Floor Statements

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, in the aftermath of the shootings at Fort Hood, TX, law enforcement officials and policymakers continue to piece together the string of events that preceded this tragedy. Although investigations of the shootings are in the early stages, a number of troubling details have already come to light. In December 2008, Major Hasan became the subject of a Joint Terrorism Task Force, JTTF, investigation after intelligence agencies intercepted his e-mail communication with a known radical cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki. After reviewing the e-mails and concluding that Major Hasan was not engaged in terrorist activities, the JTTF investigator and supervisor did not share the information regarding Major Hasan, and he was not placed on a terrorist watch list. While the lack of information sharing between the JTTF and other agencies is problematic, it is just as alarming to see that the Federal Government would have been unable to prohibit Major Hasan's firearm purchase even if he had been flagged on a terrorist watch list. Again, even if a gun background check had revealed that Major Hasan was on a terrorist watch list, nothing in current law could have prohibited the firearm transfer unless he fell into another disqualifying category. In other words, being on a terrorist watch list does not prevent someone from purchasing a gun.

This ``terror gap'' in Federal law that prevents the Federal Government from stopping the sale of firearms or explosives to a known or suspected terrorist must be eliminated. To close this loophole, I support S.1317, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, which was introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ. I am a cosponsor of this common-sense legislation because it would authorize the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm when an FBI background check reveals that the prospective purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the purchaser may use the firearm in connection with terrorism. To protect the rights of American citizens, this bill would direct the Attorney General to issue guidelines describing when the authority to deny gun purchases could be used, and it would protect the private information contained in the terrorist watch lists. This legislation also includes due-process safeguards that would allow any individual whose firearms or explosives license application has been denied to bring legal action to challenge the denial.

I have long supported sensible gun safety laws and strict enforcement of those laws to help stem the tide of crimes committed with firearms. I believe Congress can and should pursue legislative solutions to prevent gun violence, and that includes passing legislation that eliminates the ``terror gap.''

Madam President, in a few hours we will take an important step on the road to health care reform. Our vote will come after months of analysis and debate and years of growing concern on the part of our constituents that the American health care system is in need of fundamental reform. Two Senate committees have approved reform legislation. We will vote later today on whether to open debate on a third one which merges the two produced by the Senate Finance and HELP Committees. Much time and attention has been focused on the provisions in this legislation which will expand the number of Americans who are covered by health insurance, a goal I wholeheartedly share. But a compelling reason for reform and a major reason to vote in favor of allowing the Senate to debate health care reform is the serious and worsening signs that for those Americans who have health insurance, our health care system is no longer working as it should.

Increasingly, Americans with health insurance are at catastrophic financial risk, if they get sick. Increasingly, working families with insurance are unable to afford the escalating premiums they face to maintain their

often inadequate coverage. Increasingly, businesses large and small that offer health insurance to their employees are buckling under the crushing weight of spiraling costs for their employees. Increasingly, families find that caps on their coverage leave them exposed to devastating medical bills. And increasingly, arbitrary insurance company practices that boost their own profits are shortchanging Americans, denying coverage because of preexisting conditions, and searching for ways to deny patients the treatments they need and have paid for through their premiums.

Democrats are not alone in pointing out these problems. The Republican leader himself has said:

Every Republican in Congress supports reform.

That is the Republican leader who said that every Republican in Congress supports reform. He did not say many Republicans. He did not say most Republicans. Every single Republican in both Chambers of Congress, the Republican leader tells us, wants to reform the health care system.

How will any reform happen, reform proposed by Democrats or by Republicans or by anybody? Only when this body can bring a bill to the floor of the Senate for debate and amendment, only when we work with our colleagues in the other Chamber to resolve differences between legislation approved by the Senate and that approved by the House, only when Congress sends the President a bill he is prepared to sign into law. Speeches will not reform health care. Polls and cable television shout fests, none of that will reform health care. We, the Members of the U.S. Congress, and we alone, can reform health care.

We must listen to constituents, advocacy groups, physicians, insurers, health care experts, economists and anyone else with constructive ideas. Ultimately, it is we who must act. To do that, we must begin to debate here on the floor of the Senate the many complex issues that must be resolved. That is all today's vote will do, give the Members of the Senate the chance to come together in a sincere effort to work together, resolve our differences, and address an issue on which there is, we are told, even by the Republican leader, general agreement on the need for reform.

Two Senate committees have already spent months seeking the proper ways to reform the health care system. The Senate Finance Committee has held over 50 meetings on health care reform legislation in the last year. The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee spent 13 days marking up its legislation. So we have made progress. We are at least in position to do what this body was designed to do and is supposed to do: deliberate and decide.

The minority opposes the legislation we are trying to bring to the floor for debate and amendment. They say they do not like the bill. But why deny the Senate the opportunity to debate the subject of health care reform? Why prevent us from considering it? Why not offer amendments to the bill if you do not like it or offer a substitute measure for it?

There are parts of the bill in which I would like to see changes. I would like to make health insurance even more affordable for working families, and I am willing to require that those earning more than $250,000 a year, for instance, pay a higher and, in my view, more fair and more appropriate tax rate to make that greater affordability for working families possible.

Income data shows that in recent years only the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans have seen any real increases in income and that those increases are concentrated in the wealthiest 1 percent of the country, while the vast majority of Americans have lost ground. At the same time, most Americans are coping with falling income, they have been hit with massive increases in health insurance premiums. So I am willing to support an increase in upper income tax brackets to end that unfairness.

Other sources of revenue, such as ending the abuse of offshore tax havens, can and should go toward doing other things we should be doing in this bill. For instance, I am concerned that the annual fee on insurance providers contained in the merged bill would treat nonprofit and for-profit insurers the same way. Millions of Michigan residents receive their insurance from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, a nonprofit company, which is the insurer of last resort in our State, providing coverage to residents who cannot find it elsewhere. We need to find ways to reform the insurance market without negatively impacting the not-for-profit insurance companies that are the insurers of last resort and that provide high levels of coverage in return for the premiums they collect.

On these and other issues, I will continue to study the details of the legislation, discuss them with colleagues and constituents, and I will support improvements where needed. What I will not do is vote to block efforts to reform a system that simply is not working well for those who have health insurance, as well as for those who do not.

The need for reform is generally acknowledged. How can we then not open debate? How can we not discuss, offer amendments, consider alternatives, make changes, and vote on reform legislation? That is the only path to health care reform. There is no other way. And for those who proclaim their belief in the need for reform to stand in the way of that debate is, at best, starkly inconsistent.

A vote against even opening debate is a vote in favor of the status quo, which my constituents and the vast majority of Americans can no longer afford. They can no longer afford it because it is bankrupting them, in many cases literally bankrupting them. A study this year, published in the American Journal of Medicine, found that in 2002, 62 percent of all individual bankruptcies in the United States involved medical costs.

That is a tragedy. You should not be forced into bankruptcy because you get sick. But it gets worse. Three-quarters of those bankruptcies involved people who had health insurance when they got sick. Let me repeat that. In the United States, almost two-thirds of all bankruptcies are linked to medical costs, and three-quarters of those bankruptcies occurred even though the debtor had health insurance. That is adding absurdity to tragedy and demonstrates the inadequacy of health insurance for those who are covered.

We must act to reform a health care system so broken that it crushes Americans under a mountain of debt. One of my constituents, a Kalamazoo man, had what he thought was adequate health care coverage when 3 years ago he needed surgery to replace two sections of his aorta. But his coverage left him an out-of-pocket cost of nearly $40,000. That is the sum that stood between this man and lifesaving surgery. Financially devastated by the costs, he declared personal bankruptcy. He wrote to me:

No one should die because they cannot afford health care,

and no one should go broke because they get sick.

He is right.

We must act to reform a health care system so broken that it leaves the mother of a young Michigan State University student worried that her daughter will not get the care she needs. This 24-year-old student has insurance. Yet when she began to have unexplained seizures, her coverage would not pay for all the tests needed to determine their cause. Even after declining some prescribed tests because she could not afford them, the young woman's doctors eventually discovered the cause of her seizures: a brain tumor. This mother worries that her daughter will lose her insurance, will be forced to declare bankruptcy, and that the family will have to find some other way to cover the massive expense of her lifesaving care--all while coping with the other financial strains hitting her family and so many others. The mother writes:

We will lose too many bright young people if something is

not done.

She is right.

We must reform a health care system so broken that it sent a minister from Jackson, MI, on a weeks-long odyssey to keep her insurance because she became pregnant--a joyous event for most families but apparently just another preexisting condition to insurance companies. When this expectant mother moved from a church in Massachusetts to one in southern Michigan, her new church immediately sought, for their new minister, to find her health insurance. But company after

company declined to cover her because of her pregnancy. She and her church spent weeks researching the issue, changing insurance agents, providing document after document, pleading with insurance companies. She wrote me:

I had two volunteers, myself, and two insurance agents

working on the situation constantly for over a month.

And she said:

If you have the time and energy, and some good help, and

are willing to spend a month hassling with the system pretty

much continuously . . . then you can sometimes, with a great

deal of luck, work the system.

Reflecting on her experience, this minister writes:

It is clear to me that we are desperately in need of health

care reform.

She is right.

The legislation the majority leader has brought forward will do much to ease the hardship on millions of Americans. It has benefits for those who already have insurance through their employer, with steps to rein in skyrocketing premiums and to reduce the risk of financial ruin for those who have health insurance.

In addition to helping those with private insurance, this legislation provides important benefits for seniors covered by Medicare. Medicare beneficiaries will receive free preventive care benefits, and the bill will reduce the enormous costs many seniors face when they fall into that doughnut hole, so-called, in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program. Because of these important improvements in care for seniors, AARP has recommended that Senators vote in favor of beginning debate on this bill tonight.

The legislation also contains important provisions to improve information technology in the health care sector, pushing for uniform billing practices and developing standards that will lead to the computer systems of health care providers being able to talk to the computer systems of insurance companies, reducing mountains of paperwork and other inefficiencies that drive up health insurance premiums.

Americans who move from one employer to another will no longer face the risk of being denied coverage at their new job because of a preexisting condition.

We must allow debate to begin. If we act, millions of those who already have insurance at work will benefit. If we act, millions without insurance will get it, along with help to pay for it, so we can end the current wasteful situation in which emergency room care--vastly more expensive than primary care through a family doctor--is used for nonemergency purposes by those without health insurance.

We can only accomplish these things if we vote today to begin debate on this legislation. We can only accomplish these things if we are willing to honestly and vigorously debate the best ways to achieve it. So I urge our colleagues not to close the doors of this Chamber to debate on one of the most urgent problems Americans face. I ask our colleagues to allow the Senate to begin deliberations on health care reform and not to turn away from the opportunity and the responsibility before us.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, recent events have made abundantly clear that the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is failing, and failing badly, to live up to its own professed ideals and its international commitments to protect the human rights of its citizens and others. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting a resolution, S. Res. 355, submitted today, condemning Iran's deplorable human rights record, calling for an immediate release of those wrongfully imprisoned in violation of their rights, and urging the restoration of meaningful human rights to all of Iran's citizens.

Iran's 1979 constitution, the result of a revolution against years of political and human-rights abuses by the regime of the Shah, guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms. Moreover, Iran is a signatory to four major human rights treaties. And yet its shameful record of executions that contravene international standards; of repression of the rights of women and minorities, including religious minorities; of outrageous attacks on the rights of peaceful assembly and protest; and of unwarranted arrest and detention of foreigners, including Americans, all make a mockery of these commitments.

Just last week, the Iranian Government again demonstrated its contempt for human rights and the rule of law when it announced it would pursue espionage charges against three young Americans who crossed Iran's border with Iraq. These allegations are just the latest telling example on a long list of abuses.

American Robert Levinson has been missing in Iran for more than two years, during which the Iranian regime has denied having any information on his whereabouts and has blocked international attempts to discover his fate. In January 2009, the Iranian Government jailed Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi and charged and convicted her of espionage after a one-hour show trial that mocked even the most basic standards of due process and law, and then sentenced her to eight years in prison before releasing her a few months later. Esha Momeni, a student at California State University, Northridge, was imprisoned last fall for her peaceful activities in support of women's rights in Iran. The regime's abuses have even touched Nobel peace prize winner Shrin Ebadi, whose Center for Defenders of Human Rights was forced to close by the government in December 2008.

None of these recent abuses, however, as deplorable as they are, have shocked the conscience of the world so severely as the Iranian Government's actions in response to this year's disputed presidential elections. Prompted by justifiable concern that their will had been thwarted in a rigged election, thousands of Iranian citizens took to the streets, firmly but peacefully exercising their rights and demanding the democracy their government purports to embody. The regime's response was to launch violent, heavy-handed attacks against these peaceful protestors, using government security forces and paramilitary militias under government control to repress the legitimate expression of a valid grievance. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reports that this violence resulted in at least a dozen deaths, and hundreds of injuries.

In the aftermath, the Iranian Government imprisoned dozens of its citizens and conducted a mass trial of more 100 of them, many of whom bore clear signs of physical abuse. The government sentenced at least four of these prisoners to death on the basis of dubious confessions, likely produced under duress and abuse.

It is proper and appropriate for the Senate to make clear its determination that these acts violate international human rights standards, Iran's own professed commitments, and common decency. The resolution introduced today would record the Senate's condemnation of Iran's woeful human rights record; remind the Iranian government of its domestic and international commitments to human rights; call for the immediate release of all those held for their peaceful exercise of rights of free expression, assembly and association; and urge Iran to extend full legal rights to those imprisoned. It calls for the Iranian Government to guarantee humane treatment of those in detention; to halt immediately state-sanctioned violence against its own citizens; to allow unrestricted communication and access to information; and to respect the rights of the Iranian people to free speech, a free press, free expression of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of assembly.

It is a tragic irony that the government perpetrating these deplorable acts of violence and abuse came to power three decades ago because the Iranian people rejected the abuses and violence of a previous regime. Now following in the repressive footsteps of that previous regime, the current Iranian Government has been widely condemned by the community of nations. Passage of this resolution would add the U.S. Senate's loud and clear voice of condemnation to the many voices inside Iran, and out, calling for the restoration of basic human rights for the Iranian people.

Madam President, I will be 30 seconds because I believe we are ready to adopt a resolution. It has been a long time since I was a young Senator listening to a man who was even then a giant of the Senate. For hours, Senator Robert C. Byrd would speak eloquently, and usually from memory, on the history and traditions of the Senate. Even then, it was clear to me there had been few combinations more fortuitous in the history of our Nation than that of Robert Byrd and the Senate.

We celebrate today as he becomes the longest serving Member in the history of the Congress. There have been many beneficiaries of that long service: the people of West Virginia, whom he has served so ably; the citizens of the United States, who have been fortunate to reap the rewards of his knowledge and commitment; and, more personally for us here, the Members of the Senate, and most personally, me.

His career is even more remarkable for its depth than for its length. In addition to more than half a century in this body, Robert Byrd managed to work as a butcher, a ship welder, and a Member of the House of Representatives. He learned to play the fiddle, became a recognized expert on Rome's senate, and wrote or edited nine books. It says much about him as a person that he was never out of place in the coal country of West Virginia, even as he moved to the highest levels of our government.

There is seldom any doubt where Senator Byrd stands on an issue, be it the decision to go to war in Iraq or a challenge to the prerogatives of the Senate. But in those instances where history or his own reflection have shown him to be mistaken, he has shown the rare grace to accept responsibility for his own imperfections, and ask for forgiveness. In this, as in many other things, he is truly an example to emulate.

He is rightfully honored not just for his knowledge of the Senate, but for a fierce determination to protect its traditions, procedures, and its role in our system of government. I have seen this determination up close, perhaps never so clearly as in 1996, when he and I, along with Senator Moynihan, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on the subject of the line-item veto. Congress's approval of the law establishing this veto occurred over Senator Byrd's powerful and learned opposition, and after it became law, he continued to oppose what he saw, and I saw, as a clear violation of the constitutionally mandated separation of powers. In this instance and many others, the Senate and the Nation have benefitted from his immense knowledge of the Constitution and his ability to focus that knowledge on the issues before us. Before party or personal preference, Robert Byrd places the Constitution--a document always at hand in the Senator's pocket.

More than 3 years ago, Senator Byrd reached another milestone-- becoming the longest serving Member of the Senate. Let me repeat something I said then: ``That is the tribute we can all pay to Robert Byrd: to defend this institution, to stand for its procedures, and to carry, as he does, at least in our hearts, the Constitution, as he carries the Constitution on his body.''

I conclude with congratulations not just to Senator Byrd and not just on the longevity of his service, but on the depth of its quality and the love he has for the Senate, his commitment to constitutional government. We remember this day also his love for his beloved wife Erma who was a blessing to Robert, a blessing to their family, and a blessing to our Senate family.

I yield the floor.

I would be pleased to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

I want the chairman to know that I am also fully supportive of the administration's new approach to defending Europe from the threat of shorter range Iranian missiles based on the standard missile-3 both on ships and ashore, as well as the use of fiscal year 2009 funding that is no longer required for this purpose.

While I agree that the funding previously authorized and appropriated for the European sites in fiscal year 2009 should be the source of funding for this project, I also feel that the project should be vetted in a manner similar to any other MILCON request. I believe we also have the time to authorize the project. As I understand the current timeline the Missile Defense Agency has sufficient planning and design funding to initiate design of the project and also has sufficient funding to begin the required environmental work. It is also my understanding that construction won't actually begin until late summer of 2010. I would expect that the preliminary nature of the current funding request would mature in time to support a timely authorization.

That is correct. I will introduce a separate bill today along with Senator McCain. The committee will expedite consideration of this bill provided that we can get the normal assurances that the project is supported by the Secretary of Defense and that the proposed construction costs and timelines are accurate and up to the standards we would normally expect in a similar MILCON project request.

Amendment No. 2763 to Amendment No. 2730

Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.

The Inhofe amendment would actually make us less secure by restricting our ability to improve security at facilities that house detainees who have been transferred from Guantanamo to the United States for their trials. Our communities will be less safe because money cannot be spent to make more secure the places where these detainees are being kept. It seems to me this is kind of a ``cutting off your nose to spite your face'' approach. Regardless of how people voted on whether we should have trials in the United States, the decision has been made that there are going to be trials in the United States. There already have been trials in the United States. There are detainees who are awaiting trial in the United States. It would seem to me it is in everybody's interest that the places where these detainees are being kept should be as secure as possible. It makes no sense, regardless of what one's position is on the question of where the trial should be held, not to have them kept in the most secure possible facilities.

I hope the Inhofe amendment is defeated. It is counterproductive, no matter what position one takes on the location of trials.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Small Business Intermediary Lending Pilot Program Act of 2009.

As a member of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee I have been concerned about access to affordable financing for small businesses.

The need to help small businesses find flexible credit sources has become more urgent than ever during this economic and credit crisis. The problem is serious. I have heard from numerous small businesses from across Michigan facing serious financial difficulties. Too many creditworthy businesses are having trouble procuring a loan, getting their loans renewed, or are facing higher rates or are having their lines of credit withdrawn altogether. This is happening even when the business never missed a payment.

The difficulty of finding bank financing is both a symptom and a cause of our economic troubles. The crisis that nearly toppled our economy in late 2008 and early 2009 was largely the result of a shutdown in lending by banks worried that they would be overwhelmed by bad loans. And as the lack of available credit rippled through the economy, it hit more businesses, cost them more customers, forced them to lay off more workers, and slowed economic activity even more, making banks all the more reluctant to lend and setting off a downward spiral.

The search for solutions to these problems has been intense, and we have taken some steps in Congress to alleviate them, including acting to reduce Small Business Administration lending fees, increasing the dollar amount of those loans the government would guarantee, and offering short-term loans to businesses facing immediate financial hardship. But it hasn't been enough.

In May, I told members of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, on which I serve, of just one Michigan example of the problem: A small manufacturer based in the Thumb. The company's longtime bank lender told the company it could not renew the firm's 5-year loan, instead offering 90-day renewals at a much higher interest rate. The company, with 77 workers and 150 customers, sought a loan elsewhere, but other banks--28 of them--rejected its application. The company has an excellent payment history. That story can be repeated 100 times throughout the state.

With the steep decline in the availability of credit from conventional financial institutions, demand is increasing for community-based financial institutions, including Community Development Corporations, Microlenders, Community Development Financial Institutions and other non-profit lenders to fill the gap created by the reluctance of private financial institutions to provide capital to businesses. As demand on these non-profit institutions to fill the gap has increased, these institutions' sources of capital are also drying up.

To address this problem, I am introducing legislation to help get financing to those small businesses that are not being served by the conventional loan programs currently available through the Small Business Administration.

The Small Business Intermediary Lending Program that I am introducing today is a three-year pilot program which authorizes the SBA in each of the three years to make 20-year loans, on a competitive basis, to up to 20 non-profit lending intermediaries around the country, with a maximum amount of $3 million per loan. Under this proposal, intermediaries would use these SBA loans to capitalize revolving loan funds through which loans of up to $200,000 would be made to small businesses in need of flexible debt financing. In addition, these intermediaries would assist borrowers in leveraging the SBA funds to obtain additional capital from other sources. The intermediaries would also work closely with the small business to provide technical assistance during the life of the loan.

The program would be structured along the lines of the SBA's Microloan program and USDA's Intermediary Relending Program, both of which have demonstrated the success of using intermediary lenders to improve the flow of credit to small businesses that are unable to satisfy the underwriting requirements of a congenital bank.

The program is designed to fill the lending gap that exists between SBA's Microloan program that lends up to $35,000 and its 7(a) loan program that makes larger traditional loans to small businesses through participating banks. Many start-up and expanding small businesses may have graduated from the Microloan Program and need larger loans but cannot get 7(a) loans because they lack adequate collateral necessary for traditional loans. These small businesses may also still need technical assistance to help them succeed that would be provided by the intermediary lender under this bill.

Even before the severe economic downturn and resulting credit crunch, 7(a) lenders were not making the sorts of midsize loans the Intermediary Lending Program seeks to make. In fact, several years ago a representative for the National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders, the 7(a) lenders' trade association, told a Small Business and Entrepreneurial Committee roundtable that 7(a) lenders are not making these midsized loans because they are not cost effective, and that the Intermediary Lending Program would fill an important niche not being filled by any existing SBA program.

We have been taking some important steps to encourage banks to lend to businesses, with varying degrees of success. Clearly more needs to be done to get credit into the hands of the small businesses that are going to create the jobs necessary to lead us out of this economic downturn. The Intermediary Lending Program I am introducing today proposes a way to get financing into the hands of those viable businesses that conventional banks are currently not lending to so that they can hire employees and grow their businesses. I urge its swift enactment.

Madam President, today I would like to tell the story of a young Michigan man who gives us all great reason to be proud.

Laurence Carolin from Dexter, MI, was only 13 years old when doctors discovered an inoperable tumor in his brain. After intensive radiation and chemotherapy regimens, the tumor still grew. Today Laurence is 15. He has fought the cancer valiantly, but it is the larger fight he has waged for the impoverished around the world that moves me to speak today.

Laurence was born in South Korea, just south of the demilitarized zone. When he was 5 months old he was adopted by Lisa and Patrick Carolin, who brought him to their home a world away in Michigan. There, with access to education and health care, he experienced what he described as ``the kind of start that I wish everyone could have.''

Warning signs emerged in 2007 when Laurence started to get headaches and began to fatigue easily. Two days after Christmas he and his family received the diagnosis of the glioblastoma multiforme.

Many of us would react to this diagnosis with despair and self-pity. But not Laurence. When he was offered the opportunity to fulfill a dream by the Make-A-Wish Foundation, Laurence did what many 13-year-old boys might do: asked to meet his favorite rock star, U2's lead singer Bono. When told that might not be possible, Laurence asked instead that a donation be made to the United Nations Foundation to combat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in Africa. Characteristically, he said, ``I should have thought of my next wish as my first wish. It's a much better wish. I have everything I need.''

That selfless act was only the start of the great work Laurence has performed in his efforts to help fight poverty in his community and around the world. When a class at Mill Creek Middle School in his hometown wanted to raise donations for him, Laurence instead asked the class to run a food drive for the needy in Michigan. Today Laurence is organizing efforts in his community to support Nothing But Nets, a U.N. Foundation campaign designed to stop the spread of malaria across Africa.

Laurence says that though the cancer has weakened him, it has given him perspective on suffering that is felt around the world. His efforts to fight his cancer make him admirable. His actions to help the world's poor make him nothing less than heroic. His example calls us all to action, reminding us in his words that ``it's our ethical and moral obligation to help others who are in need.''

An avid guitar player, I am happy to report that Laurence did get that meeting with Bono and the rest of U2 after all, at a concert earlier this fall. Laurence's inspirational work gives new meaning to the band's music, which helped open his eyes to the problems in this world.

Laurence does not want to leave his work left unfinished. In his words, ``Death isn't a big deal to me. It's just another part of life. Some people die earlier than others. . . . I can accept dying, but I don't want to die before there's an end to extreme poverty in Africa.''

I thank Laurence for the example he sets, I commend him for his courage in confronting his disease, and I share his hope that someday soon the twin plagues of disease and poverty will be lifted.

Madam President, I very much oppose the Graham amendment, and I want to take a few moments to explain why.

It has been argued that we are at war. Indeed, we are. I can't think of anything clearer, that any of us in this country understands than we are at war. And being at war, it totally mystifies me why we would deny ourselves one of the tools that we could use against people who are attacking us, who have attacked us, who will attack us, who will kill us, who kill innocent people. Why would we deny ourselves one of the tools which are available to try these people, to lock them up, or execute them and throw away the key? Why we would, by law, say this particular group of people can't be tried in a Federal court, that they can only be tried in a military commission, when we have tried so many terrorists in court, convicted them and executed them, is something I do not understand.

I believe we ought to not only throw the book at these people, but I think we ought to throw both books at these people. Why limit ourselves to one book--the book that sets the procedures for military commissions? Why do we deny ourselves the opportunity, if it is more effective--for whatever reasons the Justice Department determines it is more effective--to prosecute in a Federal court? Why would we deny them that?

In fact, under this amendment, they could not even continue the prosecution they had begun. The language of the amendment says either ``to commence or continue the prosecution in an Article III court.'' So the question isn't whether these are the most dangerous people around-- they are.

I also went down to Guantanamo. I went with Senator Graham, and we watched the proceeding against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. I want us to use all of the tools. I want them all to be available. I want the Justice Department to be able to determine which is more effective, and not for us to decide in a political setting, in a legislative setting, that they cannot use one of the tools which has been proven to be effective against dozens of terrorists.

What about the law of war? What about war crimes? The argument is these are war crimes. As far as I am concerned, they are crimes; they are war crimes--both. War crimes can be prosecuted in an article III court. Let me repeat that because the argument is these are war crimes. War crimes can be prosecuted in an article III court under our laws that we adopted about 10 or 15 years ago. So Khalid Shaikh Mohammed needs to be given justice. He needs to be dealt with as strongly as we possibly can and as effectively as we possibly can. I believe he was the mastermind of 9/11. I don't think there is a Member of this body that would not want to see him dealt with as strongly as can possibly be done. But I don't know why we would tell the Justice Department that they only can consider one of the two tools that they could use against him; that they only can consider the military commissions but they can't consider article III courts.

I have been deeply involved in rewriting the military commissions law. That law, when we first wrote it, was defective, and I argued against it because it was defective. This body adopted it. That is the way things work. The majority decided to go with it. It was not usable. So we took a major step in the last few months to revise the military commissions law. I helped to lead that effort, and I know how important it is. But it was never our intent to make that the exclusive remedy for people who would attack us or attack this country. We want that remedy to be available if that is the most effective remedy. But there is nothing in that law that we wrote, or intended, that said this would displace article III courts if the Justice Department decided the most effective place to try an alleged terrorist was an article III court.

Are we actually, on the floor of the Senate, going to decide which terrorists should be tried in article III courts and which ones should be tried in military commission courts? Why would we tie the hands of the Justice Department in that way?

I know Senator Graham feels very strongly these should be tried in front of military commissions, and if he were the Justice Department, or if he were the Attorney General, he may make that decision, assuming he knows all the facts that go into the decision. He may make that decision, and he could strongly recommend it to the Justice Department. But why would we decide to displace the discretion of the Justice Department is a mystery to me. I find it unacceptable.

More importantly, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense find it unacceptable. They have urged us not to do this. They have written our leaders--Senator Reid and Senator McConnell--opposing the Graham amendment.

They say in their letter that there is a joint prosecution protocol, and the departments are ``currently engaged in a careful case-by-case evaluation of the cases of Guantanamo detainees who have been referred for possible prosecution, to determine whether they should be prosecuted in an Article III court or by military commission. We are confident that the forum selection decisions that are made pursuant to this process will best serve our national security interests.''

That is the Attorney General of the United States and the Secretary of Defense. Can we truly say in the Senate that we are going to displace that process which will determine what is the

most effective way to prosecute these people? Can we and should we do that? I hope not.

They end their letter of October 30 by saying the following:

The exercise of prosecutorial discretion has always been

and should remain an Executive Branch function. We must be in

a position to use every lawful instrument of national power--

including both courts and military commissions--to ensure

that terrorists are brought to justice and can no longer

threaten American lives.

If we adopt the Graham amendment, we are saying no; we are only going to use one instrument of national power. We are not going to consider both instruments of national power, and that is truly not only limiting our options but tying one of our hands behind our back in the essential prosecution of these people.

Madam President, Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, was convicted in Federal court in May of 2006 for conspiring to hijack aircraft and crash them into the World Trade Center. He was quoted by Senator Graham as saying that ``we are at war with you people.'' I don't have the slightest doubt that he means it and if he were ever released he would go back to war.

But I also have no doubt about something else. He was saying this in a Federal court, after being convicted in a Federal court of the terrorist acts that he perpetrated. He is now in a supermax facility in Florence, CO. He is serving life imprisonment without parole. If the Graham amendment had been in place at the time that Moussaoui was being prosecuted--indeed, if the Graham amendment had come in the middle of that prosecution--the prosecution would have had to have been suspended.

This amendment, if it is adopted, is going to make it more difficult to bring some of the 9/11 terrorists to justice. Let me share some of the reasons this possibility exists.

A court could decide that one of the 9/11 detainees does not meet the test, under the military commissions law, of being an ``unprivileged enemy belligerent.'' In particular, a court could decide that one of the 9/11 alleged terrorists did not participate in a ``hostility'' and therefore was not subject--a belligerent subject to the laws of war. So we are saying to the Justice Department: If you see the possibility that someone could be let out or somebody could be found not guilty based on that kind of a technicality, we are not going to let you go and try that person in a Federal court. You must try that person where that person could escape justice based on a technicality.

Why would we want to do that? How can we possibly sit here and reach a judgment on all of the possible factual situations which might allow one of these people to escape justice? We cannot do that. That is what prosecutors are for. That is what a Justice Department is for. We should be giving them tools, not denying them tools. We should be handing them every possible tool we can give them to prosecute these people instead of saying you can't use this tool or you can't use that tool.

A court could decide that the crimes committed by one of the 9/11 detainees is not justiciable under the Military Commissions Act. So therefore we are going to say you have to prosecute him there anyway? A court could decide that an offense under the Military Commissions Act cannot be retroactively applied to an offense that took place before the enactment of the act. In our language, they can be tried even though it is a retroactive application. What happens if that occurs and then a court comes along, a court of appeals following a military commission, and says: No, you can't do that. Why would we not want the Justice Department to be able to weigh all of these possible escape loopholes that a defendant could use and decide that they have a better chance of convicting somebody and making that conviction stick if they proceed in an article III court?

Maybe the procedural rights which we have written into our Military Commissions Act, which is now law--maybe a court will determine they are not adequate. Maybe they will throw out the entire process despite our best efforts to correct what we had previously done. We should not presume the outcome of the judicial process and throw away legal tools that may be needed to bring the 9/11 terrorists to justice. We should not be tying the hands of our prosecutors against these people.

Prosecutorial discretion is one of the cornerstones of the American judicial system. It is wrong for us to be limiting that discretion by directing cases to a particular forum. It denies our prosecutors the ability to choose the forum that is best suited to a successful outcome in the case. The mechanism of cutting off funds for a prosecution, which is what this amendment does because Congress believes that a prosecution should take place in one forum or another, would set a terrible precedent. We should not be intervening in that kind of decision through the appropriations act.

The determination of the proper forum for the trial of 9/11 terrorists should be made by the professional prosecutors based on the circumstances of the case and their judgment as to where is the best chance to gain a successful prosecution. We should not decide where these cases are going to be tried. I don't believe we should presume they will be tried in one place or another.

There is a process underway, including both the Defense Department and the Justice Department, to make a determination as to which will be the most effective place to try these terrorists. So that is the appropriate process, and we ought to let it continue without this kind of intervention by the Senate.

Before I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense to Senators Reid and McConnell.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2648, as Modified

Mr. President, the measure we have before us is vital to the three-quarters of a million people in Michigan who are unemployed. It is vital to the 15.1 million Americans who are unemployed. It will keep them in their homes. It will keep their children fed and clothed.

It is also vital to the millions of American workers who remain employed, but are plagued by fear that they too will lose their job. Previous extensions of unemployment insurance benefits have played an underappreciated role in helping us avoid even greater economic collapse. There are businesses still open, neighborhoods still filled with families instead of foreclosed homes, wheels of commerce still turning because of the economic fuel these extensions have provided. This extension, too, means help not just for those facing a loss of benefits but for entire communities.

I am also pleased that this legislation extends the homebuyer tax credit which had been set to expire on November 30, 2009. This credit, which has helped pull the real-estate market from the depths of decline, will now be available until April 30, 2010. This legislation expands eligible recipients to tax payers who have owned their homes for more than 5 years. The credit will also provide additional relief to members of the military by eliminating the recapture requirement of the credit if they are forced to sell their home as a result of an official extension of duty.

So I am glad that we are ready to approve this legislation. I wish it had come sooner. During the debate and delay here in Washington, 7,000 unemployed Americans each day saw their unemployment benefits expire. By mid-October, 44,000 Michigan workers had exhausted their benefits, and that number will more than double by the end of the year if we do not act. The anxiety caused by our delays has been a tremendous hardship for families facing the loss of their benefits hardship made painfully clear by the calls and letters to my office from Michiganders desperate for any word on when Congress would act.

For a family battered by the loss of a job, fearing the loss of a home, wondering if life will ever be the same, facing such uncertainty requires genuine courage to hold onto hope. This extension of unemployment benefits is one important way we can help alleviate fear and help preserve that hope that is essential to persevere until times get better.

Mr. President, I cannot support the nomination of Dr. Tara O'Toole to be the Under Secretary for Science and Technology at the Department of Homeland Security.

By its nature, this position requires a disinterested scientific approach to issues affecting homeland security. It is a position which the Department of Homeland Security and its policymakers must rely on for objective advice and counsel.

Dr. O'Toole fell short of the strict adherence to scientific principles when she was the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies. Dr. O'Toole was one of the principal designers and authors of the June 2001 Dark Winter exercise that simulated a covert attack on the United States by bioterrorists.

The Dark Winter exercise had a deadly serious purpose: to assess the vulnerability of the United States to a biological weapons attack and our ability to deal with such an attack.

But many top scientists have said that the Dark Winter exercise was based on faulty and exaggerated assumptions about the transmission rate of smallpox.

Dr. James Koopman of the Department of Epidemiology at the University of Michigan, an expert at modeling the transmission rates of infectious diseases who participated in the smallpox eradication program, has said that Dr. O'Toole ``has not sought balanced scientific input in her thinking, that she shows a lack of analytic orientation to scientific issues, and that she has generated hype about bioterrorism that she will feel obligated to defend rather than pursue a balanced approach.''

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told me that the conclusions of the Dark Winter exercise were ``dramatically affected'' by the assumptions that were used, and that these assumptions were ``much, much worse than would have been the case'' in real life.

Dr. Michael Lane, the former Director of the Centers For Disease Control Smallpox Eradication Program--who has had extensive and first- hand experience with the disease--found the assumptions about smallpox transmission rates in the Dark Winter exercise ``improbable'' and even ``absurd.''

The transmission rate of smallpox was not the only area where Dr. O'Toole exaggerated the facts. On February 19, 2002, she wrote that ``Many experts believe that the smallpox virus is not confined to these 2 official repositories [1 in the United States and 1 in Russia] and may be in the possession of states or subnational groups pursuing active biological weapons programs.'' This statement referenced a New York Times article of June 13, 1999, for support of that very startling statement about ``subnational groups.'' But the article she cited made no reference to any subnational or terrorist or nonstate group possessing active biological weapons programs.

Bioterrorism poses a serious threat to our national security. But it is one of many threats we face. All threats to our security must be addressed objectively and scientifically so that we spend our resources in the most effective way possible to address the most likely and most dangerous threats. Exaggerations for the purpose of influencing policy makers do a disservice and result in the misallocation of limited resources that must be utilized wisely and objectively in order to enhance our security.

Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Oregon is recognized and the Senator from Michigan is recognized, under the existing unanimous consent agreement I then be recognized.

Mr. President, it should be crystal clear to all of us why the health insurance industry opposes reform so strenuously: because the status quo is so profitable.

As my colleagues have pointed out, the massive profit announced this week by Humana, Inc. illustrates this vividly. Humana's third-quarter profit of $301 million was a 65-percent increase over the same period a year ago. And Humana executives made no secret of the reason for this ballooning profit. The company's president and CEO said, ``Our government segment continued to perform well in the third quarter particularly in our Medicare business.''

It is no coincidence that Humana is one of the biggest providers of Medicare Advantage plans. These plans, in which private insurers contract with the government to provide coverage to Medicare beneficiaries, were supposed to unleash the power of private-sector competition, lowering costs, improving service, and increasing benefits to our seniors.

It has not often worked out that way. While some Medicare Advantage plans have performed well, Medicare pays, on average, 14 percent more for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries than for those in traditional Medicare, and despite this increase in payments to Medicare Advantage plans, the Government Accountability Office has found that seniors often face higher out-of-pocket costs in Medicare Advantage plans.

In fact, when the GAO studied the costs and performance of these plans, it found that in 2005, those plans spent significantly less for health care for seniors than they projected to pay. That lower spending on medical care for seniors led directly to windfall profits, $1.1 billion more in profits than the insurance companies had told the government they expected to earn. That $1.1 billion is taxpayer money that should be providing treatment to our seniors, and instead is boosting insurance company profits.

Indeed, health insurance companies need no taxpayer help in reaping big profits. From 2002 to 2006, profits at publicly traded insurance providers increased more than tenfold. At the same time these companies are making massive profits, working Americans and their employers have endured year after year of much higher premiums, reduced benefits, and denials of treatment.

Our citizens need a sensible health care system. We can not afford a system in which our people are denied treatment because their benefits are capped. We can not afford a system in which they are denied coverage because they have a preexisting condition. Our Nation can not afford a system in which the loss of a job means the loss of coverage and debilitating health costs. Our Nation can not afford a system in which even those with jobs and insurance face rapidly increasing premiums and out-of-pocket costs. Our nation certainly can not afford a system in which our tax dollars boost the ever-higher profits at insurance companies, or in which premiums and out-of-pocket costs constantly go up, while coverage constantly shrinks or disappears entirely.

The Senate needs to put the interests of the American people ahead of the interests of insurers. We need to take up a health reform plan that makes comprehensive, affordable health coverage available to every American, and helps keep insurance companies honest.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I will vote to approve this conference agreement and continuing appropriation resolution to provide over $32 billion for a variety of important environmental, forest and land, national parks and infrastructure purposes; as well as to extend

funding for other Federal programs through December 18.

I am pleased this bill includes the full $475 million for Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, GLRI, as requested in the President's budget. The GLRI is a multi-agency effort to address the array of current and historic threats facing the Great Lakes, such as invasive species, habitat loss, and pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency has prepared a spending plan for this money based on years of research and cooperative work with other Federal, State, tribal, and local partners, and the EPA will measure results to ensure accountability. This bill includes language, which I supported, to ensure that steamships in the Great Lakes are able to continue to operate. The compromise included in this bill allows the EPA to move forward with a proposed air emission regulation for maritime vessels operating on the coasts while the EPA works with the Great Lakes shipping community on compliance. Additionally, the EPA will conduct additional economic analysis for the Great Lakes region.

This bill provides $2.7 billion for our National Park Service, an increase of $200 million from last year's level, which I support. That increase would help maintain and protect the natural, historic and recreational resources of the six National Park units in Michigan. I am pleased conferees favorably responded to my request to waive the match requirement for Quincy Smelter funding, located within Keweenaw National Historical Park in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The bill includes $1 million to stabilize the deteriorating buildings at the Quincy smelting complex, which is the best remaining example of a copper smelter of its era in the country, and possibly the world. The smelter has been identified by the Park Service as a core resource in the park, yet its structures have deteriorated significantly since the smelter closed in 1971. Over the past couple of years, some parts of the smelter buildings have collapsed and last year, a smokestack, which is a critical part of the landscape, had to be removed because it was in danger of imminent collapse. With the waiver language included, this funding can be used to stabilize the buildings to prevent additional structural failures, saving one of the most important resources of the park.

Importantly, the bill would provide $1.4 billion to capitalize the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and $2.1 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for wastewater projects. The funding in this conference agreement more than doubles the amount provided in the fiscal year 2009 omnibus. Michigan would receive about $41 million for drinking water and $90 million for wastewater projects, protecting public health, improving the environment, and creating a stronger economic climate.

This appropriations conference agreement would provide a significant boost to protect and clean up the Great Lakes, protect the environment, improve Michigan's parks and lands, provide communities with safe drinking water and improved wastewater infrastructure, and I support its passage.

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