Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Water Rights Settlement Act. This legislation will implement a settlement concerning the water rights of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, who have been engaged for several decades in a struggle for recognition and protection of their federally reserved groundwater rights.

Since 1951, the Pechanga have been involved in litigation initiated by the U.S. concerning water rights in the Santa Margarita watershed. The Pechanga's interest has been in protecting their groundwater supplies, which are shared with municipal developments in the San Diego region. Beginning in 2006, the Pechanga worked with local water districts to negotiate a cooperative solution and put an end to their dispute.

The Pechanga Settlement Agreement is a comprehensive agreement negotiated among the Pechanga, the U.S. on their behalf, and several California water districts, including the Rancho California Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District. The settlement recognizes the Pechanga's tribal water right to 4994 acre-feet of water per year and outlines a series of measures to guarantee this amount. It is a win-win solution that protects the rights of the Pechanga while ensuring that other communities in Southern California will also have sufficient water supplies.

I am pleased to be joined by Senator Feinstein in introducing this legislation. We have worked with our colleagues in the House, including Representatives Bono Mack, Grijalva, Richardson, Calvert, Baca, and Issa, to craft this legislation. Our bill not only provides the Pechanga with long-overdue assurances of their water rights, but also exemplifies all the good that can be accomplished when parties put aside their differences and come to the table to negotiate a reasonable solution.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Water Rights Settlement Act. This legislation will implement a settlement concerning the water rights of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, who have been engaged for several decades in a struggle for recognition and protection of their federally reserved groundwater rights.

Since 1951, the Pechanga have been involved in litigation initiated by the U.S. concerning water rights in the Santa Margarita watershed. The Pechanga's interest has been in protecting their groundwater supplies, which are shared with municipal developments in the San Diego region. Beginning in 2006, the Pechanga worked with local water districts to negotiate a cooperative solution and put an end to their dispute.

The Pechanga Settlement Agreement is a comprehensive agreement negotiated among the Pechanga, the U.S. on their behalf, and several California water districts, including the Rancho California Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District. The settlement recognizes the Pechanga's tribal water right to 4994 acre-feet of water per year and outlines a series of measures to guarantee this amount. It is a win-win solution that protects the rights of the Pechanga while ensuring that other communities in Southern California will also have sufficient water supplies.

I am pleased to be joined by Senator Feinstein in introducing this legislation. We have worked with our colleagues in the House, including Representatives Bono Mack, Grijalva, Richardson, Calvert, Baca, and Issa, to craft this legislation. Our bill not only provides the Pechanga with long-overdue assurances of their water rights, but also exemplifies all the good that can be accomplished when parties put aside their differences and come to the table to negotiate a reasonable solution.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Smith Bagley, a beloved philanthropist and entrepreneur with an unwavering dedication to improving the lives of others. Mr. Bagley passed away on January 2 due to complications from a stroke. He was 74 years old. Smith will be deeply missed by all he touched, and he touched many.

Smith Bagley was born in Manhattan on April 1, 1935, to Nancy Reynolds Bagley and Henry Walker Bagley. He graduated from Washington and Lee University and served as a captain in the U.S. Army Reserves.

Smith was a successful businessman and chief executive of the cellular telephone company SBI. Passionate about progressive causes, Smith dedicated much of his life to fighting for social justice, human rights, education, and environmental preservation.

Smith served as president of the Arca Foundation, a grant-making trust dedicated to transparency in government and enterprise, diplomacy, and raising the standard of living here and in the developing world.

A champion of education, Smith founded the precursor to Communities in Schools, the Nation's largest dropout prevention program. He was a former trustee of the John F. Kennedy Center Performing Arts. Smith founded a public policy research institute, the Brenn Foundation, and was a board member of the Sapelo Island Research Foundation, a center for environmental research.

Due to his tireless efforts on behalf of the Catholic University of America, Smith was honored with the title of chairman emeritus and presented with the university's highest honor, the President's Medal.

He is survived by his wife of 26 years, former Ambassador to Portugal Elizabeth Frawley Bagley; his six children, Walker Bagley, Nancy Reynolds Bagley, Nicole Ladmer Bagley, Brett Dylan Bagley, Vaughan Elizabeth Bagley, and Conor Reynolds Bagley; a sister, Susan Bagley Bloom; and five grandchildren. My heart goes out to them during this time of grief.

In the words of former President William Jefferson Clinton, who delivered Smith's closing eulogy, ``This man, notwithstanding the circumstances in which he was born or the wealth he generated for himself, always found a way to give more than he took.''

Smith will be sorely missed, not only by the friends and family who knew him well but also by those whose lives were made better by his unwavering commitment to equality and justice.

Mr. President, what we are about to debate is an unprecedented move by the Senator and her cosponsors to overturn a health finding made by health experts and scientific experts in order to stand with the special interests. Now that is clear to me, regardless of what is said on this floor. I listened to my colleague. I never heard her say we want to overturn the experts who found that carbon pollution is a danger to the health of our families.

Now, look, it is very reasonable to debate the best way to clean up the air from carbon pollution. I have a way I think is the best that is supported by many in the environmental community, many in the business community. I have a letter signed--which I would ask to be printed in the Record--by 80 businesses that just took out an ad and said: Let's get on with it. They want to set up the type of system that I do, which would give maximum flexibility to business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

We have many mayors. We had our 1,000th mayor say: Get on with it. Let's get the job done.

Senator Murkowski laid out various ways that we have people working. She left out one way. The House-passed bill. The Senate Environment and Public Works had an overwhelming majority in our committee for our approach. We have Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman--and I support what they are doing--trying to find the 60 votes so we can have the kind of bipartisanship Senator Murkowski lauds. We have Senators Cantwell and Collins coming together--and I am very excited about that--on a new approach on how to deal with carbon pollution, and that debate is appropriate. Let me tell my colleagues what is not appropriate: to repeal a finding that was made by scientists and health experts that carbon pollution is a danger to the health of our children, to our families, to our communities. That is inappropriate, and it has never, ever been done before.

I wish to say where I stand on this. My No. 1 job as a Senator is to protect the health and safety of the people of my great State of California and the people of America. I believe that is our highest calling. The Murkowski resolution is a direct assault on the health of the American people. Make no mistake about it. You can cover it up with lots of words. You can say a lot of things about how proud you are of all the work that is going on to control carbon pollution. But when you get up here and you offer a resolution--and I have it in my hands--that clearly says overturn the endangerment finding that, simply stated, in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling, carbon is, in fact, a danger to the health of our families, to do this is unprecedented. What

would have happened if a Senator came to the floor the year we found out nicotine and cigarettes are addictive and cause cancer--what would have happened if a Senator came down here and said, Oh, no, no. We want to overturn that rule that regulates how much nicotine can go in there. That is something we know better about because we are politicians and, suddenly, we become doctors.

What would have happened if a Senator came down to the floor and said: We don't like the finding by the EPA that lead is a danger to our children and causes brain development issues and we don't want them to act on that. We don't want them to control that. It is OK if they suck it up when they are little babies. Thank God no Senator did that. I don't recall any Senator coming to the floor of this Senate and saying: Asbestos? Well, maybe it is OK if people breathe it in, so let's repeal the rule that says we need to protect our workers from asbestos. No Senator ever did that, thank God, so our agencies could move forward and protect our communities and our people.

Black lung disease, that was a long time ago. There was a connection made between the coal dust and our miners. I don't remember--or I didn't read about--anybody coming to the floor and saying we need to repeal the health finding on this. Because we didn't have any Senators who did that, frankly, and because we had enough respect for health officials, public health officials, scientists, doctors, we let them do their job. Yes, we might have fought it out here: Gee, how much should we spend to protect our workers from black lung disease? How much should we spend to protect our workers from asbestos? How much should we spend as a society to take the lead out of paint? We never, ever had a Senator come down to the floor to try and overturn a finding that was made by the health community.

This is a new low, in my humble opinion. The reason I say that is because, to me, I am here for one reason: to make life better for the people I represent. Repealing scientific health expert findings is not what I should be doing. I should be working to make sure, after I know the fact that there is a danger, what is the best way to get the carbon pollution out of the air. That is totally fair. I can tell my colleagues right now, I am not going to get my way on the best way to do it because we don't have 60 votes for that. I understand that. That is why I am supporting all my colleagues who are working so hard to try and come up with the 60 votes so we don't repeal an endangerment finding. What would have happened to our families if we had Senators who did this? We didn't do that in the past. We listened to the science and the health experts. We took action that saved countless lives. This amendment would harm our families.

If I saw someone coming down the street about to attack my family, I would do exactly what my colleague would do. We would fight back. Whatever it took, we would fight back. Well, this is about the public health. This is about the health of the planet. This is about the future of America. This is about jobs in America. There is lots of debate we can have. But, my goodness, talk about picking a battle over a scientific fact. That is what my colleague is doing.

She says she is standing with the American people. Let me tell my colleagues a few of the American people who strongly oppose what she is doing. The American Public Health Association says: ``We strongly urge you to oppose any resolution that would repeal the public health findings.'' The Association of Public Health Laboratories, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, the National Environmental Health Association, the Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Trust for America's Health, the Centers for Disease Control which, under the administration of George W. Bush, started the scientific work that lead to this endangerment finding. Let's be clear. Ninety percent of the work on this endangerment finding was done by the Bush administration. This is such a radical amendment, it throws out all their work too.

Our families come first, and if our families come first in all our minds, then we can battle about how to get the carbon out of the air, but we should not be repealing a finding that clearly states that our family's health would suffer if we don't get this carbon out of the air.

My colleague says she wants to get the carbon out of the air. She is looking forward to working with all the colleagues I mentioned and more. That is great. Believe me, she and I have talked about this, and I hope she comes to the table. It would be wonderful if we got her help and she went on a bill. So far that hasn't happened and that is her choice. Maybe she will write her own bill, and that would be wonderful too. But that doesn't mean because we haven't found the 60 votes that we can afford to come down here and repeal a finding that is very clear about the health of our people.

There are health effects of doing nothing. My colleague says: You know what. It may take us a while to fix this problem, maybe a year. It may take 5 years, by the way. What she wants to do is state that nobody can take action to protect our families from carbon pollution while we dither around here. I am happy we are working. It could take us a long time to get this. Do my colleagues know how long it took to get the Clean Air Act amendments? A long time. It took years. I am not willing to put my family and my State--my families in my State and my State in jeopardy, nor the American people. Because if we take away this endangerment finding and we decide we know better than all the health experts and all the scientific experts, EPA cannot do anything.

My colleague complains about the command and control of the EPA. I wish to talk about that--the command and control of the EPA. These are words that are meant to frighten people. I never heard her come down and say: We want to take away the command and control of the EPA under the Clean Air Act to make sure we don't have smog in the air. I never heard her come down here and say: We don't need to have the command and control of the EPA in making sure that arsenic in the water isn't overwhelming or mercury in the fish. I don't hear her doing that. So all of a sudden, command and control of the EPA is an issue. We have an Environmental Protection Agency to protect our people. If we wind up overturning the health issues that are necessary before they can act, what are we doing here? Playing doctor? That is not why I came here.

We have the EPA every day going out there and controlling hazardous air pollutants: carbon tetrachloride known to cause cancer. Does my friend want to come down and say: Gee, that is command and control; let's take away the ability of the EPA to protect our families from carbon tetrachloride. Naphthalene, another known toxin that causes cancer. Yes, the EPA is out there, command and control, getting it out of the environment. Vinyl chloride, known to cause cancer; cadmium, known to cause cancer and harm the reproductive system. They are all toxins the EPA is working on to make sure our families are protected.

One day I suppose the Senator could come down here and say: Let's repeal the scientific finding that said these toxins cause cancer and then the EPA will not have the ability to use their command and control to protect our families. This is the type of precedent we are setting today, at a time when we know there are more and more chemicals and toxins that are, in fact, impacting our families. Cyanide is another one. Cyanide. The scientists told us it is extremely toxic to people. It harms the nervous system. It harms the cardiovascular system and the respiratory system. We control it through command and control and the EPA because it is a danger. The Supreme Court said, in very clear language, to the Bush EPA: You wasted 8 years. This is a danger to society. In the Supreme Court decision, this conservative court said to the EPA: You better make this endangerment finding.

Here is what we know about the endangerment finding my colleague wants to overturn. There is evidence--this is what the EPA found--that the number of extremely hot days is increasing. Severe heat waves are projected to intensify, which result in heat-related mortality and sickness. It goes on to talk about air quality, and this is important: Climate change is expected to worsen regional ground-level ozone pollution. Exposure to ground-level ozone has been linked to respiratory health problems ranging

from decreased lung function and aggravated asthma to increased emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and even premature death. It goes on and talks about the elderly, people in already poor health, the disabled, people living alone, and the extreme events that are anticipated which, by the way, some people feel are already happening: extreme events such as extreme cold, extreme snow, extreme flooding, extreme drought; some of the things that are already happening.

Why on Earth would the Senate get into the business of repealing science, repealing the work of health experts? There is only one answer. There is only one answer, to me: That is what the special interests want to have happen now because they are desperate, because they know the Clean Air Act does, in fact, cover carbon pollution. The Supreme Court found that. They have nowhere else to turn. The only way to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting our families, the way they protect them from lead and arsenic and smog and naphthalene and vinyl chloride and cyanide and others, is to begin to act.

We know the EPA is very aware we are working on legislation. They have told us, and I think they would tell anyone who would call them, they are not interested in doing some draconian measures now. They are just getting ready. They are just getting started because the science has told us this is a problem. So people can stand here and say: Oh, all we are doing is we are just giving a little time for the Senators to get their 60 votes. Hey, that may not happen in a year or two or three or five or six or eight or ten. Maybe it will happen tomorrow. Believe me, I am working on it.

I am very hopeful that it will work. When you get 80 businesses writing us and telling us in a letter--a new organization called We Can Lead, and these are very, very important businesses all across our Nation--maybe that will help us act.

Until that time, there is only one thing that is available to protect our people, to protect their families and their children and the planet, and that is the Environmental Protection Agency. Maybe if you don't like the Environmental Protection Agency, you can get up here and offer an amendment to do away with the EPA, just do away with it, or try to change the Clean Air Act and say it should not cover carbon--if that is what you want to do. By the way, we would debate that very soundly. It would be a good debate. Don't come here and try to repeal a very important scientific and health finding, because that sets a whole new precedent. Lord knows where it could lead.

We have more letters. My colleague says she stands on the side of the people. OK. That is her judgment. I tell you, if you went out and said to people: Should the Senate repeal a scientific finding that has been signed off on by the Bush administration, the current administration, and health care experts all over the country, they would say: No. What are they doing? Why are they meddling in our health?

That is not how the Senator is explaining her amendment, her resolution. She says: Oh, it is just a little moratorium and it will just stop this for a little while. Not true. It repeals the endangerment finding.

Let me tell you about some other letters we received. There are 195 undersigned endorsers--remember, you heard from my colleague that the people stand with her. We have a letter from 195 signers saying: We urge you to oppose the imminent attack on the Clean Air Act that would undermine public health and prevent action on global warming. This attack comes in the form of an amendment by Senator Murkowski to the debt bill. They thought it was coming in that form. It is now coming in a different form, which is to reverse the endangerment finding.

They go on to say:

The EPA's ``endangerment finding'' is based on an

exhaustive review of the massive body of scientific research

showing a clear threat from climate change.

They go on and they say that their organization has a 40-year track record of protecting the public health.

Yes, as long as I don't lose the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I want to make sure the speaker after that is from our side. With that understanding, I will not object.

Mr. President, I want to put into the Record a letter from 195 doctors and scientists who are alarmed at this Murkowski amendment to repeal the endangerment finding. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

These doctors and scientists are so alarmed at this Murkowski amendment to repeal an endangerment finding that they have written a letter, and here is who they are. I am going to take the time to read all of these people.

Mr. President, they say:

In sum, we support EPA's actions as a start towards holding

the biggest polluters accountable, reducing America's oil

dependence and jump-starting a vibrant clean energy economy.

A vote for the Murkowski amendment would be a step backwards.

Instead of standing in the way of progress, Congress should

defeat [this resolution].

Communities of faith--I think it is very important when the Senator from Alaska says she stands with the people--let's see where the communities of faith come down. They are saying vote no on the Murkowski amendment. They include the Church World Service; the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life; the Episcopal Church; the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; the Jewish Council for Public Affairs; the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation; the National Council of Churches USA; the Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns; the Presbyterian Church, USA, Washington office; the Missionary Oblates, Justice, Peace/Integrity of Creation Office; the Union for Reformed Judaism; the Unitarian Universalist Ministry for Earth; the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; the United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; the United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society; and United Methodist Women.

I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we also have another letter opposing the efforts of the Senator from Alaska to overturn the endangerment finding. That letter is signed by many members of the business community. I will name just a few, and then I will ask that this letter be printed in the Record. The signers include the CEO of Lucesco Lighting; the president of Cross River Pictures; George Bailey of IBM; physicist Tony Bernhardt from the Lawrence Livermore National Lab; a professor of physics at MIT, Aaron Bernstein. This goes on and on. I am also picking out the Theological Seminary in San Francisco; doctoral students from Stanford; financial adviser, UBS Financial Services; the president of Investment Marketing, Inc. It goes on and on. Seattle University Law School, an assistant professor there. I don't even know, there are so many names. Cofounder of Sybase, New Resource Bank, Environmental Entrepreneurs, Bob Epstein; General Partner of Trinity Ventures; Lakeside Enterprises, Granite Ventures, Tymphany; the former vice president of Oracle; the former executive vice president of Oracle. And on and on. The Sexton Company; ClearEdge Power. It goes on and on. Data Robotics, Inc.; a freelance journalist. This is quite a list of people. It shows the breadth of our great Nation. The Green Energy Czar at Google is involved here; Cisco Systems, Jeff Weinberger, the sustainability lead; Amanda Weitman, senior vice president, Wells Fargo private bank; Solar Project Developers, and on and on.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter.

Mr. President, it is very clear that Senator Murkowski's amendment is causing a ripple throughout the country. It is causing a firestorm of protests among doctors, scientists, and business leaders who believe it is a bad precedent to overturn science. It is hard for me to believe in this century that is what we would be doing.

I wish to have printed in the Record some editorials from various newspapers. One is from the New York Times dated 2 days ago, ``Ms. Murkowski's Mischief.'' They are basically saying, which I thought was interesting:

Senator Lisa Murkowski's home State of Alaska is ever so

slowly melting away, courtesy of a warming planet. Yet few

elected officials seem more determined than she to throw sand

in the Obama administration's efforts to do something about

climate change.

It is unbelievable. They go on to say if she chooses to overturn this endangerment finding, ``rescinding the finding would repudiate years of work by America's scientists and public health experts.''

I think this is important. The work that has been done leading up to this endangerment finding was done by Republican and Democratic administrations alike. To just throw it out with this resolution makes no sense at all. I know Senator Baucus is on the Senate floor. He served as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. He took a very important role in framing a letter where we lay out why this is a very bad idea. I thank him for that.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter that Senator Baucus worked so hard on with his staff. Here is what we say--I think it is important--and then I will have the letter printed in the Record:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently

issued a finding that greenhouse gas pollution endangers

public health and public welfare. In April 2007, the U.S.

Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gas emissions were

covered under the Clean Air Act and the EPA had a duty to

determine whether the endangerment finding was warranted by

science.

Then we go on to say:

Debating policy choices regarding the appropriate response

to unchecked climate change is fair, and the Senate will

continue to evaluate the best tools for addressing greenhouse

gas emissions, but repealing an endangerment finding based

upon years of work by America's scientists and public health

experts is not appropriate.

We urge a ``no'' vote.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter.

Mr. President, the Washington Post said about the Murkowski amendment that hobbling the EPA is not the right course. The correct response is to provide a better alternative. Obviously, they are not in favor of overturning an endangerment finding.

The Scranton Times-Tribune--a very important, I think, editorial, says:

There should be little debate on . . . the premise that

cleaner air is healthier. . . .

I think that is really what we are saying. The scientists are saying let's clean up the carbon and have healthier air.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has a very good editorial. They also come out against this kind of a move by Senator Murkowski and big oil and big coal. They believe this vote is a very important vote.

I ask unanimous consent to have these editorials printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in summary, I will say this: I do not want the American people to misunderstand what is before us in this resolution that will be coming up for a vote at a time determined by Senator Murkowski, as I understand it, under the rules. She is using the rules to be able to do this.

I do not think the American people should be misled into thinking this is about postponing action on cleaning up carbon pollution. It is about something much deeper than that. If her resolution passes and if it does become the law of the land--and I hope and I do not believe it will at the end of the day--what she is doing is something unprecedented.

That unprecedented move is to overturn a finding made by the scientists and the health experts on the impacts of carbon pollution. This has never been done before. Senators play the role of Senators; they do not play the role of doctors. They do not play the role of scientists. I will tell you, if we start doing that, there is no end to what we could do. We could overturn action on controlling the nicotine in cigarettes. We could overturn action to control the lead allowed in paints. We could overturn the science based on limits for arsenic in water. I could go on and list all the toxins--cadmium, carbon tetrachloride, naphthalene, toluene, and it goes on. That is why this is such a dangerous turn of events.

I am very much up for a debate on the best way to solve this problem of too much carbon pollution in the air. We differ. Some of us have one idea, some have another. That is why I am so hopeful that Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman, with all of us working in the background, can come up with the 60 votes necessary. But make no mistake about it, we should not start down the path of overturning a health finding. That is not why we were elected.

I can just speak for my constituents. My constituents sent me here. They want me to protect the health and safety of the people, and that is what I intend to do.

I am very proud of the doctors who have come forward today. I met with one in my office just about an hour ago. They are going to stand with us, and they are going to tell the truth about this. The American people will judge who is on their side. That is up to them. They will make that decision.

Mr. President, I am so grateful for your patience. I have put many things into the Record. I have spoken much longer than I normally do, I am sure to the chagrin of a few people on the other side, which I understand how they feel. But I felt it important to lay out how serious I think this is. Not that I think at the end of the day it will become the law but because I love serving in the Senate. I love the work we do. And one of the things we should not do is overturn science and public health experts. That is exactly what the Murkowski resolution does.

Mr. President, I know Senator Gregg will be speaking, and we have a slot reserved for a Democrat after that conclusion.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as Chuck Mack is honored by the Teamsters Joint Council 7, I take this opportunity to commend him for his tireless and dedicated service to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Chuck Mack first joined the Teamsters as a seasonal plant worker for Del Monte in the summer of 1960. A few years later, he was elected business agent at Local 70 in Oakland, CA. In 1971, Chuck transitioned to a position in Sacramento, working as a lobbyist for the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council. The following year, he returned to Local 70, where he was elected as secretary-treasurer. For the next 27 years, until he retired in 2009, Mr. Mack served as Local 70's secretary-treasurer, where he was a strong and passionate advocate for bay area workers and their families.

Though serving as secretary-treasurer for Local 70 was a full-time job, Mr. Mack further showed his commitment to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters by also serving as the president of Joint Council 7 from 1982 until 2009--the second longest-serving Joint Council president in history. Mr. Mack also held several other distinguished positions during his tenure with the Teamsters, including: vice president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Western Region; IBT director of Port Division; and Western Conference of Teamsters Pension trustee. Though retired from many of his positions since June 2009, Mr. Mack continues to serve as the cochair of the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust.

Mr. Mack is known for his integrity and strong work ethic. From his humble beginnings with the Teamsters in the 1960s, Mr. Mack has worked for more than 40 years to help negotiate first-class rights for workers and their families throughout California. It is through his efforts that some of the strongest rights for workers have been won, including good jobs with good wages, access to health care, and fair and just contracts.

I have known Chuck Mack for many years, and I am continually inspired by his dedication to the labor movement. As a stalwart defender of equal rights and a champion for workers everywhere, I wish him many more years of continued community involvement and leadership.

Mr. President, I am honored to remember Bart Singletary--a man of great generosity and humility who recently passed away.

Bart was a devoted father and husband, successful businessman, prolific philanthropist and dedicated steward of some of inland southern California's most influential civic institutions. His many achievements and stalwart presence in the Riverside community will have a lasting impact on the people of the Inland Empire.

Bart Singletary had an abiding connection to the city of Riverside. He was a second generation native of the city, and as a young man he tended the grounds of the historic Citrus Experiment Station. Years later, this land became the site of Bart's beloved alma mater, the University of California, Riverside. After marrying his wife, Barbara, Bart took a position at a real estate firm that was offered to him by a fellow Riverside native and childhood friend, William Austin. They eventually became partners in William Austin Co., a property management and development firm based in Riverside. They enjoyed a successful business partnership that spanned more than four decades.

Bart's affection for his community was embodied in his relentless involvement in many of the area's civic organizations and educational institutions. He served as the chairman of the Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce, he was the president of Riverside Community Hospital, and he helped to found the city of Riverside Economic Development Committee. He was also president of the board of trustees for the UC Riverside Foundation, and was actively involved with the California Citrus State Historic Park Operating Corporation, serving as its treasurer and on its Board of Directors.

In 1984, at the age of 57, Bart enrolled at UC Riverside to continue studies that he had begun years earlier at UCLA. He approached his schooling with characteristic humility and good humor--taking an internship at the university where his supervisor, Vice Chancellor for University Advancement Emeritus Jim Erickson, was 10 years his junior. His experience as an undergraduate during this time cemented his commitment to the university. In 2006, Bart and Barbara, along with his partner William Austin and his wife Toby, gave $15.5 million to UCR. This gift was the largest in the university's history and represented the largest combined charitable trust given to a University of California campus in the first half of this decade. The donation enabled the university to create 22 endowed professorships and bolstered the university's proposal to establish a medical school.

Singletary leaves a distinguished legacy of service and leadership that is an example to us all. His trusted counsel and willingness to leverage his success for the benefit of others endeared him to, and earned him the respect of, all of those who were fortunate enough to have known him.

He is survived by his wife, Barbara, three children, three step- children, and five grandchildren. I extend my heartfelt condolences to them.

The city of Riverside, State of California and our Nation has lost an exemplary individual with the passing of Bart Singletary.

Madam President, we heard our Republican friends say it is very hard to defend our bill. Maybe it is hard for them, but it is not hard for the American Medical Association, the AMA, which has endorsed our bill. It is not hard for the American Heart Association, which has endorsed our bill. It is not hard for the American Cancer Society Action Network, which has endorsed our bill. The American Hospital Association has endorsed our bill. Families USA, the Business Roundtable, the Small Business Majority--we hear colleagues say small business opposes our bill. The Small Business Majority Organization supports it. And how about the AARP, which represents our seniors, millions of seniors. Those are a few. They not only defend our bill, they support our bill.

This is indeed an important moment in our Nation's history as we approach a final vote on major health care reform legislation. I think whenever you are trying to change something, you have to take a look at how things are at the moment. So why is it we voted to change our current system? There are certain numbers that I think explain it. The first number is 14,000. We know that every single day 14,000 of our neighbors lose their health insurance through no fault of their own. They either lose their job, they can't afford to keep up the health insurance or they have a condition and the insurance company walks away from them or they are priced out of the market. Fourteen thousand a day. That is cruel, and we need to change it.

Sixty-two percent of bankruptcies are linked to health care crises. We are the only nation in the world where people go broke because they get sick.

If we do nothing, 45 percent of an average family's income will go for premiums in 2016. I ask everyone to think about it, paying 45 percent of your income for premiums. It is not sustainable. What about food? What about clothing? What about shelter? Can't do it.

We are 29th in the world in infant mortality. We come in behind Cuba. We come in behind Singapore. We come in behind South Korea. We are 29th in the world on infant mortality because people don't have good insurance or they don't have any insurance.

Fifty-two percent of women--fifty-two percent of women--don't seek the health care they need. They either put it off or they never get it because they may not be insured or they are afraid of the copays. They are afraid of what it would cost. They may have limits on their policies. We need to change that.

The United States spends twice as much on health care as most other industrialized nations. So what is the message here? We spend a huge amount. We are not doing very well in outcomes. By the way, I think we are 24th in life expectancy in the world--24th. We must do better.

I wish to share with my colleagues some of the letters and e-mails that have been sent to me from Californians that personalize the statistics I spoke about.

Mr. William Robinson wrote:

I am about to be laid off from the job I have had for 19

years. My biggest fear is not being employed, but being able

to find and get affordable health care. I am 60 years old. I

have a preexisting condition that will for certain make it

impossible for me to buy health insurance.

Mr. and Mrs. Gilbert De La Cruz wrote:

We are at the point of losing our home because we have

spent our savings on medical and prescription drugs. I am 67,

retired, and my wife is 62. Because of the Medicare gap in

prescription drug coverage, we have had to pay $600 a month

on prescription drugs. It's a huge portion of our monthly

income. We will be selling our home shortly and perhaps

moving in with one of our children because there doesn't seem

to be any option.

Well, I want to say to Mr. De La Cruz: Help is on the way. If we get the 60 votes we are forced to get--not 51, a majority, but 60 votes because of a Republican filibuster--if we get those 60 votes each time, there is hope for you because we are going to fix that entire problem.

Mr. Ronald Kim says:

I am in the construction industry and my work is very slow.

He says he is in the design industry.

I am in danger of becoming financially ill and I am looking

for ways to stay healthy, and one way may be to eliminate my

medical insurance. It is a significant part of my budget.

This may, heaven forbid, lead me to financial ruin if I get

injured or sick. This is my situation.

I want to say to Mr. Kim: Help is on the way.

Ms. Madeleine Foot wrote--these are all Californians, my constituents:

I recently turned 25 and I lost my health coverage under my

parents. I attempted to get coverage under a Blue Cross plan

created for young people my age, but because I had taken

medications, I was denied. I applied again for another plan,

was offered a plan with a $3,000 deductible, and it was $300

a month on top of that. As a young person working in a

restaurant, repaying student loans and trying to make it on

my own, this is a huge financial burden. I cannot afford an

insurance that charges me so much and won't be any benefit

for me until I have shelled out a huge portion of my income.

To Madeleine Foot I say: Help is on the way, if we can break the Republican filibuster.

Mr. John Higdon wrote:

As a self-employed person, I had a pacemaker implanted. The

cost was borne entirely by me at prices much higher than any

insurance company would have had to pay. That was a wakeup

call to get health insurance. I am told by every health

insurance company I have contacted that no one will offer me

health insurance at any price with a ``preexisting heart

condition.''

I wish to say to Mr. Higdon: Help is on the way.

Dr. Robert Meagher, a pediatrician with Kaiser Permanente for over 30

years, do you know what he wrote and told me? That he has to fake--he is pressured to fake a diagnosis because when a parent comes in with a young child with asthma, they beg him not to write down asthma but write down bronchitis, because if he writes down asthma, that child will have a preexisting condition and when she turns 21 she won't be able to get insurance. Imagine, in America, a physician being pressured to lie on a form because of a health care system that is so cruel.

So, Dr. Meagher, we are going to change things here if we can break this filibuster.

Mr. Douglas Ingoldsby wrote:

I own a small business. I employ 11 people. I have been in

business in California since 1972.

He says:

I used to provide health care for all my employees and all

the members of their families, and if I want to remain

profitable enough to stay in business now, I can't do it

anymore.

He can only cover the employees, not their families. He feels terrible about it, and he says he may have to cut off his employees if prices keep going up.

I want to say to this fine small business owner: Douglas, help is on the way.

Mrs. Linda Schumacher wrote--and this is the one I will close with in this series of stories:

I am a Republican.

Let me repeat what she writes:

I am a Republican, and my husband and I are small business

owners. The Senators and Congressmen of both parties who are

against President Obama's plan have their own insurance, and

it is my understanding that it does not cost what we pay.

They do not understand what a huge expense this is. Please

listen to the middle class who are in our position or who no

longer have insurance. It keeps me up at night worrying. This

time the Republicans have it wrong, and they need to know.

Please push the health plan. The insurance companies only

care about the bottom line, not people.

I wish to say to Mrs. Schumacher: Thank you for putting aside party politics, because this isn't about Republicans and it isn't about Democrats and it isn't about Independents. It is about all of us together.

What happens now? We are hearing the polls, and the polls show Americans don't want us to act. I understand why. There has been so much misinformation. Senator Durbin, our assistant majority leader, and I were talking about the misinformation that is on this floor from the other side day in and day out, and I believe much of it, if I might say, is purposeful. If you listened to my Republican colleagues over the past few days and weeks, they have trashed this bill and they have trashed the process. Over the weekend the Republican leader said health reform is a legislative train wreck of historic proportions. That is a direct quote.

Earlier this month Senator Coburn used more inflammatory language when he said to seniors--I am quoting Senator Coburn: I have a message for you. You are going to die soon.

If you want to know what fearmongering is, that is the best example I can give you.

I decided to go back and look at the past Congressional Records. I thought: Have Republicans spoken like this over the years every time we have tried to do some health care, every time we have tried to make life better for people, such as Social Security? I will let you be the judge.

In 1935, on the floor of the House of Representatives during the debate on Social Security, Republican Congressman Jenkins of Ohio said--a Social Security bill, remember, which hadn't passed:

This is compulsion of the rankest kind. Do not be misled by

the title. The title says ``Old-Age Benefits.'' Shame on you

for putting such a misleading and unfair title on such a

nefarious bill. Old age benefits? Think of it. Oh, what a

travesty! . . . Mr. Chairman, what is the hurry? Nobody is

going to get a dime out of this until 1942 . . . what is the

hurry about crowding an unconstitutional proposition like

this through the House today?

If you listen to some of my colleagues, you will hear the same thing. What is the rush? As a matter of fact, they had four or five amendments to send it back to committee. What is the rush?

The rush is that 14,000 people are losing their health care every day. The rush is that 62 percent of bankruptcies are linked to a health care crisis, and in 2016 our people will be paying almost half of their income for premiums. Yes. We have to do this, and we started it 7 months ago, and 100 years ago Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican President, put it in his platform. What is the rush? What is the rush?

I wish to tell my colleagues about another Republican Congressman, J. William Ditter of Pennsylvania. This is what he said during the debate on Social Security:

. . . security for the individual, whether worker or aged,

will be a mockery and a sham.

This is what he said about Social Security.

And it will allot to our people the role of puppets in a

socialistic State.

That is what he said back then. I tell you, if you ask Republicans who are getting Social Security, Democrats who are getting Social Security, Independents who are getting Social Security, they will all tell you the same thing: Keep your hands off it. It works. It is good. It is fair. It is insurance.

It is what we did way back then.

In 1965, when Medicare passed, health care for those 65 and up, Republican Senator Carl Curtis said:

It is socialism. It moves the country in a direction which

is not good for anyone.

Years later, we know Newt Gingrich when he was Speaker of the House said he wanted to see Medicare ``wither on the vine,'' his words.

In 1995, while seeking the Republican nomination for President, Senator Bob Dole said:

I was there in 1965 fighting the fight, voting against

Medicare, because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965.

So when you hear our Republican friends say, Oh, my goodness, they are making a lot of savings in Medicare; this is bad for the seniors, please, please, which party has stood for protecting our seniors? It is not a matter of being partisan; it is just the fact.

The echoes of the past fill this Chamber.

I am convinced now in 2009 that hope and reason and determination and good policy will triumph over fear and obstruction and the status quo.

Let's look at the immediate and near-term changes for the better that people are going to have, because our colleagues say: Oh, we are raising revenues but there are no benefits right away.

Let's talk about what the benefits are. There will be a $5 billion high-risk pool immediately for people with preexisting conditions who cannot find insurance. There will be reinsurance for retirees, so if you are retired and you are getting your health care benefit and something happens to your company, there will be reinsurance so you can still get your benefits. We close that doughnut hole for the Medicare recipients who fall into it and suddenly they cannot afford their prescription drugs. There will be billions of tax credits--billions--up to 50 percent tax credits for small businesses. That is why we have the support of so many small businesses. For new policies, no discrimination against children with preexisting conditions, and children can stay on their family's policy until they are 26 years of age.

What else are the immediate and near-term changes for the better? For new policies, no lifetime limits, no more rescissions. They cannot walk away from you when you get sick. They are required to cover essential preventive health benefits such as mammograms. It prohibits discrimination by employers based on salary of their employees. An employer cannot say: If you earn over $250,000, you get these great benefits, but if you earn under $50,000, you get a worse array.

By 2011, standards for insurance overhead costs go into place. If your insurance company spends too much on overhead and too much on executive pay, let me tell you what happens. They have to rebate to you, the policyholder. We also see increased funding for community health care centers. This is going to make a huge difference. There will be a national Web site to shop for affordable insurance. There will be a long-term care program that is voluntary into which you can buy. Insurance companies with unreasonable premium increases can be barred from the exchanges that will be set up in 2014. So they will be making sure they do not increase your premiums beyond a reasonable amount.

This bill will benefit the insured in one way--I do not think people understand this--by 2014; 62 percent of families will no longer face unsustainable premium costs. If you are a family of four and make less than $88,000 a year, you will never have to pay more than 9.8 percent of your income on health insurance premiums. This is an amazing thing most people do not focus on. I just explained that the nonpartisan studies show--and this is important--that they will be paying, the average family, 45 percent of their income for health care. In 2014, people in this country will not have to pay more than 9.8 percent of their income on health insurance; otherwise, they will get tax credits. That is very important.

This bill is going to benefit our seniors. That is why it is endorsed by the AARP. We eliminate the prescription drug coverage gap. That is the doughnut hole. We extend the life of the Medicare trust fund by 9 years. We reduce waste and fraud in Medicare. We provide for free yearly wellness visits for seniors. This bill saves Medicare. This bill makes our seniors stronger. They will have more benefits, and they can never lose their guaranteed benefits.

Small businesses will be able to reduce their costs, again, by getting immediate tax credits. In 2014, they will be able to access the exchange, as will self-employed people. They will have the power of big business behind them as they go into those exchanges.

I want to talk about public interest provisions. I wanted a public option, let me be clear, because I felt it would keep the insurance companies honest. But let me tell you what we have in here that are definitely public interest provisions. We expand Medicaid. That is a public plan to cover an additional 14 million people, and that starts in 2014. That is 1.5 million Californians. In my State, the Federal Government will pay the full fare for those added people for 3 years, and after that, far more than we get paid now. HHS will set the initial rules for the State exchanges. So those getting into the exchanges have to be fair. The OPM plan--that is the plan that will be part of the exchange--will be set up by the government, the Office of Personnel Management.

Again, community health centers. A basic plan can be created by the States, which I think is very important. I thank Maria Cantwell for working so hard on that issue.

If people tell you we do not have anything to do with public options, they are really not right. You have to look carefully at this bill.

I want to talk about the deficit. We reduce the deficit between 2010 and 2019 by $132 billion, and between 2020 and 2029, there is up to a $1.3 trillion deficit reduction, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That is a nonpartisan office. This bill reduces the deficit. I am going to say it one more time. This bill reduces the deficit. And the reason is, we invest in prevention, and that pays off. We finally will be able to say to the insurance companies: Stop your gouging. And that pays off. We do have competition now because we will have that special plan run by OPM, the State option Maria Cantwell put in there. This is why we see the reduction, including taking the fraud and the waste out of Medicare. We do not need fraud and waste.

Here is how I want to close. Health care coverage for all Americans has been such an elusive goal for nearly a century. If you look at Republican Presidents, Democratic Presidents, Republican Congresses, and Democratic Congresses, we have tried it over and over again, and the status quo has always prevailed.

Our beloved friend, Senator Ted Kennedy, whom we miss so much, particularly during a time such as this, fought for health care right here on the floor from the moment he became a Senator in 1962 to the moment he died. In an op-ed in the Washington Post this past Friday, Ted Kennedy's wife Vicki wrote:

Ted often said that we can't let the perfect be the enemy

of the good.

I want to say to Vicki, she is exactly right. Each of us could write this bill our way. Believe me, if I wrote a bill, to me it would be perfect. But to my friend in the chair, she would say: I can make it better. And all of us could. This is the legislative process. This is a good bill.

Vicki goes on to say:

The bill before the Senate, while imperfect, would achieve

many of the goals Ted fought for during the 40 years he

championed access to quality, affordable health care for all

Americans.

He is not here to urge us not to let this chance slip through our fingers.

And she says:

So I humbly ask his colleagues to finish the work of his

life, the work of generations, to allow the vote to go

forward and to pass health-care reform now. As Ted always

said, when it's finally done, the people will wonder what

took so long.

I thank Vicki, not only for writing that wonderful editorial but for actually being in the Chamber when we took that first vote to break down this filibuster.

I say to my colleagues, I am so proud that today we are moving closer to fulfilling the promise of health care for all Americans, including the 40 million Californians I am so privileged to represent. I thank my colleagues for all the work they put into this bill. I spent a lot of time on it myself, and this moment is very poignant. I hope we pass it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be considered as read.

Mr. President, I am honored to remember Sol Price, who passed away on December 14, 2009, at the age of 93. Sol was a man of vision in business, charity, and community. I will remember his great accomplishments, but I will also remember him as a wonderful man and a dear friend.

A trendsetter in retail, Sol Price founded FedMart and the Price Club, which subsequently sparked the wholesale warehouse industry. He envisioned providing consumers with products at low prices while providing good wages and working conditions for his employees. When FedMart opened its first

store in San Antonio, TX, in 1957, Sol Price paid double the minimum wage. He also succeeded getting a mortgage company to drop its requirement on separate restroom facilities for ``Colored'' and ``Whites.''

Sol Price was a leader in philanthropy and education. In 1991, after the death of his grandson Aaron, he established the Price Fellows program for young people in San Diego County, with a mission to enrich their lives and encourage stewardship for their community. The 3-year program for high school students teaches them about business, cultural institutions, and government; it also encourages lasting relationship across different ethnic, religious, and economic backgrounds. This program has created a new generation of local leaders in government, business, and civic life.

In 2000, Sol and his wife Helen set up the San Diego Revitalization Corporation, which was later renamed Price Charities. The end goal is to improve the lives of the urban poor. Among his many commitments, Sol worked to revitalize City Heights, a neighborhood in the city of San Diego that was a poor, high-crime but diverse community. In partnership with the city of San Diego, he built low-income housing and commercial space for community organizations and attracted businesses that would not otherwise have located in City Heights.

Sol was a member of the board of trustees for the Urban Institute in Washington, DC, the board of directors for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Consumer Affairs Advisory Committee of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and the San Diego Financial Review Panel.

Born in the Bronx, NY, Sol Price grew up in San Diego. He graduated from San Diego State University in 1934 and earned a law degree in 1938 from the University of Southern California.

Sol will be dearly missed. There is no doubt that his spirit will live on, carried along by the people he helped, the neighborhoods he transformed, and the entrepreneurial path he blazed.

He is survived by two sons, Robert and Larry, five grandchildren, and four great-grandchildren. My heart goes out to the family during this time of grief. They are in our thoughts and in our prayers.

Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to three young Americans who have been killed in Iraq since July 28. This brings to 882 the number of servicemembers either from California or based in California that have been killed while serving our country in Iraq. This represents 20 percent of all U.S. deaths in Iraq.

SPC Lukas C. Hopper, 20, of Merced, CA, died October 30, southeast of Karadah, Iraq, of injuries sustained during a vehicle roll-over. Private First Class Hopper was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC.

SPC Christopher M. Cooper, 28, of Oceanside, CA, died October 30 in Babil province, Iraq, of injuries sustained from a noncombat related incident. Specialist Cooper was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 28th Infantry, 172nd Infantry Brigade, Schweinfurt, Germany.

PVT Jhanner A. Tello, 29, of Los Angeles, CA, died December 10 in Baghdad, Iraq, of injuries sustained from a noncombat related incident. Private Tello was assigned to the 3rd Aviation Support Battalion, 227th Aviation Regiment, 1st Air Cavalry Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX.

I would also like to pay tribute to the 27 soldiers from California or based in California who have died while serving our country in Operation Enduring Freedom since July 28.

SPC Matthew K.S. Swanson, 20, of Lake Forest, CA, died August 8 at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MD, of injuries sustained during a vehicle roll-over July 19 in Logar province, Afghanistan. Specialist Swanson was assigned to the 3rd Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, Light Infantry, Fort Drum, NY.

LCpl Javier Olvera, 20, of Palmdale, CA, died August 8 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Olvera was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, NC.

PFC Brian M. Wolverton, 21, of Oak Park, CA, died August 20 in Kunar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with indirect fire. Private First Class Wolverton was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, Light Infantry, Fort Drum, NY.

LCpl Donald J. Hogan, 20, of San Clemente, CA, died August 26 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Hogan was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

CPT John L. Hallett III, 30, of Concord, CA, died August 25 in southern Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive device. Captain Hallett was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, 5th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, WA.

SPC Tyler R. Walshe, 21, of Shasta, CA, died August 31 in southern Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device. Specialist Walshe was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, 5th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, WA.

SPC Jonathan D. Welch, 19, of Yorba Linda, CA, died August 31 in Shuyene Sufia, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device. Specialist Welch was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, 5th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, WA.

PO3 James R. Layton, 22, of Riverbank, CA, died September 8 in Kunar province, Afghanistan, while supporting combat operations. Petty Officer 3rd Class Layton was assigned to an embedded training team with Combined Security Transition Command in Afghanistan.

Capt Joshua S. Meadows, 30, of Bastrop, TX, died September 5 while supporting combat operations in Farah province, Afghanistan. Captain Meadows was assigned to 1st Marine Special Operations Battalion, Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command, Camp Pendleton, CA.

TSgt James R. Hornbarger, 33, of Castle Rock, WA, died September 12 as a result of a non-hostile incident in the Mediterranean. Technical Sergeant Hornbarger was assigned to the 9th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, Beale Air Force Base, CA.

SGT Joshua M. Hardt, 24, of Applegate, CA, died October 3 in Kamdesh, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his contingency outpost with small arms, rocket-propelled grenade and indirect fires. Sergeant Hardt was assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO.

SSgt Aaron J. Taylor, 27, of Bovey, MN, died October 9 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Staff Sergeant Taylor was assigned to Marine Wing Support Squadron 372, Marine Wing Support Group 37, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

LCpl Alfonso Ochoa, Jr., 20, of Armona, CA, died October 10 while supporting combat operations in Farah province, Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Ochoa was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, III Marine Expeditionary Force,

Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay.

SPC Jesus O. Flores, Jr., 28, of La Mirada, CA, died October 15 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive device. Specialist Flores was assigned to the 569th Mobility Augmentation Company, 4th Engineer Battalion, Fort Carson, CO.

SPC Michael A. Dahl, Jr., 23, of Moreno Valley, CA, died October 17 in Argahndab, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive device. Specialist Dahl was assigned to 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, 5th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, WA.

LCpl David R. Baker, 22, of Painesville, OH, died October 20 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Baker was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

SPC Kyle A. Coumas, 22, of Lockeford, CA, died October 21 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive device. Specialist Coumas was assigned to 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, 5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, WA.

Capt Kyle R. Van De Giesen, 29, of North Attleboro, MA, died October 26 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Captain Van De Giesen was assigned to Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 169, Marine Aircraft Group 39, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Capt David S. Mitchell, 30, of Loveland, OH, died October 26 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Captain Mitchell was assigned to Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 367, Marine Aircraft Group 39, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Capt Eric A. Jones, 29, of Westchester, NY, died October 26 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Captain Jones was assigned to Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 169, Marine Aircraft Group 39, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Cpl Gregory M.W. Fleury, 23, of Anchorage, AK, died October 26 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Corporal Fleury was assigned to Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 169, Marine Aircraft Group 39, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

SGT Eduviges G. Wolf, 24, of Hawthorne, CA, died October 25 in Kunar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked her vehicle with a rocket-propelled grenade. Sergeant Wolf was assigned to the 704th Brigade Support Battalion, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO.

LCpl Cody R. Stanley, 21, of Rosanky, TX, died October 28 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Stanley was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, CA.

SFC David E. Metzger, 32, of San Diego, CA, died October 26 of wounds suffered when the MH-47 helicopter he was aboard crashed in Darreh-ye Bum, Afghanistan. Sergeant First Class Metzger was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group, Airborne, Fort Bragg, NC.

Sgt Charles I. Cartwright, 26, of Union Bridge, MD, died November 7 while supporting combat operations in Farah province, Afghanistan. Sergeant Cartwright was assigned to 1st Marine Special Operations Battalion, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command, Camp Pendleton, CA.

LCpl Justin J. Swanson, 21, of Anaheim, CA, died November 10 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Lance Corporal Swanson was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

PFC Marcus A. Tynes, 19, of Moreno Valley, CA, died November 21 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of wounds sustained when enemy forces attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive device. Private First Class Tynes was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg,

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as we work to reform our health care system, it is crucial that we encourage the development of new treatments and cures for diseases by investing in health research and innovation. Today, I am proud to introduce the Brittany Wilkinson Mitochondrial Disease Research and Treatment Enhancement Act of 2009, which, for the first time,

would coordinate the federal investment in researching the cause of, and treatments and cures for, mitochondrial disease.

Known as the cell's ``powerhouse,'' mitochondria are specialized compartments within cells that help sustain life by producing 90 percent of the energy our cells and bodies need. Mitochondrial disease causes defects that reduce the ability of mitochondria to produce energy, which leads to cell dysfunction or death. When cells in our bodies begin to fail or die, then whole organ systems can fail.

Due to the essential nature of the function of mitochondria, mitochondrial dysfunction is suspected to be associated with a large number of diseases including, Parkinson's, autism, diabetes, cancer and many other afflictions. However, we cannot learn more about how these diseases are related until we invest enough resources in mitochondrial disease research.

First recognized in the 1960s, mitochondrial disease is relatively newly diagnosed, yet every 30 minutes a child is born who will develop a mitochondrial disease by age 10, and one recent study showed that one in every 200 people has a genetic mutation that may lead to mitochondrial disease.

Despite its prevalence, mitochondrial disease has no known treatment or cure, those afflicted with this disorder--many of them children--go untreated.

This legislation would create an Office of Mitochondrial Disease, within the National Institutes of Health, to develop a Mitochondrial Disease Research Plan, to promote and coordinate efforts to educate researchers and health providers about mitochondrial diseases and to award grants to increase research of mitochondrial disease.

In addition, this legislation would establish Mitochondrial Disease Centers of Excellence to promote basic and clinical research, facilitate training programs in mitochondrial disease, and develop and disseminate programs to provide continuing education in mitochondrial disease. This legislation also instructs the Director of the CDC to establish a national registry and a biorepository to help collect and share information about patients with mitochondrial disease.

The United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation, UMDF--the voice for the thousands of children, adults and their families who face this disease almost alone--greatly supports this bill because they know it is critical to research, understanding and future treatments for mitochondrial diseases.

Brittany Wilkinson, for whom this act is named, was herself a mitochondrial disease patient. Earlier this year I met this young woman when she visited my office as a UMDF Youth Ambassador; I was greatly impressed by her poise and dedication to her cause. Although Brittany had experienced medical problems since birth, she was not diagnosed with mitochondrial disease until the age of seven.

Though Brittany was in constant pain, spent months in the hospital and sometimes stopped breathing at night, she devoted her life to raising awareness about the disease she shared with so many others. As the first ever Youth Ambassador for the UMDF, Brittany helped fundraise, made phone calls and dictated letters--sometimes from her hospital bed.

In addition to her work as a Youth Ambassador, Brittany was also active in her local government, where she worked to pass ``Mitochondrial Disease Awareness Week'' resolutions in Clovis City and Frenso, California. On the state level, this year she was able to get a permanent resolution through the California Assembly to make the third full week in September every year ``Mitochondrial Disease Awareness Week''. I was devastated to hear that this September Brittany passed due to the effects of her debilitating illness.

Brittany Wilkinson worked tirelessly to advance public awareness of this devastating disease, now I urge my colleagues to join me in taking the next step by supporting this investment in mitochondrial disease research, for the thousands of families across our nation coping with mitochondrial disease.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time between 2:15 p.m. and 4:15 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders, or their designees, in alternating 30-minute blocks of time, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the Republicans controlling the second 30 minutes; further, that no amendments be in order during this time.

Mr. President, since this is the 30 minutes of time for our side, I ask that I be recognized for 10 minutes, Senator Murray for 5 minutes, Senator Lautenberg for 5 minutes, Senator Harkin for 5 minutes, and Senator Cardin for 5 minutes.

We have many Members who wish to come and speak, and I would urge them to contact us. I will just take a minute to get my notes in order, so I suggest the absence of a quorum, and the time should be taken off our time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we are in the middle of a very important debate about whether we are going to move forward and make sure our people in America have health care. That is what it is about. I am going to throw out a few numbers that are always on my mind as I talk about this issue. One of them is 14,000. Every day, 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance. It is not because they did anything wrong. A lot of times it is just because they get sick and their insurance company walks away from them or they may reach the limit of their coverage, which they didn't realize they had, and they are done for. They could lose their job and suddenly they can't afford to pay the full brunt of their premium. They could get sick and then all of a sudden are now branded with a PC--and that is not a personal computer, it is a preexisting condition--and they can't get health care.

So we are in trouble in this country, with 14,000 Americans a day losing their health care, and a lot of them are working Americans. As a matter of fact, most of them are working Americans. Sometimes a child, for example, will reach the age where they can no longer be covered through their parents' plan, and the child might have had asthma. When they go to the doctor, they beg the doctor not to say they have asthma. I have doctors writing to me saying that parents are begging them: Please, don't write down that my child has asthma; say she has bronchitis because when she goes off my medical plan, she is going to be branded with a preexisting condition. So 14,000 Americans a day, remember that number.

Then, Mr. President, 66 percent, that is the percentage--66 percent-- of all bankruptcies that are due to a health care crisis. People are going bankrupt not because they didn't manage their money well or they didn't work hard and save but because they are hit with a health care crisis and either they had no insurance or the insurance refused them. The stories that come across my desk, as I am sure yours, are very heartbreaking. So people are going bankrupt. They lose their dignity, they lose everything because of a health care crisis.

Yesterday, I brought up a couple of numbers--29 out of 30 industrialized nations. That is where we stand on infant mortality. We are not doing very well. It is no wonder; more than 50 percent of the women in this Nation are not seeking health care when they should. They are putting it off or they are never getting it. No wonder we don't do well with infant mortality.

Now, why don't women do this? Because they either don't have insurance or they do not have good enough insurance or they can't afford the copay or they are fearful. They are fearful that maybe if they go this time, the insurance company will say: No more.

We rank 24 out of 30 industrialized nations for life expectancy. My constituents are shocked to hear that. They are shocked at the infant mortality ranking, and they are shocked at the life expectancy ranking. I have heard my Republican friends try to rationalize this: Well, it is because our population is diverse--and all the rest. This is the most powerful, richest Nation on Earth. There is no reason we have to be 24 out of 30 in terms of our life expectancy, especially when we know so much of our problem deals with about five diseases--diseases such as diabetes, which can be prevented and certainly treated.

The last number I will talk about is 45 percent. The average family in America, by 2016, if we do nothing, will be paying 45 percent of their income on premiums. Now, this is disastrous, and 2016 is around the corner by my calculations. So that means more and more of us will not be able to afford insurance, and we are going to show up at hospital emergency rooms. That costs a lot and the outcomes are bad and America will continue on this downward spiral in relation to our health care system.

Why do I take time to talk about this issue? It is because we need to keep our eye on the big picture, and the big picture is not a pretty picture for our people right now. The status quo is not benign, it is not neutral, it is cruel. Every one of us could wake up in the morning having lost a job and having no health care. So what we are doing is going to help every American, and I think one of the best things we do in the underlying bill is to make sure that health care premiums are affordable for everyone. That is the key, and we do it in a number of ways.

But, Mr. President, in the middle of all this, we have an amendment that would roll back the clock on women's rights. I am here to say, as I said last night--and I am happy to see other colleagues joining me-- it is unacceptable to single out one group of people--namely the women of this country--and tell them they can't use their own private money to buy an insurance policy that covers the range of reproductive health care. Why are women being singled out? It is so unfair.

We have had a firewall in place for 30 years. It said this: No Federal funds can be used for abortion, but private funds can be used as long as abortion is legal, and it is. Roe v. Wade made it legal in the early stages of a pregnancy. Women have had that right.

Well, this amendment says there is one group of people we are going to treat differently. We are going to take one procedure, that only applies to them, and say they can't buy health insurance for that procedure--only if it is a separate rider, which everyone knows is unaffordable, impractical, and will not work.

I don't see any amendment saying to men that if they want to have a procedure that relates to their reproductive health they can't use their own private money to buy coverage for it. No, it is not in there. We don't tell men, if they want to make sure they can buy insurance coverage through their pharmaceutical plan for Viagra, that they can't do it. No, we don't do that, and I wouldn't support that. It would be wrong. Well, it is wrong to single out women and to say to the women of this country that they can't use their own private funds to purchase insurance that covers the whole range of reproductive health care.

You have to look behind this amendment to understand how pernicious it really is. I have five male colleagues on the other side of the aisle who were on the Senate floor for at least an hour or so talking about this amendment, and one thing about each and every one of them, they want to make abortion illegal. There is no question about it. They want to take away a woman's right to choose, even in the earliest stages of the pregnancy, even if it impacts her health, her ability to remain fertile, or her ability to avoid a very serious health issue such as a heart problem, a stroke. They do not want to have an exception for a woman's health. No question, that is what they want.

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds, and then I will turn to Senator Lautenberg.

So to sum up my part, the amendment that has been offered by Senators Nelson, Hatch, Vitter, Brownback, et al., hurts women. It singles out one legal procedure and says: You know what. You can't use your own private funds to buy insurance so that in case you need to use it for that legal procedure, you can. So I hope we will vote it down.

I yield the floor, Mr. President, and note that Senator Lautenberg is here for 5 minutes. Oh, I am sorry. May I say that the order was Senator Murray for 5 minutes to be followed by Senator Lautenberg for 5.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to amend the previous order to give Senator Lautenberg 8 minutes, myself 2 minutes, and Senator Cardin 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank Senators Murray, Lautenberg, and Cardin for participating in our half hour of debate. Our block of time has almost expired. I would like to close the half hour by saying one word that I think is a beautiful word, and that word is ``fairness.'' ``Fairness'' is a beautiful word. It should always be the centerpiece of our work here. We should never single out one group of people as targets. We should treat people the same.

It has been very clearly stated that the Nelson-Hatch amendment, like the Stupak amendment in the House, singles out an area of reproductive health care that only impacts one group, and that is women. It says to women that they can't use their own private funds to buy coverage for the full range of reproductive health procedures. It doesn't say that to a man. It doesn't say to men: You can't use your own funds to cover the cost of a pharmaceutical product that you may want for your reproductive health. It doesn't say that they can't use their own private funds for a surgical procedure they may choose that is in the arsenal that they may choose for their own reproductive rights.

So we say to the men of this country: Look, we are not going to single out any procedure or any pharmaceutical product you may want to use for your reproductive health care. We are saying, if a private insurer offers it, you have the right to buy it. We are singling out women.

Again, let me say this as clearly as I can. We have had a firewall between the use of Federal funds and private funds. Senator Reid has kept that firewall in place in the underlying bill. He keeps the status quo of the Hyde amendment. The group here who is coming on the floor continually--mostly men; I think so far all men; there may be some women who have spoken on their behalf, but I have not heard it--are basically saying: Forget the firewall. Forget it. Women, you cannot use your private funds, and government will tell you what you can or cannot do. I will tell you something. That is not what Uncle Sam should do. Uncle Sam should respect women, should respect men. I hope we defeat this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the following order: Boxer, 1 minute; Durbin, 5 minutes; Stabenow, 5 minutes; Shaheen, 5 minutes; Dodd, 5 minutes; Menendez, 5 minutes; and Baucus, 4 minutes.

Mr. President, I gave birth to two beautiful children, and I am proud to say that I have now four grandchildren--the light of my life. I am just here to say as a mother, as a grandmother, and as a Senator from California that I trust the women of this country. I don't want to tell the women of this country--or tell anybody else anything like this--that they can't buy insurance with their own private money to cover their whole range of legal reproductive health care. We don't do that to the men. We don't say they can't get any surgery if they might need it for their reproductive health care. We don't tell them they can't get certain drugs, under a pharmaceutical benefit, they may need for their reproductive health care. Imagine if the men in this Chamber had to fill out a form and get a rider for Viagra or Cialis and it was public. Forget about it. There would be a rage in this Chamber.

We are just saying treat women fairly. Treat women the same way you treat men. Let them have access to the full range of legal reproductive health care. That is all we are saying. Vote no on this amendment, the Nelson-Hatch amendment, because Harry Reid takes care of the firewall between private funds and Federal funds. We keep that firewall.

Is it OK if Senator Durbin goes after Senator Stabenow?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that in lieu of Senator Baucus's 4 minutes, Senator Casey take that time.

Mr. President, before we turn this over to the Republican side, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from religious leaders who support maintaining the underlying bill and who oppose this amendment, and they are: Catholics for Choice, Disciples Justice Action Center, The Episcopal Church, Jewish Women International, Presbyterian Church Washington Office, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Union of Reform Judaism, United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries, United Methodist Church-General Board of Church and Society, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.

We are proud to have their support for our position.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Nelson-Hatch amendment No. 2962; that regardless of the outcome of the vote with respect to that amendment, there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the McCain motion to commit, equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the McCain motion to commit; the McCain motion be subject to an affirmative 60-vote threshold; that if the motion achieves that threshold, then it be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that if it does not achieve that threshold, then it be withdrawn; and that no amendment be in order to the motion.

Mr. President, I move to table the Nelson amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, would my friend yield for a unanimous consent request?

Madam President, we are trying to get the times locked in so that Senators who have come over here get their time. So I ask unanimous consent that Senator Nelson speak for 10 minutes, Boxer for 5, Mikulski for 10, Grassley for 10, Cornyn for 10, Gillibrand for 10, and then Senator McCain wishes to comment.

Madam President, it is an honor to be here in the Senate at a time when we are working on one of the major issues of our time. We know that generations of leaders in both parties have tried to solve the health care crisis, and they have done it bit by bit. We read history. We know that leaders struggled with Social Security. The Democrats were in the forefront. Republicans fought us every step of the way. Franklin Roosevelt took the lead on that, and we had John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson take the lead on Medicare. The Republicans fought us every inch of the way. We had some cooperation from certain Senators and certain Members of Congress, but overall it was very difficult.

This fight is very difficult to make sure that we turn things around. We live in a society where, if we do not step into the breach--we are told by nonpartisan surveys that if we do nothing--and this is important--average premiums for our families in California will be 41 percent of income. In States such as Pennsylvania it will be 50 percent of income. We know what that means. People will not have health insurance. So we can pull the covers over our heads and say it is too hard; it is too tough. We can turn our backs on the fact that 62 percent of bankruptcies are related to a health care crisis. We could turn our backs on that. We could turn our backs on the fact that the infant mortality rate in America is 29th out of 30 nations--that is where we come out.

This is America, the greatest country in the world. Something is wrong when so many people do not have access to insurance; and even if they do, when they need it most it is gone.

How proud am I to be here at this time? Very proud. How grateful am I to the people of my State for sending me back here three times, so I can stand here and be a voice for them? I can't tell you how proud I am.

When we started this health care debate we knew it was important to the people we represent and we knew it was important to the economy of this country. Senator Cornyn has gotten up and said this bill is terrible for the economy. Let me tell you, there are $27 billion of tax cuts in this bill. Let me repeat that--$27 billion of tax cuts for small business.

There are billions of dollars of tax breaks for individuals. For people to stand up and say this is not good for our economy, I don't think they understand or get it. If we continue with the status quo, that is when we are in trouble.

The women of the Senate have been very involved, the Democratic women. We have worked together to make sure this bill meets the needs of all of our families, including the women of this country. Senator Mikulski, who is on the floor, took the lead and made sure that we corrected a problem that was in the bill, a problem which basically was unclear as to who was going to set the benefits. We wanted to make sure that women could get mammograms after 40 every year. Senator Mikulski fixed it by making sure the head of Health and Human Services is going to be the one to decide what is covered.

Women's prevention has now gone way up to the top of the list because of Senator Mikulski and the women who worked with her. We are very proud of that.

There is one thing that was taken care of in the Reid bill that we didn't

think we would have an argument about; that is, we thought we had an understanding that we were not going to bring up the issue of abortion; that it was not necessary to do it because we were not doing anything in the bill--Senator Reid doesn't do anything in the bill that changes the current agreement.

Let me say, because I started in the House in the 1980s, I was part of that agreement. I offered the amendment that said, yes; it is true no Federal funds could be used unless the life of the woman was at stake, for abortion. Through my amendment we added rape and incest. Those are the only three exceptions. No Federal funds could be used for abortion except to save the life of the woman or if she is a victim of rape or incest. That agreement has held for three decades.

It is fair to say neither side is thrilled with it, but the fact is, the agreement has held. The fact is, Senator Reid has crafted a bill, which is the underlying bill, that preserves that three-decades-long agreement.

But over on the House side they passed the radical Stupak amendment which strikes at the heart of this delicate compromise by preventing women from using their own private funds for their legal reproductive health care. That is a big shock because women have been able to utilize their own private funds in order to get a legal procedure-- legal procedure--and never has anyone, to my knowledge, on either side of the aisle said she could not get access to insurance to cover the whole range of legal reproductive health care if she uses her own funds. This amendment takes us way back.

Here is what is interesting. The people who bring us this--mostly it is going to be the men who speak on this, I think. We will see if that is right or wrong, but I predict that.

The men who have brought us this do not single out a procedure that is used by a man, or a drug that is used by a man, that involves his reproductive health care and say they have to get a special rider. There is nothing in this amendment that says if a man someday wants to buy Viagra, for example, that his pharmaceutical coverage cannot cover it; that he has to buy a rider. I would not support that. And they should not support going after a woman, using her own private funds, for her reproductive health care.

Is it fair to say to a man: You are going to have to buy a rider to buy Viagra--and this is public information. It could be accessed. No, I don't support that. I support a man's privacy just as I support a woman's privacy.

So it is very clear to me that this amendment would be the biggest rollback of a woman's right to choose in decades.

We didn't ask for this fight. We didn't plan for this fight. We don't want this fight. We simply want to ensure that this three-decades-long agreement is kept in place. And that is what Senator Reid does in the underlying bill. It is very clear that in the underlying bill, there is a firewall between Federal funds and private funds. All we are saying is, please leave it alone. We believe it is discriminatory to single out a procedure only women can utilize and say to the women of this Nation: Yes, this is a legal procedure, but you can't use your own private funds. Senator Reid is very clear. He puts a firewall in place between the Federal funds and the private funds.

Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land. I know a lot of my colleagues would like to see it overturned. They would like to make abortion illegal at the earliest stages. They would like to criminalize it. They would like to put women and doctors in jail. The fact is, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. At the early stages of a pregnancy, a woman has a right to choose. That is the law. Later on, she can't do it. There are restrictions for her, hurdles for her. That is what Roe does.

There are many people, particularly on the other side of the aisle-- more than on our side, for sure--who want to overturn Roe. They know they can't do it because the vast majority of the people support a woman's right to choose at the early stages of a pregnancy. So what can they do? They can make it impossible for her to access a doctor for this procedure. In this bill, they go after her insurance. It is surprising to me that such an amendment could pass the House, but it did.

I am asking my colleagues, women and men, both sides of the aisle, to please stand up for equality. Please don't single out women. What have women done to deserve this? They are our mothers, our daughters, our grandmas. They serve in the military with dignity. Why punish them this way? Why have such a lack of respect for them that they can't even get reproductive health care with their own private funds? It is, to me, such a rollback of women's rights.

I believe we will defeat this in the Senate. I believe Senator Reid deserves a lot of credit because what he did in the underlying bill is preserve the status quo--no Federal funds for abortion, not a dollar, but a woman can use her own private funds to buy health insurance.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, will the Senator yield for just a brief question on time, I say to Senator McCain?

I just wondered how much longer the Senator was going to go because we have people waiting on both sides to speak up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

I have been listening to this debate. It has been very interesting. It is very clear what this amendment does. It hurts the victims who, through no fault of their own, get hurt in a medical malpractice case by essentially making it very difficult for them to get the best attorneys. Some of these cases cry out for the best attorneys.

But let me tell you, I have been in Congress since the 1980s. When a House Member or a Senator gets into trouble, do you know the first person they call? An attorney--the best attorney--and they do not come on this floor and say: Oh, let's make sure those attorneys do not earn enough money. They are willing to pay whatever it takes with their campaign accounts. By the way, that is all legal.

But I find it amazing that Senators--who the first person they call when they are in trouble through their work is an attorney--would wind up going after victims the way they do. When they are a victim of a problem, as they see it, they get the best attorneys and they pay the high price. It is just not right.

I hope we will defeat the Ensign amendment.