Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 3590, as amended, be printed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming recess or adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the President pro tempore, and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two Houses or by order of the Senate.

Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

I now ask for a second reading en bloc, and I object to my own request en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 223, the adjournment resolution, received from the House and at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn sine die until noon on Tuesday, January 5, 2010, for a pro forma session only, with no business conducted, and under the provisions of H. Con. Res. 223; that following the pro forma session, the Senate adjourn until 11 a.m., Tuesday, January 19, 2010, for a pro forma session only, with no business conducted; further that the Senate adjourn until 10 a.m., Wednesday, January 20, 2010; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for 1 hour, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each; that following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Beverly Baldwin Martin of Georgia to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Eleventh Circuit,

as provided under a previous order; further that the Senate recess on Wednesday from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party conference lunches.

Mr. President, the next rollcall vote will be on the confirmation of the Martin nomination, and it is expected to occur prior to the caucus lunches on Wednesday, January 20.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, as I previously indicated, the next vote is expected to take place prior to the caucus luncheons on Wednesday, January 20.

I again want to wish everyone a very happy holiday season. I know everybody has been looking forward to this particular request, and that is, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the provisions of H. Con. Res. 223.

Mr. President, on Wednesday, the junior Senator from Vermont offered his ``single-payer'' health insurance amendment, amdt. No. 2837, to H.R. 3590. Under rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, an amendment must be read aloud into the Record unless its reading is dispensed with by unanimous consent. Such consent is routinely granted but in this instance, the junior Senator from Oklahoma objected so the clerks commenced with reading the 767-page amendment. After several hours passed, Senator Sanders withdrew his amendment.

Later in the day, the Republican leader came to the floor and complained that ``the majority somehow convinced the Parliamentarian to break with the longstanding precedent and practice of the Senate'' with regard to the reading of the amendment. He claimed that continued reading of the amendment could not be dispensed with absent consent being granted, suggesting that Senator Sanders had no right to interrupt the reading to withdraw his amendment. The Republican leader cited Riddick's Senate Procedure: Precedents and Practices, pages 43- 44, which states, in part:

Under Rule XV, paragraph 1, and Senate precedents, an

amendment shall be read by the Clerk before it is up for

consideration or before the same shall be debated unless a

request to waive the reading is granted; in practice that

includes an ordinary amendment or an amendment in the nature

of a substitute, the reading of which may not be dispensed

with except by unanimous consent, and if the request is

denied the amendment must be read and further interruptions

are not in order; interruptions of the reading of an

amendment that has been proposed are not in order, even for

the purpose of proposing a substitute amendment to a

committee amendment which is being read.

When an amendment is offered the regular order is it

reading, and unanimous consent is required to call off the

reading.

A Senator has, at the sufferance of the Senate, reserved

the right to object to dispensing with further reading of an

amendment.

Later on Wednesday, the senior Senator from Illinois ably addressed the Republican leader's concerns but I bring the matter up again because I was presiding at the time Senator Sanders withdrew his amendment and Senator Coburn called for regular order. I received several phone calls afterwards from individuals who claimed that I acted erroneously in permitting Senator Sanders to withdraw his amendment so I would like to set the record straight.

First of all, before Senator Sanders withdrew his amendment, I consulted with the Senior Assistant Parliamentarian, who was on the floor while I was presiding. He assured me that a Senator has the right to withdraw an amendment if no action has been taken on it. No action can be taken on an amendment until it is officially pending. An amendment is not officially pending until it has been read into the Record or such reading has been waived by unanimous consent.

It is important to understand that while the Presiding Officer, not the Parliamentarian, makes rulings, it would be unusual for him or her to ignore the advice of the Parliamentarian. Martin Gold, who was the senior floor staffer to two former Republican majority leaders, Howard H. Baker, Jr., and William H. Frist, MD, of Tennessee, writes in his definitive book, ``Senate Procedure and Practice,'' that former Parliamentarian Floyd M. Riddick ``claimed that in twenty-five years of advising the presiding officer, the Senate only once voted to overturn him on appeal. He also cites an example of Vice President Alben Barkley ignoring the parliamentarian's advice, only to be overturned on appeal.'' The Parliamentarian is a nonpartisan officer of the Senate. In the 72 years since the position was created, there have been just five Parliamentarians. The Parliamentarian and his staff are experienced professionals. I sought and received the Parliamentarian's advice on this matter and I followed it, which is how the Senate usually operates.

The Parliamentarian and his staff conducted extensive research on rule XV and the precedents governing the reading and withdrawal of amendments prior to what happened during Wednesday's session. While the Riddick's text the Republican leader cited seems plain enough, it is trumped by section 2 of rule XV itself, which clearly and succinctly states:

Any motion, amendment, or resolution may be withdrawn or

modified by the mover at any time before a decision,

amendment, or ordering of the yeas and nays, except a motion

to reconsider, which shall not be withdrawn without leave.

Prior to the time Senator Sanders withdrew his amendment, no action had been taken on it that would have prevented such a move without consent for a very simple reason: the amendment wasn't officially pending while it was being read into the Record. So Senator Sanders had an unfettered right to withdraw it under such conditions.

The precedent for a Senator's ability to withdraw an amendment while it is being read without gaining consent first, either to dispense with the reading or to withdraw it, was firmly established in 1950 and reiterated in 1992. On April 14, 1950, Senator Forrest C. Donnell insisted that an amendment being offered by Senator William Benton be read in its entirety. Afterwards, Senator Benton sought unanimous consent to withdraw his amendment. Senator Donnell made a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair, asking the Presiding Officer whether a Senator may withdraw an amendment while it is being read. He further stated that if consent were necessary he would object. The Presiding Officer replied that an amendment may indeed be withdrawn while it is being read, citing the language in rule XV I just mentioned. And Senator Benton withdrew his amendment.

On September 24, 1992, Senator Brock Adams offered an amendment to a tax bill and sought consent twice to dispense with reading it. In both instances, Senator Bob Packwood objected so the clerk proceeded to read the amendment aloud. Later, Senator Adams asked for ``permission'' to withdraw the amendment and the Chair replied affirmatively that he had the right to do so.

The 1950 precedent is cited on page 119 of Riddick's for the proposition that an amendment may be withdrawn ``even as soon as it has been read'' but it is, in fact, the same ruling as the 1992 precedent, that a Senator may withdraw his amendment while it is being read.

The Republican leader did not refer to the 1950 precedent in his comments on Wednesday but spoke disparagingly of what happened in 1992, saying, ``the Chair made a mistake and allowed something similar (to Senator Sanders' move) to happen. But one mistake does not a precedent make.''

The Parliamentarian doesn't share the Republican leader's contention that the 1992 action was a ``mistake,'' not a precedent. The Parliamentarian's view is echoed by Walter Oleszek, the noted senior specialist in American National Government at the Congressional Research Service, CRS, who wrote last year, ``Senators are free to modify or withdraw their amendments until the Senate takes ``action'' on them.'' This is from Senate Amendment Process: General Conditions and Principles, CRS Report 98-707, May 19, 2008. Martin Gold's book, ``Senate Procedure and Practice,'' states:

When a senator sends an amendment to the desk, he continues

to ``own'' that amendment in the sense that he can modify or

withdraw it at will (my emphasis) . . . Once ``action'' has

been taken on the amendment, that situation changes, and the

senator can modify or withdraw his amendment only by

unanimous consent. This is from page 102.

The minority has tried to argue that there was Senate action on the Sanders amendment because the Senate previously had agreed to a unanimous consent request defining the amendment and the Hutchison motion to recommit as the only propositions in order at that stage and prohibiting amendments to them. It is true that if an amendment is on a defined list of the only amendments made in order, that amendment when pending cannot be withdrawn except by unanimous consent. But that order is irrelevant in this case because, as I mentioned before, the Sanders amendment was not pending and could not be until it was read in full or unless the reading was dispensed with by unanimous consent. Another way to put it is that the reading of the amendment was not ``interrupted'' by Senator Sanders; in withdrawing it he obviated the reason for a reading. The order allowed but did not require, as it could not, that Senator Sanders offer the amendment and take steps to make it pending.

So, to summarize, rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate and the 1950 and 1992 precedents are clear that Senator Sanders was well within his rights to withdraw the amendment, the reading of it notwithstanding. The Parliamentarian advised me accordingly and I followed his advice. I would add that Senator Coburn never explicitly objected to Senator Sanders withdrawing the amendment. He called for regular order. While regular order was indeed the reading of the amendment, that status couldn't prevent Senator Sanders from exercising his right to withdraw it.

Finally, I regret that several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle made comments that were critical of the Parliamentarian and his staff following this incident. The current Parliamentarian helped to write, edit, and revise Riddick's Senate Procedure and he has served in his current capacity as Chief Parliamentarian for 17 years and counting, and as a Senate Parliamentarian for 33 years. He and his staff have a combined total of 84 years of experience. They are professionals who serve this institution and the American people with distinction.

Mr. President, in a few hours, we in the Senate by our votes will be able to clear the way for the United States at long last to join every other industrial nation in the world and declare that health care is a right.

I thank our leader, Senator Reid, for his extraordinary courage and leadership during these many weeks as we have been able to bring together the necessary votes to move this legislation forward.

I thank Senator Baucus, Senator Dodd, and many of my colleagues who have worked on so many provisions that are in the managers' amendment and are in the underlying bill.

For 23 years, I have been in Congress, and for 23 years I have been supporting universal coverage. I believe every American should have access to affordable, quality health insurance and health care. By our votes later on this evening, we will have a chance to take a giant step forward in accomplishing that goal.

As I pointed out, the United States, although we spend more than any other nation in the world by far on health care, whether you want to do it in absolute dollars or on a per capita basis, we spend more than any other nation. Yet we are the only industrialized nation in the world that does not provide universal insurance and universal care.

Americans have to make a difficult choice. If someone happens to be walking on the ice tonight and does not have health insurance and they fall and hurt themselves, they have to make a decision whether their arm or leg hurts badly enough to go see a doctor or perhaps to have an x-ray to see whether a bone has been broken because they do not have the money to pay for that type of care.

Many people go without checkups because they cannot afford the cost of seeing a doctor today. They do not have insurance or their insurance does not cover what they need.

Many people who are on medications have to decide whether they can split their pills to make their dollars last a little bit longer because they literally are choosing between taking their medicines or having food on the table in the United States of America in 2009, the wealthiest nation in the world.

We have a chance to change that situation. One can argue this issue on many grounds, and I have. One can argue we need to bring down the growth rate of health care costs, and I certainly believe that or one can argue that we need to provide more people with health insurance or we need to take on the health insurance industry. But I think the most persuasive argument for passing this legislation is the moral argument. It is the right thing to do. It is what America stands for.

I met with some students this week, and we were talking about the bill. These were high school students. They said it is the right thing to do, and they are right. This is the right thing for our Nation to do, to make sure everybody has access to affordable health care.

In Maryland, this takes on a special note because I know my colleagues have heard me talk frequently about Deamonte Driver, a 12- year-old who lived in Prince George's County, MD, just 7 miles from here. His mom tried to get him to a dentist because he had a toothache. They did not have insurance. No dentist would see him. After many efforts to try to get him to a dentist, he ultimately went to an emergency room. They operated on him because the tooth had become abscessed because of the delay in getting care. He needed emergency surgery. It went into his brain, and he lost his life because in the United States of America, we could not provide someone who was poor access to see a dentist. Tonight we can change that by our votes on this bill.

At long last, we have a chance to do something about that. In the last Congress, I introduced a bill that provided universal care by saying each of us has a personal responsibility to make sure we have health insurance. I did that because I think the first thing we need to do as a prerequisite to health care reform is to be sure everyone is covered, everyone is in the system.

This bill and the managers' amendment not only provides for universal coverage but makes it affordable for every person in this country.

We use the Congressional Budget Office as the objective scorekeeper. Everybody agrees to that--Democrats and Republicans. They are the professionals who tell us whether our numbers add up. The Congressional Budget Office tells us the bill with the managers' amendment will mean 3l million more Americans will have health coverage as a result of the enactment of this legislation. That will take our under 65 group from 83 percent coverage to 94 percent coverage, and for all Americans we will attain 98 percent. Sure, we want to get to 100 percent, but we are making a giant step forward for universal coverage.

The Congressional Budget Office tells us that for the overwhelming majority of Americans, they will either see no increase in their health insurance premiums from what it would otherwise be or they will see a decrease, a decline, a reduction in the cost of the health insurance premiums they would otherwise have to pay. For all Americans, they are going to have a better insurance product that is going to cover more. They are going to have less out-of-pocket costs than they would otherwise have. That is what the Congressional Budget Office tells us. Why is that true? The legislation provides for prevention and wellness. It provides that preventive services will be required to be covered in your insurance plan.

We even do that for our government programs by providing an enhanced match for States that expand the Medicaid program for our poor to cover the preventive services. It covers oral health for our children as a required part of a required essential coverage package and provides additional help to help people through education and demonstration programs.

I could give many examples, but let me give one example from the point of view of trying to expand preventive services, and that is colon cancer. We know that if you have colon screenings, you actually can discover a polyp before it becomes cancerous. You can avoid cancer. The test costs a couple hundred dollars. If you do not have a test and you have cancer and need an operation, that costs tens of thousands of dollars.

Prevention and wellness works. It brings down the growth rate of health care costs. It saves us money. This bill invests billions in prevention and wellness directly and through required coverage in our private and public insurance programs.

We bring down the growth rate of health care costs by managing complex diseases. We know we spend most of our health care dollars because of major diseases. This bill helps us manage those diseases so people can get the care they need in a more cost-effective way.

The legislation invests in health information technology so we can reduce the administrative costs of health care. I was surprised to find that Maryland, similar to most States, if you go into an emergency room, it is very unlikely they will have your medical records. If they do not have your medical records because their information technology is not sophisticated enough to get those records, then surely they are going to do tests they would not otherwise have to do, which ends up costing us all more money.

By using health information technology, we can not only take better care of you, we can do it in a less costly way. By reducing the number of uninsured dramatically, we save money. How? Because someone who is uninsured who should see a doctor or go to a clinic instead goes to an emergency room which is much more expensive. By the way, they sometimes do not pay their bills.

Each of our families, if you live in Maryland and you have insurance, you pay an extra $1,100 a year on your health insurance because you are paying for people who do not have health insurance and they access the system in a more costly way. This bill brings down the cost. You bring down the cost of health care because of competition. We believe in competition, market forces. That is what made America great.

If you live in Maryland and you have private insurance, 71 percent of Marylanders are insured by two companies. That is not competitive. I have talked with more and more business owners who tell me they have no choice. There is one plan they can get. If they do not like that plan, there is no insurance they can get. That is not competition.

This bill brings competition by the exchanges that will invite more insurance companies to participate in our States and by the program that is in the managers' package that allows us, for the first time, to have plans available across State lines. That will be particularly helpful for a State such as Maryland, where many of our employers employ people who not only live in Maryland but live in Virginia, live in Pennsylvania, live in Delaware, live in West Virginia. That will certainly help us.

This legislation also reduces our Federal budget deficit. That is a challenge. Let me tell you why it is a challenge. There are two different issues. Reducing health care cost growth and reducing Federal spending are two different issues because to get everybody insured, which will help us bring down health care costs, we need to provide subsidies so people can afford their health insurance and provide businesses some help.

As more and more people become insured, they can use our tax advantages and pay less income taxes by using before-tax dollars rather than aftertax dollars. All that costs revenue to the Federal Treasury, so it is a challenge to bring this in without adding to the deficit, but we knew we had to do that. The Congressional Budget Office, again our objective scorekeeper, tells us that in the 10-year budget window, it will reduce the Federal budget by $131 billion, but in the next 10 years, which all of us will admit is difficult to predict, they tell us we can reduce Federal spending by one-half percent of our GDP, which can translate to over $1 trillion.

My point is, we are reducing the deficit while we are reducing the growth rate of health care costs.

The Congressional Budget Office does not score us for a lot of the results from our prevention programs. They cannot assume less people will get cancer and, therefore, the preventive services will save us money. I am convinced the dollar savings will be a lot greater than that for health care costs, for our economy, and for the taxpayers of this country.

This legislation protects consumers. That is why the consumer union supports moving this bill forward. The insurance reform that is in the underlying bill is well known. I tell you, the people of Maryland want that. I am sure the people of Massachusetts also do.

The insurance reform says: Look, let's get rid of preexisting conditions. Let's not let insurance companies pick and choose whom they want to insure. They should insure everyone. The managers' package makes that available immediately for our children. We eliminate the lifetime caps, put restrictions on the annual caps. We make immediately available coverage for children under the age of 26 and provide a reinsurance program for those between 55 and 64.

We provide for an independent appeal from an insurance company's decision on coverage. Too many insurance companies have an internal mechanism to determine coverage which is stacked against the policyholder.

The managers' amendment provides for loss ratios. Loss ratios mean a certain amount of the insurance dollar must go back to pay benefits. We know a large amount is spent on advertising, spent on salaries, spent on profits. For the first time, the consumers will know how much of that is actually going to their benefits, and we start to put into law that a certain amount must be returned to the policyholders in benefits and important consumer protection information.

I am particularly pleased the Patients' Bill of Rights, an amendment I offered, is included in the managers' package. I thank the leader for including that.

In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, a provision that I authored included a lot of the Patients' Bill of Rights in the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. President Clinton, in 1998, by executive order, extended it to all the government programs.

We passed that bill in the House and it passed in the Senate, but we never passed it in both bodies and sent it to the President the basic Bill of Rights for patients. We are making a giant

step forward in the managers' package to cover those Bill of Rights. Let me give an example. Access to emergency care that I authored is now in this bill. There are insurance companies today that tell you, you have to get preauthorization before you can go to an emergency room. Think about that. You are having chest pains and sweating and you try to find your insurance card to call your insurance company? That is not what a doctor tells you to do. You go to an emergency room.

Suppose the closest emergency room is not in your network. Does that mean you will not get full coverage? Some insurance companies say that is the case. We put in the prudent layperson standard: If it is prudent to go to the emergency room to get care, the insurance company must cover your bill.

I cannot tell you the people I talked with on both sides--I had chest pains, sweating, et cetera; I went to the emergency room, found out I did not have a heart attack and almost had one when my insurance company refused to pay the bill. I did what the doctor told me to do, and now they are not covering it. This provision will make sure that person's bill is covered.

Frankly, we have had people who delayed treatment who should have gone to an emergency room whose circumstances became much worse and some actually died. We cover access to emergency care in the managers' package, an important consumer protection.

We also allow you, as the subscriber, to determine whom you want your primary care provider to be. We give you protection as you make your decision as to whom your primary care provider will be. If you have a child, the pediatrician can be the primary care provider. If you are a woman, the OB-GYN can be your primary care provider. Many insurance companies deny you that today. That protection is in this bill for everyone.

I am also pleased to have joined Senator Brown in a matter I worked very closely on when I was in the House for clinical trials. A lot of insurance companies today will not cover the cost of clinical trials, even though it might be the best care option available for an individual and, by the way, sometimes compromises the integrity of the clinical trial if they can't get a representative group to participate. Well, we provide protection in this bill to cover you for clinical trials that your insurance company has to cover.

So there is a lot in this bill for consumer protection--the bill of rights. Mr. President, there is a long list of organizations that support the patients' rights amendment that I offered, from the AARP, to the Consumers Union, Families USA, National Women's Law Center--all the different specialists. It is an important amendment, and I am glad to see it is in the managers' amendment.

I am proud of a major new effort that has been included in the managers' amendment. I want to talk about minority health for one moment, and I particularly want to thank a member of my staff, Priscilla Ross, who has been working on this issue for many years. She has pointed out to me the vulnerability of minority populations in America. Let me give a couple of examples.

The life expectancy for an African American is 5.3 years less than someone who is White. Minorities are two times more likely to have diabetes. African Americans have 33 percent higher death rates for heart disease than the White population. And the list goes on and on.

Access to care in the minority communities is much less than in the general communities at large. So we needed to do something about this, and the amendment I offered, which is included in the managers' package, elevates minority health in our government agencies. It provides statutory authority for the Office of Minority Health at the Department of Health and Human Services. It codifies the network of minority health offices located within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Food and Drug Administration, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and the Health Resources and Services Administration.

Mr. President, it elevates the Office of Minority Health at the National Institutes of Health from a center to an institute. That is making a commitment to attack this disparity that currently exists in health care in America.

Let me talk about one other issue in this bill that I am proud to work with Senator Sanders on which involves the community health centers and primary care. Senator Sanders was able to get $10 billion in the managers' package so that we could dramatically expand access to care. You see, if you are a Latino in America, there is a 35-percent chance you have no dependable source of health care, compared to 15 percent in the White community. We need more federally qualified health centers. You can have universal health coverage, but if you don't have facilities, it will be difficult to get access to care. The community health center expansion will provide access in underserved areas. Maryland needs this help, and there is substantial investment in primary care in this legislation.

This bill will help. It will help those who have good insurance coverage today by protecting that coverage and making sure it is available tomorrow and stopping the erosion that is taking place today with insurance companies cutting back on what is covered and employers putting more of the cost on the employee. This legislation will help. It will help small business owners who today have very little choice as to what insurance plan they can get. They are paying 20 percent more, on average, than a large company pays for the same insurance protection. This will offer choice.

We also offer tax credits to help small businesses in order to make it easier for small businesses--which are the economic engine of America--to be able to provide health benefits for their employees. It will help individuals who cannot find insurance today by having large pools they can enter without being discriminated against by the way the actuaries work and will provide subsidies for low-wage workers so they can afford the coverage.

The bill will help our Medicare population by starting to close the doughnut hole on prescription drugs, making prescription medicines much more affordable for our seniors, and providing preventative services, such as annual physicals so that seniors can stay healthy. And it provides sustainability to the Medicare Program.

Most importantly, this legislation reflects the values of our Nation--affordable, quality health care for all Americans. I am proud to support this legislation, the managers' package, and the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to be on the right side of history. I support moving forward with health care reform.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have introduced the Law Student Participation Act of 2009.

The bill creates exceptions to Federal conflicts of interest law which generally prohibits Federal employees from acting as an attorney or agent in a matter adverse to the U.S. government. The legislation directs the exceptions to Federal employees attending law school and participating in legal clinics and employees of the District of Columbia who staff legal clinics. Where the Federal employee has participated personally and substantially in the matter or the matter is before the employee's particular agency or department, specific conflicts of interest provisions still apply. The current law is over broad and denies learning and teaching opportunities where no real conflict may exist.

Law schools, including schools in my home State, have voiced concern over the present law. Some of these schools include the University of Maryland, the University of the District of Columbia, and Georgetown University School of Law. The schools have related stories of students, who are Federal employees, regulated to clinics dealing only with state matters. In other instances a student might start working on a client's matter, but will be unable to continue once the matter goes to trial or before an administrative proceeding. Law schools complain that under such circumstances the client's right to effective counsel is diminished. Due to a requirement I championed, the University of Maryland School of Law faces unique challenges. Each student must provide legal services to the poor or persons who otherwise lack access to justice prior to graduation. Federal employees, unlike other students, must choose from a smaller selection of clinics due to the current Federal conflicts of interest law. Finally, if Federal employee students seek careers in practice areas where Federal law predominates, they likely will obtain no practical clinic experience in law school.

It should be noted that the Office of Government Ethics, OGE, and the Department of Justice are aware of the text of the bill. Both have conveyed informally that they do not have problems with this legislation. The OGE released a report in 2006 that was critical of current Federal conflict of interest law as being overbroad and specifically pointed out that volunteer work was frequently barred even when no potential for conflict of interest existed.

The current law deprives law students who are Federal employees of valuable practical educational opportunities. Ultimately participation in these clinics would result in better attorneys many of whom later go on to work for the Federal government.

Madam President, I wish to draw the attention of my colleagues to the retirement of Jerahmiel S. Grafstein from the Canadian Senate.

As a member and now as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have had the privilege to know and work with Jerry Grafstein over the years through participation in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe--the OSCE. I know that my colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, also knows Jerry well, having just worked with him on a resolution at this year's Annual Session of the Assembly in Vilnius, Lithuania, on combating anti-Semitism. I suspect that many of my other Senate colleagues have also worked with him over the years, as have many of our colleagues in the House of Representatives.

Anybody who has met Senator Grafstein immediately recognizes him as a man of tremendous energy, deep commitment and brilliant mind. Commenting on Jerry's career, one of his Canadian Senate colleagues noted the daunting task of paying tribute ``to a force of nature disguised as a person.'' A successful lawyer, businessman and member of the Liberal Party, he was summoned to the Canadian Senate in 1984. Jerry Grafstein's accomplishments over the next 25 years of public service are much more than I can relay here.

I do, however, want to highlight Jerry's prominent work with the 56 countries, 300 member OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. Serving for 6 years as the Assembly's treasurer and then, with me since 2007, as one of nine Vice Presidents, Jerry has understood the potential of this multilateral parliamentary forum to promote human rights, democracy and tolerance. Such a vital forum, however, does not just magically appear for the world's benefit. Someone has to take the time to make it function by participating as an officer, attending countless organizational meetings and, for us and our Canadian neighbors, traveling frequently across the Atlantic to do so. Jerry was one who rose to the challenge and then some.

Even as he helped on organizational matters, Jerry Grafstein found more time than most others to focus on substance. First and foremost, he has helped to lead the charge against rising anti-Semitism across Europe and around the world. Diplomacy has a tendency to soften the criticism and downplay the negative, often until it is too late, but Jerry has helped to ensure that the OSCE did not shy away from dealing directly with this and other manifestations of hate and prejudice that dangerously confront far too many societies. Today, thanks to the vigilance of Jerry Grafstein and others, efforts to promote greater tolerance are now a solid, ongoing and vital aspect of the OSCE's work.

This distinguished Senator from Canada also found time to participate and help lead OSCE PA missions observing elections and referenda in places like Russia, Ukraine, Georgia and Montenegro. By being an international observer, he became a witness to history and, in my view, helped history forward and make the world a more democratic place.

In all his public endeavors, Jerry Grafstein has been a close friend of the United States of America. He has helped over the years to develop the bilateral dialogue between the U.S. Congress and the Canadian Parliament. He has come here to Washington on many occasions, including as a participant in Helsinki Commission events. He has always made clear that he is Canadian and proud of the country he represents, but that has never kept him from developing areas of common interest and seeking points of agreement even on some issues where our national views may otherwise diverge.

Jerry Grafstein has been and will remain a close personal friend as well, always concerned, always engaging, never pretentious. I wish him and his wife Carole the very best. Although he deserves some time off, I am confident that he will remain prominent in the life of the vibrant city of Toronto.

In noting the many accomplishments of Jerahmiel Grafstein and thanking him for his commitment to public service, I respectfully borrow the Canadian Senate's tradition and join his colleagues in saying: ``Hear, Hear!'' On a personal level, I believe I speak for numerous colleagues of my own in saying that Jerry will be missed, and always welcome to come and visit.

Mr. President, in 1991, then-Czechoslovak President Vaclav Havel brought together his counterparts from Poland and Hungary. Taking inspiration from a 14th century meeting of Central European kings, these 20th century leaders returned to the same Danube town of Visegrad with a view to eliminating the remnants of the communist bloc in Central Europe; overcoming historic animosities between Central European countries; and promoting European integration.

Today, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia are together known as the Visegrad Group, and all four have successfully joined NATO and the European Union. They are anchors in the Trans-Atlantic alliance, and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to travel to all four of these countries where I have met with public officials, non- governmental representatives and ethnic and religious community leaders.

Unfortunately, it appears that some additional work is necessary to address one of the principal goals of the Visegrad Group; namely, overcoming historic animosities. In recent months, relations between Hungary and Slovakia have been strained. Having traveled in the region and having met with leaders from both countries during their recent visits to Washington, I would like to share a few observations.

First, an amendment to the Slovak language law, which was adopted in June and will enter into force in January, has caused a great deal of concern that the use of the Hungarian language by the Hungarian minority in Slovakia will be unduly or unfairly restricted. Unfortunately, that anxiety has been whipped up, in part, by a number of inaccurate and exaggerated statements about the law.

The amendment to the state language law only governs the use of the state language by official public bodies. These state entities may be fined if they fail to ensure that Slovak--the state language--is used in addition to the minority languages permitted by law. The amendment does not allow fines to be imposed on individuals, and certainly not for speaking Hungarian or any other minority language in private, contrary to what is sometimes implied.

The OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities has been meeting with officials from both countries and summarized the Slovak law in his most recent report to the OSCE Permanent Council:

The adopted amendments to the State Language Law pursue a

legitimate aim, namely, to strengthen the position of the

State language, and, overall, are in line with international

standards. Some parts of the law, however, are ambiguous and

may be misinterpreted, leading to a negative impact on the

rights of persons belonging to national minorities.

Since the law has not yet come into effect, there is particular concern that even if the law itself is consistent with international norms, the implementation of the law may not be.

I am heartened that Slovakia and Hungary have continued to engage with one of the OSCE's most respected institutions--the High Commissioner on National Minorities--on this sensitive issue, and I am confident that their continued discussions will be constructive.

At the same time, I would flag a number of factors or developments that have created the impression that the Slovak Government has some hostility toward the Hungarian minority.

Those factors include but are not limited to the participation of the extremist Slovak National Party, SNS,

in the government itself; the SNS control of the Ministry of Education, one of the most sensitive ministries for ethnic minorities; the Ministry of Education's previous position that it would require Slovak- language place names in Hungarian language textbooks; the handling of the investigation into the 2006 Hedvig Malinova case in a manner that makes it impossible to have confidence in the results of the investigation, and subsequent threats to charge Ms. Malinova with perjury; and the adoption of a resolution by the parliament honoring Andrei Hlinka, notwithstanding his notorious and noxious anti- Hungarian, anti-Semitic, and anti-Roma positions.

All that said, developments in Hungary have done little to calm the waters. Hungary itself has been gripped by a frightening rise in extremism, manifested by statements and actions of the Hungarian Guard, the ``64 Counties'' movement, and the extremist party Jobbik, all of which are known for their irredentist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Roma postures. Murders and other violent attacks against Roma, repeated attacks by vandals on the Slovak Institute in Budapest, attacks on property in Budapest's Jewish quarter in September, and demonstrations which have blocked the border with Slovakia and where the Slovak flag is burned illustrate the extent to which the Hungarian social fabric is being tested.

Not coincidentally, both Hungary and Slovakia have parliamentary elections next year, in April and June respectively, and, under those circumstances, it may suit extremist elements in both countries just fine to have these sorts of developments: nationalists in Slovakia can pretend to be protecting Slovakia's language and culture--indeed, the very state--from the dangerous overreach of Hungarians. Hungarian nationalists--on both sides of the border--can pretend that Hungarian minorities require their singular protection--best achieved by remembering them come election day. Meanwhile, the vast majority of good-natured Slovaks and Hungarians, who have gotten along rather well for most of the last decade, may find their better natures overshadowed by the words and deeds of a vocal few.

In meetings with Slovak and Hungarian officials alike, I have urged my colleagues to be particularly mindful of the need for restraint in this pre-election season, and I have welcomed the efforts of those individuals who have chosen thoughtful engagement over mindless provocation. I hope both countries will continue their engagement with the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, whom I believe can play a constructive role in addressing minority and other bilateral concerns.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, we live in a world that is being poisoned by greenhouse gases of our own making. If we do not act, we face irreversible, catastrophic climate change. My grandchildren face a world where there will be not enough food, water, or fuel, a world that is less diverse, less beautiful, less secure. As I speak today, we are witnessing a critical moment in our fight against global warming both at home and abroad.

This past Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency acted by releasing its final determination that ``greenhouse gases threaten the public health and welfare of the American people.'' This was an action required by law and ordered by the Supreme Court. This finding will require EPA regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Monday's endangerment finding is a critical step in our country's efforts to stop global warming, which not only poses a threat to public health and welfare but to our national security. I am proud of the strong science-based actions taken by this administration to live up to its Clean Air Act obligations to protect our health. But I strongly believe that the best way for our country to solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions is through comprehensive legislation enacted in the Congress of the United States. Legislation that invests in clean energy and new, high-tech infrastructure will bring us to long-sought goals: energy independence, good jobs for our citizens, and a healthy planet for our children and grandchildren.

We are now closer to that kind of legislation than we have ever been. The House has passed a bill that puts a limit on the pollution in our air. It dedicates funding to develop new domestic sources of clean energy. It invests in a new infrastructure that is less dependent on foreign fuels and creates American jobs. And we need those jobs. Here in the Senate, we have improved on our colleagues' work. Senate legislation makes additional investments in clean transportation. It provides additional oversight and accountability and support for developing countries. It ensures we do not add one penny to our national deficit. This legislation is consistent with the budget of our country to try to help reduce the deficit and yet make us energy independent, create jobs, and be sensitive to our environment.

But because climate change is a global problem, we need a global solution. This past Monday was also an important day in the international effort. The international community began a 2-week meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, to work on an international agreement to address climate change.

The international community has set the right objectives to make the meeting a success: a political agreement that promises both immediate action and contains the structure for a future formal treaty.

The agreement reached in Copenhagen should include the following points: specific near-term greenhouse gas emission reduction targets--a critical part--the support the developed countries will provide to the developing world to adapt to a changing industrial economy and a changing climate--we have a responsibility to help the developing world--the core elements that will make up the final treaty; and a timeline for reaching that agreement within the next year. We cannot put this off. It is critical we act timely.

The administration has taken several very important actions over the past few weeks to help us secure a global agreement in Copenhagen. EPA's endangerment finding sends an important signal to the world about the United States commitment to take decisive action.

Similarly, the President's announcement that the United States will commit to an emissions reduction in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and his pledge to contribute the fair share of the United States of $10 billion a year in financial support for the developing world by 2012 demonstrate that we are prepared to be serious partners in the fight against climate change.

That is the type of action we want to see, not only in the United States but in other countries that are major emitters.

Many of my colleagues, however, have legitimate concerns that if the United States enacts strong carbon standards, carbon-intense imports will have an unfair advantage in our market. We need to make sure we accomplish our goals internationally and also have a level playing field.

To address this fear, I believe it is critical that our international negotiators include in Copenhagen strong verification and compliance procedures that will make it clear that every state has a responsibility to take action to reduce greenhouse gases.

I have seen too many international agreements that include the highest ambitions for labor, environmental, and human rights protections that fail to achieve those goals in the absence of any consequences for violations of those principles.

The groundwork for achieving a final international agreement in Copenhagen must ensure that major emitting Nations take on clearly defined emissions reductions targets, adopt standardized systems to measure, report, and verify actions and commitments, and it must provide for consequences if countries fail to meet those commitments. Inclusion of these principles in the Copenhagen agreement allows us to pursue these critical components in any final agreement, and sends an important signal that all party countries are committed to real emissions reductions.

I am proud that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee climate change bill introduced by Senator Kerry last week includes language I authored that makes clear our expectations that any international agreement should include strong verification and compliance mechanisms, along with emission reduction targets, and a strong commitment to provide assistance to the developing world.

I will be watching the negotiations and hope it will produce the kind of agreement I have discussed here today. But regardless of what Copenhagen brings, I will continue to advocate for domestic legislation that invests in clean, domestic energy, and frees us from energy policies that undermine our national security and our economy by being dependent upon imported oil.

I will advocate for legislation that invests in the industries of tomorrow to stem the loss of clean energy jobs--jobs that stem from American inventions and ideas--to countries overseas. I will advocate for legislation that provides significant investment in clean fuels and public transit, so we seize an opportunity to build the infrastructure of tomorrow and change the way we move people and goods around this country. Right now, the transportation sector represents 30 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions and 70 percent of our oil use. If we could only double the number of transit riders every day, we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 40 percent. That is equivalent to the amount of oil we import every year from Saudi Arabia.

That kind of legislation is good for our country and good for Maryland. But we must remember that even after Copenhagen, any deals we reach, any papers we sign, are still but the foundation. The work must continue with earnest followthrough, dedicated to truly changing the way we work and live and move around this Earth.

Mr. President, last week the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, held its annual Ministerial Meeting in Athens. As always, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly was strongly represented there. Today, in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I would like to offer a few reflections on the outcome of the meeting, and what this might mean for the future of European security, in which the U.S. has a vital stake.

Each year, a different country serves as the OSCE's ``Chairman in Office.'' This year, Greece was the Chairman-in-Office and this year's Ministerial Council meeting subsequently took place in Athens. In recent years discord and paralysis have increasingly begun to overwhelm the cooperation and consensus that once characterized the OSCE. The Greeks thus began their chairmanship facing a difficult challenge.

At last year's meeting in Helsinki under Finland's able chairmanship, the Ministers decided that the OSCE should look for ways to overcome this gridlock and to give the organization a new impetus. Greece took this task to heart and launched the ``Corfu Process'' to do just that. This effort has already borne fruit. In Athens, the ministers resolved to continue to try to reaffirm, review, and reinvigorate security in the OSCE region by continuing this process.

The Ministers also agreed on decisions that addressed such fundamental and persistent problems as hate crimes, tolerance and nondiscrimination, nonproliferation, terrorism, and the ``protracted conflict'' in Nagorno-Karabakh. One of these decisions, on countering transnational threats, was sponsored by the U.S. and Russia, the first such joint effort in several years. I hope this is a positive portent for the future.

The Ministers were not able to agree on how to tackle some other equally important and pressing problems. These included the protracted conflicts in Georgia and Moldova, OSCE assistance to Afghanistan, and the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. Clearly, much work remains to be done in putting the OSCE fully back on track.

I would be remiss if I concluded my remarks without commending the Greek chairmanship for its untiring and ultimately successful efforts during the course of this year. The chairmanship rekindled the trust and confidence among the participating states that had steadily eroded over the past decade. Greece has clearly set the stage for a brighter and more productive future for the organization, and my colleagues on the Helsinki Commission, and I would like to congratulate the Greek chairmanship on this significant accomplishment.

We would also like to wish Kazakhstan, the first Central Asian nation to hold this office, every success in its historic chairmanship in 2010 and to offer them our full support. Indeed, in our view the Kazakh chairmanship is already off to a promising start, for in Athens, at the initiative of the Kazakhs, the Ministers decided to hold a high-level conference on tolerance next year. This proved to be a timely decision, coming as it did just as Switzerland voted to ban the construction of Muslim minarets, and the president of the Swiss Christian Peoples Party called for a ban on Muslim and Jewish cemeteries. These actions reminded us that not even countries that have played a leading role in establishing international human rights standards are immune from the tendencies to discriminate against immigrants and minorities and to place limits on the free expression of religious beliefs.

It is very important for the OSCE to combat these troublesome trends. It is also important that all the organization's participating states reaffirm, and commit themselves to upholding, the rights of all religious communities to create places of worship and to rest in line with their own traditions. I very much hope the OSCE's conference on tolerance next year will advance this effort.

Finally, let me say that we look forward with great interest to the forthcoming discussions of Kazakhstan's proposal to hold a meeting of heads of state and government during its chairmanship. Should it happen, this would be the first such ``summit'' under OSCE auspices, something that was previously a regular occurrence. In Athens, in acceding to this proposal, the United States expressed the view that it is open to considering such a meeting if, but only if, such a summit can produce results of substance. I think this is the correct approach, and it is one I fully support.