Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Madam President, I have spoken here a few times already about Federal employees and the great work they perform. I am honored to be in a position to come here and do it again. I enjoy sharing stories in this Chamber about excellent public servants.

These stories are only but a few pieces in the vivid mosaic of our Federal workforce. The stories are exemplary, not exceptional. These are regular people doing a great job.

The real story of our Federal employees--that of their dedication, their talents, and their important contributions--needs to be told.

Service in government is characterized by sacrifice. Many of our Federal employees wear a uniform and sacrifice on the battlefield. Others work in civilian jobs but still make great sacrifices by working long hours and foregoing opportunities in the private sector, such as substantially better pay and bonuses. Their bonus, as I have said before, is the satisfaction of having served their country.

Today I wish to speak about a man who risked his life during wartime and then spent nearly three decades working as a civilian engineer for the U.S. Army Missile Command.

Joe Connaughton, a native of Tuscaloosa, AL, had already distinguished himself during the Second World War. He served as a navigator and bombardier on 47 missions in both the European and Pacific theaters. Joe was decorated with three air medals and four battle stars, and his unit received the Croix de Guerre for support provided to the French Expeditionary Force during the Allied offensive in Italy.

After returning home, Joe took advantage of the GI bill to pursue a bachelor of science degree in chemical engineering from the University of Alabama. He began working for the U.S. Army Missile Command near Huntsville in the late 1950s.

For 27 years, Joe worked for the Army Missile Command's Research, Development, and Engineering Division at Redstone Arsenal. He and his engineering team helped develop and perfect weapons systems critical to maintaining our military edge during the Cold War. This included the Lance, Hellfire, and THAAD missile propulsion systems.

When Joe and his colleagues were working on the Hellfire missile, which is carried primarily by the Apache attack helicopter, there was a problem when the TV-based guidance system encountered difficulties in smoke and bad weather. A missile whose own propulsion method gives off a smoke plume cannot be accurately directed if the smoke hinders its guidance system. The engineering team on which Joe worked developed a smokeless propellant, which greatly enhanced the missile's accuracy.

For this achievement, Joe and his team earned the Army Missile Command's Scientific and Engineering Award in 1980.

When the Hellfire entered service in 1984, it was intended for use against Soviet tanks in a future Cold War conflict. But with the collapse of communism in Europe just a few years later, some began to doubt whether its development--and that of similar systems--was worth the cost.

However, with the laser guidance and missile propulsion system developed by the civilian engineers at Redstone Arsenal, the Hellfire proved its worth during Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

In that conflict, the Army and Marine Corps used the Hellfire to disable the Iraqi air defenses in its initial strike, quickly gaining air supremacy. Apache helicopters launched Hellfire missiles against a myriad of targets,

demonstrating the usefulness and effectiveness of this new weapon.

This guided missile system, perfected in Alabama by Joe and other Federal employees, helped spare civilian lives in Iraq and ensured a rapid coalition victory. They continue to play a major role today, as Predator drones carry Hellfire missiles on missions over Afghanistan.

Our military depends on countless civilian engineers just like Joe. Without their hard work and important contributions, we could not maintain the military strength we have today. They are all--every one of them--Government workers, and they work on bases and in research facilities throughout the country, including at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville.

These men and women wake up each day and go to work knowing that they directly participate in keeping America safe. The technologies they develop remain at the forefront of our fight against al-Qaida and other extremist groups.

We must never forget that they, along with the rest of our civilian government employees, enable the military to do its job.

Some give their lives for our country. Others give their lives to it. All of them demonstrate this greatest hallmark of patriotism; which is sacrifice.

Joe could have made more money in the private sector. Doubtless, he could have moved from the Army Missile Command to work for a private military contractor, the same people he worked with on a daily basis in developing these systems. But he didn't. His priority was making a contribution, not making money.

In some ways, we have lost sight of this sense of purpose, which is the engine of our American spirit. I am greatly encouraged that President Obama has called for a new generation to take up the torch of public service through careers in government. He has called on us, once again, to make sacrifices in order to ensure the future safety and prosperity of this country we all love so dearly.

Our Federal employees, like Joe, feel a sense of duty to serve this great Nation. It is what sustained him--a 20-year-old airman from Alabama--over Italy, France, Yugoslavia, China and Japan. It is what sustained him as an engineer when he returned home to Alabama and worked to build America's defenses. It is love of country. It is service above self.

Joe embodies this spirit, and I know he has passed it on to the next generation. I can see it firsthand, because his son, Jeff, is my chief of staff--a great Federal employee and a great person.

Families across America will gather this Sunday to mark Father's Day and to celebrate the important bond between fathers and their children. On this occasion I am reminded of my own father--who spent most of his career as a government employee--and the important lessons he taught me about the value of public service.

I also think about fathers throughout America who have chosen--along with so many mothers--to dedicate their careers to serving the public. They are powerful role models, not only for their own daughters and sons, but for all young Americans who want a chance to shape this country's future.

I hope all my colleagues will join me in honoring the sacrifices and the achievements of all our Federal employees.

I want to wish Joe a happy Father's Day, and I extend the same well wishes to fathers across the country, and especially to those serving overseas or with a loved one serving overseas.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, Senator Kyl and I will join in introducing a resolution concerning freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression in Iran.

In the past week, the flow of information in and out of Iran has been suppressed. Voices in Iran have been silenced, and the international right to freedom of expression has been restricted, especially in the press.

I support Iran's sovereignty and deeply respect the will of the Iranian people. While Iran has enthusiastically embraced elections, the long road to democracy does not end there. It also includes fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of expression, which is protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In 1976, Iran was one of the first countries to ratify this U.N. treaty which also protects the right to hold opinions without interference and the right to receive and impart information in writing, print, or through any other media.

Our resolution supports the Iranian people as they take steps to peacefully express their opinions and aspirations and seek access to means of communication and the news. It expresses respect for the sovereignty, proud history, and rich culture of the Iranian people, and recognizes the universal values of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

As President Obama said earlier this week:

The democratic process--free speech [and] the ability of

people to peacefully dissent . . . are universal values and

need to be respected.

This is the case not just in Iran but anywhere in the world.

Since the Iranian presidential election on June 12, there have been increased restrictions on freedom of the press in Iran and limitations on the free flow of information. Newspapers and news services have been censored, access for journalists has been restricted, and specific media outlets have been blocked. Foreign journalists have had their press credentials canceled and videos confiscated. They have been confined to their hotels and told their visas would not be renewed. Bureaus of foreign press agencies in Tehran have been closed, and others have been instructed to suspend all their Farsi-language news.

For Iranian journalists, the stakes have been even higher. Numerous Iranian journalists have been detained, imprisoned, assaulted, and intimidated since the elections on June 12. Journalists have been instructed to file stories solely from their offices, which has limited their ability to provide timely and accurate news. There has also been interference with international broadcasting in Iran, whether through the jamming of radio transmissions or blockage of satellite signals.

Shortwave and medium-wave transmissions from the Farsi-language Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's Radio Farda have been partially jammed, and satellite broadcasts, including those of the Voice of America's Persian News Network and the British Broadcasting Corporation, have also been intermittently blocked as well. These services are widely popular in Iran, serving as a vital source of communication and entertainment, and attempts to thwart such broadcasts are shameful.

Efforts to suppress the free flow of information have not focused on the media alone. Blogs and social networking sites have been targeted as well, including popular Web sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Short message service in Iran has been blocked--preventing text message communications and jamming Internet sites that utilize such services-- and cell phone service has been partially shut down.

These restrictions have prevented the free flow of information and precluded Iranian citizens from communicating with each other. Some Iranians have circumvented these restrictions through proxy Web sites and third-party carriers, and the Internet has served, at times, as the only outlet for communication within Iran and with the rest of the world.

This resolution reinforces the universal values of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It supports the Iranian people as they take steps to peacefully express their voices, opinions, and aspirations. It condemns the detainment, the imprisonment, and the intimidation of all journalists in Iran and throughout the world.

As President Obama said Tuesday:

To those people who put so much hope and energy and

optimism into the political process, I would say to them that

the world is watching and inspired by their participation,

regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was.

This resolution is not about the election in Iran. Rather, it is about the fundamental right to free speech, free press, and free expression of the Iranian people.

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

Mr. President, I rise to honor this year's winners of the annual Jefferson Award for Public Service and particularly four winners from my home State of Delaware.

The Jefferson Awards were created in 1972 to serve as a kind of Nobel Prize for voluntarism and community service in America. Named for our third President, whose embodiment of our Nation's spirit of community and service continues to inspire, these awards are presented annually for both national and State winners.

The mission of the State Jefferson Awards is to recognize unsung heroes in our communities who give their time and their care in service to others. On the national level, Jefferson Awards are bestowed upon those who have contributed significantly to advancing these principles. Past winners include Colin Powell, Bill and Melinda Gates, Oprah Winfrey, and Sandra Day O'Connor.

This year, four outstanding Delawareans have won Jefferson Awards. They have contributed to voluntarism in the ``First State'' through innovative programs and a dedication to inspiring their fellow citizens to service.

Elaine Chester, of Wilmington, has won a Jefferson Award for creating a program through the Delaware Division of Family Services to help low- income children receive new, wrapped holiday gifts. She matched local children in need with Delmarva Power employees interested in sending gifts.

Over the last few years, under Elaine's leadership, this program has expanded to become one of the largest corporate gift drives in Delaware. It benefits hundreds of children annually, including those who are terminally ill. Since its expansion to nursing homes, the elderly now receive gifts from Delmarva Power employees as well.

Leonard Young, also of Wilmington, earned his Jefferson Award for his tireless promotion of public health and wellness initiatives. His encouragement of others to get regular preventive health screenings has led many Delawareans to incorporate healthy living into their daily routines.

Leonard has spent a great number of hours educating youth about the dangers of substance abuse and how to prevent violent behavior in relationships. He is a leader in the community, and his involvement in various public health endeavors is far-reaching.

I am especially proud that this year's national winner of the Jefferson Award for Outstanding Service by a High School is the Salesianum School in Wilmington, DE. Its efforts were led by two seniors, Robert Liszkiewicz and Dominic Taglione.

The two led their classmates in an effort to increase youth voluntarism, and they gave their time to mentoring local students, volunteering with the Blue/Gold Foundation for Delawareans with intellectual disabilities, and helping at the local Ronald McDonald House for families with children undergoing medical treatment. The efforts of Robert, Dominic, and their fellow students at Salesianum have established a lasting program for youth voluntarism based on the principles of the Jefferson Awards.

I am privileged to have the opportunity to meet Elaine, Leonard, Robert, and Dominic at a Senate reception today honoring Jefferson Award winners from across the country. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating their achievements, their commitment to serving local communities, and their embodiment of that greatest American quality of service above self.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 25 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor has impeccable legal credentials and a record of excellence and integrity. Equally important, she has the experience not only to make an excellent Justice but also to have a significant impact on a Court that today reflects too narrow a slice of America.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor's deep appreciation for how the law affects the lives of ordinary Americans is born from her compelling personal background, as well as her time as an assistant district attorney, a commercial litigator, and later as a judge.

Once confirmed, she will become the first Hispanic Justice, and just the third woman, to serve on the Nation's highest Court.

What are we to make, then, of the assaults on the character and record of this seemingly exemplary nominee?

Unfortunately, they seem to be a remnant of more than two decades of ``culture wars'' over Supreme Court nominees.

As someone who was present for the beginning of these wars, I have seen them develop into elaborate political dances, where both sides trade charges that are predictable and often baseless.

Some of these attacks, such as charges of racism and bigotry, deeply undermine our national dialog.

I am encouraged to note that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen not to join in these attacks, and many, in fact, have condemned them.

Other attacks are equally predictable, from the general charge of ``extremist'' to particular instances of political ``gotcha''-- wrenching statements out of context in order to paint a distorted picture of the nominee's record.

At some level, partisan assaults are expected in the Supreme Court nomination process. But in the case of Judge Sotomayor, they are especially divorced from this body's good-faith exercise of its duty to advise and consent.

It is one thing to attack a nominee's judicial philosophy when the President is trying to reshape the Court based on judicial philosophy, when the balance of the Court is at stake, or when the Senate and the President are deeply divided.

None of those situations apply to this nomination.

Judge Sotomayor is a well-qualified, mainstream jurist who does not threaten to tip the balance of the Court and

who is likely to be confirmed by a substantial majority.

Although these partisan attacks take many forms, today I would like to address one persistent, unhelpful, and often baseless charge--that of so-called ``judicial activism.''

What is especially unhelpful about calling someone a judicial activist is that many times it is an empty epithet, divorced from a real assessment of judicial temperament.

As conservative jurist Frank Easterbrook puts it, the charge is empty:

Everyone wants to appropriate and apply the word so that

his favored approach is sound and its opposite ``activist.''

Then ``activism'' just means judges behaving badly--and each

person fills in a different definition of badly.

In other words, the term activist, when applied to the decisions of a Supreme Court nominee, is generally nothing more than politically charged shorthand for decisions that the accuser disagrees with.

That is not to say that the term ``judicial activism'' is necessarily without content. If we want to take it seriously, it might mean a failure to defer to the elected branches of government, it might mean disregard for long-established precedent, or it might mean deciding cases based on personal policy preferences rather than the law.

I think it is fair to say that based on any of these definitions, the Supreme Court's current conservative majority has been highly activist.

Let me give just a few examples.

In United States v. Morrison, decided in 2000, the Rehnquist court struck down a key provision of the Violence Against Women Act. Rather than deferring to the considered judgment and extensive fact-finding of a democratically elected Congress, the Court went out of its way to impose its own judgment. This body held extensive hearings, made explicit findings, and voted 95 to 4 in favor of the bill. An activist Court chose to ignore all that and substitute its own, constricted view of the proper role of the national government for that shared by both Congress and the States.

That same year, the Court decided Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents. The five-Justice majority concluded that States could not be sued by private citizens for age discrimination without their consent because of a general principle of sovereign immunity.

This is another decision that was, simultaneously, ``conservative'' in terms of policy outcome and ``activist'' in terms of judging.

It was conservative because it expanded States rights and contracted antidiscrimination rights.

It was activist both because it struck down the considered judgment of Congress and because it was based not at all on the text of the Constitution but instead on the policy preferences of five Justices.

In his dissent in Kimel, Justice Stevens said:

The kind of judicial activism manifested in such cases

represents such a radical departure from the proper role of

this Court that it should be opposed whenever the opportunity

arises.

With the addition of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, the conservative majority of the current Court has continued to be highly activist, even though the two newest Justices are not always candid about what they are doing.

In fact, that charge has been leveled against Justices Alito and Roberts by no less an authority than Justice Scalia.

In the campaign finance case, Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, the Court struck down key provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, again substituting its view of good public policy for that of Congress.

But this was more than a failure to defer to a democratically elected body. The Court effectively overruled controlling precedent--McConnell v. FEC--while pretending that it was doing no such thing. Justice Scalia called this ``faux judicial restraint.''

In much the same vein, in a case called Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Justices Roberts and Alito were part of a majority that in effect overruled longstanding precedent on taxpayer standing, while again claiming that they were not doing so.

Again, Justice Scalia called their bluff, attacking Justice Alito's opinion for falsely claiming to honor stare decisis.

Of course, in both cases Justice Scalia wanted to overrule the cases in question expressly, but at least he was honest about his intentions.

Then there's Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1.

In that case the Court rejected local community authority in the area of voluntary integration of public schools. Chief Justice Roberts' plurality opinion for the four-person conservative bloc gave the back of the hand to a long line of desegregation precedents, beginning with Brown v. Board of Education.

Remember that this is the same Justice who, during his confirmation hearing, repeatedly professed his allegiance to stare decisis.

If not for the opinion concurring in the judgment by Justice Kennedy, communities that want some modest measure of racial integration in their schools would be virtually powerless to act.

Another recent case, this time in the anti-trust area, again shows that activism is in the eye of the beholder. In Leegin v. PSKS, the Court, with the addition of Justices Roberts and Alito, overruled 96 years of unbroken precedent on vertical price-fixing.

This case, plain and simple, represents the elevation of big manufacturers' interests over those of the consumer. And this Court rejected nearly a century of precedent because the majority of its members decided to embrace a particular economic theory different from the one that prevailed at the time the Sherman Antitrust Act became law.

I want to mention one final example of conservative judicial activism, though there are plenty more I could cite.

Pending before the Supreme Court right now is a case that involves a constitutional challenge to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. As my colleagues in this body know, section 5 requires some States and political subdivisions, because of a history of racial discrimination, to ``pre-clear'' new voting rules with either the Justice Department or a Federal court.

The claim made by the Texas voting district in the case seems to be that section 5 has outlived its usefulness.

Before voting to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act in 2006, the Congress undertook an extensive and thorough review of the current nature and extent of discrimination against minority voters, and of the continued need for section 5.

It held 21 hearings and accumulated 16,000 pages of testimony over the course of 10 months. And at the end of that process, Congress concluded that section 5 is still necessary, and passed the bill by a vote of 98-to-0 in the Senate and 390-to-33 in the House.

Though the Court has not yet ruled in this case, the questioning from the bench during oral argument should give us concern, and does give us more evidence of conservative judicial activism.

Some members of the conservative wing of the Court, including Justices Scalia and Roberts, suggested by their questions that they intend to disregard the entire Congressional Record.

In discussing the provisions of the act that allow jurisdictions to ``bail out'' of section 5 coverage, by showing that they no longer need to be covered, Justice Scalia argued that bailing out was impractical.

When the attorney for the United States explained that Congress had considered and rejected that argument, Justice Scalia responded: ``The question is whether it is right, not whether Congress rejected it.'' So much for deference to legislative fact-finding.

What makes this apparent substitution of a justice's assessment of the facts for that of Congress particularly troubling is the language of the Constitution itself.

Remember that congressional authority for the Voting Rights Act comes from the 15th amendment, which not only guarantees the right of citizens of the United States to vote, but also says in section 2. ``The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''

So here we have Congress operating at the height of its power, and members of the Supreme Court seeming to want to decide the case based on their own view of good policy.

I think I have given enough examples to suggest that judicial activism is a two-way street.

As my Judiciary Committee colleague from Oklahoma said during the confirmation hearing for Chief Justice Roberts, ``We each have our own definition of judicial activism.''

So what does the ``activism'' charge add to the debate? I would say, very little.

Let's take a look at the charge that Judge Sotomayor is a judicial activist.

To support that claim, critics point to a single, much-publicized case involving New Haven firefighters. But this attack is not only disingenuous it is upside down.

In that case, Judge Sotomayor was part of a 3-0 decision based on settled circuit court precedent.

Her panel's decision supported the trial court judge's ruling and the decision of the local government regarding the best way to determine promotions for firefighters.

Later, a majority of the entire court of appeals ruled to let the panel's decision stand.

There is no doubt that the case addresses a difficult set of issues, and that the Supreme Court may come out the other way, though likely by a razor-thin margin.

But Judge Sotomayor's decision to defer to the democratically accountable, local New Haven government and rule along with the majority of her court not to upset settled precedent cannot meet any definition of judicial activism. In fact, the complaint seems to be that she was not activist enough.

The truth of the matter is that Judge Sotomayor, far from being an extremist, is very much in the mainstream.

Other than the firefighters case, she has decided 88 cases involving claims of race discrimination while on the court of appeals. In 78 of those cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination.

Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous, and of those 9, in 7 the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge.

I am not so naive as to believe we can eliminate entirely the partisan exploitation of the confirmation process.

Maybe, though, we can put to rest the tired and un-illuminating charge of judicial activism.

After all, that charge is rarely meant as a genuine claim about the exercise of judicial power. Instead, it is generally just an established part of an elaborate and tired script, a claim that we can expect no matter who the nominee may be.

So let's focus on substance rather than empty code words. Let's debate the quality and merits of Judge Sotomayor's judicial philosophy and approach rather than hurl epithets or engage in demagoguery.

Next month, the Judiciary Committee will hold a confirmation hearing, at which Senators from both sides of the aisle will be able to question Judge Sotomayor directly and publicly.

Because Supreme Court Justices are not elected but rather appointed for life, the qualifications of every nominee should be carefully examined, not only by Senators but also by the public at large.

This is the time when the public should be and will be paying close attention. We do not do ourselves, or the public, any favors if we rely on meaningless labels left over from the culture wars.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to reconsider what the charge of ``judicial activism'' brings to our debate.

Judge Sotomayor deserves our careful consideration, but I hope that my colleagues here in the Senate will continue to abstain from the culture wars and name calling that too often have characterized our judicial nominations over recent years.

Mr. President, I wish to speak today about reforming our health care system. As I said last week, most Americans are satisfied with the health care they receive, but if we want to maintain and improve the quality of affordable health care, we need to act now. We must get health care costs under control while preserving choice. We must reform health care to make it more affordable for businesses and patients and less cumbersome for providers. Health care reform has been delayed for too long, and it cannot wait any longer.

If anyone needs reasons as to why health care reform is necessary, all they have to do is read some of the studies that have been released recently that show the dire consequences for our health care system and our economy if we refuse to act. For example, if we allow the status quo to persist, the White House Council of Economic Advisers has estimated that the sheer gross domestic product devoted to health care will rise from 18 percent in 2009 to 28 percent in 2030 and 34 percent in 2040. This trajectory is simply unsustainable.

Businesses in America have to compete against companies from other countries. Many of these foreign companies pay nothing for health care for their workers or retirees. Others pay far less than what many of our larger corporations pay. This puts many of our businesses at a disadvantage in the global marketplace.

A recent report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute reiterates the pressure that American businesses face in supplying health care benefits to their employees. These researchers prepared analyses using a simulation model estimating how coverage and cost trends would change between now and 2019. Looking at three different scenarios, the worst case would be where there is a slow growth in incomes and continuing high growth rates for health care costs; an intermediate case where there would be some faster growth in incomes but a lower growth rate for health care costs; and the best case would be where there is full employment, faster income growth, and even slower growth in health care costs.

Under all three scenarios, the report showed a tremendous strain on business owners and their employees over the next decade if no reform is enacted. If health care reform is not enacted, the report projects that within 10 years, the cost of health care of a business can double from approximately $430 billion for employee premiums in 2009 to $885 billion in 2019. Even in the best case scenario, employer spending on health insurance premiums would rise by 72 percent.

This would most likely result in fewer Americans being offered employer-sponsored insurance, with a likely drop from 56 percent of employees getting coverage through their employer in 2009 to as few as 49 percent by 2019.

If no changes are made, and the number of people with employer sponsored insurance continues to decrease, that also means the ranks of the uninsured will increase. And the projections are not pretty.

Under the same scenarios, the number of uninsured will reach just over 53 million under the best case and as high as 66 million under the worst case.

Unfortunately, when those without insurance do receive care--most likely in an emergency room--the costs for treating them are passed on to those of us who are fortunate enough to have health insurance.

Providers and hospitals charge insurers more for the services provided to patients who do have health insurance to make up for the cost of treating the uninsured.

These cost shifts result in a ``hidden tax'' of higher premiums for patients and businesses.

Right now, this hidden tax results in an increase of about $1,000 for premiums for family coverage.

It is time for reform.

Over the last decade, Americans have watched their health insurance premiums double at a growth rate six times faster than their wages, threatening their financial stability.

If we do not reform health care, if health care premiums continue to rise at 4 percent per year, in 2025 premiums for family coverage will cost more than $25,000 per year.

Can you imagine how that dollar amount will affect American families?

On top of this, a recent study published in the American Journal of Medicine showed that bankruptcies involving medical bills now account for more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, an increase of 50 percent in just 6 years. And it is not the uninsured that is driving this increase.

In fact, more than 75 percent of families needing to enter bankruptcy because of health care costs actually

have health insurance. Most are middle class, well educated, and own their homes.

They just cannot keep up with the alarming rise in out-of-pocket costs associated with medical care.

It is time for reform.

Our current health care system is rampant with bureaucracy, inefficiency and waste.

An example of this is the amount of time physicians must spend filling out various forms required by insurance plans.

A national survey of physician practices found that, on average, doctors are spending 3 hours per week--the equivalent of 3 workweeks per year just on administrative tasks required by health plans.

The study showed that the cost of interacting with insurance plans amounts to $31 billion annually and approximately 7 percent of all U.S. expenditures for physician and clinical services.

More importantly, on a personal level, this is 3 weeks less time annually that physicians have to spend with their patients discussing their treatment options, explaining the pros and cons of various procedures, learning the fears and anxieties of their patients, furthering the patient-doctor relationship.

It is time for reform.

We have attempted to reform our health care system several times in the past to no avail. But this year it is different.

This time, the call for reform is coming from people and organizations that previously opposed reform.

This time, because of the reasons I have mentioned, businesses, along with unions that represent their workers, are asking for reform.

This time, patient advocacy organizations and provider groups are calling for health reform.

Make no mistake, reforming health care is not an easy task, and it is one that will require true compromise from everyone across the ideological spectrum.

But it is a task that must be done.

Our country, and the health of its citizens as well as the economy, cannot afford to maintain the status quo.

Next week, the members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the Senate Finance Committee will begin deliberations on legislation to reform health care.

As the members of these committees gather to discuss and ultimately mark up legislation, I want to take this opportunity to again voice my support for a public option in a menu of insurance options from which people may choose.

I believe a public option is imperative in providing a true choice for all Americans.

Let me stress: this would be a purely voluntary option.

If you like your current plan, you keep it.

But there are too many Americans who do not have real choices when it comes to health insurance, especially those who live in rural areas.

In addition, many large urban areas are dominated by one or two insurers that serve more than 60 percent of the market. In fact, there are seven states where one insurer has over 75 percent of the market share.

A public option can help Americans expand their choice of an insurance provider.

A public option could take various forms, and I think the committees are the proper place to determine the appropriate contours of a public option.

But I want to point out again that right now, today, there are more than 30 State governments that offer their employees a choice between traditional private insurance and a plan that is self-insured by the State. Some States have had them for more than 15 years.

In these 30 States, the market share of the self-funded plans within the market for State employees typically ranges from 25 to 40 percent. This shows a healthy competition between the public option and private insurers, not domination by either type of insurer.

And I want to point out that these arrangements do not seem to be a problem or incite ideological issues at the State level.

Why then, should it be so when discussing health reform on a national level?

A public option can go a long way in bringing more innovation to the delivery system and introducing new measures to reduce cost and improve quality.

A public option can serve as a benchmark for all insurers, setting a standard for cost, quality and access within regional or national marketplaces.

It can have low administrative costs and can have a broad choice of providers. It can give Americans a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.

And again, the key to all this is that a public option will be just that, an option, not a requirement.

Some people will choose it; others will not. If you like the insurance plan you have now, you keep it.

If you are happy with the insurance you get with your employer, or even the individual insurance market, you stay enrolled in that insurance plan. And if you are unsatisfied with the public option, you have the option to switch back to private insurers.

Americans firmly support the ability to choose their own doctor and value their relationships with their providers. So do I. It is key to any health care plan that Americans have a right to choose their doctor.

An overriding goal of health reform is to increase a patient's access to affordable, quality health care--offering a public option can help increase Americans' choices.

Mr. President, it is time for reform that protects what works and fixes what is broken.

It is time to reform health care so that American businesses can afford to offer health care to their employees.

It is time to reform health care so that all Americans have access to quality, affordable care, regardless of preexisting medical conditions.

It is time to reform health care so that physicians and other providers have less redtape to deal with and more time to spend with patients.

It is time to reform health care so we place a higher priority on prevention and wellness, saving lives as well as money.

It is time to reform health care so all Americans can compare the costs and benefits of different health insurance policies.

And, it is time to reform health care so Americans have more choices and can retain the right to choose their own doctors.

For all these reasons and more, it is time for health care reform.

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

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the American Society of Mechanical Engineers on the 125th anniversary of their codes and standards.

As the only serving Senator who has worked as an engineer--indeed, I have a degree in engineering and worked as a mechanical engineer--I was proud to sponsor a resolution acknowledging the lasting impact ASME codes and standards have had on our Nation and on other parts of the world.

Now to non-engineers, codes and standards developed by and for mechanical engineers may sound like a lot of jargon and, candidly, like pretty boring stuff.

But as an engineer, I am proud to say that I believe that the nuts and bolts of how to build things, how to create, how to standardize and grow equipment and industries have been at the very heart of the American economic growth-engine for more than a century.

That kind of nuts and bolts thinking and creativity will be what leads America out of this recession and toward sustained economic growth once again.

So I'm pleased that the Senate has joined me in celebrating a success story of American engineering.

This story begins when ASME was founded in 1880. ASME currently includes more than 127,000 members worldwide.

It is a professional organization which promotes the art, science, and practice of mechanical and multidisciplinary engineering and allied sciences.

One of its chief functions since its founding has been the development of tool and machine part standards, along with uniform work practices to ensure mechanical reliability.

This week, ASME will celebrate its 125th anniversary of codes and standards development.

This is a tribute to the dedicated service of technical experts and engineers, whose efforts resulted in internationally accepted standards--standards that not only enhance public safety but also promote global trade.

Its first published performance test code was entitled ``Code for the Conduct of Trials of Steam Boilers.''

Since then, ASME has developed more than 500 technical standards for pressure vessel technology, electric and nuclear power facilities, elevators and escalators, gas pipelines, engineering drawing practices, and numerous other technical and engineered products and processes.

At present, ASME codes and standards, as well as conformity assessment programs, are used in more than one hundred countries.

Does engineering sound boring to you? Let's hope America's youth don't think so. We need to excite the young minds of thousands and thousands of young Americans about the possibilities of being an engineer, because engineers have always been the world's problem solvers. It is impossible to ignore the effect ASME's codes and standards have had on global development.

During the period of rising industrialization, as machines were expanding in use and complexity on farms and in factories, ASME standards helped to ensure the safety of engineers and workers using these machines.

Today, in our global economy, these codes and standards are continually revised and updated to reflect changes in

technology. As a result, ASME's codes and standards are accepted across the globe and help to advance international commerce. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers has adapted to meet the changes and challenges in the engineering profession. I commend their accomplishments and contributions to the health, safety, and economic well-being of our Nation.

I am pleased that the Senate yesterday approved S. Res. 179.

When I went to college I wanted to be a mechanical engineer, in part because 52 years ago, after Sputnik, the United States was supporting science and engineering on an unprecedented level. America's competitive spirit helped us meet the challenges of those times. Thousands of innovations created myriad new opportunities for growth and development. We can do this again.

The financial crisis should lead to a cultural shift back to the strong foundations of innovation and know-how that have always been the American way. I am glad that the federal government is again investing strongly in supporting the basic scientific, medical, and engineering research that will spur the discovery and innovations to create millions of new jobs and shape a bright American future.

I thank my fellow Senators for joining with me in celebrating one small chapter in the American economic success story, with hope that we can inspire similar successes in the coming years.

Brian J. Persons

Mr. President, I wish to speak about our excellent Federal workforce.

In my years of government service, I have met so many wonderful people who give so much of themselves for the benefit of us all. That is why I believe it essential for the American people to have confidence in our Federal employees.

Americans need to know that they can place their trust in those charged with carrying out the people's work.

Our government is filled with talented individuals performing their jobs with excellence.

I cannot count--I literally cannot count--the Federal employees who deserve to be praised here in this Chamber, because that number is so great. But I hope to share one story today that is exemplary of our civil servants overall.

The ancient philosophers used to compare the government of a state with that of a vessel at sea.

In order to keep the ship afloat, to keep it headed in the proper direction, it required a captain and crew who were disciplined and responsible. Moreover, everyone on board--down to the lowest rank--had a job to do, and every task was critical.

So it is with government.

Every Federal employee, no matter how large or small one's job, keeps our ship of state afloat and sailing ever onward.

I have not chosen to reference this analogy by chance. Rather, it fits well with the story of a hardworking and accomplished civil servant whom I wish to recognize today.

I spoke earlier about the effect of engineers on our economy and our communities. The Federal employee I honor today has spent more than a quarter of a century working as a civilian engineer for the Navy Department.

Although today Brian Persons has risen to become executive director of the Naval Sea Systems Command, or NAVSEA, he began his public service as a ship architect at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. A Michigan native and graduate of Michigan State with a degree in civil engineering, Brian went to work in 1981 for the Navy Department, designing and maintaining the ships of our fleet. Brian distinguished himself in the design division at Long Beach, and he was made a supervisory architect within a few years. While there, he worked on overhauls of surface ships, including the great battleships U.S.S. New Jersey and the U.S.S. Missouri. In 1988, when the U.S.S. Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine in the Persian Gulf, the Navy sent Brian to Dubai to provide analysis and repair options.

Although he was only asked to spend a week in the gulf, Brian remained with the stricken vessel for 45 days until it was again seaworthy.

Describing the experience years later, he said:

I am still amazed at the authority I was given to execute

this project. I was lucky to have such an opportunity at such

an early stage in my career.

I want our Nation's graduates to know that careers in public service are full of opportunities like the one given to Brian.

Federal employees at all levels get to work on exciting and relevant projects every day.

After his superb performance in Dubai, Brian was given a series of challenging jobs in the NAVSEA Commander's Development Program. Just 10 years after he first began his career, the Navy Department promoted Brian to be the director for maintenance and modernization under the assistant secretary for research, development, and acquisition. In this role, which he held for 5 years, he was responsible for overseeing policy on ship maintenance and modernization as well as the Navy's nuclear, biological, and chemical protection programs.

Brian returned to NAVSEA in 1996 and has worked in various roles there over the past 12 years. For his dedicated service in government, Brian was honored with a Meritorious Presidential Rank Award in 2004 and won the prestigious Distinguished Presidential Rank Award last year. This year, he was appointed as executive director of NAVSEA, its most senior civilian executive.

In addition to his work as an engineer and a manager, throughout the years Brian has served as a role model for those working with him, including a number of colleagues from traditionally underrepresented minority groups, whom he has mentored as they sought leadership positions in the Department.

This is truly the kind of service and mentorship we need to promote among engineers and other science professionals. Engineers can play an important role in bettering our communities and promoting education among our students.

I am glad we were able to include funding for service opportunities of this kind in the Serve America Act earlier this year. I call again on my colleagues and on all Americans to join me in recognizing the contributions of Brian Persons and all of the engineers, scientists, and technicians who continue to ensure that our ships of state remain seaworthy and on a forward course.

I honor their service and that of all our hard-working Federal employees.

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

I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business and the time to count against cloture.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senator Brown, the STEM Education Coordination Act of 2009. This bill addresses what we call STEM education--science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--which is critical for our competitiveness in the years and generations to come.

This bill is nearly identical to the version of H.R. 1709 reported by the House Committees on Science and Technology and on Education and Labor and which may be approved by the House of Representatives as early as today. It is quite a simple proposal. It would require coordination of Federal STEM education activities.

We can all agree that STEM education is crucial to our future. Technological innovation accounts for more than half of the growth of our economy since the Second World War. The discoveries and innovations of our STEM professionals create whole new opportunities, new industries, new companies, new products and services, and

new ways of delivering old products and services efficiently. To build a clean energy economy, to stay competitive in a globalizing world, to drive the health and science research that will improve our quality of life, we need more people trained in these skills. All too often, though, we are lagging behind other nations in producing these scientists and engineers.

Our ability to keep our lead in technology, which has defined American economic strength for generations, is deteriorating. The need for more STEM education and also particularly to reach women and underrepresented minorities is well recognized. The Congress has acted in recent years to support legislation such as the America COMPETES Act that broadens our competitiveness efforts beyond simply STEM education.

But there is also a concern that we are not using our current STEM education resources as efficiently and effectively as we could. As noted in the House Science Committee report:

For the most part, agencies have developed their programs

independently rather than sharing ``best practices'' and

collaborating across agencies. Each program has also

developed its own methods and criteria for evaluation, making

a comparison of effectiveness across the programs impossible.

To get the most out of our efforts, this bill would require coordination of Federal STEM education activities. It would direct the Office of Science and Technology Policy to establish a committee under the National Science and Technology Council that is responsible for coordinating Federal science, technology, engineering, and math education programs and activities. These include Federal programs of the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Education, and others. This newly formed committee will have three main responsibilities.

First, the committee will coordinate the Federal STEM education activities and programs.

Second, the committee will develop, implement, and update a 5-year STEM education achievement plan, including objectives and metrics so we can assess how well we are doing.

Third, the committee will maintain an inventory of federally sponsored STEM education programs and activities, including rates of participation by underrepresented minorities.

So that the Congress can make use of this information to advance our STEM education efforts, this bill will require an annual report that includes: One, a description of STEM education programs and activities; two, the level of funding for the programs and activities for each participating Federal agency; three, a description of the progress made in carrying out the implementation of the plan; and, four, a description of how participating Federal agencies disseminate information about available STEM education resources to States and practitioners.

This coordination is among the ideas suggested by then-Senator Obama in a bill he offered in the 110th Congress, S. 3047.

In sum, this bill will do just what its title suggests: coordinate our STEM educational activities. We not only have a duty to this Nation to make sure Federal dollars are spent as efficiently and effectively as possible, but it is also critical to our economy that we succeed in fostering a workforce that can out-discover, out-think, out-innovate, and out-produce our worldwide competition.

This legislation will help us reach these goals. In a world increasingly dominated by technology, I believe our economy, our environment, and our future depend on improving STEM education.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senator Brown, the STEM Education Coordination Act of 2009. This bill addresses what we call STEM education--science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--which is critical for our competitiveness in the years and generations to come.

This bill is nearly identical to the version of H.R. 1709 reported by the House Committees on Science and Technology and on Education and Labor and which may be approved by the House of Representatives as early as today. It is quite a simple proposal. It would require coordination of Federal STEM education activities.

We can all agree that STEM education is crucial to our future. Technological innovation accounts for more than half of the growth of our economy since the Second World War. The discoveries and innovations of our STEM professionals create whole new opportunities, new industries, new companies, new products and services, and

new ways of delivering old products and services efficiently. To build a clean energy economy, to stay competitive in a globalizing world, to drive the health and science research that will improve our quality of life, we need more people trained in these skills. All too often, though, we are lagging behind other nations in producing these scientists and engineers.

Our ability to keep our lead in technology, which has defined American economic strength for generations, is deteriorating. The need for more STEM education and also particularly to reach women and underrepresented minorities is well recognized. The Congress has acted in recent years to support legislation such as the America COMPETES Act that broadens our competitiveness efforts beyond simply STEM education.

But there is also a concern that we are not using our current STEM education resources as efficiently and effectively as we could. As noted in the House Science Committee report:

For the most part, agencies have developed their programs

independently rather than sharing ``best practices'' and

collaborating across agencies. Each program has also

developed its own methods and criteria for evaluation, making

a comparison of effectiveness across the programs impossible.

To get the most out of our efforts, this bill would require coordination of Federal STEM education activities. It would direct the Office of Science and Technology Policy to establish a committee under the National Science and Technology Council that is responsible for coordinating Federal science, technology, engineering, and math education programs and activities. These include Federal programs of the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Education, and others. This newly formed committee will have three main responsibilities.

First, the committee will coordinate the Federal STEM education activities and programs.

Second, the committee will develop, implement, and update a 5-year STEM education achievement plan, including objectives and metrics so we can assess how well we are doing.

Third, the committee will maintain an inventory of federally sponsored STEM education programs and activities, including rates of participation by underrepresented minorities.

So that the Congress can make use of this information to advance our STEM education efforts, this bill will require an annual report that includes: One, a description of STEM education programs and activities; two, the level of funding for the programs and activities for each participating Federal agency; three, a description of the progress made in carrying out the implementation of the plan; and, four, a description of how participating Federal agencies disseminate information about available STEM education resources to States and practitioners.

This coordination is among the ideas suggested by then-Senator Obama in a bill he offered in the 110th Congress, S. 3047.

In sum, this bill will do just what its title suggests: coordinate our STEM educational activities. We not only have a duty to this Nation to make sure Federal dollars are spent as efficiently and effectively as possible, but it is also critical to our economy that we succeed in fostering a workforce that can out-discover, out-think, out-innovate, and out-produce our worldwide competition.

This legislation will help us reach these goals. In a world increasingly dominated by technology, I believe our economy, our environment, and our future depend on improving STEM education.

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

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

Madam President, I would like to continue what I began last month by honoring the contribution of our Federal employees.

On May 4, I came to the floor to discuss the importance of recognizing the hard work and dedicated service of our Federal employees. This is especially important because of our recovery efforts during these challenging economic times. The programs we enact, it is easy to say, will be carried out by a Federal workforce that requires people's confidence. I know from personal experience how industrious and trustworthy civil servants are. The public needs to know too.

As I said then, we also need to encourage more of our graduates to enter careers in public service. America is blessed with so many enthusiastic and entrepreneurial citizens. We need them to lend their talents. We need their ideas, their creative minds. This is why I have made it a priority to honor excellent public servants and call attention to what Federal employees can and do accomplish.

In my previous remarks, I promised to highlight some of our excellent public servants from this desk every so often. In keeping with my promise, I rise to speak about two Federal employees whose achievements are particularly relevant to our work in this session: the current state of our health care system.

As many know, cervical cancer is the second most common cause of cancer deaths in women worldwide. It takes the lives of almost a quarter million women each year. Here in America, nearly 11,000 women are diagnosed annually.

What distinguishes cervical cancer from most other cancers is its cause. While many cancers are linked to a genetic predisposition for abnormal cell growth, nearly all cases of cervical cancer result from viral infections. The majority of these infections come from exposure to the human papillomavirus or HPV. HPV is the most common sexually transmitted disease affecting Americans.

When Dr. Douglas Lowy and Dr. John Schiller began studying HPV, little did they know that their 20-year partnership as researchers would lead to the development of a vaccine.

Working at the National Institutes of Health's National Cancer Institute Center for Cancer Research, the two discovered that previous attempts at creating a vaccine had failed because a genetic mutation existed in the virus, making it difficult for the body to produce antibodies against it.

Once Drs. Lowy and Schiller made this finding, they worked to create a modified version of the HPV without the mutation. This development is instrumental in the creation a few years ago of a vaccine that will prevent the vast majority of cervical cancer cases from developing.

Because over 80 percent of those who develop cervical cancer cases live in developing nations, Drs. Lowy and Schiller have been working with the World Health Organization to make the HPV vaccine available to women around the world.

In recognition of their achievement, the two men jointly were awarded the 2007 Service to America Federal Employee of the Year Medal.

Today, women and girls age 9 through 26 have the ability to be vaccinated against developing cervical cancer.

Once again, I call on my fellow Senators to join me in honoring Dr. Lowy and Dr. Schiller and all Federal employees who have distinguished themselves in their service of our Nation.

Madam President, I would like to speak on reforming our health care system. Simply put, health care reform has been delayed for far too long, and it cannot wait any longer. Most Americans are satisfied with the health care they receive today.

Let me repeat this. Most Americans are satisfied with the health care they receive today. But if we want to sustain and improve the quality of health care, we need to act now.

What they are concerned about is what future health care is going to be about, and they are also concerned about the cost of health care. We must get health care costs under control while preserving choice.

If we do nothing and allow the status quo to persist, it has been estimated that the share of gross domestic product devoted to health care will rise from 18 percent in 2009 to 28 percent in 2030.

If health care premiums continue to rise at 4 percent per year, which is actually less than the historical average, then by 2025, premiums for family coverage will reach $25,200 a year--over $2,000 a month. This trajectory is simply unsustainable.

We have attempted to reform our health care system several times in the past to no avail. But this year is different and has to be different. This time the call for reform is coming from people and organizations that previously opposed reform. This time businesses, along with unions that represent their workers, are asking for reform.

Businesses in America have to compete against companies from other countries. Many of them do not pay anything for health care for their workers or retirees. Others pay far less than what many of our larger corporations pay. This puts many of our businesses at a disadvantage in the global marketplace.

In addition, people in my home State of Delaware and Americans across the Nation are struggling to keep up with the crushing and seemingly constant increase in the cost of health care.

Over the last decade, Americans have watched as their health insurance premiums and deductibles have risen at much faster rates than their wages, threatening their financial stability. It also puts them at risk for losing their insurance as employers struggle to provide adequate health care coverage.

Americans rightfully value their relations with their doctor and the care they receive. We must--and I say must--preserve these relationships. In addition, as costs rise and insurance benefits erode, Americans are also asking to protect what works and fixes what is broken.

Our current health care system--the status quo--is rampant with bureaucracy, inefficiency, and waste. It is time for reform. It is time to reform health care for Americans so everyone has access to quality, affordable care, regardless of preexisting medical conditions. It is time to reform health care so we

place a higher priority on prevention and wellness, saving lives as well as money. It is time to reform health care so all Americans can compare the costs and benefits of different health care policies. It is time to reform health care so Americans have more choices, not less, and can choose their own doctor.

I applaud the members of the Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in the Senate, as well as our counterparts in the House, for their sincere dedication, their thoroughness, and their commitment to crafting legislation that truly will transform the health care system in this country.

It is clear this is not an easy task and is one that will require true compromise from everyone across the ideological spectrum, but it is a task that must be done. Our country and the health of its citizens, as well as the economy, cannot afford to maintain the status quo.

As the members of these committees gather to discuss and ultimately mark up legislation, I encourage them to include a viable public option in a menu of insurance options from which Americans may choose. It will be--and let me stress this--it would be a purely voluntary option.

If you like your current plan, you keep it. But a public health insurance option is critical to ensure the greatest amount of choice possible for consumers. There are too many Americans who do not have real choices when it comes to health insurance, especially those who live in rural areas.

In addition, many large urban areas are dominated by one or two insurers that serve more than 60 percent of the market. In fact, there are seven States where one insurer has over 75 percent of the market share.

A public option can help Americans expand their choice of insurance provider. A public option could take various forms, and I think the committees are the proper place to determine the appropriate contours of a public option.

I think a good starting point for discussion is the proposal put forward by my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer. It delivers all the benefits of increased competition without relying on unfair, built- in advantages for the federally backed option.

This public option would not be subsidized by the government or partnered with Medicare. It would not be supported by tax revenue. It would compete on a level playing field with the private insurance industry. If a level playing field exists, then private insurers will have to compete based on quality of care and pricing, instead of just competing for the healthiest consumers.

This is just one proposal for public option. There are others we can debate as we move forward.

Right now, more than 30 State governments offer their employees a choice between traditional private insurance and a plan that is self- insured by the State. Some of them have had them for more than 15 years.

In these States, the market share of the self-funded plans within the market for State employees typically ranges from 25 to 40 percent. This shows a healthy competition between the public option and private insurers, not domination by either type of insurer. The States provide these options because they believe it adds value to competitive offerings they give their workers.

These arrangements do not seem to be a problem or incite ideological issues at the State level. Why should it be so when discussing health reform on the national level?

A public option can go a long way in introducing quality advancements and innovation that many private insurers do not now have the incentive to implement.

Medicare and the veterans health system have spearheaded important innovations in the past, including payment methods, quality of care initiatives, and information technology advancements.

A new public option could also help lead the way in bringing more innovation to the delivery system and introducing new measures to reduce costs and improve quality.

A public option can serve as a benchmark for all insurers, setting a standard for cost, quality, and access within regional or national marketplaces. It can have low administrative costs and can have a broad choice of providers.

Simply put, Americans should have a choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans.

A public option will give Americans a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.

The key to all this, however, is that a public option will be just that, as I said--an option, not a mandate.

Some people will choose it; others will not. If you like the insurance plan you have now, you keep it. If you are happy with the insurance you get with your employer, or even the individual insurance market, you stay enrolled in that insurance plan. And if you are unsatisfied with the public option, you have the option to switch back to private insurers.

Americans firmly support the ability to choose their own doctor and value their relationships with their providers. So do I.

An overriding goal of health reform is to increase patients' access to affordable, quality health care, and offering a public option can help increase Americans' choices.

I am heartened that I was joined by 26 other Senators several weeks ago in cosponsoring a resolution introduced by Senator Brown calling for the inclusion of a federally backed health insurance option in health care reform.

Senators who have been involved in health care issues for decades-- Senators Kennedy, Dodd, Rockefeller, Harkin, Bingaman, and Inouye, just to name a few--have all agreed that a public option should be included.

As I said before, I admire the efforts of my colleagues on the Finance and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committees who will be drafting our health reform legislation.

They have an important responsibility, and I recognize that they will be debating many options regarding coverage, financing, regulations, and so on.

I simply encourage them to consider seriously a public option as a choice for Americans in any new health insurance exchange.

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

Mr. President, tomorrow marks 20 years since China's crackdown on democracy advocates in Tiananmen Square that resulted in an estimated 700 deaths of innocent civilians. Unfortunately, this represents a mere estimate of the senseless loss of life because the Chinese government has not been transparent in disclosing what happened at Tiananmen Square, and has actively suppressed reporters, protestors, and medical personnel who may have provided a firsthand account. Twenty years later, this suppression continues in the form of government-led crack downs on New Media sources, such as blogs, Twitter, and social networking sites including Facebook, where state censors target internet service providers in an attempt to control the free flow of information.

As we solemnly mark 20 years since Tiananmen Square, it is critical to highlight the ongoing limitations on human rights and freedom of the press in China. This Tuesday, a column was published in the Washington Post by Dan Southerland, the former China bureau chief, which did just that. I ask unanimous consent that this important editorial be printed in the Record.