starttime 1257431449.54386
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER.
THE CHAPLAIN, DR. BARRY BLACK,
WILL LEAD THE SENATE IN PRAYER.
THE CHAPLAIN:
GOD OF WONDER BEYOND ALL
MAJESTY, YOU ARE WORTHY OF OUR
PRAISE.
THANK YOU FOR THE MARVEL OF
CREATION THAT SURROUNDS US AND
FOR YOUR CREATIVE PRESENCE THAT
EMPOWERS US.
LET YOUR PRESENCE UNSETTLE AND
INSPIRE US, AS WE SEEK TO LIVE
LIVES OF PRAISE AND
THANKSGIVING.
LORD, UNSETTLE US WHEN OUR
DREAMS COME
TRUE BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO SMALL,
AS YOU INSPIRE US TO DARE MORE
BOLDLY AND ATTEMPT TO ACCOMPLISH
GREAT THINGS IN YOUR NAME.
TODAY, SHOW YOUR GLORY, YOUR
JUSTICE, AND YOUR PEACE THROUGH
THE WORK OF OUR LAWMAKERS.
INSPIRE THEIR HEARTS TO THIRST
FOR YOUR WISDOM, PREPARING THEM
TO NAVIGATE THROUGH LIFE'S
INEVITABLE CHALLENGES AND
SETBACKS.
RESTORE IN THEM THE WHOLENESS
THAT COMES FROM SEEKING YOUR
GLORY IN EVERYTHING THEY THINK,
SAY, AND DO.
WE PRAY IN YOUR SACRED NAME.
AMEN.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: PLEASE
JOIN ME IN RECITING THE PLEDGE
OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO
THE FLAG OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND TO THE REPUBLIC
FOR WHICH IT STANDS,
ONE NATION UNDER GOD,
INDIVISIBLE,
WITH LIBERTY AND
JUSTICE FOR ALL.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
CLERK WILL READ A COMMUNICATION
TO THE SENATE.
THE CLERK: WASHINGTON D.C.,
NOVEMBER 5, 2009.
TO THE SENATE:
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 1,
PARAGRAPH 3, OF E STANDING
RULES OF THE SENATE, I HEREBY
APPOINT
THE HONORABLE MARK PRYOR,
A SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE CHAIR.
SIGNED: ROBERT C. BYRD, PRESIDENT
PRO TEMPORE.
MR. REID: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE MAJORITY LEADER.
MR. REID: FOLLOWING LEADER
REMARKS THE SENATE WILL PROCEED
TPO A PERIOD OF MORNING
BUSINESS -- TO A PERIOD OF
MORNING BUSINESS
DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME
SENATORS WILL BE ALLOWED TO
SPEAK FOR UP TO TEN MINUTES EACH.
THE MAJORITY WILL CONTROL THE
FIRST HOUR.
THE REPUBLICANS WILL CONTROL THE
SECOND HOUR.
FOLLOWING MORNING BUSINESS,
THERE WILL BE 40 MINUTES OF
DEBATE WITH RESPECT TO H.R.
2847, THE
COMMERCE-JUSTICE-SCIENCE APPROPRIATIONS BILL.
UPON THE USE OR YIELDING BACK OF
THAT TIME, THE SENATE WILL
PROCEED TO A CLOTURE VOTE ON THE
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT TO THE BILL.
A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS ARE
PENDING TO THE BILL.
IF CLOTURE IS INVOKED WE WILL
DISPOSE OF PENDING GERMANE
AMENDMENTS.
WE EXPECT TO REACH AGREEMENT
TODAY TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION
OF ANDRE DAVIS TO BE A CIRCUIT
JUDGE FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.
THAT NOMINATION, WE'RE TOLD,
WILL REQUIRE A ROLL CALL VOTE.
WE'LL BEGIN CONSIDERATION OF THE
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
APPROPRIATIONS MATTER WHICH IS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
UPON COMPLETION OF THE
COMMERCE-JUSTICE-SCIENCE BILL,
WE WILL GO TO MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.
SENATORS SHOULD EXPEC
VOTE
THERE WILL BE -- THAT WILL BE A
VOTE ON CLOTURE ON C.J.S., AND
ADDITIONAL VOTES ARE EXPECTED
MR. PRESIDENT, ONE THING THIS
BODY NEEDS IS MORE
BIPARTISANSHIP.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER HAS DONE A
WONDERFUL JOB REACHING OUT
DURING HIS TENURE AS SENATOR TO
OTHER SENATORS, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS.
LEGISLATION IS THE ART OF
COMPROMISE AND CENSUS BUILDING,
AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER
CERTAINLY HAS FILLED THAT ROLE
VERY WELL.
I WANT TO SPEND A FEW MINUTES
THIS MORNING TALKING ABOUT THIS
BECAUSE WE'VE HAD SOME REALLY DRAMATIC DEVELOPMENTS TAKE PLACE
IN THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS, AND
THAT'S THE RESULT OF TWO MEN WHO
ARE WORKING VERY, VERY HARD TO
COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT
WOULD BE
WE'RE WORKING SO HARD ON HEALTH
CARE REFORM; IT'S BEEN EXTREMELY
DIFFICULT TO ARRIVE AT THE POINT
WHERE WE ARE.
BUT WE'RE FURTHER NOW THAN WE'VE
EVER BEEN SINCE 1948 COMING UP
WI
THAT WILL MAKE HEALTH CARE M
AVAILABLE FOR ALL AMERICANS.
SWITCHING FROM HEALTH CARE TO
ENERGY AND THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE
WITH THE WARMING OF
I'VE KNOWN JOHN KERRY FOR A LONG TIME.
WE WERE BOTH LIEUTENANT
GOVERNORS.
I CAME TO THE CONGRESS -- WE
CAME TO THE CONGRESS THE SAME YEAR.
AS A RELATIVELY NEW SENATOR, I
WAS ON A SELECT COMMITTEE THAT
HE COCHAIRED DEALING WITH
PRISONERS OF WAR AND THOSE
MISSING IN ACTION, AND I NOTICED
AT THAT TIMEHAT A FINE LEADER
HE WAS, A FINE LEGISLATOR THAT
JOHN KERRY WAS.
IT WAS THE RESULT OF HIS GOOD
WORK AND OTHERS ON THAT
COMMITTEE, INCLUDING BOB SMITH
FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE, WE CAME UP
WITH, I THINK, AN OUTSTANDING
WORK PRODUCT IN THAT COMMITTEE.
JOHN KERRY, AS WE ALL KNOW,
BECAME THE DEMOCRATIC FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, CAME VERY CLOSE TO BEING
ELECTED PRESIDENT.
BUT HE PUT THAT ASIDE AND WENT
ON TO BECOME THE FINE SENATOR THAT HE IS.
HE'S FILLING THAT ROLE NOW AS
CHAIRMAN OF THE FOREIGN
RELATIONS COMMITTEE.
HE HAS WORKED SO HARD ON DOING
SOMETHING ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS
TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS MOST
IMPORTANT LEGISLATION.
AND
OUT TO REPUBLICANS -- I SAY
IN THE PLURAL, BUT WE'VE HAD ONE
BRAVE REPUBLICAN STEP FORWARD TO
WORK WITH HIM: LINDSEY GRAHAM.
I FIRST SAW LINDSEY GRAHAM IN
ACTION WHEN WE HAD THE
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT CLINTON.
HE WAS ONE OF THE IMPEACHMENT
OFFICERS FROM THE HOUSE, AND HE
WAS VERY GOOD.
I LEARNED AT THAT TIME WHAT AN
OUTSTANDING TRIAL LAWYER HE HAD
BEEN IN SOUTH CAROLINA.
I RECOGNIZED THAT FROM THE
PRESENTATION HE MADE HERE RIGHT
IN THE WELL OF THIS SENATE.
MR. PRESIDENT, AS WE LEARNED
WITH THE WORK WE JUST COMPLETED
DEALING WITH UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE, NET OPERATING LOSS,
FIRST-TIME HOME BUYER,
TAKES ONE PERSON TO IN EFFECT
BR
A BETTER DESCRIPTION, TO DEVELOP
BIPARTISANSHIP.
IN THAT INSTANCE IT WAS JOHNNY
ISAKSON FROM GEORGIA.
IN THIS INSTANCE ON THIS MOST
IMPORTANT ISSUE DEALING WITH
CLIMATE CHANGE, IT IS LINDSEY
GRAHAM FROM SOUTH CAROLINA.
HE IS BRAVELY STEPPING FORWARD.
WHAT KERRY AND GRAHAM HAVE DONE
IS REALLY QUITE REMARKABLE.
THEY'VE REACHED OUT TO THE COAL INTERESTS.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF COAL
SENATORS WHO SAID NO WAY WILL WE
EVER AGREE TO ANYTHING, AND
THEY'RE WORKING TOWAR HAVING
THEM AS PART OF THE AGREEMENT.
NUCLEA POWER, WHICH WHEN THIS
ALL STARTED, I THINK IT'S FAIR
TO SAY PEOPLE ON THIS SIDE OF
THE AISLE WANTED NO PART OF
THAT, OR AT LEAST MOST OF THE
PEOPLE ON THIS SAOEUFPLT NOW
IT'S GOING TO BE PART OF THE MIX
IN THE PRODUCTION OF OIL IN THIS
COUNTRY.
PEOPLE ARE SAYING YOU MEAN
YOU'VE GIVEN UP ON ALL THESE
GREAT THINGS WE BELIEVE?
LEGISLATION IS THE ART OF KPROE
PHAOEUGS.
WE NEED TO HAVE -- COMPROMISE.
WE NEED TO HAVE LEGISLATION THAT
IS BIPARTISAN.
AND I BELIEVE WHAT LINDSEY
GRAHAM AND JOHN KERRY HAVE DONE
WILL ALLOW TO US MOVE FORWARD ON
THIS LEGISLATION.
IT IS IMPORTANT WE DO THINGS ON
A BIPARTISAN BASIS.
I COMPLIMENT, I APPLAUD AND
RECOGNIZE THE GOOD WORK THESE
TWO MEN ARE DOING AND SETTING AN
EXAMPLE FOR THE REST OF US IN
MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS
LEGISLATION THAT WILL BE
DRAMATIC
COUNTRY, BUT FOR THE WORLD.
MR. McCONNELL: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
REPUBLICAN LEADER.
MR. McCONNELL: MR. PRESIDENT,
THE LAST TWO YEARS HAVEN'T BEEN
EASY ONES FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
MILLIONS HAVE LOST JOBS AND HOMES.
AND MANY HAVE HAD THE BITTER
EXPERIENCE OF WATCHING YEARS OF
SAVINGS DISAPPEAR.
UNEMPLOYMENT STANDS AT A 25-YEAR
HIGH, AND IN MANY STATES IT'S
WORSE THAN THAT.
JUST TO TAKE ONE EXAMPLE, IN
KENTUCKY, UNEMPLOYMENT ROSE IN
ALL 120 COUNTIES FROM JUNE 2008
TO JUNE 2009.
A LOT OF AMERICANS ARE HURTING, MR. PRESIDENT.
A LOT OF THEM HAVE BEEN
STRUGGLING FOR A LONG TIME.
AND DESPITE THE OCCASIONAL PIECE
OF GOOD
DOESN'T S
WHOLE LOT BETTER FOR MOST PEOPLE.
THIS IS THE SITUATION NOW AND
THIS WAS THE SITUATION WHEN THE
WHITE HOUSE ANNOUNCED ITS PLAN
TO UNDERTAKE HEALTH CARE REFORM.
THROUGHOUT THIS DEBATE, THE NEED
TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE
ECONOMY HAS NEVER BEEN FAR FROM
OUR MINDS.
INDEED, FROM THE VERY OUTSET OF
HAS RESTED ITS CASE FOR REFORM
ON THE NEED TO DO SOMETHING
ABOUT THE ECONOMY.
THE ECONOMY WAS IN BAD SHAPE,
THE ARGUMENT WENT,
HEALTH CARE WOULD MAKE IT BETTER.
ALL OF US AGREE THAT HEALTH CARE
COSTS ARE UNSUSTAINABLY HIGH,
AND ALLEVIATING T
THOSE COSTS ON AMERICAN FAMILIES
AND BUSINESSES IS SOMETHING WE
SHOULD WORK TOGETHER TO DO.
BUT SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY THE
ADMINISTRATION SIMPLY GOT OFF TRACK.
THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF REFORM
WAS OBSCURED.
AND NOW WE'RE HEARING FROM ONE
INDEPENDENT ANALYST
ANOTHER THAT THE BILL WHICH WAS
BURDENS WILL ACTUALLY MAKE THESE
BURDENS WORSE.
AND THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FINDING
IS THIS: A REFORM THAT WAS
MEANT TO
ACTUALLY DRIVE THEM UP.
AMERICANS ARE SCRATCHING THEIR
HEADS ABOUT ALL OF THIS, AND
RIGHTLY SO.
BUSINESS OWNERS CAN'T BELIEVE A
REFORM THAT WAS MEANT TO HELP
THEM SURVIVE WILL END UP COSTING
THEM MORE IN HIGHER TAXES.
SENIORS CAN'T BELIEVE A BILL
THAT WAS MEANT TO IMPROVE THEIR
CARE WILL LEAD TO NEARLY $250
BILLION IN CUTS IN MEDICARE.
AND FAMILIES CAN'T
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY
HIGHER HEALTH CARE PREMIUMS AND
TAXES AT A TIME WHEN SO MANY OF
THEM ARE ALREADY STRUGGLING TO
MAKE ENDS MEET.
HIER
CUTS TO MEDICARE.
THESE ARE THREE OF THE MAJOR
BLOWS THIS ADMINISTRATION WOULD
DEAL T
AND ANY ONE OF THEM ULD BE BAD
ENOUGH ON ITS OWN, BUT LET'S
JUST LOOK AT ONE OF THE
UNEXPECTED CONSEQUENCE OF THE
DEMOCRATIC HEALTH CARE PLAN FOR
A MOMENT.
LET'S LOOK AT THE TAX HIKES.
THE SENATE BILL WE'VE SEEN
TARGETS INDIVIDUALS AND
BUNESSES WITH A RAFT
TAXES, FEES AND PENALTIES.
IT IMPOSES A 40% TAX ON
HIGH-VALUE INSURANCE PLANS FOR
INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES.
IT IMPOSES BILLIONS IN FEES ON
HEALTH PLANS THAT WILL
INEVITABLY BE PASSED ALONG TO CONSUMERS.
IT IMPOSES FEES ON THE COSTS OF
MEDICAL DEVICES AND LIFESAVING
DRUGS, FEES THAT WOULD BE PAID
BY CONSUMERS.
MILLIONS
CHRONIC CONDITIONS AND FACING
EXTRAORDINARY MEDICAL EXPENSES
WILL BE FACED WITH EVEN HIGHER
OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS BECAUSE THE
BILL MAKES
DEDUCT THESE EXPENSES.
AND SMALL BUSINESSES WILL AS FEW
AS 50 EMPLOYEES -- AS FEW AS 50 EMPLOYEES -- WOULD BE REQUIRED
TO BUY INSURANCE FOR ALL WORKERS
WHETHER THEY COULD AFFORD IT OR
NOT AND PAY A SUBSTANTIAL TAX
FOR EACH OF THEM.
TAKEN TOGETHER, THE HEALTH CARE
PLAN WE'VE SEEN WOULD IMPOSE
ROUGHLY $250 BILLION IN NEW
TAXES, FEES AND PENALTIES AT A
TIME WHEN
STRUGGLING TO DIG THEMSELVES OUT
OF THIS RECESSION.
WHAT'S WORSE, AN INDEPENDENT
ANALYSIS BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE
ON TAXATION SUGGESTS THAT NEARLY
80% OF THE BURDEN -- 80% OF THIS
BURDEN -- WOULD FALL ON
MIDDLE-CLASS AMERICANS.
SO A REFORM THAT WAS MEANT TO
MAKE LIFE EASIER IS NOW EXPECTED
TO MAKE LIFE HARDER.
IF YOU HAVE INSURANCE, YOU GET
TAXED.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE INSURAN
GET TAXED.
IF YOU'RE A STRUGGLING BUSINESS
OWNER WHO CAN'T AFFORD INSURANCE
FOR YOUR EMPLOYEES, YOU GET TAXED.
IF YOU USE MEDICAL DEVICES, YOU
GET TAXED.
THIS IS NOT THE REFORM AMERICANS
WERE ASKING FOR, MR. PRESIDENT.
AND THAT'S PRECISELY WHY MORE
AMERICANS
CARE PLAN THAN SUPPORT IT.
THE ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T LISTEN
TO THE AMERICAN PELE WHEN HE
PUT THIS PLAN TOGET
WHEN IT CAN LISTEN NOW AND THE
MESSAGE IS -- IT'S GOING TO HEAR
IS THIS: PUT AWAY THE PLAN TO
RAISE PREMIUMS, RAISE TAXES AND
CUT MEDICARE.
GET BACK TO THE DRAWING
COME UP WITH A COMMONSENSE STEP
BY STEP SET OF REFORMS.
THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE WANT AND
THAT'S WHAT THEY SHOULD
MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE
FLOOR.
TH
PREVIOUS ORDER THE LEADERSHIP
TIME IS RESERVED.
UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THERE
WILL NOW BE A PERIOD MORNING
SENATORS PERMITTED TO SPEAK
THEREIN FOR UP TO 10 MINUTES
EACH WITH THE TIME EQUALLY
DIVIDED AND CONTROLLED BETWEEN
THE TWO LEADERS OR THEIR
DESIGNEES WITH THE MAJORITY
CONTROLLING THE FIRST HALF AND
THE REPUBLICANS CONTROLLING THE
FINAL HALF.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA.
MRS. HAGAN: MR. PRESIDENT, THE
U.S. SPENDS $2.3 TRILLION EACH
YEAR ON HEALTH CARE.
THE MOST PER CAPITA OF ALL
INDUSTRIIZED NATIONS.
YET, WE STILL HAVE HIGHER INFANT
MORTALITY AND LOWER LIFE
EXPECTANCY THAN MANY OF THE
OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS.
MOREOVER, MEDICAL ERRORS KILL
100,000 PATIENTS PER YEAR AND
COST THE SYSTEM TENS OF BILLIONS
OF DOLLARS AN $700 -- AN
AND $700 BILLION IS SPENT EACH
YEAR ON TREATMENT THAT DOES NOT
LEAD TO IMPROVED PATIENT HELP.
TODAY MY FRESHMEN SENATE
COLLEAGUES AND I ARE GOING TO
SPEAK ABOUT THE NEED TO REFORM
OUR HEALTH CARE DELIVERY
SYSTEMS.
YOU'LL HEAR FROM ALL OF US ABOUT
INNOVATIVE INITIATIVES THAT ARE
SUCCESSFULLY BRINGING DOWN THE
COST OF HEALTH CARE AT THE SAME
TIME IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF
CARE.
NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, I'D LIK TO
YIELD FIVE MINUTES TO MY
COLLEAGUE FROM COLORADO, SENOR
MARK UDALL, TO DISCUSS
ACCOUNTABLE CARE
MR. UDALL: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM COLORADO.
MR. UDALL: MR. PRESIDENT, I WANT
TO START BY THANKING MY CLEAR,
SENATOR HAGAN, FROM NORTH
CAROLINA FOR CONVENING THIS
IMPORTANT SESSION THIS MORNING
WHERE WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE
URGENT NEED TO REFORM HEALTH
CARE IN OUR COUNTRY.
THE UNSUSTAINABLE GROWTH IN
HEALTH CARE COSTS AND LACK OF
STABLE, AFORRABLE COVERAGE FOR
MILLIONS
TO JEOPARDIZE NOT ONLY OUR
NAON'S FISCAL WELL-BEING, BUT
ALSO THE PHYSICAL WELL-BEING OF
OUR FAMILIES AN NEIGHBORS.
MR. PRESIDENT, ONE OF
WAYS WE CAN HELP PUT OUR HEALTH
CARE SYSTEM AND OUR ECONOMY ON
THE RIGHT TRACK IS BY
ENCOURAGING VALUE IN THE
DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE.
I CITED THESE NUMBERS BEFORE.
I KNOW MANY OF US HAVE.
BUT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THEM AGAIN.
AS A NATION WE SPEND
OVER $2 TRILLION PER YEAR ON
HEALTH CARE.
THAT'S
ECONOMY.
YET, BETWEEN 30% AND 50% OF
THESE DOLLARS ARE NOT
CONTRIBUTING TO BETTER PATIENT HEALTH.
THAT'S NOT A GOOD DEAL FOR THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE, MR. PRESIDENT.
HEALTH REFORM IS DESIGNED TO
ADDRESS THIS STAGGERING AMOUNT
OF WASTE IN A NUMBER OF WAYS.
ONE WAY IS TO ENCOURAGE
PROVIDERS TO FOCUS ON THE
QUALITY OF CARE THEY PROVIDE AND
NOT JUST ON VOLUME.
AND WE CAN START WITH MEDICARE, MR. PRESIDENT.
I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
WOULD AGREE THAT TAXPAYER
DOLLARS ARE BETTER SPENT BY
REWARDING DOCTORS FOR KEEPING
PATIENTS HEALTHY AND NOT FOR
PERFORMING MORE TESTS OR MORE
PROCEDURES.
HEALTH REFORM LEGISLATION CAN
MOVE US IN THIS DIRECTION
THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT OF WHAT
ARE KNOWN AS ACCOUNTABLE CARE
ORGANIZATIONS OR, A.C.O.'S.
THESE ORGANIZATIONS WOULD
ENCOURAGE GROUPS OF HEALTH CARE
PROFESSIONALS TO TEAM UP AND
STREAMLINE CARE TO MEDICARE PATIENTS.
THE IDEA IS TO HAVE THESE
A.C.O.'S TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
IMPROVING PATIENT CARE WHILE
LOWERING COSTS AND THEN SHARING
THE SAVINGS THAT ACCRUE.
NOW, RESEARCH INDICATES THAT
THIS IDEA OF SHARED SAVINGS
WOULD HELP ELIMINATE WASTE AN
SPUR CHANGES IN OUR HEALTH CARE
DELIVERY SYSTEM TO EMPHASIZE
PATIENT OUTCOMES AND VALUE.
NOW, THE IDEA FOR A.C.O.'S NO
DOUBT CAME FROM THE GREAT WORK
BEING DONE BY A PATCHWORK OF
PHYSICIAN GROUPS.
GROUPS LIKE THE PHYSICIAN HEALTH
PARTNERS OR P.H.P. IN
STATE OF COLORADO AND ALL ACROSS
THE COUNTRY ARE
COORDINATION OND QUALITY.
FOR EXAM -- AND QUALITY.
P.H.P. HAS HELPED KIDS SUFFERING
FROM RAZZ MARKS THE NUMBER ONE
CAUSE OF CHILD HOSPITALIZATION
AND SCHOOL ABSENCE MUCH THEY
HAVE TREATMENT GUIDELINES AND
PROMOTED TREATMENT ASPECTS FROM
DOCTORS FROM THE COLORADO ASTHMA CENTERS.
THEY REDUCED EMERGENCY ROOM
VISITS AN IMPROVED FAMILY'S
ABILITY TO MANAGE ASTHMA ON
THEIR OWN.
P.H.P. ALSO HAS THE PRACTICE HEALTH PROJECT.
THIS COMPREHENSIVE EORT BRINGS
DOCTORS TOGETHER TO SHARE BEST
PRACTICES AND ENCOURAGE THE
ADOPTION OF COMMONSENSE
GUIDELINES TO IMPROVE QUALITY
AND EFFICIENT SIVMENT THE GOAL
OF THIS TEAM EFFORT IS TO RAISE
THE STANDARD AND VALUE OF CARE
AND ALLOW THESE PHYSICIAN GROUPS
TO ACT AS MODEL FOR DENVER'S
PHYSICIAN COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO IT OUT THE
P.H.P.'S TRANSITION OF CARE PROGRAM.
IN COLLABORATION WITH DENVER
ST. ANTHONY HOSPITAL AND OTHER
LOCAL CARE PROVIDERS, THE
PROGRAM DISPATCHES NURSE COACHES
TO HELP MEDICARE PATIENTS MAKE
THE TRANSITION FROM THE HOSPITAL
TO THEIR HOMES.
THE PERIOD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING
A HOSPITAL STAY IS A VERY CONFUSING TIME PARTICULARLY FOR
OUR SENIORS.
HAVING SOMEONE HELP WITH THIS
TRANSITION IS CRUCIAL.
P.H.P. HAS HAD TREMENDOUS
SUCCESS WITH THIS PROGRAM
SHOWING THE TENDENCY TO REDUCE
HOSPITAL READMISSIONS BY 20% TO
50%.
AT THE SAME T
HELPS KEEP PATIENTS HEALTHY AND SAVES MONEY.
THE SUCCESSES OF GROUPS LIKE
PHYSICIAN'S HEALTH PARTNER SHOWS
THAT WE HAVE THE WILL AND NO HOW
TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM FOR THE BETTER.
BUT, MR. PRESIDENT, UNOUR
EXISTING SYSTEM, THERE'S NO
INCENTIVE FOR PROGRAMS LIKE
P.H.P. TO EVEN EXIST.
UNDER THE STATUS QUO A HOSPITAL
STANDS TO LOSE MONEY IF IT
DECREASES ITS ADMISSION RATES.
PRIMARY CARE DOCTORS WOULD BE AT
A
SPENT TIME TO DEVELOP
IMPLEMENT TREATMENT PLANS FOR
THEIR ASTHMATIC PATIENTS.
THIS IS WHY HEALTH REFORM
INCLUDES COMMONSENSE PROPOSALS
SUCH AS ENCOURAGING GROUPS LIKE
PHYSICIANS HEALTH PARTNERS TO
FORM ACCOUNTABLE CARE
ORGANIZATIONS AND PAYING THEM TO
COORDINATE CARE FOR MEDICARE
PATIENTS.
PROMOTING A.C.O.'S AND OTHER
CREATIVE PRO CONSUMER IDEAS WILL
INCREASE QUALITY FOR PATIENTS
AND VALUE FOR THE TAXPAYER.
ONLY BY RESHAPING THE WAY WE DO BUSINESS IN OUR HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM CAN WE TRULY CHANGE
HEALTH CARE DELIVERY IN OUR
COUNTRY.
MR. PRESIDENT, I LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH MY COLLEAGUES HERE
TODAY AND OTHER SENATORS IN
COMING WEEKS TO PROMOTE THE MANY
WAYS WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT GOAL.
I THANK S
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
MRS. HAGAN: THANK YOU, SENATOR
UDALL.
ACCOUNTABLE CARE ORGANIZATIONS
ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IN
HEALTH CARE REFORM.
NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, I'D LIKE TO
YIELD FIVE MINUTES TO MY
COLLEAGUE FROM DELAWARE, SENATOR
TED KAUFMAN, TO DISCUSS
DELAWARE'S HEALTH INFORMATION
NETWORK. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM DELAWARE.
MR. KAUFMAN: I WANT TO THANK
SENATOR HAGAN NOT JUST FOR
PUTTING THIS ON WIT HER
LEADERSHIP ON HEALTH CARE REFORM
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH HER ON HEALTH CARE REFORM
BECAUSE OF HER GREAT LEADERSHIP.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
JOIN MY COLLEAGUES ON THE FLOOR
TO HIGHLIGHT HEALTH CARE
INNOVATIONS IN OUR HOME STATES
THAT CAN SERVE AS MODELS AS NATIONAL REFORM.
DELAWARE IS A NATIONAL LEADER IN
HEALTH CARE TELLING.
I WANT TO TAKE A
I WANT TO TAKE A COUPLE OF
MINUTES TO TALK ABOUT A TRULY INNOVATIVE APPROACH TO HEALTH
CARE IN MY STATE, IT IS CALLED
DELAWARE HEALTH INFORMATION
NETWORK.
THE DELAWARE HEALTH INFORMATION
NETWORK, WHICH
LIVE IN 2007 BECOMING THE FIRST
OPERATIONAL STATEWIDE HEALTH
IN
A PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP OF
PHYSICIANS, HOSPITA, LABORATORIES, COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS AND PATIENTS, THE
DIHN PROVIDES THE FAST, SECURE
AN RELIABLE EXCHANGE OF HEALTH
INFORMATION MOON THE STATE'S
MANY MEDICAL PROVIDERS.
AS A RESULT OF ITS EARLY
SUCCESS, THE DIHN WAS ONE OF THE
NINE INITIAL HEALTH EXCHANGES
SELECTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES NATIONAL HEALTH NETWORK
TRIAL IMPLEMENTATIONS.
AMONG THOSE NINE IT WAS THE
FIRST STATE TO SUCCESSFULLY
ESTABLISH A CONNECTION WITH THE
TRIAL.
RIGHT NOW MORE THAN 50% OF ALL
PROVIDERS IN THE STATE, NEARLY
1,300 PARTICIPATE IN THE DIHN.
MORE THAN 85% OF ALL LAB TESTS
ARE ENTERED INTO THE NETWORK AND
81% OF ALL HOSPITALIZATIONS ARE
CAPTURED BY THE EXCHANGE.
AS OF JUNE OF THIS YEAR THE DIHN
HELD OVER 64,000 PATIENT --
648,000 PATIENT RECORDS AND
CONDUCTED 40 MILLION
TRANSACTIONS A YEAR.
PARTICIPATING PROVIDERS HAVE A
CHOICE OF THREE OPTIONS TO
RECEIVE LAB, PATHOLOGY AND
ADMISSION FACE SHEETS.
THEY CAN HAVE THEM SENT DIRECTLY
TO ANN BOX, THEY CAN HAVE THEM
FAXED TO THEIR OFFICE OR
RESULTS FROM AN
MEDICAL RECORD INTERFACE ON THE
WEB.
ALL THREE PROVIDE INFORMATION IN
A TIMELY MANNER THAT PROTECTS
THE PRIVACY OF THE PATIENT.
OUR STATE OF DELAWARE RECEIVES
FOUR VERY TANGIBLE BENEFITS FROM
DIHN LISTED ON THE CHART.
FIRST, THE DIHN PROVIDES A
COMMUNICATION SYSTEM BETWEEN
PROVIDERS AN ORGANIZATIONS,
SOMETHING THAT DID NOT EXIST PREVIOUSLY.
INDIVIDUAL PHYSICIANS OFFICES
CAN NOW EASILY DISCOVER IF
HOSPITALS LIKE CHRISANNA CARE,
BAY HEALTH AND B.B. MEDICAL
CENTER COMMITTED THEIR --
ADMITTED THEIR PATIENTS.
DOCTORS CAN GET THE LAB RESULTS
IN A TIMELY MANNER.
SECOND, THE INFORMATION EXCHANGE
ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH DIHN
IMPROVES THE QUALITY OF CARE.
WHEN PROVIDERS HAVE ACCESS TO
BETTER, FASTER INFORMATION AT
THE TIME AND PLACE OF CARE,
EITHERRER IN A DOCTOR'S OFFICE
OR EMERGENCY ROOM, THESE
PROVIDERS CAN MAKE BETTER
DECISIONS AND REDUCE THE CHANCE
OFEDICAL ERRORS.
KNOWING THE MEDICATIONS A
PATIENT IS ON OR WHAT
CO-EXISTING CONDITIONS A PATIENT
MAY HAVE CAN GIVE THE PROVIDER
MORE COMPLETE INFORMATION WHEN
DELIVERING CARE REDUCING THE
CHANGE OF AN ADVERSE OUTCOME.
THIRD, THE DIHN CAN HELP REDUCE
THE COST OF CARE WITHIN
HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, WHAT WE'RE
ALL LOOKING FOR OUT OF HEALTH
CARE REFORM, COST REDUCTION.
WITH NEARLY 650,000 PATIENT
RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM, PROVIDERS
CAN KNOW WHAT TESTS AN
PROCEDURES HAVE ALREADY BEEN
ORDERED AND CUTTING OUT
INADVERTENT TEST DUPLICATION.
THE DIHN CAN IMPROVE DISEASE
MANAGEMENT BY ALLOWING MULTIPLE
PROVIDERS TO TREAT A PERSON TO
COMMUNICATE AND BETTER LEARN THE
TREATMENTS AND PRESCRIPTIONS FOR
A PARTICULAR PATIENT.
NUMBER FOUR, THE DIHN CAN
ENHANCE PRIVACY WITHIN THE
MEDICAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
IT IS A SECURE SYSTEM THAT CAN
BE ACCESSED BY PARTICIPATING
PROVIDERS AN ORGANIZATIONS.
IT CONTAINS
REGULATING WHO CAN USE THE
NETWORK AND IT CONTAINS AUDIT
REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE THAT
THERE ARE NO BREACHES IN PATIENT
PRIVACY.
WHILE THE DIHN IS STILL GROWING,
IT HAS ALREADY HELPED THE
PATIENT CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM IN
DELAWARE.
AS IT MOVES TO INCLUDE ALL
PROVIDERS IN THE STATE AN WORKS
WITH OTHER STATE'S INFORMATION
EXCHANGES, THE DIHN WILL HELP
LEAD OUR COUNTRY TO A
ADOPTION OF HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.
THE STIMULUS ACT
CONTAINED $19 BILLION TO PROMOTE
THE ADOPTION OF HEALTH I.T.
NATIONWIDE AND THE HEALTH REFORM
EFFORT PROMISES TO BUILD ON THIS
MOMENTUM WITH EVEN MORE RESOURCES.
I THINK IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT
HEALTH REFORM BOOST THE
INTEGRATION OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY LIKE THAT PROVIDED BY
THE DIHN THROUGHOUT THE HEALTH
CARE SYSTEM.
AS I'VE SAID MANY TIMES, IT IS
TIME TO GATHER OUR COLLECTIVE??
WILL AND DOT RIGHT THING -- AND
DO THE RIGHT THING DURING THIS
HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY TO PASS
HEALTH CARE REFORM.
WE MUST INCLUDE INCENTIVES TO
EXPAND THE INFORMATION OF HEALTH
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.
WE CAN DO NO LESS, THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE D
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MRS. HAGAN: THANK YOU, SENATOR
KAUFMAN.
THE HEALTH INFORMATION NETWORK
IS CRITICAL TO IMPROVING PATIENT
CARE AND REDUCING HEALTH CARE
COSTS.
I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD FIVE
MINUTES TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM
ALASKA, SENATOR MARK BEGICH TO
DISCUSS PATIENT DELIVERED CARE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM ALASKA ALASKA.
-- ALASKA.
MR. BEGICH: I'M PLEASED TO JOIN
MY FRESHMEN COLLEAGUES TO STATE
OUR CASE FOR HEALTH INSURANCE
REFORM IN THIS COUNTRY.
IT IS LONGOVER DUE AND VERY MUCH NEEDED.
I ALSO WANT TO MAKE A POINT.
I LISTENED CLOSELY TO MY
COLLEAGUES FROM THE OTHER SIDE
I LISTENED TO THEIR
COMMENTARY OVER THE LAST SEVERAL
WEEKS.
A FEW WEEKS AGO I HEARD FROM THE
SENIOR CENTER FROM NORTH
CAROLINA, SENATOR BURR, TALKING
ON THIS FLOOR ABOUT HEALTH
RERM.
HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WE NEED TO
CHANGE THE HEALTH DELIVERY
SYSTEM, WHICH I AGREE WITH.
BUT THEN HE SAID, OUR DEMOCRATIC
IDEAS WON'T WORK.
HE SAID ONE REASON IS BECAUSE
GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS DON'T DO
ENOUGH PREVENTION AND WELLNESS
AND THEY WON'T HELP PEOPLE MAKE
THE LIFESTYLE CHANGES NEEDED TO
GET TRUE SAVINGS IN THE HEALTH
SYSTEM.
HERE'S WHAT ELSE HE SAID AND I'M
QUOTING FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD, "SHOW ME A GOVERNMENT
PLAN THAT PACE FOR PREVENTION --
PACE FOR PREVENTION, WELL
NECESSARY, AND CHRONIC DISEASE
MANAGEMENT, AND I WILL QUIT
COMING ON THE FLOOR AND QUIT
TALKING ABOUT THE LACK OF REFORM."
MR. PRESIDENT, I'VE GOT ONE.
I'VE GOT A GREAT EXAMPLE OF SUCH
A GREAT PROGRAM IN A GOVERNMENT
PLAN THAT PAYS FOR THE WHOLE
THING, ALMOST THE WHOLE THING,
AND GET
INCREDIBLE RESULTS.
IT COMES FRO
AN ALASKA NATIVE PROGRAM CALLED NUKA MODEL CARE.
IT IS BASED
NONPROFIT HEALTH SYSTEM SERVING
9,000 ALASKA NATIVES.
THE ELDERS ACTED IN RESPONSE TO
WHAT THEY SAW AS THEIR OWN
FAILING HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
LIKE MANY OTHER PROVIDERS IN
THIS COUNTRY, THE FOUNDATION
RECOGNIZED AN ALARMIN CONTRADICTION.
AS HEALTH COSTS CONTINUED TO
INCREASE, THE HEALTH STATUS OF
THEIR PATIENTS ONLY GOT WORSE.
CARE ONLY RESULTED IN WORSE
HEALTH OUTCOMES.
SO THEY DECIDED TO CHANGE IT,
AND FROM THE GROUND UP THEY
BUILT A SYSTEM OF
CUSTOMER-DRIVEN HEALTH CARE.
THAT'S THEIR TERM, NOT MINE.
CUSTOMER-DRIVEN.
NUKA IS THE NATIVE WORD
ASSOCIATED WITH FAMILY, AND
THAT'S CERTAINLY THE APPROACH.
THE NUKA MODEL PROVIDES TEAMS OF
HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS, DOCTORS,
MEDICAL ASSISTANTS TO WORK WITH EACH PATIENT.
IT REQUIRES DOCTORS TO LISTEN TO
THE PATIENT, TO REALLY HEAR WHAT
CUSTOMERS ARE SAYING ABOUT THEIR
LIFESTYLES, THEIR JOBS, THEIR
FAMILIES, EVERYTHING THAT
AFFECTS THEIR OVERALL HEALTH.
IT MAKES
EASIER, GUARANTEEING
CAN SEE YOUR CHOSENROVIDER FOR
ANYTHING YOU WANT, SAME DAY,N
PERSON, VIA PHONE OR E-MAIL,
WHATEVER'S EASIER FOR THE
PATIENT.
SAME DAY GUARANTEED.
LET ME REPEAT THAT AGAIN: SAME
DAY GUARANTEED.
HERE'S ANOTHER IMPORTANT POINT.
PHYSICIAN SALARIES ARE BASED ON
THE TEAM'S OVERALL PEFORMANCE.
MR. PRESIDENT, I WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT MY FRIEND, SENATOR
BURR, TPR NORTH CAROLINA --
FROM NORTH CAROLINA, HEARS THIS PART.
THE NUKA MODEL IS FUNDED ALMOST
ENTIRELY BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, HALF BY INDIAN
HEALTH SERVICES AND ONE-THIRD BY
MEDICAID OR MEDICARE.
AND IT WORKS AND WORKS VERY
WELL.
THIS CHART COVERS SOME OF THE
AMAZING RESULTS SINCE THE
PROGRAM STARTED.
A 50% DROP IN URGENT CARE, A 53%
REDUCTION IN HOSPITAL
ADMISSIONS, A 65% DROP IN THE
NEED FOR EXPENSIVE SPECIALISTS.
CHILDHOOD IMMUNIZATION RATE
93%, WELL ABOVE THE STATE AND
NATIONAL AVERAGES.
MUCH BETTER MANAGEMENT OF
DIABETES WITH 50% OF PATIENTS
KEPT IN THE PREDIABETES STAGE
INSTEAD OF WORSENING INTO FULL DIABETES.
AND HAPPY CUSTOMERS.
THE OVERALL SATISFACTION RATE
AMONG OUR PATIENTS FOR THIS
PROGRAM -- 91%.
THE NUKA MODEL IS ATTRACTING
ATTENTION FROM ALL OVER THE
WORLD, AS IT SHOULD.
AND EVEN AS RECENT AS LAST MONTH
FROM THE FORMER SPEAKER NEWT
GINGRICH, RECOGNIZED THIS GREAT
PROGRAM.
I'M SURE THERE ARE OTHER
GOVERNMENT SUCCESS STORIES
THROUGHOUT THIS
MR. PRESIDENT, I THINK I'VE MADE
MY POINT, AND TRULY MY REMARKS
ARE NOT INTENDED TO SINGLE OUT
ANY ONE SENATOR, BUT I WILL SAY
THIS: S WE DEBATE HEALTH
INSURANCE REFORM IN THIS
CHAMBER, LET'S ARM S FS WITH THE
FACTS AND WITH -- OURSELVES WITH
THE FACTS AND OPEN MINDS.
LET'S NOT JUST SAY NO BECAUSE OF
PARTISAN DIFFERENCES.
LET'S CELEBRATE EXAMPLES OF
INNOVATION AND EXCELLENC THAT
WORK NO MATTER WHERE THEY COME
FROM, AND LET'S USE THE
SUCCESSFUL MODELS TO EXTEND
GOOD-QUALITY CARE TO MILLIONS
MORE AMERICANS.
MR. PRESIDENT, I'M PROUD OF THE
NUKA MODEL IN ALASKA, OF THE
PEOPLE WHO GOT IT STARTED A
DECADE AGO AND OF THE PEOPLE WHO
ARE MAKING IT WORK TODAY.
MR. PRESIDENT, THANK YOU, AND I
YIELD THE FLOOR.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA.
MRS. HAGAN: THANK YOU, SENATOR BEGICH.
YOUR COMMENTS ON CUSTOMER-DRIVEN
CARE IS CERTAINLY WORKING IN ALASKA.
NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, I'D LIKE TO
YIELD FIVE MINUTES TO MY
COLLEAGUE FROM COLORADO, SENATOR
MICHAEL BENNET, FOR HIS
DISCUSSION ON
MR. BENNET: THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM
MR. BENNET: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
I'D LIKE TO THANK OUR COLLEAGUE
FROM NORTH CAROLINA FOR
ORGANIZING THIS MORNING AND FOR
THE OUR FRESHMEN TO BE HERE YET
AGAIN, WEEK AFTER WEEK AFTER
WEEK TO TALK ABOUT THE URGENT
NEED FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM IN
THIS COUNTRY.
MY COLLEAGUE, SENATOR UDALL FROM
COLORADO, DID A WONDERFUL JOB
TALKING ABOUT THE MODELS WE HAVE
OF TRANSITIONAL CARE IN
COLORADO, WHERE WE SEE SE
PROVIDERS ABLE TO HAVE MERELY A
3% HOSPITAL
JUST BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY
MANAGE PATIENTS,
PATIENT-CENTERED CARE, UNLIKE
THE WAY WE DO IT ALL ACROSS THE
COUNTRY, WHICH IS THE REASON WHY
WE
READMISSION RATE IN THE UNITED STATES.
IF WE JUST PUT IN SOME OF THESE
COMMONSENSE PRACTICES AND
WORRIED ABOUT OUTCOMES MORE AND
WORRIED ABOUT HOW MANY TESTS
WERE GIVEN LESS, IN THIS CASE WE
COULD REDUCE THE EXPENDITURE BY
$18 BILLION ANNUALLY AND PROVIDE
BETTER QUALITY CARE.
AND IT'S JUST ONE OF THE MANY
IDEAS THAT ARE BUBBLING UP FROM
STATES ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
I WANTED TO SPEND A COUPLE
MINUTES TODAY TALKING ABOUT THE
ABSURD WASTE
CAUSED BY OUR CURRENT SYSTEM OF
INSURANCE IN THE UNITED STATES.
AND WE'VE GOT TWO EXAMPLES IN
COLORADO THAT HAVE RECENTLY BEEN
COVERED BY THE NEWSPAPERS OUT THERE.
THE FIRST IS A STORY ABOUT
GENDER DISCRIMINATION WHEN IT
COMES TO INSURANCE.
AND IT'S ABOUT A WOMAN IN MY
STATE, PEGGY ROBERTSON OF
GOLDEN, COLORADO, WHO WAS DENIED
COVERAGE BECAUSE SHE HAD WHAT
WAS
CONDITION, WHICH WAS THE
C-SECTION THAT SHE HAD WHEN SHE
GAVE BIRTH TO HER SON.
AND THE INS
THAT THEY WOULDN'T COVER HER
UNLESS SHE BECAME STERILIZED.
PEGGY CAME AND TESTIFIED ABOUT
THIS IN THE COMMITTEE HERE, AND
HER STORY HAS BEEN REPEATED BY
MANY PEOPLE ALL ACROSS THE STATE OF COLORADO.
BUT IT GOT THE ATTENTION OF
NAMED MATT TEMEY OF CASTLE ROCK,
COLORADO, WHO WROTE A LETTER TO
THE EDITOR THAT I ALMOST
COULDN'T BELIEVE WHEN I READ IT.
WE FOLLOWED UP WITH MATT, AND IT
TURNED OUT THAT IT WAS TRUE.
MATT WAS
HIS WIFE, WHO IS INSURED -- SHE
HAS HER OWN INSURANCE -- WAS PREGNANT.
MATT IS A 40-YEAR-OLD COMMERCIAL
PILOT FROM CASTLE ROCK, AND HE
WAS FURLOUGHED FROM HIS JOB AT
THE END OF JUNE.
HIS WIFE WENDY IS A PARALEGAL
AND SHE HAS COVERAGE THROUGH HER EMPLOY.
THEY HAVE A SIX-YEAR-OLD SON.
AS I MENTIONED A MINUTE AGO,
WENDY IS PREGNANT.
IT WAS TOO EXPENSIVE FOR MATT
AND HIS SON TO JOIN HIS
PLAN, AND BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN
FURLOUGHED HE WENT OUT AND
SHOPPED ON THE INDIVIDUAL MARKET
WHICH HE THOUGHT WOULDE EASY.
HE CHECKED WITH HIS PREVIOUS COMPANY'S HEALTH INSURANCE,
FILLED OUT T PAPERWORK FOR
HIMSELF AND HIS SON.
HE IS
AND IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR COVERAGE
BECAUSE HIS WIFE JUST FOUND OUT
SHE WAS PREGNANT.
HE TOLD THE INSURANCE COMPANIES
MY WIFE IS ALREADY COVERED BY
ANOTHER INSURER, AND THEY SAID
TO HIM, "THAT'S
BUT IF SHE SUFFERS A FATALITY
WHILE GIVING BIRTH TO HER CHILD,
THATHILD IS GOING TO BECOME A
DEPENDENT OF YOURS AND,
THEREFORE, WILL BE ON INSURANCE THAT YOU WOULD
PWAOEURBGS AND, THEREFORE, WE'RE
NOT -- THAT YOU WILL BUY AND
WE'RE NOT GOING TO SELL IT TO YOU."
NOW MATT HAD TO GO ON THE MARKET AGAIN.
WHAT THEY HAVE ARE THREE PLANS.
THEY HAVE THE PLAN HIS WIFE WAS
ON, ALREADY COVERED.
THEY HAVE ANOTHER PLAN FOR HIS
SIX-YEAR-OLD SON.
A PUBLIC OPTION THAT WE HAVE IN
COLORADO CALLED COVER COLORADO.
AND WHEN I READ THIS LETTER,
WHEN WE HEARD THIS STORY, WHEN
WE TALKED TO MATT, IT JUST
REMINDED ME AGAIN,
MR. PRESIDENT, OF ALL THE
STORIES THAT I'VE HEARD THAT ALL
OF US HAVE HEARD OVER THESE MANY
MONTHS WHEN WE'VE BEEN
DISCUSSING HEALTH CARE, ABOUT
ALL OF THE WASTED EVENINGS AND
CONVERSATIONS AND FIGHTS THAT
PEOPLE HAVE OVER THEIR TELEPHONE
JUST TO GET BASIC
THEIR FAMILY
THE KIND OF STABILITY ALL OF US
WANT TO HAVE FOR OUR KIDS, FOR
OUR GRANDKIDS AND FOR OUR FAMILIES.
THAT'S WHAT THIS INSURANCE
REFORM IS ABOUT.
IT'S TIME FOR US
THE USUAL POLITICS OF SPECIAL
INTERESTS THAT ALWAYS HAS
PREVENTED US FROM GETTING
SOMETHING DONE HERE AND DELIVER
REFORM THAT CREATES STABILITY
FOR WORKING FAMILIES ALL ACROSS
OUR COUNTRY, DELIVER A REFORM
THAT ALLOWS US TO CONSUME A
SMALLER PORTION OF OUR GROSS
DOMESTIC PRODUCT THAN WE ARE
TODAY, DELIVER A REFORM THAT
ALLOWS US TO BEGIN TO PUT THIS
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BACK ON A
PATH
IT'S HIGH TIME TO PUT THOSE
POLITICS ASIDE.
AND I KNOW IN THIS COUNTRY WE
CAN DO BETTER THAN
AND IN THE END WE WILL DO
BETTER.
AND OUR WORKING FAMILIES AND
SMALL BUSINESSES WILL BE REAL
BENEFICIARIES OF THE REFORM THAT
WE PASS HERE.
SO I THANK THE SENATOR FROM
NORTH CAROLINA FOR GIVING ME THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE THIS
MORNING.
IMPORTANT LEADERSHIP ON THIS
CRITICAL ISSUE. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA.
MRS. HAGAN: THANK YOU, SENATOR
BENNET FOR YOUR COMMENTS ON TRANSITIONAL CARE AND CERTAINLY
THE NEED TO BE SURE THAT NO
PATIENTS ARE DENIED INSURANCE
COVERAGE FOR PREEXISTING
CONDITIONS, AND IN PARTICULAR,
BECAUSE A WIFE IS PREGNANT.
NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, I'D LIKE TO
YIELD FIVE MINUTES TO MYSELF.
I'D LIKE TO TAKE THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT HEALTH
CARE REFORM AND HOW IT WILL
IMPROVE THE DELIVERY OF HEALTH
CARE TO AMERICANS.
ONCE SUCCESSFUL DELIVERY
THAT HEALTH CARE REFORM WILL
EXPAND UPON IS PATIENT-CENTERED
MEDICAL HOMES WHICH WERE
PIONEERED IN NORTH CAROLINA.
SINCE 1998 NORTH HAS BEEN
IMPLEMENTING AN ENHANCED MEDICAL
HOME MODEL OF CARE IN ITS
MEDICAID PROGRAM CALLED
COMMUNITY CARE OF NORTH CAROLINA.
UNDER THIS MODEL, EACH PATIENT
HAS ACCESS TO A PRIMARY CARE
PHYSICIAN WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
PROVIDING COMPREHENSIVE AND
PREVENTIVE CARE WORKING IN
COLLABORATION WITH NURSES,
PHICIAN SPECIALISTS AND OTHER
HEALTH
THE PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN IS
THE GO-TO DOCTOR AND THE
GATEKEEPER OF A PATIENT'S
INFORMATION.
WITHIN EACH NETWORK, PATIENTS
ARE LINKED TO A PRIMARY CARE
PROVIDER TO SERVE AS A MEDICAL
HOME THAT PROVIDES ACUTE AND
PREVENTIVE CARE, MANAGES CHRONIC
ILLNESS, COORDINATES SPECIALTY
CARE AND PROVIDES
AROUND-THE-CLOCK ON-CALL
ASSISTANCE.
CASE MANAGERS ARE WOR IN
CONCERT WITH THE PHYSICIANS TO
IDENTIFY AND MANAGE CARE FOR
HIGH-COST, HIGH-RISK PATIENTS.
AS OF MAY OF THIS YEAR,
COMMUNITY CARE OF NORTH CAROLINA
WAS COMPRISED OF 14 NETWORKS
THAT INCLUDED MORE THAN 3,200
PHYSICIANS AND COVERED OVER
913,000 MEDICAID PATIENTS IN
NORTH CAROLINA, ACCOUNTING FOR
OVER 67% OF THE STATE'S ENTIRE
MEDICAID POPULATION.
MR. PRESIDENT, AS AN EXAMPLE OF
THE BENEFITS OF A PROGRAM
THIS, CONSIDER THE IMPACT ON
ASTHMA PATIENTS.
BECAUSE PATIENTS GET TO SEE THE
SAME DOCTOR AND GET MORE
CONSISTENT COORDINATED CARE,
PHYSICIANS ARE ABLE TO QUICKLY
RECOGNIZE A CONDITION LIKE
ASTHMA AND CAN MORE QUICKLY AND
EFFICIENTLY DETERMINE THE MOST
APPROPRIATE TREATMENT.
THE SUPPORT NETWO THEN
EDUCATES THE PATIENTS AND THEIR
FAMILIES ABOUT THE MANAGEMENT OF
THEIR DISEASE.
DUE TO THE INCREASED LIKELIHOOD
OF COMPLICATIONS WHEN ASTHMA
PATIENTS GET THE FLU, IT IS VERY
IMPORTANT THAT THEY RECEIVE THE
FLU VACCINE.
SINCE 2004, WITHIN THE COMMUNITY
CARE OF NORTH CAROLINA, THERE'S
BEEN 112% INCREASE IN FLU SHOTS
ADMINISTERED TO ASTHMA PATIENTS.
MORE THAN 90% OF PATIENTS ARE
USING THE MOST APPROPRIATE MEDICATIONS.
BETWEEN 2003 AND 2006,
ASTHMA-RELATED HOSPITALIZATIONS
DECREASED BY 40% AND
ROOM VISITS DECREASED BY 17%.
THAT SAVES ALL OF US DOLLARS.
COMMUNITY CARE OF NORTH CAROLINA
HAS IMPROVED PATIENT CARE AND
SAVED THE STATE MONEY.
AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS BY
MERCER, WHICH IS A GOVERNMENT
CONSULTING TKPWRAOURPBGS FOUND
THAT THIS PROGRAM SAVED BETWEEN
$150 MILLION AND $170 MILLION IN
2006.
A UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
EVALUATION OF
DIABETES PATIENTS FOUND THAT IT
SAVED $3.3 MILLION FOR ASTHMA
PATIENTS AND $2.1 MILLION FOR
DIABETIC PATIENTS BETWEEN 2000 AND 2002.
AND IN ADDITION TO ASTHMA
PATIENTS, DIABETIC PATIENTS ALSO
HAD FEWER HOSPITALIZATIONS AND
THEY VISITED THE PRIMARY CARE
DOCTORS MORE OFTEN INSTEAD OF
SPECIALISTS AND HAD BETTER
HEALTH OUTCOMES.
MR. PRESIDENT, I'D LIKE TO TELL
A STORY ABOUT HOW ACCESS TO A
MEDICAL HOME HAS HELPED SOMEONE
IN NORTH CAROLINA OVERCOME THE
CHALLENGES OF AN ILLNESS.
DONALD FROM CHARLOTTE HAS TYPE 2
DIABETES.
THIS DIABETIC CONDITION OF HIS
WENT UNTREATED FOR A LONG TIME,
AND AS A RESULT HE BEGAN HAVING
MINI STROKES, HAD TO CUT BACK ON
HIS WORK IN LANDSCAPING AND
ENDED UP IN AN EMERGENCY ROOM.
HE WAS REFERRED TO A
CHARLOTTE-BASED MEDICAL HOME
PROGRAM CALLED PHYSICIANS REACH
OUT H NOW MASS A PRIMARY CARE
DOCTOR WHO GOT HIM ON A
REGIMENT, RETURNING HIS BLOOD
SUGAR TO A NORMAL LEVEL AND
ALLOWING HIM TO WORK FULL TIME AGAIN.
HIS PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN WAS
THE KEY TO TEACHING HIM HOW TO
MANAGE HIS DIABETES.
AND WITHOUT THIS MEDICAL HOME,
HE SAYS GETTING HIS CONDITION
UNDER CONTROL WOULD HAVE BEEN A
WILD GOOSE CHASE.
THE HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND
PENSIONS COMMITTEE INCLUDED TWO
PROVISIONS IN THE HEALTH CARE
REFORM BILL TO ENCOURAGE
PATIENT-CENTERED MEDICAL HOMES
LIKE WE HAVE IN NORTH CAROLINA.
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES WILL DEVELOP A
PROGRAM TO SUPPORT MEDICAL HOMES
AND OTHER STATES WILL APPLY FOR
GRANTS.
THE BILL ALSO PROVIDES GRANTS
FOR PHYSICIAN TRAING PROGRAMS,
GIVI PRIORITY TO THOSE THAT
EDUCATE THE STUDENTS IN THESE
PHYSICIAN TRAING PROGRAMS THAT
ARE IN TEAM-BASED APPACHES,
INCLUDING THE PATIENT-CENTERED
MEDICAL HOME.
MR. PRESIDENT, I'VE BEEN FOCUSED
ON A REFORM BILL
INSURANCE COMPANIES FROM TURNING
PATIENTS AWAY THAT HAVE A
PREEXISTING CONDITION THAT
EXPANDS COVERAGE AND ENSURES
THAT IF YOU LIKE YOUR INSURANCE
AND YOUR DOCTORS, YOU KEEP THEM.
THIS BILL WILL ACTUALLY REDUCE
OUR DEFICIT AND THAT HAS BEEN A
REQUIREMENT OF
THIS BILL ALSO ENCOURAGES
INNOVATION AND THE DELIVERY OF
HEALTH CARE TO AMERICANS USING
SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS LIKE THE
COMMUNITY CARE OF NORTH CAROLINA
AND THE PHYSICIAN'S REACHOUT
PATIENT CENTER MEDICAL HOME AS A
MODEL.
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, AND
NOW I'D LIKE TO YIELD FIVE
MINUTES TO MY COLLEAGUE, NEW
MEXICO SENATOR, TOM UDALL TO
TALK ABOUT A MODEL OF
HEALTH DELIVERY. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO.
MR. UDALL: SENATOR HAGAN, THANK
YOU VERY MUCH.
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR STATEMENT
TODAY AND LEADING US ON THE
FLOOR OF THIS DISCUSSION OF
HEALTH CARE AND IN MY CASE I
WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSMS.
FIRST, LET ME SAY THAT I KNOW
WHEN W TALK ABOUT A WORD LIKE
HEALTH CE DELIVERY SYSTEM,
IT'S A BIT OF A WONKY TERM.
MOST EYES GLAZE OVER WHEN
POLITICIANS OR PUNDITS DESCRIBE
THE PROBLEMS WITH THE HEALTH
CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM.
THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT IT HAS TO
DO WITH THEIR HEALTH CARE
EXPERIENCE OR THEIR DOCTORS OR THEIR LIVES.
BUT THE REALITY IS HEALTH CARE
DELIVERY SYSTEMS HAVE EVERYTHING
TO DO WITH ALL OF THAT.
THESE DELIVERY SYSTEMS DETERMINE
HOW AMERICANS RECEIVE THEIR CARE.
THEY DICTATE HOW A DOCTOR TREATS
THEIR PATIENTS.
HOW LONG A PATIENT MUST WAIT FOR
TREATMENT.
HOW MUCH A HOSPITAL CHARGES FOR
ITS SERVICES.
AND HOW THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY IS
HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ITS MISTAKES.
AS WE CONTINUE WORKING TO REFORM
HEALTH CARE, WE MUST TAKE AN
HONEST LOOK AT OUR CURRENT
HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM AND
ASK OURSELVES SOME BASIC
QUESTIONS.
QUESTIONS LIKE, DO THE SYSTEMS
WE CURRENTLY USE TO DELIVER
HEALTH CARE WORK?
ARE WE, AS PATIENTS, BUSINESSES
AND GOVERNMENTS GETTING THE BEST
VALUE FOR OUR HEALTH CARE
DOLLAR?
DO THESE SYSTEMS ENCOURAGE
EFFICIENT, COORDINATED CARE?
IF YOU ASK THE EXPERTS ON THIS
SUBJECT, THE ANSWER YOU'LL
LIKELYET IS A LOUD AND
RESOUNDING NO.
-- RESOUNDING NO.
THE WAY I LOOK AT HEALTH CARE
DELIVERY SYSTEMS IS THE SAME WAY
I LOOK AT BUILDING A HOUSE.
TO BUILD A STRONG, SOLID, SAFE
HOUSE, YOU HAVE TO START WITH A
STRONG, SOLID, SAFE FOUNDATION.
OUR HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEMS
ARE THE FOUNDATION FOR ALL OF
OUR EFFORT IN HEALTH CARE.
IF THAT FOUNDATION IS OFFCENTER
OR CRACKED OR BUILT ON UNEVEN
GROUND, IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER
HOW STRAIGHT THE WALLS ARE OR
HOW EFFICIENT THE MEDICAL SYSTEM IS.
NOTHING IS GOING TO WORK RIGHT.
RIGHT NOW THE VAST MAJORITY OF
HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA RESTS ON
SHAKY FOUNDATIONS.
IT'S OUR JOB TO REBUILD THESE
FOUNDATIONS BEFORE MORE
AMERICANS SLIP THROUGH THE
CRACKS.
THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT ACROSS THE
COUNTRY COMMUNITIES ARE
ACHIEVING SUCCESS WITH
INNOVATIVE HEALTH CARE DELIVERY
PROGRAMS.
WE SHOULD LOOK AT THESE MODELS
AS WE CONTINUE OUR WORK HERE IN WASHINGTON.
THERE'S ONE EXAMPLE I'D LIKE TO
HIGHLIGHT TODAY.
THAT EXAMPLE COMES FROM MY HOME
STATE OF NEW MEXICO FROM A
COUNTY THAT MAKES UP THE BOOT
HEEL OF THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER.
HEDALGO COUNTY IS ONE OF THE
MOST RURAL COUNTIES IN OUR STATE
WITH JUST 5,000 PEEP.
HEDALGO FES THE SAME HEALTH
CARE PROBLEMS AS OTHER RURAL AREAS.
THERE AREN'T ENOUGH DOCTORS,
PATIENTS MUST TRAVEL A LONG
DISTANCE FOR CARE AND AS A
RESULT THERE ARE CHRONIC RATES
-- HIGHER RATES OF CHRONIC DISEASES.
TO MEET THESE CHALLENGES, THE
COUNTY HAD TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX.
WHAT THEY CAME UP WITH WAS THE
HADOLGO HEALTH COMMONS.
THEY RECOGNIZED THAT IN RURAL
AREAS CHRONIC HEALTH CONDITIONS
ARE WORSENED BY LIMITED ACCESS
TO HEAH PROVIDERS.
SECOND, TO RESPOND TO THIS
CHALLENGES, THEY ESTABLISHED A
ONE-STOP SHOP FOR MEDICAL AND
SOCIAL SERVICES.
AT THE CLINIC,
DOCTORS, NURSES AND DENTISTS.
SEEK MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT,
FILL A PRESCRIPTION, GET
MEDICAID OR MEDICARE OR APPLY
FOR PUBLI
W.I.C.
THIRD, THEY WORK WITH A
COMMUNITY TO IDENTIFY LOCAL
HEALTH PRIORITIES AND THEN ALIGN
THEIR SERVICES ACCORDINGLY.
FINALLY, THEY ARE A SOURCE OF
LOCAL, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT BY CREATING JOBS,
SERVING SCHOOLS AN OFFERING
FAMILIES SUPPORT.
THE HEALTH COMMONS MODEL HAS
WORKED SO WELL THAT IT'S GROWN
TO SERVE FIVE CITES ACROSS NEW MEXICO.
AND THEY'RE NOT STOPPING THERE.
THE NEW HEDALGO INITIATIVE,
WHICH IS STILL IN DEVELOPMENT,
WILL EXPAND ON THE SUCCESS OF
THE HEALTH COMMONS.
THE GOAL IS TO ENROLL ALL 5,000
RESIDENTS OF HEDALGO COUNTY INTO
THE HEALTH SERVICES PROGRAM.
HEDALGO COUNTY IS ONE EXAMPLE OF
THE INNOVATIVE WORK GOING ON
ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
AND IT SERVE AS A LESSON TO ALL
OF US THAT FAULTY FOUNDATIONS
DON'T FIX THEMSELVES.
THEY REQUIRE HARD WORK AND
INGENUITY AND SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT.
IF WE'RE GOING TO FULLY
TRANSFORM OUR NATION'S AILING
HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, WE MUST
FIRST FOCUS ON THE FOUNDATION.
WE MUST FIRST REFORM OUR HEALTH
CARE DELIVERY SYSTEMS.
THANK YOU, MR.
YIELD THE FLOOR. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA.
MRS. HAGAN: THANK YOU, SENATOR UDALL.
YOUR EXAMPLE OF THE COMMUNITY
HEALTH SERVICE DELIVERY IN NEW
MEXICO IS EXCELLENT.
NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, I'D LIKE TO
YIELD FIVE MINUTESO MY
COLLEAGUE FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE,
SENATOR SH SHAHEEN TO REDUCE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE.
MRS. SHAHEEN: THANK YOU, MR.
PRESIDENT.
AND I WANT TO THANK SENATOR
HAGAN FOR ORGANIZING THE EFFORT
TODAY AND FOR THE GREAT WORK
SHE'S DONE ON THE "HELP"
COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP A HEALTH
CARE REFORM BILL THAT CAN BE
SUPPORTED BY THIS BODY.
ONCE AGAIN WE'RE HERE TO TALK
ABOUT HEALTH CARE REFORM AND WHY
IT'S SO URGENTL NEEDED.
AND WE'RE AT A CRITICAL JUNCTURE
BECAUSE HEALTH CARE COSTS ARE
OUT OF CONTROL.
THEY'RE A THREAT TO OUR
FAMILIES, OUR SMALL BUSINESSES
AND OUR ECONOMY AND DESPITE ALL
THE MONEY THAT WE'RE SPENDING ON
HEALTH CARE, WE'RE NOT
GUARANTEED BETTER HEALTH
OUTCOMES.
THAT MEANS JUST BECAUSE SPENDING
MONEY IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT
PEOPLE ARE HEALTHIER.
BUT THE TRUTH IS WE CAN CONTROL
COSTS AND IMPROVE QUALITY AND WE
CAN DO THIS BY PROMOTING
EFFECTIVE DELIVERY MODELS AN
SENATOR UDALL -- AND SENATOR
UDALL DID A GREAT JOB OF TALKING
ABOUT WHAT THAT TERM MEANS IN
REAL LANGUAGE.
WE CAN PROMOTE EFFECTIVE
DELIVERY MODELS THAT EMPHASIZE
COORDINATION AND INDIVIDUALIZED
CARE.
AND, AS I'VE SAID ON A NUMBER OF
OCCASIONS, I'M REALLY PROUD OF
THE INNOVATIONS THAT ARE
CHANGING HEALTH CARE DELIVERY IN
NEW HAMPSHIRE, MY HOME STATE,
AND ONE OF THOSE THAT HAS BEEN
RECOGNIZED NATIONALLY IS THE
DARTMOUTH ATLAS PROJECT BASED IN
HANOVER.
BECAUSE OF THE WORK OF THE ATLAS
PROJECT, WE NOW KNOW THERE ARE
SIGNIFICANT VAIR AITIONZS IN THE
-- VARIAONS IN THE WAY THAT
HEALTH CARE RESOURCES ARE UD
AND HOW THE MONEY IS SPENT
DEPENDING ON WHERE WE LIVE.
RIGHT NOW PROVIDERS ARE
FOR VOLUME RATHER THAN FOR VALUE.
AND THERE'S A CHART HERE THAT
SHOWS THAT VERY CLEARLY.
IT SHOWS THE DIFFERENCE IN
SPENDING AMONG DIFFERENT REGIONS
OF THE COUNTRY FOR MEDICE
PATIENTS.
AND, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE AREAS
THAT ARE DARK RED ARE THE MOST
EXPENSIVE.
SO THESE AREAS, THE AREAS THAT
ARE LIGHTEST -- ARE LIGHTEST ARE
THE LEAST EXPENSIVE AREAS WHEN
IT COMES TO COST PER MEDICARE
PATIENT.
ALL THE WAY FROM 5,280 TO 6,600
IN THE LOW-SPENDING REGIONS UP
TO 8,600 TO 13,360 PER MEDICARE
PATIENT IN THESE DARKEST REGIONS
OF THE COUNTRY.
AND, UNFORTUNATELY, THE SAD
THING ABOUT THIS RESEARCH IS NOT
JUST THE CHANGES IN COSTS, BUT
IT'S THE FACT THAT JUST BECAUSE
SOMEONE LIVES IN AN AREA WHERE
THE SPENDING IS HIGHER, IT
DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY'RE GOING
TO HAVE BETTER HEALTHOUT COMES.
-- HEAH OUTCOMES.
SO PUT VERY SIMPLY, MOST COSTLY
CARE DOES NOT MEAN BETTER CARE.
AND THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL
PROBLEM WITH OUR HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM.
BECAUSE THE WAY OUR HEALTH CARE
DOLLARS ARE BEING SPENT RIGHT
NOW IS ANALOGOUS TO A MEDICAL ARMS RACE.
THAT IS NOT MY TERM, THAT IS
ELLIOT FISHER FROM THE ATLAS PROJECT.
TOO OFTEN WE JUDGE THE QUALITY
OF OUR HOSPITALS, FOR EXAMPLE,
BASED ON A NEW EXPANSION WING OR
THE LATEST MEDICAL DEVICE, AND
NOT ON COMPARING THE QUALITY OF
OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS
THOUSANDS OF MY CONSTITUENTS
HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR CONCERNS
ABOUT OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
LAST WEEK DR. JIM KELLY FROM
HOLLACE, NEW HAMPSHIRE WAS IN MY
OFFICE SHARING HIS CONCERNS AND FRUSTRATIO
DR. KELLY IS A FAMILY PHYSICIAN,
AND LIKE SO MANY OF OUR HEALTH
CARE PROVIDERS, HE'S DEDICATED
TO DOING THE BEST JOB THAT HE
CAN FOR HIS PATIENTS.
HOWEVER, INEFFICIENCIES IN OUR
SYSTEM OFTEN WORK AGAINST THE
BEST EFFORTS OF OUR PROVIDERS.
AND DR. KELLY SHARED ONE OF
THOSE EXPERIENCES.
HE TALKED ABOUT ONE OF HIS
PATIENTS WHO IS A 73-YEAR-OLD
WOMAN WITH DIABETES WHO CAME
INTO HIS OFFICE ON A FRIDAY
MORNING WITH A SWOLLEN, RED, AND
TENDER LEG.
AND IN ADDITION TO HER OWN
ILLNESS, SHE'S THE SOLE
CARETAKER FOR HER 79-YEAR-OLD
HUSBAND WHO RECENTLY HAD A STROKE.
DR. KELLY DIAGNOSED HER
CONDITION, A RELATIVELY COMMON
ONE AS A SKIN INFECTION WHICH
REQUIRED I.V. ANTIBIOTICS.
DR. KELLY GAVE HER THE FIRST
DOSE IN HIS OFFICE, BUT MEDICARE
WOULDN'T COVER HER INFUSION
THERAPY AT HOME.
SO, AS A RESULT, DR. KELLY WAS
FORCED TO SEND HER TO THE LOCAL
EMERGENCY ROOM TO RECEIVE TEAM
OVER THE WEEKEND.
AS A RESULT, SHE HAD TO BRING
HER DISABLED HUSBAND WHO SHE
COULDN'T LEAVE ALONE TO THE
EMERGENCY ROOM.
BOTH OF THEM WERE FORCED TO SIT
IN THE CROWDED E.R., EXPOSING
THEM TO NOR GERMS AN USING
RESOURCES -- TO MORE GERMS AND
USING RESOURCES THAT COULD BE
USED MUCH MORE EFFICIENTLY.
UNFORTUNATELY OUR STEM DOESN'T
ALWAYS FACILITATE EFFICIENT
AROUND COORDINATED CARE AND THIS
IS TOO OFTEN TRUE WITH OUR MOST
VULNERABLE PATIENTS.
BUT THERE ARE INNOVATIVE
PROJECTS ACROSS THE
HAVE ADAPTED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THESE INDIVIDUALS.
BY PROVIDING INCREASED OUTREACH
AND CARE COORDINATION, ONE PILOT
PROGRAM WAS ABLE TO REDUCE
VISITS TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM BY
ALMOST TWO-THIRDS AFTER TWO
YEARS OF PARTICIPATION.
MR. PRESIDENT, I RECENTLY
INTRODUCED THE REDUCE ACT, WHICH
IS MODELED AFTER THESE
SUCCESSFUL PILOTS AND WHICH I
BELIEVE WILL CHANGE THE WAY CARE
IS DELIVERED TO THESE HIGH-RISK
PATIENTS.
THE REDUCE -- WITH MULTIPLE
CHRONIC CONDITIONS, AND I THINK
THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO BOINT OUT.
THE REDUCE -- POINT OUT.
THE REDUCE ACT WILL HAVE
PROJECTS IN 10 STAS MODELED
AFTER THESE APPROACHES THAT HAVE
BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN PLACES AROUND
THE COUNTRY.
THIS IS THE TYPE OF DELIVERY
SYSTEM REFORM THAT IMPROVES
QUALITY AND REDUCES COSTS
SIMULTANEOUSLY.
AND, AS I'VE SAID MANY TIMES,
THE CHALLENGE THAT WE FACE IS
GREAT, BUT WE HAVE THEESOURCES
AND THE TOOLS WE NEED TO REFORM
OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
WE CAN DO THIS IN A FISCALLY
RESPONSIBLE WAY BY IMPROVING THE
WAY WE DELIVER CARE WE CAN
MAXIMIZE EFFICIENCY AND WE CAN IMPROVE QUALITY.
AND THIS IS THE TYPE OF REFORM
ALL AMERICANS DESERVE.
THIS IS THE TYPE OF REFORM THAT
WE'RE WORKING ON HERE IN THE
SENATE AND THIS IS THE TYPE OF
REFORM THAT I HOPE OUR
COLLEAGUES WILL ALL SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SENA
TIME BACK TO YOU. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA.
MRS. HAGAN: THANK YOU, SENATOR
SHAHEEN, YOU HAVE MADE IT
ABUNDANTLY CARE THAT REDUCING
OVER UTILIZATION OF EMERGENCY
DEPARTMENTS WE CAN MAXIMIZE
INEFFICIENCY AND IMPROVE PATIENT
HEALTH CARE.
NOW I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD FE
MINUTES TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM
VIRGINIA, SENATORARK WARNER,
TO TALK ABOUT
REFORMS IN VIRGINIA.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA.
MR. WARNER:
COLLEAGUE FROM NORTH CAROLINA
FOR ORGANIZING THE FRESHMEN ONE
MORE TIME AS WE'VE COME OUT FOR
THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE WEEKS IN
GROUPS OF EIGHT, NINE, 10, 11
FRESHMEN TO TALK ABOUT OUR
REVISION FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM.
WE INVITE OUR COLLEAGUES NOT
ONLY ON OUR SIDE OF THE AISLE
BUT OUR COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE
AISLE TO JOIN US IN THIS
CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW WE CAN
MAKE HEALTH CARE REFORM RIGHT.
I WANT TO COMMEND MY COLLEAGUE
FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE, SENATOR
SHAHEEN'
CAN TRY TO GET THE FINANCIAL
INCENTIVES RIGHT AROUND HEALTH
CARE REFM.
I THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE
OF ANY OVERALL HEALTH CARE
REFO
AND I WANT TO PICK UP WHERE
SENATOR SHAHEEN LEFT OFF AND
TALK ABOUT HOW WE
READJUST OUR FINANCIAL
INCENTIVES AROUND HEALTH CARE.
WE'VE GOT THEM ALL WRONG.
WE'VE GOT A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
RIGHT NOW THAT REWARDS BAD PRACTICES.
WE'VE GOT A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
THAT REWARDS A HOSPITAL FOR
MULTIPLE READMISSIONS OVER A
HOSPITAL THAT HAS A LOW READMISSION RATE.
WE HAVE A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM NOW
THAT REWARDS VOLUME OF CARE
RATHER THAN QUALITY OF CARE.
A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM DELIVERY
REFORM HAS TO BE A KEY COMPONENT
OF ANY KIND OF HEALTH CARE
REFORM GOING FORWARD.
I WANT TO JOIN MY OTHER
COLLEAGUES.
I HEARD FROM SENATOR UDALL FROM
NEW MEXICO AS WELL.
I WANT TO GO THROUGH THREE
EXAMPLES IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.
IN 2000, THE V.C.U. HEALTH
SYSTEM IN RICHARD, OUR CAPITAL,
DEVELOPED A PROGRAM CALLED
VIRGINIA COORDINATED CARE, THAT
MANAGES HEALTH CARE SYSTEM FOR
THE UNINSURED IN THE SHUFPLD. RICHMOND.
WHETHER YOU'VE GOT AN UNINSURED
PERSON IN RICHMOND OR LITTLE
ROCK, THEY GET TREATED FOR THEIR
EPISODIC ILLNESS, GO BACK INTO THEIR SITUATION.
THERE IS NO CONTINUITY OF CARE.
OFTEN
SHOW BACK UP BECAUSE HAS BEEN NO
MANAGEMENT OF THAT INDIVIDUAL'S
CASE DURING HIS PERIOD OUTSIDE
OF BEING TREATED FOR THE
EPISODIC INCIDENT.
WHAT V.C.U. DEVELOPED WAS A
PROGRAM THAT ASSIGNED ONE
PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN TO
OVERSEE EACH UNINSURED PATIENT'S HEALTH.
THE GOAL WAS TO INCREASE
COORDINATION BETWEEN DOCTORS AND
HOSPITALS AND AS A RESULT
INCREASE ACCOUNTABILITY, IMPROVE
QUALITY OF CARE AND LOWER COSTS.
THIS VIRGINIA COORDINATED CARE
PROGRAM
FOLKS IN 2000.
BY 2009 THERE WERE OVER 20,000
MEMBERS.
ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT
OUTCOMES OF THE PROGRAM WAS A
SIGNIFICANT DROP IN EMERGENCY
ROOM VISITS BY ENROLLED PATIENTS.
BETWEEN 2000 AND 2005, EMERGENCY
ROOM VISITS DROPPED 14% BY
HAVING THIS KIND OF CONTINUITY
OF CARE.
AS WELL, THESE PATIENTS DIDN'T
SHOW UP AT OTHER EMERGENCY ROOMS.
THEY WERE TREATED EARLIER IN THE
PROGNOSIS O THEIR ILLNESS AND
FOR AN OVERALL BETTER DELIVERY
OF HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE TOOK PLACE IN
ANOTHER END OF OUR STAYS. CENTERA HEALTH CARE IN
TPHOEFBGT.
IN 1999, C
UNITS MONITORED BY A DOCTOR FULL
TIME HAD LOWER MORTALITY RATES
THAN THOSE THAT WERE NOT.
IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY
OF CARE CENTERA WORKED WITH
VISICU TO INSTALL WEB-BASED
CAMERAS IN EACH PATIENT'S ROOM.
WITH
PHYSICIAN IN A CENTRAL LOCATION
CAN FOLLOW P
ROOMS AT THE SAME TIME.
AGAIN, THIS KIND OF LODGE CAM
APPROACH PRODUCED MORE EFFICIENT CARE.
CENTERA SAW A 25% REDUCTION IN
MORTALITY, 1% IN LENGTH OF STAY
AND 150% RETURN ON INVESTMENT IN
THE PROGRAM.
AGAIN, TRYING TO BRING A
DIFFERENT REFORM OF DELIVERY AND
A DIFFERENT REFORM OF HOW WE PAY.
PERHAPS THE BEST EXAMPLE AND ONE
I HOPE OUR OVERALL HEALTH CARE
REFORM EFFORTS WILL LEAD US TO
IS BEING PHOLGDED BY A COLIN --
MODELED BY A CLINIC IN ROANOKE.
IT HAS MORE THAN 600 DOCTORS AND
EIGHT HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATIONS.
IN 2010, THEY WILL JOIN WITH
ENGELBERG CENTER AND DARTMOUTH
INSTITUTE FOR HEALT POLICY TO
INSTITUTE A NEW HEALTH CARE
POLICY THAT WILL REWARD
PROVIDERS FOR IMPROVING PATIENT
HEALTH CARE OUTCOMES WHILE A
LOWERING COSTS.
THIS ACCOUNTABLE CARE
ORGANIZATION WE HEAR A LOT THESE
DAYS ABOUT ACCOUNTABLE CARE
ORGANIZATIONS, WILL ENCOURAGE
PHYSICIANS, HOSPITALS, INSURANCE
COMPANIES AND THE GOVERNMENT TO
WORK TOGETHER TO COORDINATE
CARE, IMPROVE QUALITY AND REDUCE COSTS.
UNDER THIS MODEL, PROVIDERS WILL ASSUME GREATER RESPONSIBILITY
NOT JUST FOR TREATING THE
PATIENTS' ILLNESS BUT FOR THE
OVERALL QUALITY AND COST OF CARE
THEY DELIVER.
THEY WILL BE INCENTIVIZED TO
TAKE STEPS TO KEEP THE PATIENTS
HEALTHY WHILE USING LESS COSTLY
PROCEDURES.
THEY ARE MOVING AELG WAY FROM
OUR CURRENT -- AWAY FROM OUR
FLAWED SYSTEM, FEE FOR SERVICE.
SHROPBG WE HAVE A HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM THAT REWARDS PROVIDERS ON
THE QUALITY OF CARE THEY
PRODUCE -- ON THE QUANTITY OF
CARE RATHER THAN ON THE QUALITY
OF CARE, WE'RE NEVER GOING TO
GET HEALTH CARE REFORM RIGHT.
IF WE DO COORDINATED CE, WE
CAN HAVE HIGHER QUALITY CARE AT
LOWER COSTS.
WE CAN FOCUS ON THE HEALTH OF
PATIENTS, NOT THE NUMBER OF PROCEDURES.
AND WE'LL HAVE SMARTER FINANCIAL INCENTIVES.
WE HAVE TO MAKE THIS DELIVERY
SYSTEM REFORM AND GETTING THE
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES RIGHT A KEY
PART OF HEALTH CARE REFORM.
I KNOW MY FRESHMEN COLLEAGUES
STAND READY TO WORK WITH OUR
COLLEAGUES ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE.
AGAIN, INVITE THE COLLEAGUES
ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE
TO JOIN US IN THIS EFFORT.
GETTING IT RIGHT CAN LEAD TO
IMPROVED QUALITY OF CARE FOR ALL
AMERICANS.
IT CAN LEAD TO LOWER COSTS AND
IT CAN LEAD TO A HEALTHY AMERICA.
I THANK OUR LEADER FOR TODAY,
THE SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA,
FOR GRANTING ME THISIME AND I
LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH HER
AND OUR OTHER COLLEAGUES AS WE
MOVE FORWARD IN THIS DEBATE.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA.
MRS. HAGAN: THANK YOU, SENATOR
WARNER.
IT IS OBVIOUS COORDINATED CAR
WILL ROW
WHAT YOU DISCUSSED IS SIMILAR TO
WHAT WE HAVE IN NORTH CAROLINA
WHERE WE COVER OVER 900,000
MEDICAL PATIENTS.
FINALLY, MR. PRESIDENT, I'D LIKE
TO YIELD FIVE MINUTES TO MY NEW
COLLEAGUE FROM MASSACHUSETTS,
SENATOR PAUL KIRK, TO DISCUSS
KEY NATIONAL INDICATORS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
MR. KIRK: MR. PRESIDENT, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU AS WELL TO THE SENATOR
FROM NORTH CAROLINA FOR THE
PRIVILEGE TO BE A MEMBER OF HER
CLASS AND THE CLASS OF
DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES AND
FRESHMEN AND TO COMMEND HER AS
WELL FOR HER LEADERSHIP IN THIS
DISCUSSION THIS MORNING ADDING
ON TO THE ROLE THE FRESHMAN
CLASS IS PLAYING IN ADVOCATING
HETH CARE REFORM FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
MR. PRESIDENT, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK
THIS MORNING ABOUT A KEY
NATIONAL INDICATORYSTEM.
AS WE KNOW, AMERICA IS SAID TO
LEAD THE WORLD IN HEALTH INNOVATION.
IT CAN CREATE THE FINEST MEDICAL
DEVICES, THE MOST EFFECTIVE
DRUGS TO TREAT DISEASES AND
ADVANCED PROCESSES AND
PROCEDURES TO CARE FOR PATIENTS.
IT IS THIS WIDE RANGE OF
REMARKABLE INNOVATIONS THAT HAS
RESULTED IN TODAY'S $2.3
TRILLION HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY.
BUT DESPITE ALL OUR MEDICAL
ACHIEVEMENTS AND TECHNOLOGIES
AND THE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC MONEY
WE SPEND ON HEALTH CE, WE DO
NOT LEAD THE WORLD IN HEALTH OUTCOMES.
WE NEED TO IN--
WAY WE -- INNOVATE THE WAY WE
COMPLEMENT HEALTH CARE POLICY.
FOR THAT IS THE CREATION OF THE
KEY NATIONAL INDICATOR SYSTEM.
WHEN ILLNESS STRIKES, WE EXPECT
A HEALTH CARE TEAM TO CAREFULLY
COLLECT INFORMATION FROM THE
PATIENT AND THEN CONSULT THE
WIDE R
AVAILABLE TO THEM TO AKHAOEFT
APPROPRIATE DYING -- ACHIEVE THE
APPROPRIATE DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT.
THAT CAREFUL AND COMPLETE
PROCESS SHOULD YIELD THE BEST
POIBLE COURSE OF TREATMENT AND RECOVERY.
WE NEED THE SAME KIND OF
APPROACH IN THE CREATION OF WISE
HEALTH CARE POLICY.
IN PARTICULAR, WE NEED MEASURES
TO IDENTIFY WHAT IS WRONG WITH
OUR CURRENT HEALTH CARE SYSTEM,
INCLUDINWHAT IS DRIVING THE
INCREASINGLY HIGH COST OF CARE.
ABUNDANT RESEARCH AND REPORTS
HAVE ANALYZED SUCH QUESTIONS.
WHAT IS MISSING IS A CENTRAL
INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATION THAT
CAN ANALYZE ALL OF THE RESEARCH
PERFORMED BY VARIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS AND MAKE THAT
INFORMATION
CONGRESS, TO THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THAT IS AN INDISPENSABLE PART OF
SUCCESSFUL HEALTH REFORM.
IT WILL GIVE DECISION-MAKERS
EASIER ACCESS TO ALL THE
KNOWLEDGE AVAILABLE AND
ELIMINAT WASTEFUL SPENDING OF
THE HARD-EARNED DOLLARS OF
AMERICAN FAMILIES.
SENATORS KENNEDY AND SENATOR
ENZI IN A STRONG BIPARTISAN
EFFORT UNDERSTOOD THE NEED FOR
THIS VITAL RESOURCE AND THEY
DESIGNED A KEY NATIONAL
INDICATOR SYSTEM TO PROVIDE IT.
IT WILL BE A NONPARTISAN
INDEPENDENT AGENCY WITH A
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP.
IT WILL FOSTER BETTER RELATIONS
AND RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE,
STATISTICAL AND SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITIES AND WILL LEAD TO
GREATER TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SPENDING ON
NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS.
WITHOUT SUCH A RESOURCE,
MR. PRESIDENT, WE WILL BE AT A
SERIOUS DISADVANTAGE AT FULLY
UNDERSTANDING EMERGING HEALTH
RISKS AND ASSESSING WHETHER THE
INTENDED RESULT IS BEING
ACHIEVED OR ADE
BEING MADE ON THE HEALTH CARE
CHALLENGES FACING US.
THE KEY NATIONAL INDICATOR
SYSTEM WILL MAKE ALL ITS DATA
AVAILABLE ON A NEWLY CREATED,
WIDELY ACCESSIBLE WEB SITE IN
THE HEALTH CARE CONTEXT.
THIS UNPRECEDENTED ACCESSIBILITY
OF DATA WILL ASSIST THE PUBLIC IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT
INFORMATION WAS USED BY
POLITICIANS IN CREATING HETH
CARE POLICY.
IT WILL ENHANCE POLICY-MAKERS TO
SEE WHETHER PROGRESS IS BEING
MADE IN HEALTH REFORM AND IT
WILL PERMIT PRACTITIONERS AND
RESEARCHERS TO USE THE
INFORMATION FOR THE GREATER
BENEFIT OF PATIENT
CONSUMERS OF HEALTH AND MEDICAL
CARE.
SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS IN THIS
AREA HAS ALREADY BEEN
ACCOMPLISHED.
OVER THE YEARS THE INSTITUTE OF
MEDICINE HAS BEEN ABLE TO
IDENTIFY FIVE DRIVERS OF HEALTH
CARE QUALITY AND COST.
FIRST, HEALTH OUTCOME
SECOND, HEALTH-RELATED
BEHAVIORS.
THIRD, HEALTH SYSTEM PEFORMANCE.
FOURTH, SOCIAL AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT.
AND, FIVE, DEMOGRAPHIC
DISPARITIES.
THE INSTITUTE HAS RECOMMENDED 20
SPECIFIC INDICATORS FOR
MEASURING THESE FIVE DRIVERS
HEALTH CARE QUALI
THESE INDICATORS WERE CAREFULLY
SELECTED TO REFLECT BOTH THE
OVERALL HEALTH OF THE NATION AND
THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS
OF OUR HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY.
HOWEVER, THE INSTITUTE LACKS AN
IMPLEMENTATION SYSTEM THAT CAN
USE THESE INDICATORS EFFECTIVELY
TO GUIDE FUTURE POLICY AND PRACTICE.
THAT'S THE GOAL AND THAT'S THE
MISSION OF THE NEW AGENCY, THE
KEY NATIONAL INDICATOR SYSTEM,
WE PROPOSED.
HERE'S ONE EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS
LEGISLATION WILL IMPROVE OUR
HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
A RECENT STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE
HARVARD SKAOFL -- SCHOOL OF
PUBLIC HEALTH FOUND USING A
CHECKLIST DURING SURGICAL
PROCEDURES RESULTED IN A
ONE-THIRD REDUCTION IN
COMPLICATIONS FROM THAT SURGERY.
REPORTS SUCH AS THIS ARE MADE
PUBLIC, BUT YOU HAVE TO KNOW
WHERE TO LOOK IN ORDER TO ACCESS
THIS INFORMATION.
THE KEY NATIONAL INDICATOR
SYSTEM WILL TAKE THESE REPORTS
COMPILE THEM AND DISSEMINATE
THEM AND MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO
THE PUBLIC.
SO ANY TIME A BILL IS BEING DEVELOPED, A CONGRESSIONAL
OFFICE CAN GO TO THIS WEB SITE
AND SEE ALL THE RESEARCH THAT
HAS BEEN CONDUCTED ON A TOPIC IN
ORDER TO MAKE ECONOMICALLY SOUND
DECISIONS FOR THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
CURRENTLY CONGRESS AND THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH CONTINUE TO
FOLLOW OLD HABITS.
WE TEND TO REINVENT THE WHEEL
WITH EVERY MAJOR NEW BILL THAT
IS INTRODUCED.
THAT APPROACH LEADS TO WASTED
TIME, WASTED ENERGY AND WASTED MONEY.
OLD HABITS ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH
TO ACHIEVE TOMORROW'S GOALS.
BY DEVELOPING THIS INDICATOR
SYSTEM, A PROCESS WILL BE IN
PLACE SO THAT THE EFFICIENCY AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF GOVERNMENT
SPENDING ON SHORT, MEDIUM AND
LONG-TERM PROBLEMS CAN BE
DETERMINED QUICKLY AND IN A
FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE MANNER.
OUR CURRENT SYSTEM IS
UNSUSTAINABLE.
IT CREATES UNNECESSARY CONFUSION
WHEN AMERICANS CAN LEAST AFFORD IT.
WE NEED A SYSTEM THAT WILL
PROVIDE INSIGHT, FORESIGHT,
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
WE WON'T BE DOING OUR JOB, MR. PRESIDENT, FOR THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE IF WE ALLOW THEIR MONEY
TO BE SPENT WITHOUT ASSESSING
THE COST EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
VARIOUS PROGRAMS BEING DEVELOPED.
BY CREATING THE KEY NATIONAL
INDICATOR SYSTEM, WE CAN
REASSURE ALL AMERICANS THAT WE
DID OUR REQUIRED DUE DILIGENCE
AND THAT OUR HEALTH CARE REFORM
BILL WILL TRULY WORK FOR THEM.
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
MRS. HAGAN: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA.
MRS. HAGAN: I WANT TO THANK SENATOR KIRK.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COMMENTS AND THE DISCUSSION ON
THE NEW TRANSPARENCY AND
OPENNESS OF THE NEW KEY NATIONAL
INDICATOR SYSTEM.
I THINK THIS IS CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT SO THAT OUR PUBLIC C
SEE THE PROGRESS THAT WE'RE
MAKING IN IMPROVING HEALTH
OUTCOMES, HEALTHY BEHAVIORS AND
COST EFFECTIVENESS.
THANK YOU, SENATOR KIRK.
AND, MR. PRESIDENT, IN THIS LAST
HOUR WE HAVE HEARD FROM MANY OF
OUR NEW FRESHMAN COLLEAGUES
ABOUT THE SUCCESSFUL EFFORTS TO
REFORM THE WAY WE DELIVER HEALTH
CARE IN O COUNTRY.
I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES
FOR SHARING THESE IDEAS WITH US.
AND, MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD BACK
OUR
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM IDAHO.
MR. CRAPO: THANK YOU.
I TOO WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT HEALTH CARE.
THE HOUSE IS PREPARING TO DEBATE
AND REPORTEDLY VOT BY LATE THIS
WEEK OR EARLY NEXT WEEK ON A
MASSIVE NEW HEALTH CARE BILL
THAT WILL DRAMATICALLY EXPAND
THE SIZE OF OUR GOVERNMENT,
DRAMATICALLY INCREASE TAXES AND
ESTABLISH A
GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED INSURANCE
SYSTEM.
WHILE IN THE SENATE, WE ARE NOT
YET CLEARLY AWARE OF WHAT THE
BILL WE
BECAUSE IT IS STILL BEING
CRAFTED BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, WE
HAVE AN IDEA.
AND WE'RE PRETTY SURE THAT SOME
OF THE ELEMENTS THAT ARE GOING
TO BE INCLUDED IN IT ARE THE
SAME ELEMENTS THAT WE DEBATED IN
THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND THE
"HELP" COMMITTEE AS THOSE
COMMITTEES WORKED ON THEIR
PRODUCT HERE.
IN THAT CONTEXT, WE EXPECT THAT
WE WILL SEE ALSO HERE IN THE
SENATE A MASSIVE NEW EXPANSION
OF THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT UP TO
ANYTHING LIKE WHAT THE FINANCE
COMMITTEE BILL WAS, WE'LL SEE
TAXES INCREASED ON THE AMERICAN
PUBLIC BY OVER $500 BILLION.
WE'LL SEE CUTS IN MEDICARE,
WHICH WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY, OF
OVER $400 BILLION.
AND A SIGNIFICANT EXPANSION OF
THE CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
OVER OUR HEALTH CARE ECONOMY.
TODAY I WANT TO FOCUS ON JUST
THE TAX PIECE OF THIS SITUATION.
ONE OF THE MOST COMMON
PROVISIONS THAT WE HAVE SEEN
HERE IN THE SENATE THAT WE
CLEARLY EXPECT WILL BE IN THE
FINAL BILL IS THE PROPOSED 40%
EXCISE TAX ON HIGH-COST OR
CADILLAC HEALTH CARE PLANS.
THIS HAS BEEN DEFINED AS HEALTH
CARE PLANS THAT ARE VALUED AT
MORE THAN $8,000 PER -- FOR AN
INDIVIDUAL OR FOR A FAMILY
VALUED AT MORE THAN $,000.
AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT
THESE THRESHOLDS ARE NOT INDEXED
TO THE INCREASING COST OF
INFLATION, BUT INSTEAD -- EXCUSE
ME
INSTEAD ARE INDEXED TO INFLATION
PLUS ONE.
WHICH MEANS THAT OVER TIME THIS
WILL, JUST LIKE THE ALTERNATIVE
MINIMUM TAX, EAT FURTHER AND
FURTHER INTO THE AMERICAN
PUBLIC'S HEALTH CARE PLANS WHICH
WILL THEN BE TAXED.
THE JOINT COMMITTEE HAS SCORED
THIS TAX TO GENERAT
GENERATE $201 BILLION OF REVENUE
TO PAY FOR THAT PORTION -
-- $201 BILLION WORTH OF THE NEW
FEDERAL SPENDING PROPOSAL.
AND MANY THINK BECAUSE IT IS
CALLED AN EXCISE TAX ON HEALTH
CARE PLANS THAT IT'S NOT GOING
TO IMPACT THEM.
BUT THEY'LL BE SURPRISED TO
LEARN THAT IN MY QUESTIONING OF
THE JOINT TAX COMMITTEE, WE WERE
TOLD THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF
THIS $201 BILLION TAX IS
EXPECTED TO BEING COLLECTED
DIRECTLY FROM THE MIDDLE CLASS
AMERICANS, INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL
BE PAYING MORE INCOME TAX AND
PAYROLL TAX.
NOW, LET'S FIGURE OUT HOW THAT
CAN BE.
IT TURNS OUT THAT AS YOU ANALYZE
THE WAY THIS TAX IS GOING TO
WORK OUT, EMPLOYERS WILL -- WHO
WILL FACE A 40% EXCISE TAX ON
THE HEALTH CARE THAT THEY
PROVIDE TO THEIR EMPLOYEES WILL
BEGIN TO ADJUST THE VALUE OF
THEIR HEALTH CARE PNS SO THAT
THEY AVOID THE TAX.
AS THEY DO SO, THEY WILL REDUCE
THE HEALTH CARE THAT THEY ARE
PROVIDING TO THEIR EMPLOYEES AND
PRESUMABLY, AND WE EXPECT THAT
THEY WILL, INCREASE THE WAGES
THAT THEY ARE PAYING TO THEIR
EMPLOYEES SO THAT THEIR
EMPLOYEES' NET COMPENSATION IS
NOT CHANGED.
THE RESULT OF THAT, THOUGH, IS
THAT SINCE THE HEALTH CARE
PORTION OFHE COMPENSATION IS
NOT TAXED, AND THE INCOME
PORTION OF A
COMPENSATION IS TAXED, THAT THE
EMPLOYEE WILL ACTUALLY PAY
HIGHER TAXES BOTH ON INCOME AND
ON PAYROLL TAX LEVELS.
LET ME GIVE A REAL-WORLD EXAMPLE
TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WE'RE
SAYING.
IN MY STATE OF IDAHO THE CENSUS
HOUSEHOLD INCOME IS $35,000 A YEAR.
LET'S TAKE THE EXAMPLE OF A
SINGLE WOMAN WHO EARNS $60,000 A
YEAR IN COMPENSATION FROM HER EMPLOYER.
WE HAVE AN EXAMPLE REPRESENTED
WITH THIS CHART HERE.
LET'S ASSUME T
A $10,000 VALUE HEALTH POLICY.
SO HER TOTAL COMPENSATION
PACKAGE FROM HER EMPLOYER IS
GOING TO BE $60,000.
$50,000 IN WAGES AND $10,000 IN
EMPLOYER-PROVIDED HEALTH CARE
BENEFITS.
SHE'S TAXED ON $50,000 AND GETS
THE $10,000 HEALTH CARE BENEFIT
WITHOUT TAXATION.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE BILL,
THOUGH, AS I'VE ALREADY
INDICATED, IS THAT THIS TAX --
THIS $10,000 HEALTH CARE POLICY
WILL BE SUBJECT TO A 40% EISE
TAX.
AND IN ORDER TO AVOID THAT
EXCISE TAX THE COMPANY WILL
SIMPLY REACT BY REDUCING HER
HEALTH CARE POLICY TO
BELOW $8,000 AND INCREASE HER
INCOME.
LET'S PUT UP THE NEXT CHART TO
SEE WHAT IS THE VERY LIKELY
REACTION OF THE EMPLOYER.
NOT TO PAY THE INSURANCE FEE, AS
MANY ARE SAYING HERE, BUT SIMPLY
TO SKIP THAT AND DIRECT HER TAX
DOLLARS TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
IF THIS NEW HIGH-COST PLAN IS TO
BE ENACTED THE THEORY IS THAT
HER EMPLOYER WILL MAKE THE
ADJUSTMENTS TO CHANGE HER
OVERALL COMPENSATION PACKAGE IN
A WAY THAT SHE ENDS UP WITH
HIGHER WAGES.
LET'S PUT THE NEXT
SHOW EXACTLY HOW THIS WOULD
WORK.
UNDER THIS PROPOSAL HER HEALTH
CARE BENEFITS ARE GOING TO GO
DOWN.
LET'S ASSUME THAT THE COMPANY
REDUCES HER HEALTH CARE
FROM $10,000 IN VALUE TO
THOUSAND INALUE AND GIVES HER
THE EXTRA $4,000 IN INCOME.
HER HEALTH CARE BENEFITS WILL GO DOWN.
SHE'LL PAY MORE TAXES BECAUSE
SHE HAS $4,000 MORE OF HER
COMPENSATION PACKAGE SUBJECT TO
TAXATION AND THE NET VALUE OF
HER COMPENSATION WILL GO DOWN
BECAUSE OF HER INCREASED TAXES.
AND THE RESULT HERE IS THAT WE
ARE GOING TO SEE MILLIONS OF
AMERICANS PAY THIS EXCISE TAX
SQUARELY IN THE CONVENTION OF
THE PRESIDENT'S PROMISE THAT NO
INDIVIDUALS WHO MAKE LESS THA
THAN $200,000 WILL PAY INCOME
TAXES OR PAYROLL TAXES OR, IN
THE PRESIDENT'S WORDS, ANY OTHER
KIND OF TAXES.
JUST SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR ON
THIS, THE ESTIMAT
OF THIS TAX IS GOING TO BE PAID
BY THOSE WHO ARE EARNING LESS
THAN $200,000 PER YEAR.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, IF YOU JUST
LOOK AT THOSE WHO MAKE LESS THAN
-- LESS THAN $50,000 PER YEAR,
WE EXPECT THAT SOMEWHERE IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD OF EIGHT MILLION
AMERICANS WILL FALL INTO THIS CATEGORY.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBER WHO
MAKE LESS THAN $200,000 PER
YEAR, WE EXPECT THAT THAT NUMBER
WILL BE ABOVE 25 MILLION
AMERICANS WHO WILL BE PAYING
MORE TAXES, BOTH IN
INCOME TAX, AND RECEIVING LESS
HEALTH CARE BENEFIT FROM THEIR
EMPLOYER.
MR. PRESIDENT, THE NETESULT OF
THIS IS THAT THE PRESIDENT'S
PROMISE THAT YOU CAN KEEP YOUR
HEALTH CARE IF YOU LIKE IT WILL
NOT BE HONORED BECAUSE OF THIS
PROVISION.
PEOPLE WILL SEE NECESSARILY THAT
THEIR EMPLOYERS WILL BEGIN
REDUCING THE HEALTH CARE
PACKAGES TO MAKE THEM FIT THE
TAX STRUCTURE THAT THIS BILL
WILL CREATE.
SECONDLY, THE PRESIDENT'S
PROMISE THAT IF YOU LIKE -- THAT
IF YOU MAKE LESS THAN $200,000
AS AN INDIVIDUAL OR $250,000 AS
A FAMILY, THAT YOU WILL PAY NO
TAXES UNDER THIS PROPOSAL.
YET, AS WE'VE SEEN HERE WITH
THIS ONE EXAMPLE, AND THERE ARE
A NUMBER OF OTHER EXAMPLES THAT
ARE IN THE PROPOSAL THAT'S BEING
DEVELOPED,N THIS ONE EXAMPLE
OF $201 BILLION WORTH OF NEW
TAXES IN THE NEW BILL, THOSE
MAKING LESS THAN $200,000 WILL
PAY OVER 80% OF IT.
AND IT WILL COME DIRECTLY OUT OF THEIR POCKETS IN THEIR
COENSATION WITH THEIR
EMPLOYER.
MR. PRESIDENT, IN THE TIME I
HAVE LEFT, I WANT TO JUST FOCUS
ON ONE ADDITIONAL ELEMENT.
THERE'S ALSO A PROPOSAL TO
INCREASE THE
OF HEALTH CARE EXPENSES.
IN OTHER WORDS, THOSE WHO DEDUCT
THEIR EXPENSES AND
DEDUCTIONS CAN TODAY DEDUCT THAT
PORTION OF THEIR INCOME OVER 7
PO -- OVER 7.5% OF THEIR INCOME
REPRESENTED BY THEIR HEALTH CARE EXPENSES.
THIS BILL WILL INCREASE THAT TO
10% AND GENERATE $13 BILLION OF
ADDITIONAL TAXES IN THAT FORMAT.
WHO IS THE MOST LIKELY TO PAY
THESE TAXES?
PEOPLE WHO HAVE RELATIVELY LOW
HEALTH CARE COSTS ARE GOING TO
END UP NOT MEETING THAT 7.5%
THRESHOLD, NOW TO BE BROUGHT TO
10%, AND PROBABLY WILL NOT BE
ABLE TO BENEFIT -- WILL NOT BE
ABLE TO BENEFIT FROM THE DEDUCTIBILITY FROM THEIR HEALTH
CARE.
THOSE WHO FACE MEDICAL CRISIS,
THOSE WHO HAVE HEALTH CARE
EXPENSES THAT EXCEED THE VALUE
OF 10% WILL SEE THEIR
DEDUCTIBILITY REDUCED AGAIN BY
THESE PROPOSALS.
THE NET RESULT MILLIONS OF
AMERICANS MAKING LESS THA
THAN $200 BILLION -- EXCUSE ME
-- $200,000 A YEAR WILL PAY MORE
TAXE TIME IS UP.
I JUST WANT TO ENCOURAGE US AS
WE MOVE FORWARD IN THE DEBATE ON
THIS PROPOSAL TO RECOGNIZE THAT
THE TAX PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN
IT IT ARE SQUARELY GOING TO HIT
THOSE IN THE MIDDLE CLASS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:
SENATOR FROM IOWA.
MR. GRASSLEY: I'M SORRY THAT THE
ACNG
THE
TO LISTEN TO ME TWICE ON THIS
SAME SUBJECT.
MR. PRESIDENT, MEMBERS O THE
SENATE, WHEN I'M REFERRING TO A
BILL, I'M REFERRING TO THE
2,000-PAGE HOUSE BILL.
SMALL BUSINESS IS VERY VITAL TO
THE HEALTH OF OUR ECONOMY.
THE PRESIDENT AND I AGREE
70% OF NEW PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS
ARE CREATED BY SMALL BUSINESS.
THEY'RE THE SMALL BUSINESS IS
THE EMPLOYMENT CHAIN MACHINE OF
THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.
HOWEVER, WHERE THE PRESI
I DIFFER, IS THAT I BELIEVE THAT
SMALL BUSINESS TAXES SHOULD BE
LOWERED, NOT RAISED, TO GET OUR
ECONOMY BACK ON TRACK.
AND YOU'LL SEE IN MY DISCUSSION
THIS 2,000-PAGE BILL RAISES
THESE TAXES ON SMALL BUSINESS.
THE PRESIDENT AND MY C
ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE,
HAVE PROPOSED INCREASING THE TOP
MARGINAL TAX RATES FROM
39.6%, RESPECTFULLY, AND YOU CAN
SEE THAT ON THE CHART HERE UNDER
THE PROPOSED OBAMA BUDGET.
39.6% IS WHERE THEY WOULD RAISE THEM.
THEY HAVE ALSO PROPOSED
INCREASING THE TAX RATES ON
CAPITAL GAINS AND DIVIDENDS TO
20% AND PROVIDING FOR AN ESTATE
TAX RATE AS HIGH AS 45% AND AN
EXEMPTION OF THAT ESTATE
OF $3.5 MILLION.
ALSO THE PRESIDENT AND
CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS HAVE
CALLED FOR FULLY REINSTATING THE
PERSONAL EXEMPTION PHASEOUT AND
PERSONAL EXEMPTION PHASEOUT,
P.E.P., I'M GOING TO REFER TO AS P.E.P.
AND THEY WOULD DO THAT FOR THOSE
MAKE MORE THAN $200,000 A YEAR.
IN ADDITION, THEY HAVE CALLED
FOR FULLY REINSTATING THE
LIMITATION ON ITEMIZED
DEDUCTIONS, WHICH IS KNOWN AS
P.E.A.S.E. -- PEASE, AFTER A
FORMER CONGRESSMAN FROM OHIO,
FOR THOSE ALSO MAKING OVE OVER $200,000.
SO UNDER THE 2001 TAX LAW,
P.E.P. AND PEASE ARE SCHEDULED
TO BE COMPLETELY PHASED OUT IN
2010.
THAT MEANS THE TAX RATE FOR
CURRENT
GO UP, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE
CHART HERE, TO 41%.
FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE
WHO EARN LESS THAN $200,000,
RAISING TAXES ON A HIGH EARNER
MIGHT NOT SOW SOUND SO BAD.
HOWEVER, THIS MEANS SO MANY
SMALL BUSINESSES WILL BE HIT
WITH A HIGHER TAX BILL.
AND FROM THE STANDPOINT FROM
WHERE THEY CREATE 70% OF THE NEW
JOBS, THAT IS BAD NOT JUST FOR
THOSE TAXPAYERS, THAT'S BAD FOR
THE ENTIRE ECONOMY.
AS IF THIS WASN'T BAD ENOUGH FOR
SMALL BUSINESS, THE TAX
INCREASES I'VE ALREADY TALKED
ABOUT, THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS IN
THIS
CARE REFORM BILL,AVE PROPOSE
ADD NEW SURTAX OF $5.04%.
WITH THIS
OF FOUR IN THE TOP BRACKET WILL
PAY A MARGINAL TAX RATE OF 46.4%
BY THE YEAR 2011.
SO, YOU SEE, YOU GO FROM CURRENT
LAW OF 35% TO AUTOMATICALLY, IF
CONGRESS DOESN'T INTERVENE, TO
39.6%, AND THEN ELIMINATE THE
P.E.P. AND
DO WHAT THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS WANT
TO
RATE, VERY, VERY HIGH, AND VERY,
VERY NEGATIVE TO EMPLOYMENT BY
SMALL BUSINESS.
THIS TAX CHANGE WOULD RESULT
CUMULATIVE IN AN INCREASE OF
MARGINAL TAX RATES OF 33%.
33% INCREASE OVER WHAT TAXES
PEOPLE ARE PAYING RIGHT
OWNERS O
BUSINESSES, WHETHER REGULAR,
WHICH COULD BE -- YOU CAN ALSO
HAVE SO-CALLED C-CORPORATIONS OR
OTHER ENTITIES THAT RECEIVE
DIVIDENDS OR REALIZE CAPITAL
GAINS WOULD FACE A 25% RATE
INCREASE UNDER THIS HOUSE BILL.
SO YOU HAVE A 15%
RATE TODAY AND ON DIVIDENDS
GOING UP ALMOST 70%
JANUARY 1, 2011.
NO
ARE PRETTY IMPORTANT.
CANDIDATE OBAMA CAMPANED ON
EVERYONE IN AMERICA -- EVERYONE,
WOULD PAY LOWER TAXES THAN THEY
ULD UNDER RATES BILL CLINTON
HAD IN THE 1990'S.
END OF QUOTE.
THAT'S QUITE A PROMISE.
THAT'S GOOD FOR BUSINESS
LOWER THAN HAD.
THE SMALL
PROPOSED BY THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS,
HOWEVER, VIOLATE PRESIDENT
OBAMA'S PLEDGE THAT HE MADE AS A
CANDIDATE.
THEREFORE, I WANT YOU TO KNOW
THAT I STAND WITH PRESIDENT
OBAMA IN OPPOSING THE SMALL
BUSINESS SURTAX PROPOSED BY T
HOUSE DEMOCRATS IN THIS BILL --
THIS 2,0
NOW ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESSES, AND THEY MAKE A
SURVEY, AND THEIR DATA SHOW 50%
OF THE OWNERS OF SMALL
BUSINESSES THAT EMP
WORKERS WOULD FALL INTO THE TOP BRACKET.
SO THE RED
BAR HAOERBGS 50% OF -- BAR HERE,
50% OF ALL SMALL EMPLOYERS FALL
INTO THAT BRACKET.
ACCORDING TO SMALL BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION, ABOUT TWO-THIRDS
OF THE NATION'S SMALL BUSINESS
WORKERS ARE EMPLOYED BY SMALL
BUSINESSES WITH 20 TO EMPLOYEES.
DO WE REALLY WANT TO RAISE TAXES
ON THESE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT
CREATE NEW JOBS AND EMPLOY
TWO-THIRDS OF THE SMALL
BUSINESSES?
IN HIS RADIO ADDRESS A FEW
MONTHS AGO, THE PRESIDENT NOTED
THAT SMALL BUSINESSES ARE HURTING.
AND THEY ARE HURTING BECAUSE
WE'RE HELPING WALL STREET BUT WE
AREN'T HELPING MAIN STREET WITH
ALL THE THINGS WE'RE DOING HERE
IN CONGRESS.
AND, OF COURSE, THERE'S NO
ARGUMENT FROM THIS SIDE OF THE
AISLE ON THAT POINT.
PRESIDENT OBAMA RECOGNIZED IN
THAT SPEECH THE CREDIT CRUNCH ON
SMALL BUSINESSES CONTINUES
DESPITE HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF
BAILOUTS FOR BIG BANKS.
WITH THESE SMALL BUSINESSES
ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE
CREDIT CRUNCH, DO WE REALLY WANT
TO THINK IT'S WISE TO HIT THEM
WITH A DOUBLE WHAMMY OF A 33%
IN
RATES?
JUST YESTERDAY WE RECEIVED DATA
FROM THE
CONGRESSIONAL TAX SCOREKEEPERS,
THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION,
THAT SAID THAT $1 OUT OF EVERY
$3 RAISED BY THE MASSIVE $461
BILLION HOUSE SURTAX -- AND
THAT'S IN THIS 2,000-PAGE
BILL -- IT WOULD COME FROM SMALL BUSINESS.
AND THAT'S CONSERVATIVE.
A VERY
BECAUSE OTHER KINDS OF INCOME
THAT THESE BUSINESS OWNERS
RECEIVE SUCH AS CAPITAL GAINS
AND DIVIDENDS, AREN'T INCLUDED
IN THAT FIGURE.
IF THE PROPONENTS OF THE
MARGINAL RATE INCREASES ON SMALL
BUSINESS OWNERS AGREE THAT A 33%
TAX INCREASE FOR HALF -- HALF --
OF THE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT
EMPLOY TWO-THIRDS OF ALL SMALL
BUSINESS WORKERS IS NOT WISE,
THEN THEY SHOULD EITHER OPPE
THESE TAX INCREASES OR PRESENT
DATA THAT SHOW DIFFERENT
RESULTS.
THIS HOUSE BILL OF 2,000 PAGES
HERE AND THE SURTAX INCLUDED IN
IT PILES ON THE HEAVY TAXES
SMALL BUSINESSES WILL
IN A
ARE STRUGGLING TO STAY AFLOAT,
DOES THIS MAKE SENSE TO IMPOSE
THE ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON THEM BY
RAISING THEIR TAXES?
ODDS ARE THEY'LL CUT S
IN OTHER WORDS, THE SMALL
BUSINESSES WILL CUT SPENDING.
THEY'LL CANCELING ORDERS FOR NEW
EQUIPMENT, CUT HEALTH INSURANCE
FOR
AND LAY OFF PEOPLE.
INSTEAD OF SEEKING TO RAISE
TAXES ON THOSE WHO CREATE JOBS
IN OUR ECONOMY, OUR POLICIES
NEED TO FOCUS
EXCESSIVE FACTION AND REGULATORY
BARRIERS -- EXCESSIVE TAX AND
REGULATORY BARRIERS THAT STAND
IN THE WAY OF SMALL BUSINESSES
MAKING
PRODUCTION AND CREATING
SUSTAINABLE JOBS.
ONE MORE MINUTE, MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. GRASSLEY: CREATING
SUSTAINABLE JOBS, WHICH IS WHAT
I REFER TO AS SMALL BUSINESS
BEING THE JOB-CREATING MIRACLE
OF OUR ECONOMY.
SO I WANT YOU TO KNOW,
REGARDLESS OF THIS 2,000-PAGE
HOUSE BILL, WITH THESE BIG TAX
INCREASES IN IT, I WILL CONTINUE
TO FIGHT TO PREVENT A DRAMATIC
TAX INCREASE ON OUR NATION'S JOB
ENGINE, THE SMALL BUSINESS OF
AMERICA.
I HOPE MY FRIENDS ON T OTHER
SIDE OF THE ACCORDINGLY.
AND I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT,
MR. PRESIDENT, IF I COULD PUT IN
THE RECORD A STATEMENT FROM THE
JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION BACKING UP SOME OF THE FIGURES
THAT I USED IN MY SPEECH.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER OBJECTION.
MR. GRASSLEY: I YIELD THE FLOOR. THE PRES
SENATOR FROM INDIANA.
MR. LUGAR: MR. PRESIDENT, I
SE TO SPEAK ON SENATE BILL
27, THE START 1 TREATY
INSPECTION AND MONITORING
PROTOCOL CONTINUATION ACT OF
2009, WHICH I INTRODUCED
YESTERDAY.
THIS BILL PROVIDES AUTHORITY
THAT WOULD ALLOW THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES TO EXTEND
ON A RECIPROCAL BASIS PRIVILEGES
AND IMMUNITIES TO RUSSIAN ARMS
INSPECTION TEAMS THAT MAY COME
TO THE UNITED STATES TO CARRY
OUT INSPECTIONS PERMITTED UNDER
THE STRATEGIC ARMS-REDUCTION
TREATY, OR START 1.
THIS BILL IS NECESSARY BECAUSE
ON DECEMBER 5, ONE
TODAY, THE START 1 TREATY WILL
EXPIRE.
THIS TREATY SIGNED IN 1991 IS
OBSCURE TO MANY IN THE SENATE.
ONLY 26 CURRENT SENATORS WERE
SERVING AT THE TIME WE VOTED ON
THE RESOLUTION OF RATIFICATION
IN OCTOBER 1992.
BUT THE START 1 TREATY HAS BEEN
VITALLY IMPORTANT TO ARMS
CONTROL EFFORTS UP TO THE
PRESENT DAY, BECAUSE IT CONTAINS
A COMPREHENSIVE VERIFICATION
REGIME THAT UNDERGIRDS EVERY
EXISTING UNITED STATES-RUSSIAN
TREATY THAT DEALS WITH STRATEGIC
ARMS CONTROL.
IT'S ESSENTIAL TO UNDERSTAND
THAT A SUCCESSFUL ARMS CONTROL
REGIME DEPENDS ON MUCH MORE THAN
MUTUAL AGREEMENT ON THE
OF WEAPONS TO BE ELIMINATED.
ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENTS ALSO
MUST PROVIDE FOR VERIFICATION
MEASURES, INCLUDING SEEMINGLY
MUNDANE DETAILS SUCH AS
DELINEATING THE PRIVILEGES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES OF VERIFICATION
TEAMS OPERATING IN EACH OTHER'S
COUNTRIES AS WELL AS THE
PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING THOSE
INSPECTIONS.
THESE DETAILS REQUIRE LEGAL
AUTHORIZATION THAT MINIMIZES
DISPUTES AND REINFORCES
RECIPROCAL EXPECTATIONS OF HOW
THE VERIFICATION REGIME WILL
FUNCTION.
IF A LEGAL AUTHORIZATION FOR
STRATEGIC ARMS CONTROL
VERIFICATIONS LAPSES -- AS IT
WILL -- IN ONE MONTH, WE'LL BE
CREATING UNNECESSARY RISK FOR
THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL
SECURITY AND OUR WORKING
RELATIONSHIP WITH RUSSIA.
IT HAD PW-B MY HOPE THAT THE
PREVIOUS -- IT HAD BEEN MY HOPE
THAT THE PREVIOUS AND CURRENT
ADMINISTRATIONS WOULD HAVE MADE
SUBSTANTIALLY MORE PROGRESS ON
ENSURING THE CONTINUITY OF START
1 VERIFICATION SYSTEM SO THAT
THE LEGAL AUTHORITIES I'M
PROPOSING TODAY WOULD NOT BE
NECESSARY.
BUT WE REACHED THE POINT WHERE
BOTH THE UNITED STATES AND
RUSSIA MUST TAKE STEPS TO ENSURE
THE CONTINUITY OF VERIFICATION MECHANISMS.
IN 2002, THE SENATE CONSIDERED
THE MOSCOW TREATY, GOVERNING
STRATEGIC NUCLEAR FORCES.
THAT TREATY CONTAINED NO
VERIFICATION MECHANISMS.
INSTEAD IT RELIED ON THE
VERIFICATION REGIME ESTABLISHED
IN THE START 1 TREATY.
DURING SENATE CONSIDERATION OF
THE MOSCOW TREATY, I ASKED
SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL
AND SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DONALD
RUMSFELD ABOUT THE APPARENT GAP
IN VERIFICATION AT COULD OCCUR
GIVEN THAT THE MOSCOW TREATY
EXTES TO 2012, WHILE THE START
1 VERIFICATION PROVISIONS WERE
SET TO EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 5,
2009 -- THIS YEAR.
SECRETARY POWELL STATED -- QUOTE
-- "IT DID NOT SEEM TO BE
SOMETHING THAT WAS PRESSING AT
THE MOMENT."
END OF QUOTE.
HE SAID THAT DURING NEGOTIATIONS
ON THE MOSCOW TREATY,
CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO
EXTENDING THE START VERIFICATION
REGIME PAST 2009 IN A SEPARATE
NEGOTIATION, OR THAT THE
TRANSPARENCY MEASURES UNDER THE
MOSCOW TREATY COULD BE MAXIMIZED
IN SOME WAY TO PROVIDE FOR
ENHANCED VERIFICATION.
BUT SECRETARY POWELL SAID IN
2002 THAT WE HAD -- QUOTE --
"SOME SEVEN YEARS TO FIND AN
ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION."
END OF QUOTE.
LIKEWISE, SECRETARY RUMSFELD WAS
QUESTIONED ABOUT THE
VERIFICATION GAP CREATED BY THE
2009 EXPIRATION OF START.
HE STATED -- AND I QUOTE --
"THERE IS A GAP FROM 2009 TO
2012, EXACTLY.
BUT BETWEEN NOW AND 2009, THERE
IS PLENTY OF TIME TO SORT
THROUGH WHAT WE WILL DO
THEREAFTER.
WILL WE BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING
THAT IS BETTER THAN THE START
TREATY? I HOPE SO.
DO WE HAVE A NUMBER OF YEARS
THAT WE CAN WORK ON THAT? YES."
END OF QUOTE.
I WAS PLEASED TO PLAY A ROLE IN
SECURING RATIFICATION OF THE
MOSCOW TREY ON MARCH 6, 2003.
BUT AT THAT TIME SENATORS WERE
LED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION WOULD BEGIN WORK
WITH RUSSIA ON CODIFYING A
VERIFICATION REGIME UNDER THE
MOSCOW TREATY EITHER BY
CONTINUING THE START
VERIFICATION REGIME PAST 2009 OR
THROUGH OTHER MEASURES.
NEITHER WAS ACCOMPLISHED.
THE START TREATY ITSELF PROVIDES
THAT THE PARTIES MUST MEET TO
EXTEND THE TREATY -- QUOTE --
"NO LATER THAN ONE YEAR BEFORE
THE EXPIRATION OF THE 15 HAD
BEEN YEAR PERIOD.
-- 15-YEAR PERIOD."
IN 2008, WE WITNESSED THE
CONFLICT IN GEORGIA.
DECEMBER 5, 2008, WAS THE DATE
BY WHICH THE UNITED STATES AND
RUSSIA WOULD HAVE TO MEET TO
SATISFY THE TREATY'S
REQUIREMENTS.
MANY WORRIED THAT THE ATMOSPHERE
CREATED BY THE GEORGIA SITUATION
WOULD PREVENT THE UNITED STATES
AND RUSSIA FROM CONDUCTING SUCH
A MEETING.
BUT TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S
CREDIT, A MEETING WAS HELD THAT
PROVIDED US THE POSSIBILITY OF
EXTENDING THE TREATY.
BUT THE CLOCK KEPT TICKING.
I NOTED DURING SECRETARY COLIN
TO BE'S CONFIRMATION -- DURING
SECRETARY CLINTON'S CONFIRMATION
HEARINGS IN 2009 THAT IT WAS
VITAL THAT THE START TREATY BE RENEWED.
AT THAT TIME SHE ASSURED THE
COMMITTEE THAT -- QUOTE -- "WE
WILL HAVE A VERY STRONG
COMMITMENT TO THE START TREATY
AND NEGOTIATION."
END OF QUOTE.
I DON'T DOUBT THAT COMMITMENT.
I'M HOPEFUL THAT THE CAPABLE
NEGOTIATORS WE'VE DEPLOYED TO
GENEVA WILL ACHIEVE A NEW TREATY
IN THE REMAINING 30 DAYS BEFORE EXPIRATION.
BUT EVEN IF THAT HAPPENS, THE
TIME REQUIRED FOR A THOROUGH
SENATE CONSIDERATION OF THE
TREATY EURES THAT IT WILL NOT
BE RATIFIED BEFORE THE START 1
EXPIRES.
AT THE CORE OF THE START TREATY
RESTS THE VERIFICATION REGIME, A
SYSTEM OF DATA EXCHANGES AND
MORE THAN 80 DIFFERENT TYPES OF
NOTIFICATION COVERING MOVEMENT,
CHANGES IN STATUS, CONVERSION,
ELIMINATION, TESTING AND
TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW
AND EXISTING STRATEGIC OFFENSIVE ARMS.
THIS DATA IS FURTHER VERIFIED
THROUGH AN INSPECTION REGIME.
THE START 1 TREATY INSPECTION
PROTOCOL PERMITS NO LESS THAN 12
DIFFERENT TYPES OF INSPECTIONS
PURSUANT TO THE TREATY.
ACCORDING TO A FACT SHEET
RELEASED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
STATE IN JULY 2009, THE UNITED
STATES HAS CONDUCTED MORE THAN
600 START INSPECTIONS IN
BYELARUS, KAZAKHSTAN, RUSSIA AND
UKRAINE.
RUSSIA HAS CONDUCTED MORE THAN
400 INSPECTIONS IN THE UNITED
STATES.
THESE INTRUSIVE, ON-SITE
INSPECTIONS PERMIT THE UNITED
STATES TO VERIFY THE KINDS AND
TYPES OF RUSSIAN WEAPONS BEING
DEPLOYED AS WELL AS TO EXAMINE
MODIFIED VERSIONS OF RUSSIA'S WEAPONS.
IT IS THIS ABILITY, IN ADDITION
TO OUR OWN NATIONAL TECHNICAL
MEANS, THAT GIVES US THE
CAPABILITIES AND CONFIDENCE TO
ENSURE EFFECTIVE VERIFICATION OF
THE TREATY.
SOME SKEPTICS HAVE POINTED OUT
THAT RUSSIA MAY NOT BE IN TOTAL
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS
UNDER START.
OTHERS HAVE EXPRESSED OPPOSITION
TO THE START TREATY ON THE BASIS
THAT NO ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENT
IS 100% VERIFIABLE.
SUCH CONCERNS FAIL TO APPRECIATE
HOW MUCH INFORMATION IS PROVIDED
THROUGH THE EXCHANGES OF DATA
MANDATED BY THE TREATY, ON-SITE
INSPECTIONS AND NATIONAL
TECHNICAL
OUR EXPERIENCES OVER MANY YEARS
HAVE PROVEN THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE TREATY'S VIFICATION
PROVISIONS AND SERVE TO
BASIS FOR CONFIDENCE BETWEEN THE
TWO COUNTRIES WHEN DOUBTS AROSE.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE
UNITED STATES IS FAR SAFER AS A
RESULT OF THESE 600 START
INSPECTIONS THAN WE WOULD BE
WITHOUT THEM.
TESTIFYING BEFORE THE FOREIGN
RELATIONS COMMITTEE ON THE
I.M.F. TREATY IN 1988, PAUL
NHTSA PROVIDED THE DEFINITION OF
-- QUOTE -- "EFFECTIVE VERIFICATION."
HE STATED -- AND I QUOTE --
"WHAT DO WE MEAN BY EFFECTIVE
VERIFICATI?
WE MEAN THAT WE WANT TO BE SURE
THAT THE OTHER SIDE MOVES BEYOND
THE LIMITS OF THE TREATY IN ANY MILITARILY SIGNIFICANT WAY.
WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DETECT SUCH
A VIOLATION IN TIME TO RESPOND
EFFECTIVELY AND,
THE OTHER SIDE THE BENEFIT OF
THE VIOLATION."
END OF QUOTE.
IN A SIMILAR VEIN, SECRETARY OF
DEFEE BOB GATES TESTIFIED IN
92 WHEN HE WAS DIRECTOR OF
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE THAT THE
START TREATY WAS EFFECTIVELY
VERIFIABLE AND THE DATA IT
PROVIDES WOULD GIVE US THE
ABILITY TO DETECT MILITARILY
SIGNIFICANT CHEATING.
THE SENATE HAS REPEATEDLY
EXPRESSED CONFIDENCE IN THE
START 1 VERIFICATION PROCEDURES.
IT APPROVED THE START 1 TREATY
IN 1992 BY A VOTE OF 93-6.
IN 1996, IT APPROVED THE START 2
TREATY WHICH RELIED ON THE START
1 VERIFICATION REGIME BY A VOTE
OF 87 HAD-4.
I REQUEST UNANIMOUS CONSENT FOR
THREE MORE MINUTES.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. LUGAR: I THANK THE CHAIR.
IT APPROVED THE START 2 TREATY
WHICH RELIED ON THE START 1
VERIFICATION REGIME BY A VOTE OF 87-4.
THE MOSCOW TREATY WAS APPROVED
BY A VOTE OF 95-0.
THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION
EMPLOYED A CAPABLE TEAM IN GENEVA.
LAST WEEK NATIONAL SECURITY
ADVISOR JIM JONES WENT TO MOSCOW
TO UNDERSCORE THE IMPORTANCE OF
ACHIEVING AGREEMENT ON THE
SUCCESSOR OF THE START TREATY.
THE ADMINISTRATION PUBLICLY
STATED IT SEEKS A NEW TREATY
THAT WILL COMBINE THE
PREDICTABILITY OF START WITH THE
FLEXIBILITY OF THE MOSCOW
TREATY.
BUT AT LOWER NUMBERS OF DELIVERY
VEHICLES AND ASSOCIATED
WARHEADS.
THIS PREDICTABILITY STEMS
DIRECTLY FROM START'S
VERIFIABILITY.
SO FAR MOST OF THE PUBLIC
DISCUSSIONS SURROUNDING A
POTENTIAL SUCCESSOR AGREEMENT
FOCUSED ON FURTHER REDUCTIONS IN
STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
SCANT ATTENTION HAS BEEN PAID TO
THE VERIFICATION ARRANGEMENTS
FOR SUCH A FOLLOW-ON AGREEMENT.
WE WILL YET AGAIN RELYING ON
START VERIFICATION IN THE NEW
AGREEMENT.
FOR NOW THIS WILL BE THE
DETERMINE ANT IN ASSESSING --
BEFORE THE SENATE FURTHERS THE
NATIONAL INTEREST.
THE MOMENT THAT WE KNOW ONLY THE
OUTLINES OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT,
WHAT IS 1 CERTAIN IS TT AFTER
DECEMBER 5, NO BINDY
ASSIST.
WITHOUT IT, IT IS UNCLEAR HOW WE
CAN PERMIT AND BY EXTENSION
CARRY ON ANY INSPECTION
ACTIVITIES.
THIS MIGHT
TO SOME, BUT ALLOWING A BREAK IN
VERIFICATION IS NOT IN THE
INTEREST OF THE UNITED STES OR RUSSIA.
SUCH A BREAK COULD AMPLIFY
SUSPICIONS OR EVEN COMPLICATE
THE CONCLUSION OF THE START
TREATY SUCCESSION AGREEMENT.
I BELIEVE IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE
UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA TO
MAINTAIN MUTUAL CONFIDENCE AND
PRESERVE A VERIFICATION REGIME
TO DECEMBER 5.
AND IF WE'RE TO DO SO THE LEGAL
TOOLS CONTAINED IN THE BILL THAT
I INTRODUCED ARE ESSENTIAL,
THERE IS NOTHING IN MY BILL THAT
REQUIRES THE ADMINISTRATION TO
ADMIT RUSSIAN INSPECTION TEAMS
IN THE ABSENCE OF RECIPROCITY BY
MOSCOW.
NOR DOES THE BILL EXPAND
VERIFICATION BEYOND THOSE
CONDUCTED UNDER THE START
PROTOCOL.
BUT THE AUTHORITIES IN THE BILL
WOULD TERMINATE ON JUNE 5, 20 SO
#-RBGS OR ON THE DATE OF ENTRY
INTO THE FORCE OF A SUCCESSOR AGREEMENT.
WE MUST ENSURE THA NEEDED
VERIFICATION TOOLS WILL EXIST IN
E PERIOD BETWEEN START'S
EXPIRATION AND ENTRY OF A NEW TREATY.
I'M HOPEFUL THAT CONGRESS WILL
TAKE ACTION ON S. 27 IN THE
NEAR FUTURE AND BOTH THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION AND THE RUSSIAN
GOVERNMENT TAKES STEPS TO
MAINTAIN INSPECTIONS UNTIL
RATIFICATION OF A
AGREEMENT IS COMPLETED.
I THANK THE CHAIR AND YIELD THE
FLOOR.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDG OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM
MR. JOHANNS: MR. PRESIDENT, I
STAND TODAY TO HIGHLIGHT THE TAX
HAMMER, I WOULD DESCRIBE IT,
THAT IS BEING BROUGHT DOWN ON
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE RELATIVE TO
THE HEALTH CARE BILLS THAT ARE
MAKING THEIR WAY TO THE FLOOR O
THE SENATE IN LITERALLY -- AND
LITERALLY ARE ABOUT TO BE
DEBATED ON THE HOUSE SIDE.
THE FINANCE COMMITTEE BILL,
THERE'S OVER 500 -- $500 BILLION
IN ADDITIONAL TAXES AND FEES AND
FINES AND PENALTIES.
IN THE HOUSE BILL, THERE'S OVE
OVER $750 BILLION IN NEW TAXES,
ET CETERA.
NOW, IF YOU SHRUG YOUR SHOULDERS
THINKING, WELL, THAT'S A TAX ON
THOSE WEALTHY PEOPLE.
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO WORRY
ABOUT HERE.
I'M NOT ONE OF THEM.
WELL, IF YOU DO THAT, YOU ARE
REALLY MISSING SOMETHING.
AND, ACTUALLY, NOTHING COULD BE
FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
IN MY JUDGMENT, MR. PRESIDENT,
IT THESE TAXES WILL STIFLE SMALL BUSINESS.
THEY'RE GOING TO SHOCK FAMILIES
WHO THINK THERE IS NO WAY THAT
THEIR MODEST INCOME COULD
POSSIBLY BE TAXED MORE BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
THE HOUSE BILL, LET ME START
THERE, THE FIRST TAX IS A 5.4%
SURTAX -- SURTAX ON WHAT IS
REFERRED TO AS THE HIGH-INCOME
EARNERS.
IT RAISES TAXES BY ABOU
ABOUT $460 BILLION.
THIS IS A GIGANTIC
BUT SUPPORTERS OF THAT MAKE THE
CASE AGAIN THIS IS THE RICH
PEOPLE CREATING THE FEELING THAT
SOMEHOW WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY
ABOUT THAT IF YOU'RE NOT MAKING
A LOT OF MONEY.
WHAT THEY DON'T WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE IS THAT THIS IS A
TAX ON BUSINESS AND SMALL BUSINESSES.
IN FACT, I WOULD SUGGEST IF YOU
REALLY WANTED TO BE FAIR IN THIS
DEBATE, YOU WOULDN'T CALL IT THE MILLIONAIRE TAX.
YOU WOULD CALL IT THEROPER
NAME, THE SMALL BUSINESS TAX.
RELEASED A LETTER YESTERDAY.
IT FOUND THAT ONE-THIRD OF THE
TAX -- ONE-THIRD OF THE TAX WILL
BE FROM BUSINESS INCOME.
"THE WALL STREET JOURNAL," SAID
THIS RECENTLY, AND I'M QUOTING,
"THE BURDEN WILL MOSTLY FALL ON
SMALL BUSINESSES THAT ARE
ORGANIZED AS SUB-CHAPTER S OR
LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATIONS
SINCE THE TRULY WEALTHY WON'T
HAVE ANY DIFFICULTY SHEERING
THEIR INCOME."
NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, IN THE
UNITED STATES THERE ARE OVER SIX
MILLION SMALL BUSINESSES.
LAST COUNT -- THE LAST
INFORMATION I COULD GET MY HANDS
ON THERE WERE OVER 41,000 SMALL
EMPLOYERS IN MY HOME STATE, THE
STATE OF NEBRASKA.
I'VE WALKED THROUGH MANY OF
THESE SMALL BUSINESSES.
I'VE VISITED WITH THE PEOPLE WHO
ARE TRYING TO KEEP THESE
BUSINESSES GOING.
AND THEY'RE JUST FACING
CHALLENGES TO MAKE THE PAYROLL.
YOU SEE, MANY OF THESE SMALL
BUSINESSES EXIST IN SMALL
COMMUNITIES IN MY STATE.
AND THEIR EMPLOYEES ARE NOT JUST
FLAIFFACELESS PEOPLE, PEOPLE WITHOUT NAMES.
THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT THEY WENT
TO HIGH SCHOOL WITH.
THESE ARE PEOPLE THEY WORSHIP
WITH ON SDAY, SEE AT THE
GROCERY STORE.
AND OUR SMALL BUSINESSES DON'T
WANT TO LAY THESE PEOPLE OFF.
NOW WHAT WOULD A 5.4% TAX DO TO
THEIR BOTTOM LINE, TO THEIR
EMPLOYEES, TO ANY POTENTIAL OF
HIRING IN THE FUTURE, TO THE
COMMUNITIES THAT THEY SUPPORT?
WELL, YOU CAN SEE THE IMPACT
THAT IT WILL HAVE.
SEAN McGIBBBON A SMALL
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL SAID IT
VE WELL.
AGAIN, I'M QUOTING -- SEAN SAID
THIS, "NEBRASKA DEPENDS ON SMALL
BUSINESSES FOR JOBS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH.
DURING THIS TIME OF FINANCIAL
STRESS AND ECONOMIC INSTABILITY,
POLICYMAKERS NEED TO REMBER
THAT THE STATE'S SMALL
BUSINESSES PROVIDE THE ECONOMIC
BASE FOR FAMILIES AND
COMMUNITIES."
NOW, MAYBE TO SOME FROM BIG
CITIESOR STATES THAT ARE MOSTLY
URBAN, THE LOST OF 50 JOBS IS
MAYBE NOT A BIG DEAL.
I CAN TELL YOU IT'S A BIG DEAL
TO ME.
IT'S A BIG DEAL TO MY STATE.
50 JOBS IN A COMMUNITY OF 1,000
PEOPLE IS ABSOLUTELY
DEVASTATING.
THOSE PAYCHECKS NO LONGER SPENT
ON MAIN STREET CAN LITERALLY
BRING MAIN STREET TO ITS KNEES.
MAKING MATTERS WORSE, THIS TAX
IS NOT INDEXED FOR INFLATION.
SO WHAT CAN WE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WHAT CAN WE PREDICT?
WHAT IS THE MOST CERTAIN THING
WE CAN PREDICT ABOUT THIS TAX?
IT'S GOING TO HAVE THE A.M.T.
PROBLEM ALL OVER AGAIN.
EACH YEAR IT'S GOING TO CREEP
DOWN EVERY YEAR CAPTURING MORE
AND MORE PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE
CLASS.
NOW, THE SECOND TAX I WANT TO
TALK ABOUT TODAY IS THE 8%
PENALTY ON EMPLOYERS WHO DON'T
OFFER INSURANCE.
8% OF THEIR PAYROLL OR PAY AT
LEASE 72.5% OF WORKERS'
PREMIUMS, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE
FACED WITH.
NOW, AGAIN, MR. PRESIDENT, NO
MATTER HOW YOU SUGAR COAT THIS,
THIS IS GOING TO CUT INTO WAGES.
FOR THOSE WHO PAY THE 8%, THAT'S
GOING TO TOTAL $135 BILLION MORE
IN TAXES TAKEN OUT OF OUR
ECONOMY.
"THE WALL STREET JOURNAL,"
AGAIN, I THINK SAID IT VERY,
VERY WELL RECENTLY.
THEY SAID, "SUCH PLAY OR PAY
TAXES ALWAYS BECOME PAY OR PAY
AND WILL RISE OVER TIME WITH
SEVERE CONSEQUENCES FOR HIRING,
JOB CREATION, AND, ULTIMATELY, GROWTH."
YOU KNOW, I LOOK OVER THERE AT
THE HOUSE, AND THEY SURE SEEM
VERY DETERMINED TO THROTTLE THE
BACKBONE OF OUR ECONOMY, OUR
SMALL BUSINESSES.
AND I'LL JUST TELL THEM, AS
SOMEBODY WHO HAS REPRESENTED MY
GREAT STATE AS A GOVERNOR AND
NOW AS A UNITED STATE UNITED STATES SENATOR,
YOU TAKE THOSE JOBS OUT OF SMALL
COMMUNITIES AND YOU WILL BRING
THAT SMALL COMMUNITY TO ITS
KNEES.
I PAYTTENTION TO THE WISDOM
CONVEYED BACK HOME.
THAT'S WHY WE DO OUR TOWN HALL
MEETINGS AND WE WALK IN PARADES
AND WE DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO
LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE.
A CONSTITUENT FROM PIERCE,
NEBRASKAA SMALL COMMUNITY, A
GREAT COMMUNITY IN OUR STATE
SAID IT VERY WELL.
QUOTE, "WITH MY HUSBAND
SELF-EMPLOYED, ABOUT 70% IS USED
TO PAY MY INCOME TAXES, IF THE
INCOME TAXES WEREN'T SO HIGH, WE
WOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE OUR
HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
MORE TAX IS NOT THE ANSWER.
" I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE
PENALTY TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT INSURANCE.
YOU S, IT PROVIDES THAT IF YOU
DON'T HAVE A GOVERNMENT-APPROVED
HEALTH PLAN, YOU'LL PAY A
PENALTY, $750 FOR SINGLES, AN
AND $1,500 FOR MARRIED
INDIVIDUALS.
THE CGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
HAS ANALYZED THIS PENALTY.
ALMOST HALF OF THOSE PAYING THE
PENALTY TAX WOULD BE BETWEEN
100% AND 300% OF THE POVERTY
LEVEL.
YOU KNOW, IN SOME STATES THESE
GOOD FOLK QUALIFY FOR GOVERNMENT
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
SO WE'RE GOING TO TAX THEM OR
PENALIZE THEM AND THEN GIVE THEM
SUBSIDIES.
BOY, ONLY HERE COULD A -- COULD
SOMEBODY MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT
THAT IS RATIONAL.
IT MAKES NO SEN TO THE PEOPLE
BACK HOME.
LISTEN TO THIS, A FAMILY OF FOUR
EARNING BETWEEN $23,000 AN
AND $68,000 IN 2013 WOULD BE
SADDLED WITH A NEW TAX.
WE ARE LITERALLY TALKING ABOUT
TAXING NOT JUST THE MIDDLE
CLASS, BUT EVEN BELOW THAT LEVEL.
YOU KNOW, I REMBER A PLEDGE
BEING MADE, PRESIDENT OBAMA SAI
AND I'M -- QUOTE -- "NO ONE
MAKING LESS THAN $40,000 WILL
SEE A TAX INCREASE.
YET A FAMILY OF FOUR
EARNING $25,000 WILL BE HIT WITH
A TAX IN A FEW YEARS.
THAT'S A LONG WAY AWAY, $25,000
TO $250,000.
NEBRASKANS BELIEVE THEY CAN MAKE
BETTER DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR OWN
HEALTH CARE THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
LET ME REPEAT THAT.
NEBRASKANS BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN
MAKE BETTER DECISIONS ABOUT
THEIR OWN HEALTH CARE FOR
THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILY THAN
CAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
AND I STAND
YOU I AGREE WITH THEM.
A CONSTITUENT FROM CARNEY,
NEBRASKA SAID AND I'M QUOTING,
"IS THERE ANYTHING I CAN DO TO
TAKE A STAND AGAINST WHAT I
CONSIDER A HUGE TAX BURDEN AND A
LOSS OF FREEDOMS?" UNQUOTE.
THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE, JUST ONE
MORE EXAMPLE OF GOVERNMENT
INTRUSION INTO THE PEOPLE'S
LIVES.
I'VE COVERED THREE OF THE TAX
HIKES PERVASIVE IN THE BILLS,
BUT IT'S THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG.
NEW TAXES, PENALTIES AND FEES AS
FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE.
THERE'S A VERY FITTING QUOTE
FROM JOHN MARSHALL.
HE SAID, AND I'M QUOTING HERE,
"THE POWER TO TAX IS THE POWER
TO DESTROY."
THE POWER TO TAX IS THE POWER TO
DESCROI.
AS HEALTH CARE DEBATE --
DESTROY.
AS HEALTH CARE DEBATE CONTINUES,
ALL OF US SHOULD REMBER CHEF
JUSTICE MARSHALL'S WISE WORDS,
MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, THESE
VARIOUS BILLS RAISE TAXES ON THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE AT A
BREATHTAKING PACE.
DON'T BE FOOLED THIS IS ABOUT
TAXES THE RICH PEOPLE, THE
MILLIONAIRES, THIS IS REALLY
ABOUT TAXING AND TAKING FROM THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
AND AMERICANS ARE SEEING THE TRUTH.
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE.
MR. ALEXANDER: MR. PRESIDENT,
HOW MUCH TIME REMAINS TO THE
REPUBLICAN SIDE?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: 14 1/2
MINUTES.
MR. ALEXANDER: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
WILL YOU LET ME KNOW WHEN THREE
MINUTES REMAIN?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: I SHALL.
MR. ALEXANDER: I THANK THE
PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT, WE HAVE A LOT OF
UNUSUAL THINGS HAPPENING IN THE
UNITED STATES SENATE AND THE
UNITED STATES CONGRESS AND THE
WORLD TODAY.
APPARENTLY WE'RE ABOUT TO BE
PRESENTED WITH A RARE
OPPORTUNITY THAT VERY FEW
SENATORS HAVE A CHANCE TO VOTE
ON, THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL
HEALTH CARE BILL WILL PRESENT
SENATORS APPARENTLY, IT'S STILL
BEING WRITTEN BEHIND CLOSED
DOORS, BUT FROM WHAT WE CAN
TELL, WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO
VOTE FOR $429 BILLION IN
MEDICARE CUTS AND $0 BILLION
PLUS IN NEW TAXES AT THE SAME
TIME.
IT'S VERY RARE THAT ANY SENATOR
HAS A CHANCE TO VOTE FOR
MEDICARE CUTS THAT BIG AND NEW
TAXES THAT BIG ALL AT ONCE.
IT'S NOT AN OPPORTUNITY THAT
MANY, IF ANY, REPUBLICANS
WILL -- WILL -- WILL TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF, BUT THAT IS THE
PROPOSAL THAT'S COMING.
IT'S CAUSED MY COLLEAGUE FROM
TENNSEE, SENATOR CORKER, TO
SAY YESTERDAY ON THE SENATE
FLOOR THAT IF REPUBLICANS WERE
TO PROPOSE THE SAME THING,
THG, $429 BILLION IN MEDICARE
CUTS, A 60% INCREASE IN PREMIUM
COSTS, WHICH IS THE ESTIMATED
INCREASE TO TENNESSEAN S WHO
HAVE INSURANCE PREMIUMS
ACCORDING TO SENATOR CORKER,
PLUS TAXES OF $900 BILLION WHEN
FULLY IMPLEMENTED WOULDN'T GET A
SINGLE DEMOCRATIC VOTE.
AND I THINK SENATOR CORKER IS
PROBABLY RIGHT ABOUT THAT.
BUT THIS -- WHENEVER WE SAY
THIS, THIS BRINGS DEEP CONCERN
FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
AISLE.
THE SENATOR FROM OHIO CAME DOWN
ON THE FLOOR AND ENGAGED IN A
COLLOQUY WITH THE ASSISTANT
DEMOCRATIC LEADER YESTERDAY
AFTER I LEFT THE FLOOR AND SAID
IMAGINE THIS: THE REPUBLICAN
SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE IS COMING
DOWN AND SAYING THAT DEMOCRATS
ARE ABOUT
WHY WOULD THEY SAY THAT?
THE WORDS ARE -- IT REALLY MAKES
ME INCREDULOUS, SAID THE SENATOR
FROM OHIO, TO HEAR THE
REPUBLICANS SAY THE DEMOCRATS
ARE GOING TO CUT MEDICARE AND
THAT WE'RE GOING TO USE MEDICARE
CUTS TO PAY FOR HEALTH CARE
REFORM.
TH ONLY REASON WE AND EVERYONE
ELSE WHO READS THE DEMOCRATIC
HEALTH CARE BILL IS SAYING THAT
IS BECAUSE IT'S TRUE.
I MEAN, THE PROPOSAL IS TO CUT
GRANDMA'S MEDICARE AND SPEND IT
ON A NEW PROGRAM.
THAT'S THE PROPOSAL, TO CUT
CUT $429 BILLION, NEARLY HALF A
TRILLION DOLLARS IN MEDICARE
SPENDING AND NOT SPENDING IT TO
MAKE MEDICARE SOLVENT.
AND WE KNOW THE MEDICARE
TRUSTEES HAVE SAID THAT THE
PROGRAM IS GOING TO BEGIN TO GO
BROKE IN 2015-2017.
WE'RE GOING TO SPEND IT ON A NEW
GOVERNMENT PROGRAM IN WHICH MANY
AMERICANS WHO NOW HAVE
EMPLOYEE-BASED -- EMPLOYER-BASED
INSURANCE WILL FIND THEIR WAY.
NOW, IT'S NOT REPUBLICANS WHO
ARE SCARING SENIORS ABOUT
MEDICARE MR. PRESIDENT.
IT IS THE DEMOCRATIC HEALTH CARE
BILLS
ABOUT MEDICARE CUTS, AND THEY
HAVE A RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED.
SO JUST IN CASE ANYONE WHO MIGHT
BE LISTENING THINKS THAT WE'RE
MAKING THIS UP ON THE REPUBLICAN
SIDE OF THE AISLE, I BROUGHT
WITH ME A FEW ARTICLES FROM
REPUTABLE SOURCES WHICH DESCRIBE
THE DEMOCRATIC HEALTH CARE
PROPOSALS AND THEIR PROPOSED
MEDICARE CUTS.
HERE'S "THNEW YORK TIMES" ON
SEPTEMBER 24, AN ARTICLE
ABOUT -- BY ROBERT PEARE, WHO
WRITES ABOUT THIS SUBJECT
REGULARLY.
IT SAYS -- "TO HELP OFFSET THE
COST OF COVERING THE UNINSURED,
THE SENATE AND HOUSE BILLS WOULD
SQUEEZE ROUGHLY $400 BILLION TO
TO $500 BILLION OUT OF THE
PROJECTED GROWTH IN MEDICARE
OVER TEN YEARS."
UNQUOTE.
THAT'S "THE NEW YORK TIMES,"
MR. PRESIDENT.
OR SAN FRANCISCO GATE.COM.
THIS IS AN ASSOCIATED PRESS
ARTICLE ON SEPTEMBER 22.
QUOTING -- "THE CONGRESS CHIEF
BUDGET OFFICER ON TUESDAY
CONTRADICTED PRESIDENT OBAMA'S
OFT-STATED CLAIM THAT SENIORS
WOULDN'T SEE THEIR MEDICARE
BENEFITS CUT UNDER A HEALTH CARE
OVERHAUL.
THE HEAD -- CONTINUING THE QUOTE
FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS -- THE
HEAD OF THE NONPARTISAN
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE TOLD
SENATORS THAT SENIORS MANAGED
CARE PLANS COULD SEE REDUCED
BENEFITS UNDER A BILL IN THE
FINANCE COMMITTEE.
THE BILL WOULD CUT PAYMENTS TO
MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLANS BY MORE
THAN $100 BILLION OVER TEN
YEARS."
ELMANDORF SAID THE CHANGES WOULD
REDUCE THE BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO
BENEFICIARIES UNDER MEDICARE
ADVANTAGE PLANS, UNQUOTE. THEN THERE IS THE CONGRESSIONAL
BUDGET OFFICE.
WHO IN ITS LETTER HAS TALKED
ABOUT IN DETAIL THE PROPOSED
MEDICARE CUTS.
THEN THERE IS AN ASSOCIATED
PRESS ARTICLE ON JULY 30, 2009."
DEMOCRATS ARE PUSHING FOR
MEDICAID-MEDICARE CUTS ON A
SCALE NOT SEEN IN YEARS TO
UNDERWRITE A HEALTH CARE FOR ALL.
MANY SENIORS NOW COVERED UNDER
THE PROGRAM DON'T LIKE THAT ONE BIT."
THAT'S NOT THE REPUBLICAN
NATIONAL COMMITTEE,
MR. PRESIDENT.
THAT'S THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
REPORTING WHAT THE BILLS SAY.
"THE HOUSE BILL, THE CONGRESSIONAL PROPOSAL THAT IS
ADVANCED THE MOST, WOULD REDUCE
PROJECTED INCREASES IN MEDICARE
PAYMENTS TO PROVIDERS BY MORE
THAN $500 BILLION OVER TEN
YEARS, A GROSS CUT OF ABOUT 7%
OVER THE PERIOD.
BUT THE LEGISLATION WILL ALSO
PLOW BACK NEARLY $300 BILLION
BACK INTO THE PROGRAM, MAINLY TO
SWEETEN PAYMENTS FOR DOCTORS.
THIS STILL LEAVES A NET CUT OF
MORE THAN $200 BILLION," SAYS
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, DESCRIBING
THE DEMOCRATIC HEALTH CARE PLAN,
"WHICH WILL BE USED TO OFFSET
NEW FEDERAL SUBSIDIES FOR
WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES NOW
LACKING HEALTH INSURANCE."
IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE GOING TO
TAKE MONEY FROM MEDICARE AND
SPEND IT ON SOMEONE ELSE.
THE SENATOR FROM KANSAS SAID THE
OTHER DAY IT'S LIKE WRITING A
CHECK ON AN OVERDRAWN BANK
ACCOUNT TO BUY A BIG NEW CAR.
THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD
DESCRIPTION.
JUST A COUPLE MORE.
THE LOS ANGELES TIMES.
THIS IS NOT A REPUBLICAN
PUBLICATION -- SAYS, HEADLINE
ON -- LET'S SEE THE DATE HERE.
JUNE 14.
"PRESIDENT OBAMA TO OUTLINE
OUTLINE $313 BILLION IN
MEDICARE-MEDICAID SPENDING CUTS."
NOW, THAT'S WHAT DEMOCRATIC
SENATORS HAVE ALWAYS CALLED SUCH PROPOSALS.
THAT'S WHAT THE LOS ANGELES
TIMES CALLS THE PROPOSALS.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CALLING THE
PROPOSALS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT
THEY ARE.
IT SAYS "REPORTING FROM
WASHINGTON UNDERRESSURE TO PAY
FOR HIS AMBITIOUS RESHAPING OF
THE NATION'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM,
PRESIDENT OBAMA TODAY WILL
OUTLINE $313 BILLION IN MEDICARE
AND MEDICAID SPENDING CUTS OVER
THE NEXT DECADE TO HELP COVER
THE COSTS OF EXPANDING COVERAGE
TO TENS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS INSURED."
AND ANOTHER ARTICLE FROM --
WELL, IT'S AN NPR REPORT.
"OVER THE NEXT
SAYS," THE COMMITTEE WOULD CUT
CUT $117 MILLION FROM MEDICARE
ADVANTAGE PLANS."
ARTICLE FROM THE "WASHINGTON
POST" ON OCTOBER 23, OCTOBER 23, $500 BILLION IN CUTS
TO MEDICARE OVER THE NEXT DECADE."
THAT'S FROM THE "WASHINGTON
POST."
"THE WALL STREET JOURNAL,"
SEPTEMBER 8 -- "SOURCES OF
FUNDING FOR THE FINANCE
COMMITTEE PLAN INCLUDE CUTS TO
MEDICARE."
SO, MR. PRESIDENT, THE QUESTION
IS NOT WHETHER THERE ARE CUTS TO
MEDICARE.
THAT'S WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS.
NOW, MAYBE IT'S A GOOD IDEA,
MAYBE IT'S A BAD IDEA, BUT WE
DON'T NEED TO BE COMING ONTO THE
FLOOR AND SAYING T
THAT IS IS NOT.
AND THE PROPOSAL IS IN THESE
LARGE, EXPANSIVE HEALTH CARE
PLANS, THE 2,000-PAGE BILL
COMING FROM THE HOUSE SOON, IS
IT'S BASICALLY ABOUT HALF
FINANCE ABOUT CUTS IN MEDICARE.
NOT TO MAKE THE PROGRAM SOLVENT,
A PROGRAM WHICH HAS $37 BILLION
IN UNFUNDED LIABILITIES OVER THE
NEXT 75 YEARS, BUT TO SPEND ON A
NEW GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.
THOSE ARE THE FACTS.
THOSE -- THAT IS WHY IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT THE AMERICAN
PELE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
READ THE BILL AND KNOW WHAT IT
COSTS AND KNOW HOW I AFFECTS
THEM.
THE REPUBLICAN LEADER AND
SENATOR JOHANNS HAS TALKED ABOUT
THE TAXES IN THE BILL.
I SAID THAT A LITTLE EARLIER.
RARELY DOES A SENATOR HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON SO MANY
MEDICARE CUTS AND SO MANY NEW
TAXES, AS WE APPARENTLY WILL
HAVE WHEN THIS
COMES TO US.
BUT THE TAXES INCLUDE A TAX
INDIVIDUALS WHO DON'T BUY GOVERNMENT-APPROVED HEALTH
INSURANCE.
THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON
TAXATION -- THAT'S OUROINT COMMITTEE -- AND THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
ESTIMATE THAT AT LEAST 71% OF
THE PENALTY, THAT PENALTY, THAT
THAN $250,000.
SO IT'S NOT JUST TAXES PEOPLE.
WHEN YOU IMPOSE, AS THE SENATE
FINANCE COMMITTEE BILL WOULD,
WOULD, $900 BILLION PLUS WHEN
FULLY IMPLEMENTED ON A WHOLE
VARIETY OF PEOPLE, BUSINESSES
WHO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE, WHAT DO
THEY DO?
WELL, ACCORDING TO THE DIRECTOR
OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
OFFICE, MOST
PASSED ON TO THE CONSUMERS.
WHO ARE THE CONSUMERS?
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PAYING HEALTH
CARE PREMIUMS, 250 MILLION AMERICANS.
AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
THAT WOULD MEAN THAT INSTEAD OF
REDUCING THE COST OF YOUR HEALTH
CARE PREMIUM, WE'RE MORE LIKELY
TO INCREASE THE COSTS OF YOUR
HEALTH CARE PREMIUM.
SO I WOULD ASK WHY ARE WE
PASSING A HEALTH CARE REFORM
BILL THAT INCREASES THE COST OF
YOUR HEALTH CARE PREMIUM, THAT
RAISES YOUR TAXES?
AND CUTTING MEDICARE TO HELP PAY
FOR THAT.
THEY INCREASE TAXES ON HEALTH
CARE PROVIDERS, MANUFACTURERS,
AND IMPORTERS OF BRAND NAME
DRUGS, MEDICAL DEVICE MANUFACTURERS.
THESE WILL ALL BE PASSED ON TO
CONSUMERS, ACCORDING TO THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION.
RAISING THE THRESHOLD FOR
DEDUCTING CATASTROPHIC MEDICAL
EXPENSES, 87% OF THE FIVE
MILLION TAXYERS WHO CLAIM THIS
DEDUCTION EARN UNDER $100,000 A
YEAR.
THESE AREN'T MILLIONAIRES,
MR. PRESIDENT.
THESE PEOPLE EARN LESS THAN
THAN $100,000 A YEAR.
IN FACT, DATA FROM THE JOINT
COMMITTEE ON TAXATION AND THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE SHOW
FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,
DOUG HAS HOLTZ AIKEN, SHOW THAT
BY
WILL BE
EARNING LESS THAN $200,000 A
YEAR.
THE 2,000-PAGE PROPOSAL FROM THE
HOUSE OFEPRESENTATIVES --
THANK
WOULD RAISE TAXES BY
BY $729 MILLION.
THERE IS A TAX ON MILLIONAIRES,
BUT WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT
WHEN IT'S NOT INDEXED.
40 YEARS AGO, WE WERE WORRIED
ABOUT 155 HIGH-INCOME AMERICANS
WHO WERE AVOIDING TAXES SO THE
CONGRESS PASSED THE MILLIONAIRES
' TAX ON THE
ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX.
TODAY WE HADN'T PATCHED IT AS WE
SAY IN 2009, HADN'T CHANGED IT,
THAT MLIONAIRES' TAX WOULD
HAVE RAISED TAXES ON 28.3
AMERICANS.
SO THE MILLIONAIRES' TAX ONE DAY
WILL GET YOU IF YOU KEEP EARNING
MONEY.
MR. PRIDENT, I'VE SAID QUITE A
BIT ABOUT MEDICARE CUTS AND
TAXES, BUT I WANT TO CONCLUDE MY
MARKS BY QUICKLY SAYING WHAT
WE THINK SHOULD BE DONE.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE DO NOT
2,000-PAGE BILL HEADE
WE WANT INSTEAD TO START OVER IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION, WHICH MEANS
REDUCING COSTS AND STEP BY STEP
REEARN --
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY REDUCING
THE COST OF HEALTH CARE.
SPECIFICALLY, WE WOULD START
WITH THE SMALL BUSINESS HEALTH
CARE PLANS.
THAT'S JUST
THAT WOULD LOWER PREMIUMS ACCORDING TO THE CONGRESSIONAL
BUDGET OFFICE.
IT WOULD COVER UP TO A MILLION
NEW SMALL BUSINESS EMPLOYEES.
IT WOULD REDUCE MEDICAID.
THEN WE COULD TAKE A STEP TO
PERMIT MORE -- ENCOURAGE
COMPETITION BY ALLOWING PEOPLE
TO BUY ACROSS STATE LINES, TAKE
MEASURES TO STOP JUNK LAWSUITS
AGAINST DOCTORS.
MORE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
THAT COULD BE A BIPARTISAN PROPOSAL. MORE EXCHANGES.
YOU NOTICE THE NBER OF PAGES
ARE VERY SMALL.
PEOPLE COULD ACTUALLY READ THESE BILLS, UNDERSTAND THEM.
THEY WOULDN'T ADD TO OUR COST.
WASTE, FRAUD, AND
AGREE IS OUT OF CONTROL.
IT'S ONE OUT OF TEN DOLLARS IN
ME
SO OUR PROPOSAL, MR. PRESIDENT,
WOULD OFFER A CHOICE.
A COUPLE OF HUNDRED PAGES, NOT 2000.
REDUCING PREMIUMS, REDUCING
DEBT, MAKING MEDICARE SOLVENT
INSTEAD OF CUTTING IT, NO TAX
INCREASES INSTEAD OF HIGHER
TAXES, AND REDUCING COSTS.
THAT'S THE KIND OF HEALTH
PLAN REPUBLICANS HAVE OFFERED.
THAT'S THE KIND WE BELIEVE
AMERICANS WOULD WANT, AND WE
HOPE OVER TIME THAT WILL EARN
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.
I THANK THE PRESIDENT AND I
YIELD THE FLOOR.
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT, HOW
MUCH TIME IS REMAINING
SIDES FOR MORNING BUSINESS?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
MAJORITY HAS 2 1/2 MINUTES OF
MORNING BUSINESS.
MS. MIKULSKI: AND THE MINORITY'S
THE PR
MINORITY'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT, I,
TOO, WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON
HEALTH CARE.
AND I NOTE WITH INTEREST THE
REMARKS FROM THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TENNESSEE, AND I THINK THAT
THERE IS A FORMER BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT.
BUT EVERYBODY SAYS LET'S DO THIS
STEP BY STEP.
MR. PRESIDENT, THE CONGRESS HAS
HAD EXTENSIVE HEALTH CARE
DEBATE, AND WE IN THE
HEALTH-EDUCATION COMMITTEE HAVE
HAD EXTENSIVE HEARINGS.
WE HAD A MARKUP OF OUR BIL THAT
LASTED MORE THAN THREE WEEKS AND
HAD OVER 350 AMENDMENTS, OF
WHICH 75% WERE OFFERED BY THE
OTHER SIDE.
WE OFTEN TOOK MANY OF THOSE
AMENDMENTS.
WHEN ALL WAS SAID AND DONE, THEY
VOTED NO, SO WE DON'T KNOW WHEN
GOOD WOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH.
AND IT'S ONE THING TO DISAGREE
THING TO, ONE, DO A FILIBUSTER
BY PROXY, WHICH IS WHAT WE
ENCOUNTERED IN THE COMMITTEES
WITH LONG-STANDING AMENDMENTS --
I MEAN, WITH THE INCREASED
VOLUME IN AMENDMENTS.
NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, WE NEED
HEALTH CARE REFORM, AND WE NEED
IT NOW, AND WE NEED IT IN A WAY
THAT ACCOMPLISHES THE GOAL OF
SAVING LIVES, IMPROVING LIVES,
AND AT THE SAME TIME CONTROLLING COSTS.
NUMBER ONE, I THINK WE ALL AGREE
WE NEED TO SAVE AND STALIZE MEDICARE.
THE OTHER THING WE NEED TO DO IS
END THE PUNITIVE PRACTICES OF
INSURANCE COMPANIES.
MR. PRESIDENT, I'M GOING TO TELL
YOU A BONE-CHILLING STORY.
I HELD A HEARING IN THE "HELP"
COMMITTEE ON HOW HEALTH
INSURANCE PRIVATE SECTOR TREATS
FIRST OF ALL, WE PAY MORE AND
GET LESS BENEFITS,
HAPPENED AND WHAT EMERGED WAS
THAT A WOMAN WHO APPLIED FOR
HEALTH CARE WHO HAD HAD
C-SECTION WAS DENIED BY
MI
A STERILIZATION. MR. PRESIDENT, DID YOU HEAR WHAT
I JUST SAID?
AN INSURANCE COMPANY
TOLD AN AMERICAN WOMAN TO GET
ALTH INSURANCE, SHE HAD TO
HAVE A STERILIZATION?
IS THIS FASCIST CHINA -- FASCIST
GERMANY?
IS THIS
THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA.
WELL, WE WERE OUTRAGED.
I'VE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH THIS
INSURANCE COMPANY, GOT LIP
SERVICES PROMISES, BLOWOFF
LETTERS FROM THEIR LAWYERS AND
STUF
I'M WRITING AN AMENDMENT ON THE FLOOR.
SO WE'VE GOT TO GET RID OF THESE
PUNITIVE PRACTICES OF DENYING
HEALTH CARE ON THE BASIS OF A
PREVIOUS CONDITION, AND THEN NOT
ONLY DOING THAT BECAUSE OF THE
C-SECTION BUT THEN TO ENGAGE IN
A COERCIVE WAY TO GET -- ENFORCE
A STERILIZATION.
SO YOU THINK I WANT REFORM?
YOU BETTER BELIEVE I DO, AND I
THINK I SPEAK FOR THE MAJORITY
OF THE WOMEN IN THIS COUNTRY WHO
FEEL THE SAME WAY AND THE GOOD
MEN LIKE THE PRESIDING OFFICER
WHO WILL SUPPORT US ON IT.
I WILL HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO DEAL
WITH THIS IF THE INSURANCE
COMPANY CONTINUES TO BLOW ME
OFF.
FLOOR.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: MORNING
BUSINESS
UNDER THE?? PREVIOUS ORDER, THE
MOTION TO PROCEED TO THE MOTION
TO RECONSIDER THE VOTE BY WHICH
CLOTURE WAS NOT INVOKED ON THE
COMMITTEE-REPORTED SUBSTITUTE TO
H.R. 2847 IS AGREED TO
MOTI
IS AGREED TO.
UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THERE
WILL BE 40 MINUTES OF DEBATE
EQUALLY DIVIDED AND CONTROLLED
AS FOLLOWS: 20 MINUTES UNDER THE
CONTROL OF THE SENATOR FROM
LOUISIANA AND 20 MINUTES TOTAL
UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE SENATOR
FROM MARYLAND, SENATOR MIKULSKI,
AND THE SENATOR FROM ALABAMA,
SENATOR SHELBY.
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT,
IT'S ABOUT 12:25 -- WELL, EXCUSE
ME.
MR. PRESIDENT, VERY SHORTLY
WE'LL VOTE ON CLOTURE ON THE
C.J.S. BILL.
AS THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE BILL,
D LIKE TO SAY WE WANT TO
FINISH THIS TODAY.
SO THAT WE CAN MOVE F
FUNDING.
MR. PRESIDENT, I HAVE TO YIELD
THE FLOOR A MOMENT AND I NOTE
THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
QUORUM CALL:
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
MS. MIKULS
CALL OF THE QUORUM BE VACATED. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT,
RECLAIMING MY TIME AS THE
MANAGER OF THE BILL, I WANT TO
BRING TO COLLEAGUES' ATTENTION
THAT AT 12:25 TODAY, WE'RE GOING
TO VOTE ON THE CLOTURE OF THE COMMERCE-JUSTICE-SCIENCE
APPROPRIATIONS BILL.
WE WOULD LIKE TO FINISH THIS
BILL TODAY, AND WHEN I SAY "I" I
MEAN SENATOR SHELBY, MY RANKING
MEMBER, AND MYSELF.
THIS BILL IS THE RESULT OF A
RIGOROUS BIPARTISAN EFFORT TO
FUND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
INCLUDING THE F.B.I. AND D.E.A.,
THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, MAJOR
SCIENCE AGENCIES THAT PROPEL O
COUNTRY IN THE AREA OF
INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT, LIKE THE NATIONAL
SCIENCE FOUNDATION AND THE
NATIONAL SPACE AGENCY.
SO WE WANT THE SETE TO BE ABLE
TO DEAL WITH THIS AND THEN MOVE
ON TO OTHER BUSINESS.
AFTER THE CLOTURE VOTE, IT IS
OUR INTENTION TO DISPOSE OF ANY
PENDING AMENDMENTS THAT ARE
GERMANE TO THE BILL.
THIS BILL HAS BEEN PUBLIC SINCE JUNE.
IT'S BEEN ON THE FLOOR ALREADY
FOR FOUR DAYS AND OVER 20 HOURS.
SENATORS HAVE HAD AMPLE TIME TO
DRAFT AND CALL UP THEIR
AMENDMENTS.
SO SENATOR SHELBY AND I WOULD
HOPE TO BE ABLE TO MOVE THROUGH
THE AMENDMENTS IN A WELL-PACED
BUT BRISK FASHION.
MR. PRESIDENT, WE WOULD HOPE OUR
COLLEAGUES WOULD COOPERATE AND
HAVE
THE FUNDING OF THESE IMPORTANT
AGENCIES BE DECIDED ON ROBUST
DEBATE AND THE MERITS OF THE
ARGUMENT RATHER THAN DELAY AND
DITHER, DELAY AND DITHER, DELAY
AND DITHER TACTICS OF THE OTHER SIDE.
SO WE DON'T WANT TO DELAY.
WE DON'T
WE WANT TO PROCEED, DEBATE
GERMANE AMENDMENTS AND BRING OUR
BILL TO A PROMPT CLOSURE.
MR. PRESIDENT, I RESERVE THE
BALANCE OF MY
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT, I
HAVE TWO CONSENT REQUESTS.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT
RICHARD BURKHART, A DETAILEE
FROM FINANCIAL SERVICES, BE
GRANTED FLOOR PRIVILEGES DURING
THE CONSIDERATION OF THE C.J.S.
THER
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MS. MIKULSKI:
ALSO HAVE TEN UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUESTS FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
DURING TODAY'S SESSION OF THE SENATE.
THEY HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE
MAJORITY AND MINORITY LEADERS.
I THEREFORE ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT THESE REQUESTS BE
AGREED TO AND THAT THEY BE
PRINTED IN THE RECORD.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MS. MIKULSKI:
RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
MR. CHAMBLISS: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATO FROM GEORGIA.
MR. CHAMBLISS: MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT WHEN
THE SENATE DOES RESUME
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2847, THAT
IT BE IN ORDER FOR NOTICE OFFER
AMENDMENT --
AMENDMENT 2676, WHICH IS FILED
AT THE DESK.
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
OBJECTION?
MS. MIKULSKI: I OBJECT.
THE INTENTION IS TO VOTE ON LOW
DISPIEWR DISPOSE OF PENDING
GER -- CLOTURE AND DISPOSE OF
PENDING GERMANE AMENDMENTS.
THE SENATOR'S AMENDMENT IS NOT
PENDING SO I DO OBJECT, WITH ALL
COURTESY BECAUSE OF MY RESPECT
FOR THE SENATOR.
THE PRESIDING OFFICE
IS HEARD.
MR. CHAMBLISS: MR. PRESIDENT, I
OBVIOUSLY AM VERY DISAPPOINTED
TO SEE MY COLLEAGUES ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE OBJECT
TO MY AMENDMENT.
IT'S A PRETTY SIMPLE,
STRAIGHTFORWARD AMENDMENT.
WE HAVE VOTED SEVERAL DIFFERENT
TIMES ON APPROPRIATIONS BILLS
THAT HAVE BEEN ON THE FLOOR OF
THE SENATE OVER THE LAST COUPLE
OF WEEKS WHEREIN THE FOLKS ON
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE
INSIST O
OF PRISONERS FROM GUANTANAMO BAY
TO THE UNITED STATES FOR TRIAL.
MY AMENDMENT PROHIBITS THAT.
I SIMPLY THINK THAT IT'S NOT
APPROPRIATE TO BRING BATTLEFIELD
COMBATANTS INTO ARTICLE 3 TRIALS
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES FOR ANY
NUMBER OF PROCEDURAL REASONS
RELATIVE TO THE TREATMENT OF
GUANTANAMO BAY PRISONERS WITHIN
OUR FEDERAL COURTS.
BUT EVEN BEYOND THAT, THE
FOACIAL FOR THE RELEASE OF
ENEMY COMBATANTS ONCE THEY
ARRIVE ON U.S. SOIL CERTAINLY IS
INCREASED AND THIS IS NOT THE
WAY WE NEED TO BE TREATING ENEMY
COMBATANTS.
THOSE MEN WHO ARE AT GITMO ARE
THE MEANEST, NASTIEST KILLERS IN
THE WORLD, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF
THEM WAKES UP EVERY DAY THINKING
OF WAYS THEY CAN KILL AND HARM
AMERICANS, BOTH OUR SOLDIERS AS WELL AS INDIVIDUALS.
SOME OF THEM WERE INVOLVED IN
THE PLANNING AND THE CARRYING
OUT OF THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS.
OTHERS WERE ARRESTED ON THE
BATTLEFIELD IN IRAQ AND IN GUANTANAMO.
WE ARE NOT EQUIPPED NOR HAVE WE
EVER IN OUR HISTORY DEALT WITH
THE TRIAL IN ARTICLE 3 COURTS OF
ANY ENEMY COMBATANT ARRESTED ON
THE BATTLEFIELD.
THE F.B.I. HAS NOT INV
CASES PRIOR TO ARRESTS.
THESE FOLKS WERE NOT GIVEN
MIRANDA WARNINGS BECAUSE OUR
SOLDIERS CAPTURED THESE
INDIVIDUALS WITH AK-47'S IN THEIR HANDS THAT THEY WERE
SHOOTING AT OUR MEN WITH, AND
THESE ARE NOT THE TYPE OF
INDIVIDUALS THAT OUR CRIMINAL
COURTS ARE DESIGNED TO HANDLE OR
CAN FEASIBLY HANDLE.
SO, MR. PRESIDENT, I'M
DISAPPOINTED THAT WE'RE NOT
GOING TO GET A VOTE ON THIS AND
I'LL CONTINUE TO RAISE THIS
ISSUE AS LONG AS WE POSSIBLY CAN
BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME THAT
GUANTANAMO
BE CLOSED AND FROM A PRACTICAL
STANDPOINT UNTIL IT IS CLOSED,
IF THAT EVER DOES HAPPEN.
WE'VE GOT THE COURTS AT
GUANTANAMO BAY EQUIPPED TO
HANDLE AND TRY THESE INDIVIDUALS
FOR MILITARY TRIBUNALS.
THOSE
ESTABLISHED, JUST REAUTHORIZED.
WE'RE CAPABLE OF HANDLING THE
TRIALS AT GUANTANAMO BAY AND
THAT'S WHERE THEY SHOULD TAKE
PLACE. AND, MR. PRESIDENT, I WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT -- THAT TIME I'VE
UTILIZED IS CHARGED AGAINST
SENATOR VITTER, WHICH HAS BEEN
AGREEDN BY THE SENATOR.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IT WILL
BE SO CHARGED.
MR. DeMINT: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA. MR. DeMINT: I APPRECIATE THE
SENATOR FROM GEORGIA ATTEMPTING
TO GET A VERY IMPORTANT
AMENDMENT ON THE FLOOR, AND I
WOULD LIKE TO ALSO MAKE A
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST FOR A
RELATED AMENDMENT RELATED TO THE
TERRORISTS IN GUANTANAMO BAY.
THIS WEEK I WAS ADVISED BY THE
OFFICIALS AT THE AIR FORCE AND
NAVY BASE IN CHARLESTON --
MRS. MIKULSKI: WOULD THE SENATOR
YIELD FOR A QUESTION?
ARE YOU OFFERING THE AMENDMENT?
MR. DeMINT: IT WOULD JUST BE A SECOND.
YES, I WILL YIELD.
YES.
MS. MIKULSKI: NO, I'M SAYING,
ARE YOU OFFERING IT, AN
AMENDMENT, OR ARE YOU GIVING A
SPEECH ABOUT THE DESIRE TO OFFER
AN AMENDMENT?
MR. DeMINT: I DESIRE TO OFFER
AN AMENDMENT AND I'M MAKING A
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST TO
ALLOW MY AMENDMENT TO BE
CONSIDERED POSTCLOTURE.
I HAVE A REQUEST HERE I'LL READ. THANK YOU.
AND I'LL GET TO THE REQUEST IN A
MOMENT.
JUST WANTEDO -- JUST A FEW
SECONDS OF BACKGROUND.
WE THINK WE KNOW THIS IS NOT AN
IDLE THREAT BECAUSE INQUIRIES
HAD BEEN MADE INTO CHARLESTON
INTO MOVING -- FOR MOVING
DETAINEES FROM GUANTANAMO BAY TO
MINIMUM SECURITY BRIGS IN CHARLESTON.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST THAT
WHEN THE SENATE RESUMES
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2847, IT
BE IN ORDER FOR ME TO OFFER AN
AMENDMENT PREVENTING THE
TRANSFER OF KNOWN TERRORISTS AT
GUANTANAMO TO U.S. SOIL.
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT?
I OBJECT TO THE AMENDMENT.
THE INTENTION IS TO VOTE ON
CLOTURE, DISPOSE OF PENDING
GERMANE AMENDMENTS.
THE SENATOR'S AMENDMENT IS NOT
PENDING SO I OBJECT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
OBJECTION IS HEARD.
MR. DeMINT: MR. PRESIDENT,
THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN FILED AS
A SECOND DEGREE.
IT MAKES NOENSE FOR US AT THIS
POINT TO NOT HAVE A SHORT DEBATE
ABOUT MOVING THE MOST DANGEROUS
PEOPLE IN THE WORLD TO AMERICAN
SOIL.
IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR US TO ALLOW
AT LEAST A SMALL AMOUNT OF TIME
AS WE RUSH THESE BILLS THROUGH
TO TALK ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT
ARE IMPORTANT TO AMERICANS.
SO I'M OBVIOUSLY DISAPPOINTED
THAT WE WILL NOT ALLOW THE
DISCUSSION OF MY AMENDMENT OR
THE SENATOR FROM GEORGIA OR
OTHERS WHO ARE TRYING TO GET
THIS ISSUE IN FRONT OF THIBODY
FOR DISCUSSION.
IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T VOTE
IT DOWN, BUT NOT TO ALLOW DEBATE
IS CERTAINLY DISCOURAGING AT
THIS POINT.
BUT I APPRECIATE SENATOR VITTER
GIVING US A FEW MINUTES TO OFFER
THIS, AND I WILL YIELD THE FLOOR
TO HIM.
MR. VITTER: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM
YES, SIR.
MR. VITTER: THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT, I RISE AGAIN IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF MY AMENDMENT
NUMBER 2644 TO THE
COMMERCE-JUSTICE-STATE
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, AND IT IS
COAUTHORED BY THE DISTINGUISHED
SENATOR BENNETT FROM UTAH AND
IT'S STRONGLY SUPPORTED BY MANY
OTHER MEMBERS.
MR. PRESIDENT, THERE'S BEEN A
LOT SAID ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT,
MOST OF IT INACCURAT SO LET ME
STEP BACK AND START AT WHAT THE
AMENDMENT SAYS.
PRETTY SIMPLE, PRETTY
STRAIGHTFORWARD WHEN YOU
ACTUALLY READ IT.
THE AMENDMENT SIMPLY REQUIRES
THE CENSUS THAT WERE SET TO
TAKE NEXT YEAR TO ASK WHETHER
THE RESPONDENT IS A CITIZEN OR
NOT. THE AMENDMENT DOESN'T DO
ANYTHING BUT THAT.
IT SIMPLY SAYS THE CENSUS SHOULD
ASK FOLKS IF THEY'R THEY ARE CITIZENS.
SO IT'S VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
WE SHOULD COUNT EVERY PERSON IN
THE UNITED STATES. THE CENSUS SHOULD INCLUDE
EVERYONE, BUT IN SO DOING, I AM
ENCOURAGING -- AND MY
WOULD REQUIRE -- THAT THE CENSUS
ASK IF AN INDIVIDUAL IS A
CITIZEN OR NOT.
COMPARED TO THAT SIMPLE
STATEMENT OF PICY, THAT
STIMULUS GOAL, IT'S ABSOLUTELY
MIND-BOGGLING TO ME SOME OF THE STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE
ABOUT IT.
FIRST OF ALL, THE DISTINGUISHED
MAJORITY LEADER, SENATOR REID,
ADMITTED IN SEVERAL CONFERENCE
CALLS AND STATEMENTS TO THE
PRESS THAT HE'S TRYING TO INVOKE
CLOTURE ON THIS BILL,
SPECIFICALLY TO BLOCK OUT ANY
VOTE, ANY DISCUSSION OF THE
VITTER AMENDMENT.
SECONDLY, IN SAYING THAT, THE
MAJORITY LEADER CALLED MY
AMENDMENT "ANTI-IMMIGRANT."
NOW, I HONESTLY DON'T SEE HOW
ANY REASONABLE PERSON CAN SAY,
WE TAKE A CENSUS; WE SIMY ASK
WHETHER THE RESPONDENT IS A
CITIZEN OR NONCITIZEN.
PLENTY OF NONCITIZENS WHO ARE
HERE ILLEGALLY IS
ANTI-IMMIGRANT.
THIRD, AND
OUTRAGEOUSLY, SENATOR REID SAID
THAT MY EFFORT IS AKIN TO THE
ACTIVITIES IN THE 1950'S AND
1960'S TO INTIMIDATE BLACK
CITIZENS AND TRY TO GET THEM TO
STAY AWAY FROM VOTING IN THE
VOTING BOOTH.
I TAKE PERSONAL OFFENSE TO THAT.
I THINK THERE'S NO REASONABLE
COMPARISON, AND I ASK SENATOR
REID TO APOLOGIZE TO ME FOR THAT
OUTRAGEOUS STATEMENT ON THE
SENATE FLOOR.
AS I SAID, WHAT THE AMENDMENT
DOES IS SIMPLE.
IT SAYS THE CENSUS SHOULD ASK
WHETHER A REUPON D RESPOON DPENT ACCIDENT --
SHOULD ASK WHETHER A RESPOON
DPENTS IS A CITIZEN OR NOT.
THE CENSUS IS A FOOL THAT WE IN
THE CONGRESS ARE SUPPOSED TO
USE, INFORMATION STATISTICS, AS
WE TACKLE ANY NUMBER OF
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES IN FEDERAL
PROGRAMS.
AND CERTAINLY, CERTAINLY, IT IS
A VERY SIGNIFICANT, IMPORTANT
ISSUE THAT WE DEAL WITH THE
IERMMIGRATION PROBLEM AND
IMMIGRATION ISSUE AND THE ISSUE
OF H ILLEGAL
AND CERTAINLY IT IS USEFUL TO
KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO SPEND $14
BILLION TO DO A CENSUS, IT'S
USEFUL TO KNOW WHO WITHIN THAT
NUMBER ARE CITIZENS AND WHO
WITHIN THAT NUMBER ARE
NONCITIZENS.
SECONDLY AND EVEN MORE
IMPORTANTLY, YOU KNOW, THE
THING THE CENSUS IS USED FOR --
THE FIRST THING THE CENSUS IS
USED FOR -- IS TO REAPPORTION
THE U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, TO DETERMINE,
AFTER EACH CENSUS IS DONE, HOW
MUCH U.S. HOUSE MEMBERS EACH
STATE GETS.
NOW, THE CURRENT PLA
COUNT EVERYBODY AND NOT ASK
WHETHER A PERSON IS A CITIZEN OR
A NONCITIZEN.
SO THE CURRENT PLAN IS TO
REAPPORTION HOUSE SEATS USING
THAT OVERALL NUMBER,
CITIZENS AND NONCITIZENS IN THE
MIX.
I THINK THAT'S WRONG.
I THINK THAT'S CONTRARY TO THE
WHOLE INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION
AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
CONGRESS AS A DEMOCRATIC
INSTITUTION TO REPRESENT
CITIZENS.
I BELIEVE ONLY CITIZENS SHOULD
BE IN THAT PARTICULAR
CALCULATION OF REAPPORTIONMENT
OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE FOR
MANY STATES, INCLUDING MY STATE
OF LOUISIANA, AND IT HAS A VERY
BIG AND DIRECT AND CONCRETE
IMPACT ON LOUISIANA AND CERTAIN OTHER STATES.
AND IT COMES DOWN TO THIS:
IF THE CENSUS IS DONE NEXT YEAR
AND REAPPORTIONMENT HAPPENS
USING EVERYBODY -- CITIZENS AND
NONCITIZENS -- LOUISIANA IS
GOING TO LOSE A HOUSE SEAT IN
THE U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, LOSE
ONE-SEVENTH OF OUR STANDING
THERE, OUR REPRESENTATION THERE,
OUR CLOUT.
IF THE CENSUS WAS DONE AND ONLY
CITIZENS -- THAT NUMBER OF
CITIZENS US WOULDE UCITIZENSWAS USED, LOSE LOSE WOULD NOT
LOSE A SEAT.
SO THAT'S A VERY BIG IMPACT ON
MY STATE OF LOUISIANA.
I'D ALSO POINT OUT THAT IT'S THE
SAME IMPACT IN SEVEN OTHER
STATES -- NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH
CAROLINA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA,
MISSISSIPPI, MICHIGAN.
IOWA, AND INDIANA -- EXCUSE ME,
EIGHT OTHER STATES.
SO A TOTAL OF NINE STATES ARE IN
THIS POSITION, LOUISIANA BEING
ONE EVER THEM.
AND SO IT'S A VERY SIGNIFICANT
ISSUE THAT DIRECTLY IMPACTS
MANY, MANY CITIZENS, MANY
STATES.
AND SO I URGE ALL OF MY
COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT GETTING A
VOTE ON THE VITTER AMENDMENT BY
DENYING CLOTURE ON THE COMMERCE-JUSTICE-STATE
APPROPRIATIONS BILL.
HOWEVER YOU MAY VOTE, THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT ISSUE, AND HOWEVER YOU
MAY VOTE, WE NEED A FULL DEBATE
AND A VOTE.
AND, IN PARTICULAR, I'D URGE MY
COLLEAGUES IN NORTH CAROLINA,
SOUTH CAROLINA, OREGON,
PENNSYLVANIA, MISSISSIPPI,
MICHIGAN, IOWA, INDIANA, AND OF
COURSE LOUISIANA TO VOTE "NO" ON
CLOTURE SO WE CAN EXAMINE THIS
VERY SIGNIFICANT ISSUE AND SO WE
CAN HAVE A VOTE ON THE
VITTER-BENNETT AMENDMENT.
NOW, THERE BEEN DISCUSSION IN
AT LEAST TWO AREAS THAT I WANT
TO QUICKLY ADDRESS.
ONE IS SOME DISCUSSION IN THE
PRESS, INCLUDING FROM MY
DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE FROM
LOUISIANA, SENATOR LANDRIEU,
THAT WHAT I JUST LAID OUT IN
TERMS OF THE IMPACT ON
REAPPORTIONMENT ISN'T TRUE.
WELL, I THINK EVERY EXPERT WHO'S
LOOKED AT THIS, EVERY
DEMOGRAPHER WHO'S LOOKED AT
THIS, AGREES WITH WHAT JUST
SAID; THAT THIS FACTOR IS THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOUISIANA
LOSING A HOUSE SEAT OR NOT.
THESE OTHER STATES LOSING A
HOUSE SEAT OR NOT.
I WOULD POINT OUT THREE EXPERTS
-- AND THERE ARE MANY OTHERS --
DR. ELLIOTT STONESE FIVMENT.
ER HAS BEEN LEADING THE CHARGE
ON THIS ISSUE.
I COMPLIMENT HIM FOR HIS
TENACITY AND HIS HARD WORK.
BUT OTHERS AS WELL.
IN AN OCTOBER 27, 2009, "NEW
YORK TIMES" ARTICLE, MY NUMBERS
WERE AGAIN CONFIRMED BY ANDRE
BENCH, PROFESSOR OF CORK OLE AT
QUEENS COLLEGE, NEW YORK.
HE DID AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS
AND SAID EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
YES, THIS ISSUE OF WHETHER WE
USE
NONCITIZENS IN REAPPORTIONMENT
DOES MAKE THAT HUGE DIFFERENCE
FOR THOSE STATES.
AND AGAIN, LAST WEEK MY ANALYSIS
AND MY NUMBERS WERE CONFIRMED
YET AGAIN BY AN INDEPENDENT AND
WELL-RESPECTED DEMOGRAPHIC
EXPERT, AGAIN IN MY STATE OF
LOUISIANA, GREG RIGGAMER, ARE
AND THAT'S VERY SIGNIFICANT.
SECONDLY, I ADDRESS THIS COST ISSUE.
YOU KNOW,NESS INTERESTING THAT
IN THIS DEBATE THE OTHER SIDE --
YOU KNOW, IT IS INTERESTING THAT
IN THIS DEBATE THE OTH
HAS BEEN FLAILING AROUND FOR AN
ARGUMENT AGAINST MY AMENDMENT.
IT IS INTERESTING THAT NOBODY
HAS RINGED, THAT I HAVE HEARD,
THAT REAPPORTIONMENT SHOULD BE
DONE COUNTING CITIZENS AND NONE
CITIZENS, THAT THAT'S MORE
CONSISTENT WITH THE NOTION OF
CONGRESS BEING THE
REPRESENTATIVE BODY OF CITIZENS
OF THE UNITED STATES.
SO FOLKS ON THE OTHER SIDE ARE
WILDLY FLAILING AROUND FOR SOME
ARGUMENT, AND ONE THEY HAVE COME
ACROSS IS COST, AND THAT, OH, MY
GOOD IN THE CENSUS WOULD HAVE TO
INCUR ADDITIONAL COST TO ADD
THIS TO THE FLOOR.
WELL, IT'S CERTAINLY TRUE THAT
IT WOULD COST SOME MORE.
I CAN'T GIVE YOU A PRECISE DOLLAR FIGURE.
IT WOULD COST SOMETHING MORE.
IT IS CERTAINLY TRUE THAT IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER FOR THIS
TO HAVE BEEN CAUGHT AND DEBATED
EARLIER RATHER THAN LATER.
AND, UNFORTUNATELY, THE
COMMITTEE OF JURISDICTION,
HOMELAND SECURITY, WHICH REVIEWS
THE CENSUS FORMS, DID NOT BRING
THIS ISSUE UP IN A SIGNIFICANT WAY.
I AGREE WITH THAT.
I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS WILD
FIGURE THAT IT WOULD COST $1
BILLION.
I POINT OUT A COUPLE THINGS.
FIRST OF ALL, THE COST OF THE
CENSUS HAS BALLOONED FROM THE
LAST CENSUS.
THE LAST CENSUS IT WAS $3.4 BILLION.
THIS CRENG SUCCESS IT IS GOING
TO BE $14 BILLION.
THE FIRST THING I'D
HONESTLY, IT IS PRETTY IRONIC
FOR AN AGENCY THAT HAS HAD A
BUDGET BALLOON FROM $3.4 BILLION
LAST CENSUS TO $14 THIS CENSUS
SAYING THEY CAN'T SQUEEZE IN
THAT QUESTION, THEY CAN'T DO IT
RIGHT FOR $14 BILLION.
BUT, SECONDLY, THE
FRANKLY, HAS A HORRENDOUS RECORD
IN TERMS OF COST ESTIMATE.
WHEN THEY THREW OUT THIS VERY
LARGE, VERY ROUND FIGURE OF IT'S
GOING TO COST ANOTHER $1
BILLION, I CALLED THEM AND SAID,
OKAY, CAN YOU GIVE US THE
RATIONALE FOR THAT, THE
BACKGROUND ON THAT COST
ESTIMATE?
AFTER THREE WEEKS OF ASKING FOR
THE DATA BEHIND THAT $1 BILLION
CLAIM, THEY SENT US E PIECE OF
PAPER WITH 10 BULLET POINTS ON
IT, ALL VERY GENERAL STATEMENTS
AND SUGGESTNS, AND WITH THE
FINAL BOTTOM LINE, A NICE, EVEN,
ROUND FIGURE OF $1 BILLION.
THAT'S VERY UNIMPRESSIVE, IN MY
OPINION, IN TERMS OF ANY PRECISE
ACCOUNTING FOR $1 BILLION.
I'D ALSO DRAW EVERYONE'S
ATTENTION TO AN OCTOBER 7, 2009,
G.A.O. REPORT DELIVERED TO THE
HOMELAND SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE
ON FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT,
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, FEDERAL
SERVICES, AND INTERNATIONAL
SECURITY.
IT WAS ABOUT THE CENSUS, AND IN
THAT REPORT, THE G.A.O. SAID --
QUOTE -- "GIVEN THE BUREAU'S
PAST DIFFICULTIES IN DEVELOPING
CREDIBLE AND ACCURATE COST
ESTIMATES, WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT
THE RELIABILITY OF THE FIGURES
THAT WERE USED TO SUPPORT THE
2010 BUDGET."
CLOSE QUOTE.
IN ANOTHER EXAMPLE, THE OFFICE
OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FILED A
REPORT IN 2008 ABOUT THE CENSU
IN THAT REPORT, THE OFFICE
INSPECTED A PARTICULAR COST
ESTIMATE FROM THE CENSUS THAT
CAME UP TO $494 MILLION FOR A
CERTAIN PORTION OF THEIR
ACTIVITY AND SAID, WE THINK THIS
IS A WILDLY INFLATED FIGURE, AND
WE CAN IMMEDIATELY IDENTIFY COST
SAVINGS THAT BRING IT DOWN TO
$348 MILLION, A SIGNIFICANT
SAVINGS OF ALMOST $150 MILLION.
AND WHEN THE CENSUS WAS
CONFRONTED WITH THAT, THEY HAD
TO AGREE, AND THEY HAD TO ADOPT
THE LOWER FIGURE.
SO, MR. PRESIDENT, MY BOTTOM
LINE IS SIMPLE:
WE DO A CENSUS EVERY 10 YEARS.
IT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT EVENT.
WE NEETO DO IT RIGHT, AND TO
DO IT RIGHT, WE NEED A FULL
BATE ON A VOTE ON THIS CENTRAL
QUESTION EMBODIED BY THE
VITTER-BENNETT AMENDMENT.
SO I URGE ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES
TO VOTE "NO" ON CLOTURE OF THE
COMMERCE-JUSTICE-STATE
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, TO DEMAND A
REASONABLE DEBATE AND VOTE ON
THE VITTER-BENNETT AMENDMENT.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION,
AND WE SIMPLY SHOULDN'T FORGE
AHEAD WHEN AMERICANS HAVE A
FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM WITH NOT
EVEN ASKING THE CITIZENSH
QUESTION AND WITH, THEREFORE
FORGING AHEAD WITH THE PLAN TO
REAPPORTION THE ENTIRE U.S.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
PUTTING NONCITIZENS IN THE MIX
WHEN THE WHOLE NOTION OF A
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY AND OF
CONGRESS IS TO REPRESENT
CITIZENS OF THE COUNTRY.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THAT POSITION.
I THANK MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE
DONE SO SO FAR, AND IN
PARTICULAR, I URGE MY COLLEAGUES
FROM NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH
CAROLINA, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA,
MISSISSIPPI, MICHIGAN, IOWA,
INDIANA, AND CERTAINLY LOUISIANA
TO STAND UP FOR YOUR STATES, TO
STAND UP FOR THEIR INTERESTS, TO
STAND UP FOR THEIR CLOUT AND
THEIR REPRESENTATION IN THE U.S.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WITH THAT,
YIELD BACK MY
SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT, I
OBJECT TO THE SENATOR'S
AMENDMENT, A I OBJECT TO THE
ARGUMENTS THAT HE'S MADE.
FIRST OF ALL, NUMBER ONE, WE DO
WANT CLOTURE SO THAT WE CAN
PROCEED ON AMENDMENTS THAT ARE GERMANE.
SECOND, IN TERMS OF THE
INACCURATE ACCUSATIONS THAT WE
ARE PLOWING AHEAD AND FORGING
FORWARD, MR. PRESIDENT, WE WERE
ON THIS BILL FOR FOUR DAYS, OVER
20 HOURS OF DEBATE.
THERE WAS PLENTY OF TIME TO TALK
ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT, AND I WAS
HERE AND READY TO ENGAGE P.
THE SECOND THING IS THERE'S BEEN
OTHER TIME SINCE MY BILL WAS
PULLED FROM THE
MORNING BUSINESS WHEN A SENATE
CAN TALK NIMENT ANYTIME FOR ANY LENGTH
OF TIME ON ANY TOPIC THAT THEY WANT.
SO, SILENCE, SILENCE, SILENCE.
SO DON'T USE THE CLOTURE VOTE AS
A WAY TO SAY THERE WASN'T ENOUGH
TIME.
NOW, LET'S GO TO BEING ASLEEP AT
THE SWITCH.
TWO ACCUSATIONS WERE MADE -- THE
BALLOONING OF THE CENSUS COST.
WELL, ONE OF THE REASONS -- THE
MAIN REASON THAT THE COST IS
EXPLODING IS THAT THE PARTY IN
POWER PRIOR TO 2008 WAS ASLEEP
AT THE SWITCH WITH THE CENSUS.
THEY COMPLETELY DROPPED THE BALL
ON THE NEW TECHNOLOGY FOR BEING
ABLE TO GO DOOR TO DOOR TO GET A COUNT.
IT TURNED INTO A BIG TECH KNOW
BOONDOGGLE -- TECHNOBOONDOGGLE.
IT TOOK THE SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE TO FIND THAT UNDER THAT
ROCK WAS A LOT OF MALFUNCTIONING MICROCHIPS.
SO WE HAD TO BAIL OUT SECRETARY
GUTIERREZ AND THE CENSUS BECAUSE
OF THE TECHNOBOONDOGGLE.
THE OTHER PARTY WAS ASLEEP AT
THE SWITCH IN MAINTAINING STRICT
QUALITY CONTROLS.
NOW, LET'S GO TO THE ASKING OF
ANOTHER QUESTION.
THEY WERE -- AGAIN, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM LOUISIANA WAS,
WHEN HE SAYS HE WANTS TO STAND
UP FOR HIS STATE, I AGREE.
WE HAVE TO STAND UP FOR OUR STATES.
BUT THE TIME TO STAND UP WAS IN
APRIL OF 2007.
DID YOU KNOW THAT THE CENSUS IS
MANDATED BY LAW TO SUBMIT THE
QUESTIONNAIRES TO CONGRESS?
AND THEY DID.
SO FOR ONE YEAR, FROM APRIL 1,
2007, TO THE CLOSE OF THE REVIEW
BY CONGRESS ONE YEAR LATER,
APRIL 2008, THERE WAS PLENTY OF
TIME TO SAY, WE DON'T LIKE THE
QUESTIONNAIRE.
WE WANT TO ADD A CITIZENSHIP
QUESTION.
THAT WAS THE TIME AND THE PLACE.
SO WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO STAND UP
FOR YOUR STATE, STAND UP AT THE
RIGHT TIME TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE
AND NOT TRY TO AMEND THE LAW
THAT'S GOING TO CREATE
ADMINISTRATIVE HAVOC.
WE COULD DEBATE THE MERITS OF
THE QUESTION, BUT I'M HERE AS AN
APPROPRIATOR ON THE PROCESS.
THE CENSUS DID MEET ITS
STATUTORY RESPO
IT SUBMITTED TO THE
QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE CONGRESS APRIL 1, 2007.
IT DIDN'T COME IN THE STEALTH OF
THE NIGHT.
IT WASN'T WRITTEN IN INVISIBLE INK.
IT WAS WRITTEN IN ENGLISH HERE
FOR ALL TO SEE AND ALSO IN OTHER
LANGUAGES THAT WE COULD TEST AND
USE TO SAY DO YOU, CONGRESS,
LIKE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND DO
YOU HAVE ANY COMNTS?
SO FOR ALL THOSE WHO WANT TO
STAND UP, THAT WAS THE TIME TO
DO IT AND THE TIME TO MAKE A CHANGE.
NOW, LET'S TALK
CONSEQUENCES OF IT.
IT WILL DELAY THE CENSUS SO THAT
WE COULD ESSENTIALLY NOT MEET
OUR CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE OF
HAVING THE CENSUS DONE IN A
TIMELY WAY.
ALSO, NUMBER TWO, IT WILL COST,
IF WE DID
DOLLARS AND WREAK, AGAIN,
ADMINISTRATIVE HAVOC.
NOW, LET'S GO INTO THIS WHOLE
THING ABOUT CITIZENS AND NONCITIZENS.
THE CENSUS ALREADY TRACKS THE
NUMBER OF CITIZENS AND
NONCITIZENS THROUGH A SEPARATE
SURVEY, SO WE COULD TALK ABOUT
WHAT THIS WILL MEAN IN
REAPPORTIONMENT AND SO ON.
THOSE ARE FOR DEBATES THAT
REALLY LIE WITH THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE.
MR. PRESIDENT, PLEASE, WE'RE NOT
GOING TO VOTE UP OR DOWN ON THE
VITTER AMENDMENT.
WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON CLOTURE.
AND WHY IS CLOTURE IMPORTANT?
SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE
DISTRACTING AMENDMENTS THAT ARE
BETTER OFFERED ON THE
APPROPRIATE SUBSTANCE OF THE BILL.
WE HAVE GOT TO FUND THE COMMERCE-JUSTICE-SCIENCE
AGENCIES.
THE F.B.I. NEEDS US TO FUN THIS
AGENCY.
THE MARSHALL SERVICES NEEDS US
TO FUND THIS AGENCY.
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, OUR FEDERAL PRISONS.
YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE WHO THE
ADMINISTRATION WANTS TO PUT IN
THOSE FEDERAL PRISONS, BUT WE
NEED FEDERAL PRISONS.
SO WE NEED TO
THAT WE CAN DISPOSE OF GERMANE
AMENDMENTS AND MOVE DEMOCRACY FORWARD.
MR. PRESIDENT, I
FLOOR.
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT, HOW
MUCH TIME DO I HAVE? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: YOU HAVE
7 1/2 MINUTES.
MS. MIKULSKI: I WANT TO RESERVE
MY TIME. DID THE SENATOR FROM KANSAS HAVE
A QUESTION? MR. ROBERTS: I WOULD BE
DELIGHTED TO -- THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM KANSAS IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. ROBERTS: THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
I WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO RESPOND
TO MY GOOD FRIEND FROM MARYLAND.
I AM IN A POSITION TO YIELD BACK
ALL OF THE MINORITY'S TIME.
WE HAVE NO MORE SPEAKERS. MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT,
WE'RE NOT PREPARED TO YIELD BACK
OUR TIME.
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
MR. ROBERTS: WOULD THE
DISTINGUISHED SENATOR YIELD?
MS. MIKULSKI: CERTAINLY.
MR. ROBERTS: TODAY, THE UNITED
STATES MARINE CORPS IS
CELEBRATING ITS BIRTHDAY.
AS I SPEAK, THE COME MANNED ANT
OF THE MARINE CORPS, THE DRUM
AND BUGLE CORPS AND VARIOUS
ASSORTED MARINES ARE OVER IN THE
RUSSELL BUILDING.
I AM TO CUT THE CAKE AND I'M
GETTING INTO DEEPER AND DEEPER
TROUBLE HERE IF WE DELAY THESE
CEREMONIES TO THE DEGREE THAT
THEY COULD BE DELAYED, AND I
DON'T MEAN IT'S DELAYED IF WE
HAVE SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO TALK.
OBVIOUSLY, YOU HAVE GOT SEVEN MINUTES.
BUT I WOULD APPRECIATE ANY --
ANY CONSIDERATION THAT YOU MIGHT
BE ABLE TO GIVE
HECK OF AN ARGUMENT, I RESPOND
TO THE SENATOR FROM KANSAS, AND
I HAVE A GREAT ADMIRATION FOR
THE MARINE CORPS, AND IF THE
SEMPER FI GUYS CALL AND YOU WANT
TO CUT THE CAKE, I WILL
CERTAINLY BE WILLING TO
COOPERATE.
SERIOUSLY, OUR CONGRATULATIONS
TO THE UNITED STATES MARINE
CORPS ON THEIR BIRTHDAY.
WE VALUE THEM FOR WHAT THEY HAVE
DONE IN OUR MOST RECENT
CONFLICTS AND THEIR INCREDIBLE HISTORY.
THEY TRULY ARE SEMPER FI.
MR. PRESIDENT, HAVING SAID THAT
IN THE SPIRIT OF WHAT I HOPE
COULD BE THE COMITY OF THE DAY,
THE CIVILITY OF THE DAY, WE
YIELDACK OUR TIME AND WE'RE
PREPARED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH
THE VOTE.
MR. ROBERTS: I WOULD TELL
SENATOR SEMPER FI, AND ON BEHALF
OF THE MINORITY, WE YIELD BACK
OUR TIME.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: ALL TIME HAS EXPIRED.
THE CLERK WIL
TO INVOKE CLOTURE.
THE CLERK: WE THE UNDERSIGNED
SENATORS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF RULE 22 OF THE
STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE
HEREBY MOVE
DEBATE ON THE COMMITTEE-REPORTED
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT TO H.R.
2847, THE DEPARTMENTS OF
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND SCIENCE
AN
APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF FISCAL
YEAR 2010, SIGNED
SENATORS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: BY
UNANIMOUS CONSENT, A MANDATORY
QUORUM CALL IS WVED.
THE QUESTION IS IS IT THE SENSE
OF THE SENATE THAT DEBATE ON THE
COMMITTEE REPORT SUBSTITUTE FOR
H.R. 2847, THE
COMMERCE-JUSTICE-SCIENCE AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION
ACT OF 2010 SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
A CLOSE.
THE YEAS AND NAYS ARE MANDATORY
UNDER THE RULES, AND THE
VOTE:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: ALL
SENATORS WHO -- IF ALL SENATORS
VOTED ON THIS
60, THE NAYS ARE 39.
THREE-FIFTHS OF THE SENATORS
DUEL LEE CHOSEN AND SWORN HAVING
VOTED IN
MOTION IS AGREED TO.
THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE BILL.
THE CLERK: CALENDAR NUMBER 87,
H.R. 2847, AND ACT MACK I.G.
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE AND
JUSTICE AND SCIENCE AND RELATED
AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2010, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MARYLANIS RECOGNIZED.
MS. MIKULSKI: I NOTE THE
ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT?
I MISSPOKE.
I ASK FOR THE REGULAR ORDER.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUORUM CALL IS WITHDRAWN. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM FLORIDA IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. NELSON:
ASK CONSENT THAT THE QUORUM CALL
BE LIFTED. THE PRIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, IT IS SO OERED.
MR. NELSON: MR. PRESIDENT, THE
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION IS
PROPOSING A RULE THAT WILL
BASICALLY ELIMINATE, IF YOU LIKE RAW OYSTERS.
THERE HAVE BEEN 15 PEOPLE IN THE
PAST YEAR THAT HAVE DIED FROM A
BACTERIAL INFECTION THAT COMES
OUT OF RAW OYSTERS.
BUT WHAT HAS BEEN DISCOVERED IS
THAT THE PEOPLE HAD A
PREEXISTING CONDITION PRIOR TO
EATING THE OYSTERS THAT MADE
THEIR IMMUNE SYSTEM WORN DOWN SO
THAT THEY WERE MUCH MORE
SUSCEPTIBLE.
AND SO IN A SWEEPING
ADMINISTRATIVE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
DECISION OF TRYING TO CORRECT A
PROBLEM, THEY'RE SUDDENLY
PROPOSING THAT THEY ARE GOING TO
STOP THE REST OF AMERICA EASTING
RAW OYSTERS.
THIS IS LIKE SAYING, IF YOU HAVE
A FOOD ALLERGY LIKE PEANUTS,
WE'RE GOING TO BAN YOU EATING
PEANUTS, UNLESS YOU COOK THEM.
WELL, AS YOU KNOW,
MR. PRESIDENT, THERE
THRIVING INDUSTRY ALONG THE
COAST OF AMERICA, PARTICULARLY
THE GULF COAST OF AMERICA, THAT
HAS A DELICACY KNOWN AS ROWE
OYSTERS.
-- AS RAW OYSTERS THAT PEOPLE
ENJOY.
AND APALACHICOLA OYSTERS, THE
CREME DE LA CREME, ARE SHIPPED
ALL OVER THE WORLD, AND IN SOME
OF THE FANCIEST RESTAURANTS YOU
GET APALACHICOLA OYSTERS ON THE
HALF SHELL.
THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
IS ABOUT TO BAN RAW OYSTERS.
WELL, THERE'S SOME OF US IN THE
SENATE THAT ARE GOING TO TRY NOT
TO LET THIS HAPPEN.
AND SO, SENATOR LANDRIEU AND I,
WHO BOTH HAVE SOME INTEREST IN
THIS BECAUSE IT AFFECTS OUR
STATES, ARE FILING A BILL TODAY
THAT WOULD UTILIZE THE
APPROPRIATIONS MEANS OF NOT
LETTING AN APPROPRIATION BE
ENACTED OR USED FOR THE PURPOSE
OF THE F.D.A. IMPLEMENTING SUCH
A RULE.
-- SUCH A RULE THAT WOULD BAN
RAW OYSTERS.
THIS IS TRYING TO KILL A GNAT
WITH ALEDGEHAMMER.
IF PEOPLE WERE, BECAUSE OF A
PREEXIING CONDITION, ALREADY
SUBJECT TO COMING DOWN WITH AN
ILLNESS, THERE IS JUST SIMPLY NO SENSE.
THIS IS GOVERNMENT RUN THIS IS GOVERNMENT OUT OF
CONTROL.
THIS IS GOVERNMENT TRYING TO
KILL A GNAT WITH A SLEDGEHAMMER.
AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET IT
HAPPEN.
SO, MR. PRESIDENT, I WANT TO
INFORM THE SENATE TODAY THAT
WE'RE FILING THIS LEGISLATION.
MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE
FLOOR,
OF A QUORUM.
THE PRESIDING
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL: MR. FRANKEN: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
RECOGNIZED. MR. FRANKEN: MR. PRESIDENT, I
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
QUORUM BE SUSPENDED.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
MR. FRANKEN: I ASK UNIMOUS
CONSENT AT I BE ALLOWED TO
SPEAK A IF IN MORNING BUSINESS
FOR UP TO FIVE MISSEENS AND THAT
THE TIME BE CHARGED POSTCLOTURE. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. FRANKEN: THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
RIGHT NOW MANY OF US ARE ENGAGED
IN A VERY WORTHWHILE DISCUSSION
ABOUHEALTH CARE AND HEALTH INSURANCE.
THESE ARE IMMENSELY IMPORTANT
TOPICS AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH ALL MY COLLEAGUES
TO PASS HEALTH REFORM THIS YEAR.
BUT IN THESE BROADER
DISCUSSIONS, IT'S EASY TO FORGET
THAT THE BEST WAY TO BECOME A
HEALTHIER COUNTRY WITH LOWER
HEALTH CARE COSTS IS TO PREVENT
AMERICANS FROM BECOMING SICK IN
THE FIRS PLACE.
A GREAT PLACE TO PRIORITIZE
WELLNESS OVER SICKNESS COMES IN
OUR PREVENTION OF DIABETES.
TODAY 24 MILLION AMERICANS
SUFFER FROM DIABETES, AND THE
EPIDEMIC IS GETTING WORSE.
IF WE DON'T MAKE SOME CHANGES
SOON, THE PREVALENCE OF THE
DISEASE WILL DOUBLE OVER THE
NEXT 30 YEARS.
THE ANNUAL COST OF DIABETES IN
OUR COUNTRY IS EXPECTED TO REACH
$338 BILLION BY 2020.
RIGHT NOW 57 MILLION AMERICANS
ARE WHAT'S CONSIDERED PREDIABETIC.
THAT MEANS THEY ARE AT RISK OF
DEVELOPING THE FULL-BLOWN
DISEASE BECAUSE THEY HAVE HIGH
BLOOD PRESSURE OR HIGH GLUCOSE
LEVELS.
THESE STATISTICS INCLUDE OVER A
MILLION ADULTS AND 92,000 YOUTH
IN MY STATE ALONE.
THESE ARE MINNESOTANS WHO MAY
FIND OUT TOMORROW THAT THEY HAVE
BECOME DIABETIC.
AND WE KNOW THAT DIABETES MAY BE
-- AND CAN BECOME DEBILITATING
AND REQUIRE COSTLY MEDICAL
INTERVENTIONS, FROM DAILY
INJECTIONS OF INSULIN ALL THE
WAY TO AMPUTATIONS.
WE KNOW HO DEVASTATING THIS
DISEASE IS FROM THE STORIES THAT
WE HEAR WHEN WE'RE BACK HOME.
JUST THIS WEEK I WAS ON THE
FLOOR AND SHARED THETORY OF
LIZ McCASKY FROM MINNEAPOLIS.
SHE LOST HER JOB IN SEPTEMBER
AND IS 58 YEARS OLD, MY EXACT
AGE.
SHE LIVES WITH DIABETES AND WAS
JUST DIAGNOSED WITH KIDNEY FAILURE.
SHE'S PAYING CLOSE TO $20,000 A
YEAR FOR HER INSURANCE AND
TRYING TO LIVE ON $1,000 A MONTH.
IF WE COULD HELP
PEOPLE LIKE LIZ AVOID THE PAIN
AND SUFFERING THAT COMES FROM
DIABETES, IT WOULD BE A
HEALTHIER, MORE PROSPEROUS
COUNTRY.
THE GOOD NEWS IS WE CAN HELP
AMERICANS AVOID THIS COSTLY AND
DEBILITATING DISEASE.
RESEARCH HAS SHOWN THAT
PREDIABETICS CAN AVOID
FULL-BLOWN DIABETES IF THEY
RECEIVE ACCESS TO COMMUNITY
SERVICES LIKE NUTRITION
COUNSELING AND GYM MEMBERSHIPS.
THESE ARE PROVEN TO CUT THE RISK
OF DEVELOPING DIABETES IN HALF.
I AM PLEASED TODAY TO BE
OFFERING LEGISLATION WITH
SENATOR LUGAR TO ENSURE THAT
PREDIABETICS HAVE ACCESS TO
SERVICES THAT WILL STOP THIS
DISEASE IN ITS TRACKS.
THE DIABETES PREVENTION ACT IS
BASE ON AN N.I.H. RESEARCH
STUDY DONE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
THE YMCA IN INDIANA.
THE STUDIES SHOWED THAT A
16-WEEK INTENSIVE LIFESTY
PROGRAM CAN PREVENT DIABETES AND
COST LESS THAN $300 PER PERSON.
LESS THAN $300 PER PERSON PER
YEAR.
STUDIES HAVE SHOWN US THAT THIS
INVESTMENT CAN SAVE US MONEY
WITHIN TWO TO THREE YEARS.
THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH
OUR LOCAL YMCA'S IN WILMER,
ROCHESTER, AND MINNEAPOLIS TO
IMPLEMENT THIS PROGRAM.
WE HAVE A DIVERSE GROUP OF
INSTRUCTORS WHO SPEAK SPANISH,
HMONG, SOMALI, AND AMERICAN SIGN LANGGE.
THEY INCLUDE PARISH NURSES,
DIETITIANS, AND COMMUNITY HEALTH EDUCATORS.
ALL OF THESE FOLKS ARE HELPING
COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO EAT
HEALTHIER AND BECOME MORE PHYSICALLY ACTIVE.
FOR THE LUCKY PEOPLE WHO GET TO
PARTICIPATE IN THESE PROGRAMS,
IT'S WORKING.
THEY ARE LOSING WEIGHT, GETTING
HEALTHIER AND AVOIDING DIABETES.
BUT RIGHT NOW, THESE EFFORTS ARE
A DROP IN THE BUCKET BECAUSE THE
EPIDEMIC IS SO GREAT.
WITH THIS BILL, WE WILL
REPLICATE THIS COST-EFFECTIVE
PROGRAM AND IMPROVE THE LIVES OF
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS.
THIS BILL WILL HELP COMMUNITIES
ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO SET UP
DIABETES PREVENTION PROGRAMS ON
INDIAN RESERVATIONS, IN RURAL
AREAS AND URBAN CENTERS AND ULTIMATELY HEALTH INSURANCE
COMPANIES WILL BE REIMBURSING
FOR THESE SERVICES.
BECAUSE PREVENTION SAVES MONEY
AND IT SAVES LIVES.
THIS IS AN INVESTMENT IN OUR
NATION'S FUTURE.
I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
MY COLLEAGUES TO ENACT THIS
IMPORTANT LEGISLATION.
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT
YIELD THE FLOOR.
MR. FRANKEN: I NOTE THE ABSENCE
OF A QUORUM,
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE
QUORUM CALL:
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM FLORIDA. MR. NELSON: MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK
THAT THE QUORUM CALL BE LIFTED. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. NELSON: MR. PRESIDENT, I'D
LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED AS IF IN MORNING BUSINESS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. NELSON: MR. PRESIDENT, IT
GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT NASA,
THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION, IS AT A
CROSSROADS.
IT IS AN THEAG HAS BEEN STARVED
OF FUNDS SO IT FUNDS --
IT IS A AGENCY THAT HAS BEEN
STARVED OF FUNDS SO IT FINDS
ITSELF IN A POSITION THAT ITS
HUMAN RATED CAPABLE MISSION, THE
SPACE SHUTTLE, WILL BE CEASING
TO FLY AFTER SIX MORE FLIGHTS
THAT WILL CONTINUE TO BUILD THE
SPACE STATION AND EQUIP IT.
THIS LAST FLIGHT WILL PROBABLY
NOT BE UNTIL
OF 2011, BUT THE CROSSROADS THAT
NASA'S FACING IS BECAUSE IT HAS
BEEN STARVED OF FUNDS OVER THE
COURSE OF THE LAST HALF A DOZEN
YEARS.
IT WILL NOT HAVE A NEW HUMAN
RATED VEHICLE TO TAKE OUR CREWS
TO THE INTERPRET SPAC -- TO THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, THERE'S A
GREAT DEAL OF CONSTERNATION AND
CONFLICT WITHIN NASA ITSELF AS
TO WHAT THAT VEHICLE SHOULD BE.
AND SO THE PRESIDENT,
RECOGNIZING THIS EARLIER WHEN HE
APPOINTED THE NEW NASA
ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL CHARLIE
BOLDEN, SET UP A BLUE-RIBBON
PANEL HEADED BY NORMAN AUGUSTINE.
THEY HAVE NOW REPORTED, AND THE
STRONG INFERENCE OF THEIR
EXTENSIVE AND DETAILEDEPORT IS
THAT THE VEHICLE THAT WAS
PLANNED TO FLY BUT WAS OBVIOUSLY
GOING TO BE DELAYED BECAUSE IT HADN'T BEEN DEVELOPED QUICK
ENOUGH, THE ARIES 1 -- BY THE
WAY, THE SAME VEHICLE THAT JUST
HAD A VERY SUCCESSFUL TEST
FLIGHT JUST THIS -- A WEEK
AGO -- THE STRONG INFERENCE OF
THE AUGUSTINE COMMISSION REPORT
IS THAT THE ARIES 1 WOULD NOT
EVEN BE READY TO FLY ASTRONAUTS
UNTIL THE YEAR 2017, AND IT'S
SOLE PURPOSE WOULD BE, ACCORDING
TO THE AUGUSTINE COMMISSION
REPORT, TO GET ASTRONAUTS TO AND
FROM THE SPACE STATION AND THAT
THAT
REPORT'S INFERENCE, TOO LATE.
AND SO THEY ARE RECOMMENDING, OR
AT LEAST THE STRONG INFERENCE OF
A RECOMMENDATION, IN THE
VEHICLES BE DEVELOPED TO TAKE
CARGO AND CREW TO THE
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION.
WHICH THE AUGUSTINE COMMISSION
REPORT IS SUGGESTING THE SPACE
STATION CERTAINLY SHOULD BE KEPT
ALIVE UNTIL THE YEAR 2020
TO REAP SOME OF THE SCIENCE FROM
THE EXPERIMENTS THAT JUST NOW
THE SPACE STATION IS GETTING
EQUIPPED TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT
SCIENCE.
IN THE NODULE THAT IS NOW
DESIGNATED AS A NATIONAL
LABORATORY ON THE INTERNATIONAL
SPACE STATION.
OKAY, NOW, IF WHAT I JUST SAID
SOUNDS CONFUSING, INDEED, IT IS.
AND THAT'S WHY NASA'S AT A
CROSSROADS
AND NASA IS EVEN MORE AT A
CROSSROADS BECAUSE NASA CAN'T DO
ANYTHING UNLESS IT GETS SOME
SERIOUS NEW ADDITIONAL MONEY AND
THAT IS THE STRONG
RECOMMENDATION OF THE AUGUSTINE
COMMISSION REPORT.
WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS THAT
NASA SHOULD HAVE A BILLION
DOLLARS EXTRA OVER THE
PRESIDENT'S REQUEST IN THIS
FISC
LET'S SEE, THE FIRST CAL YEAR
THAT STARTED- THE FISCAL YEAR
THAT STARTED OCTOBER 1, KNOWN AS
FISCAL YEAR 2010, AND THAT THE
NEXT FISCAL YEAR, IT SHOULD HAVE
AN ADDITIONAL $2 BILLION OVER
THE PRESIDENT'S BASELINE
RECOMMENDATION ON THE BUDGET,
AND THAT THEREAFTER FOR THE
DECADE, IT SHOULD HAVE AN
ADDITIONAL $3 BILLION PER YEAR
TO FILL OUT T
NASA CAN DO WHAT IT DOES BEST.
NOW, WHAT DOES IT DO BEST?
IT EXPLORES THE UNKNOWN.
IT EXPLORES THE HEAVENS.
WHAT SHOULD THAT ARCHITECTURE
BE?
I DON'T THINK OUR SENATE
COMMITTEE CAN DECIDE THAT.
I DON'T THINK THE WHITE HOUSE
CAN DECIDE THAT.
BUT THE WHITE HOUSE CAN GIVE
DIRECTION AND OUR COMMITTEE CAN
GIVE DIRECTION TO NASA TO GO
FIGURE IT OUT.
FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT
ARCHITECTURE IS TO DO THAT NASA
DOES BEST, WHICH IS EXPLORE THE
HEAVENS.
AND THAT DIRECTION IS CERTAINLY
RECOMMENDED IN THE AUGUSTINE
COMMISSION REPORT AS GET OUT OF
LOW EARTH ORBIT, EXPAND OUT INTO
TH COSMOS WITH HUMANS TO
EXPLORE.
SO, MR. PRESIDENT, WHAT I AM
HOPING THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, BARACK OBAMA, IS
GOING TO DO NOW THAT HE HAS
RECEIVED THE AUGUSTINE
COMMISSION REPORT, IT IS MY
HOPE, IT IS MY PLEA TO THE
PRIDENT THAT HE WILL TAKE
THEIR RECOMMENDATION SERIOUSLY
AND THAT H WILL DO THREE THINGS.
THAT, FIRST OF ALL, EVEN IN THE
MIDST OF AN ECONOMIC RECESSION,
WHEN THE BUDGETS ARE VERY
CONSTRAINED AND TIGHT, HE WILL
SAY THAT A PART OF AMERICA THAT
WE ARE NOT GOING TO GIVE UP IS
OUR ROLE AS EXPLORERS.
AND THAT HE WILL SUBMIT TO
RECOMMEND IN HIS BUDGETS THE
ADDITIONAL MONEY AS RECOMMENDED
BY THE AUGUSTINE COMMISSION.
AND IN THIS FIRST YEAR, THIS
FISCAL YEAR THAT WE'RE IN NOW,
FISCAL YEAR 2010, THAT'S A LOT
EASIER BECAUSE YOU CAN GET THAT
ADDITIONAL BILLION DOLLARS OUT
OF THE UNUSED MONEY IN THE
STIMULUS BILL.
BUT IT GETS TOUGHER AS YOU GET
ON DOWN THE LINE.
THAT'S THE FIRST THING.
THE SECOND THING THAT THE
PRESIDENT SHOULD SAY TO HIS
ADMINISTRATOR OF NASA, GENERAL
BOLDEN, IS CONVENE THE GUYS AND
DETERMINE THE ARCHITECTURE OF
HOW WE SHOULD GO ABOUT AND WHAT
IS THE MISSION THAT WE'RE GOING
TO EXPLORE.
MR. PRESIDENT, I CAN TELL YOU
THAT THIS SENATOR THINKS THAT
WHAT WE SHOULD EXPLORE IS THE
GOAL SHOULD BE TO GO TO MARS.
IT MAY NOT BE TO THE SURFACE OF MARS.
IT MAY BE TO FIRST, TO FOBOS,
ONE OF THE MOONS OF MARS
WE WOULD HAVE TO SPEND SO MUCH
LESS ENERGY IN GETTING DOWN TO
THE SURFACE OF THAT MOON BECAUSE
OF THE
INSTEAD OF GOING ALL THE
THE SURFACE OF MARS AND THE
SCIENCE THAT WE COULD GAIN FROM
THAT WOULD BE EXTRAORDINARY.
AND, THEREFORE, THE PRESIDENT'S
DIRECTION I WOULD HOPE NASA
WOULD BE, FIGURE OUT THE ARCHITECTURE.
DOES THAT MEAN WE'RE GOING TO
TAKE THE ARIES 1 AND MAKE IT
INTO AN ARIES 5?
IS THAT GOING TO BE THE HEAVY
UP --
IS THAT GOING TO BE THE HEAVY
LI VEHICLE TO GET THE HARDWARE
UP AND TO EXPAND OUT INTO THE
COSMOS, IT BE TO FOBOS, BE IT TO
SON ASTEROID, BE IT TO A MOON?
THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD GIVE
THAT DIRECTION, FIGURE OUT THE
ARCHITECTURE, AND FIGURE OUT
WHAT ARE THE STEPS TO THE GOAL OF GETTING TO MARS.
THAT WOULD BE THE SECOND THING.
AND THE THIRD THING THAT I WOULD
HOPE THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD DO
IS THAT HE WOULD GIVE DIRECTION
TO NASA THAT SINCE NASA IS AT
THIS CROSSROADS AND THAT THERE'S
GOING TO BE DISRUPTION IN THE
WORK FORCE BECAUSE THERE IS NOT
ANOTHER MAN RATEDOCKET READY
AFTER THE SPACE SHUTTLE IS SHUT
DOWN, THEN YOU'VE GOT TO HELP
THE WORK FORCE, YOU'VE GOT TO
MOVE WORK AROUND AMONG THE NASA
CENTERS.
YOU HAVE TO BRING
OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF
WHICH NASA IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF
AN R&D AGENCY.
AND IT'S THROUGH THE DIRECTION
OF THOSE THREE THINGS THAT I
THINK THAT WE CAN GET NASA OUT
OF THIS FIX THAT IT FINDS ITSELF
IN AT THIS CROSSROADS POINT.
GIVE THE DIRECTION, NUMBER ONE,
FOR THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING THAT NASA NEEDS.
NUMBER TWO, DIRECT NASA TO
PRODUCE THAT ARCHITECTURE FOR
EXPLORING THE HEAVENS.
AND, NUMBER THREE, TAKE CARE OF
THE WORK FORCE IN THE MEANTIME. MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE
FLOOR, AND I SUG
OF A QUORUM. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
MR. KAUFMAN: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR DELAWARE IS
MR. KAUFMAN: I ASK THAT THE
CALL OF THE QUORUM BE DISPENSED WITH.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. KAUFMAN: I ASK TO SPEAK AS
IF IN MORNING BUSINESS FOR UP TO
20 MINUTES. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. KAUFMAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I
RISE TODAY BECAUSE I AM DEEPLY
CONCERNED THAT JUST OVER ONE
YEAR SINCE THE COLLAPSE OF
LEHMAN BROTHERS, A FLURE THAT
HELPED SEND US TO THE BRINK OF
DEPRESSION, WALL STREET IS
ESSENTIALLY UNCHANGED.
CONGRESS AND THE S.E.C. HAVE NOT
ENACTED ANY REFORMS AND THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE REMAIN AT RISK
OF ANOTHER FINANCIAL DEBACLE.
NOT JUST BECAUSE THE SAME
PRACTICES A THAT LED TO THE
CRISIS MONTH AGO ARE CONTINUING
BUT BECAUSE OF NEW PRACTICES
THAT ARE LEADING TO NEW PROBLEMS
AND NEW SYSTEMIC RISKS.
LAST YEAR THE FINANCIAL WORLD
ALMOST CAME TO AN END.
AND YET MOST OF WALL STREET THEN
BELIEVED THAT NO GOVERNMENT
REVIEW OR ADDITIONAL REGULATION
WAS NECESSARY, RIGHT UP UNTIL
THE MOMENT GOVERNMENT HAD TO
STEP IN AND SAVE IT.
HAVE BEEN ASSURED THAT THE
SYSTEM WAS SOUND.
WE WERE ASSURED THAT A HOST OF
CHECKS AND BALANCES WERE IN
PLACE THAT WOULD SUFFICE.
WE WERE ASSURED THAT COMPANIES
HAVE TO REPORT THEIR FINANCIAL
HOLDINGS WITH FULL DISCLOSURE
AND TRANSPARENCY.
WE WERE ASSURED THAT ACCOUNTANTS
HAVE TO VERIFY IT.
WE WERE ASSURED THAT DUE
DILIGENCE IS CONDUCTED ON EVERY
DEAL AND TRANSACTION.
WE WERE ASSURED BOARD OF
DIRECTORS HAVE A FIDUCIARY DUTY
TO UNDERTAKE PRUDENT RISK MANAGEMENT.
WE WERE ASSURED MANAGEMENT WANT
THEIR COMPANIES TO THRIVE OVER
THE LONG-TERM.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE WERE
ASSURED REGULATORY BODIES AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE IN
PLACE TO POLICE THE SYSTEM.
BUT THOSE SAFEGUARDS DID NOT
PREVENT US FROM DISASTER BECAUSE
IN THE PAST TEN YEARS OR MORE,
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT
SAFEGUARDS, ONE OF THE VERY MOST
IMPORTANT SAFEGUARDS, THE
REGULATORS HAD SIMPLY GIVEN UP
ON THE IMPORTANCE OF REGULATION.
WE BELIEVED -- THEY BELIEVED --
THAT MARKETS COULD POLICE
THEMSELVES.
THAT THEY WOULD SELF-REGULATE
AND SO, IN EFFECT, WE PULLED THE
REGULATORS OFF THE FIELD.
WE NOW KNOW THE CONFLUENCE OF
EVENTS THAT LED TO THE DISASTER
AND THERE'S BLAME ENOUGH TO GO
AROUND.
WE FAILED TO REGULATE THE
DERIVATIVE
GOVERNMENT-BACKED AGENCIES LIKE
FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC
PUSHED TO MAKE HOUSING
AFFORDABLE FOR GREATER NUMBERS
OF PEOPLE, AND UNSCRUPULOUS
MORTGAGE BROKERS PUSHED SUBPRIME
MORTGAGES AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY,
INVESTMENT BANKERS POOLED AND
SECURITIZED THOSE SUBPRIME
MORTGAGES BY THE TRILLIONS OF
DOLLARS AND SOLD THEM LIKE HOT
CAKES.
RATING AGENCIES LEFT UNMONITORED
BY THE S.E.C., INCREDIBLY
STAMPED THESE POOLS WITH
TRIPLE-A RATINGS.
THE S.E.C., WHICH CHANGED THE
CAPITAL TO LEVERAGE RATIO FOR
INVESTMENT BANKS FROM 30 AND 50
TO 1 ALLOWED THESE BANKS TO BUY
UP HUGE POOLS OF THESE
SOON-TO-BE-TOXIC ASSETS AND
INVESTMENT BANKS WROTE CREDIT
DEFAULT SWAPS AND THEN HEDGE THE
THEM WITHOUT ANY CENTRAL
CLEARINGHOUSE, WITHOUT ANY
UNDERSTANDING OF WHO WAS WRITING
HOW MUCH OR WHAT IT ALL MEANT.
ALL THIS INCREDIBLY TO BELIE
WITHOUT ANY REGULATION OR
OVERSIGHT.
SO AS THIS CHART SO
STRAIGHTFORWARDLY CONVEYING,
BANKS WERE INVOLVED IN
HIGH-RISK, HIGH-RETURN
INVESTMENTS THAT WERE LARGELY UNREGULATORRED.
THEN CRASH.
THE HOUSING BUBBLE BURST AND
PROPORTIONS STRUCK.
AMERICANS LOST $20 TRILLION IN
HOUSING AND EQUITY VALUE DURING
THE ENSUING FINANCIAL MELTDOWN.
THE ECONOMY LUNCHED INTO FREE
FALL AND GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT
SLUNG BY A PERCENTAGE NOT SEEN
SINCE THE 1950'S.
WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER, THE DEEP
POCKET AND LENDER OF LAST
RESORT, HAD TO RIDE TO THE
RESCUE.
MR. PRESIDENT, WE CAN BARELY
EVEN COUNT THE TRILLIONS OF
DOLLARS OF TAXPAYER MONEY THAT
HAVE GONE INTO BAILING OUT THE
BANKS, BAILING OUT A.I. G.I.,
BAILING OUT A NUMBER OF
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, AND
THAT'S NOT INCLUDING THE
BILLIONS OF TAXPAYERS' WE'VE HAD
TO SPEND TO STIMULATE THE
ECONOMY.
MR. PRESIDENT, WE MUST NEVER LET
THIS HAPPEN AGAIN.
YET HERE WE ARE ONE YEAR LATER
WITH NO IMMEDIATE CRISIS AT HAND.
WE ARE FALLING BACK INTO COMPLACENCY.
THE CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP MARKET
REMAINS UNREGULATED.
THE CREDIT RATING AGENCIES HAVE
NOT YET BEEN REFORMED.
THE BANKS ARE BACK TO THEIR OLD
HABITS, PAYING OUT BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS IN BONUSES FOR EMPLOYEES
WHO ARE STILL ENGAGED IN
HIGH-RISK, HIGH-REWARD
PRACTICES.
WHAT IS THE GREAT LESSON WE
SHOULD HAVE LEARNED FROM THE
FINANCIAL DISASTER OF 2008?
WHEN MARKETS DEVELOP RAPIDLY AND
CHANGE DRAMATICALLY, WHEN THEY
ARE NOT REGULATED AND WHEN THEY
ARE NOT FULLY TRANSPARENT, IT
CAN LEAD TO FINANCIAL DISASTER.
THAT IS WHAT HAPPED IN T
CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP DISASTER.
RAPID AND DRAMATIC MARKET
CHANGE, NO REGULATION, OPAQU
OPAQUENESS, DISASTER.
MR. PRESIDENT, THIS SHOULD NEVER
HAPPEN AGAIN.
SO LOOFORWARD TO WORKING WITH
MY COLLEAGUES TO REGULATE THE
DERIVATIVES MARKET, TO ENSURE
THAT CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS ARE
TRADED ON AN EXCHANGE OR AT
LEAST CLEARED THROUGH A CENTRAL
CLEARINGHOUSE WITH APPROPRIATE
SAFEGUARDS ENFORCED,
ENACT MEANINGFUL
REGULATORY REFORM.
MR. PRESIDENT, AT THE SAME TIME,
WEEED TO BE LOOKING CAREFULLY
TO SEE IF THESE THREE DEADLY
INGREDIENTS -- RAPID
TECHNOLOGICAL GROWTH, LACK OF
TRANSPARENCY AND A LACK OF
REGULATION -- ARE APPEARING
AGAIN IN OTHER MARKETS.
MR. PRESIDENT, THERE IS NO
QUESTION IN MY MIND THAT IN
TODAY'S STOCK MARKETS THOSE
THREE DISASTROUS INGREDIENTS DO EXIST.
DUE TO RAPID TECHNOLOGICAL
ADVANCES AND COMPUTERIZED
TRADING, THE STOCK MARKETS HAVE
CHANGED DRAMATICALLY IN RECENT YEARS.
THEY HAV BECOME SO HIGHLY
FRAGMENTED THAT THOREAU BAKE,
BEYOND THE SCOPE OF EFFECTIVE
SURVEILLANCE AND OUR REGULATORS
HAVE FAILE TO KEEP PACE.
THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.
WE HAVE GONE FROM AN ERA
DOMINATED BY A DUOPOLY OF THE
NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE AND
NASDAQ TO A HIGHLY FRAGMENTED
MARKET OF MORE THAN 60 TRADING
CENTERS.
DARK POOLS WHICH ALLOW
CONFIDENTIAL TRADING AWAY FROM
THE PUBLIC EYE HAVE FLOURISHED,
GROWING FROM 1.5% TO 12%F
MARKET TRADES IN UNDER FIVE
YEARS.
COMPETITION FOR ORDERS IS
INTENSE AND INCREASINGLY
PROBLEMATIC.
FLASH
DIRECT ACCESS GRANTED TO HEDGE
FUNDS BY THE EXCHANGES, DARK
POOLS, INDICATIONS OF INTEREST,
AND PAYMENT FOR ORDER FLOW ARE
EACH A CONSEQUENCE OF THOSE 60
CENTERS ALL COMPETING FOR MARKET
SHARE.
MOREOVER, IF JUST A FEW SHORT
YEARS, HIGH FREQUENCY TRADING
WHICH FEEDS EVERYWHERE ON A
SMALL PRICE DIFFERENCE AND MANY
FRAGMENTED TRADING VOLUMES HAS
SKYROCKETED FROM 30% TO 70% IN DAILY VOLUME.
INDEED, THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF
ONE OF THE COUNTRY'S BIGGEST
BLOCK TRADING DARK POOLS WAS
QUOTED TWO WEEKS AGO AS SAYING
THAT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY DEVOTED
TO HIGH FREQUENCY TRADING COULD
QUINTUPLE BETWEEN THIS YEAR AND THE NEXT.
LET'S PUT THAT LAST CHART UP
AGAIN FOR A SECOND.
AGAIN, WE LEARNED THAT IF YOU
HAVE RAPID AND DRAMATIC CHANGE,
OPAQUENESS, AND NO EFFECTIVE REGULATION, WHICH IS EXACTLY
WHAT EXISTS TODAY IN THE HIGH
FREQUENCY TRADING MARKETS, WE
HAVE HAD DISASTER IN THE PAST.
WE SHOULD LOOK AT THIS IN TERMS
MR. PRESIDENT, WE HAVE NO
EFFECTIVE REGULATION IN THESE
MARKETS.
LAST WEEK, RICK KETCHUM, THE
CHAIRMAN AND C.E.O. OF FINANCIAL
INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY
CAVE A VERY THOUGHTFUL AND
CANDID SPEECH WHICH I APPLAUD.
IN IT, MR. KETCHUM ADMITTED THAT
WE HAVE INADEQUATE REGULATORY
MARKET SURVEILLANCE.
HIS CANDOR WAS REFRESHING BUT
ALSO OMINOUS, AND I QUOTE --
"THERE IS MUCHORE TO BE DONE
IN THE AREAS OF FRONT RUNNING,
MANIPULATION, ABUSIVE SHORT
SELLING, AND JUST HAVING A
BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHO IS
MOVING THE MARKETS AND WHY."
MR. KETCHUM WENT ON TO SAY, AND
I QUOTE -- "THERE ARE
IMPEDIMENTS TO REGULATORY
EFFECTIVENESS THAT ARE NOT
UNDERSTOOD AND POTENTIALLY
DAMAGING TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE
MARKETS.
THE DECLINE OF THE PRIMARY
MARKET CONCEPT WHERE THERE WAS A
SINGLE PRICE DISCOVERY MARKET,
THIS ON-SITE REGULATOR SAW 90%
OF THE
OBVIOUS TO BECOME REALITY.
IN ITS PLACE IS NOW TWO OR
THREE, MAYBE FOUR REGULATORS ALL
LOOKING AT AN INCOMPLETE PICTURE
OF THE MARKET."
AND THIS IS IMPORTANT -- "AND
KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THIS
FRACTURED APPROACH DOES NOT
WORK."
MR. PRESIDENT, AT THE SAME TIME
THAT WE HAVE NO EFFECTIVE
REGULATORY SURVEILLA
ALSO LEARNED ABOUT POTENTIAL
MANIPULATION BY HIGH TRADERS.
LAST WEEK, THE SENATE BANKING
SUBCOMMITTEE FOR SECURITIES,
INSURANCE, AND INVESTMENT HELD A
HEARING ON A WIDE RANGE OF
IMPORTANT MARKET STRUCTURE ISSUES.
AT THE HEARING, MR. JAMES
BIGALANO, CO-ACTING DIRECTOR OF
THE DIVISION OF TRADING AND
MARKETS, TESTIFIED THAT THE
COMMISSION INTENDS TO DO A DEEP
DIVE INTO HIGH FREQUENCY TRADING
ISSUES DUE TO CONCERNS THAT SOME
HIGH FREQUENCY PROGRAMS MAY
ENABLE POSSIBLE FRONTRUNNING AND
MANIPULATION.
DUE TO CONCERNS THAT SOME HIGH
FREQUENCY PROGRAMS MAY ENABLE
POSSIBLE FRONTRUNNING
MANIPULATION. MR. BIGANO'S TESTIMONY ABOUT
HIS CONCERNS WERE TROUBLING, AND
I QUOTE -- "IF THERE ARE TRADERS
TAKING POSITION AND THEN
GENERATING MOMENTUM TO HIGH
FREQUENCY TRADING THAT WOULD
BENEFIT THOSE POSITIONS, THAT
COULD BE MANIPULATION WHICH
WOULD CONCERN US.
IF THERE WAS MOMENTUM
DESIGN OR THAT ACTUALLY
EXACERBATED INTRADAY VOLATILITY,
THAT MIGHT CONCERN BECAUSE IT
WOULD CAUSE INVESTORS TO GET A
WORSE PRICE.
AND THE OTHER ITEM I MENTIONED
WAS THAT IF THERE WERE LIQUIDITY
DETECTION STRATEGIES THAT
ENABLED HIGH FREQUENCY TRADERS
TO FRONT RUN PENSION FUNDS AND
MUTUAL FUNDS, THAT ALSO WOULD
CONCERN US," END QUOTE.
REINFORCING THE CASE FOR QUICK
ACTION, SEVERAL PANELISTS
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IT IS A DAILY
OCCURRENCE FOR DARK POOLS TO
EXCLUDE CERTAIN POSSIBLE HIGH
FREQUENCY MANIPULATORS.
FOR EXAMPLE, ROBERT GLASSER,
PRESIDENT AND C.E.O. OF
INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY GROUP,
ASSERTED THAT SURVEILLANCE IS A
-- QUOTE -- BIG CHALLENGE,
UNQUOTE, AND THAT IMPROVING
MARKET SURVEILLANCE MUST BE A
REGULATORY PRIORITY.
AND I QUOTE, HE SAID -- "I CAN
TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE SOME
FRICTIONAL TRADES GOING ON OUT
THERE THAT CLEARLY LOOK AS IF
THEY ARE TESTING THE BOUNDARIES
OF LIQUIDITY PROVISIONS VERSUS
MARKET MANIPULATION."
UNQUOTE.
BUT NONE OF THE MANILAISTS WHEN
ASKED FELT RESPONSIBLE TO REPORT
ANY OF THEIR SUSPICIONS OF
MANIPULATIVE ACTIVITY TO THE
S.E.C., THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION.
THAT IS UP TO THE REGULATORS AND
THE SURVEILLANCE TO STOP, THEY
BELIEVE.
FINALLY, AT THE END OF THE
HEARING, SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
REID ASKED ABOUT THE REPORTED
ARRESTS OF A GOLDMAN SACHS
EMPLOYEE WHO ALLEGEDLY STOLE
CODE FROM GOLDMAN USED FOR THEIR
HIGH FREQUENCY TRADING PROGRAMS.
A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR ARGUING
THAT THE JUDGE SET A HIGH BAIL
SAID HE HAD BEEN TOLD THAT WITH
THIS SOFTWARE THERE WAS A DANGER
THAT A KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSON
COULD MANIPULATE THE MARKETS IN
UNFAIR WAYS.
THE S.E.C. HAS SAID IT INTENDS
TO ISSUE A CONCEPT RELEASE TO
LAUNCH A STUDY OF HIGH FREQUENCY
TRADING.
ACCORDING TO NEWS REPORTS, THIS
WILL HAPPEN NEXT YEAR.
MR. PRESIDENT, I DO NOT BELIEVE
NEXT YEAR IS SOON ENOUGH.
WE NEED THE S.E.C. TO BEGIN ITS STUDY IMMEDIATELY.
WHERE IS THE SENSE OF URGEN
MR. PRESIDENT, OUR STOCK MARKETS
ARE ALSO OPAQUE.
AGAIN I REFER TO CHAIRMAN
KETCHUM'S SPEECH, AND I QUOTE --
"THERE ARE IMPEDIMENTS TO
REGULATORY EFFECTIVENESS THAT
ARE NOT TERRIBLY WELL UNDERSTOOD
AND POTENTIALLY DAMAGING FOR THE
INTEGRITY OF THE MARKETS."
HE WENT ON TO SAY, AND I
QUOTE -- "WE NEED MORE
INFORMATION ON THE ENTITIES TO
MOVE MARKETS, THE HIGH FREQUENCY
TRADERS AND THE HEDGE FUNDS THAT
ARE NOT REGISTERED.
RIGHT NOW, WE ARE LOOKING
THROUGH A TRANSLUCENT VEIL AND
ONLY SEEING THE REGISTERED
FIRMS, AND THAT DWIFS US AN --
GIVES US AN INCOMPLETE IF NOT
INACCURATE PICTURE OF THE
MARKETS."
SENATOR SCHUMER ECHOED THE THEME
AT LAST WEEK'S HEARING, AND HE
SAID, AND I QUOTE -- "MARKET
SURVEILLANCE SHOULD BE
CONSOLIDATED ACROSS ALL TRADING
VENUES TO ELIMINATE THE
INFORMATION GAPS AND
COORDINATION PROBLEMS THAT
MARKET SURVEILLANCE ACROSS ALL
MARKETS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TODAY."
LET ME REPEAT."
MARKET SURILLANCE ACROSS ALL
MARKETS IS, QUOTE, VIRTUALLY
IMPOSSIBLE TODAY.
"I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT.
AND NONE OF THE INDUSTRY
WITNESSES DISAGREED WITH SENATOR
SCHUMER.
THAT IS WHY THE S.E.C. MUST NOT
LET MONTHS GO BY WITHOUT TAKING MEANINGFUL ACTION.
WE NEED THE COMMISSION TO REPORT
NOW ON WHAT IT SHOULD
SOONER TO DISCOVER AND STOP ANY
SUCH HIGH
MANIPULATION.
MR. PRESIDENT, WHERE IS THE
SENSE OF
MR. PRESIDENT, WE MUST ALSO A
URGENTLY BECAUSE HIGH FREQUENCY
TRADING POSES A SYSTEMIC RISK.
BOTH INDUSTRY EXPERTS AND S.E.C.
COMMISSIONERS HAVE RECOGNIZED
THIS THREAT.
ONE INDUSTRY EXPERT IS WARNED
ABOUT HIGH FREQUENCY
MALFUNCTIONS, AND I QUOTE --
"THE NEXT LONG-TERM CAPITAL
MELTDOWN WOULD HAPPEN IN" -- GET
THIS -- "A FIVE-MINUTE PERIOD."
THE NEXT LONG-TERM CAPITAL MELT
DOWN COULD HAPPEN IN A
FIVE-MINUTE TIME PERIOD.
AT AN AVERAGE PRICE OF $20 A
SHARE, $2.4 BILLION OF IMPROPER
TRADES COULD BE EXECUTED IN THIS
SHORT TIME FRAME. UNQUOTE.
THIS IS A REAL PROBLEM, MR. PRESIDENT.
WE HAVE UNREGULATED ENTITIES,
HEDGE FUNDS, USING HIGH
FREQUENCY TRADING PROGRAMS
INTERACTING DIRECTLY WITH
EXCHANGES.
AS CHAIRMAN REID SAID AT LAST
WEEK'S HEARING, NOTHING REQUIRES
THAT THESE PEOPLE EVEN BE
LOCATED WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES.
KNOWN AS -- QUOTE -- SPONSORED
ACCESS, UNQUOTE, HEDGE FUNDS USE
THE NAME OF A BROKER DEALER TO
GAIN DIRECT TRADING ACCESS TO
THE EXCHANGE BUT DO NOT HAVE TO
COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE BROKER
DEALER RULES OR RISK CHECKS.
S.E.C. COMMISSIONER LIS WALTER
HAS RECOGNIZED THIS THREAT AND
"SPONSORED ACCESS PRESENTS A
VARIETY OF UNIQUE RISKS AND
CONCERNS, PARTICULARLY WHEN
TRADING FIRMS HAVE UNFILTERED
ACCESS TO THE MARKET.
THESE RISKS COULD AFFECT SEVERAL
MARKET PARTICIPANTS AND
POTENTIALLY THREATEN THE
STABILITY OF THE MARKETS."
AND POTENTIALLY THREATEN THE
STABILITY OF THE MARKETS.
LET ME REPEAT -- "THESE RISKS
COULD AFFECT SEVERAL MARKET
PARTICIPANTS AND POTENTIALLY
THREATEN THE STABILITY OF THE MARKETS."
THIS IS FROM A MEMBER OF THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.
EVEN THOSE ON WALL STREET
RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSEEING THE
FIRM'S HIGH FREQUENCY PROGRAMS
ARE NOT UP TO SPEED ON THE RISKS INVOLVED.
ACCORDING TO A RECENT STUDY
CONDUCTED BY SEVEN CITY
LEARNING, IN A SURVEY OF
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSTS WHO DESIGN
AND IMPLEMENT HIGH FREQUENCY
TRADING ALGORITHMS, 2/3, THAT'S
2/3 ASSERTED THEIR SUPERVISORS,
AND I QUOTE, "DO NOT UNDERSTAND
THE WORK THEY DO."
AND ALTHOUGH QUANTS AND RISK
MANAGERS PLAYED A LAST YEAR IN
LAST YEAR'S CRISIS, 86% OF THOSE
SURVEYED INDICATED THEIR
SUPERVISORS AND I QUOTE "THE JOB
OF A QUANT IS THE SAME OR WORSE
THAN A YEAR AGO."
AND 70% SAID THE SAME THING
ABOUT THEIR INSTITUTIONS AS A WHOLE.
I AGREE WITH MARKET EXPERT AND
SEVEN CITY DIRECTOR PAUL WILMONT
WHO SAID, AND I QUOTE- "THESE
NUMBERS ARE ALARMING.
THEY INDICATE EVEN WITH THE
EVENTS OF THE PAST YEAR, FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ARE STILL
NOT TAKING THE IMPORTANCE OF
FINANCIAL EDUCATION SERIOUSLY."
LET ME REPEAT THAT."
THEY INDICATE THAT EVEN THE
EVENTS OF THE PAST YEAR,
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ARE STILL
NOT TAKING THE IMPORTANCE OF
FINANCIAL EDUCATION SERIOUSLY."
MR. PRESIDENT, WHERE IS THE URGENCY?
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE.
WE MUST ACT NOW.
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
A SE THE
SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVA
RECOGNIZED.
MR.
HAVE SOUGHT RECOGNITION TO
INTRODUCE A SENSE OF THE SENATE
RESOLUTION URGING THE SUPREME
COURT TO PERMIT LIVE TELEVISION
COVERAGE OF ITS OPEN PROCEEDINGS.
THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM PREVIOUS
LEGISLATION WHICH I HAVE
INTRODUCED WHICH WOULD REQUIRE
THE COURT TO PERMIT LIVE
TELEVISION COVERAGE, AND I OFFER
THIS AMENDMENT ON BEHALF OF
SENATOR CORNYN, SENATOR KAUFMAN,
SENATOR FEINGOLD, SENATOR
DURBIN, SENATOR KLOBUCHAR,
SENATOR WHITEHOUSE, AND SENATOR
SCHUMER.
THE PREVIOUS
HAVE REQUIRED THE SUPREME COURT
TO OPEN ITS PROCEEDINGS TO LIVE
TELEVISION COVERAGE WERE VOTED
OUT IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
IN THE 109th CONGRESS BY A
VOTE OF 12-6, AND INHE
CONGRESS BY A VOTE OF 11-8, AND
THE BASIS FOR
ACTION IS ON THE
AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO
ESTABLISH ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
FOR THE COURT.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE CONGRESS TO --
DETERMINES HOW MANY JUSTICES
THERE WILL BE.
NINE.
THE CONGRESS DETERMINES HOW MANY
JUSTICES ARE REQUIRED FOR A QUORUM.
SIX.
THE CONGRESS DETERMINES THAT THE
COURT WILL BEGIN ITS OPERATION
ON THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER.
THE CONGRESS HAS SET TIME
LIMITS.
THE SHIFT IN THE RESOLUTION FOR
URGING THE COURT IS TO TAKE A
MILDER APPROACH TO AVOID A
CONFRONTATION AND TO AVOID A
POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL CLASS ON
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.
THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE COURT
WOULD HAVE THE LAST WORD IF THE
CONGRESS REQUIRED LIVE
TELEVISION COVERAGE, AND AS I
SAY THERE ARE ANALOGOUS
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS WHICH THE
CONGRESS DOES CONTROL BUT IS A
FIRST
TODAY THE RESOLUTION WOULD URGE
THE COURT TO OPEN ITS
PREEDINGS FOR LIVE TELEVISION
COVERAGE.
AND THE THRUST OF THIS
RESOLUTION IS THAT THE COURT
SHOULD BE
SENATE IS TELEVISED, JUST AS THE
HOUSE IS TELEVISED, TO
FAMILIARIZE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
WITH WHAT THE COURT DOES.
THE AVERAGE PERSON KNOWS VERY
LITTLE ABOUT WHAT THE COURT
DOES.
THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF HAS
HELD THAT NEWSPAPERS HAVE A
RIGHT TO BE IN A COURTROOM.
WELL, IN AN ELECTRONIC AGE,
TELEVISION, RADIO OUGHT TO HAVE
THE SAME STANDING.
AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE COURT
IS SEEN IN THE SCOPE OF THE
CASES WHICH THEY DECIDE AND THE
KINDS OF CASES WHICH THEY --
WHICH THEY DO NOT DECIDE.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE COURT MAKES A
DETERMINATION ON LIFE, A WOMAN'S
RIGHT TO
DETERMINATIONS ON THE
APPLICATION OF THE DEATH
PENALTY, DETERMINATIONS ON CIVIL
RIGHTS, ON GUANTANAMO, ON
WIRELESS WIRETAPPING, ON
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY, ON
EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY.
AND THE COURT IS THE FINAL WORD
IN THE CASE OF MARBURY v.
MADISON, WHEN THE COURT DECIDED
THAT THE COURT WOULD BE THE
FINAL WORD, AND THAT WAS THE
STATEMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE
MARSHALL AND
DURING THE LIFE OF OUR COUNTRY.
AND I BELIEVE IT IS A SOUND
JUDGMENT FOR THE COURTS TO HAVE
THE FINAL WORD FOR
WORD, FOR THE SUPREME COURT TO
HAVE THE FINAL WORD.
BUT IF THE FRAMERS WERE TO REWRITE THE CONSTITUTION, I
THINK THAT THE COURT WOULD NOW
BE ARTICLE 1 INSTEAD OF CONGRESS
BEING ARTICLE 1 AND THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH, THE PRESIDENT,
BEING ARTICLE 2.
IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE
WHAT THE COURT DOES NOT DECIDE.
THE COURT DECLINED TO HEAR THE
TERRORIST SURVEILLANCE
THAT WARRANTLESS WIRETAP PROGRAM
THE FEDERAL COURT IN DETROIT.
IT WAS REVERSED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
STANDING GROUND WITH A VERY
VIGOROUS AND BETTER REASON TO ASSENT.
STANDING IS A VERY FLEXIBLE
DOCTRINE AND USUALLY MADE WHEN
THE COURT SIMPLY DOESN'T WANT TO
TAKE UP THE ISSUE.
BUT THE TERRORIST SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM PRESENTED THE SHARPEST
CONFLICT, PERHAPS THE SHARPEST
CONFLICT BETWEEN CONGRESSIONAL
AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE 1
THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
SURVEILLANCE ACT ESTABLISHING
THE EXCLUSIVE WAY TO CONDUCT
WIRETAPS.
AND THE PRESIDENT'S ARTICLE 2
POWERS AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF TO
CONDUCT WARRANTLESS WIRETAPS.
THE SUPREME COURT DENIED TO HEAR
THE CASE OF THE SURVIVORS OF
VICTIMS OF
ARABIA, EVEN THOUGH THE
CONGRESSIONAL
THAT SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DOES NOT
APPLY TO -- TO FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS.
JUST IN THE PAST FEW YEARS, THE
SUPREME
OF ENORMOUS IMPORTANCE.
A FEW ILLUSTRATE THE PROPOSITION.
THE COURT REFUSED TO DECIDE --
THE COURT DID DECIDE
CUTTING-EDGE ISSUES ON WHETHER
LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS MAY
FULFILL THE PROMISE OF BROWN
v. BOARD OF EDUCATION BY TAKING
VOL CARRY -- VOLUNTARY REMEDIAL
STEPS TO INTEGRATE SCHOOLS,
WHETHER PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES MAY
CONSIDER RACE WHEN EVALUATING
APPLICANTS FOR ADMISSION IN
ORDER TO ENSURE DIVERSITY WITHIN
THEIR STUDENT BODIES.
WHETHER CITIZENS HAVE A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWN GUNS.
WHETHER STATES MAY EXERCISE THE
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO TAKE
A PERSONAL RESIDENCE IN ORDER TO
MAKE ROOM FOR A COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT.
HEAR CASES INVOLVING SPLITS --
THAT IS, DIFFERENCES OF
JUDGMENT -- BETWEEN DIFFERENT
COURTS OF APPEALS.
IT IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE JUDICIAL
SYSTEM IF THE CASE MAY BE
DECIDED DIFFERENTLY, DEPENDING
ON WHETHER A PERSON
THE 1st CIRCUIT OR IN THE
11th CIRCUIT.
AND THEN THE DISTRICT COURTS
WHERE THE CIRCUIT HAS NOT RULED
SPECULATE AS TO WHAT THE COURT
OF APPEALS WOULD HAVE DECIDED.
WE HAD A CONFIRMATION HEARING
YESTERDAY WITH JUDGE VINASKI OF
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
AND I ASKED HIM HAVE YOU SEEN
SITUATIONS WHERE THERE ARE
CIRCUIT SPLITS BUT YOUR CIRCUIT
HASN'T DECIDED.
HOW DO YOU HANDLE THAT CASE?
AND THE JUDGE POINTED OUT THAT
THAT WAS VERY PROBLEMSOME.
THERE ARE MAJOR MATTERS WHERE
THE SUPREME COURT HAS LEFT THESE
CIRCUIT SPLITS STANDING.
FOR EXAMPLE, WHETHER JURORS MAY
CONSULT THE BIBLE DURING THEIR
DELIBERATIONS IN A CRIMINAL CASE
CASE, WHETHER A CIVIL LAWSUIT
MUST BE DISMISSED PREDICATED ON
STATE SECRET, WHETHER THE SPOUSE
OF A UNITED STATES CITIZEN
REMAINS ELIGIBLE FOR AN
IMMIGRATION VISA AFTER THE
CITIZEN DIES, WHETHER AN
EMPLOYEE THAT ALLEGES THAT HE OR
SHE WAS UNLAWFULLY DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST MAY CLAIM BENEFITS OR
EXERCISE OTHER RIGHTS UNDER AN EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HLTH CARE
OR PENSION PLAN.
OR WHEN DOES A COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT CONFER ON
RETIREES THE RIGHT TO LIFETIME
HEALTH CARE BENEFITS?
MAY A FEDERAL COURT UPHOLD A
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN A SUIT
CLAIMS ACT
THESE ARE I WIL ILLUSTRATIVE OF VERY
IMPORTANT DECISIONS WHICH THE
SUPREME COURT DOES NOT DECIDE.
NOW, CONGRESS
CONGRESS CAN'T TELL THE SUPREME
COURT WHAT TO DECIDE BUT
CONGRESS MAY
JURISDICTION.
BUT IF THIS WERE IN THE PUBLIC
VIEW AND IF THE COURT WERE
ACCOUNTABLE FOR NOT HANDLING
SUCH CASES, I THINK THE COURT
MIGHT WELL TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW VIEW.
IT'S NOT AS IF THE COURT IS TOO
BUSY TO HEAR THESE CASES.
TAKE A BRIEF SURVEY OF THE COURT
DOCKET.
IN 1886, THERE WERE 1,396 CASES
ON THE SUPREME COURT DOCKET.
IT DECIDED 451.
IN 1926, THERE WERE 223 SIGNED
OPINIONS, SO IT'S DOWN FROM 451
IN 1886 TO 223 IN 1926.
AND THEN BY 1987, IT WAS DOWN TO
146.
AND IN 2007, THE COURT HEARD
ARGUMENT IN ONLY 75 CASES AND
ISSUED ONLY 67 SIGNED OPINIONS.
SO IT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT
THE COURT'S DOCKET WITH THE FOUR
CLERKS, WHICH EACH ONE OF THE
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES HAS,
COULD WELL ACCOMMODATE A MORE
VIGOROUS BACKLOG.
IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT WHICH I
WILL INCLUDE WHEN I FINISH THESE
EXTEMPORANEOUS REMARKS, I HAVE
CITED ITE A FEW CASES WHERE
THE COURT IN MODERN TIMES HAS
NOT FOLLOWED WELL-ESTABLISHED
PRECEDENCE.
WELL, THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO
OVERRULE THEIR OWN PRECEDENCE,
BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT THE
PUBLIC OUGHT TO HAVE AN IDEA ON
AND AN UNDERSTANDING.
I THINK THAT THIS IS A
PARTICULARLY GOOD TIME FOR THE
COURT TO CONSIDER TELEVISING
ITSELF UNDER THE RESOLUTION
URGING THEM TO BE TELEVISED
SINCE JUSTICE SOUTER RECENTLY
LEFT THE COURT.
JUSTICE SOUTER MADE THE FAMOUS
STATEMENT THAT IF THE SUPREME
COURT WAS TO BE TELEVISED, THE
CAMERAS WOULD ROLL IN OVER --
OVER HIS DEAD BODY.
AND THE MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME
COURT ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
WHAT THEIR FELLOWS THINK AND IT
MAY WELL BE THAT IN LIGHT OF A
STRENUOUS OBJECTION BY JUSTICE
SOUTER WHEN I WAS ON THE COURT,
THAT WOULD HAVE TIPPED THE SCALES.
BUT LISTEN TO WHAT THE JUSTICES
HAVE HAD TO SAY ON THE ISSUE OF
TELEVISING THE SUPREME COURT.
AND I'VE MADE IT THE PRACTICE TO
QUESTION THE NOMINEES FOR THE
SUPREME COURT TO GET THEIR VIEWS
ON TELEVISION.
JUSTICE PAUL STEVENS SAID,
"LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE
HAVE STOOD IN LINE FOR HOURS IN
ORDER TO ATTEND ORAL ARGUMENT
ONLY TO BE DENIED ADMISSION
BECAUSE
FILLED, AND THE PRACTICE IS IF
YOU CAN GET IN AT ALL, YOU STAY
FOR THREE MINUTES AND THEN
YOU'RE USHERED OUT TO LET OTHER
PEOPLE IN BECAUSE IT'S A SMALL CHAMBER.
JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS SAID,
"TELEVISION IN THE COURT IS
WORTH A TRY."
JUSTICE RUTH BAIRD GINSBURG SAID --
JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG
SAID, "I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM
WITH HAVING PROCEEDINGS
TELEVISED.
I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE
PUBLIC."
JUSTICE PRYOR SAID, AT A TIME
WHEN HE WAS --
JUSTICE BREYER SAID, AT A TIME
WHEN HE WAS CHIEF JUDGE OF THE
1st CIRCUIT, "I VOTED IN FAVOR
OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE IN
FAVOR OF SPERNLTING WITH
TELEVISION IN THE COURTROOM.
AND THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE MADE
AN ANALYSIS OF TELEVISION, MADE
A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION.
AND SOME CIRCUIT COURTS AND SOME
LOWER COURTS HAVE BEEN TELEVISED.
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR, IN HER RECENT
CONFIRMATION HEARING, SAI
RE
CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM, THAT
THE EXPERIENCE HAS -- QUOTE --
"GENERALLY BEEN POSITIVE, AND I HE
WOULD CERTAINLY RECOUNT THAT,"
REFER TO HER COLLEAGUES ON THE
SUPREME COURT.
JUSTICE ALITO SAID THAT IN THE
3rd CIRCUIT, THERE WAS A
DEBATE AND HE ARGUED THAT WE
SHOULD DO IT, THAT IS
TELEVISING, AND SAID I WOULD
KEEP AN OPEN MIND ON THE SUBJECT
WITH RESPECT TO THE SUPREME
COURT.
AND THE FACT IS THAT THE
JUSTICES FREQUENTLY APPEAR ON
TELEVISION AUTO THEIR OWN.
FOR EXAMPLE, CHIEF JUSTICE
ROBERTS AND JUSTICE STEVENS
APPEARED ON INTERVIEWS ON ABC'S
"PRIMETIME," JUSTICE GINSBURG ON
CBS NEWS, JUSTICE BREYER ON
""FOX NEWS SUNDAY,"" JUSTICES
SCALIA AND THOMAS ON CBS'S "60
MINUTES," AND ALL OF THE
JUSTICES APPEARED FOR INTERVIEWS
WHEN
ITS SUPREME COURT WEEK.
PUBLIC OPINION POLLS ARE
STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF HAVING THE
SUPREME
THERE HAVE BEEN
EDITORIALS IN SUPPORT. AND RECENTLY THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OPENED ITS
PROCEEDINGS FOR TELEVISION.
THAT IS A VERY BRIEF
OF A MORE EXPANSIVE STATEMENT
WHICH I HAVE PREPARED.
AND I THINK THAT THE REASONS FOR
OPENING THE COURT ARE --RE
OVERWHELMING.
IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY, THERE
SHOULD BE TRANSPARENCY AT ALL
LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.
THE JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE OF THE
SUPREME COURT IS ENORMOUS -- IS
OF VITAL IMPORTANCE TO BE
MAINTAINED.
AND THEY HAVE LIFE TEN USE, BUT
THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD NOT --
TENURE, BUT THERE IS NO REASON
WHY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD
NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD
UNDERSTAND WHEN THEY TAKE A CASE
LIKE BUSH v. GORE, WHEN THERE
IS A CHALLENGE ON COUNTING OF
VOTES IN FLORIDA, AND WHEN
JUSTIC
IRREPARABLE HARM IN ALLOWING THE
VOTES IN FLORIDA TO BE COUNTED
BECAUSE IT MIGHT UNDERMINE THE
LEGITIMACY OF THE NEW
ADMINISTRATION, THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE OUGHT TO HAVE MAXIMUM
ACCESS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
COURT IS DOING.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OUGHT TO
HAVE MAXIMUM ACCESS TO KNOW THAT
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITE
STATES DECLINED TO HEAR THE
DECISION ON WHETHER THE
PRESIDENT HAD AUTHORITY TO
CONDUCT WARRANTLESS WIRETAPS.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OUGHT TO
KNOW THAT ALL OF THESE CIRCUIT
SPLITS REMAIN UNRESOLVED AT A
TIME WHEN THE WORKLOAD AND THE
AGENDA AND THE DOCKET OF THE
SUPREME COURT HAS DECLINE
ENORMOUSLY.
MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK CONSENT
THAT A "DEAR COLLEAGUE" LETTER
SIGNED BY SENATOR CORNYN AND
MYSELF BE INCLUDED IN THE
"CONGRESSIONAL RECORD" AT THIS POINT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
SO ORDERED.
MR. SPECTER: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT AN EXTENSIVE
STATEMENT BE INCLUDED IN THE
RECORD AND THAT THE
"CONGRESSIONAL RECORD" CONTAIN
MY INTRODUCTION OF THE FLOOR
STATEMENT.
FREQUENTLY WHEN THE FLOOR
STATEMENT OCCURS RIGHT AFTER THE
ORAL EXTEMPORANEOUS COMMENTS,
THE READER MAY WONDER WHY THE
SPEAKER IS REPEATING HIMSELF ON
SO MANY OF THE SAME POINTS.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE FULL
TEXT AS TO WHAT I'M SAYING NOW
APPEAR IN THE "CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD" SO THAT IT IS
UNDERSTANDABLE WHY THE LONG
APPEARS AFTER SO MUCH OF WHAT
HAS ALREADY BEEN
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
OBJECTION?
SO ORDERED.
MR. SPECTER: I THANK
AND YIELD THE FLOOR.
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
MS. MIKULSKI: I NOTE THE ABSENCE
OF A QUORUM.
WILL CALL THE ROL
QUORUM CALL:
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:
SENIOR RECOGNIZED. MS. MIKULSKI: THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
CALL OF THE QUORUM BE VAICTD. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT,
OUR COLLEAGUE FROM PENNSYLVANIA,
SENATOR SPECTER, JUST GAVE AN
ELOQUENT SPEECH
SUPREME COURT SHOULD BE TELEVISED.
AND HOW IT WOULD PROVIDE A
GREATER OPENNESS AND
TRANSPARENCY TO DECISIONS BEING
MADE IN THE PUBLIC'S EYE.
I THINK THAT ARGUMENT WAS VERY
INTERESTING.
BUT ONE INSTITUTE THAT IS
ABSOLUTELY ON TELEVISION
ALREADY, AND THAT'S THE CONGRESS
OF THE UNITED STATES, THROUGH
C-SPAN, WHAT GOES ON HERE IN
THIS CHAMBER AND OFTEN IN OUR
COMMITTEE ROOMS GO OUT ALL OVER
WE GET PHONE CALLS IN MANY
INSTANCES FROM THE C-SPAN
WATCHERS, AND I THINK IT'S AN
OUTSTANDING TOOL.
YOU KNOW, MR. PRESIDENT, IF YOU
WATCHED WHAT WAS GOING ON HERE
ALL DAY, YOU'D WONDER, WELL,
WHAT ARE THEY DOING?
AND I THINK WE'VE KIND OF LOST
SIGHT IN LIGHT OF SOME OF THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WERE OFFERED
JUST WHAT IS THE PENDING
BUSINESS ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE TODAY.
AS THE PERSON WHO CHAIRS THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND
SCIENCE, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO
SAY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
WATCHING AND TO MY COLLEAGUES,
TO REMIND THEM WHAT IS THE
PENDING BUSINESS.
WELL, THE PENDING BUSINESS IS
HOW SHOULD WE BEST FUND THOSE
IMPORTANT AGENCIES AT THE
COMMERCE DEPARTMENT THAT PROMOTE
TRADE AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION,
TO ALSO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
RENDERING IMPARTIAL JUSTICE,
ENFORCING THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS,
TO IMPORTANT SCIENCE AGENCIES
LIKE THE AMERICAN SPACE PROGRAM.
WHAT THE APPROPRIATIONS BILL IS
S. IS IT DETERMINES WHAT GOES IN
THE FEDERAL CHECKBOOK, WHAT GOES
IN THE FEDERAL CHECKBOOK TO FUND
THESE PROGRAMS.
I'M VERY PROUD OF THE WAY THAT
WE HAVE, IN OUR SUBCOMMITTEE,
WORKED ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS TO
BRING A BILL TO THE FLOOR THAT
WE BELIEVE PRIORITIES.
I'VE WORKED HAND IN HAND
RANKING MEMBER, THE REPUBLICAN
SENATOR FROM ALABAMA, SENATOR
SHELBY.
AND WE THINK WE'VE GOT GOT GOOD LEGISLATION.
WELL, WHAT DO WE LIKE ABOUT IT?
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WHAT WE LIKE
ABOUT IT IS THAT WE
TO BE ABLE TO PROMOTE INNOVATION
AND COMPETION IN OUR SOCIETY.
WE'RE IN A TERRIBLE ECONOMIC MESS.
OUR ECONOMY IS ROCKING AND ROLLING.
THE FACT IS THAT WE STILL DON'T
HAVE
SO WHERE -- WHAT ABOUT THESE JOBS?
WELL, WHAT WE DO IS THAT WE WANT
TO TALK ABOUT THE ROLL OF THE
COMMERCE DEPARTMENT IN COMING UP
WITH THE NEW -- PROTECTING --
MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE AN
INNOVATION-FRIENDLY GOVERNMENT.
INNOVATION IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE
IT'S WHERE THE NEW IDEAS COME
FROM THAT CREATE THE NEW IDEAS
-- THE NEW IDEAS THAT CREATE THE
NEW
JOBS.
I NOTE THAT THE PRESIDING
OFFICER IS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO.
LIKE MY
BEEN VERY HARD HIT.
MANY OF THE TRADITIONAL WAYS OF
LIFE ARE NOT THERE, AND WE HAVE
TO LOOK AHEAD TO WHAT IS
PROMOTING AN INNOVATION-FRIENDLY GOVERNMENT.
WELL, RIGHT THERE IN THE
COMMERCE DEPARTMENT IS THE
BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY,
WHICH MAKES SURE THAT WE ARE
ABLE TO PROVIDE EXPORTS TO OUR
TECHNOLOGY.
WE HAVE THE PATENT AND TRADE
OFFICE, WHICH IS THE GUARDIAN OF
OUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AROUND
THE WORLD.
IT PROTECTS IDEAS, AND STHOAS
THAT COME U -- AND THOSE THAT COME UP
WITH THE INVENTIONS, AS PRIVATE
PROPERTY, THE HALLMARK OF
CAPILISM, THE ABILITY TO OWN
PRIVATE PPERTY.
WHEN YOU COME UP WITH NEW
PRODUCTS, YOU ALSO HAVE TO HAVE
STANDARDS SO THAT YOU KNOW, A
YARDSTICK MEANS THE SAME IN THE
UNITED
ANOTHER COUNTRY -- OR THE METRIC
SYSTEM.
WHAT THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
STANDARDS FOR PRODUCTS THAT WILL
ENABLE THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO BE
ABLE TO COMPETE BOTH AMONG
THEMSELVES AND AROUND THE WORLD.
I'M REALLY PROUD OF THEM.
THEY'RE LOCATED IN MARYLAND.
BUT EVEN IF THEY WERE LOCATED IN
UTAH OR WYOMING, I'D BE PROUD OF
THEM, BECAUSE IT IS THERE THAT
THEY SET THE STANDARDS WHICH
HELP SET THE PACE FOR AMERICA
BEING ABLE TO COMPETE.
MUCH IS SAID ABOUT OUR ARMS
RACE, BUT ONE OF THE RACES THAT
WE'VE BEEN IN IS THE RACE FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE.
AND ONE OF THE AGENCIES THAT IS
THE
TECHNOLOGY -- INVENTOR OF
TECHNOLOGY HAS BEEN THE NATIONAL
SPACE EASMGHTS WE'VE ALL BEEN
THRILLED TO WATCH OUR ASTRONAUT
GOES INTO SPACE.
MANY OF US, PARTICULARLY THIS
SUMMER, WERE EXCITED ABOUT THE
-- TAKING THE BOLD ASTRONAUTS --
THE BOLD AND COURAGEOUS
ASTRONAUTS BEING ABLE TO
RETROFIT HUBBLE WITH NEW
BATTERIES AND A NEW CAMERA SO
THAT WE CAN DO THE SCIENTIFIC
WORK SO NEEDED AND SEND HUBBLE
ON ITS FINAL JOURNEY.
IT WAS THERE AT THE NATIONAL
SPACE AGENCY, THOUGH, THAT SO
MUCH INVENTION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY
OCCURS.
AS SOMEONE WHO'S SPOKEN OUT SO
MUCH FOR WOMEN'S HEALTH AND ALSO
THE DESIRE TO PREVENT BREAST
CANCER, ONE OF THE THINGS I'M
REALLY PROUD OF IS THAT OUT OF
NASA X-RAY TECHNOLOGY, WE'VE
BEEN ABLE TO DEVELOP OTHER
PRODUCTS FORHE CIVILIAN
POPULATION, LIKE DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY.
YOU KNOW, A FEW MONTHS AGO, I
GROK MBROKE MY ANGLE AND THEN WORRY --
MY ANKLE AND THEN WORE A BOOT
THAT LOOKED LIKE A SPACE BOOT.
I'D LOVE TO WEAR A SPACE
WORN BY SALLY RIDE OR ONE OF OUR
GRAILT WOMEN ASTRONAUTS.
BUT THE FACT IS IT WAS
TECHNOLOGY
OUR ASTRONAUTS THAT NOW KNOW HOW
TO PROTECT US HERE ON EARTH.
I MEAN, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
SHOULD WE FUND THESE AGENCIES?
SHOULD WE BE ABLE TO MAKE PUBLIC
INVESTMENTS THAT LEAD TO
PRIVATE-SECTOR JOBS?
AND WHILE WE'RE FIGHTING OVER,
SHOULD WE HAVE THIS PRISON OVER
GITMO AND OTHER KINDS OF
HAVE A DUTY TO BE ABLE TO
PROMOTE THOSE AGENCIES THAT
PROMOTE PRIVATE-SECTOR JOBS.
THE OTHER AREA THAT I'M VERY
PROUD OF IN THIS BILL IS OUR
SUPPORT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.
YES, WE SUPPORT FEDERAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT -- OUR F.B.I., OUR
MARSHAL SERVICE, AS WL AS OUR
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL AND FIREARMS.
BUT I'M ALSO PROUD OF THE FACT
THAT WE SUPPORT THAT THIN BLUE
LINE OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.
FOR MANY OF OUR COMMUNITIES,
MAYORS AND COUNTY EXECUTIVES ARE
STRETCHED TO THE LIMIT.
SO SOMETIMES THE PEOPLE WHO
COMMIT CRIMES ARE BETTER ARMED
AND HAVE THE LATEST TECHNOLOGY
MORE THAN OUR COPS ON THE BEAT.
THROUGH A PROGRAM CALLED "THE
BYRNE GRANTS," THE
APPLY FOR FEDERAL FUNDS TO BE
ABLE TO MODERNIZE THEMSELVES.
WE DON'T FUNDING.
WE WANT THIS BILL TO
WE WANT THINGS TO HAPPEN.
AND WE'RE GOING TO -- THAT'S
WHAT THIS BILL IS.
WE'V WORKED VERY HARD --
SENATOR SHELBY AND I HELD HEARINGS.
WE HELD MEETINGS.
WE MET WITH LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT.
BUT ALONG WITH THAT, TOO, WE
TOOKHE TIME TO MEET WITH THE
PEOPLE WHO'VE BEEN VICTIMS OF
BATTERED WOMEN.
WE FUND THE VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN ACT.
DO YOU KNOW THAT SINCE JOE BIDEN
CREATED THAT PROGRAM, OVER 1
MILLION PEOPLE HAV CALLED THE
HOTLINE THAT WE'VE PROTECTED
OVER 1 MILLION WOMEN FROM BEING
ABUSED AND MAYBE EVEN FACING
VIOLENCE OF SUCH A DEGREE THAT
IT THREATENED THEIR LIVES.
SO, MR. PRESIDENT, THIS ISN'T
ONLY ABOUT SPENDING.
THESE ARE ABOUT PUBLIC
INVESTMENTS THAT PROTECT OUR
COMMUNITIES AND PROTECT AMERICAN JOBS.
I REALLY
WOULD COME AND AGREE TO OFFER --
COMPLETE THE DISCUSSION ON THEIR
AMENDMENTS SO THAT WE COULD MOVE
AHEAD WITH VOTES AND IMR BRING IN
BILINTHIS BILL IT A CLOSE SO IT IS
THAT WE COULD GO TO CONFERENCE WITH THE HOUSE.
I NOTE THAT THE GENTLELADY FROM
LEWIS SLEWS ON THE FLOOR.
I WANT TO SINGLE HER OUT FOR AS
THEY SAY IN THE COLLOQUIALISM
TODAY, "DO A SHOUT OUT."
THE SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA IS
WELL-KNOWNOR HER WORK ON
ADOPTION AND I SALUTE HER FOR
THAT.
ALSO
ALSO AN INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION
IN MAKING SURE THAT THE LAWS ARE
OBEYED AND TOAKE SURE THAT AS
PEOPLE SEEK INTERNATIONAL
ADOPTION, THERE'S NOT THE
EXPLOITATION OF THOSE CHILDREN.
WE WORK WITH THAT IN OUR BILL,
AND WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE WE
PROTECT MISSING AND EXPLOITED
CHILDREN IN OUR OWN COUNTRY.
YOU KNOW, WE'VE SEEN HORRIFIC
AND GHOULISH AND GRISLY THINGS
DONE TOOUNG PEOPLE THAT HAVE
BEEN PICKED UP.
THANKS TO THE ADAM WALSH ACT,
WE'RE STOPPING THAT, AND WE HAVE
TOUGH, TOUGH LAWS NOW AGAINST
SEXUAL PREDATORS AND A WAY TO
KEEP THEM OFF THE STREETS AND
KEEP THEM REGISTERED.
AND WE'VE GOT THE MONEY IN THE
FEDERAL CHECKBOOK TO DO THAT.
SO, MR. PRESIDENT, I REALLY LIKE
THIS SUBCOMMITTEE BECAUSE IT
DOES PROTECT AMERICAN JOBS, IT
DOES PROTECT AMERICAN
COMMUNITIES, IT DOES PROTECT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
AND I REALLY HOPE THAT TODAY WE
CAN CONCLUDE OUR DEBATE ON THE
FIVE PENDING AMENDMENTS, MOVE TO
VOTES, AND TRY TO GET OUR
COUNTRY AND OUR ECONOMY BAC
MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE
FLOOR.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:
SENATO RECOGNIZED.
MR. COBURN: I'D ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT THE SENATOR FROM
LOUISIANA BE RECOGNIZED FOR
THREE MINUTES AND I FOLLOW WITH
THE 30 MINUTES THAT I HAD
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION?
SO
THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM
LOUISIANA IS RECOGNIZED.
MS. LANDRIEU: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS FROM
OUR LEADER, SENATOR MIKULSKI,
FROM MARYLAND, WHO DOES A
MAGNIFICENT JOB AS A MEMBER OF
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE,
AND PARTICULARLY IN THIS AREA
SHE FEELS PASSIONATE ABOUT, AND
I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO
WORK WITH HER AND ALSO CRIMINAL
JUSTICE AREAS, PARTICULARLY AS
IT RELATES TO THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN.
I THANK HER FOR THOSE COMMENTS.
I THANK THE SENATOR FOR GIVING
ME A CHANCE TO SPEAK VERY, VERY
BRIEFLY TO DO TWO THINGS.
ONE, TO PUT IN A FLOOR
ON AN AMENDMENT THA
PROPOSED ON THIS BILL BY SENATOR
VITTER THAT RELATED TO ADDING A
QUESTION TO THE CENSUS.
I HAVE SPOKEN ON THIS SEVERAL TIMES.
I'VE SUBMITTED SEVERAL LETTERS
ON THIS, ONE TO HIM PERSONALLY.
AND I WANTED TO JUST SUBMIT THIS
FOR THE RECORD.
AND I'D LIKE TO TURN IT IN NOW.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MS. AND I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT FOR
IT TO BE INCLUDED.
BUT, SECON
WANT TO QUICKLY JUST TO, SINCE
PUERTO RICO
SENATOR, AS IT IS STILL A
TERRITORY AND NOT A STATE, I
WANTED TO TAKE THE
TO JUST EXPRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF
PUERTO RICO OUR SADNESS ABOUT A
TERRIBLE EXPLOSION THAT HAPPENED
THERE JUST RECENTLY, ON OCTOBER 24.
IT OCCURRED AT ONE OF THEIR
MAJOR REFINERIES.
THIS CAME TO MY ATTENTION FOR
TWO REASONS.
ONE, WE ALSO HAVE A LOT OF
REFINERIES IN LOUISIANA, SO
WE'RE SENSITIVE THAT ACCIDENTS
LIKE THIS CAN HAPPEN.
BUT ALSO, AS THE CHAIR OF THE
SMALL BUSINESS -- NOT THE SMALL
BUSINESS COMMITTEE, THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER
RESPONSE, I WANTED TO SAY A
MINUTE ABOUT THIS.
THIS FIRE BURNED FOR 24 HOURS.
IT DESTROYED 2
STORAGE TANKS.
THANKFULLY AND AMAZINGLY, NO ONE
WAS KILLED.
AND I COME TO THE FLOOR TO
CONGRATULATE THE LOCAL
OFFICIALS, THE GOVERNOR, THE
FEMA REPRESENTATIVES, THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT THAT RESPONDED TO
THIS HORRIFIC DISASTER.
1,500 PEOPLE WERE EVACUATED, 596
PEOPLE WERE SHELTERED OUTSIDE OF
THE IMPACTED AREA, 130 FRIGHTS
AND NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS WORKED
TO BRING THE INFERNO UNDER CONTROL.
THE GOOD NEWS IS THEY DID.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS COMMENT, FOR
THE RECORD, IS JUST TO SAY THAT
TRAINING AND PREPAREDNESS HELP.
THE MEMBERS OF THIS
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS,
SUPPORTED ADDITIONAL FUNDING IN
LAST YEAR'S BILL FOR FEMA FOR
LOCAL TRAING.
CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THE
IMPORTANCE OF TRAING SINCE
19 -- SINCE 2007, AND
APPROPRIATED OVER $250 MILLION
EACH YEA IN GRANTS.
THE
MANAGEMENT REFORM GAVE FEMA
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS SPECIFIC
RESPONSIBILITY FOR COORDINATING
THAT TRAING.
I'M ENCOURAGED THAT FEMA SEEMS
TO HAVE LEARNED SOME OF THE
LESSONS FROM HURRICANES KATRINA
AND ALSO, OF COURSE, SEPTEMBER
11, WHICH IS NOW SEVERAL YEARS
BEHIND
BUT NONETHELESS, STILL ON OUR
MINDS.
SO I JUST WANTED TO COME TO SAY
THAT TRAING, THE APPROPRIATE
AMOUNTS OF I
TRAINING WORK.
NO ONE, AGAIN, WAS KILLED.
I WANT TO GIVE CREDIT TO FEMA
AND THE GOVERNOR OF PUERTO RICO,
LEWIS
ACTION IN KEEPING PEOPLE SAFE IN
RESPONSE TO THIS SITUATION.
HOPEFULLY WE'LL CONTINUE TO
REFINE OUR
MAKE DISASTER RESPONSE EVEN
BETTER FOR DISASTERS LIKE
THIS -- FOR
EARTHQUAKES OR ANYTHING THAT
COMES OUR
WE'LL BE READY IT
I YIELD THE FLOOR AND THANK THE
SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA FOR BEING
GRACIOUS WITH HIS TIME.
MR. COBURN: THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
JUNIOR SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA IS RECOGNIZED. . COBURN: THANK YOU.
I'M GOING TO SPEND ABOUT 20
MINUTES TALKING ABOUT AMENDMENTS
THAT I HAVE THAT ARE GERMANE AND
WE WILL BE VOTING ON.
BUT THEY'RE SMALL AMENDMENTS.
THERE'S NOTHING BIG HERE.
DESIGNED TO MAKE A POINT.
WE JUST RAN BY A FACTOR OF TWO
THE LARGEST DEFICIT IN THE
HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY.
OF THE MONEY WE SPENT IN 2009
FISCAL YEAR, WE BORROWED 43% OF
IT.
43 CENTS OUT OF EVERY DOLLAR
THAT WE EXPENDED, WE BORROWED
FROM OUR CHILDREN AND OUR
GRANDCHILDREN.
AND WE HAVE BEFORE US A BILL,
THE COMMERCE-JUSTICE-SCIENCE
BILL, THAT WILL GO UP ALMOST
13%, 12.6% THIS YEAR, ON THE
BACK OF A 15.5% INCREASE YE.
AND THE LATEST INFLATION NUMBERS
ARE DEFLATION, MINUS .4%.
AND THE QUESTION AMERICA HAS TO
ASK ITSELF, AFTER WE PASS $800
BILLION OF STIMULUS SPENDING FOR
WHICH THIS AGENCY
WHICH IS NOT REFLECTED IN ANY OF
THESE INCREASES, HOW IS IT THAT
WHEN WE CAN SPEND $1.4 TRILLION
THAT WE DON'T HAVE AND WE CAN
COME TO THE FLOOR AND CONTINUE
TO HAVE DOUBLE-DIGIT INCREASES
IN ALMOST EVERYTHING THAT WE PASS?
IT DOESN'T
FIGURE OUT THAT IF WE KEEP DOING
WHAT WE'RE DOING, THAT I FOUR
AND A HALF YEARS THE SIZE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOUBLES.
IF YOU DO THIS FOR ANOTHER FOUR
YEARS, WE WILL DOUBLE THE SIZE
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
SO THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO FISCAL
RESTRAINT WITHIN THE
APPROPRIATIONS BILL THAT ARE
GOING THROUGH THIS BODY, WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF ONE, AND THAT'S
THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT.
PROBABLY THE ONE THAT'S MOST
IMPORTANT TO US IN TERMS OF OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY, IN TERMS OF
WHERE THERE'S NO QUESTION WE
HAVE WASTE, BUT WHERE WE NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE PREPARED
FOR THE CHALLENGES THAT FACE
AND IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT WE
PASSED THROUGH THE BODY AND YOU
LOOK AT 2008 AND 2009, YOU GO
10%, 9.9%, 9.4%, 13.1%, 15.7%.
THAT HAVE THE LAUGHS YEAR.
NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO 5.7%,
7.3%, 1.4%, 15.6%, NOT ONLY ARE
WE ON AN UNSUSTAINABLE COURSE
WITH SOCIAL SECURITY AND
MEDICARE -- WE HAVE STOLEN FROM
SOCIAL SECURITY $2.4 TRILLION
WHICH WE DON'T EVEN RECOGNIZE
THAT WE OWE.
WE DON'T PUT IT ON OUR BALANCE SHEET.
WE'VE STOLEN $758 BILLION FROM
MEDICARE TRUST FUND, WHICH WE
DON'T EVEN RECOGNIZE.
SO WE BORROWED $3 TRILLION FROM
FUNDERS THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO
BE -- FROM FUNDS THAT WERE
SUPPOSED TO BE THERE FOR
SENIORS AND OUR RETIREES WHICH
OUR CHILDREN AND OUR
GRANDCHILDREN WILL HAVE TO REPAY.
AND SO I SAW THIS THE OTHERAY
ON THE INTERNET, AND IT SPEAKS A
MILLION WORDS TO ME.
HERE'S A LITTLE GIRL, TODDLER,
WITH A PACIFIER IN HER MOUTH.
SHE'S GOT A SIGN HANGING AROUND
HER NECK, AND SHE SAYS, "I'M
ALREADY $38,375 IN DEBT, AND I
ONLY OWN A DOLL HOUSE."
THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS SHE WAY
UNDERSTATED WHAT SHE'S IN DEBT FOR.
THAT'S JUST THE RECOGNIZED
EXTERNAL DEBT.
THAT DOESN'T COU WHAT WE
BORROWED INTERNALLY FROM OUR GRANDCHILDREN.
IT DOESN'T COUNT THE UNFUNDED
LIABILITIES THAT SHE THROUGH HER
LIFETIME WILL NEVER GET ANY
BENEFIT FROM BUT WILL PAY
BECAUSE WE'VE STOLEN THE BENEFIT
FOR US WITHOUT BEING GOOD
STEWARDS OF THE MONEY THAT'S
BEEN GIVEN TO US.
AND IF YOU GO THROUGH THIS AND
YOU LOOK AT IT, BY THE TIME
SHE'S 40, SHE WILL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR $1,119,000 WORTH
OF DEBT WE HAVE ACCUMULATED FOR
PAYMENTS FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND
MEDICAID THAT SHE GOT ZERO
BENEFIT FROM.
AND THEN WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT
WHAT IT COSTS IN THE INTEREST TO
FUND THAT
6%, SHE'S GOT TO MAKE $60,000
FIRST JUST TO PAY THE INTEREST
ON THAT DEBT BEFORE SHE PAYS ANY
TAXES, HER SHARE OF THE TAXES
THEN, BEFORE SHE HAS THE
CAPABILITY TO HAVE A HOME AND
HAVE CHILDREN AND HAVE A COLLEGE
EDUCATION, OWN A CAR, WE ARE
ABSOLUTELY, WITH BILLS LIKE
THIS, STRANGLING HER.
WE ARE STRANGLING HER.
AND I'MEMIN
FOUNDERS SAID.
IT'S
YOU
LOVE THE SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
SHE SAID WE HAD PLENTY OF MONEY
IN THE CHECKBOOK TO DO THIS.
WE DON'T HAVE PLENTY OF MONEY IN
THE CHECKBOOK TO DO IT.
WHAT WE HAVE IS AN UNLIMITED
CREDIT CARD THAT WE KEEP PUTTING
THE CREDIT CARD INTO THE MACHINE
ANDAY WE'LL TAKE NOW, AND OUR
KIDS WILL PAY LATER.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING.
THOMAS EVER SAID "I PREDICT
FUTURE HAPPINESS FOR AMERICANS
IF THEY CAN PREVENT THE
GOVERNMENT FROM WASTING THE
LABORS
PRETENSE OF TAKING CARE OF THEM."
AND WHEN WE'RE SEEING 123.6% AND
15% INCREASES IN THE
NONMANDATORY SIDE, THE
NON-SOCIAL SECURITY, THE
NONMEDICARE, THE NONMEDICAID
SIDE OF THE BUDGET, WE'VE FALLEN
INTO THE TRAP THAT THOMAS
JEFFERSON WAS WORRIED ABOUT.
AND I KNOW MY COLLEAGUES ARE
SICK OF ME TALKING ABOUT THIS,
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT?
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AREN'T SICK
OF US TALKING ABOUTT.
THEY GET IT.
THEY REALIZE THAT WE REFUSE TO
MAKE HARD CHOICES.
EVERY ONE OF THEM ARE MAKING
HARD CHOICES TODAY WITH THEIR
FAMILIES ABOUT TIR FUTURE
BASED ON THEIR INCOME.
YET, WE HAVE THE GALL TO BRING
TO THE FLOOR DOUBLE-DIGIT
SPENDING AT A TIME WHEN PEOPLE,
10% OF AMERICA IS OUT OF WORK
AND SEEKING WORK.
ANOTHER 5% HAVE GIVEN UP.
AND WE'RE SAYING IT'S FINE IF WE
HAVE A 12% INCREASE.
IT'S FINE.
THERE'S NO PROBLEM.
THERE'S PLENTY OF MONEY IN THE CHECKING ACCOUNT.
THERE IS NO MONEY IN THE
CHECKING ACCOUNT.
WE'RE PERILOUSLY CLOSE TO HAVING
OUR FOREIGN POLICY DICTATED TO
US BY THOSE
PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THIS COUNTRY.
AND THE TIME TO START CHANGING
THAT IS
I HAD TWO, TWO LITTLE
AMENDMENTS, AND ONE IS VERY
INSTRUCTIVE.
THE POLICAL SCIENCE COMMUNITY
IS HOT AND BOTHERED BECAUSE I
WOULD DARE TO SAY T
A TIME OF $1.4 TRILLION
DEFICITS, MAYBE AT A TIME
WE HAVE 10% UNEMPLOYMENT, MAYBE
AT A TIME WHEN WE'RE AT THE
WORST FINANCIAL CONDITION WE'VE
EVER BEEN IN OUR COUNTRY'S
HISTORY, THAT MAYBE WE OUGHT NOT
SPEND MONEY ASKING THE QUESTIONS
WHY P
ANSWERS, OR H WE CAN DO A TELE
TOWN HALL MEETING AND RAISE
OUR NUMBERS.
MAYBE WE OUGHT NOT SPEND OUR
MONEY OWN THOSE KINDS OF THINGS RIGHT N.
YOU SEE,
BECA
FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NOW
DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR GRANDCHILDREN.
WHAT THEY WANT IS WHAT THEY'RE
GETTING NOW.
GIVE ME NOW.
DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HAPPENS TO
THE REST OF THE GENERATIONS THAT
FOLLOW US.
AND SO WE HAVE THE POLITICAL
SCIENCE COMMUNITY ALL IN AN
UPROAR BECAUSE, NOT BECAUSE I'M
AGAINST THE STUDY OF POLITICAL
SCIENCE, BUT BECAUSE I THINK NOW
IS NOT THE TIME TO SPEND MONEY
ON THAT.
NOW IS THE TIME TO SPEND MONEY
THAT WE ABS
SPEND, THE ABSOLUTE NECESSITIES,
JUST LIKE EVERY FAMILY IN
AMERICA IS MAKING THOSE
DECISIONS TODAY.
WE DON'T HAVE THE COURAGE TO DO
IT BECAUSE IT
INTEREST GROUPS WHO ARE GETTING
MONEY FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT FOR A PRIORITY THAT'S
MUCH LESS THAN THE DEFENSE OF
THIS COUNTRY, PROTECTING
SECURING THE FUTURE, TAKING CARE
OF THEIR HEALTH CARE, AND MAKING
SURE WE HAVE LAW AND ORDER.
YOU SEE, ALEXANDER TYLER WARNED
OF THIS AS HE STUDIED WHY
REPUBLICS FAILED.
HE SAID ALL REP
THEY FAIL BECAUSE WHEN PEOPLE
LEARN THAT THEY CAN VOTE
THEMSELVES MONEY FROM THE PUBLIC
TREASURY, ALL THE OTHER
PRIORITIES GO OUT THE WINDOW.
THEY BECOME TOTALLY
SELF-FOCUSED, SELF-CENTERED ON
WHAT IT IS FOR THEM WITH NO
LONG-RANGE VISION, ONLY A
PAROCHIAL VISION.
ONLY WHAT IS GOOD FOR THEM.
IT'S CALLED SELF-CENTEREDNESS.
IT'S CALLED SELFISHSS.
WE PERPETUATE
BRINGING BILLS TO THE FLOOR THAT
ARE RESISTANT TO AMENDMENTS THAT
SAY MAYBE THIS I
RIGH NOW.
AND I WOULD BET T
POLLED THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND
SA WE'RE GOING TO RUN ANOTH ANOTHER $1.4 TRILLION DEFICIT
THIS YEAR, WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T
WA
TELLING POLITICIANS HOW TO STAY ELECTED.
WE PROBABLY
AND THE
UNIVERSITIES THAT GET THIS SMALL
AMOUNT OF MONEY ARE IN DEBT IN
EXCESS OF $50 BILLION.
THEY HAVE PLENTY OF MONEY TO
FUND THIS IF THEY WANT.
BUT THEY DON'T
IT BECAUSE THEY'RE GETTING FROM
THE PERSON THAT'S OUT OF WORK.
THEY'RE GETTING FROM THE PERSON
THAT DIDN'T GET THAT JOB B
THE ECONOMY'S ON ITS BACK
BECAUSE WE'RE BORROWIN BORROWING $1.4 TRILLION AND
COMPETING WITH THE CAPITAL
THAT'S REQUIRED TO CREATE A JOB.
YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST A SMALL
AMOUNT OF MONEY.
IT, BY ITSELF, WON'T MAKE ANY
DIFFERENCE.
BUT SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT
WILL BUILD CONFIDENCE WITH THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT SAYS, YOU
KNOW, HE'S RIGHT, WE OUGHT TO BE
ABOUT PRIORITIES.
WE OUGHT TO BE ABOUT DOING WHAT
IS MOST IMPORTANT FIRST AND
CUTTING OUT WHAT IS LEAST
IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE TIMES CALL
FOR DISCIPLINE SO THAT WE DON'T
FURTHER HAMSTRING THE GENERATION
OF CHILDREN FOR WHICH THIS YOUNG
LADY BELONGS.
AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU TAKE DZ
5DZ MILLION OR $6 MILLION AND DO
IT ONCE, AND PRETTY SOON IF
YOU'VE DONE IT 10 TIMES, YOU'VE
GOT $06 MILLION, YOU DO IT
ANOTHER 10 TIMES, YOU GET $600 MILLION.
PRETTY SOON WE'VE GOT BILLIONS
OF DOLLARS WE'RE NOT SPENDING
BECAUSE IT'S LOW PRIORITY AND
WE'RE NOT BORROWING IT AGAINST
OUR CHILDREN AND ALL OF A
SUDDENNEN THE VALUE OF THE
DOLLAR STARTS RISING, CONFIDENCE
AROUND THE WORLD AND THE DOLLAR
STARTS IREASING, COMPETION
FOR CAPITAL BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT COMPETING IN PRIVATE
SECTOR FOR THAT CAPITAL GOES
DOWN, THE COST OF CAPITAL GOES
DOWN, CREDIT FLOWS AN JOB
OPPORTUNITIES ARE CREATED.
BUT WE DON'T CONNECT THAT
BECAUSE WE'VE ALSO DONE IT THAT
WAY.
WE'VE GOT A BUDGET ALLOCATION
AND AS LONG AS WE'RE UNDER THAT
BUDGET ALLOCATION EVERYTHING IS
FINE.
WHERE IS THE LEADERSHIP IN OUR
COUNTRY TODAY THAT SAYS WRE
GOING MODEL A LEADERSHIP THAT
WE KNOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
EXPECT OF US?
MAKE HARD CHOICES, TAKE THE HEAT
TO ELIMINATE THINGS THAT ARE
LOWER PRIORITY SO THAT WE CAN
PRESERVE THE PRIORITY OF THIS
CHILD AND THOSE OF HER
GENERATION.
THE FACT IS THAT LEADERSHIP IS
NONEXISTENT.
AND THERE'S NO REASON FOR ANYONE
TO DOUBT WHY THE CONFIDENCE IN
THE CONGRESS IS AT ALL-TIME
LOWS.
BECAUSE WE'RE NOT REALISTS.
AND WE'RE NOT LISTENING.
AND THE MESSAGE OUT THERE -- THE
NUMBER ONE CONCERN WITH FEAR
ISN'T HEALTH CARE, IT'S
ECONOMIC.
AM I GOING TO HAVE A JOB TOMORROW?
AM I GOING TO BE ABLE TO PAY MY
BILLS?
WILL I BE ABLE TO PAY MY MORTGAGE?
AND THERE'S THOUSANDS OF THINGS
IN EVERY APPROPRIATION BILL,
JUST LIKE THIS ONE, JUST LIKE
THAT AMENDMENT, THAT WE COULD
ELIMINATE TOMORROW AND, YEAH,
MIGHT CREATE SOME SMALL
HARDSHIP, BUT NOTHING TO THE
HARDSHIP WE HAVE FOR THE
FOLLOWING GENERATIONS, I HAVE NO
DOUBT OF THE OUTCOME OF THE
VOTES ON MY AMENDMENTS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE
RESISTANT, REKA -- I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT WHAT WE MUST UNDERSTAND IS
THEY'RE AWAKE NOW, THEY'RE
LISTENING AND THEY'RE WATCHING.
IT IS TIME TO RESPOND TO THE
DESIRES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
AND STOP RESPONDING TO THE
SPECIAL INTERESTS OF THOSE THAT
ARE GETTING MONEY FROM THE
FEDERAL GO
PRIORITY INERMS OF WHAT REALLY
COUNTS AND REALLY MATTERS FOR
OUR FUTURE.
I HAVE ONE OTHER AMENDMENT THAT
WE WILL BE VOTING ON THAT
TRANSFERS MONEY TO INCREASE THE
MONEY AT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
IT WILL NOT SLOW DOWN THE
CONVERSATION OF THE BUILDING --
THE HOOVER BUILDING ATLL.
WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT.
BUT IT WILL HELP TO MAKE GOOD
GOVERNMENT BECAUSE PART OF OUR
PROBLEM IN GOVNMENT IS ABOUT
10% OF EVERYTHING WE DO IS PURE
WASTE.
PURE FRAUD OR PURE DUPLICATION.
AND IF WE'RE GOING TO INVEST
DOLLARS IN SOMETHING, WE OUGHT
TO INVEST IN THE TRANSPARENCY
AND ACCOUNTABILITY PECK NICHES
THAT WE'VE ALREADY -- MECHANISMS
AT WE ALREADY SETUP.
I FIND MYSELF ENCOURAGED BY THE
ATTITUDE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
YET DISCOURAGED BY THE ATTITUDE
OF MY COLLEAGUES.
BECAUSE NOBODY WANTS TO TAKE AND
MAKE THE HARD CHOICES.
THE HARD CHOICES THAT SAY WE'RE
GOING TO GET HEAT I PRIORITIZING.
THE EASIEST THING IS TO DO NOTHING.
THE EASIEST THING IS TO CONTINUE
TO LET THE PROGRAMS RUN WHETHER
THEY'RE HIGH PRIORITY OR NOT,
THAT'S EASY.
BUT AMERICA IS HAVING A RUMBLE RIGHT NOW.
THE GROUND IS SHAKING.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE PAYING
ATTENTION AND THEY'RE GOING TO
WATCH VOTES JUS
AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO BE
CALLED INTO ACCOUNT AS TO WHY
DON'T YOU -- WON'T YOU MAKE
PRIORITY CHOICES?
WHY WON'T YOU TAKE THE HEAT?
IF THERE OUGHT TO BE ANY
POLITICAL SCIENCE STUDY DOWN,
IT'S WHY ARE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
SUCH COWARDS.
THAT'S THE THING WE OUGHT TO STUDY.
WE OUGHT TO STUDY WHY WE REFUSE
TO DO THE RIGHT THING BECAUSE IT
PUTS OUR JOB AT RISK.
WE OUGHT TO BE DOING THE RIGHT
THING WHEN IT DOES PUT OUR JOB
AT RISK AND WHEN IT DOESN'T.
SO IILL FINISH UP BY REMINDING
US OF WHAT OUR OATH IS.
OUR OATH NEVER MENTIONS OUR STATE.
OUR OATH NEVER MENTIONS OUR
SPECIAL INTERESTS.
OUR
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS.
WHAT OTHER OATH MENTIONS IS THAT
WE ARE SENATORS OF THE UNITED
STATES.
NOT FROM OKLAHOMA.
NOT FROM DELAWARE.
NOT FROM MARYLAND.
NOT FROM OHIO.
BUT WE'RE SENATORS FOR THE UNITED STATES.
WE JUST HAPPEN TO BE FROM THOSE
PLACES.
AND OUR OATH IS TO THE LONG-TERM
BEST INTEREST -- BEST INTEREST
OF THE COUNTRY, NEVER A
PAROCHIAL INTEREST.
AS YOU GO THROUGH THE BILLS,
WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS
INTEREST TRUMPING THE BEST
LONG-TERM INTEREST OF THE COUNTRY.
THAT IS NOT
JOB THAT THE SENATOR FROM
MARYLAND HAS DONE.
THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT SHE
CAME IN WITH A NUMBER SHE WAS GICHG.
THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT SHE
MADE SOME TOUGH CHOICES AS SHE
DID THAT. WE'VE MADE ENOUGH.
THIS KIND OF INCREASE IN THIS
KIND OF BILL IS ABSURD.
IT'S OBSCENE.
IT'S OBSCENE AT A TIME WHEN THE
AVERAGE FAMILY'S INCOME IS DECLING.
THEIR ABILITY TO HAVE THE
FREEDOM TO MAKE CHOICES --
RELAXED CHOICES ABOUT WHAT
DO VERSUS VERY STERN CHOICES
ABOUT WHAT IS A NECESSITY AND WE
HAVE NOT GOTTEN THE
MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE
FLOOR. A SENATO MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:
JUNIOR SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. LIEBERMAN: I THANK THE CHAIR.
THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING MY
JUNIORITY, IT REMINDS ME OF HOW
YOUNG I AM AT LEAST HERE IN THE
SENATE.
ON BEHALF OF AMENDMENT 2669 THAT
HAS BEEN INTRODUCED BY SENATOR
GRAHAM, SENATOR WEBB, SENATOR
McCAIN, AND MYSELF AS
CO-SPONSORS.
IT IS A PENDING AMENDMENT.
MR. PRESIDENT.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT IS
REALLY QUITE STRAIGHTFORWARD.
IT WOULD PREVENT THE USE OF ANY
FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BY THIS
APPROPRIATIONS BILL FROM BEING
USED TO PROSECUTE ANY INDIVIDUAL
SU
9/11/2001 ATTACKS IN AN ARTICLE
3 COURT.
AN ARTICLE 3 COURT IS A REGULAR
FEDERAL COURT MADE PURSUANT TO
ARTICLE 3 OF OUR CONSTITUTION.
NOW, WHY WOULD WE FEEL WE NEED
TO DO SUCH A THING?
IT IS BECAUSE THE CURRENT
OTOCOL GOVER GOVERNING THE
DISPOSITION OF CASES REERVEL TO
PROSECUTION OF DETAINEES
CURRENTLY HELD AT GUANTANAMO
BAY, CUBA, THE CURRENT PROTOCOL
OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE GOVERNING THE
REFERRAL OF THESE DETAINEES FROM
GUANTANAMO BAY SAYS AS FOLLOWS:
IN NUMBER TWO FACTORS FOR
DETERMINATION OF PROSECUTION.
AND I QUOTE -- "THERE IS A
PRESUMPTION THAT WHERE FEASIBLE
REFERRED CASES WILL BE
PROSECUTED IN AN ARTICLE 3 COURT
IN KEEPING WITH TRADITIONAL
PRINCIPLES OF FEDERAL
PROSECUTION."
END OF QUOTE.
MR. PRESIDENT, IT IS BECAUSE WE,
WHO ARE SPONSORING THIS
AMENDMENT, THINK THAT THERE IS A
FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF
IN FACT, IN ITS WAY AN ACT OF
INJUSTICE THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS
INDIVIDUALS, SUSPECTED TERRORISTS BEING HELD AT
GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, SUSPECTED
IN THIS CASE, ACCORDING TO OUR
AMENDMENT, OF HAVING BEEN
INVOLVED IN THE ATTACKS OF 9/11
ON THE UNITED STATES WHICH
RESULTED IN THE DEATHS OF ALMOST
3,000 PEOPLE, THAT THESE
INDIVIDUALS WOULD BE TRIED IN A REGULAR UNITED STATES FEDERAL
COURT AS IF THEY WERE ACCUSED OF
-- OF VIOLATING OUR CRIMINAL LAWS.
THEY ARE
UNCOMMON CRIMINALS.
THEY ARE SUSPECTED OF BEING WAR
CRIMINALS.
AND, AS SUCH, THEY SHOULD NOT BE
BROUGHT TO PROSECUTION IN A
TRADITIONAL FEDERAL COURT ALONG
WITH OTHER ACCUSED CRIMINALS,
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
WHO HAVE THEIR RIGHT TO ALL THE
PROTECTIONS OF OUR CONSTITUTION
IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
THESE ARE
WAR CRIMINALS WHO ARE NOT
ENTITLED TO ALL OF THOSE
PROTECTIONS OF OUR CONSTITUTION
AND WHOSE PROSECUTION SHOULD NOT
BE CONFUSED AS A NORMAL CRIMINAL LAW PROSECUTION.
THEY ARE WARRIMINALS.
THEY OUGHT TO BE TRIED ACCORDING
TO -- TO ALL
PREVAIL FOR WAR CRIMINALS,
INCLUDING, OF COURSE, THE GENEVA
CONVENTION.
THIS CONGRESS HAS ESTABLISHED A
TRADITION, AND IMPROVED IN
RECENT TIMES, A TRADITION OF A
SYSTEM OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS,
OF CONGRESS, SIGNED INTO LAW BY
THE PRESIDENT, WHICH PROVIDES
STANDARDS OF DUE PROCESS AND
FAIRNESS IN THE TRIAL OF
SUSPECTED WAR CRIMINALS, NOT
JUST IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
GENEVA CONVENTION, BUT -- AND
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES, BUT WELL ABOVE WHAT --
WHAT THE STANDARDS THAT HAVE
BEEN REQUIRED BY BOTH THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES AND THE GENEVA
CONVENTION.
THOSE WHO WERE
COMMITTING THE HEINOUS COWARDLY
ACTS OF INTENTIONALLY TARGETING
UNSUSPECTING, DEFENSELESS
PART OF A LARGER DECLARED WAR OF
ISLAMIST EXTREMISTS AGAINST,
FRANKLY, ANYBODY WHO'S NOT LIKE
THEM.
THE MOST NUMEROUS VICTIMS OF
THESIS LAMBIST TERRORISTS AROUND
THE WORLD -- ISLAMISTS
TERRORISTS AROUND THE WORLD ARE
MUSLIMS WHO DON'T AGREE WITH
THEM IN THEIR EXTREMISM.
BUT THEY'VE KILLED MANY PEOPLE
OF OTHER RELIGIONS.
WHEN THEY STRUCK US IN THE
UNITED STATES ON 9/11, THEY
KILLED AN EXTRAORDINARILY
CLASSIC AMERICAN DISVERS
OF PEOPLE.
THE ONLY REASON THEY WERE
TARGETED IS THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
SO THE TERRORISTS -- THESE
PEOPLE WHO ARE SUSPECTED OF
BEING TERRORISTS PARTICIPATING
IN AND AIDING THE ATTACKS OF
9/11 ARE WAR CRIMINALS, NOT
COMMON CRIMINALS, AND THEY
SHOULD THEREFORE, BE TRIE
MILITARY COMMISSION SYSTEM WHICH
GOES -- THE
GO BACK AS LONG AS THE
REVOLUTIONARY WAR IN THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA.
IT'S PROUD AND FAIR TRADITION
MUCH WE HAVE UPGRADE
STRENGTHENED ALL THE DUE PROCESS
AND LEGAL PROTECTIONS AFTER 9/11.
SO WHY WE WOULD TAKE THESE WAR
CRIMINALS -- SUSPECTED WAR
CRIMINALS AN BRING THEM INTO THE
CRIMINAL COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND GIVE THEM THE RIGHTS
OF THE CONSTITUTION, I DON'T
UNDERSTAND.
MR. PRESIDENT, AS
I THINK IT IS TODAY,
NOVEMBER 5th, THE LETTER IS
DATED, MEMBERS -- EVERY MEMBER
OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE
RECEIVED A LETTER FROM QUITE A
LARGE NUMBER OF FAMILIES OF
VICTIMS OF 9/11.
140-PLUS AT THE LAST WRITING.
I JUST WANT TO READ BRIEFLY FROM THE LETTER.
THE LETTER IS IN SUPPORT OF THE
AMENDMENT THAT SENATORS GRAHAM,
WEBB, McCAIN AND I HAVE INTRODUCED."
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE RIGHTLY
OUTRAGED BY THIS ACT OF WAR OF SEPTEMBER 11.
WHETHER THE CAUSE WAS RETRIBUTION OR RECOGNIZE MISSION
OF OUR COMMON HUMANITY, THE
WORDS NEVER FORGET WERE INVOKED
IN TEARFUL AND ANGRY RECTITUDE,
DEFIANTLY WRITTEN IN THE DUST OF
GROUND ZERO, OUR HUMBLY PENNED
ON MAKE-SHIFT MEMORIALS ERECTED
ALL ACROSS THIS LAND.
THE COUNTRY WAS UNITED
DETERMINATION THAT THESE ACTS
SHOULD NOT GO UNMARKED AND UNPUNISHED.
EIGHT LONG YEARS HAVE PASSED
SINCE THAT DARK AND ."
AND REMBER, MR. PRESIDENT,
THIS IS WRITTEN BY PEOPLE WHO
HAVE LOST DEAR ONES ON 9/11.
"SADLY, SOME HAVE FORGOTTEN THE
PROMISES WE MADE TO THOSE WHOSE
LIVES WERE TAKEN IN SUCH A CRUEL
AND VICIOUS MANNER."
WE HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN.
WE ARE THE HUSBANDS AND WIVES
AND MOTHERS AND FATHERS, SONS,
DAUGHTERS, SISTERS, BROTHERS AND
OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE
VICTIMS OF THESE DEPRAVED AND
BARBARIC ATTACKS, AND WE FEEL A
PROFOUND OBLIGATION TO ENSURE
THAT JUSTICE IS DONE ON THEIR
BEHALF.
IT IS, THEY
INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO US THAT
MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES
CONGRESS WOULD PROPOSE THAT THE
SAME MEN WHO TODAY REFER TO THE
MURDER OF OUR LOVED ONES AS A
BLESSED DAY A
UNITED STATES CAPITOL FOR THE
SAME KIND OF DESTRUCTION THAT
WAS WROUGHT IN NEW YORK,
VIRGINIA, AND PENNSYLVANIA
SHOULD BE THE BENEFICIARIES OF A
SOCIAL COMPACT OF WHICH THEY ARE
NOT A PART.
DO NOT RECOGNIZE, AND WHICH THEY
SEEK TO DESTROY THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION."
SO THEY SAY -- "WE ADAMANTLY
OP
WHICH WOULD PROVIDE THEM WITH
THE VERY RIGHTS THAT MAY MAKE I
POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO ESCAPE THE
JUSTICE WHICH THEY SO RICHLY DESERVE.
WE BELIEVE THAT MILITARY
COMMISSIONS ARE THE APPROPRIATE
LEGAL FORUM FOR THE INDIVIDUALS
WHO
MR. PRESIDENT, I KNOW THERE WILL
BE FURTHER DEBATE ON
ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO JOIN IN THIS.
WE'RE DOING IT NOT JUST BECAUSE
OF THEROTOCOL
THE BEGINNING, BUT BECAUSE OF
STORIES THAT ARE EMANATING THAT
PERHAPS AS EARLY AS NEXT WEEK,
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WILL
ANNOUNCE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO
BRING KHALID SHEIKH MUHAMMAD,
THE MAN WHO PLANNED THE 9/11
ATTACKS, WHO IS IN OUR CUSTODY
TO TRIAL IN A FEDERAL COURT.
THIS MAN IS, FROM ALL THAT I
KNOW, ONE OF THE DEVILS OF
HISTORY, AN EVIL MAN WHO
TERRIBLE DESTRUCTION AND
SUFFERING ON OUR COUNTRY, AND HE
OUGHT TO BE GIVEN DUE PROCESS
BUT HE OUGHT TO BE GIVEN DUE
PROCESS IN A FORUM RESERVED FOR
SUSPECTED WAR CRIMINALS, AND
THAT IS COMMISSIONS.
I THANK TH
THE FLOOR.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENIOR SENATOR
RECOGNIZED.
MR. McCAIN: I THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
I THANK MY FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE,
SENATOR LIEBERMAN, ALONG WITH
SENATOR GRAHAM, SENATOR WEBB.
WE ARE STRONGLY SUPPO
AMENDMENT.
SENATOR LIEBERMAN MADE REFERENCE
TO A LETTER THAT'S CUR
BEEN SIGNED BY 214 9/11 FAMILY
MEMBERS, AND, MR. PRESIDENT, I
WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT
THIS LETTER BE MADE PART OF THE
RECORD, ALONG WITH AN ARTICLE
FROM THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL,"
OCTOBER 19, 2009, ENTITLED
"CIV
TRY TERRORISTS" BY MICHAEL
B.MUCASEY, THE FORMER ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. McCAIN: AND I URGE MY COLLEAGUES WHO WILL BE MADE
AWARE OF A LETTER FROM
MR. HOLDER AND SECRETARY GATES
WHO -- URGING DEFEAT
AMENDMENT TO LK AT THE
PREVIOUS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES VIEWS WHICH ARE
DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED.
MR. PRESIDENT, THE 9
SAY, AND I QUOTE -- AND I'M SURE
THEY REPRESENT ALL O THE 9/11
FAMILIES, AND I QUOTE -- "WE
ADAMANTLY OPPOSE PROSECUTING THE
9/11 CONSPIRATORS IN ARTICLE 3
COURTS WHICH WOULD PROVIDE
THEM -- WOULD PROVIDE THEM WITH
THE VERY RIGHTS THAT MAY MAKE IT
POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO ESCAPE THE
JUSTICE WHICH THEY SO RICHLY DESERVE.
WE BELIEVE THAT MILITARY
COMMISSIONS WHICH HAVE A LONG
AND HONORABLE HISTORY IN THIS
COUNTRY DATING BACK TO THE
REVOLUTIONARY WAR ARE THE
APPROPATE LEGAL FORUM FOR THE
INDIVIDUALS WHO DECLARED WAR ON
AMERICA WITH UTTER DISDAIN FOR
ALL THE NORMS OF DECENCY AND
HUMANITY, AND IN DEFIANCE OF THE
LAWS OF WARFARE ACCEPTED BY ALL
CIVILIZED NATIONS, THESE
INDIVIDUALS TARGETED THE TENS OF
THOUSANDSF CIVILIAN
NONCOMBATANTS BRUTALLY KILLING
3,000 MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN,
INJURING THOUSANDS MORE AND
TERRORIZING MILLIONS."
THAT'S THE VIEW OF THE -- OF
THOSE WHO WERE DIRECTLY -- I
WOULD BE GLAD TO RESPOND TO A
QUESTION FROM THE SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.
MR. DURBIN: I THANK THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA.
I WOULD ASK THE SENATOR IF HE
WOULD BE KIND ENOUGH TO ASK FOR
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT I
FOLLOW HIM SPEAKING AFTER HIS
REMARKS.
MR. McCAIN: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THE SENATOR FROM
ILLINOIS FOLLOW. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. McCAIN: ANYWAY,
MR. PRESIDENT, THESE ARE THE
9/11 FAMILIES.
THESE ARE -- ALL AMERICANS WERE
IMPACTED BY 9/11, THE 9/11
FALIES IN THE MOST TRAGIC FASHION.
THIS IS A VERY STRONG LETTER
FROM THEM CONCERNING THE STRONG
DESIRE THAT THEY NOT -- THESE
CRIMINALS NOT BE -- THESE 9/11
CONSPIRATORS NOT BE TRIED IN
ARTICLE 3 COURTS BUT BE TRIED
ACCORDING TO THE MILITARY
COMMISSIONS.
WITH THE 9/11 VICTIMS EXPERIENCE
AN ACT OF WAR AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES CARRIED OUT NOT ON SOME
DISTANT SHORE BUT IN OUR
COMMUNITIES ON THE VERY SYMBOLS
OF OUR NATIONAL POWER, BECAUSE
IT INVOLVED ATTACKS ON INNOCENT
CIVILIANS AND INNOCENT CIVILIAN TARGETS.
IT IS A WAR CRIME.
IT IS A WAR CRIME THAT WAS
COMMITTED BY THE 9/11
TERRORISTS.
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE CALL
THINGS WHAT THEY ARE AND NOT
GLOSS OVER THE ESSENCE OF THESE
EVENTS, EVEN THOUGH THEY
OCCURRED EIGHT YEARS AGO.
IN RESPONSE TO THE ATTACKS,
OVERWHELMINGLY PASSED THE
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF
MILITARY FORCE, GIVING THE
PRESIDENT THE AUTHORITY TO USE
ALL NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE
FORCE AGAINST THOSE NATIONS,
ORGANIZATIONS, ORERSONS HE
DETERMINES PLANNED, AUTHORIZED,
COMMITTED, OR AIDED THE
TERRORIST ATTACKS THAT OCCURRED
ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.
THEENATE PASSED THIS
LEGISLATION UNANIMOUSLY.
THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF
MILITARY FORCE RECOGNIZED THE
TRUE NATURE OF THESE ATTACKS AND
COMMITTED THE ENTIRE RESOURCES
OF THE UNITED STATES TO OUR
SELFDEFENSE IN LIGHT OF THE
GRAVE THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL
SECURITY ANDOREIGN
THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT GO TO
WAR OVER A DOMESTIC CRIMINAL
ACT, NOR SHOULD IT.
IT W CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD AT
THAT TIME THAT FAR MORE WAS AT STAKE.
WE SENT OUR SONS AND DAUGHTE
OFF TO WAR WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN
BRAVELY RISKING THEIR LIVES AND
FUTURES ON OUR BEHALF FOR THE
LAST EIGHT YEARS.
GIVEN THE FACTS AND HISTORY OF
THE 9/11 ATTACKS, W SHOULD NOT
DEAL WITH THE TREACHERY AND
BARBARISM OF THE SLAUGHTER OF
THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS
AS A MATTER OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
IN THE ORDINARY SENSE.
TO DO SO WOULD BELITTLE THE
EVENTS THAT TRANSPIRED, THE
SYMBOLISM AND PURPOSE OF THE
ATTACKS, THE HUGE NUMBER OF
LIVES THAT WERE LOST, AND THE
THREAT POSED TO THE UNITED
STATES WHICH CONTINUES IN THE
CAVES AND SANCTUARIES OF AL
QAEDA TO THIS DAY.
DURING MY LIFE, I HAVE BEEN A WARRIOR.
ALTHOUGH THAT SEEMS A LONG TIME
AGO NOW.
I HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE IN THE
REALITY OF COMBAT AND THE
SUFFERING IT BRINGS.
I KNOW SOMETHING OF THE LAW OF
WAR, HAVING FOUGHT CONSTRAINED
BY IT AND HAVING LIVED THROUGH
WITH THE HELP OF MY COMRADES AND
MY FAITH TIMES WHEN MY FORMER
ENEMY FELT UNCONSTRAINED BY IT.
NO, THE ATTACKS OF 9/11 WERE NOT
A CRIME.
THEY WERE A WAR
TOGETHER WITH MY COLLEAGUES IN
CONGRESS, I'VE WORKED CLOSELY
WITH THE PRESIDENT TO PROVIDE A
MEANS TO ADDRESS WAR CRIMES
COMMITTED AGAINST THIS COUNTRY
IN A WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL, THE
MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF
2009.
IT WAS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR
THIS PURPOSE.
IT SHOULD BE UD NOT TO METE
OUT A GUILTY VERDICT AND
SENTENCE THAT COULD NOT BE
ACHIEVED IN FEDERAL CRIMINAL
COURT, BUT TO CALL THINGS WHAT
THEY ARE, TO BE UNSHAKABLE IN
OUR RESOLVE TO RESPOND TO THE
UNPRECEDENTED ACTS OF 9/11 CONSISTENT WITH THE
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF
MILITARY FORCE AND TO TELL THIS
AND ANY FUTURE ENEMY THAT WHEN
THEY ATTACK OUR INNOCENT
CIVILIANS AT HOME, WE WON'T BE
SENDING THE POLICE AFTER THEM TO
MAKE AN ARREST.
BY DENYING FUNDS TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO
PROSECUTE THESE HORRENDOUS
CRIMES IN ARTICLE 3 COURTS, I DO
NOT MEAN THAT THESE TRAIDGES
AGAINST OUR COUNTRY AND ITS
CITIZENS SHOULD
IN FACT, I'VE LONG ARGUED THAT
JUSTICE IN THESE CASES WAS LONG
OVERDUE AND THAT PROSECUTION
SHOULD BE PURSUED AS
EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE.
RATHER, MY SUPPORT FOR THIS
AMENDMENT ISASED ON MY
UNSHAKABLE VIEW THAT THESE
EVENTS WERE ACTS OF WAR AND WAR
CRIMES AND THAT THE PROPER FORUM
FOR BRINGING THE WAR CRIMINALS
TO JUSTICE IS A MILITARY
TRIBUNAL CONSISTENT WITH
LONG-STANDING TRADITIONS IN THIS
COUNTRY THAT DATE BACK TO GEORGE
WASHINGTON'S CONTINENTAL ARMY
DURING THE FOUNDING OF THE REPUBLIC.
FOR THAT REASON, I URGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT SO THAT THE
PROSECUTION OF WAR CRIMES WILL
TAKE PLACE IN THE TRADITIONAL
AND LONG ACCEPTED FORUM OF A
MILITARY TRIBUNAL AS THE
CONGRESS OVERWHELMINGLY ENACTED
IN 2
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
2010 AMENDED AND APPROVED IN A
STATUTE THAT WAS ENACTED INTO
LAW BY PRESIDENT OBAMA JUST DAYS
AGO.
THAT WE WILL, AS WE HAVE IN THE
PAST, LISTEN TO THE FAMILIES OF
9/11.
FROM THE TRAUMA AND
THE TRAGEDY THAT -- THAT THEY
EXPERIENCED IN THE LOSS OF THEIR
FAMILIES, THEY BECAME A FORCE,
THEY BECAME A FORCE THAT WITHOUT
THEM WE WOULD HAVE NEVER HAD THE
9/11 COMMISSION, WE WOULD HAVE
NEVER BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THE
REFORMS THAT ARGUABLY HAS MADE
OUR NATION MUCH SAFER.
NOW TODAY THE FAMILIES ARE
STANDING UP AND SAYING TRY THESE
WAR CRIMINALS ACCORDING TO WAR
CRIMES WHICH THEY COMMITTED, THE
HEINOUS ACTS OF 9/11, WHICH I
FORGET.
MR. PRESIDENT, I HOPE WE WILL
VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT,
AND I
MR. DURBIN: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.
MR. DURBIN: MR. PRESIDENT, I?o
HAVE GREAT PRESIDENT FOR MY
COLLEAGUES FROM ARIZONA AND FROM
CONNECTICUT, BUT I RESPECTFULLY
DISAGREE WITH THEM ON THIS AMENDMENT.
IF THIS AMENDMENT PASSES, IT
WILL
THE WORLD WHO CANNOT BE TRIED IN
THE COURTS OF AMERICA FOR CRIMES
OF TERRORISM ARE THOSE WHO ARE
ACCUSED OF TERRORISM ON
TH
THE ARGUMENT IS BEING M
WE SHOULD SAY TO THE
AND ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT WHEN
THEY PLOT THEIR STRATEGY TO GO
AFTER THE MEN AND WOMEN
PROHIBIT THEM BY THE LANGUAGE OF
THIS AMENDMENT FROM CONSIDERING
THE PROSECUTION OF THESE
TERRORISTS ITHE COURT AMERICA.
WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF PROSECUTING
A TERRORIST SUCCESSFULLIN THE
COURTS OF AMERICA, OUR CRIMINAL
COURTS?
AS OPPOSED TO MILITARY
COMMISSIONS, COMMISSIONS THAT
HAVE BEEN CREATED BY LAW, ARGUED
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT,
DEBATED AT
WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF A SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION IN THE
COURTS OF OUR LAND OF A
TEORIST AS OPPOSED TO A
MILITARY COMMISSION?
I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE ODDS ARE.
THEY ARE 65-1 IN FAVOR OF
PROSECUTION IN OUR
195 TERRORISTS HAVE BEEN
PROSECUTED IN OUR COURTS SINCE
9/11.
THREE VE BEEN PROSECUTED BY
MILITARY COMMISSIONS.
BUT THE OFFERS OF THIS AMENDMENT
WANT TO TIE THE HANDS OF OUR
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
THEM YOU CANNOT SPEND A PENNY,
NOT ONE CENT, TO PURSUE
PROSECUTION OF A TERRORIST IN AN
AMERICAN COURT.
WHO DISAGREES WIT THIS
AMENDMENT?
IT ISN'T
ILLINOIS.
IT WOULD BE OUR SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE ROBERT GATES AND OUR
AND HERE'S WHAT THEY SAID IN A
LETTER TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE
SENATE ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT --
"WE WRITE TO OPPOSE THE
AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY SENATOR
GRAHAM ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND
SENATORS McCAIN AND
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD PROHIBIT
THE USE OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FUNDS TO COMMENCE OR CONTINUE
PROSECUTION IN AN
COURT OFHE UNITED STATES OF AN
INDIVIDUAL SUSPECTED OF
PLANNING, AUTHORIZING,
ORGANIZING, COMMITTING OR AIDING
THE ATTACKS OF THE U.S. THAT
OCCURRED ON SEPTEMBER 11."
THEY GO ON TO SAY, AS YOU
KNOW -- "BOTH THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
PROSECUTING ALLEGED TERRORISTS.
PURSUANT TO A JOINT PROSECUTION
PROTOCOL, OUR DEPARTMENTS ARE
CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN A SAFELY
CASE BY CASE EVALUATION OF THE
CASES OF GUANTANAMO DETAINEES
WHO HAVE BEEN REFERRED FOR
POSSIBLE PROSECUTION TO
DETERME WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE
PROSECUTED IN ARTICLE 3 COURTS
OR BY MILITARY COMMISSIONS.
WE ARE
SELECTION DECISIONS THAT ARE
MADE PURSUANT TO THIS PROCESS
WILL BEST SERVE OUR NATIONAL
SECURITY ISSUE -- INTEREST.
WE BELIEVE IT WOULD BE UNWISE
AND WOULD SET A DANGEROUS
PRECEDENT FOR CONGRESS TO
RESTRICT THE DISCRETION OF
EITHER DEPARTMENT TO FIND -- OR
TO FUND PARTICULAR PROSECUTIONS.
THE EXERCISE OF PROSECUTORIAL
DISCRETION HAS ALWAY
SHOULD REMAIN IN THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH FUNCTION.
WE MUST BE IN A POSITION
NATIONAL POWER INCLUDING BOTH
COURTS AND COMMISSIONS TO ENSURE
JUSTICE AND CAN NO LONGER
THREATEN AMERICAN LIVES.
FOR THESE REASONS, WE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU
OPPOSE
MR. PRESIDENT, THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD HINDER PRESIDENT OBAMA'S
EFFORTS TO COMBAT TERRORISM.
THAT'S WHY THE SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL
HAVE WRITTEN TO EACH ONE OF US
URGING US TO VOTE "NO."
THE GRAHAM AMENDMENT WOULD BE AN
UNPRECEDENTED INTRUSION INTO THE
AUTHORITY OF THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH OF OUR GOVERNMENT TO
COMBAT TERRORISM.
THERE'S A GREAT IRONY HERE.
FOR EIGHT LONG YEARS REPUBLICANS
ARGUED THAT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE
PRESIDENT BUSH'S COMMANDER IN
CHIEF AUTHORITY.
TIME AND AGAIN WE WERE TOLD BY
OUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES THAT
IT'S INAPPROPRIATE AND EVEN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR CONGRESS TO
ASK BASIC QUE
BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S POLICIES
ON ISSUES LIKE IRAQ, GUANT
TORTURE, OR WARRANTLESS
WIRETAPPING.
TIME AND AGAIN WE WERE TOLD THAT
CONGRESS SHOULD DEFER TO THE
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT'S EXPERTISE.
LET ME GIVE YOU ONE EXAMPLE.
ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2007, THE
AUTHOR OF THIS AMENDMENT,
SENATOR GRAHAM, SAID -- AND I
QUOTE -- "THE LAST THING WE NEED
IN ANY WAR IS TO HAVE THE
ABILITY OF 535 PEOPLE WHO ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE NEXT ELECTION
TO BE ABLE TO MICROMANAGE HOW
YOU FIGHT THE WAR.
THIS IS NOT ONLY
MICROMANAGEMENT, THIS IS
CONSTITUTIONAL SHIFT OF POWER."
END OF QUOTE.
NOW, JUST
DIFFERENT PRESIDENT OF A
DIFFERENT PARTY, AND MY
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE A
DIFFERENT VIEW.
NOW MY COLLEAGUES THINK THAT
CONGRESS SHOULD NOT DEFER TO
THAT VERY SAME DEFENSE
SECRETARY, ROBERT
THEY THINK IT IS NOT ONLY
APPROPRIATE BUT URGENT FOR
CONGRESS TO TIE THE HANDS OF
THIS ADMINISTRATION, MAKING IT
MORE DIFFICULT TO BRING
TERRORISTS
CLEARLY, THERE'S A DOUBLE
STANDARD AT WORK.
SOME OF MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES
ARGUE THAT FEDERAL COURTS ARE
NOT WELL-SUITED TO PROSECUTE
TERRORISTS, AND TERRORISTS
SHOULD ONLY BE
MILITARY COMMISSIONS.
BUT LOOK AT THE FACTS.
SINCE 9/11, 195 TERRORISTS HAVE
BEEN CONVICTED IN FEDERAL
COURTS.
THREE HAVE BEEN
MILITARY COMMISSIONS.
AGAIN, THE ODDS ARE 65-1 THAT IF
YOU WANT TO FIND A TERRORIST
GUIL AND INCARCERATE THEM FOR
ENDANGERING OR KLING
AMERICANS, IT'S BETTER TO GO TO
A REGULAR COURT IN AMERICA THAN
TO A MILITARY COMMISSION.
THAT'S THE RECORD SINCE 9/11.
ACCORDING TO THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT, SINCE JANUARY 1 OF
THIS
TERRORIS
SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTED OR
SENTENCEDN FEDERAL COURTS.
I'D LIKE TO ASK MY COLLEAGUES
BEHIND THIS AMENDMENT AND THEIR INSPIRATION, "THE WALL STREET
JOURNAL," WAS THIS A MISTAKE,
TAKING ACCUSED TERRORISTS INTO
OUR
PROSECUTING THEM UNDER THE LAWS
OF AMERICA?
CLEARLY IT WAS NOT.
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MADE
THE RIGHT DECISION EFFECTIVELY
PROSECUTING
EQUALLY IMPORTANT, SHOWING TO
THE WORLD THAT WE WOULD TAKE
THESE PEOPLE ACCUSED OF
TERRORISM INTO THE VERY SAME
SYSTEM OF JUSTICE THAT APPLIES
TO EVERY ONE EVER
CITIZENS, HOLD THEM TO THE SAME
STANDARDS OF PROOF, GIVE THEM
THE RIGHTS THAT ARE
THEM IN OUR COURT SYSTEM, AND
COME TO A
THAT'S AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE.
IT'S A MESSAGE WHICH SAYS, WE
CAN TREAT THESE INDIVIDUALS IN
OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN A FAIR
WAY AND COME TO A FAIR
CONCLUSION AND FIND JUSTICE, AND
WE DID.
195 TIMES SINCE 9/11.
30 TIMES JUST THIS YEAR.
RECENTLY, THE ADMINISTRATION
TRANSFERRED AHMAD GALADI TO THE
UNITED STATES TO PROSECUTE HIM
FOR INVOLVEMENT IN THE 1998
BOMB, OF OUR EMBASSIES IN KENYA
AND TANS KNEE YAVM
BOMBINGS KILLED 224 PEOPLE
INCLUDING 12 AMERICANS.
MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE
OF THE AISLE, WHO'VE
CRITICAL OF THIS
ADMINISTRATION'S DECISION TO
BRING THIS MAN TO JUSTICE IN THE
COURTS OF AMERICA, ONE OF THEM,
A HOUSE REPUBLICAN MEMBER FROM
VIRGINIA, ERIC CANTOR, SAID --
AND HE QUOTE -- "WE HAVE NO
JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE
THIS."
END OF QUOTE FROM CONGRESSMAN
KANTOR.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE CONGRESSM
IS JUST WRONG.
THERE ARE MANY PRECEDENTS FOR
CONVICTING TERRORISTS IN U.S. COURTS.
I'LL NAME A FEW.
RAMSEY USEF, THE
THE 1993 WORLD TRADE CENTER
BOMBING.
OMAR BE A DULL RAMA SHEIKH.
RICHARD REED, THE SHOE
TED KACZYNSKI, THE UNIBOMBER,
TERRY NICHOLS, THE OKLAHOMA CITY
ALL ACCUSED OF TERRORISM.
SOME CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.
SOME NOT.
ALL TRIED IN THE SAME
COURTS, WHICH THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD PROHIBIT -- WOULD PROHIBIT
OUR PRESIDENT AND ATTORNEY
GENERAL FROM USING.
IN FACT, THERE'SRECEDENT FOR
CONVICTING TERRORISTS WHO WERE
INVOLVED IN THE BOMBING OF THE
U.S. EMBASSIES IN TANZANIA AND
KENYA, THE SAME ATTACK AHMAD
GALANI WAS ALLEGEDLY INV IN.
IN 2004, MEN WERE SENTENCED TO
LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE AT THE
FEDERAL COURTHOUSE IN LOWER
MANHATTAN, THE SAME COURT IN
WHICH MR. GALANI WILL BE TRIED.
TO ARGUE THAT WE CANNOT
SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTE A
TO IGNORE THE TRUTH AND
HISTORY.
SUSAN HERSCH LOST HER HUSBAND IN
THE KENYA EMBASSY BOMBING.
SHE TESTIFIED AT THE SENTENCING
HEARING FOR THE FOUR TERRORISTS
WHO WERE CONVICTED IN 2001.
MRS. HERSCH SAYS SHE SUPPORTS
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S
DECISION TO PROSECUTE AHMAD
GALANI FOR THE SAME BOMBING THAT
TOOK THE LIFE OF HER HUSBAND.
SHE SAID, "I'M RELIEVED WE'RE
FINALLY MOVING FORWARD.
IT'S REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT TO
ME THAT ANYONE WE HAVE IN
CUSTODY ACCUSED OF ACTS
TO
OTHERS BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR
WHAT THEY HAVE DONE."
END OF QUOTE.
MRS. HERSCH ALSO SAID THAT SHE'S
-- SHE BELIEVES IT'S SAFE TO TRY
AHMED GALANI IN A FEDERAL COURT.
"I HAVE SOME TRUST IN THE YIEWRK
POLICE DEPARTMENT," BASED ON HER
SYRIANS IN THE
LISTEN TO WHAT SHE SAID ABOUT
THE CRITICS OF THIS
ADMINISTRA
"T
ALARM
QUOTE, UNQUOTE FROM THE WIDOW OF
A TERRORISM BOMBING WHERE THE
TERRORISTS HAVE
JUSTICE IN THE COURT OF THS OF OUR
LAND.
I HAVE FAITH IN OUR LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, I HAVE
FAITH IN OUR COURTS AND I HAVE
FAITH IN OUR SYSTEM O JUSTICE.
WE KNOW HOW TO PROSECUTE
TERRORISTS.
WE KNOW THOUSAND HOLD THEM
SAFELY -- WE KNOW HOW TO HOLD
THEM SAFELY.
WE HAVE LIVING PRO.
195 PROSECUTED SINCE 9/11 AND
350 CONVICTED TERRORISTS BEING
HELD TODAY IN AMERICA'S JAILS
ACROSS THE UNITED STATES.
THE GRAHAM AMENDMENT IS NOT
ABOUT WHETHER
COMMISSIONS ARE SUPERIOR TO
FEDERAL COURTS.
THE AMENDMENT DOESN'T JUST
EXPRESS A
OVER THE OTHER.
THE AMENDMENT EXPRESSLY
PROHIBITS THIS ADMINISTRATION
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FROM
FEDERAL COURT.
THE TRUTH
MAY CHOOSE TO TRY THE 9/11
TERRORISTS IN MILITARY COMMISSIONS.
THAT SHOULD BE THE PRESIDENT'S
DECISION.
IF IT IS HIS DECISION THAT IT'S
IN THE INTEREST OF THE SECURITY
OF THE UNITED STATES OR
SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION TO TURN
TO A MILITARY COMMISSION OVER A
REGULAR FEDERAL COURT IN
AMERICA, THAT SHOULD BE THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION, THE
DECISION OF HIS ATTORNEY
GENERAL, THE DECISION OF THE
PROSECUTORS, NOT THE DECISION OF
MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES
SENATE WHO DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS
OF THE CASE AND DON'T KNOW THE
LIKELIHOOD OF PROSECUTION.
DEFENSE SECRETARY GATES AND
ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER HAVE
DEVELOPED A JOINT P DETERMINE WHETHER INDIVIDUAL
CASES SHOULD BE TRIED
COURTS OR
THE PRESIDENT WORKED CLOSELY
WITH CONGRESS TO REFORM THE
MILITARY COMMISSIONS SO HE WOULD
HAVE ANOTHER LAWFUL TOOL TO USE
IN THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM.
THE TWO LEA
AMENDMENT BEFORE US -- SENATOR
McCAIN AND SENATOR GRAHAM, WHO
IS ON
INVOLVED IN THAT EFFORT.
AS WAS SENATOR LEVIN OF
MICHIGAN.
THE CHAIRMAN OUR ARMED SERVICES
COMMITTEE.
TH SET DOWN TO REWRITE
RULES FOR MILITARY COMMISSIONS
BECAUSE, FRANKLY, WE HAVEN'T HAD
A GREAT DEAL OF SUCCESS WITH
PROSECUTIONS OF TERRORISTS WITH
MILITARY COMMISSIONS.
ONLY THREE
BERE THE SUPREME COURT,
RAISING ISSUES ABOUT MILITARY
COMMISSIONS, THE STANDARDF
JUSTICE, DUE PROCESS, AND
FAIRNESS.
NOW THERE'S A NEW EFFORT BY
PRESIDENT OBAMA, WITH THE HELP
-- BIPARTISAN HELP -- OF MEMBERS
OF THE SENATE.
SO I'M NOT STANDING HERE IN
CRITICISM OF THE USE OF MILITARY
COMMISSIONS, BUT I
HERE TAKING EXCEPTION TO THE
POINT OF VIEW THAT WE SHOULD
PRECLUDE PROSECUTIONS IN ANY
OTHER FORUM THAN MILITARY
COMMISSIONS OF THE TERRORISTS OF
9/11.
PRESIDENT OBAMA MAY VERY WELL
TRCHOOSE TO TRY THEM COMMISSIONS.
THAT SHOULD BE HIS CHOICE.
LET HIM CHOOSE THE FORUM, THE
MOST EFFECTIVE FORUM TO PURSUE
JUSTICE AND TO PROTECT AMERICA
IN FUTURE ACTS
IN THEIRETTER TO SENATORS REID
AND McCONNELL, SECRETARY GATES
AND ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER SAID
IT WELL, AND I QUOTE THEM AGAIN,
"WE MUST BE IN A POSITION TO USE
EVERY LAWFUL INSTRUMENT
NATIONAL POWER, INCLUDING BOTH
COURTS AND MILITARY COMMISSIONS,
TO ENSURE THAT TERRORISTS ARE TERRORISTS ARE
BROUGHT TO JUSTICE AND C
LONGER THREATEN AMERICAN
MR. PRESIDENT, THE DECISION MAY
BE REACHED AT SOME FUTURE DATE
BY T
CONCURRENCE OF THE SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THAT IT IS A BETTER FORUM TO
MOVE TO MILITARY COMMISSIONS FOR
A VARIETY
THEY COULD BE ISSUES OF NATIONAL
SECURITY.
IT COULD BE ISSUES OF EVIDENCE.
BUT DO WE WANT TO TAKE AWAY FROM
THEM WITH THIS PENDING AMENDMENT
THE RIGHT TO MAKE THAT DECISION
I?WHY WOULD CONGRESS CHOOSE TO
TAKE AWAY ONE OF THESE LAWFUL
INSTRUMENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT,
OUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF?
DON'T WE WANT THE PRESIDENT TO
HAVE THE USE OF EVERY LAWFUL
TOOL TO BRING THESE TERRORISTS
TO JUSTICE?
ONE WORD IN CLOSING:
I HA THE GREATEST RESPECT FOR
THE FAMILIES O 9/11, T
WHO'VE SPOKEN OUT ON BEHALF OF
THIS AMENDMENT, I RESPECT THEM
GREATLY.
THEY HAVE BEEN A FORCE IN
AMERICA SINCE THE UNTIMELY AND
TRAGIC DEATHS OF MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILY.
THEY FORCED ON THE PREVIOUS
ADMINISTRATION A DRAMATIC
INVESTIGATION OF 9/11 AND WHERE
OUR GOVERNMENT HAD FAILED AND
WHAT WE COULD DO TO IMPROVE
THINGS.
THEY HAVE BECOME A VOICE AND A
FORCE IN SO MANY OTHER RESPES
SINCE THAT A
BUT THEY DON'T SPEAK WITH ONE
VOICE ON THIS ISSUE.
MANY SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT.
OTHERS SEE IT DIFFERENTLY.
SUSAN HERSCH, WHOSE HUSBAND WAS
LOST IN A TERRORIST BOMBING IN
AFRICA, CLEARLY SEES IT
DIFFERENTLY THAN THESE SURVIVORS
OF 9/11.
WITH THE GREATEST RESPECT FOR
THOSE WHO SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT, I WOULD SAY THAT
THERE ARE OTHERS WHO SEE THIS
THE IN A MUCH DIFFERENT -- WHO
SEE THIS IN A MUCH DIFFERE
LIEVMENT I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
REJECT THE GRAHAM AMENDMENT.
IT IS AN UNPRECEDENTED EFFORT TO
INTERFERE
ADMINISTRATION'S PROSECUTORIAL RESPONSIBILITY.
I YIELD THE FLOOR. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR
MR. GRAHAM: THANK YOU.
I WANT -- I APPRECIATE SENATOR
LEVIN FOR ALLOWING ME TO GO.
I KNOW WE'RE KIND OF GOING BACK
AND FORTH, BUT I APPRECIATE HIM.
TO MY FRIEND, SENATOR DURBIN, IT
IS MY HONEST DESIRE THAT, AS WE
MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT TO DO
WITH GUANTANAMO BAY, WE CAN FIND
SOME BIPARTISAN HISPANIC TO
CLOSE THE FACILITY -- SOME
BIPARTISAN TO CLOSE THE FACILITY
AND I'M ONE OF THE REPUBLICANS
THAT EXPRESSED THAT THOUGHT
BECAUSE I'VE LISTENED ENOUGH TO
OUR COMMANDERS TO KNOW THAT
GUANTANAMO BAY S. HAS BECOME A
SYMBOL FOR RECRUITMENT AND
PROPAGANDA
AMERICAN FORCES IN THE WAR ON
TERROR, AND IT IS PROBABLY THE
BEST-RUN JAIL IN THE WORLD RIGHT NOW.
THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN DOWN THERE,
TO THE GUARD FORCE I WOULD LIKE
TO ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR PATRIOTISM
AND YOUR SERVICE.
IT IS A TOUGH PLACE TO DO DUTY
BECAUSE SOME PRETTY TOUGH
CHARACTERS DOWN THERE.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I'VE
TRIED TO BE HELPFUL WHERE I
COULD AND, I'LL IT WILL YOU IN A
LITTLE DETAIL WHY I'M DOING THIS
AMENDMENT OF BUT MY HOPE WAS
WHEN PRESIDENT OBAMA WASLECTED
THAT WE COULD FIND A WAY TO
REFORM GUANTANAMO BAY POLICY,
DETAINEE POLICY, BECAUSE I DO
UNDERSTAND DETAINEE POLICY
AFFECTS THE WAR EFFORT.
IF YOU MESS IT UP, IF YOU ABUSE
DETAINEES, YOU CAN TURN
POPULATIONS AGAINST YOU THAT
WOULD BE HELPFUL IN WINNINGHE WAR.
ONE OF THE GREAT THINGS THAT
HAPPENED IN WORLD WAR II IS THAT
WE HAD OVER 400,000 GERMAN
PRISONERS, JAPANESE PRISONERS
HOUSED IN THE UNITED
WE TOOK
NAZIS FROM THE BRITISH AND PUT
THEM IN AMERICAN MILITARY JAILS
IN THE UNITED STATES.
SO THIS IDEA THAT
A PLACE FOR 200 DETAINEES IN
AMERICA, I DON'TGREE WITH. WE'VE DONE THAT BEFORE.
THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT 10 FEET TALL.
THEY'RE DANGEROUS.
AS A NATION, I BELIEVE WE COULD
START OVER.
AND BY CLOSING GUANTANAMO BAY IN
A LOGICAL, RATIONAL WAY, YOU
WOULD BE IMPROVING OUR ABILITY
TO EFFECT THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR
IN THE MIDEAST BECAUSE YOU WOULD
BE TAKING AWAY THE TOOL OF T
ENEMY.
PRESIDENT OBAMA AND SENATOR
McCAIN WHEN THEY WERE
CANDIDATES AGREED WITH THE IDEA
OF CLOSING GUANTANAMO BAY AND
REFORMING INTERROGATION POLICY.
TO MOS AMERICANS IT'S KIND OF
WHY ARE WE WORRIED ABOUT WHAT WE
DO WITH THESE GUYS BECAUSE
THEY'LL CUT OUR HEADSFF?
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
IT'S NOT LOST UPON ME OR ANY
OTHER MILITARY MEMBER OUT THERE
THAT THE ENEMY WE'RE DEALING
WITH KNOWS NO BOUNDARIES AND
THEY'RE BARBARIANS AND BRUTAL.
THE QUESTION IS NOT ABOUT THEM,
BUT ABOUT US.
THE FACT THAT WE'RE A SEUFGZED
PEOPLE NOT -- CIVILIZED PEOPLE
IS NOT A LIABILITY, IT'S AN ASSET.
WHEN YOU CAPTURE A MEMBER OF AL
QAEDA, I'VE ALWAYS BELIEVED IT
BECOMES ABOUT US, NOT THEY WILL.
WE NEED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES
THAT WILL ALLOW US TO GET GOOD
INTELLIGENCE AND MAKE THE COUNTRY SAFE.
WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WE'RE AT
WAR AND THE PEOPLE WE'RE DEALING
WITH ARE SOME OF THE HARDEST,
MEANEST PEOPLE KNOWN SINCE THE NAZIS.
BUT IF YOU TRY TO SAY IN THE
SAME BREATH ANYTHING GOES TO GET
THAT INFORMATION, IT WILL COME
BACK TO HAUNT YOU.
SO SOME OF THE INTERROGATION
TECHNIQUES WE'VE USED THAT COME
FROM THE INQUISITION GOT US SOL
INFORMATION, BUT I CAN ASSURE
YOU HAS CREATED A PROBLEM.
JUST ASK ANYBODY IN THE MIDEAST
WHO HAS TO DEAL WITH AMERICA;
THEY'LL TELL YOU THIS HAS BEEN A
PROBLEM.
AND YOU DON'T NEED TO DO THAT TO
PROTECT THIS COUNTRY.
YOU CAN'T HAVE INTERROGATION
TECHNIQUES THAT GET YOU GOOD
INFORMATION BUT ALSO ADHERE TO
YOUR VALUES.
-- YOU CAN HAVE INTERROGATION
TECHNIQUES THAT ADHERE TO VALUES.
AS FOR THE TRIALS, SOME PEOPLE
ARE WORRYING WHY DO WE CARE
ABOUT THIS?
THEY WOULDN'T GIVE US A TRIAL.
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
THE FACT THAT OUR COUNTRY WILL
GIVE THE WORST TERRORIST IN THE
WORLD A TRIAL WITH A DEFENSE
ATTORNEY FOR FREE, A JUDGE
THAT'S GOING TO BASE THE
DECISION ON FACTS AND LAW AND
NOT PREJUDICE, A JURY WHERE THE
PRESS CAN SHOW UP AND WATCH THE
TRIAL WITH THE ABILITY TO APPEAL
TH RESULT MAKES US STRONGER,
NOT WEAKER.
SO COUNT ME IN FOR STARTING OVER
WITH GUANTANAMO BAY, WITH A
LEGAL PROCESS THAT RECOGNIZES WE
MADE ABUSES IN THE PAST AND
WE'RE GOING TO CHART A NEW COURSE.
THE MILITARY COMMISSION ACT THAT
JUST PASSED THE CONGRESS, I WANT
TO SAY PUBLICLY THAT SENATOR
LEVIN WAS A GREAT PARTNER TO
WORK WITH.
THE MILITARY COMMISSION SYSTEM
THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE
BEEN REFORMED.
I THINK IT IS A MODEL OF JUSTICE
SYSTEMHAT I WOULD PUT UP
AGAINST ANY IN THE WORLD,
INCLUDING THE INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL COURT AT THE HAGUE IN
TERMS OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS FOR
THE DETAINEE.
BUT IT ALSO RECOGNIZES THAT
WE'RE AT WAR.
AND THIS MILITARY COMMISSION
SYSTEM, WHILE TRANSPARENT, WITH
THE ABILITY TO APPEAL ALL
VERDICTS TO THE CIVILIAN SYSTEM,
HAS SAFEGUARDS BUILT IN IT TO
RECOGNIZE THAT WE'RE AT WAR AND
HOW YOU HANDLE EVIDENCE AND
ACCESS TO EVIDENCE AND
INTELLIGENT SOURCES ARE BUILT
INTO THAT MILITARY SYSTEM THAT
ARE NOT BUILT INTO CIVILIAN COURTS.
SINCE THIS COUNTRY HAS BEEN
FOUNDED WITH HISTORICALLY USED
MILITARY COMMISSIONS AS A VENUE
TO TRY SUSPECTED WAR CRIMINALS
CAUGHT ON BATTLEFIELDS.
WHY HAVE I BROUGHT THIS AMENDMENT?
I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY TOO MANY
PEOPLE WITH RELIABLE ACCESS THAT
THE ADMINISTRATION IS PLANNING
ON TRYING TO LEAD SHEIKH
9/11, THE PERPETRATOR OF THE
ATTACKS AGAINST OUR COUNTRY IN
WASHINGTON, PENNSYLVANIA, AND
NEW YORK, AND FEDERAL COURT IN
THE LOWER DISTRICT MANHATTAN.
IF THAT'S TRUE, YOU'VE LOST ME
AS A PARTNER.
WHY'D I SAY THAT?
IT WOULD BE THE BIGGEST MISTAKE
WE COULD POSSIBLY MAKE, IN MY
VIEW, SINCE 9/11.
WE WOULD BE GIVING
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO THE
MASTERMIND OF 9/11 AS IF THEY
WERE ANY AVERAGE, EVERYDAY
CRIMINAL AMERICAN
WE WOULD BE BASICALLY SAYING TO
THE MASTERMIND IN 9/11 AND TO
THE WORLD AT LARGE, 9/11 WAS A
CRIMINAL ACT, NOT AN ACT OF WAR.
I DO BELIEVE IN PROSECUTORIAL
DISCRETION AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH
DISCRETION.
I INTRODUCE THIS AMENDMENT
RELUCTANTLY BUT WITH ALL THE
PASSION AND PERSUASION I CAN
MUSTER TO TELL MY COLLEAGUES ACT
NOW SO THAT WE WILL GET THIS
RIGHT LATER.
CONGRESS HAS SAID WE'RE NOT
GOING TO FUND THE CLOSING OF
GITMO.
WELL, IS CONGRESS MEDDLING IN
THE ABILITY OF THE COMMANDER IN
CHIEF TO RUN A MILITARY JAIL?
HELL YEAH, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW
WHAT THE PLAN IS.
WE HAVE AN INDEPENDENT DUTY AS
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO MAKE SURE
THERE IS BALANCE, AND THIS
NATION IS AT WAR.
IT'S OKAY FOR US TO SPEAK
AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT'S BEEN
TOO MUCH PASSING, TOO MANY
PASSES DURING THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION WHERE CONGRESS
SORT OF JUST SAT BACK AND
WATCHED THINGS HAPPEN.
DON'T WATCH THIS HAPPEN.
GET ON THE RECORD NOW BEFORE IT
IS TOO LATE TO TELL THE
PRESIDENT THAT WE'RE NOT GOING
TO SIT BY AS A BODY AND WATCH
THE MASTERMIND OF 9/11 GO INTO
CIVILIAN COU AND CRIMINALIZE
THIS WAR.
IF HE GOES TO FEDERAL COURT,
HERE'S WHAT AWAITS: A CHAOS ZOO
TRIAL.
YES, WE'VE TAKEN PEOPLE INTO
FEDERAL COURT BEFORE FOR ACT OF TERRORISM.
FIRST GUY THAT TRIED TO BLOW U
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, AND PUT
HIM IN CIVILIAN COURT.
WE TREATED THESE PEOPLE AS
COMMON CRIMINALS.
WARRIORS RATHER THAN A GUY THAT
ROBBED A LIQUOR STORE?
WHERE WOULD WE HAVE BEEN IN 2001
IF WE HAD HAD THE FORESIGHT IN
THE 1990'S TO RECOGNIZE THAT
WE'RE AT WAR, AND THESE PEOPLE
ARE NOT SOME CARTEL?
THEY'RE WARRIORS.
BEEN ON OUR CONSTRUCTION -- BENT
ON OUR CONSTRUCTION, WHO HAVE
BEEN PLANNING FOR YEARS TO
ATTACK THIS COUNTRY
PLANNING AS I SPEAK TO ATTACK US
AGAIN.
WE'RE NOT
WE'RE FIGHTING A WAR.
AND THE WAR IS NOT OVER.
WHAT HAPPENED IN THE BLIND
SHEIKH TRIAL?
BECAUSE IT WAS
BUILT AROUND TRYING COMMON
CRIMINALS, THE COURT DIDN'T HAVE
THE PROTECTIONS MILITARY
COMMISSIONS WILL HAVE TO PROTECT
THIS NATION'S S
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.
AS A RESULT OF THAT
UNINDICTED COCONSPIRATOR LIST
WAS PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE AS
PART OF DISCOVERY IN FEDERAL
CIVILIAN
THAT UNINDICTED COCONSPIRATOR
LIST WAS AN INTELLIGENCE COUP
FOR THE ENEMY.
IT
TO THE DEFENDANT TO THE MIDEAST,
AND AL QAEDA WAS ABLE TO
UNDERSTAND FROM
WE WERE LOOKING AT AND WHO WE
HAD OUR EYE ON.
DURING THE 1990'S, WE TRIED TO
TREAT THESE TERRORIST WARRIORS
AS JUST SOME OTHER FORM OF CRIME.
IT WAS A MISTAKE.
DON'T REPEAT
IF YOU TAKE KHALID SHEIKH
MOHAMMED, THE MASTERMIND OF
9/11, AND PUT HIM IN FEDERAL
CIVILIAN COURT, YOU WILL HAVE
LEARNED NOTHING FROM THE 1990'S.
YOU WILL HAVE SENT THE WRONG
SIGNAL TO THE TERRORIST AND TO
OUR OWN PEOPLE.
JUDGE MUKASEY WHORESIDED OVER
THE BLIND SHEIKH TRIAL, WROTE AN
MISTAKE IT WOULD BE TO PUT THE
9/11 COCONSPIRATORS INTO FEDAL COUR
HE WENT INTO GREAT DETAIL ABOUT
THE PROBLEMS YOU WOULD HAVE
TRYING THESE PEOPLE IN CIVILIAN
COURT.
AND HE BECAME OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL.
SO IF U DON'T
LIST BE TO THE JUDGE WHO
PRESIDED OVER THE TRIAL IN THE
1990'S.
ON WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO -- I
DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO
DO IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
IF I BELIEVED THEY WERE GOING TO
DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN TAKE
KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED TO
FEDERAL COURT IN NEW YORK, I
WOULDN'T INTRODUCE THE AMENDMENT.
I KNOW THIS IS NOT A CAVALIER
THING
I'VE TAKEN SOME GRIEF FOR TRYING
TO HELP THE PRESIDENT FORM NEW
POLICIES WITH GUANTANAMO BAY AND
REJECT THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY
SOME OF MY DEAR FRIENDS THAT
THESE PEOPLE ARE TOO DANGEROUS
TO BRING TO THE UNITED STATES.
WE CAN FIND A WAY TO BRING THEM
TO THE UNITED STATES; WE'VE JUST
GOT TO BE SMART ABOUT IT.
TO OUR MILITARY MEN AND WOMEN
WHO WILL BE ADMINISTERING THE
COMMISSIONS, MY BIGGEST FEAR HAS
ALWAYS B
COMMISSION SYSTEM WILL BECOME A
SECOND-CLASS JUSTICE SYSTEM.
NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM
THE TRUTH.
E MEN AND WOMEN WHO ADMINISTER
JUSTICE IN THE MILITARY
COMMISSION SYSTEM ARE THE SAME
JUDGE AFFECTS AND JURORS --
ADVOCATES AND JURORS THAT
ADMINISTER JUSTICE TO OUR OWN TROOPS.
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF
THE NAVY SAID THE MILITARY
SYSTEM IS SUCH THAT HE WOULD NOT
HESITATE TO HAVE ONE OF OUR OWN
TRIED IN IT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE WILL
GAIN
IMPROVING OUR IMAGE BY SENDING
THE MASTERMIND OF 9/11 TO A NEW
YORK CIVILIAN COURT, GIVING HIM
THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
AS ANYBODY LISTENING TO ME IN
AMERICA WHO'S A CITIZEN IN TERMS
OF IMAGE.
THE MILITARY COMMISSION SYSTEM
WILL BE TRANSPARENT.
HE WILL HAVE HIS
HE WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO
APPEAL A CONVICTION TO OUR CIVILIAN JUDGES.
HE WILL BE DEFENDED BY A
MILITARY LAWYER OR
ATTORNEY IF HE WANTS TO
HE WILL BE PRESUMED INNOCENT
UNTIL FOUND
AND IT WILL BE REQUIRED BY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
STANDARD FOR HIM TO BE
SO FOR THOSE WHO ARE WONDERING
ABOUT MILITARY COMMISSIONS, I
CAN TELL YOU THE BILL WE HAVE
PRODUCED I'LL PUT UP AGAINST ANY
SYSTEM IN THE WORLD.
AND TO THOSE WHO THINK IT'S NO
BIG DEAL TO
MOHAMMED TO
COULDN'T DISAGREE WITH YOU MORE.
WHAT YOU WILL HAVE DONE IS SET
IN MOTION THE DYNAMIC THAT LED
TO CRIMINALIZING THE WAR IN THE 1990'S.
YOU WILL HAVE LOST FOCUS YET
AGAIN.
YOU WILL HAVE BEEN LURED INTO
THE SENSE THAT WE'RE REALLY NOT
AT WAR.
THESE ARE JUST A BUNCH OF BAD
PEOPLE COMMITTING CRIMES.
THE DAY THAT WE TAKE THE
MASTERMIND OF 9/11 AND PUT HIM
IN FEDERAL COURT, WHOHE HELL
ARE YOU GOING TO TRY IN THE
MILITARY COMMISSION?
HOW CAN YOU TELL THAT
"WELL, YOU'RE AN ENEMY COMBATANT.
YOU'RE A BAD GUY, YOU'RE AT WAR."
BUT THE GUY WHO PLANNED THE
WHOLE THING IS JUST A COMMON CRIMINAL.
WHAT A MISTAKE WE WOULD MAKE.
IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THIS
NATION HAVE A LEGAL SYSTEM
RECOGNIZES WE'RE AT WAR AND THAT
WE HAVE RULES TO PROTECT THIS
COUNTRY'S NATIONAL SECURITY
BALANCED AGAINST THE INTEREST OF
THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED
DETAINEE.
THE MILITARY COMMISSION FORUM
HAS CREATED THAT BALANCE.
IT IS A SYSTEM BUILT
A SYSTEM BUILT AROUND THE RULES
OF MILITARY LAW, A SYSTEM THAT
RECOGNIZES THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN A COMMON CRIMINAL AND A
WARRIOR, A SYSTEM THAT
UNDERSTANDS MILITARY
INTELLIGENCE IS DIFFERENT THAN
COMMON EVIDENCE.
IF WE DO NOT USE THAT SYSTEM FOR
THE GUY WHO PLANNED 9/11, WE
WILL ALL REGRET IT.
SO, MY AMENDMENT IS LIMITED IN SCOPE.
IT IS A CHANCE FOR YOU AS A
MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES
SENATE TO
YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN AS
THIS NATION MOVES FORWARD IN OUR
DESIRE TO CORRECT PAST MISTAKES
AND DEFEND THIS NATION WHO STILL
IS AT WAR
IT IS A CHANCE FOR YOU TO HAVE A
SAY ON BEHALF OF YOUR
CONSTITUENTS AS TO HOW THEY
WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS NATION
DEFEND ITSELF.
I WOULD ARGUE THAT
AMERICANS, NOT JUST THE 9/11
FAMILIES, WOULD BE VERY
CONCERNED TO LEARN THAT THE MAN
WHO PLANNED THE ATTACKS THAT
KILLED 3,000 OF OUR FELLOW
CITIZENS, WHO WOULD DO IT AGAIN
TOMORROW, IS GOING TO BE TREATED
THE SAME AS ANY OTHER CRIMINAL.
NO GOOD WILL COME FROM THAT.
YOU WILL HAVE COMPROMISED THIS
MILITARY COMMISSION SYSTEM
BEYOND REPAIR.
YOU WILL HAVE ADOPTED THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT MODEL THAT FAILED U BEFORE.
AND WE WILL NOT BE A BETTER
PEOPLE.
I, ALONG WITH SENATOR LEVIN,
AT GUANTANAMO BAY THE DAY THAT
SHEIKH MOHAMMED APPEARED BEFORE
THE COMBAT TRIBUNAL.
WE COULD LISTEN TO HIM ON A
MONITOR AND YOU COULD SEE HIM
AND HEAR THE CHAINS RATTLE NEXT
DOOR WHEN HE THE WENT THROUGH
GREAT DETAIL OF 9/11 AND ALL THE
OTHER ACTS OF TERRORISM THAT HE
PLANNED AGAINST OUR
I NEVER WILL FORGET WHEN HE TOLD
THE MILITARY JUDGE THAT HE WAS A
HIGH-RANKING COMMANDER IN THE AL
QAEDA MILITARY ORGANIZATION.
AND HE REALLY APPRECIATED BEING
REFERRED TO AS A MILITARY
COMMANDER.
SOME WOULD SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW,
YOU DON'T WANT TO
GUY.
WHAT I WOULD SAY IS YOU WANT TO
UNDERSTAND WHO HE IS.
IF YOU THINK HE'S A COMMON
CRIMINAL, NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY
OTHER PERSON WHO WANTS TO HURT
PEOPLE, YOU'VE MADE A MISTAKE.
KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED HAS BEEN
ON OUR DESTRUCTION.
HE DID NOT ATTACK US FOR
FINANCIAL GAIN.
HE ATTACKED US BECAUSE HE HATES
US.
HE'S EVERY BIT AS DANGEROUS AS
THE NAZIS.
THESE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE FIGHTING
ARE VERY, VERY DANGEROUS PEOPLE.
AND I AM INSISTENT THAT THEY GET
A TRIAL CONSISTENT WITH OUR
VALUES, THAT THEY DON'T GET
RAILROADED, THAT THEY GET A
CHANCE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND
THE MEDIA WILL SEE HOW THE TRIAL
UNFOLDS AND YOU CAN SEE MOST OF
IT, IF NOT ALL OF IT.
BUT I'M ALSO INSISTENT THAT WE
NOT TAKE OUR EYE OFF THE BALL
HERE.
IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE
WE'VE BEEN ATTACKED FOR MANY --
FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE THEY RELIVE
IT EVERY NIGHT.
THOSE WHO ARE ON FRONTLINES OF
9/11, IT
OVER AGAIN EVERY NHT OF THEIR
LIVES.
FOR THE REST OF US, PLEASE DO
NOT LOSE
THIS COUNTRY IS ENGAGED IN AN
ARMED CONFLICT WITH AN ENEMY
THAT KNOWS NO BOUNDARIES, HAS NO
ALLEGIANCE TO ANYTHING BEYOND
THEIR RADICAL RELIGION, AND ARE
CONSPIRING TO ATTACK US AS I
SPEAK.
WHEN WE TRY THEM, WE NEED TO
UNDERSTAND THAT THE TRIAL ITSELF
IS PART OF THE WAR EFFORT.
HOW WE DO THE TRIAL CAN MAKE US
SAFER OR IT CAN MAKE US WEAKER.
IF WE CRIMINALIZE THIS WAR IF WE
TAKE THE MAN WHO PLAN AND THE
ATTACKS OF 9/1 AND PUT HIM IN
CIVILIAN COURT, IT'S GOING TO BE
IMPOSSIBLE WITH A STRAIGHT FACE
TO TAKE SOMEBODY UNDER HIM AND
PUT HIM IN MILITARY COURT.
AND THE DAY YOU PUT HIM BACK IN
CIVILIAN KOWRT, YOU'RE GOING TO
-- COURT, YOU'RE GOING TO CREATE
THE PROBLEMS THAT JUDGE MUKASEY
WARNED US AGAINST, YOU'RE GOING
TO HAVE EVIDENCE COMPROMISED AND
YOU'RE GOING TO REGRET IT.
I HOPE TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
THE ADMINISTRATION TO FIND A WAY
TO CLOSE GUANTANAMO BAY TO
CREATE THE A TRANSPARENT LEGAL
SYSTEM THAT WILL ALLOW EVERY
DETAINEE THEIR DAY IN COURT, DUE
PROCS RIGHTS THEY DESERVE
BASED ON OUR LAW, NOT BASED ON
WH THEY'VE DONE, BUTASED ON
WHO WE ARE AS A PEOPLE.
AND THE 21st HIJACKER -- THE
20th HIJACKER SAID THIS IN
FEDERAL COURT, THEY HAD A --
VICTIMS WERE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY
ABOUT THE IMPACT OF 9/11.
THEY HAD A U.S. NAVY OFFICER
TALKING ABOUT BEING AT THE
PENTAGON AND THE IMPACT ON HIS
LIFE AND ON HIS FRIENDS.
AND DURING THE TESTIMONY, THE
OFFICER STARTED TO CRY.
AND HERE'S WHAT THE
SAID, MOUSSAOUI, THE 20th
HIJACKER, "I THINK IT WAS
DISGUSTING FOR A MILITARY PERSON
TO PRETEND THAT THEY SHOULD NOT
BE KILLED AS AN ACT OF WAR.
SHE IS MILITARY."
IT WAS A NAVY FEMALE OFFICER.
"SHE SHOULD EXPECT THE PEOPLE AT
WAR WITH HER WILL KILL HER.
" THIS IS THE 20th HIJACKER IN
COURT.
"I WILL NEVER CRY BECAUSE
AMERICAN BOMBED MY CAMP."
IF YOU'VE GOT ANY DOUBT THAT
WE'RE AT WAR, THE ONE THING YOU
OUGHT TO BE CERTAIN OF, THEY
HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THEY'RE AT
WAR WITH US.
THE ONE THING THAT THE MEN AND
WOMEN WHO GO OFF TO FIGHT THIS
WAR SHOULD EXPECT OF THEIR
GOVERNMENT AND OF THEIR CONGRESS
IS TO WATCH THEIR BACK THE BEST
WE CAN.
WE WOULD BE DOING THOSE MEN AND
WOMEN A GREAT DISSERVICE IF WE
PUT THE MASTERMIND OF 9/11, WHO
KILLED THE FRIENDS OF THIS NAVY
OFFICER IN A CIVILIAN COURT THAT
COULD LEAD TO COMPROMISING
EVENTS THAT WOULD MAKE THEIR JOB
HARDER.
DISSERVICE TO ACT ON
IF WE'RE NOT AT WAR.
SO, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE
SENATE, YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO
SPEAK.
YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO BE ON
RECORD FOR YOUR CONSTITUENTS TO
SEND A SIGNAL THAT NEEDS TO BE
SENT BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
AND HERE'S WHAT I WOULD ASK YOU
WE'RE AT WAR AND THAT THE LEGAL
SYSTEM THAT WE'RE GOING T
TO TRY
COUNTRY AND KILL 3,000 AMERICAN
CITIZENS SHOULD BE A MILITARY
LEGAL SYSTEM CONSISTENT WITH IT
BEING AT WAR.
I WILL NOT, WITH M
BACK TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
MODEL THAT JEOPARDIZED OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY BACK IN THE
1990'S.
I WILL INSIST THAT THESE
DETAINEES HAVE A FULL, FAIR
TRIAL, AND THEY BE TREATED
APPROPRIATELY.
BUT I WILL NOT, WITH MY VOTE,
TAKE THE MASTERMIND OF 9/11, THE
MAN WHO PLANNED THE
WOULD DO IT TOMORROW, AND GIVE
HIM THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS AS AN AVERAGE, EVERY DAY
AMERICAN IN A LEGAL SYSTEM
THAT'S NOT BUILT AROUND BEING AT
WAR.
IF YOU'LL SAY THAT, WE WILL GET
A GOOD OUTCOME.
IF YOU EQUIVOCATE WE'RE SLOWLY,
BUT SURELY, GOING TO CREATE A
LEGAL HODGEPODGE THAT WILL COM
WITH THAT, I YIELD. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENA
MR. LEAHY: MR. PRESIDENT, I TAKE
A DIFFERENT VIEW.
THE AMENDMENT THAT HAS BEEN
SPONSORED BY SENATOR GRAHAM,
SENATOR LIEBERMAN, SENATOR WEBB
IS WRONG.
IT'S UNNECESSARY.
IT WORKS AS THE -- AS SENATOR
GRAHAM JUST SAID, PROHIBIT THE
PROSECUTION OF ANY INDIVIDUAL
SUSPECTED INVOLVED WITH A
SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS OF THE
UNITED STATES BEING TRIED IN OUR ARTICLE 3 COURT.
THE IDEA THAT WE CAN'T TRY
TERRORIST AND MASS MURDER IN O
-- MURDERER IN OUR COURT IS
BENEATH THE DIGNITY AFTER GREAT COUNTRY.
TIMOTHY MCVEIGH, ONE OF THE
GREATEST MASS MURDERERS THIS
NATION HAS EVER KNOWN, HE HAD NO
-- WE HAD NO DIFFICULTY IN
TRYING HIM AND CONVICTING HIM
AND EXECUTING HIM USING OUR LAWS
AND OUR ARTICLE 3 COURTS.
THE AMENDMENT -- THE REAL REASON
OF THE AMENDMENT IS VERY CLEAR.
IT'S TO ENSURE THAT THE
DETAINEES BEING HELD AT
GUANTANAMO BAY, SOME OF WHO HAVE
BEEN HELD YEARS WITHOUT CHARGE,
CAN BE TRIED ONLY BY MILITARY
COMMISSIONS.
PROSECUTOR AND I FIND THAT VERY
TROUBLING THAT THE UNITE UNITED STATES
SENATE WOULD BE ASKED TO
PROHIBIT THE ADMINISTRATION FROM
EVEN TRYING -- OR FROM TRYING
FEDERAL COURTS.
THE SENATOR SHOULD NOT USE AN
AMENDMENT THAT, UNFORTUNATELY,
POLITICIZES DECISIONS ABOUT
SIGNIFICANT PROSECUTION AS A
BACKDOOR WAY COMMISSION.
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS WORKED
HARD TO
COISSION TO MAKE
MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL
STANDARDS, AND I APPLAUD HIM FOR THAT.
BUT THE U
WITH PROBLEMS AND REPEATEDLY
OVERTURNED BY A VERY
CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT.
IN CONTRAST, OUR FEDERAL COURTS
HAVE A LONG AND DISTINGUISHED
HISTORY OF SUCCESSFULLY
PROSECUTING EVEN THE MOST
ATROCIOUS, VIOLENT
HAVE THE EXPERIENCE OF DOING IT.
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, MR.
PRESIDENT, THEY'RE RESPECTED
THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
WE GO IN OUR FEDERAL COURTS, THE
REST OF THE WORLD CAN SAY, YOU
ARE FOLLOWING OVER 200 YEARS OF
JUDICIAL HISTORY OF T
STATES OF AMERICA.
AND WE GAIN RESPECT FOR THAT.
ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE
ADMINISTRATION STRONGLY OPPOSES
THIS AMENDMENT, THE SENATE
LEADERSHIP HAS A LETTER FROM
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT
GATES AND ERIC HOLDER, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED
STATES, SAYING THAT IT WOULD BE
UNWISE AND WOULD SET A DANGEROUS
PRECEDENT FOR CONGRESS TO
RESTRICT THE DISCRETION OF
EITHER THE DEPARTMENT --
PARTICULAR PROS KIEWSES.
THEY SAY DON'T -- PROSECUTIONS.
THEY SAY DON'T DO THIS.
THEY ALSO POINT OUT THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD PROHIBIT THEM
FROM BEING ABLE TO USE EVERY
LAWFUL POWER TO
TE
JUSTICE AND CAN NO LONGER
THREATEN AMERICAN LIVES.
IF WE REALLY WANT TO GET THE
TERRORISTS, WE REALLY WANT TO
MAKE
CRIME, WHY WOULD WE CUT
ANYONE OF THE AVENUES AVAILABLE
TO US?
I WOULD THINK IF WE REALLY WANT
TO GET THEM, WE WOULD WANT TO
HAVE
AVAILABLE TO
OFF.
TWO OF THE MOST SENIOR
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS, MEN
DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
DISPOSITION OF THESE DETAINEES
ARE TELLING US, DON'T TIE OUR
HANDS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM.
THIS SENATOR LISTENS TO THEM AND
I WISH OTHER SENATORS WOULD
LISTEN TO THEM.
AND THERE'S BEEN AN OUTPOURING
OF OPPOSITION AGAINST THIS
AMENDMENT.
LOOK AT THE GROUPS, HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST, NATIONAL INSTITUTION OF
MILITARY JUSTICE, CONSTITUTION
PROJECT, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL.
WE'VE ALSO SEEN A STRONG PUBLIC
DECLARATION SUPPORTING TRYING
TERRORISM OFFENSES IN FEDERAL --
IN FEDERAL COURT SIGNED BY A
BIPARTISAN GROUP OF PROMINENT
FORMER MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, AND
HIGH-RANKING MILITARY OFFICIALS
D JUDGES.
IN THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE WE HELD SEVERAL
HEARINGS ON THE ISSUE HOW BEST
HANDLE DETAINEES.
AND EXPERTS AND JUDGES ACROSS
THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM HAVE
AGREED THAT OUR COURTS AND OUR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM CAN
HANDLE THIS CHALLENGE, INDEED,
HAS HANDLED IT MANY TIMES ALREADY.
WE'RE THE MOST POWERFUL NATION
ON ERTSD.
WE'RE THE MOST TESTED COURT
SYSTEM ON EARTH.
ARE WE GOING TO
WITH ALL OF OUR POWER, WITH ALL
OF OUR HISTORY, WITH ALL OF OUR
JUDICIAL EXCELLENCE, WE'RE NOT
UP
PEOPLE -- I THINK IT'S JUST THE
OPPOSITE AN SAYING, YES, WE'RE
STRONG ENOUGH TO TRY THEM.
YES, WE HAVE THE LAWS THAT WE
CAN DO IT, YES, WE HAVE THE
ABILITY TO DO IT AND WE'LL DO IN
A WAY THAT WILL GAIN THE RESPECT
OF THE WHOLE WORLD.
THAT'S WHY REPUBLICAN HUMAN
ORDINARIES LIKE GENERAL COLLIN
POWELL HAVE AGREED WITH THE
IDEA.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TEND
JANUARY OF THIS YEAR ALONE, OVER
30 TERRORISM SUSPECTS HAVE BEEN
SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTED OR
SENTENCED IN FEDERAL COURTS.
INCLUDING INDIVIDUALS DIRECTLY
IMMIMPLICATED BY THIS AMENDMENT,
SUCH AS
IF THIS AMENDMENT WERE LAW AT
THE TIME MOUSSAOUI WAS BROUGHT
UP, THE SO-CALLED 20th
HIJACKER, A MAN DIRECTLY
INVOLVED IN THE PLANNING OF SEPTEMBER 11th, IF THIS
AMENDMENT HAD BEEN THE LAW AT
THAT TIME, WE WOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO TRY HIM
IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THANK
GOODNESS THIS AMENDMENT WASN'T
LAW AND WE
AND WHAT HAPPENED WHEN WE TRIED HIM?
HE WAS CONVICTED.
AND WHAT HAPPENED WHEN HE
CONVICTED?
HE WAS SENTENCED TO LIFE IN PRISON.
I KNOW THE TYPE OF CELL WHERE
HE'S GOING TO SPEND THE REST OF
HIS LIFE THINKING ABOUT WHAT HE
TRIED TO DO.
ARE WE GOING TO SAY THAT WE HAV
ANOTHER MOUSSAOUI -- SAY TO
MOUSSAOUI, SORRY, WE CAN'T TRY
YOU BECAUSE WE ARE AFRAID TO USE
OUR COURTS.
THIS AMEND
THE GREATEST TOOLS WE HAVE TO
PROTECT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY,
THE ABILITY TO PROSECUTE
SUSPECTS IN FEDERAL COURT.
INDEED, AS THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT HAS SAID IN ITS
OPPOTION TO THE GRAHAM
AMENDMEN
LIKELY THAT TERRORISTS
ESCAPE JUSTICE, NOT BE
CONVICTED.
I BELIEVE STRONGLY AS ALL
AMERICANS DO, OF COURSE WE
SHOULD TAKE ALL THE STEPS
POSSIBLE TO PREVENT TERRORISM.
OF COURSE WE SHOULD HAVE SEVERE
PUNISHMENT FOR THOSE WHO DO US HARM.
AS A FORMER PROSECUTOR, I MADE
CERTAIN THE PERPETRATORS OF
VIOLENT CRIMES RECEIVE SERIOUS PUNISHMENT.
I BELIEVED IN THAT.
I ALSO BELIEVE STRONGLY WE CAN
ENSURE OUR SAFETY AND SECURITY
AND BRING TERRORISTS TO JUSTICE
IN THE WAYS THAT ARE CONSISTENT
WITH THE LAWS AND THE VALUES OF
WHAT MAKE US A GREAT DEMOCRACY.
THE ADMINISTRATION SAID IT WAS POSSIBLE THEY WILL TRY
INDIVIDUALS IN FEDERAL COURTS.
WHEN WE UNNECESSARILY PREEMPT
THAT OPTION, WE'RE SAYING WE
DON'T TRUST THE LEGAL SYSTEM ON
WHICH WE HAVE RELIED FOR SO
LONG.
DO WE REALLY WANT TO SAY THAT,
MR. PRESIDENT, THAT WE DON'T
TRUST THE GREATEST LEGAL SYSTEM
IN THE WORLD?
ALL THAT DOES IS GIVE MORE
AMMUNITION TO OUR ENEMIES.
IT FURTHER HURTS OUR STANDING
AROUND THE WORLD.
A STANDING THAT HAS ALREADY
SUFFERED SO MUCH BY THE STAIN OF
GUANTANAMO BAY.
BUT IT ALSO SENDS A MESSAGE TO
OTHER COUNTRIES THAT THEY DON'T
HAVE TO USE TRADITIONAL LEGAL
REGIMES WITH ESTABLISHED PROTECTIONS FOR DEFENDANTS IF
THEY ARE PROSECUTING AMERICAN
SOLDIERS OR CIVILIANS.
HOW CAN WE GO TO THEM AND SAY
OH, YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW REGULAR
PROCEDURES?
THEY WILL SAY WHAT THE HECK, YOU
DON'T, YOU DON'T.
THEY WERE STRONG IN TRYING TO
HOLD UP THE CONFIRMATION OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER TO
EXTORT A PLEDGE FROM HIM.
THEY WOULD NOT EXERCISE
INDEPENDENT PROSECUTORIAL
JUDGMENT, SOMETHING THAT I HAVE
NEVER SEEN DONE BEFORE IN 35
YEARS HERE.
IT'S ALSO WRONG TO FORCE AN
AMENDMENT POLITICIZING
PROSECUTIONS IN THE COMMERCE-JUSTICE-SCIENCE
APPROPRIATIONS BILL.
I OPPOSED THE EFFORT BY SOME
REPUBLICAN SENATORS WHO WANTED
THE NATION'S CHIEF PROSECUTOR TO
AGREE IN ADVANCE TO TURN A BLIND
EYE TO POSSIBLE LAW BREAKING
BEFORE EVEN INVESTIGATING
WHETHER IT OCCURRED.
REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR SUCH A
PLEDGE.
SOMETHING NO PROSECUTOR SHOULD
GIVE.
TO HIS CREDIT, ERIC HOLDER NEVER
GAVE THAT PLEDGE.
YOU CAN'T DO THAT BEFORE YOU
LOOK AT A CASE, BEFORE YOU EVEN
DECIDE WHETHER A CRIME IS
COMMITTED, YOU HAVE TO PLEDGE
NOT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
IT'S KIND OF A DARK MARK ON THE
UNITED STATES SENATE WHEN YOU
HAVE ACTUALLY SENATORS SAYING I
WON'T VOTE FOR YOU UNLESS YOU
PROMISE YOU WON'T PROSECUTE
SOMEBODY.
IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT, THAT IN
ITSELF WOULD BE A CRIME.
PASSING A FAR-REACHING AMENDMENT
THAT TAKES AWAY A POWERFUL TOOL
FROM THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IN
BRINGING A TERRORIST TO JUSTICE
AND TAKES AWAY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S CONSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES ISN'T THE PATH
FOR IT.
ANY ADMINISTRATION SHOULD BE
ABLE TO DECIDE WHO TO PROSECUTE
AND THEN WHERE THEY SHOULD BE
PROSECUTED.
THIS ADMINISTRATION OR PAST
ADMINISTRATIONS.
THE AMENDMENT DENIES THE BENEFIT
OF BEING -- OF USING NOT ONLY
OUR FEDERAL COURTS WHICH HAVE A
SUCCESSFUL TRACK RECORD
CONVICTED OF TERRORISTS.
THAT'S SOMETHING THEY KEEP IN MIND.
THEY HAVE DONE IT.
BUT ALSO FROM USING OUR FEDERAL
LAWS WHICH ARE ARGUABLY MORE
EXPANSIVE AND BETTER SUITED FOR
USE IN TERRORISM CASES WITH A
NARROWER SET OF CHARGES THAT
COULD BE BROUGHT IN A MILITARY
COMMISON.
DON'T TIE THE HANDS OF OUR LAW
ENFORCEMENT IN THEIR EFFORTS TO
SECURE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.
I TRUST OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO
DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO.
ANY FORMER PROSECUTOR, NOT JUST
THIS FORMER PROSECUTOR, BUT ANY
FORMER PROSECUTOR, ANY LAWYER,
ANY CITIZEN.
IT'S NOT THE DECION OR THE
APPROPRIATE ROL FOR THE UNITED
STATES SENATE TO TIE THE HANDS
OF LAW ENFORCEMENT THIS WAY.
IT'S TIME TO ACT ON OUR
PRINCIPLES AND OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM.
THOSE WHO WE BELIEVE TO BE
GUILTY OF HEINOUS CRIMES SHOULD
BE TRIED, AND THEN WHEN
CONVICTED, PUNISHED SEVERELY.
WHERE THE ADMINISTRATION HAS
DECIDED TO TRY THEM IN FEDERAL
COURTS, OUR COURTS, OUR PRISONS
ARE MORE THAN UP TO THE TASK.
I AGREE WITH THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT THIS AMENDME WOULD
ENSURE THAT THE ONLY INDIVIDUALS
IN THE WORLD WHO COULD NOT BE
PROSECUTED UNDER THE CRIMINAL
TERRORIST OFFENSES CONGRESS HAS
ENACTED WOULD BE THOSE WHO ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MOST
DEVASTATING TERRORIST ACTSN
U.S. HISTORY.
JUST THINK ABOUT THAT.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD SAY THAT
THE ONLY PEOPLE IN THE WHOLE
WORLD WHO COULD NOT BE
PROSECUTED UNDER OUR CRIMINAL
TERRORIST OFFENSES ARE THE
PEOPLE WHO COMMITTED THE MOST
DEVASTATING TERRORIST ACTS
AGAINST US.
THAT'S ALICE IN WONDERLAND JUSTICE.
IT MAKES NO SENSE TO SAY THAT WE
HAVE THESE TOUGH TERRORIST LAWS,
WE HAVE THE BEST JUDICIAL SYSTEM
IN THE WORLD, BUT THOSE OF YOU
WHO COMMITTED THESE TERRORIST
ACTS AGAINST US, WE JUST SET
THEM ASIDE AND YOU CAN'T BE
TRIED THERE.
IT MAKES NO SENSE.
SO LET US PUT ASIDE HEATED AND
DISTORTED RHETORIC.
LET'S SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT, HIS
EFFORTS TO TRULY MAKE OUR
COUNTRY SAFE AND STRONG, BUT
ALSO A REPUBLIC WORTHY OF THE
HISTORY AND
MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE
FLOOR.
MR. LEVIN: MADAM PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN.
MR. LEVIN: MADAM PRESIDENT, I
VERY MUCH OPPOSE THE GRAHAM
AMENDMENT, AND I WANT TOAKE A
FEW MINUTES AND EXPLAIN WHY.
IT'S BEEN ARGUED THAT WE'RE AT
WAR, AND INDEED WE ARE.
I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING
CLEARER THAT ANY OF US UNDERSTAND IN THIS COUNTRY THAN
WE ARE AT WAR.
BEING AT WAR, IT TOTALLY
MYSTIFIES ME WHY WE WOULD DENY
OURSELVES ONE OF THE TOOLS THAT
WE CAN USE AGAINST PEOPLE WHO
ARE ATTACKING US, WHO HAVE
ATTACKED US, WHO WILL ATTACK US,
WHO WILL KILL US, WHO KILL
INNOCENT PEOPLE.
WHY WE WOULD DENY OURSELVES ONE
OF THE TOOLS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE
TO TRY THESE PEOPLE, TO LOCK
THEM UP
AWAY THE KEY, WHY WE WOULD BY
LAW SAY THAT THESE PARTICULAR
GROUP OF PEOPLE
IN A FEDERAL COURT, THEY CAN
ONLY BE TRIED IN A MILITARY
COMMISSION, WHEN WE HAVE TRIED
SO MANY TERRORISTS IN COURT,
CONVICTED THEM, EXECUTED THEM,
IS SOMETHING THAT I DO UNDERSTAND.
I BELIEVE WE OUGHT TO NOT ONLY
THROW THE BOOK AT THESE PEOPLE,
I THINK WE OUGHT TO THROW BOTH
BOOKS AT THESE PEOPLE.
WHY LIMIT OURSELVES TO ONE BOOK,
THE BOOK
PROCEDURES FOR MILITARY COMMISSIONS?
WHY WOULD WE DENY OURSELVES THE
OPPORTUNITY IF IT'S MORE
EFFECTIVE FOR WHATEVER REASONS
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
DETERMINES TO BE MORE EFFECTIVE
TO PROSECUTE IN
WHY WOULD WE DENY THEM THAT?
FACT, UNDER THIS AMENDMENT,
THEY COULD NOT EVEN CONTINUE THE
PROSECUTION THAT THEY HAD BEGUN.
THE LANGUAGE OF T
SAYS EITHER TO COMMENCE OR
CONTINUE THE PROSECUTION IN AN
ARTICLE 3 COURT.
SO THE QUESTION ISN'T WHETHER
THESE ARE THE MOST DANGEROUS
PEOPLE AROUND. THEY ARE.
I ALSO WENT DOWN TO GUANTANAMO.
I WENT WITH SENATOR GRAHAM, AND
WE WATCHED THE PROCEEDING
AGAIT KHALID SHEIKH MUHAMMAD.
I WANT US TO USE ALL OF THE TOOLS.
I WANT THEM ALL TO BE AVAILABLE.
I WANT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO
BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHICH IS
MORE
TO DECIDE IN A POLITICAL
SETTING, IN A LEGISLATIVE
SETTING THAT THEY CANNOT USE
OF THE TOOLS WHICH HAS BEEN
PROVEN TO BE EFFECTIVE AGAINST
DOZENS OF TERRORISTS.
NOW, WHAT ABOUT THE LAW OF WAR
WHAT ABOUT WAR CRIMES?
THE ARGUMENT IS THESE ARE WAR
CRIMES.
AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THEY
ARE CRIMES, THEY ARE WAR CRIMES, BOTH.
WAR CRIMES CAN BE PROSECUTED IN
AN ARTICLE
NOW, LET ME REPEAT THAT BECAUSE
THE ARGUMENT HERE IS THESE ARE
WAR CRIMES.
WAR CRIMES CAN BE PROSECUTED IN
AN ARTICLE 3 COURT UNDER OUR
LAWS THAT WE'VE ADOPTED ABOUT
TEN OR 15 YEARS AGO.
SOCHA LID SHEIKH MUHAMMAD
NEEDS -- SOHALID SHEIKH
MUHAMMAD NEEDS TO BE GIVEN
JUSTICE, HE NEEDS TO BE DEALT
WITH AS STRONGLY AS WE POSSIBLY
CAN AND AS EFFECTIVELY AS WE POSSIBLY CAN.
HE WAS THE MASTERMIND, I
BELIEVE, OF 9/11, AND I DON'T
THINK THERE'S A MEMBER OF THIS
BODY THAT WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE
HIM DEALT WITH AS STRONGLY AS IS
POSSIBLY -- CAN BE POSSIBLY DONE.
I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD TELL
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT THAT THEY
ONLY CAN CONSIDER ONE OF THE TWO
TOOLS THAT THEY COULD
AGAINST HIM.
THEY ONLY CAN CONSIDER THE
MILITARY COMMISSIONS.
THEY CAN'T CONSIDER ARTICLE 3
COURTS.
NOW, I HAVE BEEN DEEPLY INVOLVED
IN REWRITING THE MILITARY
COMMISSIONS LAW.
THAT LAW WHEN WE FIRST WROTE I
WAS DEFECTIVE AND I ARGUED
DEFECTIVE.
THIS BODY ADOPTED IT.
THAT'S THE WAY THINGS WORK.
THE MAJORITY DECIDED TO GO WITH
IT.
IT WAS NOT USABLE.
AND SO WE TOOK A MAJOR STEP IN
THE LAST FEW MONTHS TO REVISE
THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS LAW,
AND I LED THAT OR
THAT EFFORT, AND I KNOW HOW
IMPORTANT IT IS, BUT IT WAS
NEVER OUR INTENT TO MAKE THAT
THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR PEOPLE
WHO WOULD ATTACK US OR ATTACK THIS COUNTRY.
WE WANT THAT REMEDY TO BE
AVAILABLE IF THAT IS THE MOST
EFFECTIVE REMEDY, BUT THERE IS
NOTHING IN THAT LAW THAT WE
WROTE OR INTENDED THAT SAID THAT
THIS WOULD DISPLACE ARTICLE 3
COURTS IF THE JUSTICE D
DECIDED THAT THE MOST EFFECTIVE
PLACE TO TRY AN ALLEGED
TERRORIST WAS AN ARTICLE 3 COURT.
ARE
ARE WE GOING TO ACTUALLY BE ON
THE FLOOR OF THE U.S. SENATE AND
WE'RE GOING TO DECIDE WHICH
TERR
ARTICLE 3 COURTS AND WHICH ONE
SHOULD BE TRIED IN MILITARY
COMMISSIONS COURT?
WHY WOULD WE TIE THE HANDS OF
THE JU
WAY?
I KNOW THAT SENATOR GRAHAM FEELS
VERY STRONGLY THAT THESE SHOULD
BE TRIED IN FRONT OF MILITARY
COMMISSIONS, AND IF HE WERE THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OR IF HE WERE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, HE MAY
MAKE THAT DECISION, ASSUMING HE
KNOWS ALL OF T FACTS THAT GO
INTO THE DECISION.
HE MAY MAKE THAT DECISION, AND
HE COULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND IT
TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.
BUT WHY HE WOULD WANT OR WE
WOULD DECIDE TO DISPLACE THE
DISCRETION OF THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT IS A MYSTERY TO ME.
I FIND
MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND THE SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FIND IT UNACCEPTABLE.
THEY HAVE URGED US NOT TO DO
THIS.
THEY HAVE WRITTEN OUR LEADERS,
SENATOR REID, SENATOR
McNNELL, OPPOSING THE GRAHAM AMENDMENT.
THEY SAY HERE IN THEIR LETTER
THAT THERE IS A JOINT
PROSECUTION PROTOCOL THAT THE
DEPARTMENTS ARE CURRENTLY
ENGAGED IN A CAREFUL CASE BY
CASE EVALUATION OF THE CASES OF
THE GUANTANAMO DETAINEES WHO
HAVE BEEN REFERRED FOR POSSIBLE
PROSECUTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER
THEY SHOULD BE PROSECUTED IN AN
ARTICLE 3 COURT OR BY MILITARY COMMISSION.
WE ARE CONFIDENT, THEY SAY, THAT
THE FORUM SELECTION DECISIONS
THAT ARE MADE PURSUANT TO THAT
PROCESS WILL BEST SERVE OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS. NOW, THAT'S THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
CAN WE TRULY HERE SAY THAT WE
ARE GOING TO DISPLACE THAT
PROCESS WHICH WILL DETERMINE
WHAT IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY
TO PROSECUTE TSE PEOPLE?
CAN WE AND SHOULD WE DO THAT?
I HOPE NOT.
IN THE END, BY SAYING THE
FOLLOWING IN THEIR LETTER -- AND
THEY END BY SAYING THE FOLLOWING
IN THEIR LETTER OF OCTOBER 30 --
"THE EXERCISE OF PROSECUTORIAL
FUNCTION SHOULD BE AND ALWAYS
REMAIN A PROSECUTORIAL FUNCTION.
WE MUST BE IN A POSITION TO USE
EVERY LAWFUL INSTRUMENT OF
NATIONAL POWER, INCLUDING BOTH
COURTS AND MILITARY COMMISSIONS
TO ENSURE THAT TERRORISTS ARE
BROUGHT TO ENOUGH AND CAN NO
LONGER THREATEN AMERICAN LIVES."
IF WE ADOPT THE GRAHAM
AMENDMENT, WE'RE SAYING NO,
WE'RE ONLY GOING TO USE ONE
INSTRUMENT OF NATIONAL POWER.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO CONSIDER BOTH
INSTRUMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER.
AND THAT IS TRULY NOT ONLY
LIMITING OUR OPTIONS, BUT TYING
ONE OF OUR HANDS BEHIND OUR BACK
IN THE ESSENTIAL PROSECUTION OF
THESE PEOPLE.
MADAM
MOUSSAOUI, THE SO-CALLED 20th
HIJACKER, WAS CONVICTED IN
FEDERAL COURT IN MAY OF 2006 FOR
CONSPIRING TO HIJACK THE
AIRCRAFT AND CRASH THEM INTO THE
WORLD TRADE CENTER.
HE WAS QUOTED BY SENATOR GRAHAM
AS SAYING THAT WE'RE AT WAR WITH
YOU PEOPLE, AND I DON'T HAVE THE
SLIG
IT, AND IF HE WERE EVER
RELEASED, HE WOULD GO BACK TO
WAR, BUT I ALSO HAVE NO DOUBT
ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE -- HE WAS
SAYING THAT IN A FEDERAL COURT
AFTER BEING CONVICTED IN A
FEDERAL COURT OF THE TERRORIST
ACTS THAT HE PERPETRATED.
HE IS NOW IN A SUPERMAX FACILITY
IN FLORENCE, COLORADO.
HE'S SERVING LIFE IMPRISONMENT
WITHOUT PAROLE.
IF THE GRAHAM AMENDMENT HAD BEEN
IN PLACE AT THE TIME
MOUSSAOUI WAS BEING PROSECUTED
-- INDEED, IF THE GRAHAM
AMENDMENT HAD COME IN THE MIDDLE
OF THAT PROSECUTION, THE
PROSECUTION WOULD HAVE HAD TO
HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED.
NOW, THIS AMENDMENT, IF IT IS
ADOPTED, IS GOING TO MAKE IT
MORE DIFFICULT TO BRING SOME OF
THE 9/11 TERRORISTS TO JUSTICE.
LET ME SHARE SOME OF THE REASONS
WHY THIS POSSIBILITY EXISTS.
A COURT COULD DECIDE THAT ONE OF
THE 9/11 DETAINEES DOES NOT MEET
THE TEST UNDER THE MILITARY
COMMISSION'S LAW OF BEING AN
UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENT.
IN PARTICULAR, A COURT COULD
DECIDE THAT ONE OF THE 9/11
TERRORISTS -- ALLEGED TERRORISTS
-- DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN AN
HOSTILITY AND, THEREFORE, WAS
NOT SUBJECT -- A BELLIGERENT
SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF WAR.
AND SO WE'RE SAYING TO THE
JUSTICE PARTMENT, IF YOU SEE
THAT POSSIBILITY THAT SOMEONE
COULD BE LET OUT OR SOMEBODY
COULD BE FOUND NOT G
ON THAT KIND OF A TECHNICALITY,
WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET YOU GO
AND TRY THAT PERSONA FEDERAL
COURT.
YOU MUST TRY THAT
TECHNICALITY.
WHY DO WE WANT TO DO THAT?
HOW CAN WE
REACH JUDGMENT ON ALL OF THE
POSSIBLE FACTUAL SITUATIONS
WHICH MIGHT ALLOW ONE OF THESE
PEOPLE TO ESCAPE JUSTICE?
WE CAN'T DO THAT.
THAT'S WHAT PROSECUTORS ARE FOR.
THAT'S WHAT A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS FOR.
WE SHOULD BE GIVING THEM TOOLS,
NOT DENYING THEM TOOLS.
WE SHOULD BE HANDING THEM EVERY
POSSIBLE TOOL WE CAN GIVE THEM
TO PROSECUTE THESE PEOPLE
INSTEAD OF SAYING, YOU CAN'T USE
THIS TOOL OR YOU CAN'T USE THAT
TOOL.
A COURT COULD DECIDE THAT THE
CRIMES COMMITTED BY ONE OF THE
9/11 DETAINEES IS NOT JUST
TICI UNDER THE MILITARY
COMMISSIONS ACT.
THEREFORE, WE'RE GOING TO SAY,
YOU GOT TO PROSECUTE THEM THERE
ANYWAY.
UNDER THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS
ACT CANNOT BE RETROACTIVELY
APPLIED TO AN OFFENSE.
IT TOOK PLACE BEFORE THE
ENACTMENT OF THE ACT.
IN OUR LANGUAGE, THEY CAN BE
TRIED, EVEN THOUGH IT IS A
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.
WHAT HAPPENS IF THAT OCCURS AND
THEN A COURT COMES ALONG AND
SAYS- A COURT OF APPEALS
FOLLOWING A MILITARY COMMISSION
SAYS, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT?
WHY WOULD WE NOT WANT THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO BE
WEIGH ALL OF THESE POSSIBLE
ESCAPE LOOPHOLES THAT A
DEFENDANT COULD USE AND DECIDE
THAT THEY'VE GOT A BETTER CHANCE
OF CONVICTING SOMEBODY AND
MAKING THAT CONVICTION STICK IF
THEY PROCEED IN AN ARTICLE 3
COURT?
AND MAYBE THE PROCEDURAL RIGHTS
WHICH WE HAVE WRITTEN IN OUR
MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT, WHICH
IS NOWAW, MAYBE A COURT WILL
DETERMINE THEY ARE NOT ADEQUATE.
MAYBE THEY'LL THROW OUT THE
ENTIRE PROCESS, DESPITE OUR BEST
EFFORTS TO CORRECT WHAT WE
PREVIOUSLY
WE SHOUL NOT PRESUME THE
OUTCOME OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS
AND THR
MAY BE NEEDED TO BRING THE 9/11
TERRORISTS TO JUSTICE.
WE SHOULD NOT BE TYIN
OF OUR PROSECUTORS AGAINST THESE
PEOPLE.
PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION IS ONE
OF THE CORNERSTONES OF THE
AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
IT IS WRONG FOR US TO BE
LIMITING THAT DISCRETION BY
DIRECTING CASES TO A PARTICULAR FORUM.
IT DENIES OUR PROSECUTORS THE
ABILITY TO CHOOSE THE FORUM THAT
IS BEST SUITED TO A
OUTCOME IN THE CASE.
THE MECHANISM OF CUTTING OFF
FUNDS FOR A PROSECUTION -- WHICH
IS WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES --
BECAUSEONGRESS BELIEVES THAT A
PROSECUTION SHOULD TAKE PLACE IN
ONE FORUM OR ANOTHER WOULD SET A
TERRIBLE PRECEDENT.
WE SHOULD NOT BE INTERVENING IN
THAT KIND OF DECISIONS THROUGH
THE APPROPRIATIONS ACT.
SO THE DETERMINATION OF THE
PROPER FORUM FOR THE TRIAL OF
9/11 TERRORISTS SHOULD BE MADE
BY THE PROFESSIONAL PROSECUTORS,
BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE A
TO WHERE IS
GAIN A SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION.
THESE CASES -- WE SHOULD NOT
DECIDE WHERE THESE CASES ARE
I DON'T BELIEVE WE SHOULD
PRESUME THAT THEY'LL BE TRIED IN
ONE PLACE OR ANOTHER.
THERE IS A PROCESS UNDERWAY,
INCLUDING BOTH DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT AND THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT TO MAKE A
BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE PLACE TO
TRY THESE TERRORISTS.
AND SO, THAT IS THE APPROPRIATE
PROCESS, AND WE OUGHT TO LET IT
CONTINUE WITHOUT THIS
INTERVENTI BY THE SENATE.
I YIELD THE FLOOR AND NOTE THE
ABSENCE OF A QUORUM. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN.
MR. LEVIN: MADAM PRESIDENT, I
WOULD ASK FURTHER PROCEEDIN
UNDER THE QUORUM CALL BE
DISPENSED WITH. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. LEVIN: AND I WOULD ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSE
PRESIDENT, THAT THE LETTER FROM
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TO SENATORS
REID AND McCONNELL BE INSERTED
IN THE RECORD AT THE END OF THE
MY STATEMENT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. LEVIN: I NOW NOTE
ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE PRESIDING
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
MR. McCONNELL: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
MINORITY MR. McCONNELL: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT
UNDER THE QUORUMMING DISPENSED
WITH. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. McCONNELL: MADAM
PRESIDENT, MOST AMERICANS
RECOGNIZE THAT OUR CONTINUED
SUCCESS IN PREVENTING ANOTHER
TERRORIST ATTACK ON U.S. SOIL
DEPENDS ON OUR ABILITY AS A
NATION TO REMAIN VIGILANT AND CLEAREYED ABOUT THE NATURE OF
THE THREATS WE FACE AT HOME AND
ABROAD.
SOME THREATS COME IN THE FORM O
TERRORIST CELLS IN DISTANT
COUNTRIES.
OTHERS COME FROM PEOPLE PLOTTING
ATTACKS WITHIN OUR OWN BORDERS.
AND STILL OTHERS CAN COME FROM A
FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN EVERYDAY
CRIMES AND WAR CRIMES.
THIS LAST CATEGORY OF THREAT IS
EXTREMELY SERIOUS BUT SOMETIMES
OVERLOOKED.
AND THAT'S WHY SENATORS GRAHAM,
LIEBERMAN AND McCAIN HAVE
OFFERED AN AMENDMENT TO THE
COMMERCE-JUSTICE-SCIENCE
APPROPRIATIONS
REASSURE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
THAT THE SENATE HASN'T TAKEN ITS
EYE OFF THE BALL.
THE AMENDMENT IS SIMPLE AND
STRAIGHTFORWARD.
IT EXPLICITLY PROHIBI
THE TERRORISTS WHO WERE INVOLVED
IN THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001,
ATTACKS FROM APPEARING FOR TRIAL
IN A CIVILIAN U.S. COURTROOM.
INSTEAD, IT WOULD REQUIRE THE
GOVERNMENT TO USE MILITARY
COMMISSIONS -- THAT THE COURTS
PROPER FOR WAR -- FOR TRYING
THESE INDIVIDUALS.
BY REQUIRING THE GOVERNMENT TO
USE MILITARY COMMISSIONS, THE
SUPPORTERS OF THIS AMENDMENT ARE
REAFFIRMING TWO THINGS.
FIRST, THAT THESE MEN SHOULD
HAVE A FAIR TRIAL AND, SEC
WE ARE WE'RE REAFFIRMING WHAT
AMERICAN HISTORY HAS ALWAYS
SHOWED: , NAMELY, THAT WAR
CRIMES AND COMMON CRIMES ARE TO
BE
AND THAT MILITARY COURTS ARE THE
PROPER FORUM FOR PROSECUTING
TERRORISTS.
SOME MIGHT ARGUE THAT TERRORISTS
LIKE ZAC
THE 9/11 CONSPIRATORS, AREN'T
ENEMY COMBATANTS.
THAT THEY ARE SOMEHOW ON THE
SAME LEVEL AS A CONVENIENCE
STORE STICKUP MAN.
BUT LISTEN TO THE WORDS OF
MOUSSAOUI HIMSELF.
HE ACTUALLY DISAGREES WITH THAT.
ASKED IF HE GREETED HIS PART IN
THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS, HE
SAID -- QUOTE -- "I JUST WISH IT
WOULD HAPPEN ON
13th, 14th, 15th, 16th,
AND THE 17th AND ON AND ON."
HE
HE WAS TO LEARN OF THE DEATH OF
AMERICAN SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN IN
THE PENTAGON ON 9/11 AND THEN HE
MOCKED AN OFFICER FOR WEEPING
ABOUT THE LOSS OF MEN UNDER HER
COMMAND SAYING, "I THINK IT WAS
DISGUSTING FOR A MILITARY PERSON
TO PRETEND THAT THEY SHOULD NOT
BE KILLED AS AN ACT
SHE IS MILITARY. SHE SHLD EXPECT THAT PEOPLE
WHO ARE AT WAR WITH HER WILL TRY
TO KILL HER.
I WILL NEVER CRY BECAUSE AN
AMERICAN BOMBED MY CAMP."
NOW, THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT
MOUSSAOUI HIMSELF BELIEVES HE'S
AN ENEMY COMBATANT ENGAGED IN A
WAR AGAINST US.
THE SENATE HAS ALSO MADE ITSELF
CLEAR ON
CONGRESS CREELTED THE MILITARY
COMMISSION SYSTEM -- CONGRESS
CREATED THE MITARY COMMISSION
SYSTEM THREE YEARS AGO HON A
BIPARTISAN BASIS, PRECISELY TO
DEAL WITH PROSECUTIONS OF
AL QAEDA TERRORISTS
WITH U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY,
WITH THE EXPECTATION -- THE FULL
EXPECTATION -- THAT THEY BE USED
FOR THAT PURPOSE.
THE SENATE REAFFIRMED THIS VIEW
TWO YEARS AGO WHEN IT VOTED 94-3
AGAINST TRANSFERRING DETAINEES
FROM GUANTANAMO STATESIDE,
INCLUDING THE 9/11
WE REAFFIRMED IT EARLIER THIS
YEAR WHEN WE VOTED 90-6 AGAINST
USING ANY FUNDS FROM THE WAR
SUPPLEMENTAL TO TRANSFER ANY OF
THE GUANTANAMO DETAINEES TO THE
UNITED STATES.
AND JUST THIS SUMMER, THE SENATE
REAFFIRMED THAT MILITARY
COMMISSIONS ARE THE PROPER FORUM
FOR BRINGING ENEMY COMBATANTS TO
JUSTICE WHEN WE APPROVED WITHOUT
OBJECTION AN AMENDMENT TO THAT
EFFECT AS PART OF THE DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION BILL.
FURTHER, OUR PAST EXPERIENCE
WITH TERROR TRIALS IN CIVILIAN
COURTS HAV CLEARLY BEEN SHOWN
TO UNDERMINE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.
DURING THE TRIAL OF RAMSEY
USELF, MASTERMIND OF THE FIRST
TRADE CENTER BOMBING, WE SAW HOW
A SMALL BIT OF TESTIMONY ABOUT A
CELL PHONE BATTERY WAS ENOUGH TO
TIP OFF TERRORISTS AT ONE OF
THEIR KEY COMMUNICATION LINKS
HAD BEEN COMPROMISED.
WE SAW HOW THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTION OF THE BLIND SHEIKH,
ABDUL RACKMAN INADVERTENTLY
PROVIDED A RICH SOURCE OF
INTELLIGENCE TO OSAMA BIN LADEN
AHD OF THE 9/11 ATTACKS.
AND IN THAT CASE, WE REMBER
THAT RACKMAN'S LAWYER WAS
CONVICTED OF SMUGGLING ORDERS TO
HIS TERRORIST DISIEPLESS.
WE ALSO SAW HOW THE TRIAL OF
ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI RESULTED IN
THE LEAK OF SENSITIVE
INFORMATION AND WE SAW HOW THE
TRIALS OF THE EAST AFRICAN
EMBASSY BOMBERS COMPROMISED
INTELLIGENCE METHODS TO THE
BENEFIT OF OSAMA BIN LADEN.
NOW, THE ADMINISTRATION CALLS
THESE PROSECUTIONS "SUCCESSFUL."
BUT GIVEN THE LOSS OF SENSITIVE
INFORMATION THAT RESULTED,
FORMER FEDERAL JUDGE AND
ATTORNEY GENERAL MICHAEL MUKASEY
HAS NOTED -- QUOTE -- "THERE ARE
MANY WORDS ONE MIGHT USE TO
DESCRIBE HOW THESE EVENTS
UNFOLD.
'SUCCESSFULLY' IS NOT AMONG THEM."
TRYING TERRORIST SUSPECTS IN
CIVILIAN COURTS IS ALSO A GIANT
HEADACHE FOR COMMUNITIES.
JUST LOOK AT THE EXPERIENCE OF
ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA, DURING THE
MOUSSAOUI TRIAL.
AS POINTED OUT BEFORE, PARTS OF
ALEXANDRIA BECAME A VIRTUAL
ENCAMPMENT EVERY TIME MOUSSAOUI
WAS MOVED TO THE COURTHOUSE.
THOSE WERE THE PROBLEMS WE SAW
IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA WHEN JUST
ONE TERRORIST WAS TRIED IN A
CIVILIAN COURT.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO ALEXANDRIA,
NEW YORK CITY, OR OTHER CITIES
IF SEVERAL TERRORISTS ARE TRIED THERE?
YOU CAN IMAGINE.
IT'S BECAUSE OF DANGERS AND
DIFFICULTIES LIKE THESE ARE THAT
WE ESTABLISHED THE MILITARY
COMMISSIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS NOW
REWRITTEN THE MILITARY COMMISSION PROCEDURES PRECISELY
TO ITS LIKING.
IF WE CAN'T EXPECT THE VERY
PEOPLE WHO MASTERMIND THE 9/11
ATTACKS AND WENT TO WAR WITH US
TO FALL WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
OF THESE MILITARY COURTS, THEN
WHO CAN WE EXPECT TO FALL WITHIN
THE JURISDICTION OF THESE
MILITARY COURTS?
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE MADE
THEMSELV
THEY DON'T WANT GUANTANAMO
TERRORISTS BROUGHT TO THE U.S.
AND THEY
THE MEN WHO PLANNED THE 9/11
ATTACKS ON AMERICA TO BE TRIED
IN CIVIL CAN COURTS.
-- I
RISKING NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE
PROCESS.
CONGRESS CREATED MILITARY
COMMISSIONS FOR A REASON.
BUT IF THE ADMINISTRATION FAILS
TO USE MILITARY COMMISSIONS FOR
SELF-AVOWED COMBATANTS LIKE
KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED, THEN IT
IS WASTING THIS TIME HONORED AND
ESSENTIAL TOOL IN THE WAR ON
TERROR.
I WOULD ASK THE OPPONENTS OF THE
GRAHAM AMENDMENT THE FOLLOWING:
WHAT MATERIAL BENEFIT -- WHAT
MATERIAL BENEFIT IS DERIVED BY
BRINGING AVOWED FOREIGN WANTS
LIKE K.S.M., INTO A CIVILIAN
COURT AND GIVING THEM ALL THE
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES AFTER
UNITED STATES CITIZEN?
AND WHY SHOULD WE FURTHER HE
DELAY JUSTICE FOR THE FAMILIES
OF THE VICTIMS OF 9/11?
THIS AMENDMENT, BY SENATORS
GRAHAM, LIEBERMAN AND McCAIN,
GIVE US ALL AN OPPORTUNITY TO
EXPRESS OURSELVES ONE MR TIME ON
THIS VITAL -- ONE MORE TIME ON
THIS VITAL ISSUE.
THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER WE
CAN PRY TERRORISTS IN CIVILIAN
COURT, THE QUESTION IS SHOULD WE?
THE ANSWER IS PERFECTLY CLEAR.
THE RIGHT FORUM FOR BRINGING WAR
CRIMINALS TO JUSTICE IS IN
MILITARY COMMISSIONS AT THE
SECURE FACILITY WE ALREADY HAVE
AT GUANTANAMO.
NOT -- I REPEAT NOT IN CIVILIAN
COURTS IN U.S. CMUNITIES.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I Y
FLOOR.
A SENATOR: MADAM PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDIN
SENATORROM VE FROM VIRGINIA.
MR. WEBB: MADAM PRESIDENT, I
SOMEWHAT WITH SOME REGRET,
BECAUSE I'M IN CONTRADICTION
WITH OUR PRESIDENT AND MANY
MEMBERS OF OUR OWN CAUCUS, AM A
CO-SPONSOR OF THE GRAHAM AMENDMENT.
AND I HAVE NO REGRETS ABOUT
CO-SPONSORING THE AMENDMENT.
I DO REGRET THAT I AM IN
CONTRADICTION WITH THE -- WITH A
NUMBER OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THIS
SIDE ON IT.
I BELIEVE THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE AMENDMENT.
I BELIEVE IT IS THE BEST WAY FOR
US TO MOV FORWARD IN TERMS OF
ATTEMPTING TO BRING SOME SORT OF
SOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO THOSE
WHO ARE DETAINED IN GUANTANAMO.
I WOULD START BY SAYIN THAT I
HAVE CONSISTENTLY ARGUED THAT
THE APPROPRIATE VENUE FOR TRYING
PERPETRATORS OF INTERNATIONAL
TERRORISM, WHO ARE, IN FACT,
ENEMY COMBATANTS, IS A MILITARY
TRIBUNAL.
ONE OF MY PRIMARY FOCUSES IN MY
TIME IN THE SENATE IS TO WORK
TOWARD A FAIR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM HERE IN
THE UNITED STATES.
AS ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES KNOW, WE
HAVE AN -- AN ENORMOUS BACKLOG
IN MANY OF
NOW OUR PRISONS ARE OVERCROWDED.
WE HAVE 2.38 MILLION PEOPLE IN
PRISON RIGHT NOW.
SEVEN MILLION PEOPLE INSIDE THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.
THE PROCESS OF TRYING ENEMY
COMBATANTS INUR ALREADY
OVERBURDENED DOMESTIC COURTS, ON
THE ONE HAND, IS NOT REALLY
NECESSARY AND OR THE OTHER WOULD
INTRODUCE MAJOR LOGJAMS AN WORK
AGAINST OUR -- AND WORK AGAINST
OUR GOAL OF OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM.
AS SOMEONE WHO HAS SERVED IN
MILITARY, HAS SPENT FIVE YEARS
IN THE PENTAGON AND IS
PRIVILEGED TO SERVE IN THIS
BODY, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT
IN MY VIEW THE GUANTANAMO BAY
DETAINEE SITUATION IS
CHALLENGING, IT'S COMPLICATED,
IT INVOLVES BALANCING AN ENTIRE
HOST OF CONSIDERATIONS,
INCLUDING NATIONAL SECURITY,
CONSTIONAL DUE PROCESS
REQUIREMENTS, INTERNATIONAL LAW,
PROCEDURAL AND PRACTICAL
CONSIDERATIONS AND THE
RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY
OF ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.
GIVEN THE COMPLICATED NATURE OF
THIS SITUATION, I BELIEVE IT'S
VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH A CAREFUL AND
CONSIDERED APPROACH.
THESE ARE AMONG THE
CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE SHOULD BE
LOOKING AT.
FIRST, THE SUPREME COURT HAS
REVIEWED THIS ISSUE A NUMBER OF
TIMES AND IN SEVERAL CASES HAS
GIVEN CLEAR GUIDANCE ON DUE
PROCESS REQUIREMENTS.
SECOND, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUPREME
COURT'S DECISIONS, CONGRESS
ENACTED NEW PROCEDURES FOR
MILITARY TBUNALS.
THESE NEW PROCEDURES, WHICH WERE
INCLUDED IN RECENTLY PASSED
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL,
CONTAIN SAFEGUARDS THAT PROTECT
DETAINEES'S DUE PROCESS AN HABEAS RIGHTS.
PRESIDENT OBAMA, AS A SENATOR,
TOOK PART IN THE CREATION OF
THESE NEW PCEDURES.
PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED THESE NEW
PROCEED NEWS LAW.
-- PREEDURES INTO LAW.
-- PROCEDURES INTO LAW.
ADDITIONALLY THE FACILITIES FOR
APPROPRIATELY HOLDING AND TRYING
DANGEROUS DETAINEES WHO ARE, IN
FACT, ENEMY COMBATANTS PRESENTLY
EXIST AT THE COST OF MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS IN GUANTANAMO BAY.
THE GUANTANAMO DEBATE HAS, IN MY
VIEW, IMPROPERLY FOCUSED ON
PLACE VERSUS PROCESS OVER THE
PAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR HAS
BEEN TO IMPROVE THE PROCESS AS
WE EXAMINE THESE DIFFERENT
CASES, NOT SIMPLY WHETHER THIS
IS GUANTANAMO OR ANYWHERE ELSE.
REMOVING OUR DETAINEES FROM
GUANTANAMO TO THE UNITED STATES
IS NOT GOING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
THE IMPROVED PROCESSES THAT WE
HAVE PUT IN PLACE ARE THE KEY
FACTORS IN ADDRESSING THE
THE PEOPLE WE ARE SEEKING TO
PROSECUTE, I THINK IT NEEDS TO
BE SAID AGAIN AND AGAIN, ARE
ENEMY COMBATANTS.
THEY WERE APPREHENDED DURING A
TIME OF WAR WHILE HOSTILITIES
ARE STILL ONGOING PROSECUTING
THESE INDIVIDUALS IN DOMESTIC
COURTS GIVES RISE TO A HOS OF
PROBLEMATIC ISSUES WHICH ARE
BASICALLY UNNECESSARY BECAUSE OF
THE AVAILABLITY NOW OF PROPERLY
CONSTITUTED MILITARY TRIBUNALS.
THE PROBLEMS WITH TRYING ALLEGED
DETAINEES IN DOMESTIC COURTS
INCLUDE PROCEDURAL CONSTITUTION
CONSTITUTIONAL AND EVIDENTIARY
RULES IN PLACE TO PROTECT
CIVILIAN CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS IN
OUR COUNTRY.
THIS WOULD REQUIRE CLASSIFIED
MATERIALS, COULD INCLUDE
MILITARY OFFICERS TO BE CALLED
FROM OTHER DUTIES, IN SOME CASES
FROM THE BATTLEFIELD TO TESTIFY.
THIS COULD LEAD TO THE EXPOSURE
OF SENSITIVE MATERIAL OR
ALTERNATIVELY TO THE ACQUITTAL
OF ENEMY COMBATANTS WHO ARE
GUILTY OF THESE CRIMES.
IN THE UNITED STATES LEGAL
SYSTEM WHEN A DEFENDANT IS
ACQUITTED, HE GOES FREE.
IN THIS COMPLEX SCENARIO, IT
UNCLEAR WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN OUR
DOMESTIC JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN ONE
OF TSE ENEMY COMBATANTS IS
ACTUALLY ACQUITTED.
THIS MIXING OF THE LEGAL AND
MILITARY PARA DIMES, I BELIEVE,
WOULD CONFUSE OUR CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM WITHOUT A REAL
UPSIDE.
THE BURDEN OF TRYING ENEMY
COMBATANTS IN A DOMESTIC COURT
IS OVERWHELMING.
OTHER PEOPLE HAVE MENTIONED THIS.
THERE'S AN ISSUE OF MAINTAINING
SECURITY FOR THE COURTROOM AND
JAIL FACILITIES, THE ADDITIONAL
SECURITY BURDENS, THE MARSHAL
SERVICE, THE LOCAL POLICE WOULD
BE REQUIRED, THE SECURITY
PROCEDURAL COMPLEXITIES, TYING
UP OUR CRT SYSTEM IN A TIME
WHEN WE NEED TO MOVE CRIMINAL
CASES FORWARD.
AND I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT
FOR THE UNDERSTANDING OF THIS
BODY THAT WHILE THIS AMENDMENT
ONLY APPLIES TO SIX DETAINEES AT
GUANTANAMO BAY, IT'S LONG PAST
TIME THAT WE WORK TO REACH A
CONSENSUS ON HOW AND WHERE ALL
THESE DETAINEES ARE GOING TO BE
TRIED AND OR HELD.
THE ADMINISTRATIONAS
CONSISTENTLY TALKED ABOUT THREE
DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF DETAINEES.
THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN FOUND NOT TO
BE A THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES
AND CAN BE RELEASED AND A NBER
OF THEM HAVE.
THOSE WHO ARE A THREAT AND CAN
BE PSECUTED, WHICH TAKES UP
MOST OF OUR DISCUSSION, BUT,
IMPORTANTLY, THE THIRD GROUP IS
THOSE WHO WE HAVE REASON TO
BELIEVE WILL CONTINUE TO BE A
THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES, BUT
WE MAY NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT
ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE TO B
THEM TO TRIAL.
AND THAT'S THE CATEGORY THAT IS
THE MOST TROUBLING WHEN WE START
TALKING ABOUT MOVING THESE
DETAINEES FROM GUANTANAMO TO THE
UNITED STATES.
EVERY MEMBER OF THIS BODY SHOULD
BE CONCERNED WITH THE
IMPLICATIONS OF CONFINING SUCH
INDIVIDUALS INDEFINITELY INSIDE
THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I TOOK THE
TIME, AFTER A NUMBER OF
DISCUSSIONS, INCLUDING A LONG
DISCUSSION WITH THE PRESIDENT
ABOUT THIS, TO ACTUALLY READ THE
HOMDI CASE, THE SUPREME COURT
CASE THAT DEALS WITH THE ACTUAL
DETENTION OF DETAINEES.
THERE'S A HE COUL COUL CONUNDRUM, IF YOU TRY
THESE PEOPLE, YOU'RE NOT GOING
TO TRY THEM AND PUT THEM IN A
CIVILIAN PRISON, THERE ARE TWO
PROCESSES, EITHER AS LEGALLY
HERE IN THE UNITED STATES THEY
HAVE TO BE GIVEN A SPEEDY TRIAL
OR, AS ENEMY COMBATANTS, WE
DON'T HAVE TO GIVE THEM A SPEEDY
TRIAL UNTIL THE END OF HOSTILITIES.
HOW DO WE DEFINE THE END OF HOSTILITIES?
WE'RE SIMPLY GOING TO BE
IMPORTING A PROBLEM THA AFFECTS
50 PEOPLE IN GUANTANAMO FROM
GUANTANAMO INTO THE UNITED STATES.
AGAIN, IT'S NOT THE PLACE, IT'S
THE PROCESS.
10 YEARS FROM NOW, 15 YEARS FROM
NOW, WE COULD BE SAYING THERE'S
AN INDIVIDUAL IN A TRIPLE-MAX
PRISON SOMEWHERE IN ILLINOIS
WHO'S NEVER BEEN CHARGED FOR A
CRIME WHY DO WE NEED TO BRING
THAT INTO OUR SYSTEM IN WHY DO
WE NEED TO BRING THAT INTO OUR COUNTRY?
WE HAVE TO COMMIT OURSELVES TO
EXAMING THAT ISSUE IN DETAIL
AND FIGURING OUT WAY TO MOVE
FORWARD AND I'M COMMITTED TO
WORKING WITH THE ADMINISTRATION.
I SAIDHIS TO THE PRESIDENT IN
THE PAST.
AND WITH OUR MEMBERS OF OUR BODY
IN DELOPING A -- A FINAL TRIAL
AND DETENTION PLAN.
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE'RE A
NATION AT WAR.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS OUTLINED
DUE PROCESS RIGHTS FOR DETAINEES.
GUANTANAMO BAY IS THE
APPROPRIATE FACILITY FOR HOLDING
ENEMY BELLIGERENTS, PARTICULARLY
SINCE WE JUST PASSED THE
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE MILITARY
COMMISSION ACT.
AND I HOPE THAT THIS BODY WILL
THINK SERIOUSLY ABOUT THE
IMPLICATIONS OF BRINGING LARGE
NUMBERS OF THEM HERE IN THE
UNITED
AND, WITH THAT, I YIELD THE
FLOOR.
A SENATOR: MADAM PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: I T
THE SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND IS
WHO I HEARD
MR. WHITEHOUSE: MADAM PRESIDENT,
I WILL BE SPEAKING FOR ONLY FOUR
FIVE MINUTES.
I DO SEE SENATOR DeMINT, IF HE
WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED, I WILL
ASK TO SPEAK FOLLOWING HIM, I
WILL BE BEF.
IT I WOULD GRANT ME THE COURTESY
OF GOING AHEAD -- EITHER WAY IS
FINE WITH ME SENATOR.
DeMINT I WILL YIELD TO YOU, SENATOR.
I ASK CONSENT THAT I SPEAK
FOLLOWING YOUR REMARKS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
THE SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. WHITEHOUSE: THANK YOU
DEVELOPMENT I VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE THE SENATOR'S
COURTESY.
I WANT TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW
FROM OUR DISTINGUISHED CLEAR FROM VIRGINIA.
HE COMES FROM A MILITARY
BACKGROUND AND HE SEES THIS
THROUGH THAT LENS.
I COME FROM A PROSECUTOR'S AND
LAWYER'S BACKGROUND AND I SEE IT
THROUGH A DIFFERENT LENS.
I TAKE EXCEPTION TO NONE OF THE
CONCERNS THAT THE DISTINGUISHED
SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA JUST ELICITED.
AS TO ON WHICH SIDE MILITARY
COMMISSIONS OR TRADITIONAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT PROSECUTION, THE
GOVERNMENT SHOULD COME DOWN ON,
ISNE THAT SHOULD NOT BE A
LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION.
WE HAVE EXECUTIVE OFFICIALS WHO
ARE VERY CAPABLE OF MAKING THIS
DETERMINATION.
IT IS REALLY AT THE SOUL OF
PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION TO
DECIDE WHO TO CHARGE, WHAT TO
CHARGE, AND IN WHAT FORUM TO
BRING THE CHARGE.
SO I THINK THAT WE'RE IN THE
WRONG LOCATION TRYING TO INJECT
OURSELVES AS THE LEGISLATIVE
BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT INTO THE
EXECUTIVE DETERMINATION AS TO
WHERE A CASE SHOULD BE BROUGHT.
IT MAY VERY WELL BE THAT A GREAT
NUMBER OF THESE CASES SHOULD BE
BROUGHT IN MILITARY COMMISSIONS,
BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S UP TO US
AS PROBLEMS OF THE SENATE TO --
MELS OF SENATE TO FORCE THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH'S HAND.
A SECOND POINT IS THAT WE HAVE
HAD VERY BAD LUCK WITH THESE
MILITARY COMMISSIONS SO FAR.
THEY -- MANY BELIEVE THAT THE
PROCEDURES FOR THOSE COMMISSIONS
DID NOT AFFORD ADEQUATE PROCESS
TO THE ACCUSED AND, AS A RESULT,
THE PERCEIVED LEGITIMACY OF THE
COMMISSIONS WAS UNDERMINE, AS A
FINDING OF THE DETENTION POLICY
TASK FORCE.
SOME OF THOSE SHORTCOMINGS HAVE
BEEN IMPROVED UPON RECENTLY, BUT
WE ARE AT A STAGE AT THIS POINT
IN WHICH ARTICLE 3 COURTS,
TRADITIONAL AMERICAN COURTS,
HAVE HANDLED 119 TERRORISM
CASES.
WITH 289 DEFENDANTS.
OF THOSE 75 CASES ARE STILL
PENDING IN OUR COURTS, BUT 195
DEFENDANTS HAVE BEEN CONVICTED
AND OUR CONVICTION RATE HAS BEEN 91%.
OUR BURE ROAF PRISONS CURRENTLY
-- BUREAU OF PRISONS CURRENTLY
HODES 355 TERRORISTS IN ITS FACILITIES.
216 INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS AND
139 DOMESTIC TERRORISTS.
SO REGULAR, TRADITIONAL AMERICAN
LAW ENFORCEMENT, PROSECUTION BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, IS A
TRIED AND TRUE VEHLE FOR
PROSECUTING AN PUNISHING TERRORISTS.
BY CONTRAST, THE GITMO MILITARY
TRIBUNALS HAVE CONVICTED THREE
DETAINEES AFTER ALL OF THOSE
YEARS OF TROUBLE AND EFFORT.
289 DEFENDANTS CONVICTED IN OUR
CRIMINAL COURTS, THREE IN OUR
MILITARY COMMISSIONS.
SO I SUBMIT THAT THERE MAY BE
VERY GOOD LOGIC FOR THESE
MILITARY COMMISSIONS, BUT IT IS
NOT A WISE DECISION AND NOT
PROPERLY OUR DECISION TO FORCE
THE HAND OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
OF GOVERNMENT AND CLOSE DOWN THE
SIDE OF THE WAR ON TERROR THAT
HAS BEEN MOST EFFECTIVE AT
INCARCERATING AND PUNISHING OUR
TERRORIST ENEMIES.
WITH THAT, I YIELD THE FLOOR
BACK TO MY DISTINGUISHED
COLLEAGUE AND AGAIN THANK HIM
FOR HIS COURTESY.
MR. DeMINT: MADAM PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA.
MR. DeMINT: SOUTH CAROLINA IS RIGHT.
THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT.
I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO JUST
ASSOCIATE MYSELF WITH LEADER
McCONNELL AND THANK HIM FOR
HIS LEADERSHIP ON THE GUANTANAMO
BAY ISSUE.
I KNOW AS THE PRESIDENT LOOKS TO
TO -- TO CLOSE THIS FACILITY
WHICH COSTS THE AMERICAN
TAXPAYER $275 MILLION, THE
PEOPLE AROUND THE COUNTRY,
INCLUDING MY OWN STATE,
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, ARE
CONCERNED THAT WE'RE NOW GOING
TO MOVE SOME OF THE WORLD'S MOST
DANGEROUS PEOPLE INTO A CIVILIAN
AREA THAT IS NOT DESIGNED FOR
THIS TYPE OF SECURITY THREAT,
AND I APPRECIATE SENATOR
McCONNELL'S LEADERSHIP ON THIS
AND TRYING TO BRING SOME RATIONAL THINKING.
BUT I'D LIKE TO TAKE A BREAK
FROM THE DISCUSSION OF
GUANTANAMO BAY AND THE
APPROPRIATION BILLS THAT WE HAVE
ON THE FLOOR JUST TO DISCUSS
BRIEFLY THE SITUATION IN
HONDURAS.
HONDURAS IS ONE OF AMERICA'S
BEST ALLIES IN THIS HEMISPHERE.
FOR THE LAST FOUR MONTHS, THEY
HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS.
I HAVE BEEN VERY CRITICAL OF THE
ADMINISTRATION'S HANDLING OF THE
HONDURAS SITUATION.
IN FACT, I HAVE HELD TWO
NOMINEES, ONE TO LATIN AMERICA,
ONE TO BRAZIL, IN ORDER TO SHINE
A SPOTLIGHT ON THE SITUATION AND
GET THIS ADMINISTRATION AND THIS
CONGRESS TO FOCUS ON WHAT I
CONSIDERED WAS VERY BAD POLICY
TOWARDS A VERY CLOSE FRIEND OF
THE UNITED STATES.
AND WHILE I HAVE BEEN VERY
CRITICAL, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
WHEN T ADMINISTRATION CHANGES
ITS VIEW AND PUTS THINGS ON THE
RIGHT COURSE, I WANT TO BE THE
FIRST TO THANK SECRETARY
CLINTON, SECRE
FOR THEIR WORK IN HONDURAS AND
WANTED TO TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THAT SITUATION.
AS PT OF MY TALK, I WANT TO
MAKE SURE SENATOR REID KNOWS
THAT IT IS MY INTENT TO RELEASE
MY HOLDS ON THE NOMINEES SO THAT
THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD NOW THAT I
BELIEVE THE ADM
SET A GOOD COURSE FOR OUR ALLIES
IN HONDURAS.
LET ME JUST TAKE A FEW MINUTES
TO GO THROUGH THE BACKGROUND ON
THIS SITUATION BECAUSE NOT MANY
PEOPLE AROUND THE COUNTRY OR
EVEN IN THE CONGRESS HAVE PAID
MUCH ATTENTION TO THIS.
OVER FOUR MONTHS AGO, I BELIEVE
OUR ADMINISTRATION RUSHED TO
JUDGMENT IN DECLARING THE
REMOVAL OF PRESIDENT ZALIAH FROM
OFFICE AS A MILITARY COUP.
ALL BRANC
GOVERNMENT AGREED THAT HE SHOULD
HAVE BEEN REMOVED.
TRIBUNAL, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
THE SUPREME COURT.
ALL INSTITUTIONS OF DEMOCRACY IN HONDURAS AGREED THAT THE
PRESIDENT HAD VIOLATED THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW AND
NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM
OFFICE.
FOR WEEKS LEADING UP TO HIS
ARREST, PRESIDENT MANUEL ZALIAH
DEFIED HIS NATION'S LAWS AND
ATTEMPTED TO ILLEGALLY REWRITE
THE HONDURAN CONSTITUTION SO
THAT HE COULD REMAIN IN OFFICE
PAST HIS TERM.
THAT PROBABLY SOUNDS FAMILIAR
BECAUSE THAT'S THE SAME COURSE
HUGO CHAVEZ HAS TAKEN IN
VENEZUELA, ORTEGA IN NICARAGUA.
OF COURSE WE KNOW ABOUT THE CASTROS.
OF COURSE IT'S PAN DEMOCRAT NICK
LATIN
ELECT LEADERS WHO CHANGE THE
CONSTITUTION AND BECOME DICTATORS.
AND ZALIAH WAS ON THAT SAME
COURSE UNTIL THE DEMOCRATIC
INSTITUTIONS IN HONDURAS STOPPED
HIM SHORT.
HE ATTEMPTED TO FORCE A NATIONAL
VOTE TO ALLOW HIMSELF TO STAY IN
OFFICE.
AND HE WENT SO FAR AS TO TRY TO
RELIEVE A VIOLENT MOB TO TRY TO
RETRIEVE BALLO THAT HAD BEEN
PRINTED IN VENEZUELA THAT HAD
BEEN CONFISCATED BY THE HONDURAN
AUTHORITIES SO HE COULD NOT HAVE
THE NATIONAL REFERENDUM THAT HE
WANTED TO HAVE.
AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, EVERY
HONDURAN INSTITUTION SUPPORTED
HIS REMOVAL.
BECAUSE OF HIS OPEN DEFIANCE OF
THE LAWS AND THE CONSTITUTION.
THE PEOPLE OF HONDURAS HAVE
STRUGGLED TOO LONG TO HAVE THEIR
HARD-WON DEMOCRACY STOLEN FROM
THEM BY A WOULD-BE DICTATOR.
THE HONDURAN GOVERNMENT HAD
LITTLE CHOICE BUT TO ACT IN
ACCORDANCE TO THE HONDURAN
CONSTITUTION IN THEIR OWN RULE OF LAW.
THEY HAD TO REMOVE ZELAYA FROM
OFFICE TO PROTECT THEIR DEMOCRACY.
SINCE JUNE, OUR OWN LAW LIBRARY
OF CONGRESS MADE PUBLIC A
THOROUGH REPORT DEFENDING THE
ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE
HONDURAN INSTITUTIONS IN
CONTRADICTING THE CLAIMS MADE BY
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
OUR OWN STATE DEPARTMENT SAYS
THEY HAVE SECRET LEGAL MEMOS OF
THEIR OWN SUPPORTING THEIR OWN
ACTION, BUT THEY HAVE REFUSED
OUR REQUEST TO RELEASE THEM AND
THEY HAVE KEPT THEM HIDDEN FROM
THE PUBLIC.
INSTEAD OF SIDING WITH THE
HONDURAN PEOPLE, THE
ADMINISTRATION DECIDED TO PUT
THEIR FULL SUPPORT BEHIND
MR. ZELAYA, WHO IS A CLOSE ALLY
OF HUGO CHAVEZ AND WHOM THE
STATE DEPARTMENT EVEN SAID HAD
UNDERTAKEN PROVOCATIVE ACTIONS
THAT LED TO HIS REMOVAL.
DESPITE THIS ADMISSION, THE
OBAMA ADMINISTRATN HAS WAGED A
WAR DIRECTLY AGAINST THE
HONDURAN PEOPLE BY DENYING
VISAS, TERMINATING AID, AND
REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
FREE A FAIR ELECTIONS WOULD
SOLVE THE PROBLEMS IN HONDURAS.
THE PRESENT ELECTION IS ON
SCHEDULE FOR NOVEMBER 29.
IT HAS BEEN SCHEDULED THAT WAY
SINCE 1982 WHEN THEIR
CONSTITUTION WAS PUT IN PLACE.
UNDER HONDURAS' ONE-TERM LIMIT
REQUIREMENT, ZELAYA COULD NOT
HAVE SOUGHT RE-ELECTION ANYWAY.
THE CURRENT PRESIDENT ROBERTO
ICHILETTI, WHO I JUST GOT OFF
THE PHONE WITH, HE WAS INSTALLED
AFTER ZELAYA'S REMOVAL PER THE
CONSTITUTION, AND HE IS NOT ON
THE BALLOT EITHER.
HE IS NOT SEEKING POWER IN
HONDURAS.
THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES WERE
NOMINATED IN PRIMARIES OVEA
YEAR AGO AND ALL OF THEM,
INCLUDING ZELAYA'S FORMER VICE
PRESIDENT, EXPECT THESE
ELECTIONS TO BE FREE AND FAIR
AND TRANSPARENT, AS HAS EVERY
OTHER HONDURAN ELECTION FOR
ALMOST A GENERATION.
SO AS I HAVE SAID, I HAVE BEEN
TERRIBLY DISAPPOINTED WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION'S POLICIES ON
HONDURAS AND HAVE CONSISTENTLY
ARGUED THAT THE UPCOMING NOVEMBER 29 ELECTIONS ARE THE
ONLY WAY OUT OF THIS MESS, AND
WE AS A NATION HAVE TO SEND THE
SIGNALS THAT WE WILL RECOGNIZE
THESE ELECTIONS.
I PERSONALLY VISITED HONDURAS
LAST MONTH AND WAS SATISFIED AS
TO THE LEGITIMACY OF THE INTERIM
GOVERNMENT OF MICHELETTI AND THE
LEGITIMACY OF THE LONSCHEDULED
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS THAT WILL
BE HELD LATER THIS MONTH.
I'M HAPPY TO REPORT TODAY THAT
AFTER MANY MONTHS, SECRETARY
CLINTON AND SECRETARY SHANNON
HAVE LED THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION BACK IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION.
I MET YESTERDAY WITH THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE OF
LATIN AMERICA, TOM SHANNON, AND
I SPOKE TODAY WITH SECRETARY
CLINTON, AND I CAN REPORT THAT
WE NOW APPEAR TO BE ON THE RIGHT
TRACK.
BOTH ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHANNON
AND SECRETARY CLINTON ASSURED ME
THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ANY
PREVIOUS STATEMENTS BY
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS, THE
UNITED STATES WILL RECOGNIZE THE
NOVEMBER 29 HONDURAN ELECTION,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE
HONDURAS GOVERNMENT VOTES TO
REINSTATE ZELAYA.
AND THEY HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THE
ADMINISTRATION WILL RECOGNIZE
THE ELECTIONS REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER THE HONDURAN CONGRESS
VOTES ON THE ZELAYA RESTATEMENT
BEFORE OR AFTER THE NOVEMBER 29
ELECTION.
THE INDEPENDENCE, TRANSPARENCY,
AND FAIRNESS OF THOSE ELECTIONS
HAS NEVER BEEN IN DOUBT, AND NOW
THANKS TO THE REVERSAL OF THE
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, THE NEW
GOVERNMENTS SWORN INTO OFFICE
NEXT JANUARY CAN EXPECT THE FULL
SUPPORT OF THE UNITED STATES AND
I HOPE THE ENTIRE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY.
I APPLAUD THE ADMINISTRATION.
I'M THANKFUL THAT THEY HAVE
ENDED ITS FOCUS ON WHO I
CONSIDER A WOULD-BE DICTATOR
ZELAYA AND IS NOW STANDING
FIRMLY WITH THE HONDURAS PEOPLE
AND FOR A HONDURAN SOLUTION TO
THIS PROBLEM.
TODAY STOPS -- REALLY STARTS A
MAJOR STEP FORWARD FOR THE CAUSE
OF FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY FOR THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE, FOR THE
UNITED STATES, AND ESPECIALLY
FOR THE BRAVE PEOPLE OF
HONDURAS.
THEY'RE PROVING THAT DESPITE
CRUSHING HARDSHIPS AND
IMPOSSIBLE ODDS, FREEDOM AND
DEMOCRACY CAN SUCCEED ANYWHERE
PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO FIGHT FOR
IT.
THE CONDEMNATION HEAPED ON THE
FREE PEOPLE OF HONDURAS THESE
LAST SEVERAL MONTHS NEVER HAD TO HAPPEN.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ERRED
IN ITS ASSESSMENT OF THE
SITUATION ON HONDURAS BECAUSE OF
A RUSH TO JUDGMENT BASED ON BAD
INFORMATION.
I THINK WE HAVE ALL LEARNED A
LESSON ABOUT DISTINGUISHING
FRIENDS FROM FOES, AND THE
PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY TO
INTERNATIONAL STABILITY.
FOR MONTHS, I HAVE MADE IT CLEAR
THAT I WOULD CONTINUE TO OBJECT
TO TWO STATE DEPARTMENT
NOMINATIONS UNTIL THE U.S.
REVERSED ITS FLAWED HONDURAS
POLICY.
MY GOAL HAS BEEN TO GET THIS
ADMINISTRATION TO RECOGNIZE THE
NOVEMBER 29 ELECTIONS.
NOW THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED, I
WILL -- I WILL KEEP MY PART OF
THE BARGAIN AND I WILL RELEASE
THESE HOLDS AND I WILL NOTIFY
SENATOR REID THAT THESE
NOMINATIONS CAN MOVE AHEAD ON
HIS SCHEDULE.
IT'S NO SECRET THAT I HAVE BEEN
CRITICAL OF THE ADMINISTRATION
OF HANDLING THESE ISSUES, BUT I
WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY
TODAY TO THANK SECRETARY CLINTON
AND SHANNON FOR RE-ENGAGING THE
HONDURAN GOVERNMENT AND WORKING
OUT A SOLUTION THAT PRESIDENT
MICHELETTI AND THE GOVERNMENT IN
HONDURAS AS WELL AS THE HONDURAN
PEOPLE FEEL IS FAIR.
THERE ARE STILL A NUMBER OF CONCERNS.
I TALKED TO PRESIDENT MICHELETTI
JUST MOMENTS AGO.
HE IS CONCERNED THAT THE
ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
CONTINUES TO SUPPORT DEPOSED
PRESIDENT ZELAYAND ARE
ORGANIZING ALONG WITH ZELAYA A
LOT OF MISCHIEF RELATED TO THE
UPCOMING ELECTIONS, ENCOURAGING
PEOPLE TO TAKE TO THE STREETS
AND ENCOURAGING VIOLENCE.
I HOPE THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, ALONG
WITH THIS CONGRESS, WILL
CONT
PEOPLE AND MAKE SURE THAT THE
ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
AND ANY OTHER COUNTRY WILL
SUPPORT THE AGREEMENT THAT HAS
BEEN SIGNED BY THE PEOPLE IN
HONDURAS AND WE HAVE AGREED TO.
SO AGAIN I'M VERY THANKFUL FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS
ISSUE, TO AGAIN BRING IT TO THE
ATTENTION OF THIS CONGRESS AND
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND I LOOK
FORWARD TO RELEASING THE HOLDS
OF THESE NOMINATIONS AND
CONTINUING TO FOLLOW THE
SITUATION CLOSELY, PARTICULARLY
THE NOVEMBER 29 ELECTIONS AS
HONDURAS CONTINUES AS A FREE AND DEMOCRATIC NATION.
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, I
YIELD BACK. MR. DeMINT: MR. PRESIDENT, I
NOTE THE ABSENCE OF A THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SE
THE SENATOR FROM MARYLANDMENT
MS. MIKULSKI: I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THE CALL OF THE QUORUM
BE VACATED.
THE PRESIDG OFFICER: WIT
OBJECTION.
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT, AS
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMERCE
COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT ALL
POSTCLOTURE TIME BE YIELDED BACK
EXCEPT THE TEN MINUTES SPECIFIED
FOR DEBATE AS NOTED IN THIS
AGREEMENT, THAT THE SENATE NOW
RESUME THE COBURN AMENDMENTS
NUMBER 2631 AND 2667 AND THAT
PRIOR TO THE VOTES IN RELATION
TO EACH AMENDMENT IN THE ORDER
LISTED, THERE BE TWO MINUTES OF
DEBATE EQUALLY DIVIDED AND
CONTROLLED IN THE USUAL FORM.
THAT UPON THE USE OR YIELDING
BACK OF TIME, E SENATE PROCEED
TO VOTE IN RELATION TO THE
AMENDMENTS.
THAT UPON THE DISPORTION OF THE
COBURN AMENDMENTS, THE --
THAT UPON THE DISPOSITION OF THE
COBURN AMENDMENTS, THE SENATE
RESUME THE GRAHAM AMENDMENT
NUMBER 2669.
AND PRIOR TO A VOTE IN RELATION
TO THAT AMENDMENT, THERE BE FOUR
MINUTES OF DEBATE EQUALLY
DIVIDED BETWEEN SENATORS GRAHAM
DESIGNEES, AND THAT UPON THE USE
OR YIELDING BACK OF TIME, THE
SENATE PROCEED TO VOTE IN
RELATION TO THE AMENDMENT.
THAT UPON THE DISPOSITION OF THE
GRAHAM AMENDMENT, THE SENATE
THEN RESUME TO THE ENSIGN
AMENDMENT NUMBER 2648, AS
MODIFIED, THAT THERE BE TWO
MINUTES OF DEBATE EQUALLY
DIVIDED AND CONTROLLED IN THE
USUAL FORM PRIOR TO A VOTE IN
RELATION TO THE AMENDMENT, THAT
UPON THE DISPOSITION OF THE
ENSIGN AMENDMENT, THE SENATE
RESUMES DEBATE ON
AMENDMENT NUMBER 2393, THAT THE
AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO AND THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER BE LAID
UPON THE TABLE WITH NO
AMENDMENTS IN ORDER TO THE
AFOREMENTIONED AMENDMENTS.
THAT NO FURTHER AMENDMENTS BE IN
ORDER AND THAT THE SUBSTITUTE
AMENDMENT AS AMENDED BE AGREED
TO, THE BILL AS AMENDED BE READ
A THIRD TIME AND THE SENATE
PROCEED TO VOTE ON THE PASSAGE
OF THE BILL.
THAT UPON THE PASSAGE, THE
SENATE INSIST ON ITS AMENDMENT,
REQUEST A CONFERENCE WITH THE
HOUSE ON THE DISAGREEING VOTES
OF THE TWO H
CHAIR BE AUTHORIZED TO APPOINT
CONFEREECONFEREES WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE
PLUZ SENATORS BYRD -- PLUS
SENATORS BYRD AND COCHRAN
APPOINTED AS CONFEREES.
THAT IF A POINT OF ORDER IS
RAISED AND SUSTAINED AGAINST THE
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT, THEN IT BE
IN ORDER FOR A NEW SUBSTITUTE TO
BE OFFERED MINUS THE OFFENDING
PROVISIONS BUT
AMENDMENTS PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO,
THAT THE NEW SUBSTITUTE BE
CONSIDERED
FURTHER FURTHER AMENDMENTS BE IN
ORDER, THE BILL AS AMENDED BE
READ A THIRD TIME WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT
AFTER ADOPTION OF THE ORIGINAL
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT REMAINING
IN EFFECT AND THAT THE CLOTURE
MOTION ON THE BILL BE WITHDRAWN
AND THAT THE ORDER COMMENCE
AFTER THE REMARKS OF SENATOR CHAMBLISS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
OBJECTION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION, IT IS SO
ORDERED.
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT, I
FURTHER WISH TO COMMENT AS IF IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT UPON THE
DISPOSITION OF H.R. 2847, THE
SENATE PROCEED TO EXUTIVE
SESSION AND IMMEDIATELY PROCEED
TO VOTE ON THE CONFIRMATION OF
THE NOMINATION OF CALENDAR 462.
AND UPON THAT CONFIRMATION, THE
MOTION TO RECONSIDER BE
CONSIDERED MADE AND LAID UPON
THE TABLE AND THAT NO FURTHER
MOTION BE IN ORDER, THE
PRESIDENT BE IMMEDIATELY
NOTIFIED OF THE SENATE'S ACTION
AND THE SENATE THEN RESUMES
LEGISLATIVE ACTION.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
OBJECTION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. SESSIONS: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM ALABAMA.
MR. SESSIONS: MR. PRESIDENT, I
WOULD JUST LIKE TO SPEAK
IN SUPRT OF SENATOR GRAHAM'S
AMENDMENT DEALING WITH THE TRIAL
OF 9/11 TERRORISTS IN FEDERAL COURT.
AND IT, IN EFFECT, WOULD
PROHIBIT THE ADMINISTRATION FROM
DOING THAT BY DENYING FUNDING
FOR ANY SUCH TRIALS.
THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT MATTER.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE
LEARNED
THAT THIS COUNTRY HAD MADE A
MISTAKE IN TREATING PEOPLE WHO
ARE AT WAR WITH THE UNITED
STATES WHO ATTEMPT TO DESTROY
THE UNITED STATES AS NORMAL
CRIMINALS AND THAT THEY SHOULD
BE TRIED IN COURT.
WE LEARNED THAT THE ONLY
EFFECTIVE WAY TO DEAL WITH
PERSONS LIKE THAT IS TO TREAT
THEM AS PRISONERS OF WAR OR
UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS, WHICH IS
UN -- OR PEOPLE WHO VIOLATE THE
RULES OF WAR AND ALL THESE
INDIVIDUALS DO BASICALLY WITH
THE WAY THEY CONDUCT THEMSELVES.
SO WE WOULD TRY THEM AS --
ACCORDING TO MILITARY COMMISSIONS.
THE CONSTITUTION MAKES REFERENCE
TO MILITARY COMMISSIONS, AND
THEY CAN BE TRIED FAIRLY IN THAT
METHOD WITHOUT ALL THE -- THE
RULESND PROCEDURES THAT WE
CHERISH SO HIGHLY
COURTS FOR THE NORMAL TRIALS OF
NORMAL CRIMES THAT PEOPLE ARE
ACCUSED WITH IN THIS COUNTRY.
I SPOKE ABOUT ALMARI JUST LAST
WEEK, WHO CAME TO THE UNITED
STATES SEPTEMBER 10, HE HAD MET
BIN LADEN, HE HAD BEEN IN
AFGHANISTAN TO A TRAING CAMP,
HE HAD A GOAL PRETTY DLEERL
PARTICIPATE I -- PRETTYCLEARLY TO PARTICIPATE IN AN
ATTACK ON THE UNITED STATES.
AND IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR
BECAUSE HE CAME ONE DAY BEFORE
9/11.
AND HE WAS TRIED BY A FEDERAL
JUDGE WHO APPARENTLY GAVE A
COICTION BUT SENTENCED HIM TO,
IN EFFECT, SEVEN YEARS.
I MEAN, HE HAD TRAING IN BOMB
MAKING AND THAT KIND OF THING.
HE HAD DONE OTHER ACTS THAT
INDICATED AN INTENT TO KILL
AMERICAN PEOPLE, INNOCENT
CIVILIANS, IN A CERTIFICATE SYRUP CERTIFICATE RIP
TISHES WAY AS A RESULT OF WAR.
AND AS A RESULT OF THAT I THINK
HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRIED BY MILITARY COMMISSION.
AND HE WASN'T.
AND WE LEARNED, AS ONE OF THE
PROFESSORS SAID IN COMMENTING
UPON THIS CASE, IT RAISES
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ABILITY OF
OUR NORMAL FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM
TO TRY THESE PEOPLE WHO MAY BE
SUBJECT TO HAVING THE COURTHOUSE
ATTACKED IN AN ATTEMPT TO FREE
THEM, JURORS MAY FEEL THREATENED
BECAUSE THEY ARE WILLING TO KILL
FOR -- TO PROMOTE THEIR AGENDA
OR THEIR ALLIES ARE.
COURTHOUSES HAVE TO BE ARMED AND
GUARDS ALL AROUND AND PEOPLE ON
TOP OF THEM TO PROTECT THE TRIAL
THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL, AND THEY
COULD BE TRIED EFFECTIVELY BY
MILITARY COMMISSION.
SO SENATOR GRAHAM IS SERVING THE
NATIONAL INTEREST IN RAISING
THIS ISSUE.
IT'S NOT A LITTLE-BITTY MATTER.
IT REALLY IS CORRECT AND HE'S
GOT A GOOD IDEA ABOUT IT.
HE'S HANDLED IT IN A WAY,
FOCUSES NARROWLY REALLY ON THE
9/11 ISSUE, FOR THOSE WHO
PARTICIPATED IN THAT ATTACK.
AND I THINK THAT'S AT LEAST WHAT
WE SHOULD DO TODAY, AND WE NEED
TO HAVE A SINCERE ANALYSIS OF
THE DETERMINATION BY THIS
ADMINISTRATION TO TRY MORE AND
MORE CASES IN FEDERAL COURT WHEN
THEY'VE BEEN CAPTURED BY THE
MILITARY.
AND, IN FACT, THEY SAY THERE IS
A PRESUMPTION IN THEIR
COMMISSION REPORT TO DATE THAT
THEY WOULD BE TRIED IN FEDERAL
COURTS RATHER THAN MILITARY
COMMISSIONS.
I THINK THAT'S VERY DANGEROUS
BECAUSE MILITARY PEOPLE DON'T
GIVE THEM MIRANDA WARNINGS WHEN
THEY'RE ARRESTED, THEY DON'T DO
THE KIND OF THINGS THAT ARE
NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN CHAINS OF
CUSTODY OR
INTO TRIALS IN A WAY THAT WE
WOULD NORMALLY DO.
AND THESE KIND OF PROCEDURES
COULD CAUSE TRIALS TO BE
EXTREMELY DIFFICULT, COULD BRING
WITNESSES FROM THE BATTLEFIELD
AND THE LIKE.
IT'S JUST NOT THE WAY THAT I'M
AWARE ANY COUNTRY TRIES PEOPLE
WHO ARE AT WAR WITH THEM.
ANY COUNTRY.
ALL COUNTRIES PROVIDE FOR
MILITARY COMMISSIONS AGAINST
UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS I THINK WHO
ATTACK THE UNITED STATES.
I SEE MY FRIEND, SENATOR
CHAMBLISS, HERE AND I KNOW HE
WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS.
AND I THANK THE CHAIR AND WOULD
YIELD THE MR. CHAMBLISS: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM GEORGIA.
MR. CHAMBLISS: MR. PRESIDENT, I
RISE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF THE
GRAHAM AMENDMENT AND I WISH TO
ECHO THE SENTIMENTS JUST
EXPRESSED BY MY FRIEND FROM
ALABAMA WHO, LIKE ME, HAS HAD
EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN TRYING
CASES FOR MANY, MANY
YOU KNOW, WE'VE IN THIS COUNTRY
OVER OUR 225-PLUS YEARS, WE'VE
BEEN INVOLVED IN MANY DIFFERENT
MILITARY CONFLICTS.
IN EACH OF THOSE CONFLICTS
DATING BACK TO THE EARLY YEARS,
THERE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PRISONERS
CAPTURED AND WE'VE ALWAYS HAD A
PROCEDURE WHEREBY WE
INCARCERATED AND ULTIMATELY
TRIED THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE
CAPTURED ON THE BATTLEFIELD.
THE PROCESS OF HOW WE OPERATE
FROM AN ARTICLE 3 CRIMINAL
STANDPOINT RELATIVE TO CRIMINALS
IN AMERICA WHO COMMIT OFFENSES
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA IS ONE THING.
THE PROCESS THAT WE'VE ALWAYS
USED TO DEAL WITH THOSE
INDIVIDUALS THAT WE CAPTURE ON
THE BATTLEFIELD HAS BEEN
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND ALL FOR
THE RIGHT REASONS.
I KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN THOSE WHO
HAVE GOTTEN UP HERE OVER THE
PAST SEVERAL WEEKS AND MONTHS AS
WE'VE TALKED AUT THESE ISSUES
FROM TIME TO TIME -- AND I'VE
HAD ANY NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS ON
THIS AND SPOKE OWN THE FLOOR
NUMEROUS TIMES ABOUT IT -- IT'S
IMPORTANT I THINK PROTECTION AND SECURITY OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE TO KEEP ALL OF
THESE INDIVIDUALS THAT WE
CAPTURED ON THE BATTLEFIELD WHO
ARE INCARCERATED AT GUANTANAMO
OUTSIDE OF
WE'VE GOT THE MECHANICS SET UP
TO TRY THEM.
WE'VE GOT A
THEM TO BE INCARCERATED.
THAT'S, FRANKLY, WHERE THEY
OUGHT TO STAY UNTIL SOME METH METHOD
CAN BE WORKED OUT TO DEAL WITH
THEM, TO HAVE THEM HOUSED
SOMEWHERE OUTSIDE THE UNITED
STATES. UNFORTUNATELY, THE PRESIDENT'S
MADE A COMMITMENT TO CLOSE
GUANTANAMO BY JANUARY THE 22nd
WITHOUT EVER HAVING A PLAN IN
PLACE
DEAL WITH.
THEY HERE WHAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT DOING IS MAKING SURE --
HERE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
DOING IS MAKING SURE THAT NOT
ALL OF THOSE PRISONERS, BECAUSE
FOLKS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
AISLE HAVE ALREADY SAID, WE WANT
TO BRING THE PRISONERS FROM
GUANTANAMO TO AMERICAN SOIL, WE
WANT TO TRY THEM THERE AND
ULTIMATELY I GUESS THEY'RE
SAYING WE WANT TO HOUSE THEM IN AMERICAN PRISONS.
I THINK THAT'S WRONG.
THIS AMENDMENT, THOUGH, IS EVEN
NARROWER THAN THAT AND THAT'S
WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT.
THIS AMENDMENT SAYS WE'RE GOING
TO TAKE THE MEANEST OF THESE
INDIVIDUALS WHO GEVERY DAY
SEEKING WAYS TO KILL AND HARM
AMERICANS, AND WE'RE GOING TO --
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY
NEVER COME TO AMERICAN SOIL FOR
TRIAL AND ARE NEVER SUBJECTED TO
THE PROCESSES DEVELOPED IN
ARTICLE 3 COURTS FOR AVERAGE, ORDINARY CRIMINALS THAT
TRIED EVERY SINGLE DAY IN
AMERICA.
YOU KNOW, KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED
IS THE ADMITTED MASTERMIND OF
SEPTEMBER 11.
HE IS ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO
TODAY IS HOUSED AT GUANTANAMO
BAY.
HE IS ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS
THAT'S GOING TO BE DIRECTLY
AFFECTED BY THIS AMENDMENT.
THIS KHALID SHEIKH MOW --
DOES KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED WANT
JUSTICE? NO.
KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED WANTS A PLATFORM.
HE WANTS A PLATFORM ON WHICH TO --
EXUDE HIS ARROGANCE AND HIS
HATRED OF AMERICA AND HIS HATRED
OF MERNTIONZ AS EXHIBITED BY THE
PLAN HE -- AMERICANS, AS
EXHIBITED BY THE PLAN HE PUT IN
PLACE TO DRIVE PLANES INTO THE
PENTAGON, THE WORLD TRADE
CENTER, AND ANOTHER ENTITY WHICH
WAS PROBABLY THE UNITED STATES CAPIL.
THAT AIRPLANE ULTIMATELY CRASHED
IN PENNSYLVANIA.
YOU KNOW, THERE WERE OVER 3,000
VICTIMS ON SEPTEMBER THE 11th.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
FAMILY MEMBERS OF THOSE VICTIMS
HAVE WRITTEN LETTERS AND MADE
PHONE CALLS URGING THE PASSAGE
OF THIS AMENDMENT.
THEY ARE AN INDICATION OF THE
STRONG FEELING THAT PREVAILS ALL
ACROSS AMERICA RELATIVE TO HOW
WE DEAL WITH THESE INDIVIDUALS
WHO
INTENDED AND DID, IN FACT, CARRY
OUT AN ATTACK AGAINST AMERICA,
AN ATROCIOUS ATTACK, THAT TOOK
THE LIVES OF OVER
MR. PRESIDENT, I COMMEND SENATOR GRAHAM FOR EVEN THINKING OF THE
IDEA OF NARROWING THIS AMENDMENT
TO INCLUDE JUST THOSE
INDIVIDUALS WHO PARTICIPATED IN
THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACK.
I WOULD RATHER BROADEN IT TO
INCLUDE ALL OF THOSE WHO ARE
HOUSED AT GUANTANAMO AND I DEFY
ANYONE T STAND UP AND SAY THAT
TRYING ANY OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS
WHO ARE HOUSED AT GUANTANAMO
THAT WERE
BATTLEFIELD IN AN RECALL 3 COURT
IN THE UNITED STA
SIMILAR TO SOME O
THAT WE'VE TRIED IN THIS COUNTRY.
THAT IS WRONG.
WE HAVE NEVER TRIEDNYBODY THAT
WAS ARRESTED ON THE BATTLEFIELD
IN AN ARTICLE 3 COURT IN THE
UNITED STATES.
SO SENATOR GRAHAM AMENDMENT IS
VERY APPROPRIATE.
IT OUGHT TO BE PASSED.
IT OUGHT TO BE PASSED WITH A
LARGE MARGIN
AND A VOTE AGAINST THIS IS
SIMPLY A VOTE TO GIVE KHALID
SHEIKH MOHAMMED THAT PLATFORM
THAT HE WANTS TO HAVE TO TALK
ABOUT WHY HE HATES AMERICA AND
ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT'S WRONG
WITH AMERICA.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE OUGHT TO BE
DOING IN THIS BODY TODAY OR AT
ANY OTHER TIME.
I URGE A POSITIVE AND
AFFIRMATIVE VOTE ON THE GRAHAM
AMENDMENT.
AND I YIELD MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT,
WHAT IS THE PENDING AMENDMENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: AMENDMENT
NUMBER 2631 IS THE PENDING
AMENDMENT.
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT, I
VIGOROUSLY AND UNABASHEDLY
OPPOSE THE COBURN AMENT.
IT ELIMINATES $9 MILLION FROM A
PROGRAM AT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION.
IT SPECIFICALLY
TARGETS THE $9 MILLION CUT IN
THE AREA OF FUNDING FOR RESEARCH
BY POLITICAL SCIENTISTS.
THE VERY FIRST AMERICAN WOMAN TO
WIN THE NOBEL PRIZE FOR
ECONOMICS EVER HAS
AWARDS FROM THE NATIONAL SCIENCE
FOUNDATION SCIENCE PROGRAM
OFFERED TO POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSORS.
IT SHOWS THAT -- WHAT
GROUNDBREAKING WORK CAN BE DONE.
THIS AMENDMENT IS AN ATTACK ON SCIENCE.
IT IS AN ATTACK ON BEING A DEEM
YAVMENT WE NEED FULL FUNDING TO
KEEP AMERICA INNOVATIVE AND I
URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE "NO"
ON THIS AMENDMENT, AND,
MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD BACK T
BALANCE OF OUR TIME AND I ASK
FOR THE YEAS AND NAYS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS
THERE A SUFFICIENT
WHO YIELDS TIME IN FAVOR OF THE
AMENDMENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THE TOOK YIELDING BACK ALL
TIME?
WITHOUT OBJECTION, TIME IS
YIELDED BACK.
THE YEAS AND NAYS HAVING BEEN
ORDERED, THE CLERK WILL CALL THE
ROLL
VOTE:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: DOES ANY
SENATOR STILL WISH TO VOTE ON
THIS AMENDMENT?
IF NOT, ON THE AMENDMENT THE
YEAS ARE 36, THE NAYS ARE 62,
AND
MR. REID: MR. PRESIDENT?
MAJORITY LEADER.
MR. REID: CAN WE HAVE ORDER?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: MAY WE
HAVE ORDER PLEASE FOR THE
MAJORITY LEADER.
MR. REID:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WILL THE
MAJORITY LEADER SUSPEND FOR A
MOMENT UNTIL WE HAVE ORDER.
MR. REID: MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT ALL
SUCCEEDING VOTES IN THIS TRANCHE
OF VOTES, I THINK THERE'S FIVE,
BE 10 MINUTES IN DURATION.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: I OBJECTION? WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. REID: MR. PRESIDENT, PEOPLE
ARE ANXIOUS TO FINISH TONIGHT.
SO IF EVERYONE WOULD TRY TO STAY
CLOSE BY AND NOT BE WANTEDDERING
AROUND SO WE -- WANDERING AROUND
SO WE CAN WRAP THESE UP IN A PERIOD OF TIME.
MR. PRESIDENT, I'D LIKE TO YIELD
AT THIS TIME TO THE
DISTINGUISHED SENATOR FROM
TEXAS, KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM TEXAS.
MRS. HUTCHISON: MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THIS
BODY HAVE ONE MINUTE OF SILENCE
IN MEMORY OF 11 GREAT SOLDIERS
AT FORT HOOD, TEXAS, WHO HAVE
BEEN SHOT DOWN THIS AFTERNOON AT
THE BASE AT A PROCESSING CENTER
WHERE THEY WERE BEING PREPARED
TO BE DEPLOYED TO IRAQ AND SOME
TO AFGANISTAN.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE PERSON
WHO IS THE MAIN SHOOTER HAS ALSO
BEEN KILLED AND
GREAT PERSONNEL ARE ALSO INJURED
AND BEING TREATED AS WE SPEAK.
WHEN I SPOKE TO THE GENERAL JUST
A FEW MINUTES AGO, THE BASE,
FORT HOO WAS STILL IN
LOCKDOWN, TO BEGIN TO MAKE SURE
THAT THEY HAVE CHECKED EVERY
POSSIBILITY THAT THERE WOULD BE
NO MORE SHOOTINGS.
SO I KNOW ALL OF US LOVE OUR
MILITARY AND APPRECIATE
EVERYTHING THEY DO AND FOR THEM
TO HAVE TO SUFFER EVEN MORE
TRAGEDY LIKE THIS AS THEY ARE ON
THEIR WAY TO PROTECT OUR FREEDOM
IS UNTHINKABLE.
SO I'M ASKING FOR UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT ALL OF US SHOW HOW
DEEPLY WE CARE ABOUT THEM RIGHT
NOW ON THE FLOOR OF THE UNITED
STATES SENATE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
A MINUTE OF SILENCE WILL
COMMENCE.
MRS. HUTCHISON: MR. PRESIDENT,
THANK YOU VERY THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THERE
WILL BE TWO MINUTES OF DEBATE
EQUALLY DIVIDED PRIOR TO
CONSIDERATION OF COBUR
AMENDMEN
WHO YIELDS TIME?
MR. COBURN: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA.
MAY WE HAVE ORDER FOR THE
SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA?
MR. COBURN: THIS IS A
STRAIGHTFORWARD AMENDMENT THAT
ACTUALLY INCREASES THE FUNDING
FOR THE I.G.
ONE OF OUR WEAKNESSES IS WASTE,
FRAUD, AND ABUSE.
ACCORDING TO G.S.A., THIS WILL
NOT AFFECT THE RENOVATIONS
WHATSOEVER AT THE HOOVER
BUILDING, SO WE'RE SIMPLY
TRANSFERRING FUNDS.
I UNDERSTAND A POINT OF ORDER IS
GOING TO BE MADE AGAINST THIS
AMENDMENT, BUT IF YOU REALLY
WANT TO CONTROL AND HAVE
ACCURATE WORK DONE BY OUR
I.G.'S, WE NEED TO FUND THEM
APPROPRIATELY AND THIS AMENDMENT
THPRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
MR. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT, I
DO SHARE THE SENATOR FROM
OKLAHOMA'S CONCERNS ABOUT
OVERSIGHT AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE.
THAT'S WHY THE BILL ALREADY
FUNDS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AT
AT $25.8 MILLION, THE SAME AS
THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST.
THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL
ADDITIONAL $6 MILLION FURNISHED
THROUGH THE STIMULUS.
THIS AMENDMENT REALLY DOES CUT
THE HOOVER BUILDING AND IT WOULD
ONLY DELAY THE RENOVATIONS TO
MEET THE BASIC HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS.
SO I OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT, AND,
MR. PRESIDENT, THE AMENDMENT
WOULD CAUSE THE C.J.S. BILL TO
EXCEED ITS ALLOCATION.
THEREFORE, I MAKE A POINT OF
ORDER THAT THE AMENDMENT
VIOLATES SECTION 302-F OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT OF 1974.
MR. COBURN: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA.
MR. COBURN: I MOVE TO WAIVE THE
APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE BUDGET
ACT WITH RESPECT TO MY AMENDMENT
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
A SECOND?
THERE APPEARS TO BE A SUFFICIENT SECOND.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
VOTE:
HEARING.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: ARE THERE ANY SENATORS IN THE
CHAMBER WISHING TO VOTE OR CHANGE THEIR VOTE?
ON THIS VOTE, THREE FIFTHS OF
THE SENATORS DULY CHOSEN AND
SWORNOT HAVING VOTED IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE, THE MOTION IS NOT
AGREED TO THE POINT OF ORDER IS
SUSTAINED THE AMENDMENT FALLS.
WITHOUT OBJECTION
THERE IS NOW FOUR
EQUALLY DIVIDED WITH A VOTE ON
THE GRAHAM AMENDMENT.
2669.
THE SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER.
GRAHAM: THANKOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA.
MR. GRAHAM: THANK YOU.
COLLEAGUES, WE'RE ABOUT TO TAKE
A
I REGRET WE'RE HAVING TO DO
THIS. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I
HAVE A VIEW THAT THIS COUNTRY IS
AT WAR.
AND OUR CIVILIAN COURT SYSTEM
SERVES US WELL, BUT WE'VE HAD A
LONG HISTORY OF HAVING MILITARY
COMMISSION TRIALS WHEN THE
NATION'S AT WAR.
WHICH THIS CONGRESS WROTE IS
REFORMED, IT'S NEW, IT'S
TRANSPARENT AND IT'S SOMETHING I'M PROUD OF.
THIS AMENDMENT SAYS THAT THE SIX
CONSPIRATORS WHO PLANNED 9/11,
KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED AT THE
TOP OF THE LIST, WILL NOT BE
TRIED IN FEDERAL COURT.
BECAUSE THE DAY YOU DO THAT,
YOU'RE GOING TO CRIMINALIZE THIS
WAR.
AND THE FIRST ATTACK ON THE
WORLD TRADE CENTER, THE BLIND
SHEIKH, WAS TRIED IN FEDERAL COURT.
AND THE UNINDICTED
LIST WOUND UP IN THE HANDS OF
AL QAEDA. MILITARY COMMISSIONS ARE
DESIGNED TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE
IN A FAIR, TRANSPARENT WAY B
THEY KNOW AND UNDERSTAND WE'RE
AT WAR.
OUR CIVILIAN COURTS ARE NOT
DESIGNED TO DEAL WITH WAR
CRIMINALS.
THE MILITARY SYSTEM IS.
KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED, THE
MASTERMIND OF 9/11, DIDN'T ROB A
LIQUOR
HE DIDN'T COMMIT A CRIME
DOMESTIC CRIMINAL LAW.
HE TOOK THIS NATION TO WAR AND
HE KILLED 3,000 OF OUR CITIZENS
RENDERED IN THE SYSTEM THAT
RECOGNIZES WE'RE AT WAR.
PLEASE SUPPORT THIS IDEA OF NOT
CRIMINALIZING THE WAR THE
TIME AROUND. A SENA
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WHO YIELD
TIME?
MR. LEAHY: COULD WE HAVE ORDER,
MR. PRESIDENT. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT.
MR. REED: MR. PRESIDENT, WE ALL
RECOGNIZE THE SEVERITY OF THIS
ISSUE AND THE PASSION AND
SINCERITY THAT THE SENATOR FROM
SOUTH CAROLINA BRINGS ISSUE.
BUT SINCE 9/11, WE HAVE TRIED
195 TERRORISTS IN TITLE 3 COURTS COURTS.
WE'VE TRIED THREE IN MILITARY
COMMISSIONS.
WE HAVE I THINK RECOGNIZED THAT
OUR COURTS ARE DURABLE ENOUGH TO
STAND UP TO THE ISSUES OF THE
CULPABILITY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS
AND THE MAGNITUDE OF THEIR
ACTIONS.
SECRETARY GATES, SECRETARY --
ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER HAS
ASKED FOR THIS PERMISSION, THE
OPTION TO USE TITLE 3 COURTS OR
MILITARY
WE'RE PRESERVING THAT.
IF WE REJECT THE GRAHAM AMENDMENT.
BUT LET ME SAY SOMETHING ELSE.
OUR ENEMIES SEE THEMSELVES AS
JIHADISTS, HOLY WARRIORS.
THEY DON'T OBJECT TO BEING TRIED
THEY SEE THEMSELVES AS
THEY
THEY COMMITTED MURDER.
THE SOONER WE CAN CONVINCE THE
WORLD THAT THESE AREN'T HOLY
WARRIORS, THEY ARE CRIMINALS
THE SOONER WE WILL TAKE
ADVANTAGE IN THIS BATTLE OF
IDEAS BETWEEN THOSE PEOPLE AND A
SYSTEM OF LAWS AND JUSTICE THAT
WE REPRESENT AND TRY PROTECT AND DEFEND.
AND SO I RECOGNIZE THE
SINCERITY, THE PASSION OF THE
GENTLEMAN BUT I WOULD URGE A
VOTE AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT.
AND I WOU
AMENDMENT.
MR. GRAHAM: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA.
MR. GRAHAM: TO
THIS IS THE BIGGEST ISSUE OF THE
DAY.
ARE THEY CRIMINALS?
OR
DOES IT MATTER?
THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT CRIMINALS,
THEY'RE WARRIORS.
AND THEY NEED TO BE DEALT WITH
IN A LEGAL SYSTEM THAT
RECOGNIZES THAT
AND TO THE 218 9/11 FAMILIES WHO
SUPPORT MY
UNDERSTAND THAT THE PEOPLE
KILLED YOUR FAMILY ARE AT WAR WITH US.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR'S TIME HAS
MR. GRAHAM: I HOPE THE SENATOR
WILL UNDERSTAND SO WE DON'T HAVE
ANOTHER. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
MR. REED: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND.
MR. REED CON REED: DO I HAVE TIME REMAING?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: 20 SECONDS.
MR. REED: MR. PRESIDENT, THIS
PRESENT STATUTE THAT'S ON THE
BOOKS GIVES THE SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
RECOMMEND AND THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL THE OPPORTUNITY T
PROSECUTE IN EITHER A ARTICLE 3
COURT OR
MAINTAINED.
I WOULD URGE THAT WE REJECT THIS
AMENDMENT I MOVE TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
MR. GRAHAM: I ASK FOR THE YEAS
AND NAYS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
A SUFFICIENT SECOND?
THERE APPEARS TO BE.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
VOTE:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: ARE
THERE ANY SENATORS IN THE CHAMBER WISHING TO VOTE OR
CHANGE THEIR VOTE?
SEEING, HEARING NONE, THE MOTION
TO TABLE THE GRAHAM AMENDMENT
NUMBER 2669, 54 YEAS, 45 NAYS.
THE MOTION TO TABLE IS AGREED
TO.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THERE IS NOW FOUR
MINUTES EVENLY DIVIDED
VOTE WITH RESPECT TO THE ENSIGN
AMENDMENT 2
THE SENATE WILL BE IN ORDER.
THE SENATE WILL BE IN
A SENATOR: COULD WE HAVE ORDER, MR. PRESIDENT.
THE PRESID
SENATE WILL BE IN ORDER.
THE SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER.
TAKE YOUR CONVERSATIONS OUTSIDE
THE ROOM.
THE SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER.
THE SE
MR. ENSIGN: MR. PRESIDENT, MY
AMENDMENT IS VERY SIMPLE.
IT ADDS $172 MILLION TO THE
STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
THIS PROGRAM PROVIDES FEDERAL
PAYMENTS TO STATES AND
LOCALITIES THAT INCUR
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SALARY
COSTS FOR INCARCERATING
UNDOCUMENTED CRIMINAL ALIENS.
FOR AT LEAST ONE FELONY OR TWO
DISDEMEERNG CONVICTIONS.
-- MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS.
THIS AMENDMENT IS OFFSET BY
SIMPLY AN ACROSS-THE-BOARD
DECREASE IN SPENDING, SO IT'S
BUDGET-NEUTRAL.
I BELIEVE THIS IS AN IMPORTANT
AMENDMENT, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE
IN SOME OF THE SOUTHWESTERN
STATES OR BORDER STATES.
YOU KNOW YOUR LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT OCCURS A LOT OF
EXPENSES BECAUSE OF THOSE
ASSOCIATED WITH ILLEGAL
IMMIGRANTS, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO
ARE CRIMINALS.
SO I WOULD URGE ALL OF MY
COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT AND MATCH WHAT THE
HOUSE DID.
THIS AMENDMENT PASSED 405-1 IN
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
LET'S GO ALONG WITH THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AND MAKE SURE
THAT OUR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
HAS THE RESOURCES THAT THEY NEED
TO FIGHT THOSE WHO ARE HERE
ILLEGALLY AND COMMITTING SERIOUS
CRIMES. MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE
FLOOR.
MR. SHELBY:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR ALABAMA.
MR. SHELBY: MR. PRESIDENT, I
RISE IN OPPOSITION TO THE ENSIGN AMENDMENT.
THE STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, A PROGRAM
THAT WAS NOT REQUESTED BY THIS
NOR THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION,
IS CURRENTLY OVERFUNDED IN THIS
BILL AT $228 MILLION.
WE'RE BEING ASKED HERE, W
ENSIGN AME
MILLION TO A PROGRAM THAT BARELY
TOUCHES MOST OF OUR STATES.
SINCE 2004, FIVE STATES HAVE
RECEIVED 71% O
IN FUNDING
AND LET ME SAY AGAIN.
71% OF $1.5 BILLION OF THE $2.1
BILLION FOR THIS PROGRAM SINCE
2004 HAS GONE TO FIVE STATES.
THIS CAN HARDLY BE CALLED A
NATIONAL PROGRAM.
IN
STATE A YEAR AGO, THIS AMENDMENT
WAS TABLED AND REJECTED BY A
VOTE OF 68-256789 I STRONGLY ASK
MY COLLEAGUES
THIS AMENDMENT.
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT?
MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR MARYLAND.
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT, I
SUPPORT EVERY COMMENT MADE BY MY
RANKING MEMBER, AND I BELIEVE
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD CAUSE THE
C.J.S. BILL TO EXSEIZED ITS ALLEGATION.
THEREFORE, I MAKE A POINT OF
ORDER THAT THE AMENDMENT
VIOLATES THE SECTION
THE CONGRESSIONA CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT OF 1974.
MR. ENSIGN: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM NEVADA.
MR. ENSIGN: MR. PRESIDENT,
CLEAR UP A COUPLE FACTS HERE.
FIRST OF ALL, NOT EVERY STATE
HAS THE SAME PROBLEM WITH
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS THAT OTHER STATES DO.
THEREFORE, A MAJORITY OF THE --
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
THE SENATOR'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
MR. ENSIGN: MR. PRESIDENT, I
WOULD ASK THAT WE MOVE TO WAIVE
THE APPLICABL ALLY SECTION O
ACT WMP TO MY AMENDMENT AND ASK
FOR THE YEAS AND NAYS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS
THERE A SUFFICIENT SECOND?
THERE APPEARS TO BE.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
VOTE:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
ANY SENATOR WISHING TO VOTE OR
CHANGE THEIR VOTE?
SEEING AND H
VOTE THE YEAS ARE 32, THE NAYS
ARE 67, THREE-FIFTHS OF THE
SENATORS ACTUALLY CHOSEN AND
SWORN NOT HAVING VOTED IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE, THE POINT OF ORDER
IS SUSTAINED AND THE POINT OF
ORDER FALLS.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE JOHANNS
AMENDMENT 2393, WITHOUT
OBJECTION, IS AGREED TO.
SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
ORDER IN THE
MS. MIKUKI: I NOW ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT IT BE IN
WORD TO MAKE A POINT OF ORDER
AGAINST THE AMENDMENTS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IF
THERE'S NO OBJECTION -- WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MS. MIKULSKI: I MAKE A POINTF
ORDER EN BLOC THAT AMENDMENTS
2644, 2627, 2646, 2625, 2642,
2632, ARE EITHER NOT GERMANE
POSTCLOTURE OR VIOLATE RULE 16.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: POINTS OF
ORDER ARE WELL TAKEN.
AMENDMENTS FALL.
MS. MI
WITHSTANDING THE OR REGARDING
THE PASSAGE OF
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSE THAT
AMENDMENT 2647, AS MODIFIED, BE
AGREED TO AND THE MOTION TO
RECONSIDER BE LAID UPON THE
TABLE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MS. MIKULSKI: MR. PRESIDENT? MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
THE SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT AS
AMENDED IS AGREED TO.
THE CLERK WILL READ THE BILL FOR
THE THIRD TIME.
THE CLERK: CALENDAR NUMBER 87,
H.R. 2847,
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE AND
AGENCIES AND FOR FISCAL YEAR
ENDING
FOR OTHER PURPOSE THE PRES
QUESTION IS ON THE PASSAGE OF
THE BILL.
ASK FOR THE YEAS AND NAYS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
A SUFFICIENT SECOND?
THERE IS
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
VOTE:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
ANY SENATOR WISHING TO VOTE OR
CHANGE THEIR VOTES?
SEEING AND HEARING NONE, THE
YEAS ARE 71, THE NAYS ARE 28.
THE BILL IS PASSED AS AMENDED.
UNDER THE -- WITHOUT OBJECTION.
UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER,
SENATE
THE
THE CLERK: SENATORS
INOUYE, LEAHY,
RHODE ISLAND, PRYOR, BYRD,
SHELBY, GREGG, McCONNELL,
HUTCHISON, A
MIKULSKI, AND COCHRAN.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:
MR. MAJORITY LEADER.
MR. REID: MAY WE HAVE ORDER IN
THE
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:
MR. REID: MR. PRESIDENT, WE HAVE
ONE MORE VOTE TONIGHT.
WE HAVE HAD A -- FOR THE LAST 24
HOURS, WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF
ACCOMPLISHMENTS THAT WE ARE
GOING TO BE ABLE TO POINT TO.
I APPRECIATE THE COOPERATION OF
THE REPUBLICANS.
WE HAVE -- WE HAVE A NUMBE OF
NOMINATIONS WE'RE GOING TO BE
ABLE TO COMPLETE.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE AS SOON AS
THIS NEXT VOTE IS OVER TO
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.
I'VE SPOKEN TO THE REPUBLICAN LEADER.
WE'RE GOING TO DO OUR BEST TO
FINISH THAT ON MONDAY OR
TUESDAY.
WE'LL SEE -- WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
THAT ONE VOTE, THE ONE VOTE I
INDICATED ON MONDAY AT 5:30, WE
WILL HAVE A JUDGE VOTE AND WE'LL
SEE IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE WE
CAN -- WE HAVE GOT SOMETHING TO
VOTE ON MONDAY, BUT AT LEAST
WE'LL HAVE THAT ONE AT 5:30 WILL
BE FINE.
AND, MR. PRESIDENT, WE'LL BE --
WE'RE GOING TO BE IN MONDAY AND
TUESDAY.
I TOLD EVERYONE THAT I THOUGHT
THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE "THE"
DAY, THAT REID FINALLY CALLED
WOLF AND
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE CASE.
AND THE REASON IT'S NOT IS WE'VE
BEEN ABLE TO GET A LOT OF STUFF DONE.
I INDICATED TO THE REPUBLICAN
LEADER THAT THERE ARE THINGS WE
NEED TO GET DONE.
WE DIDN'T GET EVERYTHING THAT I
WANTED DONE BUT W
THAT I HADN'T PUT ON THE LIST
DONE THAT AMOUNTS TO THE SAME.
SO I -- I'M GRATEFUL TO THE
COOPERATION WE'VE GOTTEN
RECENTLY AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
GOOD WEEK
NEXT WEEK, BUT REMBER, IT'S
ONLY TWO DAYS LONG, THOUGH.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: UNDER THE
PREVIOUS ORDER, THE SENATE WILL
PROCEED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO
CONSIDER A
CLERK WILL
THE CLERK: NOMINATION
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION IS ON THE NOMINATION.
A SENATOR: I A AND NAYS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
THERE APPEARS TO BE.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
VOTE:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: ARE
THERE ANY SENATORS IN THE CHAMBER WISHING TO VOTE OR
CHGE THEIR VOTE?
SEEING NONE, 93 YEAS, ZERO NAYS.
THE NOMINATION IS CONFIRMED.
OF THE SENATE'S ACTION.
THE SATE WILL RESUME
LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
THE SENATE WILL NOW PROCEED TO
THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3082,
WHICH THE
THE CLERK: CALENDAR NUM
106, H.R. 3082, AN ACT MAKING
PROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION, THE DEPARTM
VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED
AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2010, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA.
MR. J
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT OF.
CLERK WILL REPORT.
THE CLERK: THE SENATOR FROM
SOUTH DAKOTA,
HIMSELF AND MRS. HUTCHISON,
PROPOSE AMENDMENT NUMBERED 27
MR. JOHNSON: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT THE FURTHER R
BE DISPENSED WITH. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. JOHNSON: MR. PRESIDENT,
I'M PLEASED TO PRESENT THE
FISCAL YEAR 2010 MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS
AFFAIRAND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS BILL TO THE
SENATE.
BUT BEFOREE DISCUSS THE BILL,
I WANT TO EXPRESS MY SORROW AT
THE TRAGIC EVENTS THAT UNFOLDED
AT FOR THE HOOD, TEXAS, THIS AFTERNOON.
I EXTEND MY CONDOLENCES TO THE
TROOPS AND THE FAMILIES AT FORT
HOOD AND TO MY WORKING MEMBER --
RANKING MEMBER, SENATOR
HUTCHISON, WHO IS OFF TOETURN
TO TEXAS TONIGHT.
OUR THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS ARE
WITH HER AND WITH THE FORT HOOD
COMMUNITY AT THIS DIFFICULT
TIME.
SENATOR HUTCHISON'S DEDICATION
TO AMERICAN VETS AND TO THE
MILITARY HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS
ASSET IN DEVELOPING THIS BILL,
AND I THANK HER FOR HER HELP AND COOPERATION.
I ALSO THANK CHAIRMAN INOUYE AND
VICE-CHAIRMAN COCHRAN FOR THEIR
SU
THIS BILL FORWARD.
THIS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND
VETERANS AFFAIRS BILL PROVIDES
CRITICAL INVESTMENTS IN CAPITAL
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR OUR MILITARY,
INCLUDING BARRACKS AND FAMILY
HOUSING, TRAING AND
OPERATIONAL FACILITIES, AND
CHILD CARE AND FAMILY SUPPORT CENTERS.
IN ADDITION, IT FULFILLS THE
NATION'S PROMISE TO OUR VETS BY
PROVIDING TH
FOR MEDIC CARE AND BENEFITS THAT
OUR VETS HAVE EARNED THROUGH
THEIR SERVICE.
MR. PRESIDENT, THE BILL BEFORE
THE SENATE TODAY PROVIDES A
TOTAL OF $133.9 BILON IN
FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010.
THIS INCLUDES $76.7 BILLION IN
DISCRETIONARY FUNDING, $439
MILLION OVER THE BUDGET REQUEST,
$1.4 BILLION FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TO
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS IN
AFGHANISTAN, AND $55.8 BILLION
IN MIL
VETS' PROGRAMS.
IN ADDITION, I'M PLEASED TO
REPORT THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME,
THE BILL BEFORE US CONTAINS
$48.2 BILLION IN ADVANCED
APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADVANCED
MEDICAL CARE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011.
AS AN ORIGINAL COSPONSOR OF THE
LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING ADVANCED
APPROPRIATIONS FOR OUR VETS'
HEALTH CARE, I'M PLEASED THAT
SENATOR HUTCHISON AND I WILL --
AND I WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE
FUNDING IN THIS BILL TO
IMPLEMENT THIS IMPORTANT
LEGISLATION.
OTHER FUNDING PRIORITIES IN THE
BILL INCLUDE $53.2 BILLION IN
DISCRETIONARY FUNDING FOR VETS'
PROGRAMS, $150 MILLION OVER THE
BUDGET REQUEST, AND $3.9 BILLION
OVER LAST YEAR; $44.7 BILLION
FOR VETS' MEDICAL CARE, $4.2
BILLION OVER LAST YEAR; $23.2
BILLION FOR MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION AT $286 MILLION
OVER THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET
REQUEST; $1.3 BILLION FOR GUARD
AND RESERVE CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS, $264 MILLION ABOVE THE
BUDGET REQUEST; AND 279 MILLION
FOR RELATED AGENCIES INCLUDING
THE AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS
COMMISSION AND ARLINGTON
NATIONAL CEMETY.
MR. PRESIDENT, NEXT WEDNESDAY IS
VETERANS DAY, A DAY IN WHICH THE
NATION HONORS ALL OF THOSE WHO
HAVE SERVED IN THE ARMED FORCES
OF THE UNITED STATES.
I CAN THINK OF NO BETTER WAY TO
EXPRESS THE SENATE'S GRATITUDE
FOR THE SERVICE OF OUR VETS AND
THE SACRIFICES THEY HAVE MADE
FOR OUR COUNTRY THAN TO PASS
THIS BILL WITHOUT DELAY.
AGAIN, I THANK MY RANKING MEMBER
FOR HER SUPPORT IN CRAFTING THE BILL.
I ALSO THANK THE STAFF OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE, CHRISTINA EVANS,
CHET CHUCUM, AND AMY VANDENHAM,
AND BEN HAMMOND OF THE MINORITY
STAFF FOR THEIR HARD WORK AND
EFFORT TO PRODUCE THIS BILL.
I WOULD ASK THAT THE FULL TEXT
OF MY REMARKS BE INCLUDED IN THE
RECORD AS IF READ, AND I WILL I WOULD
NOW LIKE TO YIELD TO SENATOR
ROBERTS FOR HIS REMARKS.
MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE
FLOOR.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM KANSAS.
MR. ROBERTS: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM KANSAS.
MR. ROBERTS: MR. PRESIDENT,
SUDDENLY I FIND MYSELF AEMBER
OF THE POWERFUL APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE, BUT IT COMES UNDER A
DARK CLOUD INDEED.
THE DISTINGUISHED CHAIRMAN, WHO
DOES SUCH A GREAT JOB IN BEHALF
OF OUR VETERANS AND MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION, HAS POINTED OUT
THE TERRIBLE TRAGEDY THAT HAS
HAPPENED AT FORT HOOD, AND SO I
AM HERE STANDING IN, IF YOU
WILL, FOR SENATOR
DOES SUCH A GOOD JOB IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH MY COLLEAGUE --
AND MY FRIEND AND MY NEIGHBOR --
WHO I RESPECT A GREAT DEAL.
SO I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO SPEAK ON THE BILL BEFORE US,
AND AS KAY DEPARTS -- PARDON ME,
SENATOR HUTCHISON DEPARTS, AS
EARLY AS SHE POSSIBLY N TO GET
TO TEXAS TO ASSIST IN THE
CHALLENGE OF THIS GREAT TRAGEDY
WE WISH HER WELL AND OUR PRAYERS
ARE WITH HER AND ALL THE PEOPLE
AT FORT HOOD A ALL THE PEOPLE
IN TEXAS.
AS THE DISTINGUISHED CHAIRMAN
HAS STATED, A LOT OF TIME AND
ENERGY HAS GONE INTO PUTTING
THIS LEGISLATION TOGETHER, AND
SENATOR HUTCHISON WANTED TO
THANK CHAIRMAN JOHNSON, HIS
STAFF WHO ARE WORKING HARD TO
ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF OUR SERVICE
MEMBERS AND VETERANS.
MR. PRESIDENT, I AM GOING TO
REPEAT JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS
THAT ARE IN THE FULL STATEMENT
BY THE DISTINGUISHED SENATOR BUT
ASK PERMISSION AT THIS POINT
THAT HER FULL STATEMENT BE
INSERTED IN THE RECORD.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. ROBERTS: AS CHAIRMAN
JOHNSON HAS POINTED OUT, THE
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, V
AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APOPRIATIONS BILL INCLUDES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2010 $76.7 BILLION
IN DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, $23.2
BILLION FOR MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION, $53.2 BILLION FOR
VETERANS, $5.8 BILLION IN
MANDATORY SPENDING FOR VETERANS'
BENEFITS AND $1.4 BILLION FOR
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
TO ASSIST OUR TROOPS IN
AFGHANISTAN AND THEIR FIGHT
AGAINST TERRORISM.
A LOT OF THE FIGURES THAT
SENATOR HUTCHISON HAS HERE HAVE
BEEN REPEATED BY THE
DISTINGUISHED CHAIR
WON'T GO INTO THOSE.
BUT SENATOR HUTCHISON WANTED TO
INDICATE AND WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT
THAT SHE WAS VY PLEASED THAT
THE BILL PROVIDES FULL FUNDING
FOR THE BASE REALIGNMENT CLOSURE.
THE FUNDS ARE ESSENTIAL TO BRING
OUR TROOPS HOME, PREDOMINANTLY
FROM EUROPE AND KOREA, AND
BASING THEM IN THE UNITED STATES.
BY FUL FULLY FUNDING BRAC, WE CAN
TO STAY ON GOAL TO ACHIEVE THIS
GOAL BY SEPTEMBER OF 2011.
AND SHE WOU ALSO LIKE TO
HIGHLIGHT -- THE DISTINGUISHED
SENATOR WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT
THE LEGISLATION CONTAINS THE
NECESSARY FUNDS FOR THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, ESPECIALLY DESIGNED
TO HELP OUR SERVICE MEMBERS WHO
ARE FORCED TO RELOCATE IN THIS
HARSH ECONOMIC HOUSING
ENVIRONMENT.
I MIGHT ADD THAT WE SEE THIS AT
FT. LEAVENWORTH AND FT. REILLY IN KANSAS.
THE HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE FUND,
AIRMAN JOHNSON HAS BEEN
ABSOLUTELY INSTRUMENTAL IN
MAKING THIS PROGRAM A SUCCESS.
THE LEGISLATION CONTAINS ABOUT
$1.4 BILLION IN EMERGENCY
FUNDING FOR THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN.
SENATOR HUTCHISON, MYSELF,
ALMOST EVERY SENATOR KNOWS THE
POLICY OF THIS CONFLICT HAVE
BEEN PASSIONATELY DEBATED.
-- ON THE SENATE FLOOR IN RECENT
DAYS, BUT I AMURE THAT WE CAN
ALL AGREE THAT INDEPENDENT OF
OUR VIEWS ON THE WAR OR THE
STRATEGY OF THAT NATIONAL
SECURITY THREAT, WE MUST PROVIDE
THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OF OUR
SAILORS, SOLDIERS, AIRMEN, AND MARINES.
AND BY THE WAY, THEY CELEBRATED
THEIR BIRTHDAY TODAY.
THIS BILL DOES JUST THAT.
IN ADDITION, I WOULD POINT OUT
THAT THE DISTINGUISHED RANKING
MEMBER WANTED TO EXPRESS HER
STRONG COMMITMENT TO MAKE SURE
THAT OUR NATO ALLIES -- OUR NATO
ALLIES -- FUND THEIR FAIR SHARE
OF THESE JOINT PJECTS.
THE CHAIRMAN HAS ALREADY GONE
OVER THE FIGURES FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.
ALTHOUGH SENATOR HUTCHISON DID
WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IT
INCLUDES FUNDING TO ENHANCE
OUTREACH AND SERVICES FOR MENTAL
HEALTH CARE, COMBAT
HOMELESSNESS, FURTHER MEET THE
NEEDS OF WOMEN VETERANS, AND
EXPAND TO HEALTH CARE IN RURAL
ARKS SOMETHING THE CHAIRMAN
KNOWS ALL
LIKE TO THINK I KNOW SOMETHING
ABOUT AND SOMETHING THAT I KNOW
THAT SENATOR HUTCHISON KNOWS
ABOUT A GREAT DEAL.
FINALLY, WE INCLUDED $48.2
BILLION IN ADVANCED
APPROPRIATIONS FOR VETERANS'
MEDICAL CARE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011.
THIS FUNDING WILL ALLOW THE V.A.
TO BETTER PLAN THE BUDGET FOR
OUR VETERANS' HEALTH CARE.
MR. PRESIDENT, CONGRESS HAS
SHOWN ITS RESOLVE TIME AND AGAIN
TO CARE FOR OUR NATION'S
VETERA AND PROVIDE THE
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR OUR MEN AND
WOMEN IN UNIFORM.
WE ALL OWE THEM OUR DEBT OF
GRATITUDE AND WILL DO OUR PART
TO TAKE CARE OF THEM.
SO I ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO
SUPPORT THIS BILL.
WE HAVE NO OBJECTION ON THIS
SIDE.
AND, AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK THE
OF HIS WORK AND LEADERSHIP.
I YIELD BACK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA.
MR. JOHNSON: MR. PRESIDENT, I
SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK ON
BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR
HUTCHISON AND ASK FOR
IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
CLERK WILL REPORT.
THE CLERK: THE SENATOR FROM
SOUTH DAKOTA, MR. JOHNSON,
PROPOSES AMENDMENT NUMBERED 2732
TO AMENDMENT NUMBER 2730.
MR. JOHNSON: MR. PRESIDENT, I
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
READING OF THE AMENDMENT
DISPENSED WITH.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. JOHNSON: MR. PRESIDENT,
THIS AMENDMENT IS A TECHNICAL
AMENDMENT WHICH PROVIDES THE
PROPER
BILL, OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY
OPERATIONS.
IT WAS INADVERTENTLY LEFT OUST
OF THE BILL.
THE AMENDMENT WOULD CORRECT THIS
ERROR.
I'D NOTE THE
QUORUM. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
MR. JOHNSON: I ASK THE QUOM
CALL BE VITIATED.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THE GENTLEMAN FROSOUTH DAKOTA.
MR. JOHNSON: I BELIEVE IT HAS
BEEN INCLUDED
ASKING UNANIMOUS
THE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO.
MR. ROBERTS: WOULD THE
DISTINGUISHED CHAIRMAN YIELD? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM KANSAS.
MR. ROBERTS: I THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
THE CHAIRMAN HAS ACCURATELY DESCRIBED, ACCURATELY DESCRIBED
THE CONTENTS OF THE AMENDMENT. WE HAVE NO OBJECTION AND URGE
THAT IT BE AGREED TO.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE AMENDMENT IS
AGREED TO.
MR. JOHN
ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK
WILL
QUORUM CALL:
MR. BROWN: MR. PRESIDENT? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
MR. BROWN: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO DISPENSE WITH THE
QUORUM CALL.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. BROWN: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT, MR. PRESIDENT, TO SPEAK
AS IF IN MORNING BUSINESS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. BROWN: NOT
MR. PRESIDENT?
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
WITHDRAW THAT REQUEST.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. BROWN: MR. PRESIDENT, WITH
RESPECT TO
MOVE TO RECONSIDER AND TABLE THE
VOTE ON ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT.
THE PRESIDIN
OBJECTION.
MR. BROWN: MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO SPEAK AS IF
IN MORNING BUSINESS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. BROWN: THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
I RISE AGAIN THIS EVENING AS I
HAVE MANY DAYS IN THE LAST
COUPLE OF MONTHS TO SHARE WITH
YOU LETTERS -- SHARE WITH MY
COLLEAGUES LETTERS FROM PEOPLE
IN OHIO, FROM LIMA AND
SPRINGFIELD AND
PEOPLE WHO ARE SHARING THEIR
STORY WITH US, AND I THINK THAT
AS I H
FOR THREE YEARS, IT OCCURS
PERHAPS MORE OFTEN THAN NOT THAT
WE -- YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT
POLICY UP HERE, BUT WE JUST
SIMPLY DON'T PAY ENOUGH
ATTENTION TO INDIVIDUAL PROBLEMS
AND INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE, AND
THAT'S WHY A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK
THAT THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE
OUT OF TOUCH WITH THEM, AND
THESE LETTERS REALLY DO SHARE
WITH US SORT OF WHERE WE ARE AND
WHAT WE OUGHT TO DO AND HOW WE
SHOULD RESPOND AS WE MOVE
FORWARD ON THE HEALTH ISS.
NOW, THIS LETTER COMES FROM ANN
FROM MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
SHE WRITES --
PREMIUMS HAVE NEARLY TRIPLED IN
THE LAST SIX YEARS, GOING FROM
FROM $500 PER MONTH TO $1,500 PER MONTH.
AT THE SAME TIME, NONE OF OUR
BENEFITS HAVE INCREASED.
SINCE WE BOUGHT OUR POLICY, WE
PAID THE INSURANCE COMPANY
COMPANY $68,000 FOR THE
INSURANCE.
ANTHEM'S TOTAL SPENDING FOR MY
FAMILY'S CLAIMS SINCE WE BOUGHT
THE INSURANCE, $4,064.24.
AND THEN SHE WRITES -- "ANTHEM'S
PROFIT FROM MY FAMILY, $64,000.
ANTHEM'S C.E.O.'S TOTAL
COMPENSATION LAST YEAR ALONE ALONE, $10 MILLION."
ANN FROM MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
DAYTON, HUBER HEIGHTS,
CENTREVILLE, OAKWOOD, THAT AREA
OF MY STATE, SOUTHWEST OHIO.
OBVIOUSLY, ANN IS ANGRY AND
FRUSTRATED WITH WHAT SHE HAS SEEN.
SHE IS PAYING SO MUCH FOR
INSURANCE, SHE HAS GOT SO LITTLE
BENEFITS, AND SHE SEES ANTHEM'S
C.E.O. TAKING DOWN $10 MILLION A YEAR.
MR. PRESIDENT, WHAT WE SEE HERE
REPEATEDLY IS THE INSURANCE
INDUSTRY, THE AVERAGE C.E.O.'S
SALARY
INSURANCE COMPANIES, HEALTH
INSURANCE COMPANIES, THE AVERAGE
C.E.O.'S SALARY IS $11 MILLION A YEAR.
INSURANCE COMPANY PROFITS HAVE
GONE UP MORE THAN 400% IN THE
LAST SEVERAL YEARS, AND THE WAY
THEY MAKE THIS MONEY IS THIS
KIND OF BUSINESS MODEL WHERE
THEY HIRE A HUGE BEAUCRACY, A
BUNCH OF BUREAUCRATS TO KEEP
PEOPLE FROM BUYING INSURANCE IF
THEY'RE SICK.
THEY DISCRIMINATE BASED ON
GENDER, THEY DISCRIMINATE BASED
ON
ON DISABILITY.
IN SOME CASES, THEY USE THE
EXCUSE OF PRE-EXISTING CONDITION
TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM BUYING
POLICIES, INCLUDING, BELIEVE IT
OR NOT, WOMEN WHO HAVE BEEN
VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. SOME INSURANCE COMPANIES
CONSIDER THAT A PREEXISTING
CONDITION F. THEIR HUSBAND HIT
THEM ONCE, THEY MIGHT HIM THEM
AGAIN AND THAT WOULD BE A COST TO THE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
THEY CAN'T GET INSURANCE.
SOMETIMES A WOMAN WHO'S HAD A
C-SECTION IS A PREEXISTING
CONDITION, CAN'T GET INSURANCE
BECAUSE IF A WOMAN HAD A
C-SECTION, SHE MIGHT GET
PREGNANT AGAIN AND NEED ANOTHER ONE.
THAT'S TOO EXPENSIVE.
THEY DON'T GIVE HER INSURANCE.
THAT'S HOW ANTHEM AND THESE
OTHER
PROFITS. ON THE O
MORE BUREAUCRATS TO -
YOUR CLAIMS WHEN YOU -- WHEN YOU
FILE FOR CLAIMS WHEN YOU'VE BEEN SICK.
AND THESE CLAIMS OFTENTIMES, THE
INSURANCE COMPANY RECORDS SEE
THAT ABOUT 30% OF ALL CLAIMS ARE
REJECTED
SOMETIMES THEY'RE APPEALED AND
THEY THEN PAY THEE CLAIMS, BUT
THEN YOU --
AS THE PATIENT OR YOU AS THE
FAMILY OF THE SICK HUSBAND,
WIFE, CHILD, WHATEVER, HAVE TO
SPEND YOUR TIME ON THE PHONE
FIGHTING WITH THE INSURANCE
COMPANY WHILE AT THE SAME TIME
YOU'RE TRYIN
HUSBAND OR YOUR WIFE OR YOUR
CHILD OR YOUR MOTHER.
AND WHAT KIND
MR. PRESIDENT? WE ALLOW THESE INSURANCE
COMPANIES TO DO THAT.
MR. PRESIDENT, WHAT I'VE FOUND
IN THESE LETTERS IN THE LAST
THREE MONTHS THAT I'VE BEEN
DOING THIS ON THE SENATE FLOOR
ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS.
ONE IS THAT
WERE PRETTY HAPPY WITH THEIR
INSURANCE IF YOU'D ASKED THEM A
YEAR OR TWO EARLIER BUT THEN
THEY GOT SICK AND THEY FOUND OUT
THEIR INSURANCE WASN'T WHAT THEY
THOUGHT IT WAS.
THAT BUILD.
AND THE OTHER THING I'VE FOUND,
A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THEIR LATE
50'S, EARLY 60'S HAVE -- HAVE
LOST THEIR INSURANCE, THEY'VE
LOST
HAS BEEN CANCELED AT THEIR
EMPLOYERS, THEIR EMPLOYER'S NOT
BEEN ABLE TO AFFORD IT, IT'S
BEEN A SMALL BUSINESS, WHATEVER,
THEY DON'T HAVE INSURANCE AND
THEY'RE 58 YEARS OLD OR 62 YEARS
OLD AND THEY JUST HOPE THEY CAN
HANG ON UNTIL THEY'RE MEDICARE
ELIGIBLE, UNTIL THEY CAN GET A
STABLE PUBLIC PLAN, LIKE THE
PUBLIC OPTION, A STABLE,
PLAN LIKE MEDICARE.
LET ME JUST SHARE TWO MORE
LETTERS, MR. PRESIDENT
JOHN FROM RICHLAND COUNTY,
THAT'S MY HOME COUNTY, I GREW UP
IN MANSFIELD, CITY SHELBY,
LEXINGTON, BUTLER, THAT AREA
NORTH CENTRAL OHIO.
"HEALTH CARE REFORM WILL NOT BE
ACHIEVED UNLESS A PUBLIC OPTION
IS IN PLACE TO COMPETE WITH
PRIVATE CARRIERS.
I RETIRED AFTER 45 YEARS
RECENTLY AS A FAMILY PHYSICIAN.
IF GOVERNMENT-RUN MEDICINE IS SO
BAD, WHY SHOULD INSURANCE
COMPANIES OBJECT TO THE
COMPETITION?
COSTS AND TREATMENT ARE ALREADY
CONTROLLED BY THE INSURANCE
PROVIDERS WHOSE ONLY MOTIVE IS
PROFIT
ALLOWING THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY
TO DICTATE TERMS OF COST AND
TREATMENT IS SIMPLY NOT --
SIMPLY NOT WORKED AND WON'T WORK.
PLEASE FIGHT FOR A POSITION.
" JOHN, A PHYSICIAN OF 45 YEARS,
HE SAYS SOMETHING INTERESTING,
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I HEAR
OPPONENTS TO THE PUBLIC OPTN,
A LOT OF CONSERVATIVES SAY, YOU
KNOW, GOVERNMENT C
ANYTHING MESSES EVERYTHING UP.
AND THEN THEY SAY THAT BUT THEN,
MR. PRESIDENT, THEY SAY IF WE
HAVE A PUBLIC OPTION, THEY'LL BE
SO EFFICIENT, THEY'LL RUN
PRIVATE INSURANCE OUT OF BUSINESS.
SO WHICH IS IT?
IS THE PUBLIC -- THE GOVERNMENT
CAN'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT OR THE
GOVERNMENT'S SO EFFICIENT IT'S
GOING TO RUN PRIVATE INSURANCE
OUT OF BUSINESS?
THE POINT IS, INSURANCE
EXECUTIVES -- AVERAGE C.E.O.
SALARY $11 MILLION -- INSURANCE
COMPANY PROFITS UP 400% IN THE
LAST SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS, INSURANCE COMPANIES DON'T WANT
THE PUBLIC OPTION BECAUSE DO YOU
KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN?
THEIR PROFITS WON'T BE QUITE AS
HIGH, THEY WON'T GO UP 400%,
THEIR SALARIES WON'T BE AS HIGH
BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT COMPETION
FROM THE PUBLIC OPTION, AND THEY
KNOW THAT THEY'RE IN A
TH -- THAT LIFE'S NOT GOING TO
BE QUITE AS GOOD FOR I
COMPANIES AND INSURANCE
EXECUTIVES.
THAT'S WHY, MR. PRESIDENT,
THAT -- THAT'S WHY THEY DON'T
LIKE THE PUBLIC OPTION.
THAT'S WHY THEY FIGHT THE PUBLIC
OPTION.
AND
PUBLIC OPTION WILL WORK.
IT WILL MEAN MORE CHOICE FOR
CONSUMERS.
SOUTHWEST OHIO, 85 -- TWO
COMPANIES HAVE 85% OF THE
INSURANCE POLICIES IN SOUTHWEST
OHIO. PUBLIC OPTION WILL PROVIDE
COMPETITION, WILL STABILIZE
PRICES, WILL MEAN PRICES WILL
COME DOWN, WILL MEAN QUALITY WILL BE BETTER.
BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE TWO
COMPANIES CONTROLLING 85% OF THE
BATAVIA OR LEBANON OR HAMILTON
OR LITTLETON OR FAIRFIELD OR ANY
OF THOSE COUNTIES, YOU HAVE TWO
COMPANIES CONTROLLING 85% OF THE
BUSINESS, YOU KNOW, MR. PRESIDENT, THE QUALITY'S
LOWER AND THE PRICES ARE TOO
HIGH.
LET ME CONCLUDE AND THEN SENATOR
CASEY'S HERE, WHOAS MORE THAN
ANY SINGLE SENATOR, HAS SPOKEN
OUT STRONGLY AND FOUGHT FOR
SUCCESSFUL TO MAKE SURE THAT
THIS HEALTH CARE BILL W
OUR NATION'S
FROM WHEN WEASSED THE
BILL, S-CHIP, BACK MONTHS AND
MONTHS AGO, TO THE HEALTH CARE
BILL NOW THAT MY COLLEAGUE FROM
PENNSYLVANIA HAS -- HAS DONE
REMARKABLE WORK ON THAT.
BUT LET ME READ ONE MORE LETTER
AND THEN TURN TO HIM.
CHERYL FROM CAN CAYOGA COUNTY IN
NORTHERN OHIO WRITES, "MY
DAUGHTER'S PAYING COSTLY HEALTH
CARE OUT OF HER OWN POCKET TO
TREAT DEPRESSION.
DESPITE GETTING A NEW JOB, SHE
WAS TOLD HER CONDITION IS
PREEXISTING AND WOULDN'T BE COVERED.
AFTER STRUGGLING FOR A YEAR TO
FIND A GOOD JOB, SHE DOESN'T
NEED THIS PREEXISTING CONDITION
TO SHADOW
I, TOO, HAVE A PREEXISTING
CONDITION OF BREAST CAN
PLEASE STOP INSURANCE COMPANIES
FROM DENYING INSURANCE DUE TO
PREEXISTING CONDITIONS."
MR. PRESIDENT, THIS -- THIS
LETTER, AGAIN, SHOWS THAT THIS
INSURANCE BILL, THIS INSURANCE
REFORM, OUR HEALTH CARE BILL
MAKES SO MUCH SENSE.
TOO MANY AMERICANS, I'M HEARING
FROM HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS AND
HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF THEM
FROM GALLIPOLIS AND POLMOROY AND
IN VAN WERT AND TROY AND PREVO
COUNTY AND ALL OVER THAT TOO
MANY PEOPLE ARE DENIED COVERAGE
BECAUSE OF A PREEXISTING CONDITION.
WHAT -- WHY DOES IT MAKE
SENTENCE THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE
SICK OR MAYBE ARE GNG TO GET
SICK, WHY THEY CAN'T GET INSURANCE?
WHY DOES
THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY SO MUCH,
THEY SIMPLY CAN'T QUALIFY OR
THEY LITERALLY CAN'T GET IT NO
MATTER HOW MUCH THEY PAY
SO, MR. PREDENT, I -- ONE OF
THE -- ONE OF THE IMPORTANT
THINGS ABOUT OUR BILL IS THAT --
THAT IT WILL SPOUT LINE -- IT
WILL OUTLAW, THERE WILL BE NO
MORE EXCLUSIONS FOR PREEXISTING CONDITION.
NOBODY WILL LOSE -- NOBODY WILL
KEEP BE -- NOBODY WILL BE
PROHIBITED FROM GETTING
INSURANCE BECAUSE OF A
PREEXISTING CONDITION, INCLUDING
WOMEN WHO HAVE BEEN VICTIMS OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,OMEN WHO
HAVE HAD C-SECTIONS, MEN WHO
HAVE HAD NUMBER O
NUMBER TWO, NOBODY WILL BE
DENIED CARE BECAUSE OF
DISCRIMINATION, BECAUSE OF THEIR
DISABILITY, BECAUSE OF THEIR AGE
OR THEIR GENDER OR THEIR
GEOGRAPHY
NUMBER THREE, NOBODY WILL HAVE
THEIR INSURANCE POLICY
RESCINDED -- THAT'S WHAT THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES SAY WHEN
THEY TAKE AWAY YOUR INSURANCE --
NOBODY WILL BE DENIED CARE --
WILL BE -- WILL HAVE THEIR
POLICY RESCINDED BECAUSE THEY
GOT SICK AND IT WAS A REALLY
EXPENSIVE ILLNESS THEY AND THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES WANT TO CUT
THEM OFF. AND IN ADDITION TO THESE CHANGES
IN THE LAW
WE ARE GOING TO DO WITH
INSURANCE REFORM, THE PUBLIC
OPTION WILL MAKE SURE THAT THESE
RULES ARE ENFORCED, THAT PEOPLE
SIMPLY CAN'T GAME THE SYSTEM.
THE INSURANCE COMPANIES WON'T BE
ABLE TO GAME THE SYSTEM THE
THEY
MR. PRESIDENT, IT MAKES SO MUCH
SENSE TO PASS THIS BILL.
IT'S GOING TO MEAN PEOPLE WHO
HAVE INSURANCE AND ARE HAPPY
WITH IT ARE STILL GOING TO GET
THESE -- KEEP THESE INSURANCE
AND HAVE THESE CONSUMER
PROTECTIONS.
IT MEANS SMALL BUSINESS WILL GET
HELP WITH
OTHER THINGS TO -- TO ENSURE
THEIR EMPLOYEES -- TO INSURE
THEIR EMPLOYEES AND IT WILL MEAN
THAT THOSE WITHOUT INSURANCE CAN
GET INSURANCE AND HAVE THE
OPTION OF GOING TO MEDICAL
MUTUAL OR CIGNA OR BL CROSS OR
AETNA OR WELLPOINT OR THE PUBLIC
OPTION AND HAVE THAT C
MR. PRESIDENT, I -- I -- I YIELD
THE FLOOR.
MR. CASEY: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA.
MR. CASEY: MR. PRESIDENT, I RISE
TONIGHT TO SPEAK ABOUT THE
HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM BILL
THAT WILL EVENTUALLY COME BEFORE
THE CONGRESS.
WE HAVE A PROCESS UNDERWAY IN
THE SENATE NOW THAT IS STILL PLAYING OUT.
WE DON'T HAVE A BILL BUT I THINK
WE'RE COGNIZANT OF THE FACT THAT
WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THE
CHALLENGE WE FACE WITH REGARD TO HEALTH CARE AS WELL AS TALK
ABOUT SOME GOOD IDEAS TO
CONFRONT THIS CHALLENGE.
AND I DO WANT TO COMMEND --
COMMEND MY COLLEAGUE FROM OHIO,
SENATOR BROWN, WHO HAS REALLY
LED THE FIGHT ON MAKING SURE
THAT THE PUBLIC OPTION IS PRIORITY.
FROM DAY ONE, HE NOT ONLY HAS
THREAD FIGHT BUT ALSO FROM DAY
ONE, WAY BACK IN THE SUMMER WHEN
WE WERE ACTUALLY WORKING ON
LANGUAGE IN THE HEALTH,
EDUCATION, LABOR, PENSIONS
COMMITTEE, HE AND OTHERS SAT
DOWN TO ACTUAL WRITE THAT SECTION.
SO WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR HIS
LEADERSHIP AND FOR HIS ABILITY
TO RELATE TO US WHAT A PUBLIC
OPTION MEANS TO REAL PEOPLE.
NOT THE CONCEPT, NOT THE --
THE -- NOT ONLY THE POLICY OF IT
BUT WHAT IT MEANS TO RL PEOPLE
AND REAL FAMILIES.
SO WE WANT TO COMMEND HIM FOR
THAT GREAT WORK.
ONE OF THE AREAS THAT I'VE TRIED
TO SPEND AS MUCH TIME AS
POSSIBLE ON IS THE QUESTION OF
WHAT HAPPENS WITH REGARD TO OUR
CHILDREN, WILL CHILDREN AT THE
END OF THIS PROCESS BE BETTER
OFF OR WORSE OFF?
AND ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF
CHILDREN WHO HAPPEN TO BE
VULNERABLE BECAUSE OF INCOME, SO
WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT POOR
CHILDREN AND CHILDREN WITH
AND I BELIEVE ONE OF THE
PRINCIPLES OR MAYBE THE BETTER
WORD IS A GOAL THAT WE MUST MEET
AT THE ENOF THE ROAD, WHEN WE
HAVE A BILL THAT GETS THROUGH
BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND GOES
TO THE PRESIDENT, WHEN A BILL
GETS TO THERESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, PRESIDENT OBAMA,
FOR HIS SIGNATURE -- AND I
BELIEVE WE'LL GET THERE -- IT'S
GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME AND
WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING --
TONGUE WORK VERY HARD IN THE
NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS TO GET THIS DONE.
BUT WHEN THAT BILL GETS TO
PRESIDENT OBAMA, I BELIEVE THAT
WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE IN THIS
PROCESS OVER THESE MANY MONTHS
OF WORK -- AND FOR SOME PEOPLE
MANY YEARS -- WE HAVE TO MAKE
SURE THAT THAT BILL ENSURES THAT
NO CHILD, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO
ARE VULNERABLE, THAT NO CHILD IS
WORSE OFF.
I BELIEVE WE CAN GET THERE.
I BELIEVE WE MUST GET THERE.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION,
ESPECIAL WHEN IT COMES TO
VULNERABLE CHILDREN, POOR
CHILDREN AND THOSE WITH SPECIAL
TO -- TO SET FORTH A FOUNDATION
FOR THAT, I INTRODUCED A
RESOLUTION SEVERAL MONTHS AGO,
JOINT RESOLUTION 170.
I WON'T READ IT OR REVIEW IT
TONIGHT BUT IT WAS A RESOLUTION
THAT FOCUSED ON THAT BASIC GOAL
OF MAKING SURE THAT NO CHILD IS
WORSE OFF.
I WAS JOINED IN THAT RESOLUTION
BY SENATOR DODD, WHO -- THE
CHAIRMAN OF OUR -- THE
THEN-CHAIRMAN, I SHOULD SAY,
EARLIER THIS YEAR OF OUR HEALTH
CARE REFORM HEARINGS THIS SUMMER.
SENATOR ROCKEFELLER ALSO WASA COSPONSOR OF THIS RESOLUTION,
SOMEONE WHO HAS LED ON NOT JUST
HEALTH CARE ISSUES IN THE
FINANCE COMMITTEE BUT
VERY PARTICULAR WAY HAS STOOD UP
FOR CHILDREN, AS HAS SENATOR
DODD, AND THEY'RE BOTH SENATORS
MANY YEARS HERE IN THE SENATE.
SENATOR BROWN IS A COSPONSOR OF
THIS JOINT RESOLUTION FOR
CHILDREN, AS WELLS SENATOR
SANDERS FROM THE STATE OF
VERMONT, AND SENATOR WHITEHOE
FROM RHODE ISLAND.
THOSE FIVE
IN THIS RESOLUTION, WHICH I
BELIEVE IS THE FOUNDATION FOR
WHAT WE HAVE TO DO WITH REGARD
TO CHILDREN.
THE CHART O
SUMMATION OF SOME OF THE THINGS
WE JUST TALKED ABOUT.
FIRST OF ALL, THIS FIRST POINT
WITH REGARD TO OUR CHILDREN,
THAT CHILDREN ARE NOT SMALL ADULTS.
IT SEEMS LIKE A SIMPLE
STATEMENT, SEEMS VERY MUCH
SELF-EVIDENT, BUT,
UNFORTUNATELY, WE FORGET THAT.
I THINK WE FORGET IT ONCE WE
BECOME ADULTS, BUT EVEN IN THE
CONTEXT OF HEALTH CARE REFORM.
YOU CANNOT JUST SAY, THIS IS A
HEALTH CARE STRATEGY OR PROGRAM
OR MANNER OF DELIVERING CARE OR
A TREATMENT OPTION OR A WAY TO
COVER MORE AMERICANS WITH REGARD
TO HEALTH CARE.
SO IF IT APPLIES TO AN ADULT,
IT'LL WORK FOR CHILDREN.
UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE THEY ARE
NOT SIMPLY SMALL ADULTS, WE HAVE
TO HAVE DIFFERENT STRATEGIES FOR
CHILDREN THAT DIFFER FROM THE
WAY WE PROVIDING HEALTH CARE FOR
ADULTS.
THE SECOND BULLET HERE,
"CHILDREN HAVE DIFFERENT HEALTH
CARE NEEDS THAN DO
I THINK THAT'S A BASIC
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE, THAT
CHILDREN HAVE TO BE APP
IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
THE TREATMENT IS DIFFERENT.
THE PREVENTION STRATEGIES ARE DIFFERENT.
AND SOMETIMES THE OUTCOMES OF
THE HEALTH CARE TREATMENT AND
STRATEGY IS DIFFERENT.
"IT IS ALSO CRITICAL THAT ALL
CHILDREN, PARTICULARLY THOSE
MOST DISADVANTAGE THE, GET THE
HIGHEST QUALITY CARE THROUGHOUT
CHILDHOOD."
AND THAT'S THE FOUNDATION OF
THAT RESOLUTION.
WHEN IT COMES TO HEALTH CARE
REFORM GENERALLY, BUT IN
PARTICULAR WITH REGARD TO OUR
CHILDREN, WE HAVE TO GET THIS RIGHT.
WE CAN'T JUST SAY, WELL, WE
TRIED AND WE TINRED WITH SOME
DETAILS OR SOME PROGRAMS AND WE
DID OUR BEST.
WHEN IT COMES TO HEALTH CARE FOR
CH
CHILD OR HIS OR HER FAMILY OR
THE COMMUNITY THEY LIVE IN, BUT
ALSO WHE -- AND WE TEND TO FORGET
THIS -- BUT ALSO FOR OUR
LONG-TERM ECONOMIC STRENGTH IS
PREDICATED IN LARGE MEASURE, IN
MY JUDGMENT, ON HOW WE CARE FOR
OUR CHILDREN AND ESPECIALLY THE
KIND OF HEALTH CARE THAT OUR
CHILDREN WILL RECEIVE.
SO WE HAVE TO GET THIS RIGHT FOR
OUR KIDS, FOR THEIR FAMILIES,
AND FOR OUR ECONOMY LONG TERM.
FORTUNATELY, WE'VE MADE GREAT
STRIDES OVER REALLY JUST THE
LAST 15 YEARS, EVEN LESS --
MAYBE LESS -- 12 YEARS.
'VE MADE GREAT STRIDES ON
CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE.
THE CONGRESS, AND SIGNED INTO
LAW BY PRESIDENT CLINTON IN
1997, CREATED A NATIONWIDE
HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM,
SO-CALLED -- THE CHIP PROGRAM.
AND IN THAT CASE WE HAD
SOMETHING THAT HA ITS ORIGIN IN STATES.
IN MY HOME STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA, IT STARTED ONE OF
THE LARGEST, IF NOT "THE"
LAEST HEALTH INSURANCE EFFORT
IN THE NATION.
AND THAT WAS BUILT
OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION.
SO NOW WE HAVE A PROGRAM IN
EX
NATIONALLY WHERE MILLIONS OF
CHILDREN HAVE HEALTH CARE
BECAUSE WE MADE THEM A PRIITY.
IN PENNSYLVANIA, FOR EXAMPLE,
WE'VE HAD A -- FORTUNATELY, A
DIMINUTION, AN DECREASING NUMBER
OF CHILDREN WHO ARE UNINSURED.
TO THE POINT WHERE LAST YEAR
WHEN THERE WAS A SURVEY DONE FOR
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, THE
UNINSURED RATE FOR CHILDREN WAS 5%.
STILL TOO HIGH, BUT LOWER THAN
IT USED TO BE.
WE WANT TO BRING THAT OBVIOUSLY
TO ZERO.
BUT 5% UNINSURED FOR CHILDREN IN
PENNSYANIA, 12% UNINSURED FOR
PEOPLE BETWEEN THE AGES OF 19
D 64.
SO WE KNOW THAT FOR CHILDREN AND
FOR OLDER CITIZS OVER THE AGE
OF 64 -- 65 AND UP -- THAT WE'VE
HAD STRATEGIES FOR BOTH OF THOSE
AGE GUPS.
CHILDREN MORE RECENTLY, WITH
REGARD TO CHILDREN'S HEALTH
INSURANCE, AS WELL AS ME MEDICAID
FOR LOWER-INCOME CHILDREN, BUT
ALSO WE'VE HAD MEDICARE FOR OLDER CITIZENS.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT THAT AGE
CATEGORY IN THE MIDDLE, THAT
VAST MIDDLE, AGES 19 TO 64, WE
HAVEN'T HAD A STRATEGY.
RECENTLY OR OVER MANY DECADES.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS
WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HEALTH
INSURANCE REFORM FOR EVERYONE,
BUT ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE
IN THAT AGE CATEGORY.
WITH REGARD TO CHILDREN, WE'VE
GOT MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE KNOW
WORKS STAYS IN PLACE.
WE HAVE A LOT -- WE HAVE PLENTY
OF DATA TO SHOW THAT CHILDREN
WITH HEALTH CARE COVERAGE DO
BETTER THAN CHILDREN WITHO
HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
THAT IS IRREFUTABLE,
UNDISPUTABLE --
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WOULD
DISPUTE THAT AS A MATTER OF
PUBLIC POLICY.
CHILDREN WITH INSURANCE ARE MORE
LIKELY TO HAVE ACCESS TO
PREVENTIVE CARE, A MAJOR PART OF
OUR REFORM EFFORT.
WE HAVE A
"HELP" COMMITTEE THAT WE
THIS SUMMER IS ALL ABOUT PREVENTION.
CHILDREN IN PUBLIC PROGRAMS ARE
ONE AND A HALF TIMES MORE LIKELY
TO OBTAIN WELL-CHILD CARE THAN
UNINSURED CHILDREN.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
WELL, IT'S VERY SIMPLE.
THE EXPERTS TELL US -- AND
FORTUNATELY CHILDREN ENROLLED IN
THE CHIP PROGRAM -- OR SCHIP AS
WE SOMETIMES CALL IT -- IN THEIR
FIRST YEAR OF LIFE HAVE SIX
WELL-CHILD VISITS TO THE DOCTOR,
FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT, CAN
ALTER IN A POSITIVE SENSE THAT
CHILD'S DESTINY, THEIR FUTURE
CAN BE DETERMINED IN THE FIRST
COUPLE OF WEEKS AND MONTHS AND
CERTAINLY THE FIRST YEAR OF
LIFE.
IT IS GOOD NOR THAT CHILD IN THE
FIRST YEAR OF LIFE TO GO TO THE
DOCTOR AT LEAST SIX TIMES FOR A
WELL-CHILD VISIT.
AS THEY DO IN THE CHIP PROGRAM.
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE
PREVENTION STRATEGIES IN PLACE
NOR THAT CHILD IN THE VERY EARLY
MONTHS OF THAT CHILD'S LIFE, AND
CERTAINLY IN THE FIRST YEAR.
HERE'S ANOTHER CHILLING
STATISTIC:
UNSURED CHILDREN ARE 10 TIMES
MORE LIKELY TO HAVE AN UNMET
HEALTH CARE NEED THAN INSURED
CHILDREN.
10 TIMES -- NOT DOUBLE OR TRIPLE
-- 10 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO HAVE
AN UNMET HEALTH CARE NEED.
NOW, WE HEAR SOME PEOPLE IN THIS
DEBATE SAY, WELL,
SOMEONE ELSE.
THAT'S ABOUT SOME OTHER FAMILY,
SOMEONE ELL ELSE'S CHILD.
THAT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM.
WELL, IT ACTUALLY IS YOUR
PROBLEM EVEN IF YOU HAVE NO
COMPASSION, EVEN IF YOU DON'T --
EVEN IF SOMEONE OUT THERE SAYS,
WELL, THAT'S NOT MY PROBLEM;
THAT'S SOMEONE ELSE'S PROBLEM.
IT IS YOUR PROBLEM BECAUSE EVERY
CHILD WHO BECAUSE OF A LACK OF
INSURANCE AND A LACK OF
WELL-CHILD VISITS TO THE DOCTOR
OR A LACK OF GETTING TO THE
DENTIST OR HAVING PREVENTIVE
CARE, EVERY CHILD THAT HAPPENS
TO IN SOME WAY HAS AN ADVERSE
IMPACT ON OUR ECONOMY.
THINK ABOUT IT LONG TERM.
IF YOU'RE RUNNING A COMPANY, WHO
DO YOU THINK WILL BE A STRONGER
EMPLOYEE FOROU, A MORE
PRODUCTIVE EMPLOYEE?
SOMEONE WHO GOT GOOD HEALTH CARE
IN THE DAWN OF THEIR LIFE, AS
HUBERT HUMPHREY USED TO SAY?
OR SOMEONE WHO DIDN'T GET THAT
KIND OF HEALTH CARE OR NUTRITION
OR EARLY LEARNING?
ALL THESE THINGS WE TALK ABOUT
HAVE RAMIFICATIONS FOR OUR
LONG-TERM ECONOMY BECAUSE OF OUR WORKFORCE.
IF YOU HAVE A HIGH-SKILLED
WORKFORCE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE
ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE.
SO THAT NUMBER OF 10 TIMES MORE
LIKELY TO HAVE AN UNMET HEALTH
CARE NEED FOR THE UNINSURED
CHILD VERSUS THE CHILD WITH
INSURANCE IS CHILLING.
IT'S ONE OF THOSE NUMBERS THAT
ALONE SHOULD COMPEL US -- SHOULD
MOTIVATE US -- TO PASS THIS
BILL.
INSURED CHILDREN ARE
BETTER-EQUIPPED TO DO WELL IN
SCHOOL.
UNINSURED CHILDREN WITH POORLY
CONTROLLED CHRONIC DISEASES LIKE
ASTHMA CAN SUFFER POOR ACADEMIC
PERFORMANCE IF THEIR HEALTH CARE
CONDITION CAUSES THEM TO MISS
MANY DAYS OF
WE KNOWHAT.
THIS IS NOT NEWS.
BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, WE'VE
ALLOWED CONDITIONS TO PERSIST IN
OUR SYSTEM WHERE A CHILD DOESN'T
GET THE KIND OF CARE THAT ALLOWS
THEIR ASTHMA OR OTHER CONDITION
TO BE MADE WORSE.
INSURANCE IMPROVES CHILDREN'S
ACCESS TO THE MEDICATIONS AND
TREATMENTS THEY NEED TO CONTROL
TO MISS FEWER DAYS OF SCHOOL.
WE KNOW THAT'S -- WE KNOW THAT'S
THE CASE.
NOW, THE CHART ON MY LEFT GIVES
A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF A JOHNS
HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDY
PUBLISHED IN "THE NEW YORK
TIMES" ON OCTOBER 30, JUST A FEW
DAYS AGO, THAT HOSPITALIZED
CHILDREN WITHOUT INSURANCE ARE
MORE LIKELY TO DIE.
SO THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT A CHILD
GETTING A SLOWER START IN LIFE
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE HEALTH
RE OR A CHILDOT GETTING --
HAVING
IN SCHOOL BECAUS
GET HEALTH CARE, OR MISSING DAYS
IN SCHOOL.
ALL OF THAT IS TERRIBLE FOR THAT
CHILD AND FOR THAT FEAVMENT THIS
IS A LOT WORSE THAN THAT.
THIS IS LITERALLY ABOUT THE LIFE
AND DEATH OF A CHILD.
ACCORDING TO THIS STUDY AND
OTHERS AS WELL.
AND I'D ASK FOR THE RECORD,
MR. PRESIDENT, TO SUBMIT AN
ARTICLE DATED OCTOBER 30, 2009,
IN "THE NEW YORK TIMES" WITH THE
HEADLINE "HOSPITALIZED CHILDREN
WITHOUT INSURANCE ARE MORE
LIKELY TO DI, A STUDY FINDS." THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. CASEY: THIS IS WHAT IT SAYS.
"RESEARCH AT JOHNS HOPKINS
ANALYZED DPRAT MORE THAN 23
MILLION CHILDREN'S
HOSPITALIZATIONS IN
FROM 1988 TO 2005."
THIS WASN'T A QUICK SURVEY.
THIS WAS A DETAILED STUDY OF
MILLIONS OF RECORDS OVER -- OVER
THAT LONG A TIME PERIOD.
"COMPARED WITH INSURED CHILD
UNINSURED CHILDREN, FACED A 60%
INCREASED RISK OF DYING."
A 60% INCREASED RISK OF DYI,
THE RESEARCHERS SHOW.
SO
AB
THIS ISN'T THEORETICAL.
THIS ISN'T SOME PUBLIC POLICY
ARGUMENT THAT WE PULLED DOWN
FROM A PUBLIC POLICY REPORT.
THIS IS ABOUT LIFE AND DEATH FOR CHILEN.
WE'RE EITHER GOING TO STAY ON
THE COURSE WE'VE BEEN ON WITH
REGARD TO CHILDREN, MAKING --
MAKING IMPROVEMENTS,
STRENGTHENING A PROGRAM LIKE
CHIP, OR WE'RE NOT.
AND I THINK IT'S VITALLY
IMPORTANT WE CONTINUE TO MAKE
PROGRESS AS IT RELATES TO
CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE.
SO THIS IS -- THIS IS
FUNDAMENTAL TO THIS DISCUSSION
ABOUT HEALTH CARE REFORM.
AND SOMETIMES A STUDY OR A CHART
OR A PUBLIC POLICY REALLY
DOESN'T TELL US ENOUGH.
SOMETIMES THE LIFE OF A PERSON
-- JUST AS SENATOR BROWN WAS
RELATING LETTERS THAT HE HAS
RECEIVED AND THEN HIGHLIGHTED
FROM PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF
OHIO, PEOPLE IN PENNSYLVANIA
HAVE WRITTEN TO ME OR SENT AN
E-MAIL OR APPEARED IN OUR OFFICE
AND TOLD THEIR OWN STORIES.
AND IN THIS CASE, WHEN THIS
COMES TO REAL FAMILIES AND REAL
CHILDREN, IT'S ESPECIALLY
IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THOSE.
I JUST HAVE ONE EXAMPLE TO SHARE
TONIGHT.
I RECEIVED A LETTER FROM A
PENNSYLVANIA RESIDENT,
LOUIS.
DESE HAS
NOW -- WHO ARE NOW OLDER.
SHE WAS RECALLING WHEN SHE
CONTACTED US ABOUT WHAT SHE WENT
THROUGH WITH HER FOUR CHILDREN
IN TERMS OF HEALTH CARE.
ALL THROUGH THEIR CHILDHOOD
DENISE AND HER HUSBAND STRUGGLED
WITH BEING EITHER UNINSURED OR
UNDERINSURED.
WHAT HEALTH INSURANCE THEY HAVE
HAS ALWAYS BEEN EMPLOYER-BASED
BUT OFTEN WAS LIMITED
COVERED HOSPITALIZATIONS.
HER FAMILY COULDN'T AFFORD THE
PREMIUMS ON MORE EXPENSIVE
COVERAGE AND MUCH OF THIS,
UNFORTUNATELY, WAS BEFORE THE
CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE
PROGRAM WAS IN EFFECT.
AND HER FAMILY NEVER QUALIFIED
FOR ANY OTHER KIND OF ASSISTANCE.
SHE SAID SHE WOULD WORK
JOB PART-TIME AS A WAITRESS SO
THEY COULD AFFORD FOOD AND TO
PAY OFF MEDICAL BILLS.
AND TODAY, EVEN THOUGH HER
YOUNGEST IS 19 YEARS OLD -- HER
YOUNGEST CHILD OF THE FOUR IS 19
YEARS OLD T
SENDING MONTHLY DHEKS TO HER
PEDIATRICIAN TO PAY FOR ALL THE
CARE HER CHILDREN RECEIVED.
IMAGINE THAT.
ALL THESE YEARS LATER, BECAUSE
OF THE SYSTEM WE HAVE -- AND
GOODNESS THERE ARE GREAT PARTS
TO OUR SYSTEM WE SHOULD
CELEBRATE AND BE PROUD OF.
BUT THERE ARE A LOT PARTS OF OUR
HEALTH CARE SYSTEM WHICH SIMPLY
DON'T WORK FOR TOO MANY
AMERICANS, AND IT'S HURTING FAMILIES.
IT'S HURTING BUSINESSES, AND
IT'S KILLING OUR ABILITY TO GROW
THE ECONOMY LONG TERM.
AND THIS IS ONE EXAMPLE.
WHY SHOULD DENISE LOUIS OR
ANYONE HAVE TO WORRY LIKE THIS,
HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN FOOD AND
GETTING MEDICAL CARE OR PAYING
FOR A HOSPITAL VISIT?
AND WHY SHOULD ANYONE HAVE TO
PAY OFF MEDICAL BILLS YEARS
YES LATER FOR CHILDREN WHO ARE
ALREADY GROWN?
AT TIMES, SHE SAID -- I'M
TALKING ABOUT DENISE LOUIS --
SHE SAID THAT THE MEDICAL CARE
HER CHILDREN NEEDED WOULD
ACTUALLY DETERMINE WHAT FOOD THE
FAMILY ATE THAT WEEK.
THEY MANAGED TO MAKE ENDS MEET
BUT NEVER HAD ANY MONEY FOR
EXTRAS OF ANY KIND.
THEREON THIS IN TERMS OF WHAT DENISE SAID.
SHE IS ARE HER WORDS.
"WONDERING WHETHER YOU SHOULD GO
TO THE DOCTOR IS COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT FROM WONDERING WHETHER
YOUR KIDS SHOULD GO TO THE
DOCTOR."
THAT'S THE NIGHTMARE
MANY FAMILIES ARE LIVING
THROUGH, AND FOR THOSE WHO SAY
WELL, LET'S JUST THINK ABOUT IT
FOR ANOTHER SIX MONTHS, LET'S
NOT PASS A BILL, SOME ARE
SAYING, LET'S SLOW IT DOWN, IT'S
TOO -- IT'S TOO COMPLICATED, WE
CAN'T DO THIS.
FOR THOSE WHO ARE SAYING THAT, I
WOULD ASK THEM IF THEY HAVE EVER
THE QUESTION OF WHAT KIND OF
CARE YOUR CHILD WILL GET.
HAVE THEY EVER FACED THE DILEMMA
OF HOWUCH YOUR FAMILY CAN EAT
IN A PARTICULAR WEEK OR CAN YOU
PAY FOR A
DENISE LEWIS, ONE OF HER
CHILDREN, HAD FREQUENT EAR
INFECTIONS AS A BABY, AND MORE
THAN ONCE, SHE WOULD CALL THE
PEDIATRICIAN AND ASK IF SHE
COULD GET A PRESCRIPTION WITHOUT
COMING TO THE OFFICE SO THAT SHE
WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR THE
OFFICE VISIT.
WHY HAVE WE TOLERATED THIS?
YEAR AFTER YEAR AND DECADE AFTER
DECADE OF PEOPLE TELLING STORIES
LIKE THIS, THE UNITED STATES YEAR AFTER
YEAR HAS SAID WELL, WE'LL GET TO
THAT LATER.
WELL, IT'S TOO COMPLICATED.
WHY SHOULD ANY PARENT, MOTHER OR
FATHER, SINGLE PARENT, WHY
SHOULD ANY PARENT HAVE TO --
HAVE TO MAKE THOSE CHOICES OR
SAY TO A PEDIATRICIAN CAN I GET
A PRESCRIPTION WITHOUT COMING TO
THE OFFICE BECAUSE I CAN'T
AFFORD THE OFFICE VISIT?
WE'RE THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN
THE
WE HAVE ALL THE BENEFITS OF THE
WONDERS OF TECHNOLOGY AND GREAT
DOCTORS AND DEDICATED AND
SKILLED NURSES, GREAT HOSPITALS
AND HOSPITAL SYSTEMS, ALL THIS
BRAINPOWER AND TALENT AND
ABILITY AND ABILITY TO CURE
DISEASE, AND YET ON THE OTHER
SIDE OF OUR SYSTEM, WE TELL
PEOPLE YOUAVE TO PAY MORE FOR
A DOCTOR VISIT FOR YOUR CHILD.
WHY HAVE WE ALLOWED THIS TO HAPPEN?
YEAR AFTER YEAR, WE HAVE JUST
ALLOWED THIS PROBLEM TO PERSIST.
WE SAY TO OUR SYSTEM -- OUR
SYSTEM HAS SAID TO WOMEN YOU
SHOULD ENGAGE IN SOME
PREVENTATIVE STRATEGY, AND WITH
REGARD TO BREAST CANCER, YOU
SHOULD GET A MAMMOGRAM.
AND THEN WE SAY BUT YOU HAVE TO
PAY FOR ALL OR MOST OF IT.
WHY DO WE DO THAT?
WHY SHOULD WE ALLOW THAT TO
CONTINUE?
I WANTED TO MOVE TO TWO MOR
CHARTS,
TIME A LITTLE BIT.
LET ME GO TO THE NEXT CHART.
I REALLY BELIEVE THAT WHEN WE
DESCRIBE SOMEF THESE
CHALLENGES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
REALLY A NATIONAL TRAGEDY.
THE CHILDREN IN OUR COUNTRY
SHOULD BE REDUCED TO HAVING THE
EMERGENCY ROOM AS THEIR PRIMARY
CARE PHYSICIAN OR THEIR DOCTOR'S
OFFICE, AS WE ALL WHEN WE WERE
GROWING UP WE KNEW WHAT IT WAS
LIKE TO GO TOHE DOCTOR, BUT
FOR TOO MANY CHILDREN, THE
EMERGENCY ROOM IS THE DOCTOR'S
OFFICE.
AND THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR THAT
CHILD BECAUSE IT USUALLY MEANS
THEY ARE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD
WITH A CONDITION OR A PROBLEM,
THEY ARE SICKER AND HAVE MORE
COMPLICATED, AND IT'S ALSO BAD
FOR HOW WE PAY FOR HEALTH CARE.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT EMERGENCY ROOM
CARE BY UNINSURED AMERICANS WITH
NO PLACE TO GO BUT AN EMERGENCY
ROOM IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST
DRIVERS OF THE OUT-OF-CONTROL
COSTS THAT WE OFTEN SEE IN OUR
SYSTEM, AND IT'S WHY WE NEED
HEALTH CARE REFORM NOW.
WE NOW COVER ABOUT SEVEN MILLION
CHILDREN IN CHIP, AND WE
THANKFULLY, FORTUNATELY
RE-AUTHORIZED IT IN 2009.
IT KIND OF WENT BY PRETTY
QUICKLY, BUT THAT WAS A MAJOR
ACHIEVEMENT THAT THAT BILL IS
NOW -- THAT BILL WENT THROUGH
AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, PRESIDENT OBAMA, SIGNED
IT INTO LAW.
BY VIRTUE OF THAT ONE SIGNATURE
AND THE WORK THAT LED UP TO
THAT, THAT SEVEN MILLION THAT
ARE COVERED NOW BY CHIP WILL
DOUBLE BY 2013 TO 14 MILLION
CHILDREN WHO WILL BE COVERED BY
THAT PROGRAM.
BUT EVEN WITH THAT RE-AUTHORIZATION, THERE ARE
STILL THINGS THAT WILL CHALLENGE
US WITH REGARD TO THE CHILDREN'S
HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM.
ONE OF THEM IS A FAILURE THAT
COULD TAKE PLACE OVER TIME WHERE
WE DON'T STRENGTHEN THE
CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE
PROGRAM.
AND I MEANT TO HIGHLIGHT THIS
CHART AS WELL.
UNINSURED LOW-INCOME CHILDREN --
THIS IS WHY THE CHIP IS SO
IMPORTANT.
UNINSURED LOW-INCOME CHILDREN
ARE FOUR TIMES AS LIKELY TO RELY
ON AN EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT OR
HAVE NO REGULAR SOURCE OF CARE.
THAT'S
MAKE ABOUT EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS.
BUT FINALLY, LET ME MOVE TO
FOURTH CHART.
NOT ONLY IS THIS PROGRAM,
CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE, A
MAJOR SUCCESS ACROSS THE
COUNTRY, BUT IT HAS REDUCED THE
RATE OF UNINSURED WINNER BY MORE THAN ONE-THIRD.
AS WE CAN SEE ON THIS CHART ON
MY LEFT, UNINSURED -- INSURING
CHILDREN, I SHOULD SAY, IS
SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE ACROSS
AMERICA STRONGLY, STRONGLY SUPPORT.
PRIOR TO THE -- THE AMENDMENTS
AND THE MARKUP PROCESS IN THE
FINANCE COMMITTEE THIS FALL,
THERE WAS A PROPOSAL TO
CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE
PROGRAM INTO THE HEALTH
INSURANCE EXCHANGE AS PART OF
TH FINANCE COMMITTEE BILL.
NOW, MANY MEMBERS OF THAT
COMMITTEE AND OTHERS LIKE ME AND
OTHERS DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS A
GOOD IDEA.
SENATOR JAY ROCKEFELLER WAS
ANOTHER, AND FORTUNATELY HE WAS
ON THE COMMITTEE, ON THE FINAN
COMMITTEE, AND HIS AMENDMENT IN
THAT COMMITTEE FORTUNATELY
REMOVED THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH
INSURANCE PROGRAM FROM THE EXCHANGE.
NOW, WHY WAS THAT IMPORTANT?
WELL, THE DATA IS OVERWHELMING
THAT PLACING FAMILIES THAT ARE
COVERED BY THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH
INSURANCE PROGRAM INTO THAT
NEWLY CREATED INSURANCE EXCHANGE
WOULD, IN FACT,
COSTS AND DECREASE THEIR
BENEFITS.
SO THERE WAS A DEBATE ABOUT IT,
BUT I THINK THE FINANCE
COMMITTEE DID THE RIGHT THING.
BY KEEPING THE CHIREN'S HEALTH
INSURANCE PROGRAM AS A
STAND-ALONE PROGRAM THAT WE KNOW WORKS.
ALL THE DATA SHOWS -- IT'S NOT AN EXPERIMENT.
IT'S NOT A NEW PROGRAM.
WE HAVE HAD MORE THAN A DECADE
OF EVIDENCE THAT IT SHOWS THAT
IT WORKS.
WE HAVE GOT TO KEEP THAT IN THE FINAL BILL.
WE HAVE GOT TO KEEP THAT AS A
STAND-ALONE PROGRAM.
AND WE H
TO MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS.
WHEN YOU SEE THE NUMBERS HERE,
AN OVERWHELMING 3-1 MAJORITY, 62%-21% OF AMERICANS WOULD
OPPOSE THE ELIMINATION OF THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE
PROGRAM IF THEY LEARNED THAT
NEW EXCHANGE MAY BE MORE COSTLY
FOR FAMILIES AND PROVIDE FEWER
BENEFITS FOR CHILDREN.
SO WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT
WHEN WE GET TO THE POINT OF
HAVING A FINAL BILL WORKED OUT,
THAT WE KEEP THAT -- KEEP THAT
IN MIND.
WE KNOW FOR NOW THAT WE HAVE A
STAND-ALONE PROGRAM, AND THANK
GOODNESS THAT CHANGE WAS MADE,
AND WE KNOW THAT IT WORKS, BUT
WE HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN
TO STRENGTHEN THE CHILDREN'S
HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM,
BECAUSE IN THE COMING YEARS,
THERE WILL BE RECOMMENDATIONS TO
CHANGE IT, THERE WILL BE OTHERS
WHO WILL MAKE SUGGESTIONS ABOUT
HOW THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH
INSURANCE
HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, AND WE HAVE
GOT TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT HOW
WE DO THAT.
BUT FOR NOW, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE
TWO POINTS AND THEN I WILL
CONCLUDE, MR. PRESIDENT.
A COMMITMENT TO THAT BASIC GOAL
THAT NO CHILD AT THE END OF THIS
IS WORSE OFF, ESPECIALLY
VULNERABLE CHILDREN WHO HAPPEN
TO BE POOR OR HAVE ONE OR MORE
SPECIAL NEEDS.
WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT
HAPPENS, AND WE ALSO HAVE TO
REAFFIRM WHAT I THINK IS
SELFEVIDENT AND IRREFUTABLE.
THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE
PROGRAM WORKS.
WE'VE GOT TO KEEP IT AS A
STAND-ALONE PROGRAM.
WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO
STRENGTHEN IT BECAUSE THERE ARE
SOME CHANGES WE CAN MAKE TO
STRENGTHEN IT.
SO I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH OUR COLLEAGUES HERE IN THE
SENATE TO MEET
I KNOW THE PRESIDING OFFICER HAS
A CONCERN ABOUT THIS AS WELL AND
HE HAS BEEN A GREAT LEADER ON
HEALTH CARE IN HIS FIRST YEAR IN
THE UNITED STATES SENATE.
I WANT TO THANK HIM FOR HIS WORK.
I'LL CONCLUDE WITH THIS -- IN
THE SCRIPTURES, IT TELLS US, AND
I QUOTE --
FRIEND IS A STURDY SHELTER."
WE HAVE HEARD THAT LINE FROM
STRIP TOUR.
WE HAVE HEARD IT FROM OTHER
PLACES AS WELL.
WE THINK OF FRIENDSHIP AS A KIND
OF SHELTER WHEN THINGS GET
DIFFICULT, WHEN LIFE GET DIFFICULT.
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE
HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES IN THIS
DEBATE IS WILL THE CONGRESS OF
THE UNITED STATES REALLY BE A
FRIEND TO CHILDREN?
WILL WE BE THAT FAITHFUL FRIEND
WHO ACTS AS A STURDY SHELTER
BECAUSE CHILDREN CAN'T DO IT ON
THEIR OWN, WE HAVE TO HELP THEM.
AND I BELIEVE THAT BY GETTING
THIS RIGHT, WE CAN BE
FAITHFUL FRIEND AND WE CAN BE
THAT STURDY SHELTER FOR OUR CHILDREN.
SO LET IT BE SAID OF US, MANY
YEARS FROM NOW WHEN PEOPLE
REFLECT UPON HOW THIS DEBATE
TOOK PLACE AND WHAT WE -- WHAT
WE PASSED IN TERMS OF HEALTH
CARE REFORM, LET IT BE SAID OF
US WHEN OUR WORK IS DONE THAT
WE, AL OF US, AS MEMBERS OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE AND MEMBERS
OF THE CONGRESS OVERALL, THAT WE
CREATED AT THIS TIME, AT THIS
PLACE, A STURDY SHELTER FOR OUR
CHILDREN AND THAT WE CAN SAY
THAT WITH CONFIDENCEND WITH
INTEGRITY.
MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR
AND WOULD NOTE THE ABSENCE OF A
QUORUM.
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
MR. CASEY: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA.
MR. CASEY: I ASK THE QUORUM CALL BE VITIATED.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. CASEY: THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT, AS IF IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT AT
4:30 P.M. ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9,
THE SENATE PROCEED TO EXECUTIVE
SESSION TO CONSIDER CALENDAR
NUMBER 185, THE NOMINATION OF
ANDRE M. DAVIS TO BE A U.S.
CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT, THAT THERE BE 60
MINUTES OF DEBATE WITH RESPECT
TO THE NOMINATION, WITH THE TIME
EQUALLY DIVIDED AND CONTROLLED
BETWEEN SENATORS LEAHY AND
SESSIONS OR THEIR DESIGNE,
THAT AT 5:30 P.M., THE SENATE
PROCEED TO VOTE ON CONFIRMATION
OF THE NOMINATION, THAT UPON
CONFIRMATION, THE MOTION TO
RECONSIDER BE MADE AND LAID UPON
THE TABLE, THE PRESIDENT BE
IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED OF THE
SENATE'S ACTION, AND THE SENATE
THEN RESUME LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. CASEY: FOR THE INFORMATION
OF THE SENATE, IF MEMBERS WISH
TO SPEAK WITH RESPECT TO THIS
NOMINATION ON FRIDAY, THEY'RE
ENCOURAGED TO DO SO.
MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT THE SENATE PROCEED
TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONSIDE
EN
CALENDAR NUMBERS 314, 495, 496,
502, 503, 515, 516, 517, 518,
523, 524, 525, 528, AND 529,
THAT THE NOMINATIONS BE
CONFIRMED, THAT THE MOTIONS TO
RECONSIDER BE LAID UPON THE
TABLE EN BLOC, THAT NO FURTHER
MOTIONS BE IN ORDER, THAT ANY
STATEMENTS RELATG TO THE
NOMINATIONS APPEAR IN THE
APPROPRIATE PLACE IN THE RECORD
AS IF READ, THAT THE PRESIDENT
BE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED OF THE
SENATE'S ACTION AND THAT THE
SENATE RESUME LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. CASEY: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THE SENATE PROCEED TO A
PERIOD OF MORNING BUSINESS WITH
SENATORS PERMITTED TO SPEAK FOR
UP TO TEN MINUTES EACH.
THE
OBJECTION.
MR. CASEY: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THE SENATE PROCEED TO
THE IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION OF
CALENDAR NUMBER
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK
WILL REPORT.
THE CLERK: CALENDAR NUMBER 164,
S. 806, A
THE ESTABLISHMENT AND
ADMINISTRATION AND FUNDING OF
FEDERAL EXECUTIVE BOARDS, AND
FOR OTHER
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, THE SENATE WILL
PROCEED TO THE MEASURE.
MR. CASEY: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE
AMENDMENT BE WITHDRAWN, THAT AN
AKAKA-VOINOVICH SUBSTITUTE
AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO, THE BILL
AS AMENDED BE READ A THIRD TIME
AND PASSED, THE MOTIONS TO
RECONSIDER BE LAID UPON THE
TABLE WITH NO INTERVENING AION
OR DEBATE, AND ANY STATEMENTS
RELATED TO THE BILL BE PLACED IN
THE RECORD AT THE APPROPRIATE
PLACE
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:
OBJECTION.
MR. CASEY: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THE SENATE PROCEED TO
THE IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION OF
CALENDAR NUMBER 197,
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK
WILL REPORT.
THE CLERK: CALENDAR NUMBER 197,
S. 1860, A BILL TO
CURRENT MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE OFFICE OF
COMPLIANCE TO TERMS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTN, THE SENATE WILL
PROCEED TO THE MEASURE.
MR. CASEY: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THE BILL BE READ A THIRD
TIME AND PASSED, THE MOTION TO
RECONSIDER BE LAID UPON THE
TABLE WITH NO INTERVENING ACTION
OR DEBATE, AND ANY STATEMENTS
RELATED TO THE BILL BE
THE RECORD AT T
PLACE AS IF READ.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. CASEY: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THE SENATE PROCEED TO
THE IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION OF
S. RES. 342, SUBMITTED EARLIER
TODAY.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK
WILL REPORT.
THE CLERK: SENATE RESOLUTION
342, RECOGNIZING NATIONAL
AMERICAN INDIAN AND
NATIVE HERITAGE MONTH AND SO
FORT THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, THE SENATE WILL
PROCEED TO THE MSURE.
MR. CASEY: I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THE RESOLUTION BE AGREED
TO, THE PREAMBLE BE AGREED TO,
THE MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER BE
LAID UPON THE TABLE WITH NO
INTERVENING ACTION OR DEBATE,
AND ANY STATEMENTS RELATED TO
THE RESOLUTION BE PLACED IN THE
RECORD AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE
AS IF READ.
OBJECTION.
MR. CASEY: MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
APPOINTMENT AT THE DESK APPEAR
SEPARATELY IN THE RECORD AS
MADE BY THE CHAIR.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. CASEY: MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT WHEN THE
SENATE COMPLETES ITS BUSINESS
TODAY, IT ADJOURNNTIL
9:30 A.M. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 6.
THAT FOLLOWING THE PRAYER AND
PLEDGE, THE JOURNAL OF
PROCEEDINGS BE APPROVED TO DATE,
THE MORNING HOUR BE DEEMED
EXPIRED, THE TIME FOR THE TWO
LEADERS BE RESERVED FOR THE USE
LATER IN THE DAY AND THE SENATE
RESUME CONSIDERATION OF H.R.
3082, THEILITARY CONSTRUCTION
APPROPRIATIONS BILL.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. CASEY CON. MR. PRESIDENT,
WILL WILL BE NO ROLL CALL --
MR. CASEY: MR. PRESIDENT, THERE
WILL BE NO ROLL CALL VOTES
DURING FRIDAY'S SESSION OF THE
SENATE.
AS PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED, THE
NEXT VOTE WILL OCCUR AT
APPROXIMATELY 5:30 P.M. MONDAY.
IF THERE'S NO FURTHER BUSINESS
TO COME BEFORE THE SENATE, I ASK
THAT IT ADJOURN UNDER THE
PREVIOUS ORDER.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATE STANDS ADJOURNED UNTIL