Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to share today with the Senate my congratulations to the Central Michigan University Chippewas football team, champions of the Mid-American Conference and of the 2010 GMAC Bowl, on a successful and exciting season.

On January 6, 2010, in Mobile, AL, the Chippewas won their 12th game of the season, against just two losses, defeating Troy University, 44- 41, in two overtimes in the GMAC Bowl. It was truly one of the college football season's most thrilling games.

Down by 12 points in the fourth quarter to a talented Troy team, the Chippewas came back to take the lead. They did not flinch when Troy tied the game with a last-second field goal to send the game into overtime, and persevered through two overtimes to triumph.

As expected, quarterback Dan LeFevour played a big role in the victory. LeFevour, a senior, had already become major college football's all-time leader in total touchdowns, set a long list of Mid- American Conference records, and become the only player in NCAA history with both 12,000 career passing yards and 2,500 career rushing yards. At the GMAC Bowl, LeFevour completed 33 of 55 passes for 395 yards, passing for one touchdown and rushing for another in overtime. Another Chippewa star, receiver Antonio Brown, caught 13 of LeFevour's passes for 178 yards, and had 203 yards in kickoff returns, including a 95- yard return for a touchdown that helped kick off CMU's fourth-quarter comeback.

It was a proud moment not just for CMU and Michigan, but across the Midwest, as the Chippewas broke a 14-game bowl losing streak for Mid- American Conference teams.

The team's competitiveness, skill, determination, and grit generated great pride not only in Mount Pleasant, CMU's home, but across the State of Michigan, which is home to half the Chippewas' roster. I join the proud citizens of Michigan in congratulating the Chippewas on a fantastic season, and enter the names of the team's players and coaches into the Record as permanent recognition of their success.

Players: Jahleel Addae, Vince Agnew, Andrew Aguila, Deja Alexander, Bryan Anderson, Nick Bellore, Brian Bennyhoff, Jake Bentley, Shamari Benton, Matt Berning, David Blackburn, Dannie Bolden, Tim Brazzel, Antonio Brown, Reggie Brown, John Carr, Derek Carter, Landon Carter, Paris Cotton, Jon Czerwienski, Leron Eaddy, Kirkston Edwards, Jake Ekkens, James Falls, Jeff Fantuzzi, Adam Fenton, Eric Fisher, Cedric Fraser, Kashawn Fraser, Eric Fraser, Connor Gagnon, Cornelius Gallon, Josh Gordy, David Harman, Jerry Harris, Brett Hartmann, Richard Hayes, Richie Hogan, Daniel Jackson, Gary Jackson, Jason Johnson, Todd Johnson, Aaron Kaczmarski, Matt Kanitz, Darren Keyton, Larry Knight, Dan LeFevour, Jake Linklater, Jeff Maddux, Matt Maletzke, Tommy Mama, Ben Masztak, Jordan McConnell, Aaron McCord, Colin Miller, Sean Murnane, Connor Odykirk, Allen Ollenburger, Jake Olson, Mike Petrucci, Cody Pettit, Tim Phillips, Kito Poblah, Ryan Radcliff, Evan Ray, Malek Redd, Tyler Reed, Chris Reeves, Mike Repovz, Nick Reynolds, Derek Rifenbury, Caesar Rodriguez, Adam Schneid, Bryan Schroeder, Will Schwarz, D.J. Scott, Bobby Seay Jr., Valtorrey Showers, Sean Skergan, Alex Smith, Chris Starkey, Armond Staten, Darryll Stinson, Kevin Sweet, Zurlon Tipton, Matt Torres, Kyle Torzy, Shane Torzy, Carl Volny, Rocky Weaver, A.J. Westendorp, Lorenzo White, Zach Wiersma, John Williams, LaVarus Williams, Sam Williams, Cody Wilson, Jeremy Wilson, Steve Winston, Kyle Zelinsky and Frank Zombo.

Coaches: Interim Head Coach Steve Stripling, Offensive Coordinator Mike Bajakian, Defensive Coordinator Tim Banks, Linebackers Coach Mark Elder, Running Backs Coach Jeff Beckles; Recruiting Coordinator and Tight Ends Coach Max Glowacki, Offensive Line Coach Don Mahoney, Special Teams and Defensive Tackles Coach Paul Volero, Graduate Assistants Ryan Oshnock and Tony Pape, Director of Football Operations Plas Presnell, and Strength and Conditioning Coach Dave Lawson.

Mr. President, in December, Mark Ingram, Jr. became the 75th college football player to win the Heisman Memorial Trophy as the Most Outstanding College Football Player in the United States for 2009. In winning this award, one of the most coveted and prestigious awards any college athlete can receive, Mark joined an exclusive and distinguished list of college football players, which includes many of the greatest players to ever lace up a pair of cleats. This honor must be especially gratifying for Mark as he becomes both the first person from Flint, MI, and the first player from the University of Alabama to be declared the winner of this award.

This year was an especially close race. In fact, it is reported that this was one of the closest ballots in the history of the award. There are many great players on the college level today, and Mark can take particular pride in knowing that, as a sophomore, he put together a 2009 season that outshone them all. Clearly, he has earned the respect and admiration of the many that follow and cover college football on a daily basis.

Mark had an outstanding sophomore season. He scored 17 touchdowns and amassed 1,658 rushing yards, a single-season school rushing record. In addition to winning the Heisman, Mark was honored as the SEC Offensive Player of the Year. These are tremendous honors, and in a emotional acceptance speech, Mark spoke about the many people and situations that helped him to develop the drive and determination

necessary to excel on the gridiron. Mark grew up and played high school football in Flint, MI, and is, simply the latest athlete from this talent rich area of Michigan to excel in collegiate or professional competition.

After winning this award, Mark went on to lead his football team to a 37 to 21 victory in the BCS Championship Game, which was played in the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, CA, on January 7. In that game, Mark scored a late touchdown that sealed his team's victory. He rushed for 116 yards in 22 carries, which helped his team secure a hard fought victory and earned him recognition as the offensive player of the game.

While his exceptional athletic qualities are now well known to many, I am equally delighted to know that Mark also has distinguished himself in the classroom. This, to me, speaks volumes about his character, focus, and determination. His future appears to be bright both on and off of the football field. I know my colleagues join me in congratulating Mark Ingram, Jr. on this most impressive achievement. I wish him the best for a long and rewarding career, both on and off of the gridiron.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I recognize an important milestone for the city of Lansing, the 150th anniversary of its founding. This is a moment worthy of celebration, and I am delighted to have this opportunity to share the pride of the residents of Lansing with my colleagues. The city and its citizens have been an integral part of Michigan's rich history, contributing much to the progress of the State and to its citizens. In the past 150 years, the city of Lansing has grown into a thriving community, and it is affectionately referred to by its residents as ``the small city with the big city feel.''

The city of Lansing had a rather humble beginning. In fact, Lansing's tenure as the capital of Michigan exceeds its history as a city. Lansing has served as Michigan's capital since 1847, when it was moved from Detroit. Chosen largely for its central location and its equal distance from some of Michigan's larger cities, the small township with fewer than 100 residents located 40 miles from the nearest railroad was designated the capital of Michigan. On February 15, 1859, the town of Lansing officially became a city. In the 1870s, Elijah E. Myers began to design the capitol structure that has endured as Michigan's center of government. The capitol building was completed in 1879.

Events in Lansing's early history helped to shape the city's rich culture and heritage. Transportation vastly improved in 1865 when Lansing was connected to the State railroad system. With this advance in infrastructure, business and industry in Lansing grew steadily throughout the 1870s. In 1887, R.E. Olds produced the first horseless carriage in Lansing, and in 1903, Olds Motor Works was the first car company to use an assembly line and interchangeable parts in the production of automobiles. A thriving business community attracted many new residents to Lansing, which included a major migration of African Americans and other workers from the South, as well as returning soldiers from WWI and WWII. This hardworking and diverse population helped to shape Lansing's distinct character.

Lansing also is home to many nationally recognized institutions. Among them is the Ingham Medical Center, which opened its doors in 1980 as the world's first arthroscopic surgery center. Just next door, in East Lansing, is home to one of our country's leading universities, Michigan State University. Originally named the Michigan Agricultural College, MSU has educated many throughout the State and from across the Nation since 1855. In 1969, Dr. Clifton R. Wharton, Jr., became the first African American to head a major research university when he was appointed president of Michigan State University. Another impressive landmark is the Michigan Library and Historical Center, which is just a short walk from the Michigan State capitol. It opened on March 6, 1989, and became the second largest State library in the Nation.

The city has endured its share of challenges through the years, from natural disasters, such as earthquakes and floods, to epidemics and economic downturns. We once again find ourselves in a defining moment in our State's history, as we continue to navigate one of the deepest economic recessions in decades. It will be in Lansing where our Governor and State legislators will work to craft policies that will steer Michigan toward a more prosperous future.

I am proud to recognize Lansing's history and to honor all who have made significant contributions over the years. It is Lansing's legacy of policymaking and its rich history that has created a diverse and thriving community, one that will continue to grow and prosper for generations.

Mr. President, 65 years ago, a young Canadian serving his nation was struck by German artillery fire on a Normandy battlefield. The blast tore away his right arm and shoulder, and at a field hospital, a chaplain performed last rites on young Joseph James Lynch.

It is the good fortune of the Detroit Red Wings hockey club and thousands of fans in Michigan and across the United States and Canada that ``Budd'' Lynch survived the loss of his right arm with his life, his talent, and his sense of humor intact. Now 92 years old, Budd remains a leading citizen of Hockeytown after 60 years as a radio and television broadcaster, publicity and community affairs executive and public address announcer.

His broadcasting skills have been widely honored: He is a member of the Michigan Sports Hall of Fame and a winner of the Ty Tyson Award for Excellence in Sports Broadcasting from the Detroit Sports Broadcasters Association. In 1985, he received the Foster Hewitt Memorial Award, the highest honor in hockey broadcasting, and was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame.

As much as his talent at the microphone, it is Budd Lynch's unstoppable good humor that has endeared him to generations of hockey fans. Only someone with Budd's upbeat personality could refer to himself as ``the one-armed bandit.''

But even many of Budd's many fans don't know of all he has done for his community. For 20 years, he has hosted an annual charity golf tournament, with proceeds benefitting the Guidance Center, a Wayne County nonprofit organization that provides services including substance abuse and mental health counseling, parenting skills training, literacy promotion and educational programs for metro Detroit families. And he has spent countless hours providing guidance to fellow amputees, providing a living, breathing example that the loss of a limb does not stand in the way of a life lived joyfully.

The city of Wyandotte, which Budd has long called home, has planned a salute for him later this month, with the proceeds going to the Guidance Center. He will be presented with a key to the city, but Budd Lynch already has the key to the hearts of hockey fans in Detroit and around the NHL. I salute him for his years of service and sacrifice--to Canada, to the Red Wings, to hockey, and to the community and to our State that have for so many decades been proud to claim him as one of our own.

Mr. President, it is a pleasure to pay tribute to Dr. Claud Young, the founder of the Michigan Chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and a tireless and dedicated advocate for civil rights and social and economic justice. His significant contributions as a physician and as an advocate for social and economic justice have impacted many across Michigan and the Nation.

Dr. Young's more than four decades of service will be recognized by the Michigan SCLC at a dinner in his honor. This is a fitting tribute to a man who has spent his career engaged in the noble fight for justice for all. In 1970, Dr. Young, a noted physician, founded the Michigan Chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with the mission to continue the noble efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to achieve social, economic, and political justice through nonviolence and the strength of love.

Under his leadership, the Michigan SCLC has waged numerous successful battles and has had an enduring impact on the lives of many. I guess one could say, it is in his genes, having come from a family historically noted for its commitment to public service and community empowerment.

Once again, I am delighted to congratulate Dr. Young, a community leader and my good friend. I wish him and the SCLC the best as they continue their important work.

Mr. President, the health insurance provider annual fee in the so-called merged Senate health care reform bill did not distinguish between nonprofits and for-profit insurance companies in this country, although our current tax law properly does make the distinction.

I urged that the managers' package modify the fee to continue to recognize the distinction.

Imposing the annual fee on true non-profits, particularly those with high pay-out rates to beneficiaries, would have pushed many of those true non-profits into deep financial difficulties and would have caused significant hardships on the families who rely on their services.

Some nonprofit insurers have not maximized the amount they pay out in medical expenses to beneficiaries. That is why I urged the managers to include in the managers' package a provision exempting from the tax only those nonprofits with very high payout rates. Those good performers are committed to their policyholders rather than to profits for stockholders, which is the goal of the for-profits. Those good performing nonprofits are unable, as a result, to absorb the fees.

The managers' amendment specifies two ways for nonprofits to be exempt from the fee.

The first way for a nonprofit insurer to be exempt from the fee: one, it can not refuse to insure anyone in the State and is the State's insurer of last resort; two, its premium prices are regulated by its State insurance regulator; and three, it must pay out in medical expenses 100 percent or more of its premium revenues in the individual market.

The second way for a nonprofit to be exempt: the nonprofit insurer must pay out a very high percentage of its premium dollars--at least 90 percent--in medical expenses in each of the three major market segments: individual market, small group market, and the large group market; and it also must have an even higher overall payout rate of at least 92 percent. A nonprofit that compresses its margins that far beyond its peers for the benefit of its policyholders also warrants the exemption.

These exemptions continue the distinction that our tax law has recognized--that true nonprofit insurance providers should not be treated the same as their for-profit counterparts.

Mr. President, first, let me thank the Senator from Montana for the extraordinary work he has put in on this bill for so long, so many months, so many years. Thanks also go, of course, to the Democratic leader, our majority leader; Senator Dodd; and others who have worked so hard to get us here.

We are in a pivotal moment in the long fight to reform our health care system. Everyone should, by now, be well aware of the history--how Presidents of both parties have tried and failed to achieve reform and how, after months of painstaking review, we have arrived at this instant, closer than ever to health care reform.

It would be impossible to fashion legislation on an issue so massive and so complex on which all could agree in every detail. Those seeking perfection will have to look outside this Chamber or, for that matter, in any piece of complex legislation.

But when they look outside the walls of this Capitol, Senators will also find problems that dwarf the imperfections in this bill. They will find a broken health care system, one in which we pay vastly more than other wealthy nations for care that is, in many cases, demonstrably inferior. They will find Americans struggling to afford the health care coverage they have and employers struggling to provide insurance to their employees. They will find manufacturers struggling under a costly health care burden, from which their international competitors were long ago freed. They will find employee and employer alike plagued by never-ending uncertainty about the cost and availability of health insurance, an instability that haunts families and hinders job creation. They will find costs rising so fast they threaten to swallow the rest of the Federal budget and sink family budgets. They will find astonishing amounts of money spent, not on better care or innovative treatments but on overhead and bureaucracy. They will find millions of Americans with no coverage at all--a tragedy for the uninsured and a source of inefficiency and expense that make health care more expensive for all of us.

So the choice before us now is whether any imperfections we might see in this bill outweigh the mountain of evidence that our current system is in dire need of repair. It is between moving forward on a significant repair of a broken system or quashing yet another attempt to reform health care in surrender to the status quo and to the rhetoric of distortion and fear.

To me, this choice is clear: We cannot wait any longer for health care reform. The people of my State cannot wait. The people of this Nation cannot wait. Now is the time for all those years of frustrated effort, all the research and analysis, all the debate and discussion, for us to reform a broken system. We must vote for cloture on the managers' amendment before us and continue to vote for cloture on the endless filibusters that confront us because we cannot wait.

We cannot wait any longer to reform this system because its costs are out of control. In 1990, this Nation, 12.3 percent of its gross domestic product on health care. That is $1 in $8. By 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, estimates that figure will increase to 20 percent, and $1 in every $5 will go to health care. CMS estimates that after spending about $6,000 per capita on health care in 2003, we will spend more than $13,000 per capita in 2018, more than doubling our per-person expenditures in 15 years.

This translates directly into unsustainable costs for the American people. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, thousands fewer of our businesses are offering insurance than a decade ago, a clear sign they can no longer sustain cost increases of 6 percent or more, year after year. If we do nothing, these costs will continue to rise at a rate which will swallow the budgets of families, businesses, and government.

We cannot wait any longer because, even for those fortunate enough to have insurance where they work, they are increasingly unsure it will be there when they need it most. Every Member of this body has heard from constituents who thought they had solid health insurance, only to find out their insurer had wriggled out of paying for desperately needed care or found a convenient preexisting condition that voided their coverage or capped their coverage, so they faced a crushing choice between treatments they had to have and costs they could not afford. Even in cases where families have health insurance, medical emergencies can leave debilitating costs in their wake. According to a study in the American Journal of Medicine, 62 percent of all bankruptcies filed in the United States in 2007 involved medical costs; and even more compelling, three-quarters of those bankruptcies involved people who had health insurance when they got sick. There can be no more clear sign of the need to act than the fact that having health insurance is no insurance against bankruptcy from medical costs.

We cannot wait any longer because so much of the enormous cost at the heart of this health care crisis is money spent on that having little or nothing to do with quality care. For example, for those who purchase insurance in the individual market, roughly 30 percent of the costs they pay will stem from the insurance company's administrative expenses--on bureaucracy, not medicine. A 2003 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that, in 1999, Americans spent over $1,000 per capita on health care administration costs--more than $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in this Nation spent on paperwork and redtape. Electronic medical records, which make administration more efficient and improve the quality of care, are still not in use for most patients.

Finally, we cannot wait any longer because the inefficiencies of our system are crushing us and our budgets and, even more pointedly, because so many lives are at stake. One hundred forty thousand Americans have lost their lives since 2000 because they lacked health insurance. We cannot afford to walk down this road any longer. We must change direction. This bill will do it in a positive way.

An analysis by the Urban Institute, using methodology developed by the Institute of Medicine, determined that since 2000, nearly 140,000 Americans have lost their lives because they lacked health insurance. Other studies show that breast cancer patients, stroke victims and other patients are, as common sense suggests, far more likely to die from their conditions if they lack adequate health insurance. These are rigorous studies that bring us to an inescapable conclusion: If we fail to act, Americans will continue to lose their lives when they need not, simply because they don't have adequate health insurance, or any health insurance at all.

For these reasons and many others, it is long past time to reform our system. The question we must then answer is, will we come closer to a health care system worthy of this Nation if we pass this bill?

I believe we will. The legislation before us will reform the insurance system in powerful ways, protecting patients from the host of abuses they now so often face. We will begin to control spiraling costs in many ways, and establish research centers to find new ways to improve care and lower costs. We will create powerful incentives to reduce administrative burdens and costs. And we will bring millions of Americans into the health care system, reducing the number of uninsured, and reducing what is both a burden of inefficiency on the system and a moral blemish on our Nation.

We are out of time and out of excuses. Now we must choose. Choose between beginning to reform on the one hand and continuing the status quo on the other. Our individual problems with this bill cannot be allowed to overshadow the much larger problems with our health care system. Near the end of this long path toward health care reform, we cannot turn back. The Senate needs to move forward.

Again, I thank my good friend from Montana and the other leaders who have made it possible for us to get to this point.

No objection. I assume that is for 10 minutes each?

If the Senator will yield, I don't object to the unanimous consent request on that condition. I think the same occurred earlier this afternoon for reasons that have to do with trying to get this bill going.

Mr. President, I wish to speak for the few minutes we have this afternoon in support of the appropriations bill that is before us, the Defense appropriations bill.

Senator McCain and I and other members of the Armed Services Committee have spent a lot of time each year authorizing important programs to support our troops, protect our troops, and support their families in a whole host of ways. Hopefully, it will authorize funds that can help us succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq. That bill is now law, and in front of us is an appropriations bill that contains most of those same provisions--not all but most of the same provisions.

It is critically important that this appropriations bill be passed. There are differences in this body and between this body and the House of Representatives about the policies that are involved in the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. That is normal. That is the way it should be. We can have democratic debates inside this great democracy of ours. We don't have to agree, and we don't on many of the policies involved in these two war efforts. Where I believe this body is unanimous is that we are determined to support our troops when they are in the field regardless of whether we agree with the particular strategy they are supporting or whether we happen to have supported their mission.

It has been the tradition of the Congress, once a decision has been democratically arrived at to send troops to the field, that we support those troops. This appropriations bill has critically important provisions in it to support our troops. I believe there is unanimity and consensus in this body on those provisions. I will focus on a few of those provisions.

We have added significant funds. One example is the so-called Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles or MRAP. These are life-and-death matters we are talking about. These vehicles are a perfect example of that. The faster we can get the advanced MRAPs to the field in Afghanistan, the more we can get to the field in Afghanistan, the fewer Americans are going to be killed in Afghanistan. So we have funds in here--more than actually were requested--to send over 6,600 new MRAP vehicles, all-terrain vehicles that can function better there than the ones we sent to Iraq. These all-terrain vehicles have been designed and developed in record time in order to get them to our troops. We should be acting in record time on this appropriations bill, and there are many reasons for that. Surely, getting more MRAPs more quickly into the field is one of those reasons.

We have an organization called the Joint IED Defeat Organization whose sole purpose and mission is to come up with the strategies and technologies to defeat these IEDs, these improvised explosive devices that are killing our troops. In order to defeat these devices or train our troops who are deployed there in how to identify and protect themselves against IEDs, we have $1.8 billion in this appropriations bill for that organization. They have a laser mission to defeat the IEDs. We have to get this money to them.

This bill needs to be signed. The President has to sign it--and he will--so we can get these funds as quickly as possible to our troops. We need to adopt this appropriations bill.

We have pay raises and health programs in the bill. We add $1.3 billion more than the President requested for the Defense Health Program. This covers shortfalls in private sector care, increases funds for medical research, including what is called TBI, which are the brain injuries, as well as PTSD, which has so afflicted our troops in these wars. We add additional funds for those programs. The quicker the bill is signed, the faster those funds get appropriated and spent, the better off our wounded warriors who suffer from TBI and from psychological health problems are going to be.

In Afghanistan now, one of the key issues is going to be whether we can get the Afghan troops trained quickly enough, supported quickly enough, given the equipment they need so they, hopefully earlier rather than later, can join with us, partner with us, and take responsibility for their own security. Regardless of people's differences over the policies and strategies in Afghanistan, I believe there is a consensus in this body--no matter what the vote ends up being on the bill, whether people vote for the bill or against the bill, I would think all of us believe we must quickly provide funds to train, support, and sustain the Afghan security forces. We want to fund that effort in this bill at $6.6 billion.

Counternarcotics in Afghanistan. We all know the narcotics industry in Afghanistan is being used to support the Taliban. We want to continue efforts to train Afghan counternarcotics forces and support U.S. counternarcotics and interdiction activities in Afghanistan, so $300 million in this bill is going to do that.

We have a fund called the Commander's Emergency Response Program or CERP. That fund has been used to great advantage. This bill provides $1.2 billion for that Commander's Emergency Response Program; $1 billion of that is for that program in Afghanistan and $200 million of the CERP program in Iraq. This represents about twice as much CERP funding for Afghanistan as we had in fiscal year 2009.

Those CERP funds are able to provide very quickly support and economic development village by village. Our commanders are able, without going through a whole lot of red tape, to make relatively small investments in things which make a difference, in terms of the security of our troops and the betterment of the lives of the Afghans. It has had a huge, positive impact in terms of the perception of the Afghan community about us, satisfying them that we are there for their benefit, not just for our benefit. We are not occupying Afghanistan. When we leave Afghanistan, we want to leave Afghanistan in better shape than we found it. The CERP funds are a major contribution to that goal.

One of the things we have authorized in the bill, which Senator McCain and I and members of the Armed Services Committee have brought to this body, was adopted by this body, and signed into law, was the authorization to use those CERP funds to help reintegrate, where we can, Afghan Taliban fighters into Afghan society--those who will renounce violence against the Government of Afghanistan and make a commitment to participate in civilian life. We are able to actually have the funds that are so essential to make that program work. We do not yet have a program in place. That is being worked on as we speak. But these funds need to be available to support that program of reintegration of Afghans, those low-level Taliban people who are with the Taliban not for any ideological reason but because they get some pay from the Taliban. Not all the members of the Taliban fall into that category. But for the ones who do, this funding becomes critical.

Mr. President, I will only take a few minutes more, but I did want to highlight a few additional points that I believe my colleagues should know about.

The first area pertains to three initiatives that originated in the Defense authorization bill that relate to the continuing fight against al-Qaida and associated terrorist organizations.

The bill includes nearly all of the $1.6 billion the administration requested for the coalition support fund, which is used to reimburse key partner nations, particularly Pakistan, for support provided to the United States in Operation Enduring Freedom and Overseas Contingency Operations.

It includes $350 million in fiscal year 2010, the full amount authorized, for the train and equip program to build the capacity of foreign militaries to conduct counterterrorism operations and support military or stabilization operations in which the U.S. participates. As clarified in the fiscal year 2010 NDAA, this authority can be used to build the capacity of ISAF coalition partners to prepare their training teams and special operations forces to be available for use in Afghanistan.

The bill also provides the full $100 million authorized for the authority to transfer funds from DOD to the State Department to support State's security and stabilization assistance programs.

The other area pertains to missile defense.

The bill before us provides important funding for ballistic missile defense programs. It supports the decisions made by Secretary Gates and President Obama to restructure the missile defense program with a greater focus on regional missile defense against existing missile threats. These changes include the termination of the Multiple Kill Vehicle Program and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor Program, and cancel procurement of additional airborne laser aircraft. This defense appropriations act also supports the decision to cap deployment of the ground-based midcourse defense system at 30 operational ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, rather than the 44 previously planned for deployment.

The bill supports funding for alternative missile defense systems in Europe, to defend against current and future Iranian ballistic missiles.

It also includes an additional $57 million, above the budget request of $169 million, to procure more standard Missile-3 interceptors for our Aegis ballistic missile defense system. This type of interceptor will be at the heart of the new missile defense plan for Europe. The amendment also provides the full $1.1 billion requested for the terminal high altitude area defense, THAAD, system, which is another key element of our regional missile defense capabilities.

I believe my 10 minutes is up. I thank my good friend from Arizona, Senator McCain, for allowing me to go first. The order of priority was that he go immediately after someone speaking on this side. But as always, his courtesy shines through to me, and I very much appreciate it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, on behalf of Senator Dodd, I ask unanimous consent that a military fellow in his office, CPT Joslyn Hemler, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of the 2010 Department of Defense appropriations bill.

Mr. President, it has become apparent that passage of this Dorgan amendment relative to importation of prescription drugs, an amendment which I have long supported, could threaten passage of broader health care reform. If so, the perfect would become the enemy of the good. For that reason, I will vote ``no'' on the Dorgan amendment on this bill.

Mr. President, I want to take a few moments today to comment on recent events in Iran, the continuing protests against that nation's ruling regime, the brutal response of that regime to the legitimate protests of Iran's people, and one small step the United States can and should take to aid the people of Iran in exercising the basic human right to protest and hold their own government accountable.

As my colleagues know well, student protests in Tehran and other cities took place on Dec. 7, Student Day, the anniversary of the 1953 attacks by the shah's security services that left three student protesters dead. Just as those students sought to protest against an unjust and repressive government, so did today's students. And again, Iran's government responded with intimidation, violence and repression.

Iranian security forces, and paramilitary militias allied with government hard-liners, used teargas, batons and beatings to attack nonviolent protesters on the campus of Tehran University and at other universities. The government's chief prosecutor told the state- controlled news agency--apparently without irony--``So far we have shown restraint,'' and threatened even harsher methods to end the protests.

Sadly, this is a recurring theme in Iran. Outraged by overwhelming evidence of fraud designed to keep President Ahmadinejad in power last June, students and other Iranians took to the streets. These nonviolent protests were met by the regime with escalating levels of brutality. According to a recent report from the human rights group Amnesty International, government-sponsored violence and repression in Iran since the election has reached the highest level in 20 years. Hundreds of people have been rounded up and imprisoned, often under appalling conditions, without access to legal representation or indeed any contact with the outside world. Iranian citizens, according to the report, were charged with vague offenses unconnected to any recognizable criminal charge under Iranian law.

More than 100 were paraded before cameras in show trials, with visible signs of abuse. The Amnesty International report includes evidence that the pace of executions by the Iranian government has increased, a clear and chilling message to the regime's critics. And citizens released from detention made credible and horrific charges of abuse while in custody, including allegations of the widespread use of rape.

This deplorable record is why I and six colleagues introduced a resolution last month, approved by this body, expressing the sense of the Senate that the government of Iran has routinely violated the human rights of its citizens, and calling on the Iranian government to fulfill its obligations under international law and its own constitution to honor and protect the fundamental rights to which its citizens, and all human beings, are entitled. We recognized the need for a strong statement of condemnation of the regime's behavior, and of solidarity with those Iranians seeking to exercise their right to protest. The Iranian government must know that the world is watching.

Mr. President, there is more the United States can do. I draw my colleagues' attention to a notice from the State Department that the administration will waive certain provisions of the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act of 1992 with respect to the export of personal, Internet-based communications tools to Iran. This is an important response to the Iranian government's crackdown on its people. The regime has sharply curtailed the actions of foreign media representatives in Iran, making independent observations of the situation there difficult or impossible to report. Much of what we know about the regime's repression has come from first-hand accounts by Iranian citizens, distributed via Internet tools such as YouTube and Twitter. These media outlets have become vital, not only to those of us outside Iran seeking information about events within the country, but to Iranian citizens seeking to communicate with one another. And they are especially important given the near total absence of independent news media in Iran. The regime has undertaken, even before the June election, a systematic effort to eliminate newspapers or broadcasters that report critically on the government's activities. And Iran's Revolutionary Guards, closely connected to government hardliners, have sought to add media and communication companies to its growing commercial empire,

tightening the regime's grip on communications within Iran.

The State Department recently notified Congress that it intends to waive provisions of our sanctions against Iran to allow Iranians to download free, mass-market software used in activities such as e-mail, instant messaging and social networking. According to the State Department, ``U.S. sanctions on Iran are having an unintended chilling effect on the ability of companies such as Microsoft and Google to continue providing essential communications tools to ordinary Iranians. This waiver will authorize free downloads to Iran of certain nominally dual-use software (because of low-level encryption elements) classified as mass market software by the Department of Commerce and essential for the exchange of personal communications and/or sharing of information over the internet.''

Granting of this waiver is an important step in ensuring that our actions here do not impede the attempts by Iranians to exercise their human rights. I applaud the administration for its decision, and hope the people of Iran will view this as one more sign of the solidarity between them and the people of the United States. I ask that a letter to me from Richard R. Verma, assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, informing the Senate Armed Services Committee of this waiver decision, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold that.

Mr. President, I would like to discuss with the chairman of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Durbin, as manager of the Financial Services Subcommittee section of the bill before the Senate, two aspects of the provision included in that bill that establishes an arbitration process for review of decisions made by Chrysler and GM to terminate or wind down auto dealerships earlier this year. Under the process laid out in this provision, an arbitrator is to balance the economic interests of the covered dealership, the covered manufacturer, and the public at large by considering a number of factors. Those factors include the covered dealership's profitability, the covered manufacturer's overall business plan, the covered dealership's satisfaction of the performance objectives of the franchise agreement, and the covered dealership's performance in relation to the criteria used to terminate the dealership.

Is it the chairman's understanding that in looking at these factors, and in particular in looking at the dealership's profitability and the manufacturer's overall business plan, that the arbitrator will consider the profitability of the dealership with respect to the new vehicles sales of the covered manufacturer?

I thank the chairman for his assurances and his clarification.

I would also like to raise a question about the arbitration process established in this bill. The statutory language could be interpreted to allow for potentially as many as hundreds or thousands of arbitrators each involved in individual reviews of dealership decisions. I am concerned that a very large number of arbitrators would be unduly burdensome and impractical to the point of being unworkable. The statutory language requires that arbitrations be conducted in the State where the covered dealerships are located. It is my hope that the arbitration process could be managed in a given State so that there would be one arbitrator or a small manageable panel of arbitrators within any given State. Does the chairman believe that the statutory language would allow for management of arbitration in this way?

Mr. President, I want to highlight several provisions of the legislation now before us that I believe will provide important benefits to Michigan and the Nation, and one that I think does not serve the Nation's interests.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 contains provisions that will improve our health care system, ensure that contracting dollars do not flow to companies avoiding income taxes by incorporating overseas, improve Federal oversight of our financial system, and improve educational opportunity for our citizens.

I am especially pleased to see an increase in funding for health information technology, HIT. This bill will provide $61 million to the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. These funds will help increase administrative efficiency and move our current system away from paper-based organization. This will help ensure that doctors and patients have the necessary information easily accessible when working together to make important health care decisions and ensure that health records of individuals remain confidential. Improving the interoperability of our HIT systems will not only enhance the quality of care, experts believe that improved HIT will reduce health care costs for all Americans, streamlining

billing practices and reducing administrative costs that waste so many billions of dollars.

I strongly support the bill's language continuing the prohibition on Federal contracts with ``inverted'' corporations. Corporate inversions--the practice of incorporating some or all of a U.S.-based company's businesses overseas--are transparent tax-avoidance schemes. There is no reason we should provide taxpayer dollars to firms that dodge their tax obligations, and I am pleased that we will continue to bar such companies from Federal contracting unless doing so would damage national security.

The bill also includes an increase of $151 million in funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission. This increased funding will support enhanced enforcement, capital market oversight, and investor protection activities, including investigations of accounting fraud, market manipulation, insider trading, and investment scams that target seniors and low-income communities. This is a wise investment in protecting our citizens and our economy from those who seek to profit by fraud or from taking excessive risks that endanger the financial system.

Also included are a number of important education provisions. The legislation would increase the maximum Pell grant award by $200, to $5,500; provide funding for disadvantaged, disabled and first- generation college students; and restore $1.5 billion in title I funding for disadvantaged public school students. Of particular importance is $11.5 billion in funding for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act programs, which marks a historic Federal commitment to education of those with disabilities.

There are also important measures that will help boost Michigan's economy and its future. I am pleased that this bill includes $1 million I requested for the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve in Alpena. Part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's sanctuary system, the Thunder Bay Sanctuary protects well-preserved shipwrecks that are a valuable piece of Michigan's history and our Nation's. The funding provided in this bill will allow for expansion of the Great Lakes Maritime Heritage Center to include a Science Hall and other facilities that will allow more people to explore and learn about Michigan's maritime history.

The bill also includes important language that will bring the Woodward Avenue Light Rail Project closer to reality, an important economic development project in the heart of metropolitan Detroit. The conferees retained language regarding the Woodward Avenue project similar to language I authored for the Senate bill.

These all are important provisions worthy of support. But I am disappointed that the legislation includes a provision requiring General Motors and Chrysler to submit to binding, third-party arbitration in disputes with auto dealerships closed as part of those companies' restructuring efforts.

There is widespread agreement among auto industry analysts that GM and Chrysler needed to consolidate their dealer structure in order to compete. The Federal Government has made a substantial--and wise-- investment in these companies, which are key components of our manufacturing sector. Submitting to arbitration of decisions already approved in bankruptcy court risks hampering the recoveries these companies and their workers are fighting so hard to achieve. My vote in favor of this act follows reassurances I received from the chairman of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Durbin, in response to my concerns about a number of provisions in the arbitration language.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be divided equally.

Mr. President, I want to speak today in favor of the administration's funding request for the Global Peace Operations Initiative and one of its important components, the Africa Contingency Operations Training and Assistance Program, for which the bill before the Senate, the fiscal year 2010 State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill, includes $96.8 million in funding. These programs, which I have supported in their various forms for more than a decade, are vital tools in helping the United States and nations around the world, but especially in Africa, to contain crises, violence and instability that threaten not only other nations, but also our own.

The Global Peace Operations Initiative, or GPOI, began in fiscal year 2005 as an effort to address worrisome gaps in the world community's ability to support, equip, and sustain a growing number of peacekeeping operations. This initiative comprised, in part, the fulfillment of a U.S. pledge at the June 2004 G-8 summit meeting at Sea Island, Georgia, to train 75,000 new peacekeepers. The GPOI built on and incorporated the Africa Contingency Operations Training and Assistance Program, or ACOTA, which has trained African peacekeepers since 1997. The objective of these programs is to train and equip military units to deploy to peacekeeping operations, many of them in Africa. In addition, GPOI supports efforts to train special ``gendarme'' police units to participate in peacekeeping operations.

Why are these programs so important? I think we all recognize that the world has become a more challenging and less stable place, but we may not recognize just how pronounced regional security problems have become. We do not need to look further than the two largest United Nations peacekeeping operations, in Darfur, Sudan, and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Both of these missions were authorized in response to complex regional conflicts. The United Nations, which oversees the majority of peacekeeping operations worldwide, reports that more than 100,000 peacekeepers and police personnel are deployed on peacekeeping operations--a sevenfold increase since 1999. Those troops are deployed in 17 separate operations, nearly half of which are on the African continent.

Through ACOTA and GPOI, the United States has helped to meet the growing demand for peacekeeping personnel. Since its start in 2005 through the end of fiscal year 2009, GPOI has provided training for nearly 87,000 personnel representing more than 50 nations. Appropriately, given the security challenges in Africa, ACOTA is GPOI's biggest initiative. Since 2005, more than 77,000 personnel from about two dozen African nations have received training through the initiative, and almost 14,000 more have received training under ACOTA through other funding sources. To make these numbers more significant, on average, 90 percent of units trained under ACOTA have deployed between 2005 and 2009.

GPOI provides partner nations with the training and equipment they need to perform peacekeeping missions through the UN or regional groups such as the African Union. This training is broad, and appropriately focuses on peacekeeping-specific tasks such as how to operate checkpoints and convoys, maintaining peace by safely disarming potential combatants, protecting refugees and internally displaced persons, developing and following appropriate rules of engagement, and, in some cases, peacemaking operations.

According to a report by the Department of State Inspector General, GPOI training through ACOTA ``is a win-win situation in which minimal numbers of U.S. military troops are involved, African professionalism and capacity are built up, and the participating African troops are rewarded well when deployed.'' Significantly, the IG report states ``that there have been minimal disciplinary problems and no ACOTA trained troops have been cited for atrocities or notable human rights abuses,'' an important sign that the emphasis on adherence to human rights standards and following the UN's rules of engagement has paid off.

The bill before the Senate, the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill, includes funding for the administration's request of $96.8 million in funding for GPOI in fiscal year 2010. All of this funding is contained in the peacekeeping operations, or PKO, account of the bill. Based on past practice and the demand for peacekeeping in Africa, the Department of State will likely allocate more than half of this funding to ACOTA. Nearly $100 million is a substantial commitment of taxpayer dollars. But the price of failing to fund these important efforts would be far higher.

Our military leaders are particularly supportive of such efforts, with good reason. Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, believes the U.S. commitment to aid the peacekeeping efforts of other nations is ``extremely important and cost effective in comparison to unilateral operations these peacekeepers help promote stability and help reduce the risks that major U.S. military interventions may be required to restore stability in a country or region. Therefore, the success of these operations is very much in our national interest.''

I agree with Admiral Mullen. Programs such as GPOI are important not only because they help alleviate suffering around the globe--which they surely do--but also because they are a cost-effective way of managing U.S. security interests.

I am especially pleased that the administration intends to concentrate going forward on strengthening the capability of partner nations to train their own peacekeeping forces. This ``train the trainers'' approach multiplies the impact of U.S. efforts by giving partner nations the ability to sustain their own peacekeeping efforts. Using this model, the State Department plans to assist in the training and equipping of more than 240,000 peacekeepers over the next 5 years. The other focus will be on growing the planning and operational capability of the regional security organizations on the African continent.

There are other steps we should take to make these vital programs more effective, particularly in Africa. Outside that continent, the U.S. military's Geographic Combatant Commands are responsible for much of the day-to-day management of GPOI programs, including contract management. In Africa, however, those tasks have been performed by contractors working for the State Department's Bureau of African Affairs. With the stand-up of U.S. Africa Command, AFRICOM, in 2008, there is now a Combatant Command in place that could take over the same types of management duties performed elsewhere by its sister commands. I believe

the Departments of State and Defense should explore whether such arrangements are advisable. Given the State Department's deep reliance on contractor personnel to manage the ACOTA program and AFRICOM's unique interagency command structure, I believe AFRICOM ought to be given a more significant role in the day-to-day execution of this critical program. Meanwhile, both departments should make efforts to ensure close cooperation between the State Department and AFRICOM personnel so that the taxpayers and partner nations see the maximum bang for the buck because they are a cost-effective way of managing U.S. security interests and supporting U.N. peacekeeping while reserving U.S. troops for other operations.

Having successfully completed the first 5-year phase, GPOI is entering a new phase. I urge my colleagues to support fully the administration's funding request for GPOI. With this money, we can help contain violence and chaos in many of the world's most troubled places. We can reduce the chance for such instability to create direct and immediate threats to our own security. We can enhance the ability of partner nations to maintain the peace in their own sectors of the globe. And we can accomplish all these things with a relatively modest amount of money--an investment with a substantial return, in both human and financial terms.

Mr. President, the Office of Rural Development within the United States Department of Agriculture will soon say goodbye to Roy Obreiter, a longtime trusted adviser, friend, and colleague to all who have worked with him. I am delighted to have this opportunity to pay tribute to Roy, a staff appraiser with the agency in Michigan, who will retire after 38 years of dedicated service. I join many within the USDA, as well as the many who have benefitted from his work over the years, in celebrating this impressive milestone.

Roy has an encyclopedic knowledge of agency programs and appraisal guidelines. Through his hard work, focus, and passion, Roy has endeared himself to those who have had the pleasure of working with him.

Roy has been a role model and mentor to his peers and coworkers. His kind and gentle demeanor, combined with his ability to connect on a personal level, have helped him earn the respect and admiration of his colleagues within the agency. Roy is an incredibly decent human being, devoted to family and work, and loyal to those around him.

Beyond his personal qualities, Roy has distinguished himself with a remarkable record of contributions to the agency. The assistance he has provided to Rural Development programs during his career has been invaluable. Roy can be proud of his contributions to Michigan and to rural America. He will be missed by his colleagues and by those throughout Michigan who have been touched by his work.

I congratulate Roy Obreiter on a job well done and wish him the best as he embarks on the next phase of his life.

Mr. President, this resolution designates March 2010 as National Autoimmune Diseases Awareness Month. The purpose of the resolution is to raise awareness of autoimmune diseases and the need for aggressive research to learn the root causes of autoimmune diseases, as well as the best diagnostic methods and treatments for people with autoimmune diseases.

Autoimmune diseases are chronic, disabling diseases in which underlying defects in the immune system lead the body to attack its own organs and tissues. They can affect any part of the body--blood, blood vessels, muscles, nervous system, gastrointestinal tract, endocrine glands, and multiple-organ systems--and can be life-threatening.

Researchers have identified over 80 different autoimmune diseases, including multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile diabetes, Crohn's disease, scleroderma, polymyositis, lupus, Sjogren's disease and Graves' disease, and suspect at least 40 additional diseases of having an autoimmune basis. The National Institutes of Health estimates that autoimmune diseases afflict more than 23 million people in the U.S. Seventy-five percent of the people affected with autoimmune diseases are women, and the prevalence of autoimmune diseases is rising. However, the family of autoimmune diseases is underrecognized, and this poses a major health care challenge to the U.S.

Diagnostic tests for autoimmune diseases are not standardized, which makes autoimmune diseases very difficult to diagnose. Because autoimmune diseases are difficult to diagnose, treatment is often delayed, resulting in irreparable organ damage and unnecessary suffering.

There is a significant need for more collaboration and cross- fertilization of basic autoimmune research, with a particular focus on the etiology of all autoimmune-related diseases in order to increase understanding of the root causes of these diseases rather than treating the symptoms after the disease has had its destructive effect.

It is my hope that this resolution will help educate the public about autoimmune diseases and the continued need for research towards accurate diagnosis, and effective treatments.