Floor Statements

That is fine. I know the Senator from North Dakota had asked to be heard.

Mr. President, I believe there are some Members who are coming. Absent someone walking in the door, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally allocated to both sides.

How much time remains?

I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from Vermont. He has been very strong on this issue, and I want to give him as much time as I can.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Totally?

I will use the 3 minutes, and I will inquire of my friend and colleague from Alabama, at what point are we going to conclude this debate?

Let me go ahead. I will assume we will probably wrap up the debate with 3 minutes remaining.

We have a diversity of opinions, including from Paul Krugman, who is known as a more progressive economist, in favor of this nomination, although and albeit he has certain caveats he expressed about the nominee, Ben Bernanke; the Washington Post; and others as well. Warren Buffett was asked on CNBC about this nomination and he said: All I can say is, if you are going to turn him down, let me know a day or two in advance because I would like to sell off some stock. They asked him why, and he said because he believed the message to the markets would be a devastating one.

The one thing about the Federal Reserve--and there are legitimate complaints about the Federal Reserve System--but what we don't need is for short-term politics to become the vehicle by which we decide Fed policy. The independence of the Fed has been a critical component for stability in our economy. I happen to believe--despite being the chair of the Banking Committee for all of 2007, as the Presiding Officer knows, I could not get the attention of the previous administration, including the Federal Reserve, about the mortgage crisis in our country. We had 12 hearings, the first of which was on February 7, 2007, on this subject matter alone. So if I were going to decide my vote on this nominee on that basis, I would vote against Ben Bernanke because, frankly, it was a failure by the previous administration early on not to understand the gravity of this situation.

But I can't make my decision solely on that. The fact is, as I said earlier, we have had a leader in the Federal Reserve over the last year and a half who virtually saved our economy from a predictable collapse had he not been there. Beginning in the fall of last year, when a group of us were in the room of the Speaker of the House, Democrats and Republicans, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve warned us, if we failed to act in a number of days, the entire financial system in this country and a good part of the world would melt down, to give an exact quote. I don't need to tell my colleagues that was sort of the economic equivalence of a 9/11 moment, when we were warned by the most important central banker in the world what could happen if we didn't act.

As a result of Ben Bernanke's leadership, as well as others--people such as Judd Gregg, Bob Corker, Chuck Schumer, who worked on this, the leadership in the House--we were able to put together a terribly unpopular package, but 75 of us on that night in this Chamber voted for that very difficult proposition, to avoid the kind of catastrophe that would have happened. There are very few people I think who would have had the ability, the creativity, the imagination, and the courage to come up with these ideas. Ben Bernanke did. So as a result, we are in far better shape today.

However, we are far from out of the woods. We have a foreclosure problem that is still huge. We have commercial problems that are coming along that are going to be massive. If we don't have a Chairman of the Federal Reserve but only an Acting Chairman, I don't know what that means--and particularly the individuals who helped to create the very imaginative vehicles that allowed us to come out of this problem. To have him walk away and find the Federal Reserve, this important central bank, without leadership at this critical moment, I think would be beyond shameful. It would be the height of irresponsibility.

As Democrats and Republicans, the previous administration offered this nomination. Many of us supported it. We need to come together, at least in moments such as this, not to abandon

our country over partisan politics or ideology and failing to understand that if there need to be reforms in the Fed, let's reform them, but let's not walk away from an importantly critical individual who has made a difference in our economy and our Nation. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to terminate this filibuster--vote to end that--and then vote to confirm Ben Bernanke as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

I have been told I can speak until 3:20, but I will not take up all the time. As I said a moment ago, this is one of those moments where we need to step back and recognize the danger of our actions. This is not just a free vote. I know some people would prefer--they have the right to vote--to vote against the guy but hope he gets confirmed. That may work, but it is dangerously precarious. If we don't have 60 votes to end this filibuster, and if we don't produce the votes to confirm him, then I think this Congress, this body, regretfully, will have to bear the responsibility of abandoning the very people and situations we talk about today--jobs, the housing market, getting our economy back on its feet again--and anticipate the kind of reaction we will see in the markets and elsewhere, setting us back weeks, if not months or years, in our ability to get through this fragile period and allowing the hopes and aspirations and the confidence of the American people to grow.

I know it is an awful lot to stake the future of all that on just a nomination, but this is not some Assistant Under Secretary of some other agency. It is the central bank Chairman of the most central bank in the world. It is a critically important component in us continuing our path of economic recovery. We will bear the collective responsibility of failing to meet that obligation if we walk away from this obligation by either continuing this filibuster or defeating this nominee.

So I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans--there is enough to battle about on how we are going to deal with these issues in the coming weeks, but on this matter let us send a message to the American people that we understand their frustrations, their worries, and we are doing everything we can to get us back on track again. Witness the President's remarks last evening.

You have a laser-like focus on the economy and job creation in our country. Don't make that effort fail because we send a message to our markets and the world that we cannot confirm an individual who saved us from an economic catastrophe in our country.

I urge my colleagues to pass the cloture motion to end debate and then, of course, to confirm Ben Bernanke as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

With that, I yield back the remainder of the time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today we consider important legislation to confront a serious threat to the security of the U.S., of our close ally Israel, and of our other allies in the Middle East and Europe--the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. This is one of the most serious foreign policy challenges facing the United States today.

Before we move forward on this measure, let me outline briefly where we have been. In 2008, after careful consideration, the Banking Committee reported out a bipartisan bill to put pressure on the Iranian regime to come clean on its nuclear program, and end its illicit nuclear activities. Unfortunately, that bill never was considered on the Senate floor because of the obstruction of a handful of Senators.

In recent months, all of us have been deeply troubled to see the Iranian regime violently punishing its own citizens for pressing for fair elections.

And we have watched with growing concern the activities of the leaders of this troubled regime, including the continuing repression of their people, their deception about the previously secret nuclear enrichment facility at Qom, and their more recent threats to expand substantially Iran's uranium enrichment activity, in defiance of the demands of the international community and the U.N. Security Council.

Last fall, the committee held additional hearings, where we considered the views of a wide range of outside witnesses, and relevant administration officials, on policy options toward Iran. Senator Shelby and I then worked with our committee colleagues to craft a comprehensive, bipartisan bill that was reported out of the Banking Committee unanimously in late October, by a vote of 23-0. The bill is comprehensive, and includes tougher sanctions;

provisions which enable divestment by States and local governments from firms working in Iran's energy sector; and measures to combat the black market diversion of sensitive technology to Iran. On December 15, the House acted to approve overwhelmingly a more limited package of sanctions. I am pleased we will be able to finally act today on this comprehensive measure, also with the overwhelming support of this body.

Madam President, when he took office, President Obama adopted a two- track policy of engagement backed by the prospect of further sanctions, and I have supported his approach. He has worked tirelessly with our allies to try to bring Iran's leaders to the table to negotiate an end to their illicit nuclear activities or, failing that, to impose a range of new sanctions in hopes of changing Iran's behavior through more coercive diplomatic efforts.

Our legislation strengthens what has come to be known as the ``pressure track.'' Today we must send a clear signal to Iran's leaders that if they continue to defy the will of the international community, our Nation and other nations are prepared to confront them with tough new sanctions. I believe that the administration shares this conviction and applaud their work with our allies to develop multilateral agreements on a powerful new set of sanctions, should ongoing diplomatic efforts toward Iran fall short.

We must convince Iran's leaders that they face a clear choice. They can end the suppression of their people, come clean on their nuclear program, suspend enrichment, and stop supporting terrorists around the world. Or they can face sustained, progressively intensifying multilateral economic and diplomatic pressure--including tougher sanctions--and deepen their international isolation. And if they continue to refuse, they will then face the unilateral sanctions contained in this bill.

Our approach acknowledges the gross human rights abuses that Iran's people continue to suffer at the hands of Iran's security forces and the widening chasm that has opened between the regime and the people of Iran, as we witnessed again recently in the violent reaction of security forces to peaceful demonstrations. It contains a number of important human rights provisions, including Senator Schumer's measure to impose a sweeping ban on U.S. Govemment contracts on companies which provide communications monitoring or jamming technology to the government of Iran. Iran has reportedly expanded its monitoring and suppression activities, employing them widely again this month. This bill makes clear that those who help Iran's government to suppress the everyday speech and internet communications of its people will be punished. That same point was made in the resolution adopted by the Senate just before Christmas, which I cosponsored, expressing our support for the human rights of the Iranian people. Senator McCain has also raised with me today the prospect of his offering some additional human rights language, and I intend to work with him as we move toward conference on that issue.

Our bill also takes direct aim at Iran's illicit nuclear activities. It is clear that Iran's leaders are beginning to feel the heat of increased international pressure and the specter of biting sanctions, but more must be done. Following its public disclosure, Tehran has provided international inspectors with access to the nuclear site at Qum, but has taken other steps to limit cooperation with the IAEA. Iran's government had committed to sending most of its low-enriched uranium abroad for processing for medical purposes in October, but now rejects that approach and has decided to further provoke the international community by expanding its enrichment activities.

I suspect that only the prospect of intensified, sustained pressure by a coalition of countries will prompt these leaders to reconsider their position.

In order to maximize that pressure, just as we did last year, we have incorporated a number of ideas from our Senate colleagues into one committee bill.

Senators Bayh, Lieberman, and Kyl proposed penalties on companies that support Iran's import of refined petroleum products or bolster its domestic capacity.

Senators Brownback and Casey proposed authorizing state and local governments to divest from companies involved in critical business with Iran.

As I mentioned, Senator Schumer proposed banning government contracts to firms that provide technology used by the Iranian regime to monitor or disrupt communications of its citizens with one another and the outside world.

Senator Menendez proposed targeting sanctions against Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, its affiliates and front organizations for supporting terrorism and contributing to proliferation, and Senator Johanns pressed for renewed targeting of Iran's proxy Hezbollah in the same way. Senator Bunning urged tighter reporting requirements on sanctions.

In addition, we have incorporated our own proposals to tighten our trade embargo, enhance Treasury's mandate to freeze assets tied to terrorism and proliferation, crack down on the black market export of technology to the regime, expand the scope of other sanctions, and take other measures.

Madam President, instead of finalizing the preliminary agreement on low-enriched uranium struck between Iranian negotiators and the P5 + 1 group in October, Iran's leadership now appears to have definitively rejected that offer, and has continued a pattern of belligerent behavior that is almost certain to result in tougher sanctions being imposed soon.

While some have argued that increased economic sanctions are unlikely to change the behavior of Iran's leaders, I believe a comprehensive approach coordinated with our allies--including the Europeans, moderate Arab states throughout the Middle East, India, and Russia and China who hold great sway with Iran's leaders--must contain a tough sanctions component if it is to succeed. I recognize that sanctions alone are not sufficient, and that multilateral sanctions are likely to be more effective than those we impose unilaterally.

Sanctions must be used as effective leverage, undertaken as part of a coherent, coordinated, comprehensive diplomatic and political strategy which tips the scale such that it is more beneficial for Iran to forswear its nuclear weapons ambitions and other behaviors that are undermining regional peace and stability.

We have worked closely with administration officials as we developed and refined this measure. They support much of what is in the bill. Even so, I recognize there are still some lingering concerns. Before we left for the holidays, the State Department sent a letter to Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Kerry, describing some of these concerns. They sought a general exemption from sanctions for companies from countries that are closely cooperating with the U.S. on multilateral efforts on Iran, a mechanism which could provide an additional incentive for certain countries to work with us on imposing tougher sanctions. I am open to discussing such an incentive mechanism as we move toward conference, as long as it would contain strict criteria for the President to make a determination about what, precisely, constitutes ``close cooperation.'' There have been a number of discussions in recent weeks on how to craft such an exception, and we have made some progress. There are diplomatic efforts underway, led by the U.S. and others, to achieve a united approach at the U.N. Security Council on sanctions. I believe we can come to some agreement with the other body, and with the administration, on the remaining issues on this bill. I know that the administration shares our belief that we must augment current economic sanctions, and will continue to work with us on an appropriate mix of pressure tools as this process moves forward and the final version of the bill is developed.

Madam President, ultimately, I expect that different layers of additional sanctions--from the U.N. Security Council, from a U.S.-led coalition of like-minded allies, and unilaterally from the U.S.--may prove necessary if we are to actually have a powerful effect on Iran's behavior. And even then there are no guarantees that they will be persuaded to reverse course. I hope our legislation will complement and reinforce ongoing diplomatic efforts, and send a clear signal to Iran's leaders of

what is in store if they continue to flout the will of the international community.

I am grateful to Senator Shelby and all of my colleagues on the Banking Committee, and those off the committee who have worked so hard in recent months to ensure that ours is a smart, targeted, yet comprehensive approach to Iran policy. Overwhelming Senate support for passage of this bill will send a clear signal of our resolve to bring an end to Iran's illicit nuclear activities, as the President continues to build a broad coalition of nations who share our concerns about Iran, and who are willing to join with us in imposing a tough, comprehensive regime of new sanctions. I know there are still some differences to be worked out with the House version, which is less comprehensive, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to develop a final version that will enjoy broad bipartisan support within both bodies, and the support of the President, as soon as possible. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Arizona, Senator John McCain, to reintroduce legislation on an issue we have worked on together for over a decade. The Blind Persons Return to Work Act of 2010 will renove disincentives to work for blind individuals in the Social Security Disability Insurance, SSDI, program. Removal of these barriers will facilitate the transition of blind Americans from SSDI to income-earning, taxpaying, productive members of the American workforce.

Today there are over 1.3 million Americans who are legally blind and an estimated 10 million Americans with visual impairments. The Americans with Disabilities Act and advances in technology have eliminated many barriers for blind individuals. Today blind individuals are employed in nearly every type of job and profession. They lead businesses and governments. Time and again, they have proven they are more than capable. Yet, societal misperceptions, attitudes, and barriers persist. Unfortunately, more than 70 percent of working-age blind individuals remain unemployed. This is an enormous untapped resource of skills and talents for our country, and it is simply unacceptable.

One thing is clear: blind individuals want to work. I don't know how you put a price tag on the personal value of work. The dignity it provides is priceless. There are many challenges to increasing the employment rate of blind individuals. However, one common sense step we should take is to correct unintended disincentives and barriers within our SSDI program.

Within the SSDI program are earnings limits for beneficiaries. Historically, there was a longstanding linkage between the treatment of earnings for blind individuals and seniors. In 1996, Congress passed the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act. This legislation was adopted to encourage seniors to continue working later in life. While it significantly reduced restrictions on earnings for seniors, it created disparities for individuals who are blind. My friend from Arizona and I have worked tirelessly since then to correct this issue of fairness.

The Blind Persons Return to Work Act will replace the monthly earnings limit for individuals who are blind with a gradual phase-out, allowing blind individuals to systematically replace benefits with earned income. Under the current system, if a blind person earns just one single dollar over the limit, they lose their entire SSDI benefit. Clearly, this is a drastic reduction in income and disincentive to work and earn to the fullest potential. Instead of this ``cash cliff,'' our legislation will gradually reduce benefits by $1 for every $3 earned over the limit. It also establishes annual versus monthly earnings tests and a standard deduction for impairment-related work expenses, changes that will reduce administrative burdens for both blind individuals and the Social Security Administration.

As we work to turn our economy around, the Federal Government should do everything within its power to support all Americans in returning to work. I urge my colleagues to join us in sponsoring this common sense approach of removing barriers to employment for blind Americans.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Arizona, Senator John McCain, to reintroduce legislation on an issue we have worked on together for over a decade. The Blind Persons Return to Work Act of 2010 will renove disincentives to work for blind individuals in the Social Security Disability Insurance, SSDI, program. Removal of these barriers will facilitate the transition of blind Americans from SSDI to income-earning, taxpaying, productive members of the American workforce.

Today there are over 1.3 million Americans who are legally blind and an estimated 10 million Americans with visual impairments. The Americans with Disabilities Act and advances in technology have eliminated many barriers for blind individuals. Today blind individuals are employed in nearly every type of job and profession. They lead businesses and governments. Time and again, they have proven they are more than capable. Yet, societal misperceptions, attitudes, and barriers persist. Unfortunately, more than 70 percent of working-age blind individuals remain unemployed. This is an enormous untapped resource of skills and talents for our country, and it is simply unacceptable.

One thing is clear: blind individuals want to work. I don't know how you put a price tag on the personal value of work. The dignity it provides is priceless. There are many challenges to increasing the employment rate of blind individuals. However, one common sense step we should take is to correct unintended disincentives and barriers within our SSDI program.

Within the SSDI program are earnings limits for beneficiaries. Historically, there was a longstanding linkage between the treatment of earnings for blind individuals and seniors. In 1996, Congress passed the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act. This legislation was adopted to encourage seniors to continue working later in life. While it significantly reduced restrictions on earnings for seniors, it created disparities for individuals who are blind. My friend from Arizona and I have worked tirelessly since then to correct this issue of fairness.

The Blind Persons Return to Work Act will replace the monthly earnings limit for individuals who are blind with a gradual phase-out, allowing blind individuals to systematically replace benefits with earned income. Under the current system, if a blind person earns just one single dollar over the limit, they lose their entire SSDI benefit. Clearly, this is a drastic reduction in income and disincentive to work and earn to the fullest potential. Instead of this ``cash cliff,'' our legislation will gradually reduce benefits by $1 for every $3 earned over the limit. It also establishes annual versus monthly earnings tests and a standard deduction for impairment-related work expenses, changes that will reduce administrative burdens for both blind individuals and the Social Security Administration.

As we work to turn our economy around, the Federal Government should do everything within its power to support all Americans in returning to work. I urge my colleagues to join us in sponsoring this common sense approach of removing barriers to employment for blind Americans.

Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer. I have two subject matters I wish to address. One is the amendment of my friend and colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, that he has just addressed in his remarks, and a second set of remarks regarding Haiti that I also want to address.

I chair the subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee dealing with the Western Hemisphere and, obviously, includes the nation of Haiti, as well as served as a Peace Corps volunteer some 40 years ago on the island of Hispaniola on the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. So aside from the interest we all have in what has happened to the thousands of Haitians as a result of this catastrophic earthquake that has occurred, I have many friends in that country, some of whom I have not heard from in the last week or so, who are lost at this point. I want to address some thoughts on that subject matter as well.

But I want to, first of all, if I can, address the subject matter of the Thune amendment which will be voted on, I gather, at some point either today or tomorrow, whenever that is going to be dealt with here.

Let me begin by, first of all, thanking my colleague from South Dakota. I applaud him for saying that while it was a controversial debate a year ago last fall on whether to have an emergency economic stabilization program, I remember the night that we all gathered here and sat at our desks in this Chamber and voted 75 to 24 on whether to commit as much as potentially $700 billion in order to stabilize our financial institutions and move forward.

It was a courageous vote that a number of our colleagues took that day, many of whom were up for reelection within a matter of days after that vote, and yet cast ballots in favor of it despite the tremendous outpouring of anger over the fact that we were in those economic circumstances to begin with, and that, secondly, we might be committing as much of American taxpayer money to stabilize our financial institutions.

I happen to believe, and I think history is proving to be so, that we made the right choice that evening; that even though it was a painful vote, had we not stabilized those financial institutions, I firmly believe we would be looking at a far more catastrophic set of economic problems both here and around the globe had we not acted.

So while those resources have gone to large financial institutions and to major organizations because that is what was needed to be done, there is an understandable degree of anger and frustration being expressed by our fellow citizenry because people on Main Street, average citizens, have suffered terribly during this process.

There was a point not many months ago where 20,000 jobs a day were being lost in our Nation; 14,000 people a day were losing their health care; 10,000 people a day were losing their homes in the United States to foreclosure. So the American people have suffered terribly as a result of this economic crisis.

But we needed to take those steps. As a result, today, while the news is still far from good, in most corners of this country we are stabilizing an economic crisis. We avoided a depression which we were on the brink of falling into had we not taken that action. So I want to commend my colleague from South Dakota for recognizing the value of that decision.

Now he points out with a chart--it is not up here any longer--the fact that there is about $320 billion which remains unexpended as a result of that decision. The good news is that we crafted that bill that required two separate votes--an initial one for the $350 billion, and then around January of this year--or last year, excuse me--the additional $350 billion would be appropriated and spent. As a result of the good news we have avoided having to expend all of those resources. As a result, there is actually money coming back in.

We have now recouped about $165 billion of the original money that was spent, including over $13 billion in fees and interest payments that were earned back by the Federal Government as a result of those decisions. We all hope the full amount will be recovered. There will be an opportunity in the coming days for all of us to vote on whether we ought to ask those large financial institutions, which were the beneficiary of taxpayer assistance, whether they are going to vote for a fee or a tax, if you will, over a limited number of years on those recipients of billions of dollars of American taxpayer money, to pay that back through fees and taxes.

I hope my colleagues will be supportive of the initiative offered by President Obama in recent days. But the issue before us is whether we ought to shut all of this program down, the remaining $320 billion that is there. I want to remind my colleagues what the administration has suggested, and I believe all of us have embraced, is that small businesses and our community banks in this country are struggling. I do not recall a day over the last number of months when I have not heard a speech on the Senate floor of this Chamber where a Member has not gotten up and talked about what is happening in the absence of credit flowing to smaller businesses in their States, or that community banks in their States are failing because the economy has not reached them, the improving economy.

What the administration has suggested, and I strongly support, as I believe most of us do, is that we need to get assistance and support to these smaller businesses and to these community banks in order that they can survive and get on their feet, and credit will flow where it is not flowing today.

The administration has sent a letter committing to limit the use of these dollars to mitigating foreclosures, which is still serious; support for small banks so they can lend to their communities; facilitate small business lending; and address the deepening crisis in the commercial mortgage banks. Those are the four obligations we are talking about. It is not unlimited. It is not all for ideas that may be floating around here that have little or no merit. It is specifically the areas in which we all know we need to provide help.

We can do this one of two ways. We can do it by appropriating additional money, which goes right to the heart of the argument of my colleague and friend from South Dakota. We cannot afford to do that. Again, the deficits are growing larger by the hour, and to appropriate additional money at a time like this would be very difficult if not unwise in many cases. Or we can take resources we have already appropriated that are not being spent, that could be used exactly for the purposes that are needed for our economy to get moving again. In a sense it is a catch-22. Our economy is only going to improve if small business starts hiring again, community banks start flowing credit again, and we minimize the foreclosure problem.

How do you do it? It doesn't happen magically. It happens because we make intelligent decisions. A year and a half ago, when we voted for the economic stabilization bill, the problem in front of us was the stabilization of financial institutions. So the resources were going to be limited for that purpose. We thought we might need $700 billion. The good news is, we haven't needed that amount and a substantial amount of the money is coming back in. There remains this pool of $320 billion in that fund. Wouldn't it make sense if, in fact,

we are trying to get this economy moving again, to take some of those resources and make it available to small businesses, to community banks to flow credit so they can actually hire people and grow again, to minimize foreclosures? That is what is needed to be done.

We can do it one way or the other, but we can't do it by just talking about it. I beseech my colleagues at this juncture not to vote in favor of this amendment which would deprive us of resources in order to do the things that all of us agree need to be done. I know my friends, most of them here, are not going to be voting for a program that requires additional appropriations for the very argument the author of the amendment has made. We can't afford to do it. If we are not going to do that--and yet we are simultaneously saying we need to do these things in order to get us out of this hole, where average businesses and workers on Main Street in the country can be the beneficiary of some of this help to get our economy moving--where does it come from? Where are the resources going to come from? Why not take some of these resources and dedicate them to exactly the purposes that have been identified by the administration and recommended by Members of this body, both Republicans and Democrats?

If you support the Thune amendment, you deprive us of that opportunity. That is it. The only alternative left, then, is to go through an appropriations process, which we are being told by our friends over here they will not support. Again, what happens is a lot of rhetoric, a lot of talk. After all the help that has gone to the major Wall Street institutions, at the very hour we ought to be trying to help Main Street institutions, these smaller banks, smaller businesses, we will not have the resources to do it. I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about this. While this program has been terribly unpopular for all the reasons we have heard from others, at this critical moment, at a time when we could make such a difference, when falling back into a recession again could happen very easily, a deeper recession, at this very hour to deprive the administration, the Congress, the people who care so much about community banks and small businesses, I think would be a huge mistake.

I urge colleagues to reject the Thune amendment. Again, the commitments have been made. These resources go to one of four areas, primarily to community banks to get credit flowing and to small business but also to mitigate foreclosures and to address the deepening crisis in commercial mortgage loans which is there. We have a pool of resources to respond to it.

My hope is, all these dollars will be paid back with interest, as I think there is some evidence as we have seen already may, in fact, occur. But we need to continue on this path, if we are going to succeed in our efforts, watching optimism and confidence be restored to Main Street in America. This is one opportunity for us to do it, to get this job done.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the Thune amendment for all the reasons we have in the past. This is not a new amendment. It has been offered in the past. It has been rejected by colleagues for many of the same reasons I have tried to articulate this afternoon. The arguments haven't changed. What has is the dedication of these resources exactly to the areas that so many of us have talked about over the last number of months. I urge rejection of that amendment.

Haiti

Mr. President, I wish to speak to the subject matter of Haiti and the events of the last week that have occurred in that country. My interest in the subject matter is not any different than that of every single person who has watched with horror the photographs and pictures, the stories of the tragedy that has afflicted that poor, desperate country that occupies one-third of the island of Hispaniola. I bring an added personal attention to it because I have many friends, many of them I have known for 40 years, in the island nation of Haiti. I have been there on numerous occasions over the years, in addition to my first introduction to Haiti at 22 years of age as a Peace Corps volunteer, when I was sent to a small village on the border of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, in 1966, some 40 years ago. My interest and my friendships go back a long time. I am deeply concerned and worried about what is occurring there and what steps we might take as a nation, in conjunction with others, to provide some help to a people who are in desperate need.

I rise to discuss the tragic situation, the humanitarian disaster that has occurred in the wake of last week's earthquake, and the U.S.- led response to this crisis. Last Tuesday, as we all know, as the world knows, one of the largest earthquakes recorded in the area hit about 15 miles from the capital city of Port-au-Prince in Haiti. This massive earthquake brought immediate destruction to Port-au-Prince and surrounding areas and communities, instantly crumbling houses and buildings, destroying roads, seaports, cutting power and water lines throughout the country.

Most tragically, the earthquake has killed tens of thousands of Haitians who, at the time the quake struck, were simply going about their daily lives--desperate lives, I might add, but daily lives. The Government of Haiti has indicated they believe 70,000 of their fellow citizens have been killed in this earthquake. Other officials fear the death toll may be as high or more than 200,000 people as a result of those brief moments that caused that nation state to crumble. These heart-wrenching numbers do not even account for those injured who are homeless, the orphaned without food, water, shelter or any kind of medicine.

The losses extend well beyond Haitians. The United States also lost a dedicated public servant named Victoria DeLong, who was serving as cultural affairs officer at our Embassy in Port-au-Prince. Several more Americans have been killed and many more remain unaccounted for a week later. The United Nations, no stranger to dangerous and difficult missions, has suffered its single greatest loss of life in the history of the United Nations. Over 100 United Nations staffers and peacekeepers remain unaccounted for. The special representative for Haiti, Hedi Annibi, also lost his life.

On behalf of my colleagues in the Senate, I extend our heartfelt condolences to the friends and the families of those who lost their lives in Haiti. They should know they are in our thoughts and prayers every single minute of every day.

This earthquake has been called a disaster of epic proportions. When such a disaster strikes one of our neighbors, a country so close to many of us, our Nation responds, as have others. I applaud President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Administrator Shah for their immediate, robust, and coordinated efforts, which has truly been a whole-of- government response, utilizing resources, skills, expertise of our State Department, USAID, and the Defense Department. Secretary Gates deserves great commendation. Our forces in uniform that poured into the area on a moment's notice to help out, as they always do, deserve particular recognition in this effort. We have deployed thousands of troops to Haiti who are supporting operations at the Port-au-Prince airport, working to provide logistical support, open the port. The United States has sent an aircraft carrier with numerous helicopters to deliver aid to otherwise hard-to-reach places in and around Port-au- Prince, a hospital ship to provide lifesaving medical care, and urban search and rescue teams and doctors to help rescue those trapped and treat those who are injured.

In addition to manpower, the United States has pledged money and supplies, including water, ready-to-eat meals, and medicine to help those in need. This response has demonstrated the generosity and spirit of the American people, especially when it comes to helping others who are in desperate need, as clearly Haiti is. The American people have also responded, as we always do. It is a source of great pride to all of us to watch our fellow citizens, people whose names we will never know, the donations which they have given may not sound like much; but for people who have lost a job, lost a home, as I talked about a moment ago, during this economic crisis, to reach deep into these almost empty pockets to send that $1 or $5 or $10 to help out some family they will never know, some child they will never meet in a place

they may never go to, may never have known about before is, once again, a demonstration of the spirit and heart of our fellow citizens in the United States.

Aid agencies and NGOs have reported an outpouring of support as our fellow citizens have donated money, clothing, and supplies to hundreds of organizations that operate in Haiti today. These donations are absolutely critical at this time. At a time when we can't seem to decide on a bipartisan basis what day of the week it is, to watch President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush, two people who have been political opposites, have very different points of view, sitting down together as two former leaders of our Nation to head the effort to provide relief to Haiti is a demonstration of what we ought to be doing together here on occasions that affect our own citizenry. If two former combatants in the Presidential field can sit down and become a team in responding to a crisis in Haiti, it ought to be a lesson about what we need to be doing when it comes to our own crises here at home.

I commend President Clinton and President George W. Bush for their tremendous work. I commend President Bush's father, who joined with President Clinton back when the tsunami crisis hit Southeast Asia. The Bush family has always responded at times such as this. Both father and son deserve our thanks and commendation for what they have done. Of course, Bill Clinton has dedicated his post-Presidency period to a global initiative to help out every single day in places that are not the subject of news stories, as Haiti is. He, of course, deserves our expression of gratitude as well.

The international community has responded. Over 27 international search-and-rescue teams, with some 1,500 rescuers from around the world, are already on the ground in Port-au-Prince and neighboring communities, searching through the rubble to find those who may have survived. I know all of us sit in absolute stunned admiration for those who have survived 6 and 7 days, living in the midst of rubble, to be discovered alive and be extracted by rescue workers. Our only hope in these waning hours, is that we will find additional people who have somehow miraculously have survived this disaster.

It has been unbelievable. Relief workers, doctors, supplies have arrived from China, Israel, Iceland, Brazil, France, more countries than I can enumerate. The European Union has pledged over $\1/2\ billion in assistance already, and I suspect more will be forthcoming. Despite its own tragic losses, the United Nations has come to the rescue of the Haitian people. The United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti has responded heroically to this disaster, organizing supply convoys, conducting search-and-rescue missions, and providing security. On Saturday, the World Food Program fed 40,000 people. Within the next week or two, that number will increase to 2 million. Private organizations are also doing heroic and valued work, including the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, Save the Children, Partners in Health.

Let me say, particularly on Partners in Health, my great friend, Paul Farmer, who spent years in Haiti as he has in other nations working with HIV/AIDS and other issues, is there, as you might expect, in Haiti. I have spoken to him. He has many needs, as you might imagination. He needs orthopedic surgeons, trauma specialists, skilled nurses, supplies. My hope is, in these coming days, coming hours, we will be able to get those resources to him.

On the ground, the Obama administration and the international community are working as quickly as possible to distribute aid to those in need and to help clear the jam of supplies arriving in Port-au- Prince and Cape Haitian, in some cases, in the northern part of the country. It is critical that aid gets distributed beyond the immediate confines of the airport. Those who survived the quake are now trying to survive, once again, without food and water and medicine and shelter.

At the same time, we must work as quickly as possible to ensure that violence does not break out as people become desperate to survive, as one might expect under these circumstances. The people of Haiti are our neighbors, and it is our duty to help them weather this storm, as others are doing as well.

I strongly agree with Secretary Clinton who, during her trip to Haiti this past Saturday, affirmed to the Haitian people that ``we will be here today, tomorrow, and for the time ahead'' as well.

I wish to take a few minutes to describe what I believe needs to happen at this ``time ahead'' of us that Secretary Clinton referred to. These are not all the suggestions. I know many others are coming in, and we need to think about how we can intelligently respond to this. We can't do it all alone. We need help from the international community, obviously. But there are some steps we can take that I think would make some difference in all this. In order to do that, we must understand where Haiti was the day before the earthquake struck. Despite its location only a few hundred miles from the wealthiest Nation in the history of mankind, Haiti is one of the poorest nations on the face of this Earth. It ranks as the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, with 80 percent of the population living under the poverty lines of this hemisphere.

While recent years showed some positive trends in economic growth, the 2008 hurricanes devastated that country, causing widespread destruction and severely damaging the agriculture sector, upon which two-thirds of all Haitians depend. Remittances to Haiti represented more than twice the earnings from exports and accounted for one-quarter of the gross domestic product of that nation. Haiti has also one of the lowest life expectancies in the world. The average Haitian income is less than $1 a day. In terms of income, less than $1 a day.

Clearly, Haiti had a lot of ground to cover before this earthquake struck, and rebuilding Haiti is not going to be easy for anyone. Many have debated why Haiti remains so poor and what can be done to alleviate poverty, improve public health outcomes, and help that nation develop a sustainable and equitable way forward. This debate is all the more important and necessary as we move forward.

As the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and as an American who knows and cares about Haiti, having worked with the people of Haiti and its leaders for much of my career, I am committed to finding the best solutions to these vexing problems and to working in close coordination with the administration, the United Nations, and our neighbors in the region, including Brazil, Mexico, and others who are already there helping to rebuild Haiti.

I might mention, there are 400 physicians from the island of Cuba who are operating in Haiti today, down there trying to make a difference. Whatever thoughts people have about the Government of Cuba, the fact is, there are doctors there now from that nation that is only a few miles from the northern parts of Haiti who are now trying to save lives.

As we begin to transition from a rescue mission to a medium- and long-term recovery mission, we must think creatively and allocate resources to the most effective and efficient methods for sustainable reconstruction and development. We must find ways to make Haitian agriculture better equipped to feed the people of Haiti, and we must work to forgive Haitian debt.

In April of this past year, Haiti was added to the IMF and World Bank's list of what is called the Heavily Indebted Poor Country Initiative making them eligible for special assistance with debt relief. This is an auspicious start, and one we must build upon.

Public insecurity has long been a systemic problem, hampering economic growth. Therefore, it is critical we work with the Haitian authorities in that nation and others to build and reform the institutions to bolster the rule of law in Haiti that will be necessary to lift Haitians out of poverty, rebuild the country and attract and maintain foreign direct investment to jump-start that nation's economy.

Throughout this process, we must not get bogged down by old formulas and hardened ways of doing business as usual. We must think outside the box, as the expression goes, marshal the necessary resources and creativity of our friends in the region, and the Haitian people must devise and be a part of a medium- and long-term strategy for this effort.

To that end, Senator Lugar of Indiana, the former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I will be introducing legislation shortly that will help to speed Haiti's recovery by instructing the Secretary of the Treasury to work with other nations to totally relieve Haiti of their outstanding international debt, including the debt incurred through 2011. That ought to be something every nation agrees to do; in the absence of which, I do not know how you can ever talk about economic recovery if you are willing to require a country that does not even have a fully functioning government today to meet those obligations.

Additionally, our legislation will help to spur economic activity, which is absolutely essential if we are going to have any kind of recovery process. We will do so by promoting trade between the United States and Haiti and lifting restrictions that would be barriers to trade being able to flow between Haiti and the United States, putting people to work.

The Haitian people have endured immeasurable suffering in recent days, but their spirit is indomitable. On Sunday, countless ordinary Haitians came together to observe Mass amid the bleak ruins of Port-au- Prince. Their faith in each other and their future may have been tested, but it is far from broken. I stand committed--as I am sure our colleagues throughout this Chamber are as well--to working with them, our fellow citizens here at home, and the international community, not just today but in the weeks and months and even years ahead, to ensure that our commitment to helping Haiti recover is meaningful, sustainable, and rises to the great challenge we face.

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

I thank the majority leader for all of his help in trying to move this legislation forward. This comprehensive sanctions legislation would arm the administration with critical tools to apply additional pressure on the Iranian regime and disrupt its proliferation and terrorist activities at a pivotal time--a time when Iran's leaders continue to flaunt the will of the international community, trample on the rights of its own people, and threaten the national interests of the United States and our strongest allies, including Israel.

It is now clearer than ever that tougher sanctions must be a key element of our comprehensive Iran strategy going forward. My primary goal with this bill is to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability. That is why this measure passed the Senate Banking Committee unanimously in October, and I had hoped that we would be able to consider it in the Senate and move toward a conference with the House before we went out for the holidays. While I would have strongly preferred that, I recognize that given the delays on health care reform, we will not now have time to do that. I am also aware that the administration continues to have some concerns about how to create incentives in the bill for countries to cooperate more closely with U.S. efforts to impose tough new multilateral sanctions. I believe we have made some progress in our discussions of recent days, and I am grateful that the majority leader has indicated his willingness to move forward on the bill as soon as possible after we return.

Madam President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to mark the passing and honor the service of Marine CPL Xhacob LaTorre of Waterbury, CT.

Corporal LaTorre died this week of wounds he sustained from a roadside bomb while on patrol in Afghanistan's Helmand province. He would have celebrated his 22nd birthday last Saturday.

Corporal LaTorre graduated from Crosby High School where he was active in the ROTC program. A born leader, he joined the Marine Corps in 2005. He was on his third tour of duty, having served two tours in Iraq and was awarded a good conduct citation and a Purple Heart.

In his too short time, Corporal LaTorre proved himself as a soldier and a patriot. The bravery and dedication he showed as a marine, however, was just one side of his personality. To his friends and family, Xhacob will be remembered as an outgoing and energetic young man with a kind heart, a penchant for mischief, and an infectious sense of humor.

As a young boy, Xhacob earned pocket money by going from table to table at a restaurant, charming patrons and earning a dollar for each joke he told.

That young boy grew into a man of integrity and courage. His service and his sacrifice are a credit to his parents, Daniel and Nicole. I know how proud they are of him, and I hope they know that we grieve alongside them. They, along with Xhacob's wife, Frances, and his young son, Javier, are in our hearts.

It may seem at times a sad irony that our best and brightest young men and women are the ones who go into battle and sometimes do not come home, having given their lives in service to their country. But that is what keeps our Nation strong and free.

All of us in Connecticut and across America mourn the loss of CPL Xhacob LaTorre. And none of us will ever forget the debt of gratitude we owe to him and his family.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the attached articles.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I want to take a few minutes, if I may, this evening to speak about what this health care bill means to my constituents in Connecticut. I say to the Presiding Officer, the benefits to our States are very similar in many ways, but, obviously, we like to point out what this particularly means in our own respective jurisdictions that we represent.

But before doing so, I want to take a few minutes, if I could, because, again, tomorrow will be a short day, and then there are the votes, apparently, that we are going to have Thursday, and then we will be leaving the Senate for a number of weeks before we return in mid- January, and it might not be possible tomorrow or in the very early hours of Christmas Eve to say a special thanks to the people who work with our offices in this Chamber, both on the minority side and the majority side, who rarely get the kind of recognition they deserve.

I have tried periodically over the years to make sure that as to the consideration of every major bill we talk about the staff and what they have done. So I want to take a couple minutes and identify people with whom I have worked. This not an inclusive list. There are many more people who work for individual Senators who have done outstanding work. Our floor staff here, both on the majority side and the minority side, do a remarkable job and have great patience with all of us. I am very grateful to them, as well as for the jobs they perform.

I want to take a few minutes and recognize the people I have worked very closely with over the last--well, intensely--over the last almost year now on this issue.

Certainly in Senator Reid's office, the majority leader's office, Kate Leone, Carolyn Gluck, Jacqueline Lampert and Randy Devalk deserve a great deal of credit. All of us know them and how much they have been involved in this issue.

And for those of us who serve in our caucus, we have listened to Kate Leone on numerous occasions go over the details of these bills, answer the questions Members have raised about the importance of the legislation. So to the members of Senator Reid's staff--and, obviously, there are a lot more people in his office who deserve recognition--but I want to particularly recognize these four individuals with whom we have worked very closely.

Senator Kennedy, as we all know, was such a lion of this institution and cared so deeply about this issue. Over the years, he attracted some wonderful people to work with him, as he fought year in and year out to bring us to the moment we are about to enjoy; and that is, to see some national health care legislation adopted for the very first time.

Michael Myers had worked on this issue for a number of years for Senator Kennedy, and still is here working with Senator Harkin now as part of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

Mark Childress, again, worked for the majority leader, worked for Tom Daschle, has worked for others in this body, and has just done a fantastic job. He stayed on at my request and the request of Leader Reid to help us work on this issue. He was involved with the White House as well, and really understood the substance of this bill as well as the political navigation that was necessary to bring us to this moment.

I thank Pam Smith as well for her fine work for Senator Harkin. Jenelle Krishnamoorthy made a wonderful contribution. She worked closely with Senator Harkin, and I want to thank her. Connie Garner was responsible, for many years, working on the CLASS Act, which is a part of our bill. Portia Wu and David Bowen did a remarkable job. John McDonough and Topher Spiro, as well, are individuals who certainly made a significant contribution to our product her.

Senator Baucus's staff: Liz Fowler, Bill Dauster, Russ Sullivan, Cathy Koch, Yvette Fontenot, David Schwartz, Neleen Eisinger, Chris Dawe, Shawn Bishop, and Kelly Whitener--I want to thank them for their efforts as well.

Again, we could give separate remarks about each of these individuals and their contributions.

In my office, again, like others, I have been blessed with some wonderful people. Jim Fenton is my legislative director and has done a terrific job. Tamar Magarik Haro, who is sitting with me on the floor this evening--I know we are not supposed to recognize people other than Members--along with Jeremy Sharp, they have just done a wonderful, wonderful job, and I know all of my colleagues have gotten to know both of them because of their work.

Monica Feit, Joe Caldwell, Bryan DeAngelis, Andy Barr, Lia Lopez, Daniel Barlava, and Rachael Holt all have made wonderful contributions as well.

Senate legislative counsel, with special thanks to Bill Baird, who was present throughout the entire HELP Committee consideration, has gone way above and beyond. And legislative counsel never gets the kind of recognition they deserve.

They do a tremendous job in drafting the actual legislation. Once these ideas are developed, then they require legislative language to be written.

From the administration, Nancy Ann DeParle, whom all of us have gotten to know very well; Jeanne Lambrew--I

want to give a special thanks to Jeanne. She has been just incredible in terms of her encyclopedic knowledge of the issues, working very closely with our staffs. Again, individuals who may not be well known to the public, but when this bill becomes law, these are the individuals who deserve special credit for their tremendous work.

Mike Hash, Lauren Aronson, Secretary Sebelius, Kathleen Sebelius, who left the governorship of Kansas to come here to be head of the Health and Human Services agency and has done a magnificent job in her new capacity; Jim Messina, who worked with Max Baucus for years up here and has been the Deputy Chief of Staff at the White House and has done a tremendous job. Phil Schilliro and Shawn Maher both worked to represent the administration and their Legislative Affairs Office and they do a great job; Dana Singiser as well, for her work.

We will make this list available for the Record. I wanted to thank these individuals again for their fine work.

I wish to speak, if I can today, not in my capacity as a senior member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee nor in my capacity as one of the coauthors of the underlying legislation, but rather in my capacity, as I said at the outset, as a Senator representing 3.5 million residents of the State of Connecticut. Our neighboring State, my good friend and colleague, the Senator from New Hampshire, the Presiding Officer, represents New England.

If you travel my State, you will meet some of the world's most talented and dedicated health care professionals. You will tour some of the Nation's finest hospitals where patients get world-class treatment. But you will also hear some heartbreaking stories from people in my State who come from middle-class families who have lost everything-- their homes, their life's savings, their hope for the future--just because someone in their family got sick. They needed special care. You will meet hard-working men and women who have seen their insurance premiums skyrocket over the last decade from around $6,000 for a family of four to over $12,000 annually for that same family, and they wonder how much longer they will be able to continue to afford the coverage they have. You will meet small business owners facing an impossible choice between cutting off health care benefits to their employees or laying off those workers.

I have talked specifically about constituents of mine, small businesspeople who literally have been faced with that choice or who have had employees who dreaded having to leave the job they had because there were no health care benefits. They took reductions in pay because they just couldn't stay given the health conditions of their family. Having to leave a job they had for 20 years or more to find new work where there was health care coverage; leaving a job they loved for less pay because they weren't able to get that health care coverage--not because their employer didn't want to give it to them but because that small employer just could not afford to do so and stay in business. Even those who are healthy in my State, who have insurance, there is that worry as well.

What I have described is not an irrational fear they have that someone in their family will lose their job that provides the coverage as I just described, worrying about that child who may develop an illness not covered by their policies, or worrying about no matter how much they pay in premiums their insurance doesn't allow them to be sure of anything at all.

The residents of my State understand the status quo is no longer sustainable because the so-called status quo threatens the basic economic security of every family in my State, as it does across this country. They and their fellow Americans in all 50 States sent us here to take action, and it is action that we shall take.

When this bill becomes law, the people of my State will begin to reap the benefits right away. One in four of my constituents have high blood pressure. One in four teens suffers from diabetes in Connecticut. Today, insurance companies can use these preexisting conditions, along with many others, as an excuse to deny these people coverage. Immediately, young people in our State and across the country will be protected against these preexisting conditions to receive the coverage they need. Beginning 90 days after this bill becomes law, every uninsured resident of my State who has been denied coverage because of a preexisting condition will be able to find the affordable coverage they need to treat that condition.

Small businesses make up more than three and four businesses in the State of Connecticut, but today only one-half of them are able to offer health benefits to their workers. Beginning in 2010, next year, some 37,000 small businesses in my State, as well as others across the nation, will be eligible for tax credits to make those benefits more affordable. A 50-percent tax break, $40 billion in this bill, is provided specifically for that purpose: to assist the 37,000 small businesses in Connecticut, and others across the country, to get a tax credit, as much as 50 percent, to allow them to defer or reduce the cost of health insurance for their employees.

Small business owners throughout Connecticut have experienced persistent annual increases in premiums. In recent years--and this is true across the country, but certainly true in my State--it is not uncommon for small business owners to be told they have to pay 20 percent or more for the same insurance they had the previous year.

So the bill we are about to pass will empower the State insurance exchanges such as the one we will have in Connecticut in 2014 to deny insurers access to the exchange if they engage in consumer price gouging in the next few years. That is going to be critically important. For the more than half million seniors in Connecticut, this bill protects Medicare, keeping it solid into the future. Nearly 100,000 seniors in my State hit what is called the doughnut hole in the prescription drug benefit area, costing them an average of more than $4,000 annually.

This bill we are about to adopt takes the first critical step toward closing that doughnut hole, and Connecticut seniors should know that I and Chairman Baucus, along with majority leader Harry Reid, have committed to completing that job in conference, and we will do so.

Meanwhile, in Connecticut, seniors will see their Medicare premiums go down. They will see major improvements in the quality of care they receive, resulting in as many as 29,000 hospital readmissions being prevented. In my State of Connecticut, 3 in 10 Connecticut residents have not had a colorectal cancer screening.

One in six women over the age of 50 have not had a mammogram in the past 2 years. These are important screenings. They and other wellness programs will be provided at no cost to people in my State as well as others across the country. Beginning in 2011, seniors will be able to get a free annual checkup so they can stay well instead of simply receiving care when they get sick. That annual free checkup can make such a difference. I am a living example of that where--because under our health care plan, I can have a free medical checkup once a year. As a result of that, I discovered that I had prostate cancer, and what a difference that made to be able to discover that, to get through the surgery, and to know that I have a bright future ahead of me, not one that I would discover later on when the kind of surgery I received might have been worthless and pointless.

So these are the kinds of annual physicals Members of Congress get under our health care plans, and our fellow citizens ought to be able to as well, particularly our seniors.

In addition, there are some 255,000 Connecticut residents between the ages of 55 and 64 who will need home health services after they turn 65 because of an illness or an injury. These services, whether they involve installing a handicap shower or hiring a home health care aide, will help these older Americans live in their homes in dignity and with independence. But today these services are not always covered by Medicare or private insurance. Rather than having to impoverish themselves so they can qualify for Medicaid by transferring all of their wealth and assets to a family member or rely on the full-time help of loved ones, these seniors will be able to take advantage of a new voluntary program called the CLASS Act--authored by Senator Kennedy years ago and which is now a part of this bill--that will provide a cash

benefit to be used on these services and supports, totally paid for by the individual themselves. Not a nickel, not a penny of Federal money is in that program. It is totally based on the contribution that people make to that program.

So when I hear people talk about this as if it was some great robbery from the Federal Treasury, it doesn't involve the Federal Treasury at all. As the bill takes effect, the health insurance exchanges are set up and health insurance will become a buyer's market for people in my State as well. More than 350,000 Connecticut residents who today do not have insurance will finally have affordable options to choose from. Nearly a quarter of a million people in my State would be eligible for premium credits to help take care of the cost of insurance. That doesn't go into effect until 2014, but in 2010, next year, insurance companies will be prohibited from imposing lifetime caps on the amount of care you can receive.

Insurance companies will be prohibited next year from taking away your coverage, and they will be prohibited from discriminating based on gender or income in the year 2014. The insurance industry will be forced to spend more of your premium dollars on your health care, not on bureaucrats hired to come up with reasons to deny you the care you need. This is called the so-called medical loss ratios which require that resources be spent on patient care and needs of the policyholder rather than on profits or administrative costs.

The industry will also be required to offer an appeal if your claim is denied, and each State will set up its own independent appeals process to keep the industry honest. Next year the industry will be forced to provide more details about their policies so that you can shop for health insurance the same way you shop for anything else, armed with enough information to be a smart consumer.

All of these insurance items will take effect at least by 2014, many of them next year, as I have just mentioned.

It is not just consumers who will benefit. Connecticut's 15,000 physicians will also benefit. Today these physicians spend, on average, 140 hours and $68,000 every year just dealing with bureaucrats at the health insurance companies. Let me repeat that: 140 hours and roughly $68,000 every year just dealing with bureaucrats at the insurance companies. That is 2.1 million hours and $1 billion in costs overall, time and money wasted in my State alone. That is going to end.

This bill cuts down on bureaucratic redtape and needless paperwork. Doctors will be able to spend their time caring for patients, not fighting with the insurance industry. Meanwhile, more than 5,000 Connecticut primary care physicians will qualify for the new 5- to 10- percent payment bonus. That happens next year in 2010. New programs will incentivize many more young doctors to stay in primary care, which we all know is critically important.

Today, 9 percent of Connecticut residents can't access a primary care physician because there aren't enough doctors to go around. This bill makes an investment in our medical workforce and a $10 billion investment in community health centers and the National Health Service Corps, which begins taking effect immediately in 2010. It will be phased in over 5 years. That is going to expand dramatically the availability of patient care with our community health care system.

As more uninsured people gain coverage, Connecticut will no longer have to subsidize the $383 million it spends in uncompensated care our providers deliver each year--important at a time when my State is already, like every State--almost every State--in serious budget trouble.

I have just recited a long list of statistics showing how my State will benefit from this bill--in many instances, benefit immediately. Some will take a little longer, but many of these provisions go into effect in the next year. More important than any statistic will be what you will see when you tour my State, or any other State for that matter, after this bill takes effect--or more accurately, what you will not see. You will not see 100 people losing their insurance, their health insurance every single day, finding themselves cast into uncertainty and fear--100 people every day--that will no longer be the case. You will not see families paying an extra $1,100 a year in health insurance premiums, the so-called hidden tax paid by everyone with insurance as a result of the nearly 50 million uninsured Americans. You will not see seniors facing the loss of their Medicare benefits because overpayments to private insurance companies have rendered the program insolvent. You will not see parents laying awake at night praying that their child's cough goes away because they can't afford to take him or her to see a doctor. You will not see people losing their homes, their life's savings, losing their economic security, all because they got sick or a child or a spouse did. You will not see people dying, as 45,000 do every year in our country, because they couldn't afford access to the health care system.

So as a senior member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and a close and dear friend of our departed colleague, Senator Ted Kennedy, who led this fight for so long, it will be my honor--a deep honor indeed, one of the highest honors I would have had in the 30 years I have served here--to cast a vote in favor of this landmark legislation.

As one of two Senators whose job it is to look out for the people of my home State of Connecticut, supporting this bill is nothing short of my duty, and I intend to fulfill it with great pride at 8 a.m. on Christmas Eve. What better gift could I give to my folks at home than to cast my vote as 1 of 100 in this body for health care reform in our Nation, so long overdue, so long waited for. And on this Christmas Eve it will become an accomplished feat of the U.S. Senate.

With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, there were a number of other people I wished to mention. I will not go through the list of all the staff involved in this effort in the Senate. I am sure I would miss some people. It is a lengthy list of those who played such an important role. I was fearful I wouldn't have a chance between now and the actual vote on Thursday morning, Christmas Eve, to express my deep gratitude as one Member who benefited tremendously from the participation of my staff, two of whom are seated with me this evening. I know that is probably a violation of Senate rules to recognize them, but I want my constituents at home and the American public to know how many dedicated people there are whose names they never know, faces they will never see.

I ask unanimous consent that a list of staff be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, let me say this to the minority staff as well. While we have disagreed, and while they didn't vote for the bill, there are people I admire immensely on the minority staff. On our committee, there were wonderful suggestions and contributions that came from the Republican side of the aisle. While they didn't support the bill, I think they made it a better bill because of their contributions. I want to add their names as well. Mike Enzi of Wyoming, the ranking member--and I worked with every Republican minority member of the HELP Committee--offered amendments that were included. While they may not want to admit it or acknowledge it, they made a contribution to this bill that makes it stronger and a better piece of legislation. I add their names as well for their efforts.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4284, received from the House and at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements on the bill be printed in the Record, with no intervening action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to H. Con. Res. 206.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 386, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes in closing, if I may.

I spoke earlier this evening about the importance of the moment we have all come to appreciate, I believe, a moment that has been years in the making, dating back, as all have pointed out or most have pointed out who spoke in favor of this legislation, to the early part of the last century with Theodore Roosevelt, a former Republican, who first advocated the notion of a national health care system in our Nation. Franklin Roosevelt picked up that challenge, and Harry Truman, of course, was the one who articulated it in specific terms.

It was 69 years ago this very month that Franklin Roosevelt identified the four freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear. It is that last freedom that Franklin Roosevelt talked about in December of 1941 that is deserving of our attention in these closing minutes.

Whatever else one may argue about the specifics of this bill, it is that fear that so many of our fellow citizens have over whether they will be confronted with a health care crisis and have the resources to address it and the ability to have a doctor, a physician, a health care provider, a hospital to provide them with that kind of help when they need it. That fear is not just for those without health care; it is even for those who have health care insurance. That fear persists.

This evening, more than anything else, beyond the specifics of the legislation in front of us is our desire to address that freedom from fear that was addressed so eloquently almost 70 years ago. So this evening we attempt, anyway, to begin that journey of eliminating those fears so many of our fellow citizens have over the loss or inability to acquire that kind of health insurance or the inability to have a doctor.

So we are poised to make a monumental vote on legislation that finally makes access to quality health care a right for every American. If you do not believe it is a right, that it is only a privilege, then I suppose you could come to a different conclusion. And there are those, I guess, who believe it is a privilege to have access to health care as an American citizen. Those of us on this side of the aisle believe it is a right, and as a right, you ought not to be denied that right based on economic circumstances, your gender, or your ethnicity in this Nation. You ought to have access to health care as a fundamental right in our Nation.

Obviously, we need to participate, engage in responsible activities that will make sure we contribute to the well-being of all our Nation to reduce the cost of health care.

This is a comprehensive bill. It has been more than just a year specifically on this effort but goes back 40 or 50 years in terms of drafting, and efforts have been made to achieve what we are trying to achieve this evening.

At the end of the day, however, this legislation is really about freedom from fear, as I said a moment ago. The bill frees Americans from the fear that if they lose their job, they will never find insurance coverage again. The bill frees Americans from the fear that they might get sick and be unable to afford the treatment they need. And the bill frees Americans from the fear that one illness, one accident could cost them everything they built--their homes, their retirement, their life savings.

In a nation founded on freedom and sustained by unimaginable prosperity, as I mentioned before, this bill is long overdue and critically important. No American can be free from fear when getting sick could mean going broke.

This fight is older than most of us who serve in this body. Our path has been illuminated by a torch lit years ago in the days of Harry Truman and sustained for decades by good people, Republicans and Democrats--the Nixon administration, the Clinton administration, Members such as John Chafee, who worked tirelessly in trying to craft a good health care bill. We heard others talk about the regrets they had not acknowledging his ideas when he proposed them or we might have been able to address this issue years ago. Good people have tried to come up with some answers to this issue. It is with a note of sadness this evening that we are going to have a partisan vote on this matter. I wish it was otherwise.

I would like to point out that many of us have fought and challenged us to come up with these answers, but tonight this is our answer, the 60 of us who will vote to go forward with this bill. As Senator Harkin just pointed out, it is hardly the final answer on this matter, but it allows us to begin that process of addressing these issues in a more thoughtful and comprehensive way in the years ahead.

Of course, no one was a better champion of all of this, as Senator Harkin pointed out, than our deceased and beloved colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Ted Kennedy. He fought these battles for so many years. He understood that you could never solve all of these issues in one fell swoop. It was going to take an incremental approach to get us there.

I can guarantee that if he read this bill, there would be disappointments he would have in it. I knew him well enough to say that this evening. If he had written it on his own, he would have written it differently. Were he here among us this evening, he would urge all of us to move forward on this bill to address it, to vote for it, to allow this Nation to begin to grapple with this issue that should have been solved more than 50 years ago.

So this evening, again, as we come down to the final minutes of this debate, let's remind ourselves that history will judge us well for taking up this challenge once again and asking ourselves to give Americans the opportunity to live free from those fears they have this very evening. And tonight, we begin to alleviate those fears.

I urge my colleagues to support this effort.

I yield the floor.