
Lithuania, and Ukraine, which all have very serious issues, might 
qualify for the European Union, but we would not because of the fact 
that our debt was so high as a percentage of our economy. It means our 
people, who have to pay that debt, will have to pay an inordinate 
amount of taxes in one of two ways to pay that debt off. Either they 
will have to pay more taxes because the Federal Government will inflate 
the money supply in order to pay off this debt, which is the worst tax 
there is--inflation--because it takes away the savings of all of the 
American people or you will have to significantly increase taxes on 
every American, not just the high-income Americans, as was represented 
by this President that he wants to do, and the Democratic Congress and 
Senate said they want to do; all taxes will have to go up 
astronomically in order to pay for the debt.
  What is driving this massive expansion of debt our children and we 
are going to have to pay as a result of this budget that is proposed by 
the President? Well, it is spending. Very simply, it is spending. The 
President proposed, and the Democratic Congress will bring forward, a 
budget that significantly increases the spending of the Federal 
Government. Historically, the spending of the Government has been about 
20 percent of the GDP. Under this budget, it goes to 22 percent, 23 
percent, 24 percent, 25 percent--it gets up to levels that have never 
been seen, except during the time of World War II. They are

[[Page 10824]]

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

[[Page 10825]]

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

[[Page 10826]]

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

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

  That is disgusting, and anyone who tries to justify it should be 
ashamed. Abortion and the callous disregard for human life in this 
country is a real tragedy. George Tiller's work greatly concerns me. 
Governor Sebelius's ties to George Tiller greatly concern me. The late-
term abortion doctor has donated tens of thousands of dollars to 
Governor Sebelius, and she has even honored him at the Governor's 
mansion in Kansas.
  Governor Sebelius hasn't always been upfront about their relationship 
as well. In answering questions before the Finance Committee, Governor 
Sebelius originally said that Tiller had donated about $12,000 to her. 
A few days later, she had to go back to revise that amount because 
somewhere an additional $23,000 in donations from the abortion doctor 
had been overlooked and not accounted for. While she said this was an 
inadvertent omission, it seems to me that you would remember that sum 
of money from one of your most controversial donors.
  I certainly realize that President Obama would not nominate someone 
to be Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services who is 
pro life. However, Governor Sebelius's record on right-to-life issues 
along with her ties to the late-term abortion Dr. Tiller cannot be 
overlooked. The leader of the Department of Health and Human Services 
should be balanced and reasonable. There is nothing in Governor 
Sebelius's record that makes me think she is either when it comes to 
protecting the life of the unborn.
  The second major reason I am opposing this nomination is that I don't 
believe Governor Sebelius has the experience to be Secretary of the 
Department of Health and Human Services. HHS is an enormous 
bureaucracy, responsible for everything from the Medicare Program to 
the National Institutes of Health, to the Food and Drug Administration. 
The Department has 11 operating divisions, over 64,000 employees, and a 
budget of $707 billion. According to HHS's Web site, it allocates more 
grant dollars than all of the other agencies combined. This is a 
tremendous responsibility, and the Department needs someone with hands-
on experience.
  As Governor of Kansas, she appointed someone to run their health and 
human services department and was not directly responsible for the day-
to-day operation. As Congress considers major health care reform 
legislation this year, we need someone with extensive experience in 
setting health policy for the entire country.
  I fundamentally disagree with Governor Sebelius on life issues, and I 
do not believe she has the experience to lead such a large department. 
I will be voting no on her nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise in support of the 
nomination of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to be Secretary of HHS. I do so 
enthusiastically. I do so as a personal friend of Kathleen's. I do so 
as a fellow public

[[Page 10827]]

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

                          ____________________