Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to express my strong support for the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, also called the DISCLOSE Act.

I want to thank Senator Schumer for his work on this important bill and say that I plan to support it every step of the way.

Before I discuss the merits of this legislation, I think it is important to provide some context.

This bill is a legislative response to a Supreme Court decision. In 2002 we passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The law was bipartisan, widely supported, and we firmly believed it to be constitutional based on prior decisions of the Court.

In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld portions of the law in the case of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission.

But on January 21 of this year, the Roberts Court handed down a 5-4 decision striking down parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

That decision--Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission--flew in the face of nearly a century of congressional law. It also overturned two prior rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. The overturned cases were McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 2003, and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 1990.

The case is not alone. It is part of a trend of decision after decision from the Roberts Court overturning prior precedents. I have real concern that this Court is going out of its way to rewrite and reinterpret prior law. Its decisions seem to favor corporate interests over the interests of the American people. We have heard talk of ``activist'' courts before and I fear that is exactly what we have today.

The Citizens United decision may be the most troubling one yet. This decision does not only impact one group of people or one area of the law--it affects the very way our elections and our democratic system are run.

The Court's decision in this case opened the door to unlimited corporate spending in federal elections. It held that the first amendment of the Constitution protects the rights of corporations, and protects their right to spend freely--in the millions or even the billions of dollars--on election ads to support or defeat their favored candidates.

This means that an oil company like ExxonMobil could spend any portion of its billions in profits to elect a candidate who will let them drill more, or to defeat a candidate who opposes their drilling plans.

It means that Xe Services, formerly known as Blackwater, and other defense contractors could spend unlimited sums toward the election of candidates who view their defense positions favorably.

And large banks like JPMorgan Chase would be free to use their corporate treasury funds to attack candidates who favor financial regulation.

This last example, of course, is a very real and present situation. The questions on the floor right now are of great importance--should the credit default swaps and derivative contracts that have wreaked havoc on our economy be regulated, and how? These are questions we need to answer with the interest of the American public and our economy in mind, not the possibility that JP Morgan could launch a multimillion dollar attack against us if we don't bow to their demands.

As Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21 testified at a Rules Committee hearing, ``It would not take many examples of elections where multimillion corporate expenditures defeat a member of Congress before all members quickly learn the lesson, vote against the corporate interest at stake in a piece of legislation and you run the risk of being hit with a multimillion-dollar corporate ad campaign to defeat you.''

The Supreme Court's decision is based on constitutional law. They get the final word on the Constitution, and they have spoken. So our response unfortunately has to be made with one hand tied behind our back. The DISCLOSE Act is a powerful attempt to show the public the effect of this decision and to ensure that our election process will remain transparent.

Here is what the bill would do:

First, it would require new disclaimers so that the American public knows who is behind an ad they see on TV.

If a corporation runs an ad, the CEO must stand up and say that they approved the message. If an advocacy organization runs the ad, the head of the organization and the top outside funder must appear. The point is simple--if you are behind an ad, say so, and let the public know.

Second, the bill would impose new disclosure requirements.

Organizations will have to disclose all of their donors who have given over $1000 or who have contributed to their election spending accounts.

Let me give you an example from the National Law Journal of why these disclosure and disclaimer rules are important.

Last summer, an organization called America's Health Insurance Plans, or AHIP, collected between $10 and $20 million from major health insurance companies such as Aetna, Cigna, Kaiser Foundation, UnitedHealth Group, and Wellpoint. AHIP funneled these funds to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which set up two separate entities called the ``Campaign for Responsible Health Reform'' and ``Employers for a Healthy Economy.'' These two shell organizations then engaged in widespread advertising to oppose health reform. Although the health insurance companies were the primary funders of the ads, the American public had no way of knowing that by the time the ads appeared on TV.

The DISCLOSE Act will require disclaimers that name an ad's top funders and disclose where the money came from. I think this is important, and I believe it will be an important step forward in true voter education and transparency.

Third, the bill will prevent foreign-controlled entities from spending unlimited sums in American elections through their subsidiaries.

Under current law, foreign companies cannot directly contribute to candidates or air election ads, but their U.S.-based subsidiaries can and often do. According to the Washington Post, since 2007, U.S.-based subsidiaries of foreign corporations have contributed more than $20 million to Federal campaigns through political action committees.

The rules will prevent a corporation from making contributions or spending on election ads if a foreign national

owns 20 percent or more of its voting shares; a majority of the board of directors are foreign nationals; foreign nationals have the power to control the decision making of the subsidiary; or foreign nationals control election-related expenditures.

Fourth, the bill will prohibit any company with government contracts in excess of $50,000 and any company that receives TARP or similar government assistance funds, from making unlimited election expenditures.

The point here is simple--if your business relies on government contracts or government assistance for its revenues, you should not be in the business of trying to buy seats for your friends or take them away from your enemies.

Finally, the bill will expand current law to allow political parties the same ability as candidates to get television ad time at the ``lowest unit rate'' in certain situations and in certain geographical areas.

The Roberts Court's decision in Citizens United was, I believe, the wrong one. It protected corporations at the expense of drowning out individuals' free speech. It threatened to put democratic elections in the United States up for sale. And it will, I believe, lead to voters having less reliable information about candidates--not more.

The DISCLOSE Act cannot solve all of the problems created by the decision, but it is a critical step forward. The bill will ensure that the American public knows who is funding an ad when they see it on television, and it will close loopholes that could have otherwise allowed unlimited spending in our elections by foreign nationals and corporations receiving government assistance.

I believe it is essential that we pass this bill quickly, and I look forward to working with Senator Schumer and others to do so.

Madam President, each May, since 1978, we have honored the rich heritage and countless accomplishments of the many Asian Pacific Americans in our country. I am delighted to recognize Asian Pacific American Heritage Month and to pay tribute to the struggles and enormous contributions of Asian Pacific Americans to our Nation's history and culture.

May was chosen for Asian Pacific American Heritage Month to commemorate both the arrival of the first Japanese immigrants in 1843, and also the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad in 1869, which was constructed in large part by Chinese laborers.

``Lighting the Past, Present, and Future'' is the theme for this year's celebration of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. This phrase recognizes both the plight and extraordinary achievements of the Asian Pacific American community as they have forged ahead to become a successful and vital segment of American society.

Currently, Asian Pacific Americans constitute one of the fastest growing minority communities in the United States, and California is home to the greatest number of Asian Pacific Americans. There are over 15 million Asian Pacific Americans in the Nation, with more than 5 million living in California. In addition, there are thousands of Asian Pacific Americans currently serving in our Armed Forces, defending our country and securing freedom abroad.

With this wealth of diversity, our State is enriched by many famous ethnic enclaves such as San Francisco's Chinatown and Japantown, Westminster's Little Saigon, Los Angeles's Historic Filipinotown and Long Beach's Little Cambodia. As the Asian Pacific American community has grown, these historic neighborhoods have become vibrant centers of cultural exchange and learning.

The Asian Pacific American community has enthusiastically answered the call to public service, and as a result, we see more Asian Pacific Americans in government leadership. Throughout my career, I have worked with many extraordinary Asian Pacific American leaders, in particular Senators Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, two longtime stalwarts of the Senate. Joining my colleagues this year in Congress was Representative Judy Chu, the first Chinese American woman elected to the House of Representatives, becoming the 12th Asian Pacific American elected official currently serving in Congress. In addition, Dr. Steven Chu was appointed as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, the first Asian Pacific American to hold the position. A new generation of leaders has emerged, who will no doubt continue to lead not only their community, but the Nation to new heights.

This past year has also meant many firsts for the Federal bench: two Asian Pacific American nominees, Ed Chen and Lucy Koh, for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where there has never been an Asian Pacific American district judge; the confirmation of the first Chinese American woman to be a district court judge, Dolly Gee; and the confirmation of the first Vietnamese American district court judge, Jacqueline Nguyen. I recommended Magistrate Judge Chen and Judge Nguyen to President Barack Obama, as well as Professor Goodwin Liu for appointment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, confident that their strong legal backgrounds and unique perspective will be valuable additions to the Federal courts.

As we celebrate the rich and diverse Asian and Pacific Islander cultures during this month, we are not only recognizing many notable achievements, but we are also reminded of the struggles and sacrifices endured to live and experience the American dream.

The Senate has worked on a number of major pieces of legislation this session, including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which I proudly voted for and the President signed into law in March. In addition to providing health care to 2.3 million uninsured Asian Pacific Americans nationwide, the bill will provide subsidies to Asian Pacific American small businesses, close the Medicare ``doughnut hole'' for all Asian Pacific American seniors, and provide more resources and strong data collection provisions that will help address racial and ethnic health disparities. In a community where 52 percent of Asian Pacific Americans delay or forgo routine and preventative treatment due to the high cost of medical care and where cancer is the leading cause of death, access to quality medical care is vital.

This is a great beginning to health care reform and I look forward to continuing the work with my Federal medical insurance rate authority bill. My legislation would create a rate authority that would oversee premiums charged by the health insurance industry and provide a safeguard for Americans against soaring premium increases. Access to affordable medical care is a necessity of life that I will work hard to protect for all Americans.

In the Asian Pacific American community where about 60 percent of the population is foreign-born, immigration reform is a central and important issue. For example, although Asians and Pacific Islanders make up about 39 percent of all family sponsored immigrants, they represent nearly half the backlogs in family reunification visas. I recently cosigned a letter with Senator Barbara Boxer to President Obama, urging his continued support for fixing our broken immigration system. As we address immigration reform, it is imperative that we support effective solutions and a commonsense approach that would keep families together, while improving the state of our economy.

At such an unprecedented moment in the Nation's history, there is no doubt that these are only two of the many challenges that the Asian Pacific American community will be faced with in the upcoming year. However, Asian Pacific Americans are a resilient people and their accomplishments this year alone are a testament of their remarkable spirit and important role in the history and culture of the United States.

I am proud to honor the tremendous strength, character, and courage of Asian Pacific Americans during Asian Pacific American Heritage Month and am confident that they will only continue to surpass these challenges and further add to the vibrancy of the American landscape.

Mr. President, is it appropriate for me to speak on the bill for a few minutes, please.

Thank you very much.

Mr. President, on a big bill, I find this a very puzzling situation where for the second time the other side of the aisle has essentially said, We won't let you go to a vote on a motion to proceed to debate until there is agreement on the bill. How can there be agreement on the bill if there isn't debate and if the majority at least isn't allowed to present its position? I find on a bill of this size and the complexity of the bill, to refuse to go to a debate on the bill to be an amazing thing. I hope the other side of the aisle will begin to see that and relent.

I had a chance today to listen to some of the questions being asked in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of Goldman Sachs, and if anything should show the need for this bill, it is what is going on in a Subcommittee of this body. Yet, out here, we cannot even begin the debate on the bill. We cannot hear from the chairman of the committee. We cannot hear from the ranking member. We cannot understand both points of view. We are prevented essentially from debating one of the most important bills this Congress will pass.

I wanted to come to the floor today to say that, as well as to speak in support of the derivatives position put forward on Monday by Chairman Lincoln and Chairman Dodd as part of the financial and commodities market reform package.

I think it is fair to say I have long advocated for more aggressive regulation of derivatives which, in the main, are very complex financial instruments exempted from Federal oversight through loopholes in the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000. In other words, prior to the year 2000, we could regulate these. After the year 2000, they floated free, nontransparent, no audit trail, no antifraud, no antimanipulation oversight whatsoever. The Dodd-Lincoln bill is the most aggressive and comprehensive proposal to regulate the out-of- control derivatives market that has been offered yet in this Congress, and I strongly support it.

The Dodd-Lincoln bill will require robust Federal oversight. It will establish transparency. It will reduce systemic risk. I believe this bill is the best chance to tackle these unregulated markets that were responsible for bringing down Enron, AIG, Lehman Brothers, with terrible repercussions for the American economy and millions of hard- working families. This bill will also rein in reckless traders who lack a moral compass.

Today there is nothing more important than restoring faith in the American economy, and we cannot do it without this bill. To do that, we have to restore America's faith in our ability to take strong corrective action against the bad actors who perpetrated this crisis. Yes, this is our moment to act, yet we cannot. The other side of the aisle will not let it happen.

Derivatives were exempted, as I said, from regulation in the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000. That law created massive regulatory loopholes such as the Enron loophole which prohibited the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from overseeing electronic exchanges; the London loophole, which allowed for unregulated trading of U.S. commodities on overseas exchanges, and the swaps loophole, which allowed for unregulated bilateral trades through brokers, swap dealers, and direct party-to-party negotiations. Together, these loopholes have been responsible for some of our Nation's worst economic crises. They must be closed.

I first became aware of the problem of unregulated derivatives during the Western energy crisis. The years were 2000 and 2001, when Enron traders fleeced Californians for approximately $40 billion in artificially inflated electricity and natural gas prices.

Without Federal oversight rules in place, it took us some time to realize what was going on in California, and then when we did, the party in power would not believe us. We learned the hard way the dangers of having no paper trail, no one to raise the alarm, no cop on the beat to enforce penalties.

Some experts told us this was just supply and demand. I even remember going to the White House and hearing these exact words. We didn't know that traders were in it just for greed.

That is why I will never forget the day Senator Cantwell, another long-time champion for derivatives reform, handed me a copy of the taped conversations between Enron traders. These tapes from Enron's west coast trading desk demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that energy traders would do anything to make a buck.

When a forest fire shut down a major transmission line into California, cutting power supplies and raising prices, Enron energy traders celebrated. Here is the quote:

Burn, baby, burn. That's a beautiful thing.

That is what a trader sang about the massive fire, which threatened homes and lives.

The tapes also confirmed that in secret deals with power producers, traders deliberately drove up prices by ordering powerplants shut down.

When California regulators tried to get money back from Enron, their traders joked this way:

They're . . . taking all the money back from you guys? All

the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in

California.

That was the mentality. Another trader responded:

Yeah, Grandma Millie, man.

This was an eye-opening experience, to say the least.

In 2002, 2003, and 2004, I offered four separate amendments to restore regulation to derivatives markets, and each time the President's working group on financial markets advocated against the amendments, and they went down.

Our Nation's financial experts argued that private parties would protect the public interest by looking out for their own interests, and Congress trusted our experts.

But the experts were wrong. They ignored the growing risk these products posed to our financial system.

In 2007, finally, the Senate took action to close the Enron loophole when it approved bipartisan legislation that I authored with Senator Snowe and others. That legislation brought regulatory oversight to electronic commodity exchanges such as the IntercontinentalExchange, and it established antifraud and antimanipulation standards for our Nation's electronic energy futures markets. But then they went offshore and traded on the London exchange to avoid the law. We learned that soon there were other loopholes that remained open.

Beyond the reach of Federal oversight the derivatives market swelled to the size of $600 trillion. There were no rules to prevent systemic failure, fraud, or manipulation. No one ensured that these products served any commercial function beyond gambling, and no one worked to make sure traders understood the products they traded.

It turns out traders often use the stockholder value of major financial institutions to gamble in markets they did not understand-- with bets large enough to put the entire financial system at risk.

They bet on oil. They bet on natural gas. And with the creation of the credit default swap, they began to bet on each other's demise.

New exotic financial products were dreamed up, such as the recent one to trade movie box office futures, which was proposed by Cantor Exchange this

year. What public benefit is served by trading box office futures? All it does is create a huge problem for the motion picture industry.

In 2008, AIG and Lehman collapsed under the weight of unregulated financial derivatives. But this time it was not only Western energy consumers who suffered. The unregulated derivatives market brought our entire economy to its knees.

That is why it is so vital that we learn from this experience and implement the derivatives reform proposals that have been put forward by Senators Lincoln and Dodd.

Let me take a few moments to describe some of the bill's key positions.

It will require every trade to be reported in real time to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, so regulators will know for the first time what is actually going on in these markets. They will be transparent; they won't be dark markets. Everyone will know.

It will require standardized high-volume trades to be cleared through a regulated clearinghouse. This will ensure that everyone in the system gets paid even when one trader defaults. Had we had this system in place, AIG's collapse would not have posed a systemic risk.

Swap dealers who sell uncleared contracts to end users, which are more risky than cleared trades, will be subject to significantly higher capital requirements enforced by the CFTC in cooperation with bank regulators.

The bill helps small commercial end users such as utilities or trucking companies hedge their risks, but major financial institutions and mutual funds will have to conduct their trading in regulated markets. That is a good thing.

It will require all cleared contracts to be traded on an exchange or on a swap execution facility. Trading on exchanges or execution facilities provides for pretrade transparency--again, light--which is necessary to fully understand and manage the risks being taken by market participants, to provide more efficient and accurate pricing, and to facilitate more cost-effective risk management.

It will require speculative position limits to be set in the aggregate for each commodity, instead of contract by contract. Position limits provide an important restriction on market manipulation and the amount of risk that can build up in any one market participant.

For the first time, the CFTC will be able to prevent speculators from assembling massive positions in a particular commodity, such as oil, by assembling large positions in multiple contracts. See how they do that.

Traders can now simply buy positions in Brent Crude Oil when they have exceeded limits in West Texas Intermediate crude oil, and that makes no sense. See, it is a way to hide the size of your trading position.

Aggregate position limits will prevent manipulative practices, such as those deployed by the defunct hedge fund Amaranth in 2006, which assembled massive positions in two separate natural gas contracts and manipulated one in order to profit on the other. Let there be no doubt about this, Amaranth settled and paid a huge fine in substantial millions of dollars.

Further, the bill will close the London loophole so they can't go around American law, by requiring that Foreign Boards of Trade adhere to minimum standards comparable to those in the United States and report all trading activity to United States regulators on a timely basis.

Finally--and perhaps most importantly--the bill will prevent FDIC- insured retail banks and banks with access to the Federal Reserve discount window from engaging in the extremely risky practice of swaps dealing with a government guarantee. That is important.

This innovative and important provision effectively implements the Volcker rules and protects taxpayers. So you can see what a big provision this is--remember, it was derivatives that brought the house of cards down. Now there will be transparency, clearing, and position limits. I very much thank the chairman of the Banking Committee for negotiating with Senator Lincoln and achieving this. It is a monumental gain.

I very strongly believe that all swap activities and commercial banking should be distinct, so that taxpayers do not supplement, subsidize, guarantee, or insure the riskiest activities of large financial institutions.

There is no denying that opponents of the bill are trying to come up with new and creative ways to block this bill.

With so much at stake, it is not surprising that allies of the big banks and Wall Street lenders have already launched a multimillion dollar ad campaign to frame the debate and fight these changes. They are cynically twisting the facts to assert that this legislation will perpetuate more bailouts in the future. Nothing could be further from the truth. The big Wall Street firms that caused this crisis have hired lobbyists to portray Wall Street reform as something that is bad for taxpayers.

The loudest detractors of financial regulatory reform claim that it will be another government intrusion in the free market. Well, we have found out that the free market is not self-regulating.

Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported that opponents of regulatory reform have adopted talking points distributed by a messaging firm whose clients include Bank of America, Chase Card Services, and UBS. The memo suggests that the best way to kill the bill is to link it to the big bank bailouts.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have adopted these talking points and are doing everything they can to block this critical bill. This is both dangerous and absurd. If we have learned anything from the recent past, it is that the disorderly failure of massive financial institutions is extremely destructive.

For the first time, with the passage of this bill, we will have a process in place to ensure the most minimal disruption necessary in order to wind down failures on Wall Street. That is what this is about. And the $50 billion is not government money. The $50 billion is a fund that the companies contribute to, which is held in escrow by the government so that if it has to be used, it can be used.

I stand behind Chairman Dodd when he emphasizes the level of bipartisan negotiations that have gone into the bill before us. But bipartisan compromise does not mean withholding support until you get everything you want. Financial reform is not a zero-sum game. We need solutions, not threats to block meaningful reform of our financial markets. Without strong reform, every American who has been blindsided by the profit-above-all-else mentality of Wall Street will lose, lose, lose, and that is what is at stake in these cloture motions.

Anyone who has taken basic economics knows markets only function when market participants have good information--in fact, perfect information and when the transactions occur free of fraud, abuse, and manipulation. Handing control and oversight of financial markets to the biggest Wall Street banks does not produce a free market with good information, free from abuse, as has been painfully illustrated over the last few years.

Accusations of fraud against Goldman Sachs, announced the Friday before last, underscore the need for financial reform. Goldman Sachs will have their day in court, but the allegations against the firm cry out for greater transparency at giant Wall Street banks.

Let me return to where I began. I was 1 of the 40 Senators on the telephone in September of 2008, when both Secretary Paulson of the Treasury and Ben Bernanke of the Federal Reserve talked to Senators and said--and I am paraphrasing, but this is the sum and substance of it-- we are a hair's breadth away from a major collapse of the entire financial marketplace of our country, and it will be worse than the Great Depression if it happens.

I never expected to hear that. I never thought these market activities could do that. To some extent, I believed the market was self-regulating, but it isn't. We found that out in spades. I think we are deleterious in our duty if we do not address this, if we do not fully debate it on the floor, if everybody who hears the debate doesn't understand what the evils are that are out there; that naked swaps, that credit default swaps need oversight, that hedge funds without any regulation must have transparency, must be regulated, and that trading must go over an

exchange. This bill accomplishes that. This bill protects the American people.

I can't understand why anyone would not support this bill. If truly what we believe in and what we came to this office for and what we took our oath of office for was to protect the American people, this bill is mandatory. Not to do it is malfeasance of duty, in my view. Not to let us move forward with a robust debate, to waste time with cloture votes day after day--and it looks like they will continue--I believe is improper. To demand that a bill has to be agreed upon by both sides before it is even debated on this floor as a major bill is something that in this day and age, with the economic troubles of this Nation, I thought we would never ever hear.

So the bottom line is: Now is the time to act. Now is the time to close the gaps in regulation. It is time to hold the big banks accountable to the people they serve. It is time to put a moral compass into trading. It is time to ensure that taxpayers will never again be forced to bail out big banks because they are too big to fail. No bank is. That is what Wall Street reform will achieve. That is why I feel so committed to making it happen and why I am asking for the support of all our colleagues.

Senator Dodd and Senator Lincoln have assembled the strongest provisions of each of their respective bills into a proposal to reform the bilateral swaps and derivatives market that is more effective than any proposal to date. So I wish to thank both of them for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. I am very proud to stand with them, along with my long-time colleagues in this effort, Senator Snowe, Senator Cantwell, Senator Dorgan, Senator Harkin, Senator Brown of Ohio, and Senator Nelson of Florida. They have worked for a long time to bring about strong regulation of the derivatives market.

So the question remains: What will happen? Will this bill be allowed to see the light of day? Will this bill be able to regulate fraud and manipulation? Will this bill be able to see that the American taxpayer is protected so we can say, truly, in good conscience: Never again will this happen in the United States.

So I say to the other side: Stop this nonsense. Let this bill come to the floor. Come down to the floor and debate it. Vote against it, if you don't like it. That is the American way. I don't believe that when a bill comes out of committee by a majority vote, regardless of how that majority is achieved, whether it is bipartisan or the product of one party, that it should be refused debate on the floor. We have a chance to change that. I hope the Republicans will. I hope we will debate and pass this bill.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

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

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

Madam President, earlier today my staff brought to my attention an article that had just come out on Reuters. I read it and felt an outrage and dismay and decided I was going to come to the floor and speak about it.

Today, an investigative story published by Reuters details how WellPoint, a medical insurance company--as a matter of fact, the Nation's largest health insurance company, with 33.7 million policyholders--used a special computer program to systematically identify women with breast cancer and target their health policies for termination--in other words, an effort to specifically target women with breast cancer and then drop their health insurance. I would like to ask every American to read this jaw-dropping story. Instead of providing the health care for which these seriously ill women have paid, WellPoint subjected these paying customers to investigations that ended with WellPoint's administrative bureaucrats canceling their insurance policies at their time of greatest need.

Under attack by both cancer and WellPoint, these women were left ailing, disabled, and broke. Let me give you a few examples.

Yenny Hsu, a woman from Los Angeles, was kicked off of her insurance policy after a breast cancer diagnosis because WellPoint said she failed to disclose that she had been exposed to hepatitis B as a child. Now, that has nothing to do with breast cancer, but it did not stop WellPoint from terminating her coverage.

In Texas, a woman named Robin Beaton was forced to delay lifesaving surgery because WellPoint decided to investigate whether she had failed to disclose a serious illness. The serious illness in question was a case of acne. WellPoint delayed her surgery for 5 months, causing the size of the cancerous mass in her breast to triple. By the time they finally dropped their investigation, she needed a radical double mastectomy.

Another loyal, paying WellPoint customer who faced this situation was Patricia Relling of Louisville, KY. Ms. Relling was an interior designer and art gallery owner who never missed a payment. But that did not stop WellPoint from canceling her insurance in the middle of her fight with breast cancer. WellPoint abandoned her at her weakest moment, forcing her to pay enormous medical bills on her own. This woman, who was once a highly successful business owner, is now subsisting on Social Security and food stamps.

Meanwhile, WellPoint made a profit of $128 million by stripping seriously ill Americans of their insurance coverage in this manner, according to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. This is likely a low estimate because WellPoint refuses to provide a total number for rescissions across the company's subsidiaries. WellPoint earned a $4.7 billion profit in 2009--a $4.7 billion profit in 1 year. Angela Braly, the CEO of WellPoint, received $13.1 million in total compensation in 2009. This was a 51-percent increase in her salary over the prior year.

WellPoint is not alone in doing this to people, but they are an egregious offender. According to the House Energy and Commerce Committee:

WellPoint and two of the nation's other largest insurance

companies--UnitedHealth Group Inc and Assurant Health, part

of Assurant Inc--made at least $300 million by improperly

rescinding more than 19,000 policyholders over one five-year

period.

According to Health Care for America Now, these large companies--the big, for-profit American medical insurance companies--have seen their profits jump 428 percent from 2000 to 2007. All during this period, they have doubled premium costs. So they have made huge profits in 7 years, and they doubled premium costs.

Time and time again, our for-profit insurance corporations have demonstrated that their hunger for profit trumps any moral obligation to their customers. This latest story is just the latest example of the kind of outrageous behavior we have come to expect from certain medical health insurance companies.

The health insurance reform law passed by Congress and signed by President Obama will end the practice of unfair rescission and discrimination because of preexisting conditions. But we must clearly be vigilant in order to ensure that the law has teeth and is heavily enforced. We cannot turn our backs for 1 minute because left to their own devices, I truly believe these companies will look for ways to throw paying customers to the sharks for the sake of profit. These are strong words, and I am not known for these strong words. But the more I look into the large, for-profit medical insurance industry of the United States, the more I am embarrassed by it.

A situation unfolding in my own State now is further proof of this. On May 1--that is 9 days from now; it is 1 week from Saturday--more than 800,000 Californians who hold insurance policies issued by WellPoint's Anthem Blue Cross subsidiary will face rate hikes of up to 39 percent.

I have received deeply personal letters from literally hundreds, if not thousands, of Californians whose lives are going to be devastated by these rate increases. We have 12.7 percent unemployment. We have over 2.3 million people unemployed. We are very high in house foreclosures, people can't find jobs, and at the same time the insurance premiums are being jacked up. This is terrible because many of these people had a premium increase almost as large as the 39 percent that is going to happen on May 1, last year, and then they know they face it again the next year.

I cannot say that all of this is responsible for these premium increases, but in my State alone, 2 million people in the last 2 years have gone off of health insurance. That is 1 million people a year who find they can't afford health insurance. So they have gone off of it, more on Medicaid, and many have no coverage whatsoever. This is at a time when this same company is reaping billions of dollars of profit. So what do I conclude? There is no moral compass. There is no ethical conduct.

These are families with children. They are students or the elderly. One woman had been a client of Anthem for 30 years. She had never been sick, and she got sick. Cancer survivors, small business owners, they are about to be crushed.

WellPoint will tell us that these premium rate hikes cannot be avoided. They will tell us that others are to blame: hospital charges, prescription drug prices, the rising cost of medical care. They blame the government. They blame the economy. But the fact is, they are making money, and billions of dollars of money.

If there was any doubt about whether corporate greed has anything to do with WellPoint's plan to jack up rates on customers, I think today's story by Reuters answers the question definitively.

In order to prevent these kinds of unfair premium rate hikes on Americans, I have introduced a bill that would establish a health insurance rate authority. It would give the Secretary of Health the mandate to see that rates are reasonable. Two days ago, the HELP Committee held a hearing on this bill. The chairman of the committee, Senator Harkin, made some very strong statements in favor of it, as did other Democrats. The Republicans who spoke, of course, opposed it because they are in a mode where they oppose virtually everything right now, but they opposed it.

So here is what my bill would do. It would give the Secretary of Health the authority to block premiums or other rate increases that are unreasonable. In many States, insurance commissioners, as the Presiding Officer knows, already have this authority. They would not be affected. Commissioners have the authority in some States--in some insurance markets they have it--and in others they do not. In about 20 States, including my own, California, companies are not required to receive approval for rate increases before they take effect. So my legislation would create a Federal fallback, a fail-safe, allowing the Secretary to conduct reviews of potentially unreasonable rates in States where the insurance commissioner does not already have the authority or the capability to do so. The Secretary would review potentially unreasonable premium increases and take corrective action. This could include blocking an increase or providing rebates to consumers.

Under this proposal, the Secretary would work with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to implement this rate review process and identify States that have the authority and capability to review rates now. States doing this work obviously should continue. This legislation would not interrupt or effect them. However, consumers in States such as California and Illinois and others--about 20 some-odd States--would get protection from unfair rate hikes.

The proposal would create a rate authority, a seven-member advisory board to assist the Secretary. A wide range of interests would be represented: consumers, the insurance industry, medical practitioners, and other experts.

I think the proposal strikes the right balance. As the Presiding Officer knows, we have worked with the administration in drafting it. We worked with the Finance Committee. We worked with the Secretary of Health. We tried to get it into the Finance Committee's health reform bill. We were not able to do so. The President took this bill and put it in the reconciliation bill. Unfortunately, the Parliamentarian found that its policy implications overcame its budgetary savings, and therefore a point of order would rest against it. So it was dropped at that time. So we are trying again. It is necessary.

Nine days from now, 800,000 Californians will get up to a 39-percent increase in their premium rate. It is greed, pure and simple.

So the legislation I have introduced provides Federal protection for consumers who are currently at the mercy of these large, for-profit medical insurance companies whose top priority is their bottom line. The bottom line for us is we have a duty to protect the American people from this kind of greed and this kind of lack of any moral compass.

If these companies were having a hard time, I would say: Look, it can't be helped. But they are not. They have enjoyed something no other American business has, and that is an antitrust exemption. Only Major League Baseball has an antitrust exemption. So

they are able to go all over the country and merge and acquire insurance companies in order to control market share. Once they control market share, they then begin to boost rates. Therefore, over the past 7 years of doing this, they have developed a 428-percent increase in their bottom line, which is their profits.

If a CEO thinks it is OK to deprive women of their health coverage when they become seriously ill with breast cancer, we can't trust them to do the right thing, period. This ought to be convincing to every Member of this body, whether it is this side of the aisle or the other side of the aisle, that we need to move to see that there is a reasonable, prudent system where people don't have to endure when they have breast cancer and they go in, that they are going to lose their medical insurance. This Reuters story points it out chapter and verse today, and I have indicated several stories.

So, in my view, it is time for Congress to step in and fix this rate hike loophole in the health insurance reform law. We have to put patients before profits. We have to protect the American people from this kind of a lack of moral compass and candidly unchecked greed. I hate to say that, but that is the way I see it.

I will likely attempt to put this as an amendment to the regulatory reform bill. As I say, the matter has had a committee hearing, and in view of the fact that 800,000 people face these rate increases a week from Saturday, I think we need to take some action.

I would implore Anthem to understand and to not raise these rates. They have postponed this rate increase once before; they certainly can do it again.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

I will speak on the nominee at this time.

I come to the floor to support the nomination of Dr. Lael Brainard to be the next Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs.

Before I proceed, let me say I have known Lael Brainard for some time. We participated together in a strategy group held by the Aspen Institute, I think, for more than a decade now. I found her to be very incisive and bright. Additionally, in the course of her work at the Brookings Institution's Global Economy and Development Program she has worked with my husband over a period of some 6 years now. He has gotten to know her well as well.

On March 23, 2009, President Obama nominated Dr. Brainard to be the Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs. This is an especially important position in the executive branch, and never more so than during this very critical time for the domestic and global economies. Yet her nomination has languished for more than a year-- another casualty of obstructionist behavior, I believe, from our colleagues across the aisle.

The Under Secretary position for which Dr. Brainard has been nominated

focuses on three primary objectives: First, fostering U.S. economic prosperity by pursuing international policies and programs that help strengthen and grow our very own economy, create job opportunities for Americans, and keep global markets open for American exports; second, ensuring U.S. economic stability by promoting the American economy and working to prevent and mitigate financial instability abroad; third, strengthening U.S. economic security by supporting the administration's foreign engagement through the multilateral development banks to manage global challenges.

The Treasury Department needs a qualified person such as Dr. Brainard in this vital leadership position--especially at a time when the Department is continuing its efforts to ensure economic growth, engage China on economic issues, and advance our global recovery agenda following the financial crisis.

As a matter of fact, the Secretary of the Treasury himself has called about this position simply to say how important it is that she get confirmed at this time. I had the privilege to talk to Senator Kyl about it yesterday by phone, and I am hopeful this confirmation will take place this evening without further delay.

Let me speak for a few moments on her track record of service. I see her as a devoted public servant, someone who has spent most of her career serving our people. She has held several senior positions in the administration and in the nonprofit and academic sectors, including Deputy National Economic Adviser for President Clinton; Vice President and Founding Director of the Brookings Institution's Global Economy and Development Program, which is where my husband has worked with her for the 6 years, as I mentioned; and associate professor of applied economics at MIT's Sloan School.

She has also served as a White House fellow and a National Science Foundation fellow, among numerous other professional achievements.

In short, she is eminently qualified for this senior administration position for which she has been nominated.

Despite these excellent qualifications and her impressive resume, however, her nomination has languished in the Senate for more than a year. It is time to get it done this afternoon.

Dr. Brainard was nominated by President Obama on March 23 of last year. She was favorably reported by our colleagues in the Senate Finance Committee in December of last year. However, a hold was placed on her nomination, as well as that of two other senior Treasury nominees.

Many questions have been raised about her personal income tax returns, business partnerships, and the hiring of household employees, all of which are done jointly with her husband, Kurt Campbell. Mr. Campbell--whom I have also known because he participated in the same Aspen Strategy Group for more than a decade--is currently the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, a position to which he was unanimously confirmed on June 25, 2009. So the same questions were asked of him as were asked of Lael Brainard.

She has responded to questions in multiple rounds from majority and minority staff. She has answered every question asked of her and provided hundreds of pages of submissions in a forthcoming, honest, and direct manner. Clearly, at some point, there were some differences of opinion for some Members, but that has been settled, to the best of my knowledge. She submitted the same paperwork about taxes and the hiring of household employees as Mr. Campbell did during his confirmation, and during that time neither the Foreign Relations Committee nor any Member of the full Senate raised any concerns regarding this information.

As the United States is entering a particularly intense period of international engagements this spring and summer, I believe Dr. Brainard's confirmation is essential to ensuring effective U.S. policy coordination and implementation.

I wish to point out that she has broad bipartisan support, as well as the support of a multitude of nongovernmental organizations and businesses. She is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, U.S. Council on International Business, Business Council for International Understanding, Council of the Americas, Coalition of Service Industries, the Emergency Committee for American Trade, the National Foreign Trade Council, and the National Association of Manufacturers.

In my opinion, she is a woman of strong common sense, integrity, credibility, and sound judgment. She is exceptionally well qualified, and I urge my colleagues to approve her nomination without further delay.

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

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce the Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study Act. This legislation is an important step in preserving the legacy of the Army's first all-black infantry and cavalry units and their unique role in the creation of our National Park system.

Established Congressionally by 1869, the Buffalo Soldiers served bravely in campaigns both at home and abroad before being stationed at the military Presidio in San Francisco and given charge of patrolling the National Park system. Although first tasked with taming the frontier, these troops also took on the responsibility of preserving that wilderness for future generations. Each summer, Buffalo Soldier regiments traveled roughly 320 miles from San Francisco to either Sequoia or Yosemite National Park, where they patrolled the parks for poachers and loggers, built trails, and escorted visitors. They were, in essence if not in name, the nation's first park rangers.

In a time of segregation and adversity, these soldiers served their country bravely and the National Parks they worked to establish are part of the legacy they leave behind. Unfortunately, this unique aspect of their history is neither widely recognized nor remembered. This legislation would address that by authorizing a study to determine the most appropriate way to memorialize the Buffalo Soldiers. Money procured under the act would be used to determine the feasibility of establishing a national historic trail along the route traveled by the Buffalo Soldiers, scout for properties to add to the National Register of Historic Places, and develop educational initiatives and a public awareness campaign about the contribution of African-American soldiers after the Civil War.

although the experiences of the Buffalo Soldiers are an important piece of our national history, we are in danger of losing their legacy to the passage of time unless we take conscious steps to preserve the memory. This legislation works to ensure that the contributions of the Buffalo Soldiers will be remembered and shared by all. I urge my colleagues to join me in their support for this measure.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer to introduce the Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study Act. This legislation is an important step in preserving the legacy of the Army's first all-black infantry and cavalry units and their unique role in the creation of our National Park system.

Established Congressionally by 1869, the Buffalo Soldiers served bravely in campaigns both at home and abroad before being stationed at the military Presidio in San Francisco and given charge of patrolling the National Park system. Although first tasked with taming the frontier, these troops also took on the responsibility of preserving that wilderness for future generations. Each summer, Buffalo Soldier regiments traveled roughly 320 miles from San Francisco to either Sequoia or Yosemite National Park, where they patrolled the parks for poachers and loggers, built trails, and escorted visitors. They were, in essence if not in name, the nation's first park rangers.

In a time of segregation and adversity, these soldiers served their country bravely and the National Parks they worked to establish are part of the legacy they leave behind. Unfortunately, this unique aspect of their history is neither widely recognized nor remembered. This legislation would address that by authorizing a study to determine the most appropriate way to memorialize the Buffalo Soldiers. Money procured under the act would be used to determine the feasibility of establishing a national historic trail along the route traveled by the Buffalo Soldiers, scout for properties to add to the National Register of Historic Places, and develop educational initiatives and a public awareness campaign about the contribution of African-American soldiers after the Civil War.

although the experiences of the Buffalo Soldiers are an important piece of our national history, we are in danger of losing their legacy to the passage of time unless we take conscious steps to preserve the memory. This legislation works to ensure that the contributions of the Buffalo Soldiers will be remembered and shared by all. I urge my colleagues to join me in their support for this measure.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a specific section of the health insurance reform bill.

There has been some concern that language in the bills could be misinterpreted to create new causes of action or claims that would interfere with existing State medical malpractice laws.

As Representative Henry Waxman clarified on the floor of the House of Representatives, it has never been the intent of the bill to create any new causes of action or to preempt any State medical malpractice law.

Section 10201(j) of H.R. 3590, which added Section 3512 to subtitle F of title III of the act, calls for the Comptroller General to conduct a study of whether the development, recognition or implementation of any guideline or other standards under a list of enumerated sections of the Senate bill would result in a new cause of action or claim.

It is important that this language requesting such a study not be interpreted in any way as creating any inference or implication that the enumerated sections of the bill will create any new action or claim.

Additionally, it is important to understand that Congress has no intent in this legislation to modify or supersede any State medical liability law that governs legal standards or procedures used in medical malpractice cases.

I thank the distinguished manager of the bill for his work on this which has been prodigious, long, and, I hope, not too exhausting.

I want to speak rather personally about health care reform, why I support the bill that has been signed by the President, why I support the reconciliation bill, and why I will oppose any amendment no matter how good that amendment may appear to be.

I am a doctor's daughter, and I am a former doctor's wife. So I have lived most of my life in a medical family. I have had very good health care. My father, who was chief of surgery at the University of California Medical Center, never operated on anyone he did not make a house call on. He was well respected by his students and a great surgeon.

My husband who died was a neurosurgeon, and his practice was spent in stereotactic surgery with respect to people who had abnormal movements and could not control their movements. So I came to believe that we had the best medical system in the United States of America.

It was only in the last few years that I began to see how much medicine had changed in America. We walked into a doctor's office, and it was not like one secretary in my father's office; it was a bank of files and pressure and lines waiting to be seen. I realized that there were so many people who did not have good health care, who worried about losing their health care, and, in fact, were losing their health care; that this kind of reform suddenly was open to me.

Then I looked at some statistics because I thought, America is spending all of this money, spending nearly 15 percent of our GDP on health care, we must be getting substantial bang for the buck. And here is what I found instead.

According to the World Health Organization, the top health care systems in the world begin with France, No. 1, Italy, and it goes on. The United States is ranked 37.

So let's go on. Infant mortality: I think infant mortality is a good criteria of care because we know with good medical care we save babies. I thought surely America is going to be No. 1 in terms of infant mortality. No, we are No. 22. It is, in fact, Japan at the top with 3 deaths per 1,000 births.

So let's look a little further. Avoidable mortality rate: This is deaths that you can avoid with good medical care. Well, we have great medical institutions. You would expect that we would rank very high. Again, France is No. 1, and the United States is not 2, 3, 4 or 5 but No. 15. And the source of that is the Commonwealth Fund.

Well, I then began to think more deeply about it and to realize that we have all of these people in this country growing who are uncovered. In fact, in California, my State, a State of nearly 40 million people, in the last 2 years, each year the uninsured have gained 1 million people. So over the past 2 years, California has lost insurance for 2 million people, bringing the total of people up to 8 million who have no insurance whatsoever.

Then you see companies, when the people get sick with HIV, with full- blown AIDS, will just simply cancel their policies and throw them out. Then you learn that there is such a thing as a preexisting condition. We all come with certain preexisting conditions, or probably at one time in our life we will have one.

We find there are companies that will not grant insurance if you have a preexisting condition. In my 17 years in the Senate, 18 years in the Senate, we have had numerous people write and say: I have been denied this treatment, or, I have been denied that treatment. Would you please try and help me? And we do. Sometimes we win, and we get a procedure for them that they had been denied by their insurance company. So it is so important to know what this bill will do; that it will essentially cover 32 million or 95 percent of the people of this country with some form of insurance.

When the exchanges are functioning, they will have real choice if they wish it. Their insurance will not be taken away from them. Right away, this year, yesterday, those of us who were at the White House heard the President say that immediate gains will take place. For example, $5 billion for a high-risk pool, helping to provide coverage for those who are uninsured because they have been denied coverage by one of the big medical insurance companies.

Also, children with preexisting conditions can no longer be discriminated against. So the family with the juvenile diabetic who cannot get insurance because the child is a juvenile diabetic will be able to get that insurance.

That is important. We have learned that the notorious doughnut hole which takes place when you spend a certain amount on your pharmaceuticals--there is a hole in the middle at which point there is no help, and each person in that situation would receive $250 to help them through that time.

A child can remain on a parent's policy until the age of 26. These are some of the things that happen right away.

Now, I know people do not like this plan, some of them. But the question comes: Do we keep doing what we are doing, spending more and more of our gross domestic product and not improving our overall performance, not improving our infant mortality, not improving our longevity, the way good practical medicine should?

I wish to talk about one thing that isn't in any bill about which I am very worried. A while ago, I introduced legislation for a medical insurance rate authority. We have about nine very large for-profit medical insurance companies in the United States. As a product of an earlier action, they are the only industry, other than major league baseball, that has an antitrust exemption. What they have been doing is merging and acquiring companies so that they can control markets. In Los Angeles, for example, today two of these companies control 51 percent of all of the premiums. Once you have this market share and control, you can raise premiums with abandon. Earlier this year, a company, a subsidiary of WellPoint, sent out notices to 800,000 Californians and said: We are raising your premiums. Premiums went up 39 percent for those not in a group policy but who held individual policies. Can you imagine getting a notice that your insurance has gone up 40 percent? To add insult to injury, they then said: We may come back in the middle of the year and ask for another.

That company came in. I asked the CEO what her salary was. Nine million a year. And you realize that these companies also have a substantial percentage that they spend on rent of your premium dollar, on the salaries of their executives in the millions of your premium dollar, on transportation, on conventions. Generally this can go to 20 to 30 percent of the premium dollar. We begin to bring it down to 15 percent of the premium dollar.

What is missing and what the President put in the reconciliation bill was my legislation to give the Secretary of Health the ability to see that medical insurance premiums are reasonable and would establish a rate authority of people who have expertise in the arena that she could consult with in levying this authority. That is not in the bill.

If I might conclude.

These rate increases go into place May 1. So it is vital that we take some action before May 1, or all throughout the United States there are going to be substantial premium increases.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the education provisions in the reconciliation legislation that reforms Federal student loan programs and will help our Nation's neediest students afford college by providing $35.5 billion for the critical Pell grant program.

Nearly 700,000 students in California right now receive Pell grants of up to $5,550 out of over 8 million students nationwide. The majority of these students come from families where the average income is less than $40,000.

The Pell grant funds in the bill will help prevent cuts to students' grants of up to 60 percent and prevent nearly 600,000 students from losing their grant entirely.

It will also help 63,000 more students in California receive a Pell grant so they can afford to go to college during this tough economic time.

Specifically, the legislation will allow the current Federal Direct Loan

Program, backed by the U.S. Treasury, to be the sole originator of all federal student loans; save $61 billion over 10 years by eliminating the Federal Family Education Loan Program, FFELP, which provides unnecessary subsidies to private lenders and banks for originating student loans.

Of the $61 billion in savings, it directs $10 billion to help reduce the Federal deficit, and the remainder towards important education programs, such as $35.5 billion for Pell grants to help students afford college; direct $22.5 billion of the total $35.5 billion in new Pell Grant funds to increase the maximum award amount--from the current $5,550 to about $6,000 to help with rising college costs.

The economic downturn has resulted in increased enrollment at colleges and universities, and increased eligibility in Federal student aid, with the number of Pell grant recipients increasing by 1 million students in the past two years alone.

In my home state of California, these important provisions are supported by the University of California, UC, California State University, CSU, and California's public community college system-- which together serve approximately 500,000 Pell grant students.

I urge my colleagues to support these provisions that are critically important to our Nation's students.

puerto rico

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of an amendment that I introduced yesterday that addresses the issue of toxins entering the ventilation systems on commercial aircraft.

This amendment is designed to ensure the FAA has the necessary information to protect the American public from exposure to harmful contaminants while flying.

Specifically, here is what the amendment would do:

First, it would require FAA to complete a study of cabin air quality within 1 year; second, the amendment would provide FAA with the authority to mandate that airlines allow air quality monitoring on their aircraft for the purposes of the study; and third, the amendment would authorize FAA to mandate installation of sensors and air filters if the study demonstrates that these steps would provide a public health benefit.

This amendment is necessary because the air in the passenger cabin is a mixture of recirculated cabin air and fresh air that is compressed in the airplane engines.

Sometimes the air you breathe on an airplane gets contaminated with engine oils or hydraulic fluids that are heated to very high temperatures, often appearing as a smelly haze or smoke.

That haze or smoke that enters the cabin air is a toxic soup and can contain carbon monoxide gas as well as chemicals that can damage your nervous system called tricresylphosphates, TCPs.

Exposure to TCPs can initially cause stomach ache and muscle weakness, followed by delayed memory loss, tremors, confusion, and many other symptoms.

Exposure to this and other air toxics in cabin air is a serious matter.

In 2004, the FAA concluded that the problem was so ``unsafe'' that it needed to do thorough inspections of certain aircraft.

In a Federal Register notice, FAA called for ``repetitive detailed inspections of the inside of each air conditioning . . . duct,'' which FAA stated was ``necessary to prevent impairment of the operational skills and abilities of the flight crew caused by the inhalation of agents released from oil or oil breakdown products, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.''

Let me take moment to explain how these broad findings impact people who happen to be exposed to toxic air in aircraft cabins.

Terry Williams is a mother of two and a former flight attendant, who knows firsthand the dangers associated with exposure to toxic fumes while onboard an airplane.

As Terry was working on April 11, 2007, she noticed a ``misty haze type of smoke'' on the plane as it taxied toward its gate. Since then, she has experienced chronic migraines and twitching.

Terry made repeated visits to the emergency room before a neurologist told her she had been the victim of toxic exposure.

Terry is not alone.

Although several flight attendants and passengers have related similar stories to the FAA of smelling chemicals and then experiencing serious illnesses, the FAA has never conducted a large-scale study to measure the frequency or severity of such toxic fume events in aircraft.

Moreover, there appears to be no FAA standard for identifying or preventing the presence of toxic fumes in aircraft cabins.

This FAA reauthorization bill pending before the Senate addresses this very important public health and safety issue.

Specifically, section 613 of the Commerce Committee's bill would require that the Federal Aviation Administration implement a research program to identify appropriate and effective air cleaning technology and sensor technology for the engine and auxiliary power unit air supplied to the passenger cabin and flight deck of all pressurized aircraft.

This is a very good and important provision. FAA should absolutely study what equipment most effectively fixes this air quality problem.

But my amendment would go further than the establishment of a ``research program.''

It lays out a clear framework for protecting the public from what could be a serious risk.

First, it requires that FAA study the nature of this risk by thoroughly and comprehensively monitoring the frequency of exposure on aircraft, so that we understand whether toxic exposure is a common occurrence.

Second, the FAA must assemble records of passenger illness complaints to determine the specific health risks associated with harmful contaminants in airplane ventilation systems.

By gathering this information, I am confident that FAA will develop a clear picture of the level of health risk posed by toxins in cabin air, and the ways to protect the American traveling public and the hardworking men and women who make air travel possible.

Finally, this amendment would empower the FAA to require the installation of toxic air monitors and air filters that the Commerce Committee legislation's study would identify.

Such installation would only be required if the FAA's study shows that such a step is necessary to protect public health, but FAA would clearly have a mandate to take this step.

In March 2009, the president of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, ASHRAE, which in 2007 developed voluntary model standards to protect aircraft cabin air quality, called on FAA to ``investigate and determine the requirements for bleed air contaminant monitoring and solutions to prevent bleed air contamination.''

I will ask to have a copy of this full letter printed in the Record.

But I also want to read ASHRAE's conclusion, which states:

Although no systematic fleet-wide or industry-wide audits

have been conducted, the UK Committee on Toxicity recently

calculated the incidence of oil/hydraulic fluid events as 1

percent of flights based on pilots reports and 0.05 percent

of flights based on engineering investigations. . . .

Still, no aviation regulator requires either bleed air

monitoring or bleed air treatment.

To this end, the ASHRAE committee that developed (the model

air quality standard) is writing to ask you . . . to

investigate the technical implications and flight safety

benefits of addressing bleed air contamination, and to

determine the requirements for bleed air contaminant

detection systems and solutions to prevent bleed air

contamination.

I agree with the ASHRAE recommendation that we need to study this problem and take steps to protect public health and safety.

I offered this amendment in order to implement ASHRAE's very sound recommendations, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the March 6, 2009, letter to which I referred.

Mr. President, I thank you for the recognition.

I thank the distinguished Senator and chairman of the committee for his leadership on this issue. Also, the Senator from Maine is in the Chamber. I thank her for her support.

This has not been an easy program. It has always surprised me that people oppose anything that might give an individual another opportunity. I believe very deeply that some children do well in one kind of setting, other children do well in another kind of setting, and the real goal of education ought to be to provide a number of different choices for youngsters so you can see where they learn best and then enable them to be in that situation. I also have always had a hard time understanding why only the well-to-do can afford a private school, why youngsters have to go to schools that are among the most troubled and, candidly, the worst anywhere because that is the way it is and that is what public education insists it be. So I have supported this program for some 6 years now, since its inception under the leadership of District of Columbia Mayor Anthony Williams, and I strongly believe it should be continued. It is right.

It started out as a 5-year pilot program to determine whether youngsters, low-income students, do, in fact, learn more and learn better in some of DC's private and parochial schools. The program's most recent evaluation results show this program is, in fact, valid and students are, in fact, improving. So I say, why not reauthorize it? What is everybody scared of? Why not reauthorize it? The scholarships of up to $7,500 that are offered through the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program help children make their education in a private or parochial school possible.

Currently, we know this: There are 1,319 children who attend 45 private and parochial schools. They all come from families where the average income is $25,000, and 85 percent of these students would be in DC's worst performing public schools if it were not for this program.

This amendment would extend the life of this worthy program for 5 more years and allow both current and new students the opportunity to participate. What are we afraid of? It is supported by DC Mayor Adrian Fenty, as the chairman said; DC School Chancellor Michelle Rhee--one very gutsy young superintendent; a majority of the District's council; and by parents in the District.

What are we afraid of?

Preliminary evaluations by the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences have shown academic gains and student improvement. When these students entered the program 6 years ago, they were performing in the bottom third on reading and math tests in the District's public schools. Last year's more comprehensive evaluation shows that reading test scores of students receiving a scholarship were higher by the equivalent of 3 months of additional schooling. It showed that they increased to the 35th percentile on the SAT-9 national standardized test from the 33rd percentile where they were before entering the program. So progress has been made. Specifically, pilot program students scored 4.5 points higher in reading on the SAT-9, with a total score of 635.4 when compared to the District's public school students' score of 630.9. These academic gains are despite the many challenges these students face outside the classroom, coming from families where the average income is $25,000.

I look forward to learning more in the months ahead of how students are performing in the program and the impact it has had on them. But in the meantime, there are these results. They may not be major, but what they are showing is that youngsters are learning to read better in this new setting than they were in the public school setting. That, indeed, is something.

I would like to share three examples with you of how the program has helped change the lives of the District's youngsters and how it has shown to give them a chance to reach their highest potential.

Let me give you the first one. OK. Here we are. This is a picture of Shirley-Ann Tomdio, a ninth grade student at Georgetown Visitation High School. I have someone very close to me at Georgetown Visitation. This is a tough academic school, so this youngster has gone from one of the worst schools to a very strong academic school. The scholarship has allowed her to attend this school for the past 5 years. She is now a ninth grade student at Georgetown Visitation School, and she wants to go to college and become a surgeon. She was the eighth grade valedictorian at Sacred Heart Middle School which is located in the District's neighborhood of Columbia Heights.

Shirley-Ann said at her eighth grade graduation speech last year:

The DC OSP [Opportunity Scholarship Program] is important

to me because without it I wouldn't be able to receive the

best education possible. It should continue so that my

brother, sister, and other students get the same chance.

Every child should get the chance to go to a good school.

Who can disagree with that? That is her statement. She is one of the lucky ones. She will go on, and she will do well.

The second student is Carlos Battle. He is a twelfth grade student at Georgetown Day School. He has attended a private school for the past 6 years, since the program started. He is a well-rounded student, participating in school plays. He enjoys classes in classical and modern dance. He plays on the basketball team. And he maintains a solid grade point average of 3.1. He wants to go to college and has already been accepted to Northeastern University with a possible full scholarship, and Loyola University, among other colleges.

He comes from a family with a single mother and has a younger brother named Calvin who is currently an eighth grader at St. Francis Xavier Academy, also with a scholarship from the program.

Carlos said this about his experience in the program:

The scholarships I have received through the Washington

Scholarship Fund have afforded me countless opportunities,

but most important, I have been given the chance to better

myself. Now, instead of wanting to be someone who is well-

known on the streets, I'd rather be someone who is well-known

for his education, communication, and advocacy skills. I now

no longer have to worry about fights breaking out in my

classroom, or being threatened on a constant basis.

With this security, I'm able to focus harder and become

more active in my school's community. Even better, I can look

forward to the future. If I keep on this same track, I am

almost guaranteed a better future for my family and for

myself.

Why should we be afraid of this program?

Let me show you a third youngster, Sanya Arias. This is someone who is now attending St. John's University in New York. She graduated last year from Archbishop Carroll High School with a 3.95 grade point average and is now in her first year at St. John's University in New York with a full scholarship, and she loves it.

The DC opportunity scholarship helped Sanya attend Archbishop Carroll High where she was vice president of her class, captain of the soccer team, on the lacrosse team, and president of the International Club.

In addition to her many extracurricular activities, Sanya took all honors and advanced placement courses. She said this about her experience in the program after just graduating from Archbishop Carroll High School:

It just shows the difference from 7th and 8th grade to

where I am now, where my friends strive to succeed and they

influence me to want to succeed along with them. So, I'm

really grateful for this opportunity.

Why don't the words of students such as Sanya, Carlos, and Shirley- Ann affect us? Why don't they enable us to see that choice in education is not something that is threatening?

I serve on the Appropriations Committee. I was one of the deciding votes in that committee when this came up. We put a lot of amount of money, additionally, into the District for public education to be able to sustain a simple choice opportunity program.

This program goes to the District's neediest students from the District's most failing schools. I have just shown my colleagues three who have succeeded. Is that not worth it? I do not understand why we are so afraid to give needy youngsters the opportunity of choice in education, to allow someone who cannot do well in a certain setting to have a different setting in which they may well be able to do very well.

I say to these three youngsters: All the more power to you. I am very proud. We should listen to students such as Sanya, Carlos, and Shirley- Ann and continue to provide this program to the District's neediest children. We need different models for different children, and I think this program is showing that.

I don't know, there is a lot of lobbying against the program. The teachers union does not like the program. I don't understand why. I don't understand what is to fear. I don't understand why, if you provide some funding for poor children to go to a special environment to learn and they learn and this youngster now is in a university because of it--I think that is what we are all about. I strongly support this program.

I thank Senator Lieberman for his support and advocacy for it and his leadership in bringing this to the floor. I hope we have the votes.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to create a Health Insurance Rate Authority and rate review process to protect American consumers from unfair health insurance rate increases.

This legislation is based on an amendment I filed during the health reform debate. While it was not included in the reform legislation that passed the Senate, I strongly believe consumers need additional protections from insurance company abuses now.

I am pleased that President Obama has included it in his health reform proposal, and I look forward to continuing to work with the administration to see that this bill becomes law.

This bill ensures that all American consumers are protected by a rate review process, not just those in states with aggressive laws.

This legislation requires companies to submit justifications for unreasonable increases in premiums, using a process that will be established by the Secretary, in conjunction with States.

The bill gives the Secretary of HHS authority to deny or modify premium increases or other rate increases, like deductibles, that are found to be unjustified. State Insurance Commissioners will retain this power in states in which they have sufficient authority and capability.

To help the Secretary with this process, the legislation establishes a Health Insurance Rate Authority as an advisory body for all the Secretary's rate review responsibilities.

Health insurance companies continue to demonstrate their willingness to slap consumers with astronomical increases in their health insurance rates.

Anthem Blue Cross has notified thousands of Californians that they will face rate increases of as much as 39 percent. Meanwhile, WellPoint, the corporate parent of Anthem Blue Cross, earned a $4.7 billion profit in 2009.

I find this unbelievable. Imagine the typical family, or individual, trying to find the money to pay 39 percent more for health care coverage. Especially during these difficult economic times, with so much uncertainty. Meanwhile, the health insurance company is doing better than ever.

I would like to share a few of the letters and comments I have received from Californians that vividly describe what these increases mean to them.

Arthur Hirsch, 63, and his wife Eileen have had Blue Cross for 30 years. They live in Laguna Beach and own a small business. They recently received notice that their monthly premiums would increase from $787 per month to $1,035 per month. Arthur said he was told that he could raise his annual deductible to $5,000 or higher to keep the premium increases down. But he said he fears he is stuck with the policy. He said: ``I can't leave my assets and my family uncovered. If something happens . . . well that's what insurance is about.''

A Monterey, CA couple recently found out their premiums with Anthem

Blue Cross will increase 36 percent--from $734 a month to $998 a month. They own an antique print business. The economy has hurt sales--their 2008 gross household income was $42,000, and they don't expect their income will increase much in 2009 or 2010. More than 25 percent of their household income goes toward premiums--far more than their mortgage. They are wondering if they should go into debt, use the equity in their home or withdraw money from their retirement accounts to pay for the rate hikes. Because of pre-existing conditions, the woman is a breast cancer survivor, they don't believe they can get a more affordable policy elsewhere.

A family of four from Pacific Palisades, California, has a $5,000 per person deductible. They pay $917 per month premiums for the family-- $11,000 per year. Their insurance plus out of pocket expenses were more than 25 percent of the family's gross income for each of the past 2 years and no member of the family ever satisfied the deductible. They just received notice that their premium will go up 38 percent, to $1,263 per month. Anthem offered this family another deal: increase premium payments just 10 percent to $1,011 a month if the family agrees to an increased deductible of $7,500 per person. The father in the family hasn't had a checkup in 6 years. He's 56 years old.

This is not how our system should function.

In some States, insurance commissioners have the authority to review health insurance rates and increases, and block the rates that are found to be unjustified. According to a 2008 Families USA report, 33 States have some form of a prior approval process for premium increases.

The same report describes several notable successes among states that use this process, including: Regulators in North Dakota were able to reduce 37 percent of the proposed rate increases filed by insurers.

Maryland used their State laws to block a 46 percent premium increase after a company charged artificially low rates for 2 years. The decision was upheld in court.

New Hampshire regulators were able to reduce a proposed 100 percent rate increase to 12.5 percent.

But in other States, including California, insurance commissioners do not have this ability. Instead, my State's insurance commissioner has had to ask Anthem/Blue Cross to delay its proposed increase in premiums. He has no authority to order this delay.

Some States have laws like this on the books, but do not have sufficient resources to review all the rate changes that insurance companies propose.

Consumers deserve full protection from unfair rate increases, no matter where they live.

This legislation ensures that all Americans have some level of basic protection. The bill is based in part on a provision included in the Senate's version of health reform legislation, which required insurance companies to submit justifications and explain increases in premiums. They must submit these justifications to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and they must make these justifications available on their website.

The bill asks the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to produce a report, detailing the rate review laws and capabilities in all 50 States. The Secretary of HHS will then use these findings to determine which States have the authority and capability to undertake sufficient rate reviews to protect consumers.

In States where Insurance Commissioners have authority to review rates, they will continue to do so.

In States without sufficient authority or resources, the Secretary of HHS will review rates, and take any appropriate action to deny unfair requests.

This could mean blocking unjustified rate increases, or requiring rebates, if an unfair increase is already in effect.

This will provide all American consumers with another layer of protection from an unfair premium increase.

The amendment would also require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a Health Insurance Rate Authority as part of the process in the bill that enables her to monitor premium costs.

The Rate Authority would advise the Secretary on insurance rate review and would be composed of seven officials that represent the full scope of the health care system including: at least two consumers; at least one medical professional; and one representative of the medical insurance industry.

The remaining members would be experts in health economics, actuarial science, or other sectors of the health care system.

The Rate Authority will also issue an annual report, providing American consumers with basic information about how insurance companies are behaving in the market. It will examine premium increases by State, as well as medical loss ratios, reserves and solvency of companies, and other relevant behaviors.

This data will give consumers better information, enabling them to make better choices and avoid purchasing plans from companies that do not provide them the best value for their dollar.

This concern about premium increases stems from the fact that we are the only industrialized nation that relies heavily on a for-profit medical insurance industry to provide basic health care. I believe, fundamentally, that all medical insurance should be not for profit.

The industry is focused on profits, not patients. It is heavily concentrated, leaving consumers with few alternatives when their premiums do increase.

As of 2007, just two carriers--WellPoint and UnitedHealth Group--had gained control of 36 percent of the national market for commercial health insurance.

Since 1998, there have been more than 400 mergers of health insurance companies, as larger carriers have purchased, absorbed, and enveloped smaller competitors.

In 2004 and 2005 alone, this industry had 28 mergers, valued at more than $53 billion. That is more merger activity in health insurance than in the 8 previous years combined.

Today, according to a study by the American Medical Association, more than 94 percent of American health insurance markets are highly concentrated, as characterized by U.S. Department of Justice guidelines. This means these companies could raise premiums or reduce benefits with little fear that consumers will end their contracts and move to a more competitive carrier.

In my State of California just two companies, WellPoint and Kaiser Permanente, control more than 58 percent of the market. In Los Angeles, the top two carriers controlled 62 percent of the market as of 2008.

Record levels of market concentration have helped generate a record level of profit increases.

Between 2000 and 2007, profits at 10 of the largest publicly-traded health insurance companies soared 428 percent--from $2.4 billion in 2000 to $12.9 billion in 2007.

The CEOs at these companies took in record earnings. In 2007, these 10 CEOs made a combined $118.6 million.

The CEO of CIGNA took home $25.8 million.

The CEO of Aetna took home $23 million.

The CEO of UnitedHealth took home $13.2 million and the CEO of WellPoint took home $9.1 million.

Even last year, a time of enormous economic distress for average Americans, was a good year for the health insurance industry. According to Health Care for America Now!, the 5 largest health insurers-- WellPoint, United Health, Humana, Cigna, Aetna--saw profits increase 56 percent from 2008 to 2009, from $7.7 billion to $12.1 billion. Only Aetna saw their profits decrease.

Yet we see insurance companies like Anthem/Blue Cross, owned by Well Point, increasing consumer premiums.

Frankly, I would go further than this legislation if I could: I believe the health insurance industry should be non-profit. There is no reason that any company or shareholder should make a penny off of basic health care coverage for our citizens.

But we do have a system that heavily relies on for-profit insurance companies. Regardless of the outcome of the broader debate on health care reform, that is unlikely to change.

So this bill becomes very necessary. Premiums are increasing every day, and people in many states have no recourse, and no way to know if a particular increase is unfair.

This cannot continue. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to create a Health Insurance Rate Authority and rate review process to protect American consumers from unfair health insurance rate increases.

This legislation is based on an amendment I filed during the health reform debate. While it was not included in the reform legislation that passed the Senate, I strongly believe consumers need additional protections from insurance company abuses now.

I am pleased that President Obama has included it in his health reform proposal, and I look forward to continuing to work with the administration to see that this bill becomes law.

This bill ensures that all American consumers are protected by a rate review process, not just those in states with aggressive laws.

This legislation requires companies to submit justifications for unreasonable increases in premiums, using a process that will be established by the Secretary, in conjunction with States.

The bill gives the Secretary of HHS authority to deny or modify premium increases or other rate increases, like deductibles, that are found to be unjustified. State Insurance Commissioners will retain this power in states in which they have sufficient authority and capability.

To help the Secretary with this process, the legislation establishes a Health Insurance Rate Authority as an advisory body for all the Secretary's rate review responsibilities.

Health insurance companies continue to demonstrate their willingness to slap consumers with astronomical increases in their health insurance rates.

Anthem Blue Cross has notified thousands of Californians that they will face rate increases of as much as 39 percent. Meanwhile, WellPoint, the corporate parent of Anthem Blue Cross, earned a $4.7 billion profit in 2009.

I find this unbelievable. Imagine the typical family, or individual, trying to find the money to pay 39 percent more for health care coverage. Especially during these difficult economic times, with so much uncertainty. Meanwhile, the health insurance company is doing better than ever.

I would like to share a few of the letters and comments I have received from Californians that vividly describe what these increases mean to them.

Arthur Hirsch, 63, and his wife Eileen have had Blue Cross for 30 years. They live in Laguna Beach and own a small business. They recently received notice that their monthly premiums would increase from $787 per month to $1,035 per month. Arthur said he was told that he could raise his annual deductible to $5,000 or higher to keep the premium increases down. But he said he fears he is stuck with the policy. He said: ``I can't leave my assets and my family uncovered. If something happens . . . well that's what insurance is about.''

A Monterey, CA couple recently found out their premiums with Anthem

Blue Cross will increase 36 percent--from $734 a month to $998 a month. They own an antique print business. The economy has hurt sales--their 2008 gross household income was $42,000, and they don't expect their income will increase much in 2009 or 2010. More than 25 percent of their household income goes toward premiums--far more than their mortgage. They are wondering if they should go into debt, use the equity in their home or withdraw money from their retirement accounts to pay for the rate hikes. Because of pre-existing conditions, the woman is a breast cancer survivor, they don't believe they can get a more affordable policy elsewhere.

A family of four from Pacific Palisades, California, has a $5,000 per person deductible. They pay $917 per month premiums for the family-- $11,000 per year. Their insurance plus out of pocket expenses were more than 25 percent of the family's gross income for each of the past 2 years and no member of the family ever satisfied the deductible. They just received notice that their premium will go up 38 percent, to $1,263 per month. Anthem offered this family another deal: increase premium payments just 10 percent to $1,011 a month if the family agrees to an increased deductible of $7,500 per person. The father in the family hasn't had a checkup in 6 years. He's 56 years old.

This is not how our system should function.

In some States, insurance commissioners have the authority to review health insurance rates and increases, and block the rates that are found to be unjustified. According to a 2008 Families USA report, 33 States have some form of a prior approval process for premium increases.

The same report describes several notable successes among states that use this process, including: Regulators in North Dakota were able to reduce 37 percent of the proposed rate increases filed by insurers.

Maryland used their State laws to block a 46 percent premium increase after a company charged artificially low rates for 2 years. The decision was upheld in court.

New Hampshire regulators were able to reduce a proposed 100 percent rate increase to 12.5 percent.

But in other States, including California, insurance commissioners do not have this ability. Instead, my State's insurance commissioner has had to ask Anthem/Blue Cross to delay its proposed increase in premiums. He has no authority to order this delay.

Some States have laws like this on the books, but do not have sufficient resources to review all the rate changes that insurance companies propose.

Consumers deserve full protection from unfair rate increases, no matter where they live.

This legislation ensures that all Americans have some level of basic protection. The bill is based in part on a provision included in the Senate's version of health reform legislation, which required insurance companies to submit justifications and explain increases in premiums. They must submit these justifications to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and they must make these justifications available on their website.

The bill asks the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to produce a report, detailing the rate review laws and capabilities in all 50 States. The Secretary of HHS will then use these findings to determine which States have the authority and capability to undertake sufficient rate reviews to protect consumers.

In States where Insurance Commissioners have authority to review rates, they will continue to do so.

In States without sufficient authority or resources, the Secretary of HHS will review rates, and take any appropriate action to deny unfair requests.

This could mean blocking unjustified rate increases, or requiring rebates, if an unfair increase is already in effect.

This will provide all American consumers with another layer of protection from an unfair premium increase.

The amendment would also require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a Health Insurance Rate Authority as part of the process in the bill that enables her to monitor premium costs.

The Rate Authority would advise the Secretary on insurance rate review and would be composed of seven officials that represent the full scope of the health care system including: at least two consumers; at least one medical professional; and one representative of the medical insurance industry.

The remaining members would be experts in health economics, actuarial science, or other sectors of the health care system.

The Rate Authority will also issue an annual report, providing American consumers with basic information about how insurance companies are behaving in the market. It will examine premium increases by State, as well as medical loss ratios, reserves and solvency of companies, and other relevant behaviors.

This data will give consumers better information, enabling them to make better choices and avoid purchasing plans from companies that do not provide them the best value for their dollar.

This concern about premium increases stems from the fact that we are the only industrialized nation that relies heavily on a for-profit medical insurance industry to provide basic health care. I believe, fundamentally, that all medical insurance should be not for profit.

The industry is focused on profits, not patients. It is heavily concentrated, leaving consumers with few alternatives when their premiums do increase.

As of 2007, just two carriers--WellPoint and UnitedHealth Group--had gained control of 36 percent of the national market for commercial health insurance.

Since 1998, there have been more than 400 mergers of health insurance companies, as larger carriers have purchased, absorbed, and enveloped smaller competitors.

In 2004 and 2005 alone, this industry had 28 mergers, valued at more than $53 billion. That is more merger activity in health insurance than in the 8 previous years combined.

Today, according to a study by the American Medical Association, more than 94 percent of American health insurance markets are highly concentrated, as characterized by U.S. Department of Justice guidelines. This means these companies could raise premiums or reduce benefits with little fear that consumers will end their contracts and move to a more competitive carrier.

In my State of California just two companies, WellPoint and Kaiser Permanente, control more than 58 percent of the market. In Los Angeles, the top two carriers controlled 62 percent of the market as of 2008.

Record levels of market concentration have helped generate a record level of profit increases.

Between 2000 and 2007, profits at 10 of the largest publicly-traded health insurance companies soared 428 percent--from $2.4 billion in 2000 to $12.9 billion in 2007.

The CEOs at these companies took in record earnings. In 2007, these 10 CEOs made a combined $118.6 million.

The CEO of CIGNA took home $25.8 million.

The CEO of Aetna took home $23 million.

The CEO of UnitedHealth took home $13.2 million and the CEO of WellPoint took home $9.1 million.

Even last year, a time of enormous economic distress for average Americans, was a good year for the health insurance industry. According to Health Care for America Now!, the 5 largest health insurers-- WellPoint, United Health, Humana, Cigna, Aetna--saw profits increase 56 percent from 2008 to 2009, from $7.7 billion to $12.1 billion. Only Aetna saw their profits decrease.

Yet we see insurance companies like Anthem/Blue Cross, owned by Well Point, increasing consumer premiums.

Frankly, I would go further than this legislation if I could: I believe the health insurance industry should be non-profit. There is no reason that any company or shareholder should make a penny off of basic health care coverage for our citizens.

But we do have a system that heavily relies on for-profit insurance companies. Regardless of the outcome of the broader debate on health care reform, that is unlikely to change.

So this bill becomes very necessary. Premiums are increasing every day, and people in many states have no recourse, and no way to know if a particular increase is unfair.

This cannot continue. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to state my strong support for the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010, which would repeal the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy in our Armed Forces.

I am one who believes that the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy has done more harm than good. The policy has forced American citizens to choose between serving their country and being honest about who they are; and, even worse, it has led to the discharge of some 13,000 brave men and women because their sexual orientation was discovered.

The criteria for serving in our Armed Forces should be competence, courage, and a willingness to serve; not race, gender, or sexual orientation.

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010 would finally repeal ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' and create a policy of nondiscrimination in the military. That is the right thing to do, and I will support this legislation every step of the way.

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010 would repeal the 1993 ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy; allow people who were removed under ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' to re-enter the military; establish a policy of nondiscrimination in the Armed Forces to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; and require a Pentagon working group established by the Department of Defense to issue recommendations on how to implement repeal throughout the military.

The bill would also require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress 180 days after enactment on what actions are being taken to ensure that any school that does not allow a ROTC unit on its campus does not receive Federal funds.

It is important for people to realize that ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' is not an abstract policy. This policy has had real and harmful effects on our military readiness by denying able and willing men and women the opportunity to serve, and by requiring the discharge of brave individuals who have served courageously and even risked their lives for their country.

Let me give you just a few of the thousands of examples:

Anthony Woods, of Fairfield, CA, graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and went on to serve two tours of duty in Iraq, including in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He earned the Bronze Star and Army Commendation Medal, and all 81 soldiers who served under his leadership in Iraq returned home safely to the United States. Mr. Woods was discharged from the U.S. Army in 2008 because of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.''

MAJ Margaret Witt joined the U.S. Air Force in 1987 and served as a flight nurse for 18 years. She received numerous awards, including the Meritorious Service Metal, Air Medal, and the Air Force Commendation Medal. In 2003, President Bush noted in citation that her ``airmanship and courage directly contributed to the successful accomplishment of important missions under extremely hazardous conditions.'' Major Witt was discharged 6 years ago after the Air Force received a tip that she was gay. Major Witt has challenged her case in court because, as she says, ``I joined the Air Force because I wanted to serve my country. I have loved being in the military--my fellow airmen have been my family. I am proud of my career and want to continue doing my job. Wounded people never asked me about my sexual orientation. They were just glad to see me there.'' The case is currently pending before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, CA.

LT Daniel Choi, originally from Orange County, CA, also graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He is an Arabic linguist and served as an infantry officer in Iraq in 2006 and 2007, but he was recommended for discharge from the U.S. Army after announcing last year that he was gay. Lieutenant Choi has said that: ``The lessons of courage, integrity, honesty and selfless service are some of the most important. . . . I refuse to lie to my commanders. I refuse to lie to my peers. I refuse to lie to my subordinates. I demand honesty and courage from my soldiers. They should demand the same from me.'' The New York National Guard has recently indicated that they will allow Lieutenant Choi to begin participating in drills with the unit again. LTC Paul Fanning, a spokesperson for the New York Guard, has stated: ``We do not have an issue with it. It's a deeply personal thing. To us a soldier is a soldier is a soldier.''

Veteran U.S. Marine Bob Lehman, of San Diego, CA, served in the gulf war in the 1990s and was never dismissed for being gay. He has explained that, ``Nobody in my unit knew artillery better than I did, including the officers. During combat, the gay thing didn't even exist. My biggest fear was bringing my guys home alive.'' However, Mr. Lehman has said he believes that the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy forces U.S. soldiers into a moral dilemma. ``Marines don't lie, cheat or steal. It was hard to lie . . . There was a lot of denial and depression because of the inability to be out openly, (the fear) that I might get fired.''

Courageous men and women like these should be applauded for their service, not discharged for their sexual

orientation. The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010 would ensure that is the case and would require the military to readmit anyone who was discharged solely because of their sexual orientation and is otherwise willing and able to serve.

The ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy has long been a contentious one, and I do not state my support for repeal lightly.

It is absolutely essential that we undertake this project with great care, so that repeal of the policy will enhance military readiness and the effect will be positive for all of our servicemembers in the field.

I am confident that we are up to the task of doing so.

In the last few months alone, high ranking officials from various components of the military have come forward to say that repeal is not only feasible, it is the right thing to do. For example:

ADM Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that, ``Speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.''

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified at the same hearing that, ``I fully support the president's decision. The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for it.''

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has said, ``I support the repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' I do think the President has come up with a very practical and workable way to do that to work through the working group that the Secretary of Defense has set up, to make sure that we implement any change in the law that Congress makes in a very professional and very smooth manner, and without any negative impacts on the force.''

Retired General Colin Powell issued an official statement expressing that ``In the almost 17 years since the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed. I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen.''

These military leaders believe repeal is not only feasible, it is right. According to the University of California, military leaders in many other countries agree. Twenty-five countries currently have policies allowing gay servicemembers to serve openly in their militaries, including 15 NATO countries, Australia and Israel.

This year, Secretary Gates has appointed a Pentagon working group to study in great detail how repeal can be implemented in a manner that will enhance the readiness and effectiveness of our troops. This group, led by Army General Carter Ham and Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson, is tasked with engaging troops and their families at all levels of the Armed Forces to determine what changes will be necessary in regulations, in education and training practices, and in military policy to implement a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in our Armed Forces. The study will be careful, and the review will be comprehensive.

The time has come to repeal ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010. I am confident that our military will be stronger and better when this bill becomes law.

Mr. President, I rise to state my strong support for the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010, which would repeal the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy in our Armed Forces.

I am one who believes that the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy has done more harm than good. The policy has forced American citizens to choose between serving their country and being honest about who they are; and, even worse, it has led to the discharge of some 13,000 brave men and women because their sexual orientation was discovered.

The criteria for serving in our Armed Forces should be competence, courage, and a willingness to serve; not race, gender, or sexual orientation.

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010 would finally repeal ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' and create a policy of nondiscrimination in the military. That is the right thing to do, and I will support this legislation every step of the way.

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010 would repeal the 1993 ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy; allow people who were removed under ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' to re-enter the military; establish a policy of nondiscrimination in the Armed Forces to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; and require a Pentagon working group established by the Department of Defense to issue recommendations on how to implement repeal throughout the military.

The bill would also require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress 180 days after enactment on what actions are being taken to ensure that any school that does not allow a ROTC unit on its campus does not receive Federal funds.

It is important for people to realize that ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' is not an abstract policy. This policy has had real and harmful effects on our military readiness by denying able and willing men and women the opportunity to serve, and by requiring the discharge of brave individuals who have served courageously and even risked their lives for their country.

Let me give you just a few of the thousands of examples:

Anthony Woods, of Fairfield, CA, graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and went on to serve two tours of duty in Iraq, including in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He earned the Bronze Star and Army Commendation Medal, and all 81 soldiers who served under his leadership in Iraq returned home safely to the United States. Mr. Woods was discharged from the U.S. Army in 2008 because of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.''

MAJ Margaret Witt joined the U.S. Air Force in 1987 and served as a flight nurse for 18 years. She received numerous awards, including the Meritorious Service Metal, Air Medal, and the Air Force Commendation Medal. In 2003, President Bush noted in citation that her ``airmanship and courage directly contributed to the successful accomplishment of important missions under extremely hazardous conditions.'' Major Witt was discharged 6 years ago after the Air Force received a tip that she was gay. Major Witt has challenged her case in court because, as she says, ``I joined the Air Force because I wanted to serve my country. I have loved being in the military--my fellow airmen have been my family. I am proud of my career and want to continue doing my job. Wounded people never asked me about my sexual orientation. They were just glad to see me there.'' The case is currently pending before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, CA.

LT Daniel Choi, originally from Orange County, CA, also graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He is an Arabic linguist and served as an infantry officer in Iraq in 2006 and 2007, but he was recommended for discharge from the U.S. Army after announcing last year that he was gay. Lieutenant Choi has said that: ``The lessons of courage, integrity, honesty and selfless service are some of the most important. . . . I refuse to lie to my commanders. I refuse to lie to my peers. I refuse to lie to my subordinates. I demand honesty and courage from my soldiers. They should demand the same from me.'' The New York National Guard has recently indicated that they will allow Lieutenant Choi to begin participating in drills with the unit again. LTC Paul Fanning, a spokesperson for the New York Guard, has stated: ``We do not have an issue with it. It's a deeply personal thing. To us a soldier is a soldier is a soldier.''

Veteran U.S. Marine Bob Lehman, of San Diego, CA, served in the gulf war in the 1990s and was never dismissed for being gay. He has explained that, ``Nobody in my unit knew artillery better than I did, including the officers. During combat, the gay thing didn't even exist. My biggest fear was bringing my guys home alive.'' However, Mr. Lehman has said he believes that the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy forces U.S. soldiers into a moral dilemma. ``Marines don't lie, cheat or steal. It was hard to lie . . . There was a lot of denial and depression because of the inability to be out openly, (the fear) that I might get fired.''

Courageous men and women like these should be applauded for their service, not discharged for their sexual

orientation. The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010 would ensure that is the case and would require the military to readmit anyone who was discharged solely because of their sexual orientation and is otherwise willing and able to serve.

The ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy has long been a contentious one, and I do not state my support for repeal lightly.

It is absolutely essential that we undertake this project with great care, so that repeal of the policy will enhance military readiness and the effect will be positive for all of our servicemembers in the field.

I am confident that we are up to the task of doing so.

In the last few months alone, high ranking officials from various components of the military have come forward to say that repeal is not only feasible, it is the right thing to do. For example:

ADM Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that, ``Speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.''

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified at the same hearing that, ``I fully support the president's decision. The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for it.''

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has said, ``I support the repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' I do think the President has come up with a very practical and workable way to do that to work through the working group that the Secretary of Defense has set up, to make sure that we implement any change in the law that Congress makes in a very professional and very smooth manner, and without any negative impacts on the force.''

Retired General Colin Powell issued an official statement expressing that ``In the almost 17 years since the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed. I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen.''

These military leaders believe repeal is not only feasible, it is right. According to the University of California, military leaders in many other countries agree. Twenty-five countries currently have policies allowing gay servicemembers to serve openly in their militaries, including 15 NATO countries, Australia and Israel.

This year, Secretary Gates has appointed a Pentagon working group to study in great detail how repeal can be implemented in a manner that will enhance the readiness and effectiveness of our troops. This group, led by Army General Carter Ham and Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson, is tasked with engaging troops and their families at all levels of the Armed Forces to determine what changes will be necessary in regulations, in education and training practices, and in military policy to implement a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in our Armed Forces. The study will be careful, and the review will be comprehensive.

The time has come to repeal ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010. I am confident that our military will be stronger and better when this bill becomes law.