Floor Statements

Mr. President, I offer time to my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez--up to 11 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield 1 more minute to the Senator.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3156--it is at the desk--and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I rise today because one thing we have to do as we progress with this health care reform bill is to make sure prescription medicine in our country is safe and affordable. I thank my colleague from New Jersey for his excellent review of the conditions that cause us to add this amendment to Senator Dorgan's amendment that would allow potentially unsafe prescription drugs to be shipped across our borders and directly into the medicine cabinets of homes throughout America.

I want to be clear, the effect of this plan Senator Dorgan has offered could be catastrophic. That is why President Obama's administration has written to the Congress expressing its serious concerns with the Dorgan amendment.

I appreciate the efforts to try to lower prescription drug prices. After all, that is what we are doing with the whole health reform review--trying to get costs reduced so everyone can have safe and affordable health care. We want to make sure people do not harm their health with any shortcuts.

We all want Americans to stay healthy and still have some money left in their pockets. But as much as we want to cut costs for consumers, we cannot afford to cut corners and risk exposing Americans to drugs that are ineffective or unsafe.

The fact is, this is a matter of life and death. The European Commission just discovered that counterfeit drugs in Europe are worse than they feared. In just 2 months--and I know Senator Menendez made reference to this as well--the EU seized 34 million fake tablets, including antibiotics, cancer treatments, and anticholesterol medicine.

As the industry commissioner of the EU said:

Every faked drug is a potential massacre. Even when a

medicine only contains an ineffective substance, this can

lead to people dying because they think they are fighting

their illnesses with a real drug.

Americans buy medicine to lower their cholesterol, fight cancer, and prevent heart disease. Imagine what would happen to a mother or a child if they start relying on medicine imported from another country only to find out years later that the drug was a fake. Imagine the heartbreak that might ensue if the medicine Americans were taking was found to be harmful. The fact is that drugs from other countries have dangerously high counterfeit rates and importation could expose Americans to those drugs.

Under the Dorgan amendment, drugs would be imported from former Soviet Union countries where the World Health Organization estimates that

over 20 percent of the drugs are counterfeit. Under the Dorgan amendment, drugs that originate in China could find their way into our homes. We know that China has been the source of many dangerous products in recent years, from toys laced with lead to toothpaste made with antifreeze.

If we are going to trust drugs from other countries, we need to be absolutely certain we are not putting Americans' lives at risk. That is why the Food and Drug Administration went on record to express its concerns with the Dorgan amendment. They say:

There are significant safety concerns related to allowing

the importation of non-bioequivalent products, and safety

issues related to confusion in distribution and labeling of

foreign products and the domestic product that remain to be

fully addressed in the amendment.

That is from the FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg.

There are problems associated with the possibility of drugs coming to this country that are way different than that which is expected to be used in the treatment of sickness.

President Obama's FDA Commissioner also wrote and said that importing drugs presents a risk to patients because the drug may not be safe and effective, may not have been made in a facility with good manufacturing practices, and may not be the drug it claims to be.

In light of the serious concerns raised by the Obama administration, I am offering an amendment to require that the Department of Health and Human Services certify that the drugs are safe and will reduce costs before they are imported. My amendment is a commonsense bipartisan alternative to the Dorgan amendment. In fact, it is the exact same language as the Dorgan importation amendment, but with the certification requirement that is so important to ensure safety.

If we are going to allow the importation of drugs from other countries, we have to be certain they are safe and affordable. With this amendment, I would be in support of the Dorgan amendment. Only certification by health experts will provide that assurance. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and oppose the Dorgan amendment.

We have no way of knowing what the working conditions might be like in a plant or a facility, or the sanitary conditions, in other countries, or whether in the process of packing and shipping temperatures might not be appropriate for the product to arrive without deterioration. Thusly, again, I stress--bring in what you want, just make sure it is safe for the people. There is no moment in the discussion we have had about the health care reform bill that says, Look, you can save money by taking a chance on a shortcut here or a shortcut there. Absolutely not. We wouldn't think of proposing anything such as that, and we ought not to be proposing it here now.

I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from North Carolina.

No objection.

Mr. President, I believe my colleague from North Dakota intends to make further remarks. How much time do we have on our side, please?

Thirteen minutes.

Mr. President, if Senator Dorgan is here, then we are trying to accommodate a colleague who wishes to speak on this. How much time is left on the Dorgan side?

Mr. President, we heard about what is happening in the EU having to do with the question of whether drugs are counterfeit and the serious consequences of having people take medication that is not what it is supposed to be--the consequences of something like that, especially interfaced with other products.

There was a news report last week that was printed in Yahoo News. They quote the Industry Commissioner of the European Union--the program in Europe that controls drug safety or at least attempts to. We see that the European Union has expressed concern about the situation they see there. The Commissioner, Mr. Verheugen, said he expected the EU to take action to fight the menace of fake pharmaceuticals. Then he said he thought the EU would agree, in 2010, that a drug's journey from manufacture to sale should be scrutinized carefully and there will be special markings on the packages.

There is a lot of concern about this, and we ought not to dash willy- nilly through here without understanding what the consequences of fake medication might be. I wish to see our people pay as little as they can to get the medicines they need. Part of that has to include a safety factor. As I said earlier, we would not suggest anything in the health reform bill that would take a shortcut and disregard safety. I have a letter that was sent from the Department of Health and Human Services, which I quoted a little bit ago. They say the letter is being sent on the amendment filed by Senator Dorgan. The administration supports this program, which I agree to, to buy safe and effective drugs from other countries and included $5 million in our 2010 budget.

They go on to say--and this is from the Commissioner of Food and Drugs--that:

Importing non-FDA-approved prescription drugs presents four

potential risks to patients that must be addressed: (1) the

drug may not be safe and effective because it was not subject

to a rigorous regulatory review prior to approval; (2) the

drug may not be consistently made, high quality product

because it was not manufactured in a facility that complies

with appropriate good manufacturing practices; (3) the drug

may not be substitutable with the FDA-approved product

because of differences in composition or manufacturing; and

(4) the drug may not be what it purports to be, because it

has been contaminated or is a counterfeit due to inadequate

safeguards in the supply chain.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter, sent to Senator Tom Carper, from the Department of Health and Human Services, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I will now suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that it be charged equally to both sides.

You have considerably more based on--

Yes, I withdraw the request.

Mr. President, there was an objection to having the time equally divided expressed by the Senator from Iowa before.

How much time is available on our side, Mr. President?

Seven?

Mr. President, I, too, have people who want to speak to the issue. If we can equally divide the quorum call, that is all right with me. I have no objection.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I know Senator Dorgan very well. He is a man of great principle and skill, I might say. But I say the list of aberrations, the lack of care about the various products--the toys, wallboards, and food--I have had a great interest in those items. It is interesting that it is being suggested by the Senator from North Dakota that is an acceptable standard and we ought to go ahead and continue it.

The question is whether, if you think that casual standard for bringing in food and other products is acceptable--

--therefore, we ought to do the same with drugs?

Mr. President, I think we have some time available. I wish to continue with some remarks. I thank the Senator from Kansas for his remarks and his concern also about the efficacy and the safety of drugs that might reach our citizens.

I listened carefully to the remarks of my colleague from North Dakota. He said the principal focus of our amendment is to protect the profits of the drug companies. No, I want to protect the health and well-being of American citizens. I look at an industry that has prolonged life expectancy, has made life more productive and pleasant for many whose disabilities may have them imprisoned in their homes.

We look at what has happened over the years, where treatment for conditions such as malaria, polio, smallpox were discovered, and antibiotics and chemotherapy have continued to be developed, primarily by American drug companies. Those are the companies that have the reputation for bringing the best products to market, the most carefully scrutinized, and most effective. What I want is for those companies to continue to be developing drugs that will extend wellness and will continue to improve longevity. I want these products to be available more reasonably, more cheaply--more affordably.

I had an experience in my life--people have heard me talk about this at times--whereby my father got cancer, was disabled with cancer when he was 42 years old. Our family was virtually bankrupt as a result of the cost for drugs and hospital services and physicians, so I know how costly they are. My father had cancer then, and I have seen what has happened now, with the opportunities for some optimism in situations where cancer develops. We are looking to make these drugs more available, more affordable.

The thing that strikes me, as we review where we are in the development of a new health plan or a reform of the existing health programs, and I hear the criticism coming from people who have indicated they do not support more available health products, I think about what happens when votes come about that move the health care bill along. There is absolute obstinacy that prevails with many of our friends on the Republican side.

I look at what good, proper products can do and the hope we have for childhood diseases that are so painful to see. We look for improvements in those--whether it is autism or diabetes or other conditions. We want desperately for companies in this country of ours to continue to develop drugs to treat them--or companies anywhere. But when they come to this country we have to know they are safe because there is nothing that can excuse the sacrifice of safety, for whatever discounts you might get on the product, products that, as has been noted, can kill you if they are the wrong formula or contaminated product.

Our differences between the Dorgan and Lautenberg amendments boil down to one word: safety. Knowing that when you open the bottle, that when you take the liquid, you are not doing something or your children or your loved ones are not doing something that harms their health. We owe them that feeling of security and comfort as they try to cure themselves from sickness or disease. That is what we are looking at here. I hope my colleagues will stand up and say no, don't let these products come in without the tightest scrutiny that can be developed; without the most secure process of production and shipment that can be exercised.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Madam President, this is a simple solution to a complicated problem. My amendment contains the Dorgan amendment. The work done by our friend from North Dakota is significant. But what it did not have is a guarantee, as much as possible, that the product was safe; that there were no counterfeits, that there were no mixtures of things that might not work well with other drugs.

My amendment adds a simple requirement that imported drugs be certified as safe by the Health and Human Services Secretary. I hope we will be able to pass this, which will include the Dorgan amendment, to make sure the products that get here are safe, no matter what the price will be. If it is not safe, it is worthless. We want to be sure every product that reaches our shore is safe to take and will be sold at a more reasonable cost.

Mr. President, throughout my service in the Senate, I have been a strong supporter for health care reform. But we can't allow reform to be used as an excuse to roll back women's rights that they have had for almost half a century. That is why I strongly oppose the amendment offered by my friend, the Senator from Nebraska. I think he is wrong.

What this amendment does is remove a woman's right to make her own decision, as a practical matter. It is to prohibit any of the health plans on the exchange from covering abortion. It will ban coverage even for women who don't get a dime in Federal subsidy.

Women's reproductive rights are always being challenged here in Congress. What about men's reproductive rights? Let's turn the tables for a moment. What if we were to vote on a Viagra amendment restricting coverage for male reproductive services? The same rules would apply for Viagra as being proposed for abortion. Of course, that means no health plan on the exchange would cover Viagra availability. How popular would that demand be around here? I understand that abortion and drugs such as Viagra present different issues, but there is a fundamental principle that is the same: restricting access to reproductive health services for one gender. This amendment is exclusively directed at a woman's right to decide for herself. It doesn't dare to challenge men's personal decisions.

I have the good fortune of being a father of three daughters and grandfather of six granddaughters. I am deeply concerned by the precedent this amendment would set. I don't want politicians making decisions for my daughters or my granddaughters when it comes to their health and well-being, but that is exactly what this amendment does.

Nothing made me happier than when any of my daughters announced a pregnancy. I watched them grow and prosper in their health and well- being, as they were carrying that child. I was fully prepared to support a decision she might make for the best health of that new baby and protecting her health to be able to offer her love and care for a new child, as I saw in my years.

I don't want to stand here and think that somebody is going to make a decision in this room that affects what my granddaughters or my daughters have to think about. If they want to restrict themselves, let them do it. But how can we stand here and permit this to take place when we are trying to make people healthier and better informed? This amendment wants to take away that right.

Right now, the majority of private health insurance plans do offer abortion coverage. This amendment would force private health insurance companies to abandon those policies, eliminate services, and limit a woman's options. The amendment does not, contrary to statements being made here on the floor, simply preserve the Hyde language that has been in place for more than three decades. Make no mistake, this amendment goes well beyond the concept of limiting Federal funds from paying for abortion. This amendment would make it impossible for a woman who pays for her premiums out of her own pocket to purchase a private health plan that offers her the right to choose what is best for her, for her health, and her family's well-being.

We have been working hard for a long time to eliminate discrimination against women in our current health care system. Right now, our health care bill takes a balanced approach to abortion coverage. It preserves existing Federal law. Women have fought since this Nation's founding to have full rights under the law, including suffrage, including many other things. Unfortunately, this amendment would force them to take a step backward. I don't want to see it happen.

I urge my colleagues, please, use your judgment, make your own choices about your own family. Make your decisions as to what you would recommend to a daughter or a wife. But for God's sake, let the woman choose what is best for her.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, how much time is available?

I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak for up to 10 minutes. It will be less, I promise. I think we had a little miscue in our timing. Is there any objection to that?

All right. If we can be assured that the Senator who speaks will not take more than 5 minutes, I will consent to that. That includes a unanimous-consent agreement for me to have up to 10 minutes. I also see our colleague from Michigan, and I don't know whether that would disturb her.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the amendment proposed by Senator Lincoln from Arkansas. I thank her for an excellent idea.

At the outset, before I came to the Senate, I was a founder and CEO of a major New York Stock Exchange company--a company now employing over 40,000 people. I say that because I do understand how business works. I know we have to pay executives to encourage their full capacity. But the money being paid to top health insurance executives is simply outrageous.

Most of these companies where these executives work get subsidies from the Federal Government through payments to Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D. Our tax dollars then wind up stuffing the pockets of insurance company executives.

Remember, these companies are obliged to provide health care funding when people are ill or need counseling to improve their health and their longevity.

The average compensation package for the top five insurance chief executives between 2006 and 2008 was almost $15 million a year.

I think their services in these companies more closely resemble a fire department or an emergency response organization than a traditional product producer or a Wall Street firm. These companies are not selling lawnmowers. They have a different obligation, to provide a guarantee to help people maintain better health, which is essential for individuals and should be great for our country. Our country will save money by reducing overhead and improving programs that will fight to help people live better and longer.

As their executives make millions of dollars every year, their customers are getting messages such as this: Sorry, this operation or that operation is not covered by your policy, or, we don't pay for that kind of medication.

Here is an example that really lays it out perfectly.

There is a company called UnitedHealthcare. It is a major health insurance company. After that company engaged in the practice of backdating hundreds of millions of dollars in stock options--and that was done to get an even better price than the shielded gain they get-- after backdating hundreds of millions of dollars of stock options, their CEO, William McGuire, was forced to quit for his questionable performance. Despite this scandal, United gave Mr. McGuire a golden parachute of more than $1 billion. Where did that money come from? It came from the pockets of senior citizens and from the people who had programs that were covered by this company--$1 billion for an outgoing CEO who engaged in misconduct, while hard-working, everyday Americans get turned down for needed and critical

medical procedures. There was a disease in that boardroom when they permitted those inexplicable decisions.

While health insurance executives have been gouging working families, they are gorging themselves with their outrageous pay, corporate jets, and other perks. A cancer victim may not get critical chemotherapy. A family may not be able to cover the ravages of a child with diabetes. But health insurance company executives draw down millions of dollars. It doesn't add up.

This amendment will not tell insurance companies what they can pay their executives. They can pay them whatever they choose to. But only $400,000 annually can be treated as an expense. That is what the President of the United States makes. The rest of it will be taxed, with those funds going to make Medicare more solvent. Again, the Lincoln amendment wisely uses that new tax revenue generated by this measure to further shore up Medicare.

An observation I wish to make is that I have listened to the debate over a long period of time--not just in recent weeks but long before that--about getting health care improved for the people across our country, the over 40 million people who cannot go to a doctor but who will go to an emergency room, draw a ticket as if they are waiting for a table in a restaurant, and hope they get seen before some critical disease gets worse. What we hear is objection after objection. They like the status quo. They have their friends in the industry. Look at the advertising budgets we see and the percentage of commercials paid for by those who are opposed as contrasted with those who desperately need the insurance.

We are seeing now, for instance, that one element of our reform program is the government plan, the plan that makes the industry more competitive, the public option. We hear all kinds of reasons why that cannot be.

What is the ultimate conclusion? It is that this lush field these insurance companies plow day after day, year after year, should be held intact. It is the wrong way to go. I say to them: Stand up, say you don't want 40 million people, or somewhere near that number, to get health care coverage. Say they don't deserve it because they may not be able to afford it. Say you don't deserve it, you don't have the money to pay for it. Who do you think you are, citizens of this country.

People who are here, who have worked, in many instances, who have lost jobs in this recession, are being told--they don't use the language but the message is clear--you don't deserve it. But they want the insurance company executives to be treated particularly well.

We need clarification of the thinking of the Republicans--and I have a lot of good friends over there, and I know there are a lot of good thinking people. But when the Senator from South Carolina said publicly that if we can bring down this health care plan, we will present a Waterloo for President Obama, what they are seeking is a political victory. They are not seeking to help people who are desperate.

More people are worried about the loss of their health insurance than they are about their jobs because a job of some sort often can be available. But if you lose your health care, if you have a condition that the insurance company is not going to cover, you are in deep trouble.

I plead with my colleagues and I plead with the people across our country who may hear our voices to protest this assault against logic, this assault against those who need help, those who understand that government can be better.

I was a young boy when I enlisted in the Army, 18. My father was sick with cancer. He was 42 years old when he was diagnosed with cancer. He was a healthy man. He used to work out at the Y and take care of himself, but cancer overtook him and after 13 months of illness--a painful illness because they did not have the materials in those days to reduce the pain victims felt--he died, leaving a 37-year-old widow, my mother, who not only was grief-stricken but flat broke, no money. She owed pharmacists. She owed doctors. She owed hospitals.

I learned then that if you cannot turn to government in the United States, you are in bad shape. We have the means to do it, and we must do it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for giving me an opportunity to talk for a few minutes about health care as we try to understand what brings us to this point with a shred of rage, trying to maintain the dignity of our society.

We are on the verge of fixing our health care system once and for all, but there is one major obstacle in our way. The obstacle I talk about is the health insurance companies, their lobbyists, CEOs, and their friends on the other side of the aisle. We can call this group the status quo caucus. They are spending unlimited funds on TV commercials and bogus studies to kill health reform. That is their mission. Think about it. They define their goal, their objective, as articulated by our colleague from South Carolina, as saying: If we can stop this health care reform from continuing, it can be the end of the Obama Presidency, it can be his Waterloo.

What kind of an objective is that, that we put politics at the top end as we ignore millions of people, over 40 million people who do not have any insurance, and many of the others who do

have insurance do not have a complete picture about what their policies permit or what they might lose by way of restrictions.

This is an outrage. The public is manifesting their concern. They are not sure about what they hear, the derogatory material they see--don't do this, don't do that, no public option, and let's take our country back. I don't know whom they are talking about. Whose country? It is our country. It is everybody's country. There is no monopoly here for participation in American society.

We hear the worst kinds of assertions about what we are trying to do--turning this country into a Socialist country. What has happened would be almost humorous if it were not so tragic; that is, for people who are on Medicare to be concerned about government interfering with their lives. Medicare is a government program, one of the most successful ever put into the structure of our country.

While this group of obstructionists goes about their business, ``don't let it happen'' is their mission. I just told you how it is demonstrated in the words of the Senator from South Carolina.

The insurance companies are spending millions on TV commercials and bogus studies to kill health care reform. Quenching their thirst for profits has led to some of the worst predatory practices imaginable. This is an industry that will knowingly strip children of their health care coverage when a parent loses a job. This is an industry that demeans women by treating pregnancy and domestic violence as preexisting conditions--anything to escape their obligations under their insurance policies, for which they charge a lot of money. This is an industry that squeezes small businesses by charging them 18 percent more than they do large firms for the same health insurance policies.

The priority of the health industry is not patients, it is profits. In the richest Nation in the world, decent health care should be a basic tenet of life for everyone in our society. But that is not the way it is going and that is not the way the health insurance companies look at it. Their single-minded drive for profits is at the expense of their policyholders--policyholders who depend on them for care when they are sick or injured and when they need medical or health professional assistance.

We have a chart that demonstrates the massive profit increases at some of our largest health insurance companies for the years 2000 to 2008. These are the profit increases at health insurance companies. This is 2000 and this is 2008. How can we forget 2008, when our country was coming apart at the seams, deep in recession and terrible expectations in front of us, with people losing their jobs and losing their homes by the millions. Yes, 2008 was that kind of a year. It was a disaster year, except for the guys who were in the health insurance business.

In 2000, the profit for WellPoint, one of the best-known companies, was $226 million. Eight years later, their profit was $2.5 billion. Note this: $226 million and $2.5 billion, for a 1000-percent increase. For Aetna, $127 million in 2000; in 2008, $1.4 billion. Think about it--$127 million to $1.4 billion, for a 990-percent increase. Humana, in 2000, had a $90 million profit year, but by 2008 they were up to $647 million, for a 619-percent increase. United Health had $736 million worth of profit in the year 2000, and in 2008 these guys made $3 billion, for a 340-percent increase. That is $736 million compared to $3 billion, for a 304-percent increase.

I can assure you working people were not looking at these kinds of increased percentages in their incomes. As a matter of fact, their purchasing power declined. Even though salaries may have stayed the same or have been increased by some factor, their purchasing power decreased.

Humana, we recently learned, achieved these profits largely by cheating taxpayers, by taking funds that were supposed to be subsidies for lower rates for their policyholders but, in fact, they went into the company's profits.

Just like the industry's profits have risen, so has CEO compensation. Over the last 20 years, compensation for health insurance company CEOs has grown steadily while workers' pay has barely moved. The average compensation package for each of the top five health insurance company executives between 2006 and 2008 was almost $15 million a year.

I ran a fairly large company before I came to the Senate, and I think earning a profit is good. I think it is appropriate to keep your books honestly, tell the company to be transparent, tell the country exactly what your profits are, how it was earned, what your expenses were, what your revenues were. The company I ran is a company called ADP. I started it with two other fellows. They, like I, came from poor, working-class families who worked in the mills in Paterson, NJ. We worked very hard. That company today has 46,000 employees in 26 countries across the world. We started in Paterson, NJ, in a dumpy hotel building where we could rent space. So I know something about balance sheets, financial statements, and profitability. I think that profit is a good thing.

But it is one thing if you are manufacturing lawnmowers and another thing if you are providing health care and the squeeze on the profit side comes out of people's lives; comes out of creating suffering and fear of loss of coverage.

The average salary for these insurance company executives was almost $15 million each year--each CEO--while a year's pay for the average worker during that same time was about $44,000. Imagine, these people are working in the shops, moving things along, doing their clerical work, doing what they have to do, and the top guy is earning $15 million a year, while the average person working there is earning $44,000, and $44,000 today doesn't carry a family very far.

A single health insurance CEO earns approximately 335 times the average worker. It is scandalous. But it doesn't end there. At the same time health insurers and CEOs have made out like bandits, the industry has increased its premiums relentlessly. According to a new report from the Kaiser Family Foundation, insurance premiums for families more than doubled since 1999. Ten years ago, premiums averaged less than $6,000 a year. Today, they have grown to an average of more than $13,000 a year--the highest amount on record. These are for middle-class people earning very modest incomes trying to get along and watch their health insurance.

I have had people walk up to me, people I see in positions of labor, saying: Mr. Senator, please, my rent is going up, my taxes for real estate are going up, I can't afford more. My health care is the one thing that worries me so much. I can't afford to pay the premium, Mr. Senator. Please, help us.

As the following chart shows, over the past 10 years, insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wage increases--in a period of just 10 years. So we see what is happening to a family's ability to afford to cover their needs. If today's CEOs cared as much about the public health as their financial wealth, our system wouldn't look this way. What happens is we are trading the well-being of the needy for unconscionable gains by the greedy.

It is so funny, the times we live in. I read there was a boat show that just took place in Miami, FL, and the most active part of the sales of boats was for boats that were 100 feet or longer. We are talking about millions of dollars for these boats. I don't begrudge those people. I don't, really. But look at basic America and see what it is that keeps our country going.

The health care field is one of the great abominations. We have to end this poisonous prescription for management of health care companies and change the way these health insurance companies operate. There is one way to do it and that is to make sure there is competition within the industry that is serious. The legislation we are putting forward will reshape health insurance and end the industry's choke hold on ordinary Americans.

Under our proposal, it will be against the law for insurance companies to discriminate against women. It will be against the law for them to deny coverage because of a preexisting condition. It will be against the law for them to end insurance coverage just because policyholders become sick. That is what they are supposed to take care of. On top of that, we are going to stop insurance companies from charging immense amounts of out-of-pocket expenses.

We will also make it so insurance providers have to cover routine checkups and preventive care, so lifesaving mammograms will no longer be out of reach for millions of women. I know a world-renowned research clinician in New York who says mammograms are the gold standard for dealing with anticipation of breast cancer.

These changes will make health insurance companies more honest, more transparent and more accountable and they will still make enough money to take care of the wages and the profits they seek. They may not be as great as they are, but they shouldn't be as great as they are.

Our Republican colleagues are chasing a different goal. They are looking for political victories on the backs of the working people of our country. They are fixated on stopping the Congress and President Obama no matter what the consequences are for our country and for the people who work hard to keep their families together. But I want to remind these obstructionists that health insurance companies have shown their utter disregard for the well-being of all Americans from all walks of life. They do not care if the policyholder is a Democrat, a Republican or an Independent. I remind anybody who hears what we are saying or looks at what we are doing that fixing health care is not a choice; it is a necessity.

I know this on a personal basis, though I am fortunate. I have a grandson who is 16 years old. He has asthma. When my daughter takes him to play sports--he is a good athlete--she first checks to see where the nearest emergency clinic is in case he starts to wheeze. I have a granddaughter, 11 years old, and she has diabetes. When she was here in Washington on a visit, I looked at her, and I didn't like the way she looked. I said to my daughter--they live in Florida--you have to find out what is wrong with Maddie. There is something there. It worried me. She was pale, she didn't have any energy, and she looked terribly slim. When I went down to Florida 3 days later, after they left Washington, I went to the hospital where she had entered and I saw her. She looked like a new person because the diabetes was treated and she had insulin. She looked like a new person.

Those things mean so much. There is nothing more important to any of us--and I say this about my Republican friends as well--nothing more important than our children, our grandchildren. That is what we all live for. They have a right to live and be healthy. For the future of our children and grandchildren, every American--we have to meet our obligations. I plead with my friends on the other side, get out of the way. Don't stand there unless you are willing to come in here and say: I don't want people to have health insurance. I don't care whether a child has health insurance. Say it out loud instead of skulking behind the walls and hiding the truth about what your mission is.

It is my hope that history will record a moment of success, success for the people of our country. We have never quite been this close to achieving fundamental health care reform. We may never have this opportunity again.

Once more, step forward, colleagues, Senators, sent here by people who trust you, who have confidence in you. Take care of them. Be honest with them. If you don't want to give them health care insurance, say so. Say: I don't want to give you health insurance. Or say: We don't want your condition to determine whether we cover you, we want to decide. This is an opportunity we have to seize.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, another 6 months have passed, and more American troops have lost their lives overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wish to honor their service and sacrifice by including their names in the Congressional Record.

Since I last included the names of our fallen troops on April 23, 2009, the Pentagon has announced the deaths of 310 troops in Iraq and in Operation Enduring Freedom, which includes Afghanistan. They will not be forgotten and today I submit their names into the Record:

PFC Lukas C. Hopper, of Merced, CA; SPC Adrian L. Avila, of

Opelika, AL; Frank R. Walker, of Oklahoma City, OK; PFC Brian

R. Bates, of Gretna, LA; SPC Joseph L. Gallegos, of Questa,

NM; SPC Robert K. Charlton, of Malden, MO; SSG Keith R.

Bishop, of Medford, NY; SFC David E. Metzger, of San Diego,

CA; SGT Nikolas A. Mueller, of Little Chute, WI; SGT Josue E.

Hernandez Chavez, of Reno, NV; SSG Shawn H. McNabb, of

Terrell, TX; CW3 Niall Lyons, of Spokane, WA; CW4 Michael P.

Montgomery, of Savannah, GA; PFC Christopher I. Walz, of

Vancouver, WA; SPC Jared D. Stanker, of Evergreen Park, IL;

SGT Patrick O. Williamson, of Broussard, LA; SGT Issac B.

Jackson, of Plattsburg, MO; SGT Dale R. Griffin, of Terre

Haute, IN; SGT Fernando Delarosa, of Alamo, TX; SSG Luis M.

Gonzalez, of South Ozone Park, NY.

LCpl Cody R. Stanley, of Rosanky, TX; SPC Brandon K.

Steffey, of Sault Sainte Marie, MI; MAJ David L. Audo, of

Saint Joseph, IL; PFC Devin J. Michel, of Stockton, IL; SGT

Eduviges G. Wolf, of Hawthorne, CA; Capt Kyle R. Van De

Giesen, of North Attleboro, MA; Capt David S. Mitchell, of

Loveland, OH; Capt Eric A. Jones, of Westchester, NY; CPL

Gregory M.W. Fleury, of Anchorage, AK; PFC Kimble A. Han,

of Lehi, UT; SPC Eric N. Lembke, of Tampa, FL; SPC Kyle A.

Coumas, of Lockeford, CA; SSG Bradley Espinoza, of

Mission, TX; LCpl David R. Baker, of Painesville, OH; SPC

Michael A. Dahl Jr., of Moreno Valley, CA; PFC Daniel J.

Rivera, of Rochester, NY; PFC Brandon M. Styer, of

Lancaster, PA; SPC Daniel C. Lawson, of Deerfield Beach,

FL; SPC Jesus O. Flores, Jr., of La Mirada, CA; SSG Glen

H. Stivison, Jr., of Blairsville, PA.

SPC Anthony G. Green, of Matthews, NC; SSG Chris N. Staats,

of Fredericksburg, TX; SGT Christopher M. Rudzinski, of

Rantoul, IL; SSgt Aaron J. Taylor, of Bovey, MN; LCpl Alfonso

Ochoa Jr., of Armona, CA; SPC George W. Cauley, of Walker,

MN; SFC Kenneth W. Westbrook, of Shiprock, NM; SPC Kevin O.

Hill, of Brooklyn, NY; PFC Kevin C. Thomson, of Reno, NV; SPC

Stephan L. Mace, of Lovettsville, VA; SPC Christopher T.

Griffin, of Kincheloe, MI; SGT Michael P. Scusa, of Villas,

NJ; SGT Joshua J. Kirk, of South Portland, ME; SGT Joshua M.

Hardt, of Applegate, CA; SGT Justin T. Gallegos, of Tucson,

AZ; SSG Vernon W. Martin, of Savannah, GA; MAJ Tad T. Hervas,

of Coon Rapids, MN; PFC Alan H. Newton Jr., of Asheboro, NC;

CPT Benjamin A. Sklaver, of Medford, MA; SPC Paul E.

Andersen, of Dowagiac, MI.

SSG Thomas D. Rabjohn, of Litchfield Park, AZ; SPC Brandon

A. Owens, of Memphis, TN; SGT Aaron M. Smith, of Manhattan,

KS; SGT Roberto D. Sanchez, of Satellite Beach, FL; SGT Ryan

C. Adams, of Rhinelander, WI; SPC Russell S. Hercules Jr., of

Murfreesboro, TN; SSG Jack M. Martin, III, of Bethany, OK;

SFC Christopher D. Shaw, of Markham, IL; SSG Alex French,

IV, of Milledgeville, GA; SPC Ross E. Vogel, III, of Red

Lion, PA; LCpl Jordan L. Chrobot, of Frederick, MD; SPC

Kevin J. Graham, of Benton, KY; SPC Joseph V. White, of

Bellevue, WA; SGT Edward B. Smith, of Homestead, FL; SGT

Titus R. Reynolds, of Columbus, OH; LCpl John J. Malone,

of Yonkers, NY; PFC William L. Meredith, of Virginia

Beach, VA; TSgt James R Hornbarger, of Castle Rock, WA;

SGT David A. Davis, of Dalhart, TX.

SPC Damon G. Winkleman, of Lakeville, OH; SPC Corey J.

Kowall, of Murfreesboro, TN; SPC Michael S. Cote Jr., of

Denham Springs, LA; SrA Matthew R. Courtois, of Lucas, TX;

PFC Jeremiah J. Monroe, of Niskayuna, NY; SSG Joshua M.

Mills, of El Paso, TX; SFC Shawn P. McCloskey, of Peachtree

City, GA; SFC Bradley S. Bohle, of Glen Burnie, MD; SGT

Robert D. Gordon, II, of River Falls, AL; 1LT David T.

Wright, II, of Moore, OK; SGT Andrew H. McConnell, of

Carlisle, PA; SPC Demetrius L. Void, of Orangeburg, SC; SSgt

Bryan D. Berky, of

Melrose, FL; SPC Daniel L. Cox, of Parsons, KS; SSG Nekl B.

Allen, of Rochester, NY; PFC Matthew M. Martinek, of DeKalb,

IL; SFC Duane A. Thornsbury, of Bridgeport, WV; SGT Tyler A.

Juden, of Winfield, KS; 1LT Tyler E. Parten, of AR; LCpl

Christopher S. Fowlkes, of Gaffney, SC.

PFC Zachary T. Myers, of Delaware, OH; PFC Thomas F. Lyons,

of Fernley, NV; SSG Shannon M. Smith, of Marion, OH; SGT

Youvert Loney, of Pohnpei, Micronesia; SSgt Aaron M.

Kenefick, of Roswell, GA; 1LT Michael E. Johnson, of Virginia

Beach, VA; GySgt Edwin W. Johnson Jr., of Columbus, GA; PO3

James R. Layton, of Riverbank, CA; Capt Joshua S. Meadows,

of Bastrop, TX; 1st Lt Joseph D. Helton, of Monroe, GA;

SSG Michael C. Murphrey, of Snyder, TX; SGT Randy M.

Haney, of Orlando, FL; 2LT Darryn D. Andrews, of Dallas,

TX; LCpl Christopher S. Baltazar Jr., of San Antonio, TX;

PO3 Benjamin P. Castiglione, of Howell, MI; SPC Jordan M.

Shay, of Salisbury, MA; SSG Todd W. Selge, of Burnsville,

MN; SPC Tyler R. Walshe, of Shasta, CA; PFC Jordan M.

Brochu, of Cumberland, ME; SPC Jonathan D. Welch, of Yorba

Linda, CA.

LCpl David R. Hall, of Elyria, OH; PFC Eric W. Hario of

Monroe, MI; SSG Jason S. Dahlke of Orlando, FL; SPC Abraham

S. Wheeler, III, of Columbia, SC; PVT Taylor D. Marks, of

Monmouth, OR; SGT Earl D. Werner, of Mondovi, WI; SSG Kurt R.

Curtiss, of Murray, UT; PFC Matthew E. Wildes, of Hammond,

LA; SPC Dennis M. Williams, of Federal Way, WA; SFC Ronald W.

Sawyer, of Trenton, MO; CPT Cory J. Jenkins, of AZ; CPT John

L. Hallett, III, of Concord, CA; LCpl Donald J. Hogan, of San

Clemente, CA; CPL Darby T. Morin, of Victoria, Canada; 2LT

Joseph D. Fortin, of St. Johnsbury, VT; SSG Andrew T.

Lobosco, of Somerville, NJ; PFC Jonathan C. Yanney, of

Litchfield, MN; SPC Troy O. Tom, of Shiprock, NM; SGT Matthew

L. Ingram, of Pearl, MS; SPC Justin R. Pellerin, of Boscawen,

Mr. President, one thing Senator Inouye has established is that you do not have to be a Democrat to love Danny Inouye. He is not only revered here for his knowledge and for his leadership but for his affection and to all things we care about, and people on the other side of the aisle confirm that in their respect for Danny Inouye.

Danny, as we affectionately know him, and I and Senator Akaka are the three remaining veterans of World War II in this place. We treasure every moment we have together. I particularly am in debt to Danny Inouye for his unique capacity to listen, to think quickly on his feet and come up with the right answers.

Danny, we congratulate you. We look forward to your ascension to even higher standing with longevity in this body and, quite frankly, I hope to be here with you. Congratulations.

Mr. President, I rise to make some comments about the health care bill we are all anxious to see and discuss.

Everyone knows a principal focus of our attention now in the Senate is on the health care reform bill, and we expect a major debate on the precise structure of that bill over the next few weeks. But I want to, in that connection, start my remarks with a quotation from a statement given by the Senator from South Carolina. He said, on June 17, 2009:

If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his

Waterloo. It will break him.

That is the Republican dominant view on health care reform. The mission is not to do better for the American people but, rather, to destroy the Presidency of Barack Obama. It is an unpleasant scene to witness.

Almost all Americans want to see us fix our health care system. I say ``almost'' because there is a group of people here who love the status quo: health insurance companies and their lobbyists and CEOs.

Everyone knows health care costs have skyrocketed, and that means everybody pays more. But when working people are under assault to pay more, it could cause a catastrophic confrontation with funds, with money for food and education and other ordinary but essential expenses for living.

America's small businesses are struggling to provide health care for their employees, and more people are less able to afford health care coverage. And while enormous pressure is placed on middle-income families, the largest health insurers are seeing massive profit growth.

Wendell Potter, an executive at CIGNA and some other health insurance companies over the last 20 years, has put it this way. He testified before the Senate Commerce Committee earlier this year, and he said the health insurance companies--and I quote him--``confuse their customers and dump the sick--all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors.''

That single-minded drive for profits is clear from the numbers. Here is a chart I have in the Chamber showing part of the outrage. This chart demonstrates the massive profit increases at some of our largest health insurance companies. Just look at them. The years for comparison are the year 2000 and 2008.

In 2000, the company called WellPoint earned $226 million worth of profit. That $226 million had grown to $2.5 billion at the end of 2008--an increase of 1,000 percent.

Aetna, one of the biggest: In 2000, they made $127 million worth of profit. Eight years later, the $127 million grew to $1.4 billion--an increase of 990 percent.

Humana: In 2000, they earned $90 million; in 2008, $647 million--a modest gain, only 619 percent.

United Health--one of the largest--earned, in 2000, $736 million; in 2008, $3 billion, an increase of 304 percent.

Mr. President, we all know who paid the price for those profits: working-class Americans. This condition tells you what we have to be on the lookout for as we develop our plan.

Just as the health insurance industry profits have risen, obviously, so has the CEO compensation. If we look at what has taken place over a 3-year period for the five largest health care companies, the CEO pay has grown steadily, while workers' pay has barely moved. The average health care CEO, over the last 3 years, in these five companies, earned $14.8 million. That was his--in this case--all his compensation. And the average worker's salary was $44,200. Look at that comparison: $14.8 million, while the average working person earned $44,000. There is an injustice there that I think is quite obvious.

So we look at that and say: Well, what is happening here? A single health insurance CEO earns approximately 335 times that of the average worker in this country. It is absolutely ridiculous. It is scandalous-- scandalous--when we think about the struggle people go through to keep their families healthy and, at the same time, take care of the bare needs for existence.

In New Jersey, for example, the largest health care insurer is Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield. Last year, the CEO of that nonprofit, Mr. William Marino, made $5.4 million--a nonprofit company. Although it is a company without profit, it certainly was pretty darn profitable for Mr. Marino.

Let me be clear. While health insurers and CEOs have made out like bandits, the industry has been increasing premiums relentlessly. According to a new report from the Kaiser Family Foundation, insurance premiums for American families more than doubled during the last 10 years. We see it: three times faster than wages over the last 10 years. That is what has happened with health care.

Premiums, which now average more than $13,000 a year, are the highest cost on record. The chart shows it very clearly, that this expanding premium cost has gone way beyond the average family to be able to afford to pay the rate.

If today's CEOs cared as much about the public's health as their own financial wealth, our system would not look this way. We are stuffing the greedy and starving the needy. That is the situation we are in.

It is time to reshape health care in this country once and for all. It is time to make the insurance industry accountable so that health insurance works for the people in our country. It is time to lift the curtain of despair so those without insurance can get it, and those who are in dread fear of losing it can stop worrying. It is time to say that in the richest Nation in the world, decent health care belongs to everyone in our country.

The reality is, we spend 1\1/2\ times more per person on health care than any other country, and yet even as we pour more and more money into health care, Americans' health has not improved.

Just take infant mortality. The infant mortality rate in the United States is a telling marker of how well a society delivers health care. Infant death rates in our country have been going up for the last 40 years. Now the United States has a higher infant mortality rate than 40 other countries in the world, including Cuba, Sweden, Taiwan, and most of Europe. By any metric, we are not delivering health care in our country fairly, fully, or efficiently, and the time for change is upon us.

Many in this Chamber have been working for decades to reform our system so children, the working poor, and the sick get the care they deserve. No one worked harder than my former seatmate and dear friend, Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Today we are on the verge of a sweeping overhaul. We are proud of Senator Kennedy for all the years he labored so hard.

This Senate and the President and the House must do the right thing for the health of America's working families. Surely these families and their children are as critical with their contributions to America's well-being as those profiteering from their sweat and toil.

This debate is about our commitment to the millions of Americans who work hard every day, pay taxes, care for their kids, but risk the chance of losing everything because of a single illness. We declare here and now that we will not allow exaggerated profits to breach the primary obligation we have to all of our people to protect them from assault, whether from terror, natural disaster, or from the scourge of disease. In the wealthiest country in the world, no one should be left out and left behind because government won't respond to their cries for help.

I close with a reminder to those in this Chamber that our obligation far exceeds the attention it has gotten over the years; far exceeds any stretch of decency that we can muster; that we do something about it, that we show part of the shame we all feel when we look at millions of people who have no health insurance in this country while we see the compensation and the growth of these companies. I am a corporate person. I come from having run a very large corporation, one of the largest and one of the best in the country called ADP. It has over 240,000 employees. A couple of other fellows and I started that company. I took a look at the fellow who is now running that company. The company made over $1.5 billion last year and his salary was $1 million. He does a good job.

Some people here, largely on the other side--almost exclusively on the other side, except for one courageous Senator who stood up and said she is not going to let this go by without trying to do something serious about it--want to take the role of doctors and they want to write a prescription to do nothing but obstruct and say no. They want to say no to those looking to government for help and no to those desperately in need of health care. All they say is no, no, no. I summarize the Republican view and their health care mission. Theirs is a missile gone astray. Kill the Obama presidency with this Waterloo, regardless of the number of casualties among the citizenry. Their victory will be won with the political destruction of the Obama mission.

I say ``no'' is not the answer. It is time for us to act. I hope our colleagues in this Senate will look in the mirror and see how they would feel if a child suddenly comes up with a condition that is long lasting and that is hard to deal with. I have a granddaughter with diabetes. I have a grandson with asthma. Fortunately, they have good health care. I am able to afford to pay it. But there are lots of people in this country who can't. I would like one of these people on the other side to stand up with them face to face and say, no, I don't think we ought to help you. I don't think we can afford to help you. I don't think my colleagues with whom I have an industry connection would like it if I helped you.

Too bad. Too bad, I say. I hope we gain some sense and some visibility in this debate over the next several weeks.

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

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

Madam President, I come to the floor because we were looking at an amendment earlier today that would have stopped the EPA from exercising its obligation to combat global warming pollution. There are those here who would choose to defer taking action to deal with this enormous threat where future generations' lives and well- being would be at risk. But the time for delay is a luxury we don't have. We can't afford to wait any longer and we cannot afford to limit our options.

Every day the science makes it more clear we are on a dangerous course. In fact, the scientific community has recently had to revise its own estimates because rising temperatures are destabilizing our planet far faster than originally expected. For instance, 2 years ago, scientists warned us that summers in the Arctic would be completely ice free by 2050. Now they are saying summers in the Arctic will be completely ice free in 3 years. Two years ago they said sea levels would rise less than 2 feet by the end of this century and now it is being said sea levels will rise by 6 feet. The risks of inaction are too great.

We have to look also at the national security risks we face by continuing to do nothing about climate change. According to the CIA's National Intelligence Council, if we fail to act, nearly 1 billion people may face water and food shortages in the next 15 years. These shortages will set the stage for conflict and breed conditions for terrorism. At the same time, with 20 percent of the world's population living in

coastal zones, rising sea levels and stronger hurricanes could displace more than 150 million people by 2050. When it is expressed in percentages such as that and talking about numbers that are almost beyond the imagination, it sometimes loses its impact. But what we are talking about are people seeking higher-level places to take themselves and their families so they are not overwhelmed by floods.

Border pressures created by these mass migrations will increase tensions and lay the groundwork for armed conflict. The U.S. Navy has looked at this problem in the past and issued a report that in the last half of the 21st century we could be looking at a different structure for naval engagements with smaller boats, higher speeds, and so forth to keep people from flooding our shores because they are trying to get away from higher water. Nations will look to us, to the United States, as a first responder in the aftermath of these major natural emergencies and humanitarian disasters.

Retired GEN Anthony Zinni put it this way, that if we don't begin reducing carbon emissions now, we will ``pay the price later in military terms and that will involve human lives.''

Delay is not a substitute for confronting this growing problem. It is no surprise that many of those who want to shelve the Clean Air Act and stop EPA from doing its duty are the same ones who close their eyes to the overwhelming scientific evidence that says, Wake up, hear the alarm. They have dismissed the ominous forecasts of life changes for plants, animals, and humans. They called global warming ``the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.'' A hoax is a joke. That is a bad joke.

Let's not forget, the EPA's power to curb greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act was recently affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Clean Air Act has been one of the great success stories of our lifetime and it is one of the few tools we have to overcome climate change. For the last 40 years, this law has led to cleaner skies and healthier children. If it weren't for the Clean Air Act, 225,000 Americans would have died prematurely, according to an EPA study. Imagine, we would have lost 225,000 people if it weren't for the Clean Air Act.

While the gains have been enormous, the cost to polluters has been minimal. In fact, the total benefits to our economy have been identified as high as $49 trillion, putting the benefit at 100 times greater than the cost for action. Even so, history shows that opponents often dramatically overstate the costs of environmental improvement. The last time we strengthened the Clean Air Act, our adversaries rang the alarm that these changes would cost too much and damage the economy. But as it turned out, the actual costs were less than one- fifth of what these opponents estimated. Today, even though EPA has a proven track record of producing trillions in benefits for our economy and our country under the Clean Air Act, we are hearing the same kinds of warnings. It makes no sense.

There is no doubt our opponents prefer to endorse inaction and will reward failure. That is why I urge my colleagues to stand up to the special interests and stand for the public interest. It is time to say from our hearts that we are willing to stand firm against those who claim the overstated cost of change outweighs the risk of disappearing species, poor health, and international unrest.

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

I would like to discuss with the Senator a serious issue that deserves our attention. White nose syndrome, WNS, is a fungus that is causing an extraordinary number of bat deaths, particularly in the Northeast. This disease has the potential to inflict widespread ecological, agricultural, and economic damage throughout our country. More than 1 million bats have died from New Hampshire to Virginia over the last two winters, and scientists report mortality rates as high as 100 percent in some affected caves. Experts fear that WNS could lead to the extinction of many bat species as the disease spreads across the country.

WNS not only has ecological effects, but it also has severe economic and environmental implications. Bats consume vast quantities of insects, protecting crops and reducing pesticide use. A single bat can easily eat more than 3,000 insects a night and an entire colony will consume hundreds of millions of insects per year. Bats prey on mosquitoes, which spread disease, and moths and beetles, which damage agriculture.

With the Senator's leadership, the fiscal year 2010 Interior appropriations bill has included $500,000 for research to prevent the spread of WNS, and I thank the Senator for that.

As the Senator knows, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS, is spearheading efforts to better understand this deadly disease and learn how to control its spread. FWS is working in conjunction with the U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, and U.S. Forest Service and with State and local partners, scientists, and conservation organizations. Due to the high mortality rate and the rapid spread of the disease, time is of the essence.

Experts estimate that much more funding is needed for research on WNS. Accordingly, I filed an important amendment to this bill, amendment No. 2476, to shift $1.4 million in additional funding to WNS research. My amendment would not put any other projects or programs at risk, and it would provide critical resources to fight this disease. I ask for the chairman's assurance that she will work in conference to implement my amendment.

Madam President, I seek recognition because in front of us we have a proposal I think could be very damaging to our country. An amendment has been proposed that I consider unnecessary and potentially dangerous which is being offered by the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Wicker.

What we are finding is that there is a challenge to whether Amtrak can continue to operate after the 1st of October. It has been modified, but initially it would propose a ban put on Amtrak's operations unless guns can be carried in baggage on Amtrak trains. While that is an issue that could be discussed--think about it: Amtrak carries 28 million people in a year, and Amtrak produces far less toxic emissions and is much more energy efficient. We have been delinquent for so many years in investing in good railroading. In this advanced country, in this, the richest country in the world, no matter what our economic condition is, it is incomprehensible for that kind of a choice to be put forward: Either you carry guns in our trains--in your baggage on our trains or else we shut down the railroad.

It is preposterous when you think of the services that are offered, not just directly on the Amtrak trains but on the Amtrak tracks where, in many States, it is also used by commuting services. It would cripple the functioning of our country. It is outrageous that, at this point in time, when we have worked so hard to generate funding for Amtrak to improve the service, to bring it up to the 21st century, and it is suggested that maybe we ought to shut it down because we have a disagreement about whether guns can be carried in baggage on railroad cars.

This amendment now has moved the time period to discontinuing the service in March. Well, I don't know what the value of that is, very frankly. If that kind of a threat hangs over us, do we continue to invest billions of dollars? Do we try to get private investors to buy Amtrak bonds? I don't think so, not when we face a threat such as that.

Last fall, this Chamber voted overwhelmingly, 74 to 24, to reauthorize Amtrak and modernize our Nation's passenger rail system and, oddly enough, the Senator from Mississippi voted for this legislation. Amtrak has made much progress because of that new law, but the amendment on the floor would undo all that.

The Wicker amendment, as I said earlier, would completely shut down our Nation's passenger rail service. That is hardly a thing to do when our infrastructure is so severely degraded because of a far greater use than we ever expected. I wish to be clear. This amendment would hardly give Amtrak any time before it might be required to start allowing firearms to be carried on its trains. At this moment, Amtrak will tell you they don't have the means to carry these guns securely and safely.

Senator Wicker noted in 2004 Amtrak made a decision to stop transporting guns in the name of security. Why did it happen in 2004? I remind those who can hear that it was September 11, 2001, and the terrorist attacks in Madrid which reminded us that railroad travel organizations are an attractive target for terrorist attacks.

Amtrak determined it lacked the ability to securely transport checked firearms. It is a decision that was not casually made.

I wish to be able to work with the Senator from Mississippi and Amtrak to see if we can develop a reasonable plan so that passengers can safely and reasonably transport guns in checked bags on Amtrak train. I don't agree with it, but I am happy to discuss it, in deference to Senator Wicker. When you think of what Amtrak means in our country, I remind you that on September 11, when the World Trade Center came crashing down, taking with it almost 3,000 lives, the only way you could get there on that day, and a couple days thereafter, was by train, by Amtrak. Aviation was shut down across the country and in much of the world. Highways were jammed beyond effective use. But Amtrak was there to help. And to say that our security doesn't raise the issue of whether we can transport guns on Amtrak--that doesn't make sense to me.

If Senator Wicker's amendment is adopted, all Amtrak trains across the country, and those that use Amtrak's tracks, could come to a complete halt in a matter of months.

It is outrageous to propose something this crippling over an issue that can be resolved. Yet, the Wicker amendment threatens to leave us with no passenger rail service in America. We cannot afford to sabotage our passenger train service to meet this crazy timetable--and I say crazy. When you think about it, for years, we fought to get Amtrak standing as it should be, the principal rail service in a country like ours. Amtrak was created in 1970, taken out of private hands and put into government hands as a quasi-government corporation. We are spending $1.5 billion a year to bring Amtrak up to current standards. The Recovery Act included $8 billion for high-speed rail, plus the President's budget called for a billion dollars annually for 5 years. By comparison, foreign governments--in 2005, France's national railway agency got $8.3 billion in government spending. I said it was $1\1/2\ billion in America, and France spent $8.3 billion. Why? Because it is efficient. It reduces toxic emissions and the dependency on foreign oil. Germany spent about $9 billion annually on passenger rail service. Spain has a plan to spend $150 billion on rail from 2005 to 2020, or an average of $10 billion a year. And we are trying to play catchup now.

Since 1971, a total of $33 billion has been spent on Amtrak. That is almost 40 years, averaging less than a billion dollars a year, as we see what other countries have done. Ridership on Amtrak, in 1988, was 21 million. In 2008, it was 28 million. People are turning to Amtrak because they know it is a very respectable way to travel, if it is available to you.

So when we look at that and see that the growth of ridership is so substantial, that tells us we ought to figure out ways to do things differently. When we look at the whole picture, frankly, it brings a lot of concern when you think of the demand for Amtrak services. Amtrak, in the last year, had 28 million riders. For instance, New York City, the financial center of the world and the country, is dependent on the functioning of that financial system. We saw what happened when it almost broke down in these last months. In an average day in New York City, more people travel through New York's Penn Station than John F. Kennedy Airport, LaGuardia, and Liberty Airport put together on the same day. Penn Station--more people travel through there than all three of those airports in a day. And unless guns are permitted to be put aboard a train, we should shut down Amtrak? We should punish the American people because we cannot have guns travel on Amtrak trains? This cannot be justified by any stretch of the imagination.

Also, we fail to look at something else. When we put people on Amtrak, we free up room in the skyways and on the highways. I cannot tell you how often I often fly between here and New Jersey, my home State, and I have had a pilot say welcome aboard such-and-such airline, and we will be departing soon for a 45-minute flight to Newark Liberty Airport. We get on the plane, the doors close, and they move us away from the gate, and the pilot gets on and says: We just learned that in the New York area we have a 2-hour delay, so we sat there looking at one another crossly. Everybody was angry and upset. If I had taken Amtrak--I came down yesterday in just over 2\1/2\ hours. What a difference. Very often, airplane trips less than 250 miles are the slowest means of travel because of the delays from airport to airport, and because of weather, et cetera. There are hardly any highways that I travel in the country, as my colleagues do--no matter what city you go to, if it is during particular hours, you cannot get there from here.

I have been in the Senate now for 25 years. When I first came to Washington, the ride from where I live was about a 12-minute ride. Now, in the evening, I can wait a half an hour while red lights change to green and traffic doesn't move. Go by rail. We see what happens in a reasonable facsimile, when you look at the Metro, a very successful operation here in Washington, DC. People want the convenience, the reliability, and they don't worry about the weather. It makes us feel better about our time spent. We get home with the family, and we get

to work on time, and we get to the doctor, and other places you have to go on a regular basis.

I hope my colleagues in the Senate will look at this and say it could be an important issue for some people--certainly, for some particular interest. Typically, it is the NRA pushing this interest, but discounting that, people have a right to vote. But I plead with my colleagues, please, don't punish the American people, or the American economy, and don't take the chance for that disruption, and don't diminish our ability for rapid movement if we have to in a moment of threat.

I hope the vote will say if you want to have this discussion, let's have it, but don't put a sword hanging over the head of Amtrak.

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

Mr. President, this corner of the Senate has become a lonely place. I sat next to Ted Kennedy here for a number of years. We miss him. We miss his camaraderie, his humor, his candor, most of all his courage. And though he will not be here to join us in the future, the things he did will last for decades because they were so powerful. He was a constant presence here. It is hard to imagine the Senate without Ted Kennedy's vibrant voice resounding throughout this floor or his roaring laughter spilling out of the cloakroom.

Without doubt he was one of the finest legislators ever in this Chamber's history. Throughout his more than 46 years of service, Ted introduced 2,500 bills and shepherded more than 550 of those into law. He was a man of many gifts, but his greatest had to be his remarkable affinity for ordinary people.

I saw that gift firsthand in 1982 when I was making my first run for the Senate. A rally was being held for me in Newark, NJ, and it drew a crowd of thousands. I wanted to think that they were there for me, but it was obvious that they were there for Ted Kennedy.

The warmth, the affection with which he was received in this city far from the borders of Massachusetts, far from the halls of power in Washington, was amazing to witness. It was fitting that Ted came to Newark to help me campaign because he inspired me to devote myself to public service. He encouraged my entry into the Senate.

As soon as I joined the Senate, Ted Kennedy became a source of knowledge, and information, and wisdom. He was a seatmate of mine here in the Senate, and freely offered ideas on creating and moving legislation that I thought of or sponsored.

Even though he was born into privilege and was part of a powerful political family, his fight was always for the workers, for justice, and for those often forgotten. He was never shy to chase one down and demand your vote or to call you on the phone and insist on your support. Sometimes he would try to bring you to his side through reason, other times it was through righteous fury. Ted was such a tenacious fighter for a cause in which he believed that he would often put on the gloves no matter who the opponent might be.

But he never let disagreement turn into a personal vendetta. No matter how bitter the fight, when it was done, he could walk across the Chamber ready to shake hands with his opponents, and was received with affection and respect.

Despite his reputation as a divisive figure, he was at the top of the list of popular Senators beloved by both Republicans and Democrats. He carried a great sense of humor. He liked to play pranks, one of which I saw up close and personal. One Thursday night after a long series of votes, we chartered an airplane to take Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Senator Claiborne Pell, and me north to join our vacationing families in the area.

A week later we were here in the Chamber, and Claiborne Pell came over to me, hands shaking, with a letter in his hand. I looked at the letter. It was my stationery. On that stationery it asked for Claiborne Pell, a frugal man, to pay a far greater share of the total than was originally agreed to. I was embarrassed, mortified. I quickly declared that it was wrong and apologized profusely. And then I went to Ted to assure him that if he got a letter such as that, the letter was incorrect. Ted turned belligerent. He reminded me of the help he provided in my first election and asked: How could I nickel and dime him after all of that help. He turned on his heel, walked away red- faced, and then I realized it was part of the creation of a plot to embarrass me. The two of us broke into laughter so loud, so boisterously, that the Presiding Officer demanded that we leave the Chamber.

Ted Kennedy's love of life was always obvious in the Senate. Even though he could rise above partisan division, his life's work was deeply personal. It was Ted Kennedy who inherited the family legacy when two brothers were slain by assassins' bullets. He met that challenge by battling the powerful special interests to pass the Gun Control Act of 1968, which made it illegal for criminals and the mentally ill to buy guns.

Together Ted and I joined the fight to keep our streets safe from the scourge of gun violence. For decades, he was a force that shaped the national political landscape. He crafted life-changing legislation year after year, always fighting to shape public opinion toward his causes. He believed public service was a sacred mission and the role of a leader was to make progress. No matter how hard, no matter how long the journey, he persisted.

In fact, Ted Kennedy's signature talent was his precise, unmatched ability to get legislation passed. And he did that through the timeless requirements of this profession: preparation, integrity, fairness, patience, hard work, a little bit of table pounding and a profound respect for his colleagues and his constituents.

I had the privilege of working with Ted Kennedy on many pieces of groundbreaking legislation. We worked closely on fighting big tobacco and their attempts to seduce children into a lifetime of addiction. We reached the high watermark in that struggle earlier this year, when a law was passed that gives the FDA the power to regulate tobacco. It was something we worked on together for a long time. We stood together on other struggles, from the creation of the Children's Health Insurance Program to the Ryan White Act, to the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Think about it: Without Ted Kennedy, nearly 7 million children would not have health insurance. Think about it: Without Ted Kennedy, half a million Americans suffering with HIV would not be receiving vital services to cope with their disease. Think about it: Without Ted Kennedy, more than 60 million workers would not have the right to take time off from their job to care for a baby or a loved one or even receive personal medical treatment.

And he did more. He gave people assurance that the government was on their side.

Ted Kennedy was the guardian of opportunity. Look at his decades-long campaign to increase the minimum wage.

He will forever be remembered as a leader who persevered despite some frailties, who remained a tower of strength despite crippling personal tragedy.

Nothing symbolized his fortitude more than his first major speech on the Senate floor, which came on the heels of President Kennedy's assassination.

Then, despite all he was facing personally, he fought for passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to outlaw discrimination in employment, education and public accommodations.

From there, Ted Kennedy became inextricably tied to the struggle for equal rights.

He was the chief sponsor of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

Ted Kennedy was also a leader in the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This law abolished literacy tests at the polls and guaranteed the protection of all Americans' right to vote.

In 1982, he was the chief sponsor of the Voting Rights Amendments Act which led the way to greater minority representation in Congress and state legislatures.

That law, in no small way, made it more likely that Barack Obama would become President of the United States. We are grateful the last Kennedy brother had a chance to see America rise above racism, above prejudice. He had a chance, the last of the Kennedy brothers in office, to see President Obama take that oath. It was a proud moment for him and for all of us.

As his life came to an end, Ted said he saw a new wave of change all around us. He promised us that if we kept our compass true, we could reach our destination. In the days and the weeks and the months to come, the years to come, decades to come, we have to keep Ted Kennedy's cause alive. It is the cause

of breaking gridlock to get things done. It is the cause of expanding health care as a right and not a privilege. It is the cause of bringing hope and justice and prosperity to all.

We are likely never to see the likes of a Ted Kennedy again. But I am confident we can rise to the challenge the people's Senator set for us and carry on for those who remember him, for those, yes, who miss him, for those who loved him, and for those who will always need a champion like Ted Kennedy.

Finally, if there was a demonstration of his humanity, the funeral tribute was one of enormous love and respect. It was enunciated particularly, because I road with other Senators on the bus, by the hoards of people standing by the curbside with signs of gratitude for his contribution to the life and well-being of America. We are thankful for that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his kind remarks and for the leadership he has provided for all of us. I never dreamed I would be here this long. I had 30 years in business before I got to this place.

Harry Reid mentioned twice something about wealth. The wealth I acquired by being in this place--by being able to say to my country that I have had a chance to give back for the wonderfully good fortune that has occurred in the lives of myself, my children, my parents--if they could see this. My mother was critical when I ran for the Senate. She expressed a little disappointment. I said, ``Mom, how can that be?'' She said, ``Because I thought you would be running for President.'' In any event, my dad would not have believed it, but he would have encouraged it nevertheless.

I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the patience sometimes that I exhaust on my friends, and I thank particularly my friend and colleague, Bob Menendez, with whom I had the pleasure of serving while he was in leadership in the House, and especially since he has been here in the Senate, with the important responsibilities we have.

It is a good day, and I am glad to be back here to get on with the people's business. I thank you all for your patience and friendship, and particularly our majority leader.

Mr. President, today is an auspicious day. I have had 25 years of service now to the Senate. This is one of those moments when what we do will be recorded in history forever--the opportunity to nominate a distinguished jurist to the highest juridical post in this country.

I rise to express my strong support for President Obama's nomination of a distinguished jurist, Sonia Sotomayor, to become a Supreme Court Justice of the United States, confirming the continuity of our duty to the Constitution and to fairness to all the people in our country, and that obedience to the law continues uninterrupted.

In Newark, NJ, there exists a venerated courthouse that bears my name. On the entrance to this courthouse there is an inscription that says:

The true measure of a democracy is its dispensation of

justice.

That summarizes my feeling about our beloved country. I authored that quote after considerable thought, and I truly believe it reflects a principal value upon which our Nation was founded. We must scrupulously insist that these values endure throughout our government and our legal system and particularly in our Nation's highest Court.

Based on her history, my meeting with Judge Sotomayor, and her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Sotomayor will pursue the fair, wise, and unbiased dispensation of justice. That is why I believe we must confirm Judge Sotomayor's appointment without delay.

When I had a private meeting with her, she confirmed her unwavering commitment to the equity of our American justice system, her knowledge of the law, and her recognition of the enormous responsibility she has to fulfill to our country.

I conveyed to her the excitement we are hearing in my State of New Jersey that President Obama's nominee grew up in a poor urban environment, in the Bronx--a close neighbor geographically with New Jersey with a similar tradition of a people starting at the bottom and succeeding through determination, education, and hard work.

We also discussed a shared admiration for Justice Benjamin Cardozo, who was renowned for his integrity and his diligence in applying precedent. I served for several years on the board of a law school bearing Justice Cardozo's name, where I saw the achievements of renowned legal scholars. I feel so deeply that Sonia Sotomayor will be remembered one day as an outstanding member of the most revered and respected Court in the world.

During our meeting, Judge Sotomayor and I came to realize we had a common thread through our personal histories. The phrase ``only in America'' truly applies to Judge Sotomayor, and I can say that with a special understanding. Humble beginnings were the touchstones that enabled each of us to achieve beyond any parent's dream.

I grew up in Paterson, NJ, a hardscrabble mill town. My family lacked resources but left an inheritance of values with no valuables. My parents were brought to America by my grandparents seeking an opportunity to be free and to make a living. We were taught that we were obligated, if we had the opportunity, to make sure we gave something back to the community in which we lived.

Judge Sotomayor's family moved here from Puerto Rico, and she grew up in a housing project where she saw, up front and close, the struggles of people living in poor areas. Like my father, Judge Sotomayor's dad died at a very young age, and her mother, like mine, became a widow at a very young age. She became a single mother, like mine. Judge Sotomayor's mother had to raise her and her brother in the face of racial, social, and financial adversity. In fact, her mother worked two jobs to support her children.

Despite the many difficulties, Judge Sotomayor has reached the highest rung of our society. At Princeton and also at Yale Law School, she achieved academic honors, and then she worked in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. As a district attorney, she prosecuted murder, robbery, and assault cases, among others. From the DA's office she became a corporate litigator and rose to partner at a prestigious New York law firm. While there, she threw herself into her job and became an expert on trademark and intellectual property law. Her career then led her to the bench, where she has been a Federal judge for the last 17 years. That is a pretty good time for testing.

The truth is, Judge Sotomayor comes to this nomination process with more judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in a century. Think about it when the detractors try to find ways to sully her reputation. But before she became a judge and long before she appeared before the Judiciary Committee, where she demonstrated a remarkable command of the law and comfort with her knowledge, Judge Sotomayor carved out a reputation as a brilliant legal mind.

Yet, in one of the most scurrilous campaigns against a judicial nominee I have ever witnessed, the partisan attack mills begin to churn out piles of distortions and half-truths about Judge Sotomayor right after the President picked her to be his nominee. They had their gunsights settled on whoever it might be. But in this instance, we have one of the more distinguished scholars of the law to be able to be honored and to honor us at the same time. They tried to paint her as a radical. They even tried to paint her as a bully. They even tried to paint her as lacking intelligence. But there was absolutely no place in her judicial record to use anything serious against her. They went down the path of personal destruction; it has become a habit around here. They picked through her speeches. They zeroed in on one sentence here and another there to try to discredit her as nothing more than an affirmative-action choice.

I want to get one thing straight. Judge Sotomayor represents the best this country has to offer. She is a role model for all Americans, and she is, deservedly so, a source of great pride for the Latino community. By any standard, Judge Sotomayor is exceptionally well qualified to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. With 17 years of judicial experience and 12 of those on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, she is well equipped for the task of Supreme Court Justice.

If confirmed, she will be the only member of the Supreme Court who has previously worn a trial judge robe. The experience should not be overlooked.

Right now, Justice Souter, whom Judge Sotomayor would replace on the Court, is the only Justice with a trial court background.

Earlier this year, before Justice Souter had even announced his retirement, Chief Justice Roberts said that the Court's dearth of trial bench knowledge was, here I quote, ``an unfortunate circumstance'' and a ``flaw.'' Trial court judges handle civil and criminal cases and they see firsthand the impact of the law on ordinary Americans.

While on the trial bench, Judge Sotomayor handled 450 cases. Put directly, her experience is varied, multifaceted. What is more, she was appointed to the bench by both Democratic and Republican Presidents. Did they have bad judgment? I think not. I think not. Her record proved that. On any fair examination of her judicial record, including more than 400 published opinions as a Federal appellate court judge, it shows she is balanced in her approach, takes in all the facts, and follows precedent. Her legal reasoning has been consistently admired for applying the law fairly, and her opinions reveal nothing more than a strict adherence to the rule of law.

The American Bar Association has given her its highest rating, calling her ``well qualified.''

That is a distinction of significant importance.

This nomination is an incredibly important moment for our country. The Supreme Court makes decisions that determine the very contours of our country's future. It has a direct say on the rights or lack of rights that our children and grandchildren will have.

The Court decides whether big corporations have a stronger claim to justice than the little guy. The Court sets the table for government power, whether it goes unchecked or is responsible to the people. That is the domain. Critical. The rulings of the Court affect everyday people from New Jersey and everyday Americans.

The Framers of the Constitution created a system of checks and balances with three coequal branches. No one understands that better than Judge Sotomayor, who said during her confirmation hearings, ``The task of a judge is not to make law, it is to apply the law.''

After consideration, careful consideration, I conclude that I must vote ``yes'' on the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor. Judge Sotomayor has consistently shown judicial restraint and she will prove to be a strong and independent voice on that Court.

Like many Americans, I am sure I will not always agree with every decision she makes. But I have the comfort of knowing, of believing, that she will resolve legal questions with an open mind, will put the rule of law above any personal beliefs.

Her judicial record is unparalleled. Her professional and academic credentials are impeccable, and her story is inspiring. I watched and listened carefully to what she had to say during her confirmation hearings and when we met in person.

Her life has been one of breaking down barriers. I look forward to seeing her break one more. For those reasons I am honored to support Judge Sotomayor's breakthrough nomination.

I hope my colleagues will step up and vote their conscience and vote their beliefs and not inject any of the insignificant things we have seen discussed all over the place until this. I hope they will confirm her in an overwhelming majority, which is what she and the country deserve.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jennifer Mock, a member of the staff of the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley, be granted the privilege of the floor.

Mr. President, the managers' amendment to S. 685, the Oil Spill Prevention Act, will eliminate the authorization of appropriations from the international seafarer protection provision, reduce a biannual Coast Guard reporting requirement to an annual reporting requirement, and remove an annual Coast Guard reporting requirement that is no longer necessary or appropriate. These modifications to the committee-reported bill render it revenue neutral.