Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 113 submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:15 a.m., Wednesday, March 21; that on Wednesday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the Senate then resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 21, as provided for under a previous order.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate today, and if the Republican leader has nothing further, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise today to support the Improving America Security Act of 2007, the legislation in front of us. It will put us on a path of more security for the future by implementing the unfinished recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. I commend all of those involved in this important effort.

As I came to speak on the floor in support of the legislation we have been working on for the last couple of weeks, I find myself needing to express great concern about the place in which we find ourselves at this point--unable to move forward with the final bill and the relevant 9/11 Commission amendments that have been offered because of an effort by the Senate Republican leader to offer a wide-ranging number of unrelated amendments to this bill. So we find ourselves now stopped and waiting to figure out a way to resolve this effort.

The families who lost loved ones 5\1/2\ years ago have been waiting for the Congress to act. The 9/11 Commission report was released. After it was released, I assumed we would immediately take that document and begin to move forward aggressively because we all want safety for our families. We all live in America, and we are all concerned about vulnerabilities and risks and what we need to be able to do to keep our families safe and the country safe.

Unfortunately, things did not move under the former Congresses. We now find ourselves in a situation where, again, we are stalled because of a set of unrelated issues that have come up. I wish to share for the Record the deep concern of family members who lost loved ones on 9/11 and who have written a letter to the distinguished Republican leader of the Senate. I think it expresses their grave concern about where we are right now. They are calling on us to move forward and act.

This reads:

Dear Senator McConnell: As family members who lost loved

ones on 9/11, we support full implementation of the 9/11

Commission recommendations. We are writing out of grave

concern that your recent introduction of highly provocative,

irrelevant amendments will jeopardize the passage of S. 4. It

is inconceivable that anyone in good conscience would

consider hindering implementation of the 9/11 Commission

recommendations, delaying much-needed homeland security

improvements. We strongly disagree with these divisive

procedural tactics.

Just as the Iraq war deserves separate debate, so do each

of the amendments you offered. S. 4 should be a clean bill

and debate should conclude this week with a straight up and

down vote. Each day that passes without implementation of the

remaining 9/11 Commission recommendations, the safety and

security of our nation is at risk.

Tactics such as those you are contemplating, which endanger

the 9/11 bill, send a signal to America that your priority is

partisan politics, not protecting America against terrorism.

Both parties must work together to pass this critical

legislation.

We, the undersigned, understand all too well the risk of

failure to secure our nation.

Respectfully,

Carol Ashley,

Mother of Janice, 25, Member, Voices of September 11th.

Mary Fetchet,

Mother of Brad, 24, Founding Director and President, Voices

of September 11th.

Beverly Eckert,

Widow of Sean Rooney, 50, Member, Families of September 11.

Carie Lemack,

Daughter of Judy Larocque, 50, Co-founder and President,

Families of September 11.

We know the job that needs to get done. I commend our Senate majority leader for making the wise determination, out of respect for these families, not to proceed with amendments relating to Iraq, which we all care deeply about. We want to have that debate on the policies and support for our troops and future direction as it relates to Iraq.

But the distinguished majority leader made the determination not to proceed on this bill because the families, the communities, and the country have waited too long for it to pass. So I think it is very unfortunate that we have had to get to this point, but it is very important that we pass a bill of tremendous significance.

I commend Chairman Lieberman and all of the members of the committee for their leadership. I commend particularly Senator Lieberman for his conviction to bring these issues to the Senate and for hanging in there and trying to get this done. The 9/11 Commission did a great service to our country by asking tough questions about the 9/11 attacks and then making recommendations to keep us safe in the future. The 9/11 Commission not only gave a detailed explanation of how the attacks happened but also gave Congress and the administration detailed recommendations in how to fix our vulnerabilities and prevent future attacks. For that, we are grateful for their service.

In December 2005, a group led by former members of the 9/11 Commission released a report card that overwhelmingly gave the administration and Congress failing grades for their poor implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. This legislation is intended to change those failing grades to passing grades and to make us more secure.

The members of the commission gave the Government a D for improving checked bag and cargo screening. This bill requires all cargo and passenger aircraft to be screened and dedicates funding for the screening of checked baggage.

The Government also received Ds for creating incentives for information sharing and increasing Government-wide information sharing. This legislation makes several changes to information and intelligence sharing urged by the Commission. The bill establishes incentives for Government-wide information sharing and makes permanent the information sharing environment program, which will expire next month. The bill also creates the Interagency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group, which will facilitate the production and dissemination of Federal intelligence products to other Federal agencies and to State, local, and tribal governments.

The former Commissioners gave the Government another D for the lack of progress on intelligence oversight reform. However, the days of Congress giving President Bush a free pass are over, and this legislation increases Congress's oversight of the intelligence community and gives the intelligence community greater freedom to submit information to Congress, without approval by an executive branch officer.

One appalling lack of progress has been in the area of first responder communications interoperability. The 9/11 Commissioners gave the Government an F for failing to provide an adequate radio spectrum for first responders. This lack of progress is appalling to me because of the shortcomings the Commission identified in this area.

The 9/11 Commission report outlined the numerous communications problems first responders have had as they have tried to save lives. The report detailed the problem the police officers and firefighters in New York faced because they were on different radio systems. Over 50 different public safety organizations from Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia reported to the Pentagon to help, but they could not talk to each other.

The 9/11 Commission concluded that:

The inability to communicate was a critical element at the

World Trade Center, Pentagon, and Somerset County,

Pennsylvania, crash site where multiple agencies and multiple

jurisdictions responded. The occurrence of this problem at 3

very different sites is strong evidence that compatible and

adequate communications among public safety organizations at

the local, State, and Federal levels remains an important

problem.

The 9/11 Commission published its final report in July 2004, but the men and women in the first responder community knew of the communications difficulties before 9/11.

Not long after 9/11, I traveled around Michigan and held a number of different townhall meetings. Over and over again, I heard the same thing from our police officers and firefighters, our emergency responders. In the 5 years since the September 11 attacks, one of the top requests for support I receive every year from the communities in Michigan is for interoperable communications equipment. Nearly every time I meet with police and firefighters and emergency medical personnel, they bring up this issue.

The 9/11 Commission is not alone in the assessment of this problem. In June of 2004, a U.S. Conference of Mayors survey found that 94 percent of cities didn't have interoperable capabilities between police and firefighters and emergency workers; 60 percent of cities didn't have interoperable capability with the State emergency operation center in their State.

It has been over 5 years and we now are seeing this come forward in this important bill. I commend everybody involved in this legislation for putting in the first grant program for interoperability. This is a program that would be dedicated to improving communications between our first responders and would authorize $3.3 billion over the next 5 years to begin to get this right.

Our committee that has brought this forward has done an excellent job of presenting a package for us of which we can all be proud. It is a bipartisan effort. I hope we are going to see us move beyond this stalemate able to get the job done. The people of my State, and each of our States, are counting on us, and certainly the families who have suffered such a grave loss in the attacks on our country are counting on us to focus on the job in front of us and get it done.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, on December 23, 1783, George Washington, having successfully led the Continental Army to victory in the Revolutionary War, appeared before the Continental Congress and resigned his commission as commander of the Armed Forces.

It was a quietly pivotal action in the history of our young country, an event so important in shaping the Nation that it is one of only eight moments in our history deemed worthy enough of gracing the walls of the Capitol rotunda.

A painting of Washington's historic act hangs not far from this Chamber alongside more well known moments in American history such as the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the Battle of Bunker Hill.

The precedent that Washington set on that December day was as revolutionary as it was clear: In the United States of America, the power to make and execute war will be held not by the military but instead by peacefully elected leaders sitting in a legislative body.

Washington understood that the will of the people--the will of the American people--shall be the guiding hand of government, even on questions of war and peace.

I wonder how President Washington would feel, I wonder what he would say to each of us today. First, I think he would be very proud of what has happened this afternoon in the House of Representatives, where they came together, after lengthy debate, to state their opinions about the most pressing issue of war, the war in Iraq. I am very proud that we saw the House of Representatives vote 246 to 182 to say, first, that they support the troops and, secondly, that they do not support the escalation of the war in Iraq.

Regardless of how each person voted today in the House, they took that vote. They were willing to stand up and be counted and give their opinion. I believe the majority of the American people--and their will, their belief--was represented in this vote today of 246 to 182.

What has happened in the Senate? Well, first of all, I commend our majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, for his perseverance, for his continuing effort to reach across the aisle with the minority leader to find a way to do the same thing the House has done. He has put forward numerous proposals, and, as late as yesterday, very simply and in a straightforward way, offerred us the opportunity to vote on a resolution opposing the escalation and one that supports the President's escalation. What could be more fair? What could be simpler? Yet we continue to see the minority block the efforts to bring us to a vote.

For over 2 weeks now, I have watched the Republican leadership engage in legislative games and political posturing to avoid taking a vote on the most pressing issue of our time, the war in Iraq. They say they support it, but they will not vote on a resolution, up or down, whether or not to support the President's escalation. I believe it is because they do not like what they know the outcome will be if we are able to have that vote. They have turned their backs on their responsibility to the people who elected them and to our troops because they may lose a vote.

Four years ago, 23 of us stood on the floor of the Senate and lost a vote. It was a vote to go to war. It was a vote to give the President the authority to go to war in Iraq. It was a tough vote. We knew we were not going to win that vote, but we all--those for and against-- made a determination and voted because we are elected officials, charged with overseeing the U.S. Armed Forces, and we had a responsibility to voice our opinions for the record on the question of war.

I have stood on the floor of the Senate time and time again to voice my opposition to this President's proposals of escalation--more of the same, calling it a different strategy, and yet doing the same thing over and over again. Sending more Americans into combat without a strategy for success will not improve the situation on the ground in Iraq. And it will not bring our men and women in uniform home any sooner.

Only the Iraqis can secure Iraq. Only the Iraqis can secure Iraq. We have heard that from generals and military experts and the Iraq Study Group and learned colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The American troops cannot be seen as a substitute for Iraqi resolve. Why would we go further down the path that has led us to this point? Why would we repeat our previous mistakes and call it a new strategy?

Unlike the President, all of us and our counterparts in the House will go home over recess and on weekends and face our constituents, our neighbors. We see them and talk to them at church, in the line at the bank, at our kids' schools, in the grocery store, and at countless events and meetings as we travel throughout our States.

And we are here because they elected us to be their voice.

This is not Washington, DC's, war. We may set policy here, we may make speeches here, and we may take votes here, this is America's war.

The men and women putting their lives on the line in Iraq every day are from our smallest neighborhoods and our biggest cities, from farm communities and factory towns, from places many of us have never heard of and few of us will ever go. Flint, Howell, West Branch, Hemlock, La Salle, Port Huron, Ypsilanti, Muskegon, Ann Arbor, Byron, Flushing, Bay City, Canton, Paw Paw, Lake Orion, Saginaw, Sand Creek--these are only some of the dozens of communities in my home State of Michigan that have given up a son or a daughter to this war.

We sit in this historic Capitol and argue over whether we should dignify this war with a simple vote, while these and other communities across the country bury their loved ones, while high schools hold vigils for alumni laid to rest too young, while churches comfort parishioners who have lost sons and daughters and husbands and wives and fathers and mothers.

We are the voice of these communities, of these towns and cities and counties. We were elected with their sacred trust to come here, to Washington, and to speak out for them, to make our mark for them on the issues that face this country. There can be nothing more important than the issue of war.

By continuing to stonewall a vote on this resolution, the Republican minority has stripped all of America of their voice in this debate. They have said to the people who elected us that this issue--the issue of an escalation of war--is not important enough for their elected representatives to consider.

Too often in the white noise of politics we lose sight of the responsibility we bear. We get bogged down in the politics of partisanship and lose sight of why we were elected. We owe it to the American people to take this vote. This is the most serious issue of our time. There is nothing more important or more pressing than our Nation being at war. It is the responsibility of the Congress to engage in shaping policy concerning the war on behalf of the American people.

Let me take a few moments to remind everyone what is really at stake. While some posture and jockey for legislative position, lives are on the line this moment and every moment the war goes forward. It doesn't matter if you support or oppose the war. Anyone involved in slowing a vote on this resolution should be ashamed. Our military has not failed us at any turn in this endeavor. But we are failing them as a body by failing to lead. What is at stake?

On January 21, the Grand Rapids Press published the following account on the war in Iraq:

The first roadside bomb four months ago knocked a front

tire off Kyle Earl's Humvee, rang his head like a bell and

made his ears bleed.

The second bomb a couple of weeks later blew out the front

tires and took out the transmission but, again, spared Earl

serious injury.

The third one, on Oct. 17, was his last.

With the headlights out for security and wearing night-

vision goggles, the 20-year-old Marine lance corporal from

Cedar Springs was driving the lead Humvee returning from a

night patrol in Iraq's Al Anbar province near the border with

Syria. He and a Marine manning the Humvee's machine gun saw

it at the same time: a hump in the road ahead, a sure sign of

a buried improvised explosive device (IED).

Earl instantly made the calculation: If he swerved, the

trailing Humvee carrying the company commander would hit the

IED, so ``I drove right into it, knowing it was probably

going to kill me,'' he said.

He ran over the hump, igniting three 155-mm artillery

shells and five propane tanks. The flash, amplified by the

night-vision goggles, was brighter than anything he'd ever

seen. A fireball shot through the cab, and shrapnel pierced

his right leg, arm and face. The shock wave felt like someone

had placed him inside a plastic bag and sucked out all the

air.

Still, he remained conscious, as the Humvee rolled off the

road and came to a stop. Blood streamed from his eyes, ears

and nose. He reached for his 9 mm handgun, but noticed

something about the size of his palm on it. He picked it up

and examined it, unaware it was a chunk of his flesh, ripped

from his right forearm.

He smelled something burning and realized he and the Humvee

were on fire. He rolled out onto the ground as his fellow

Marines kicked him to extinguish the flames.

We are here because of that lance corporal. He and his comrades, the men and women serving, deserve our best--our best judgment, our best decisions, our best funding, our best strategy for them.

On November 16, 2006, the Detroit Free Press gave us this insight into life on the ground in Iraq:

``A few days ago, from out of a crowd of kids, one of them

threw a grenade and it went off under the vehicle, and my

executive officer's door was peppered,'' said Lance Cpl.

Michael Rossi, a 28-year-old student majoring in urban

planning at Wayne State University who lives in Detroit. ``A

crowd of kids, and one of them threw a grenade.''

``Out here,'' he said, ``nobody is safe.''

On January 5, the editorial page of the Flint Journal paid its respects to one of Flint's fallen sons:

It's touching and laudable that the father of Marine Cpl

Christopher Esckelson would want the family of a fellow

Marine to understand the full heroics these men displayed in

Iraq combat that claimed both their lives.

They are among more than a dozen local military men whom

the Iraq war has claimed, with each succeeding loss being no

less painful to an area that has supplied an ample measure of

these patriots.

Of course, the grief is much greater for the families who

knew the men in so many other wonderful ways. Those memories

undoubtedly will be recalled during services for Miller and

Esckelson Saturday and Sunday, respectively.

All of us have stories of the men and women who have served heroically and lost their lives, men and women who have come home and need our assistance now as veterans while in our hospitals and will forever carry a remembrance of this war through lost limbs and other health conditions. They deserve a vote on whether we believe this strategy for them and their colleagues is the right strategy. They deserve this. They expect us to stand up and speak out and work as hard as we can to get it right.

Too often on the floor of this Chamber and too often in politics, we use words such as ``bravery'' and ``toughness'' and resolve.'' We describe votes as ``tough.'' We describe speeches as ``brave.'' The men and women serving in combat know the real meaning of these words. They go about their dangerous duty with the pride of professionals. They live and work under the shadow of violence, never knowing what might be facing them around the next corner, and they do it with stoic resolve that reflects their character and their training. They do not have the luxury of picking and choosing when and where to fight. They go where their country sends them and stand shoulder to shoulder with their brothers and sisters in arms and face whatever is thrown at them. What we consider heroic, they consider doing their job.

Their sacrifices deserve and demand leadership, our leadership, collectively. We owe to it them and to every person we were elected to represent to vote on this resolution, to take a stand about how this war will proceed. It is our job. It is time to stop stalling and face our responsibility, a responsibility that pales in comparison to that which is taken every day by our troops in Iraq.

I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the continued obstructionism in the Senate, led by our Republican colleagues, concerning the vote on supporting or opposing the President's escalation of the war in Iraq.

For 2 weeks our distinguished majority leader has been trying to get an agreement to just proceed to a fair debate, to just have the opportunity on the floor of the Senate to have a debate on whether we support the President's escalation of the war in Iraq. He has offered an up-or-down vote on two different proposals--one opposing the escalation, the second supporting it. At every turn he has been stymied.

Our Republican minority claims they want to debate the war in Iraq, but they have done everything they can to obstruct the debate. I would like to go through some of the history of this obstructionism. Since the first of the year, Republicans have rejected at least three different compromises that would have allowed the Senate to move forward with a vote on the escalation of the war in Iraq. In an effort to obtain an up-or-down vote on the bipartisan resolution disapproving the President's plan, Senate Democrats offered to schedule an up-or- down vote on the McCain-Graham resolution supporting the President's plan. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership rejected this offer on what they claimed to support.

Then we, as Senate Democrats, offered the Republican leadership up- or-down votes on two other resolutions--the Gregg resolution and a resolution stating simply that the Senate does not support the surge and demands that the troops deploying to Iraq receive the body armor and other equipment they need. The Republican leadership again rejected the offer.

Finally, Senate Democrats offered to allow votes on the bipartisan resolution and the McCain-Gramm resolution that would each have required a supermajority of 60 votes. The Republican leadership again said no.

The pattern of obstruction has, unfortunately, continued. On February 5, all but two Republican Senators opted to block a debate, including the distinguished author of the resolution--chose to block debate on whether we support the President's escalation plan. The reaction across the country was echoed in numerous newspaper headlines.

The Washington Post:

GOP Stalls Debate On Troops Increase.

The Washington Times:

Senate GOP Blocked Iraq Resolution.

The New York Times:

GOP Senators Block Debate On Iraq Policy.

USA Today:

Vote On Iraq Is Blocked By The GOP.

Denver Post:

GOP Blocks Iraq Debate.

Mr. President, I rise this evening being greatly disturbed by what happened on the floor of the Senate, after a tremendous amount of good-faith effort and very hard work by our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, bringing together a resolution to offer to this body for a debate, for a full debate on the question of escalating the war in Iraq. What we have seen from the minority is a filibuster that has stopped us from even proceeding--from even proceeding to be able to take up the resolution.

Our majority leader offered to take up other resolutions, some contradicting the one that we wished to have brought forward, to have equally debated resolutions, the same amount of time, the same amount of votes that are needed in order to be able to bring forward the resolutions and possibly pass them.

Every effort by the majority leader was turned down. Every time he brought up a possible solution to be able to bring forward these resolutions and have a full debate, which the American people are demanding that we do, he was told ``no.'' No, no, no. So we are now in a situation where the minority has voted down the ability for us to even go to a resolution or multiple resolutions dealing with the issue of Iraq, which we are all so deeply concerned about.

Right now it is after midnight in Baghdad, and we have over 130,000 American troops who are settled in for another long night half a world away from home. They are living, working, fighting in the most difficult conditions anyone can imagine. They are patrolling crowded streets. They are standing guard on lonely posts. They are reaching out to Iraqi citizens and putting themselves constantly in harm's way to protect their fellow soldiers. They are there because their Government called them. They come from every corner of this great Nation. They represent every color, creed, religion, and political voice in this country.

I have been to Iraq--many of us have--and I have talked to our men and women in the field and they are the best this country has to offer. For our entire history, they have answered when called. They have gone where we sent them. They have fought when we have asked them to do so. They have dedicated their lives to preparing for wars they did not want, and when asked, they have executed their training with pride, bravery, and an unwavering spirit.

We are blessed this evening to sleep under the blanket of freedom they provide. And no one--no one in this Chamber--is questioning the job they are doing. We are all patriots in this debate--all of us--with differing views, strongly held views about the best way to move forward. We are all patriots.

I have listened intently over the past weeks, and I have heard colleagues and representatives of the administration state time and again that those of us questioning the President are somehow undermining the morale of our troops. I find that insulting, not only to me and to my colleagues who care deeply about this and who have worked together in a bipartisan way to bring forward this resolution but to our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, and marines. Open and honest debate about the execution of this war is not only what our armed services expect, it is what they deserve. Our citizen soldiers demand our best, and our best is not idle silence. Our best is not a filibuster that stops a resolution from even coming to the floor so that we can have an open, honest debate about it. Our citizen soldiers are on the frontlines. In this Chamber, we use words, but those words have real-world consequences, and no one lives those consequences more than our troops on the ground. Debate in a democracy does not undermine the morale or the will of our armed services. The lack of a clear, measurable, and achievable mission does undermine what they are doing. That is what we are all wanting to see happen. That is what we want to see developed for them.

They need to know that their leaders have based their orders on reason, not on wishful thinking and on a misguided adherence to a failed strategy. They need to know that their leaders have sensibly considered all of the options available and that those considerations are grounded in fact, not in rhetoric or posturing.

On October 11, 2002, 23 of us in the Senate cast a lonely vote against this White House effort to go to war because the evidence was not clear enough--it just wasn't there--to warrant going to war. I cast that vote because I believed that the pretense for war was based not in definable evidence but on predetermined conclusions. War is a tool of last resort, a decision that should be made with great trepidation when our country is at risk and other options have been exhausted.

From day one, the reasoning for this war has been unclear and inconsistent, from the initial lack of preparedness for securing Baghdad to the most recent call for escalation. We have seen a strategy based on the best-case scenario calculations of politicians, not on the wholly realistic conclusions of career military officers. Mistakes have been made at every turn, and 4 years and over 3,000 American lives later and hundreds of thousands of lost lives and injuries of Iraqis, we are still paying the price.

Some have insisted this resolution is a ploy to embarrass the President. This is clearly not our goal. This is not a discussion about politics. It is a debate about policy. Any soldier will tell you there are no politics in a foxhole. The American people, Republicans and Democrats, are asking us to look long and hard at what we are doing in Iraq. We were not elected to stand silently by while our fellow citizens demand answers.

We can't even have a full debate because of the vote that happened. The American people are asking us not only to debate but to come to the right answers, the responsible answers for the direction and strategy in Iraq. Our soldiers deserve that, and we have in front of us a resolution that we couldn't even get enough votes to bring up to discuss, to debate it fully and have a vote. I believe the simple fact is very clear that escalation is not the answer, and I want the opportunity to vote on that, to say that on behalf of the people of Michigan. Putting more Americans in harm's way will not bring our men and women home any sooner. Why would we go further down the path that has led us to this point? Why would we repeat our previous mistakes and call it a new strategy?

A free and stable Iraq can only be secured by the Iraqis. They must embrace responsibility for their collective future and decide that living and dying at the hands of sectarian violence is not the future they want for their children and their grandchildren. We must support their efforts--and I do--but we cannot substitute American troops for Iraqi resolve. With the freedom of self-determination comes the responsibility of collective security.

We must continue to train our friends in Iraq. We must equip them and provide sensible military support based on the advice of our generals and military experts. We must lead them by example, by embracing the realities of our own democratic process as we attempt to collectively solve the challenges in the war in Iraq. How can we be talking to them about the democratic process when that process is stopped right here in the Senate in the ability to openly debate and vote on the resolution?

I stand in support of the Warner-Levin resolution and to say that escalation is a grave mistake. I am certain when judged by our fellow Americans, the votes that many Members will cast, if we have the opportunity to do so, to say ``enough is enough'' to this White House will be greeted with sober support.

With heaviness in my heart, I am also sadly confident that when judged by history, those who have questioned the reasoning and the execution of this war will have our concerns justified.

We can't change how we got here. We can't change the fact we are in Iraq. That chapter of history is written, set in stone, and paid for with the lives of Americans and Iraqis, and the lives of many other individuals around the world. However, we can learn from the path we have walked. We have the ability to reassess and to change course, to get it right, to put forward our collective best wisdom from everyone who has been involved. On behalf of our soldiers, they deserve that. They deserve a full debate in the Senate, to be able to state our positions on policy, on policy that right now at this moment they are carrying out in Iraq. They deserve the very best debate and very best decisions.

That is what this is about. That is what we were hoping to get tonight, the opportunity to go forward, to work together in a bipartisan way to put forward a statement that says we believe there is a better way, a better strategy than what the President has begun to execute.

I hope we will have an opportunity to vote on this resolution. I welcome other resolutions that colleagues have put forward in good faith. I may not agree with them--and that is all right; that is how the process works--but they deserve debate just as our resolutions deserve debate.

In Iraq, we are talking about their setting up a democracy, the ability to fully debate and participate in their government. We need to show by example that we are not afraid of debate, of involvement, we are not afraid to stand and say what we think and put our own vote and opinions on the line on something so critical to the future of our country, most particularly to our men and women in the armed services and their families, and, frankly, to the world.

We need the opportunity to vote. We need the opportunity to debate. The American people are calling on the Senate to do nothing less. Tonight was not an example of our listening.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lester Nichols Presque Isle Light Station Act of 2007.

The Presque Isle Light Station Act requires the return of the historic third order Fresnel lens to the lighthouse in Presque Isle, MI. The lens was removed four years ago for restoration work, but now it is time to replace it and preserve the historic integrity of the beautiful Presque Isle lighthouse.

Michigan has more lighthouses than any other State. Not only are these historic structures symbolic of our maritime heritage, they are the heart of Michigan's coastal communities. Lighthouses are a key part of the tourist economy of many small Michigan towns, and the historic character of our lighthouses brings tourists from all over the country. So it is imperative that we protect, restore, and preserve the Presque Isle lighthouse and all of Michigan's 120 lighthouses.

I am pleased to introduce this legislation with Senator Levin. In the House of Representatives, Congressman Stupak is the sponsor of a companion bill. So the Michigan delegation is united in our resolve to restore the Fresnel lens to the Presque Isle lighthouse for the enjoyment and education of future generations.

Finally, I want to say a word about the man for whom we have named this bill: Lester Nichols. Without Les Nichols' dedication we would never have been able to restore Presque Isle's Fresnel lens. Last fall, Les lost his courageous battle against cancer. He was a pillar of his community. He was passionate about the Presque Isle lighthouse and he will be truly missed. Naming this bill for him is the least we can do to show our gratitude for all of his work. And I hope that we will soon be able to put the Fresnel lens back in the lighthouse and give Les the victory that he so wanted to see.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lester Nichols Presque Isle Light Station Act of 2007.

The Presque Isle Light Station Act requires the return of the historic third order Fresnel lens to the lighthouse in Presque Isle, MI. The lens was removed four years ago for restoration work, but now it is time to replace it and preserve the historic integrity of the beautiful Presque Isle lighthouse.

Michigan has more lighthouses than any other State. Not only are these historic structures symbolic of our maritime heritage, they are the heart of Michigan's coastal communities. Lighthouses are a key part of the tourist economy of many small Michigan towns, and the historic character of our lighthouses brings tourists from all over the country. So it is imperative that we protect, restore, and preserve the Presque Isle lighthouse and all of Michigan's 120 lighthouses.

I am pleased to introduce this legislation with Senator Levin. In the House of Representatives, Congressman Stupak is the sponsor of a companion bill. So the Michigan delegation is united in our resolve to restore the Fresnel lens to the Presque Isle lighthouse for the enjoyment and education of future generations.

Finally, I want to say a word about the man for whom we have named this bill: Lester Nichols. Without Les Nichols' dedication we would never have been able to restore Presque Isle's Fresnel lens. Last fall, Les lost his courageous battle against cancer. He was a pillar of his community. He was passionate about the Presque Isle lighthouse and he will be truly missed. Naming this bill for him is the least we can do to show our gratitude for all of his work. And I hope that we will soon be able to put the Fresnel lens back in the lighthouse and give Les the victory that he so wanted to see.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a very important Federal program that helps hundreds of thousands of Michigan families and millions of Americans across the country. The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP, is critically important for families and seniors who struggle to pay high energy bills to heat their homes in the winter and cool their homes in the summer. Without LIHEAP, many of these households would be forced to make the impossible choice between paying for energy or paying for food and medicine.

Today is the National Fuel Funds Network's Washington Action Day for LIHEAP and folks from many different States will be walking the Halls of Congress to make sure we know how important it is to fully fund

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan be recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes, to be followed by Senator Martinez for up to 5 minutes, and then the Senate resume consideration of the Ensign amendment No. 154; that the time for those statements last until 12:20, to be equally divided and controlled by Senators Ensign and Stabenow; that at 12:20, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Ensign amendment; provided further that no second- degree amendment be in order prior to the vote.

Mr. President, not seeing the sponsor of the Ensign amendment in the Chamber, I will proceed to speak on his amendment. I am sure he will be coming to the floor at some point, but I wish to proceed at this point to speak about this amendment because I have great concern about the approach put forward in the Ensign amendment.

My colleague from North Dakota spoke a few moments ago about the challenge we face as it relates to a global economy and whether in America we are going to have an American strategy for everyone to do well, to keep our middle class, to keep opportunity for people who want to work hard to move into the middle class.

This amendment, I believe, falls into that broad category of where are we going to create opportunity; how are we going to make sure everybody has the opportunity to have health care as part of that great American dream.

What I see happening overall is a strategy that has been put in place right now that certainly I do not support and I believe the majority of people in the majority in the Senate do not support. This basically creates a race to the bottom saying to workers: If you only work for less, pay more in health care, and lose your pension, we can be successful. We all know that is a losing strategy because there is always going to be somebody in another country who can work for less, who will work for less.

What we want to do is trade in a global economy, create an opportunity for other countries to move up to our standard of living-- fair trade, addressing health care in a way that moves it off business but creates health care for everyone, investing in education, innovation, and opportunity and that great American engine.

I say that as a backdrop because, unfortunately, this amendment on HSAs, health savings accounts, moves us in the opposite direction. Senator Ensign's proposal would spend an additional $8 billion on health savings accounts. There is no good evidence that HSAs are successful at expanding coverage or controlling costs. In fact, many believe that HSAs may do the opposite. They make health care coverage less affordable for those who really need it, encouraging healthy people to leave comprehensive health care and go to these kinds of high-deductible plans.

This amendment would permit individually purchased high-deductible policies to be financed with HSA funds, encouraging more healthy people to move to high-deductible policies in the individual market. What does that mean?

We know that HSAs have deductibles of at least $1,000 for an individual and $2,000 for a family. We also know that someone who has a sick child, a disabled child, someone who has high health indicators, health risks, somebody who is a baby boomer or older may not be able choose to have a high-risk policy because they know they are going to need their health insurance, they are going to need comprehensive health care.

So who chooses an HSA? Someone younger, healthy, or wealthier where they can get a better deductible and the $1,000 out of pocket doesn't matter to them. I find it ironic that we would be putting such a proposal on a minimum wage bill.

We certainly know that minimum wage workers are not those who can take the risk of a health savings account and have the confidence that they will have up to $1,000 to put into their health care before their coverage kicks in.

In fact, we know from GAO that for those earning under $30,000 a year, about 16 percent of tax filers have a health savings account contribution, but for those earning $75,000 or above, that is 51 percent of the filings.

Even in that category, though, we also know, according to the Commonwealth Fund, that over 40 percent of people with a $1,000 deductible reported that even though they had a medical problem, they didn't see a doctor. They didn't fill a needed prescription or they skipped a recommended test or followup visit because they didn't want to have to pay directly the full amount for that under this deductible. What happens in that circumstance we all know. Someone waits until they get really sick, so health care costs go up because people didn't get the care they need--the prevention, the tests, and so on.

Mr. President, I ask when I am within 5 minutes of the time for the majority side that the Chair indicate that to me.

We are in a situation now where we have to decide, are we going to continue health insurance for what it should be, which is pooling the risk? The whole idea of insurance is to pool the risk. We want healthy, younger individuals, we want my son and daughter who are healthier and younger, to buy into the same plan that I am buying into, that the Presiding Officer is buying into, that others who are older are buying into, so that we pool that risk. We may not need that health care as frequently as our mom and dad or aunt and uncle or your neighbor or colleague who has a health problem, but their ability to get health coverage is kept at a reasonable cost because the risk is pooled. That is what health insurance is all about.

That is what auto insurance is all about. We don't have auto insurance where we have a pool only for people we know are going to have an accident and those over here whom we know are not. We pool the risk. This particular amendment expands a concept, a proposal that breaks that apart. It basically encourages people who can afford it, or who are going to gamble because they are very healthy, that they are not going to need any kind of health care this coming year. They get a tax benefit. They get to write off a premium for a high-deductible plan as long as it is in the individual market. But someone, in fact, who is likely to be sick or does have children or does have more risk factors or more need to see the doctor doesn't get the same benefit.

That makes absolutely no sense to me. Certainly, when we look at how we, as America, move forward on health care, that moves in the opposite direction from where we need to go, of pooling the risk. We need to be pooling it even further. We need to be creating large pools so we are pooling the risk and lowering the cost, not doing what this talks about.

I appreciate the great pressure we all feel right now to address health care, as we should, as we must. I believe it is the single driving factor for our businesses. I know in the State of Michigan, with many people working in manufacturing, and those people very concerned about the global economy and how we are going to compete, the

question of health care and how we fund health insurance becomes a competitiveness issue. It is costing us jobs, the way we structure the funding of health care. We also know we pay more because of the way we fund it.

Every single time somebody with a high-deductible policy, somebody who knows they have a $1,000 deductible, decides they are getting a little bit sick, if they don't believe they have the money or want to spend the money to go through their insurance plan they are going to go to the emergency room when they are sick. Who pays when that happens? We all pay. The hospital treats them and then they turn around and raise the rates on everybody with insurance. That is how we get a $20 aspirin. That is how we get all these costs that are shifted onto everyone else.

When the Commonwealth Fund says over 40 percent of the people with these kinds of policies don't get their medical problems addressed or skip a doctor or a prescription or recommended test, that means we are talking about individuals who are more likely to be very ill, more likely to walk into that emergency room, more likely to have their costs shifted onto everyone else.

I urge my colleagues not to proceed with this kind of proposal. I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee for his willingness to seriously address the issues of health care. We intend, in the Finance Committee, to have a series of hearings. Our chairman, who is a very thoughtful, thorough individual, I know will be looking at a wide variety of proposals. We need the opportunity to do that. My opposition to this proposal does not mean that I don't believe health care is at the top of the list on priorities. I do. But we need the opportunity to look at all of the ramifications because what we have seen to date is that this kind of proposal moves us in exactly the opposite direction.

We know a number of things that we can do that would take $8 billion and add health insurance for people. We have colleagues--Senator Durbin and Senator Lincoln--who have offered a proposal for national pooling of small businesses to be able to buy into systems nationally to be able to lower costs. Other colleagues have proposals as well. We know we are going to have proposals to extend children's health care before us very shortly. Again, I commend our chairman for his commitment to the issue of expanding children's health care to all children. That is an important way for us to be able to spend $8 billion and be able to provide health care to more children, more families, and to lower costs--not raise costs.

Senator Snowe and I are working on a proposal, with our distinguished friend from Wyoming as well, on health IT. We know we can dramatically save costs and put money back into the provision of health insurance paying for health care by using health information technology. I think a more productive way to spend $8 billion at this point would be to provide tax incentives for our physicians and other private sector providers to be able to help them purchase hardware and software, to be able to do ``e-prescribing,'' to be able to use technology and have all the benefits both from a quality standpoint and saving lives as well as saving dollars.

At this point I would simply say that I believe very strongly that HSAs are the wrong direction in which to go fundamentally. They do not expand who receives health insurance, they do not lower costs, and I believe very strongly that there are other ways to use $8 billion. The Finance Committee, I have every confidence, is going to look at a wide variety of opportunities, including expanding health insurance for children.

I am happy to.

I absolutely agree with our distinguished assistant majority leader. Let me say I indicated a moment ago that he has a better proposal himself, and Senator Lincoln. We know for the majority of people who are not insured, 80 percent of those who are uninsured work for small businesses. I am very excited about the approach that the Senator has proposed in terms of a national pool and a tax credit to help fund it. I think we all are very committed to expanding health care coverage and to doing it the right way.

I thank my friend. I couldn't agree more. I think he very eloquently stated what is in front of us. We have 8 billion precious dollars in the middle of a deficit, and we have to be very strategic about where we put our dollars. The proposal for small business pooling is similar to what we receive. I think that is the least we can do for small business, particularly when we know that 80 percent of the people who do not have health insurance are in small businesses.

I thank my colleague. I know colleagues on both sides of the aisle want very much to address this issue of health care. It is a question of how we do it.

I ask in closing at the moment that we, at a minimum, withhold on this amendment; that we not proceed on this particular proposal to allow us on the Finance Committee to look at all of the options, to look at the facts, to look at what actually expands coverage, what actually lowers costs, and do this together. This is something we need to do on a bipartisan basis, and I hope we will do this in a very positive way so that when we are spending $8 billion, we know we are getting every single penny of value out of that for people who desperately need health care today.

I am happy to yield the balance of the time to the Senator from Massachusetts, the chairman of the committee.

Mr. President, I will take 13 seconds to say, unfortunately, evidence shows exactly the opposite of what my friend is saying. Any person who chooses on their own to buy insurance not through an HSA will not get the same benefit.

If you have a child who is sick, if you are older, if you have health issues, this issue does not address, unfortunately, the issues my colleague has been talking about.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order the pending amendment violates section 505(a) of House Concurrent Resolution 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 25, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the current situation in Iraq on the Administration's recently announced strategy for continued United States assistance to the Iraqi Government and for an increased United States mlitary presence in Iraq.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 25, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., to vote on committee organizational matters for the 110th Congress; immediately following the executive session the committee will meet to conduct a hearing on ``Examining the Billing, Marketing, and Disclosure Practices of the Credit Card Industry, and Their Impact on Consumers.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 25, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on oil and gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf and areas available for leasing in the Gulf of Mexico.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 25, 2007, at 9:15 a.m. to hold a hearing on Iraq.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 25, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Iraq.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, January 25, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting to consider changes to the committee rules and a funding resolution for the committee budget for the 110th Congress.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, January 25, 2007, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen room 226.

Agenda

I. Committee Organization

Committee Rules for the 110th Congress; Subcommittees for the 110th Congress; Funding Resolution for the 110th Congress.

II. Nominations

Lisa Godbey Wood to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia; Philip S. Gutierrez to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California; Valerie L. Baker to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California; Lawrence Joseph O'Neill to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of California; and Gregory Kent Frizzell to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

III. Bills

S. 188, To Revise the Short Title of the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, Salazar.

S. 214, To Amend Chapter 35 of Title 28, To Preserve the Independence of U.S. Attorneys, Feinstein.

IV. Resolutions

S. Res. 21, Recognizing the Uncommon Valor of Wesley Autry, Clinton, Schumer.

S. Res. 24, Designating January as ``National Stalking Awareness Month'', Biden.

S. Res. 29, Expressing the Sense of the Senate Regarding Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Stabenow, Leahy, Kennedy, Biden, Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, Durbin, Cardin, Whitehouse, Specter.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 25, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Thursday, January 25, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. for a hearing entitled, ``Lost in Translation: A Review of the Federal Government's Efforts to Develop a Foreign Language Strategy.''

Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of my longtime friend and staff member, Connie Feuerstein. After working with me for over a decade, Connie has decided to join her husband, Jack, in retirement.

Long before joining my staff, Connie was active in her church, community, and Genesee County politics. Her efforts were critical in my successful campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1996, and I am so fortunate that she was willing to join my congressional staff.

For Connie, her work has always been so much more than just a job. She brings such passion and energy to everything she does. Whether it is attending a community event, walking in a parade or advocating on behalf of a family or for the needs of her community, Connie always gives 110 percent to whatever she is doing.

As a district representative in my congressional offices in Brighton and

Flint and a regional manager in my Flint/Saginaw/Bay office in the Senate, Connie has been my link to the community. She is a respected community leader in her own right. Through the years, she has mentored interns and staff members, many of whom have caught her zeal for public service and have kept in touch with her long after they left the office.

My staff and I will miss her sense of humor, boundless energy, optimism and enthusiasm, although I am certain that retirement will not stop her from staying involved. I also know that many people in Michigan, whose lives she touched through her work, will miss her.

Upon leaving the Senate, Connie plans to spend time in Florida, where she will be closer to one of her daughters and her three precious grandchildren. She has a love for life that is contagious and I know her family will appreciate having more of her time and attention.

Mr. President, I am sad because I am losing a trusted and valued member of my staff, but I am happy to see a dear friend move on to new challenges, and I wish her the best of everything.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the Medicare prescription drug benefit. I have a different view, and the Michigan seniors and people with disabilities who are trying to access this program have a different experience and view than my friend from Texas.

As I said yesterday, I think it is incredibly important that we join with the House of Representatives to do the first step, which is to require negotiation for the best price on prescription drugs through Medicare. I also know there is incredible confusion, that seniors have been offered a variety of private choices but not the one that most seniors asked for, which is to be able to go through Medicare and sign up as they do for Part B and the rest of Medicare and get a good price. I also know there is great concern from seniors who find themselves in this gap, somehow being called a doughnut hole, but the gap in coverage where you continue to pay a premium but don't receive any help. There are a number of concerns I hope we are going to address.

Number 1 needs to be to say clearly that we want the Secretary to negotiate the best price for people. Right now, as we know, the law actually prohibits, actually stops the Secretary from using the bargaining power of all of the seniors and the people with disabilities on Medicare to be able to get the best price. Why in the world does that make sense? In fact, it doesn't make sense--particularly for something that is lifesaving; it is the major way we provide health care today from a preventive and maintenance standpoint, as well as in a crisis.

There are huge differences between the way the Veterans' Administration successfully serves our veterans and what is being done through, unfortunately, inflated prices through the Medicare system that not only seniors are paying, disabled are paying, but taxpayers are paying as well.

Yesterday, I talked about a report--and I want to talk to that today--from Families U.S.A. released last week, which looked at 20 prescription drugs commonly used by seniors. The results are startling. The report compares the prices the private Medicare Part D plans charge and the prices obtained by the VA, which negotiates for low drug prices on behalf of America's veterans.

It showed, again, what we have been seeing over the past year: For each of the top 20 drugs prescribed to seniors, the lowest prices charged by any of the top private Part D providers are higher than the price secured by the VA. It is not just a little bit higher, but in many cases it is astoundingly higher.

Let's look at some examples. I am mentioning specific drugs, not to pick on particular drugs, but we talked about the fact in the committee that transparency, the ability to compare price, and the ability for people to know what they are purchasing is very important. This is something we want the Secretary, on behalf of the people of America, to be doing--looking at the differences in these prices, and the particular points where there is a wide disparity, using their negotiating power to be able to step in on behalf of seniors and the disabled.

When we look at Zocor, which I mentioned yesterday--the drug many seniors use to control their cholesterol levels--the lowest VA price for a year is just over $127. The lowest price under a private plan is $1,485.96--over a 1,066-percent difference. That is astounding. I argue that you could still continue to work with the Federal Government and partner to do research and bring that price down.

Why should seniors pay $1,359 more in a year for this particular prescription drug than veterans do? It is exactly the same drug.

Now, I also mentioned Protonix yesterday. It is the same thing. We are looking at $214.52 for a year, the VA price, negotiating the best price, and $1,148.40 with the lowest Part D plan, a difference of 435 percent.

It is the same thing as we go through the next one, which is Fosamax, which is a 205-percent difference, and on down.

We are talking about substantial differences in price--some smaller than others. But the reality is negotiation works. All we have to do is look at the fact that, on average, we are seeing a price difference of 58 percent between the Veterans' Administration and what is happening from the lowest possible plan with the top 20 most prescribed drugs for our seniors. In other words, for half of the drugs our seniors need most, the lowest price charged is almost 60 percent higher, and it is not demagoguery to say people are choosing between food and medicine. It is not. It is not an exaggeration to say that right now somebody is sitting down and deciding: am I going to pay the heating bill or get the medicine I need? That is the reality for people. We need to have a sense of urgency about fixing this.

I also want to speak to the fact that we have heard a lot about the VA. Unfortunately, we have heard things that are not true, according to information from the Veterans' Administration. Yesterday, I was asked if I knew there were well over 1 million veterans who moved to Medicare Part D. The assertion was made that veterans were leaving the VA because the VA could not give them the drugs they wanted. I knew there were veterans who were adding Medicare Part D coverage. We went back to look and see what that was all about after I received that question. In fact, approximately 280,000 veterans have signed up for Medicare. They are not leaving the VA. In fact, it is not even clear that they are getting any drugs through Medicare at this point. They may have done it to add extra coverage. We are not sure what that mix is, but we are not talking about a million veterans or more running to leave VA because it is such a bad program.

Moreover, according to both the Government Accountability Office and the Institute of Medicine, the VA system is working well. According to the GAO, an overwhelming majority of VA physicians report that the formulary, the grouping of drugs that are available, allows them to prescribe drugs that meet their patients' needs.

The Institute of Medicine has reported that veterans believe their needs are being met. Access to drugs is an issue in less than one-half of 1 percent of the complaints about the VA health system. One-half of 1 percent relate an inability to be able to get the medicine they need.

I also need to point out that at our Finance Committee hearing last week it was mentioned that there are fewer drugs available to our veterans. In fact, we have heard it today on the floor. That is exactly the opposite of what is true. The VA actually has more drugs on its formulary, its list of available drugs. I have not heard anybody say, first of all, that we should take the VA system and impose it on Medicare. But there is a lot of misinformation about what is happening in the VA and what is happening for our veterans, and there is a lot we need to do to focus on the reality and the facts of the huge disparities, an average of 58 percent, and the highest is over 1,000 percent.

I find it very interesting that, on the one hand, we hear two different kinds of arguments occurring. One is that negotiation will make no difference in price. On the other hand, we hear we will lose lifesaving research because of negotiation. Those two arguments don't fit together, even though they are being made by the same people. We don't have to worry about research and development if, in fact, negotiation doesn't lower prices. I argue--and I think common sense dictates--that when you are looking at a 1,000-percent difference in price, at the fact that the American taxpayer is contributing, on average, at least as many dollars for research as the brandname industry is--overall, at least contributing that, because we want the lifesaving drugs--when you look at all of the facts, it doesn't add up; it doesn't add up for anybody but the industry itself to be able to argue that they want to keep the prices this high. I appreciate that. Any industry that has such a significant advantage certainly wants to fight to keep it. But I am very hopeful we will join with the House in saying this is lifesaving medicine, it is not an optional product, and we have to get the best price for our seniors and for the disabled in America.

I thank the Chair.