Floor Statements

Mr. President, if you were like me, you probably held a number of townhalls. I know a number of our colleagues over the holidays did. I saw a number of them on television and saw the many thousands of Americans who came to townhalls, as they did to mine, who were very concerned about the direction of our country.

Frankly, in South Carolina, I had several thousand people come to different townhall meetings, all with a very similar point of view. They thought this government had gotten too big, was spending too much money, or taxing too much and taking over too much of our economy.

A lot of people were very concerned, not just about health care. I cannot agree with the Senator. There are many things we need to do, but the last thing we should do is have this government take it over. There are many things we can do to make sure people get more insured. But the people who came to my townhalls and across the country in many other townhalls were not just concerned about one issue. They looked back over the last year, over a Republican and Democratic President, to see two failed stimulus bills, two bailouts--which many believe were unconstitutional--the proposed takeover of the energy and health care industries, and the actual takeover of banks and insurance companies and carmakers.

People are fed up. The Federal Government is simply too big. The debts we are looking at now for ourselves and our children and our grandchildren are truly unsustainable. People do not know where the money is coming from. They wonder what we are thinking about.

The amazing thing is, after what we saw over the break, the genuine outrage and concern by the American people, the very first item of business we are going to vote on in this Senate today after the August break is to vote to start another government program, to spend $400 million, to increase taxes, to get the Federal Government involved in another private sector business.

What did we learn over our summer vacation? If we vote to pass this bill, we obviously learned very little. What I am talking about is the Travel Promotion Act. Many of you here in the gallery and around the country think I am probably making this up; that after what we saw across America we would actually have the nerve to bring up a bill that forms a new government-sponsored enterprise, a la Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it is going to be a government-sponsored enterprise that promotes travel and tourism in America. I guess we can call it Fannie Travel.

Well, now, let me tell you a little bit about the idea because the idea is that travel and tourism in America is a very important industry, which it is. It is the No. 1 industry in South Carolina. It is actually one of the most prosperous. That is the main reason we do not want the Federal Government to get involved.

But the idea is, that we are going to charge a $10 fee for everyone who comes to visit America in order to pay for this advertising program that will promote America to people all over the world. All these fees would be pooled, and they would be matched by some of the major tourism industries such as Disney, and we would have a government-sponsored enterprise that is promoting tourism.

But they are saying it will not cost Americans anything because this is a tax on foreigners coming to this country. But I have a letter in my office from the European Union and other allies of this country that says this is violating the agreements we have with them, and if we do this they are going to add a similar fee to Americans visiting their country. We are going to start a war with some of our friends. It will ultimately end up costing Americans money. It will create another government entity.

Folks, it is not a crisis. This is not one of those emergencies that we have to do ``this week.'' Why, when we have all of this debt, would we create another program with another tax that this Federal Government is going to run? Maybe it is Fannie Travel, maybe it is Cash for Tourism, but, folks, the problem with tourism in America is not that people do not know we are here. The problem is we have one of the most notoriously unfriendly customs and immigration services in the world. We also are one of the most difficult countries to get a visa for.

I have a major international employer back in my home State who regularly needs to bring people from other parts of the world to train American workers. But they cannot get visas, so they send American workers to other countries to get the training they need because it is so much trouble to get the visas to get them here.

Major industries have trade shows outside of this country because they cannot get the visas for customers coming in looking at our products. The problem is not that people do not know we are here, it is that the government involvement that is already involved with tourism and travel in our country is not doing a good job.

When you have problems with the quality of your product, the last thing you do is raise your prices and increase advertising, which is what we are talking about doing with this bill. The first thing we need to do is make sure we have the most friendly and efficient customs system in the world and that people who want to come to our country can get a visa and a very quick background check so that we know the people who are coming here are safe.

But we are not going to solve those problems with hundreds of millions of dollars of advertising from a new government agency that is run by major corporate sponsors in our country. Tourism is too important to turn over to the government.

A lot of people around the country are concerned, as they look at what we are spending and the level of debt we are creating, that we are ignoring the constitutional principles we swore an oath to, and they are going to ask us when we vote on this bill: Where in the Constitution of the United States do we find the authority to run travel promotion?

Major tourism companies such as Disney are not having trouble. In fact, I think Disney reported a $4 billion profit from last year, and they bought Marvel Comics for $4 billion. Certainly, our economy has put a strain on tourism, but the Federal Government is the last entity that needs to try to bail them out. We don't have any money. We are going to have to borrow money or tax someone to create this new government program.

This is a debate that gets back to what does the Constitution allow us to do? One can't read the Constitution without seeing some very severe limits on what is expected of the Federal Government. Certainly, the bailout and cash for clunkers and this new travel and tourism agency they are starting has nothing to do with our constitutional functions.

We have over $11 trillion in debt already. We are projecting to almost double that over the next 10 years with

what we already have on the books. With Social Security and Medicare alone, the unfunded liability out many years is like $100 trillion. We have no idea where we are going to get all this money. How can we even discuss starting a new government entity when the ones we have started are at the heart of our economic problems. One can't understand our economy without seeing that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played a key role in bringing the worldwide economy to its knees. We don't have to look back but 1 month to see what the last government program we created in cash for clunkers did. It was going to be a $1 billion, 6- month promotion to sell a lot of cars. We were out of money in 1 week, and we voted to pass another $2 billion. A couple weeks later, they canceled the program. We can't run the travel and promotion industry from Washington, DC.

I have to draw a very difficult conclusion. Any of my fellow Senators who vote for this either don't understand the severity of our economic and fiscal problems or they don't care. They certainly didn't hear the millions of Americans speaking over the August break and telling us they want us to get back to the business of a constitutional form of government and stop trying to win votes by bringing home the bacon-- wasteful spending, earmarks, and new government programs, all the false, empty promises based on government solutions.

I encourage colleagues, let us get the rest of the year started off in a reasonable way. Let's talk about how to fix health care. Let's talk about how to create jobs. For heaven's sake, let's not create a new government program as the first vote we take in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I do want to talk about the President's nominee to the Supreme Court, but first I wish to give a couple of comments in response to the Senator about health care because if the record be known to Americans, the preponderance of health reform legislation that has been presented over the last 5 years in the Senate has come from Republicans. The Democrats have consistently blocked any reform that would make health insurance more affordable and available to Americans. Their goal appears to be not patient-centered care but government-controlled care.

If we look back a few years, the President, along with all the Democrats, voted against interstate competition among insurance companies. It is hard to say they are not on the side of insurance companies when they vote to prevent a national market, a national competitive market that people all over the country could buy policies that are more affordable and perhaps match their needs much better than the ones they can get in their own States.

Today Americans can only buy health insurance in the States where they live. That means a few insurance companies can dominate the market. This is something we have tried to change, we have introduced, and the President has voted against it.

We have also proposed tax fairness for Americans who do not get their health insurance at work. The other side seldom discusses the fact that when you get your insurance at work, you get pretty big tax breaks. The companies that provide that health insurance do not have to pay taxes on it. They can deduct it. It is a business expense. And the employees do not have to pay income tax on the benefits. It is an equivalent benefit over $3,000.

The bills we Republicans have introduced will give health care vouchers to every American. Every family would get $5,000 a year to buy health insurance if they do not get their health insurance at work. Every individual would get $2,000.

In addition, there would be some lawsuit abuse reform and some block grants to States to make sure people who are uninsurable, who have preexisting conditions, can buy affordable insurance.

The Heritage Foundation says one of the Republican plans would have 22 million Americans insured within 5 years. They are plans that work. But, unfortunately, the other side will not even discuss plans that do not have more government control involved with them.

What we can do is make what is working work better. We do not need to replace it with what is not working. One of the reasons health insurance is more expensive today--a third more expensive--is that the government programs of Medicare and Medicaid do not pay their fair share, and those costs are shifted on to employers and individuals who have private insurance.

We do not need to expand the part that is broken in health care. We certainly do not need to expand a cash-for-clunkers type of health care system for America.

I am here today to talk about the President's nominee to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor. I commend my Republican colleagues, particularly Senator Jeff Sessions, for conducting a very respectful and civil hearing process for the nominee. This is something we have not seen in a number of years here. They were respectful toward her. Even those who disagree with her judicial philosophy showed courtesy and respect during the hearings, and it is something I very much appreciate.

Our goal through this process has not been to block this nomination and to stop her from going to the Supreme Court. The votes have never been there to do that. What we have been trying to show is a pattern by the Obama administration and the Democratic majority of moving toward more and more government control in all areas of our lives. We see it in the stimulus plan, that instead of leaving money in the private sector, we take it away and spend it on programs such as turtle tunnels and other kinds of wasteful spending all across the country--government spending.

We are trying to manage the private economy. We see it in cash for clunkers where we create an economic earmark for one sliver of our economy. At the same time, in this health care legislation, we are talking about adding taxes to the small businesses that create 70 percent of the jobs in this country.

We are benefiting a few at the expense of many. This is economic central planning. It is a concept that has failed throughout history. Yet we are trying again.

What we see in the President's nominee to the Supreme Court is this belief that our Constitution is inadequate, that we need to have judges on our courts, Justices on the Supreme Court, who add to it.

The President has said that our Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It tells the government what it cannot do, but it does not tell us what we have to do. The whole point of the Constitution is to limit what we can do. But the President considers it inadequate, and he is nominating people to the courts who will be activists, who will expand what the Federal Government does and make arbitrary decisions rather than those based on the Constitution.

Unfortunately, I do rise today in opposition to the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. I met with her personally, and I watched the hearings. I believe she is a very smart and gracious person with an inspiring personal story. But I also found her evasive and contradictory in her answers.

On several issues ranging from judicial temperament to her infamous ``wise Latina'' speeches, Judge Sotomayor experienced what we call confirmation conversion on many of her issues and simply walked away from a lot of her past statements and positions.

Now seeing her willingness to tell us what we want to hear, neither her testimony nor her long record on the judicial bench can give the American people any confidence that she will rule according to the clear language and intent of the Constitution.

Let me talk for a second about the Constitution versus precedent. I am very concerned with Judge Sotomayor's repeated efforts to deflect questions by stating she relied on precedent to guide her decisions. I understand circuit court judges are guided and even bound by Supreme Court precedent, but precedent is not the same thing as the Constitution, particularly on the Supreme Court. A judicial confirmation process that puts the constitutional interpretation outside the bounds of discussion is a waste of time.

On issue after issue during her hearings, Judge Sotomayor, rather than giving her own opinion, simply offered the opinions of many other judges. We have no idea what she thinks. In one sense, this is fitting. The Congress routinely passes legislation that none of us reads or understands. So perhaps it is consistent for us to nominate and confirm a Justice when we do not understand what she actually believes.

Judge Sotomayor may be very learned in constitutional law, but we rarely heard her actually mention the Constitution itself. This is a big problem for our judiciary and our system of checks and balances.

In 1825, Thomas Jefferson said that the Federal judiciary was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what is law has allowed it to slyly, and without alarm, sap away the foundations of the Constitution.

What concerns me, as Jefferson observed, is that there are many confusing and contradictory precedents that can be used by judges to justify whatever decision they want to make. Without the Constitution as the fixed standard, court decisions become very arbitrary, and we are ruled by the opinions of Justices rather than the rule of law.

When the law is unmoored from the Constitution, it becomes like the old schoolroom game of telephone. Some may remember it. One student says something to her neighbor and on and on across the room until the secret reaches the other side of the class. What do you know--the final message no longer even resembles the original. That is how precedent has worked in our court system. Every time the Supreme Court bases a decision on a precedent rather than on the underlying Constitution, the original intent of the Founders is lost and becomes distorted.

There is nothing stopping a determined judge from finding a precedent that suits whatever they want to decide in any case before the Court. Nor apparently is there anything that will stop Judge Sotomayor from unmooring her decisions, not only from the Constitution but from precedent itself, as she did in the Ricci racial discrimination case and with regard to the fundamental right of citizens to own firearms.

In the Ricci case, she claimed she was following precedent, but her own colleagues on the circuit court refuted her claim.

On the second amendment, she disregarded the Supreme Court's Heller decision and still refuses to acknowledge the right to bear arms for every American, that it is a fundamental right.

Decisions such as these, understandably, undermine the credibility of our judicial system. Americans are led to suspect that some judges are more interested in their particular outcomes rather than objectivity.

Let me conclude. Judge Sotomayor is obviously a talented jurist, but I believe her when she says that she chooses her words very carefully. And her words, both in her testimony and throughout her career, undermine her claims to objective and impartial justice.

I realize my view is the minority view here, and if Judge Sotomayor is confirmed, she will have my best wishes on a long and distinguished career. Given the available evidence, however, I cannot support her confirmation, nor the judicial philosophy that she will carry with her to the Supreme Court.

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

Mr. President, Senator Graham joins me today to congratulate the men and women of the 437th Airlift Wing stationed at Charleston Air Force Base, SC, for their outstanding service in defending our Nation and for their great achievements at the Air Force's Air Mobility Command Rodeo Competition.

It is been 8 years since the attacks of 9/11, and the record of continuous operations for the 437th is an inspiration to us all. Shortly after the attacks, Charleston leapt into action, dropping humanitarian aid into Afghanistan only hours after bombers began pounding al-Qaida and Taliban insurgents. Later, when we put boots on the ground, the 437th led the first-ever C-17 combat dirt landing in the barren wilderness of Afghanistan to establish a critical forward operating base. Since then, Team Charleston has led the airlift of MRAPS to protect our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and performed some of the largest training exercises in Air Mobility Command. Over the years, they have delivered a staggering 1.3 billion pounds of cargo to support our troops and provide relief for friends and allies around the world.

However, when the 437th is not saving lives and delivering freedom, they are winning awards and bringing home trophies. We are especially proud of the 437th's accomplishments at the 2009 Air Mobility Command Rodeo Competition. The 437th competed with more than 100 teams and 2,500 people from the United States Air Force and allied nations. They led the C-17 aircrew competition and finished first in two out of three competitions, earning trophies for ``Best C-17 Air Refueling Crew'' and ``Best Short Field Landing Crew.'' Furthermore, Team Charleston continued their distinguished record of world-class maintenance and added ``Best C-17 Preflight Team'' to their long list of awards. These are impressive achievements that bring great credit upon the 437th.

We recognize the outstanding achievements of Rodeo team members CPTs Robert Lowe, Joseph Beal and Jonathan Magill; MSgt Ricky Clark; Technical Sergeants Harold Bordeaux, Paul Eaton, and Richard Pate; SSgts Jessy Martin, Brian Parmerter, Hector Schunior, Nicholas White, John Paull, and Veronica Bankey; Senior Airmen Dennis Adams and Joshua Ramalia; and Airman First Class Daniel Jones.

I know the Wing is especially proud of the Rodeo team, but on behalf of the people in Charleston, the State of South Carolina, and our great country, Senator Graham and I salute the outstanding work of the 437th.

We are amazed by their stories and humbled by the immense burdens they have shouldered. Their dedication, and their families' sacrifices are an inspiration, and our country owes them a debt of gratitude for their patriotic service.

I thank my colleague. I would like to make a few comments. I am not going to offer an amendment at this time.

Mr. President, sometimes in this place it is hard to extract the truth from the words. I, frankly, don't understand the opposition to using money for transportation that has already been allocated to transportation.

I think we have had enough of saying we need to spend more money and borrow more money because the Bush administration spent too much and borrowed too much. This is a bipartisan problem. Hopefully, we will have a bipartisan solution.

What is being proposed today is we need more money for highways. The highway trust fund is running out of money. We need more money to pay unemployment benefits. They are running out of money. We would like more money for FHA loans. We have to decide do we want to use money that is already designated for purposes of our economy and helping people who don't have jobs or do we want to borrow more money and spend more money and add more money to our debt?

I don't think this situation is a good reason to say: Hey, we were bad in the past, so let's continue those practices. We are not suggesting with these amendments that we should stop the stimulus plan. We are saying we should use it for the same purposes it was set up for. Let's use it to build roads and bridges and create jobs. Let's use it to make sure those who are unemployed get their benefits. Let's use it to restimulate our housing market.

I thank the Chair for all the time to speak, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I will return to the issue of health care in America, the reform of our health care system, and how we help Americans find the health insurance that is affordable to every family.

It is important, as we talk about this, that we get the facts out on the table. I am glad to see this has become an issue that is front and center. I know the President called for a press conference tonight to talk about his vision of health care. I want to set the record straight on a number of things that have been said that I think are politically motivated and, obviously, don't represent the truth.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including the President, have talked about Republicans representing the status quo on behalf of big special interests, and they have accused us of representing the big insurance companies, when, in fact, the voting record in the Senate has proved the exact opposite.

When the President was in the Senate, and when we, as Republicans, proposed health care reform--which we did many times while the President was a Senator--the President and my Democratic colleagues voted with the big insurance companies. We had one proposal that would allow small businesses to come together to buy health insurance for their employees at a lower price. The big insurance companies opposed that, but the Democrats voted with the big insurance companies and against the reform proposals.

I put forth a proposal that would have allowed individuals in this country to shop for their health insurance in any State in the country, just like other products and services, to have a competitive national market, which so many on the other side have called for. The big insurance companies that have State-by-State monopolies opposed that bill. Senator Barack Obama and the Democrats voted with the big insurance companies and against Americans' ability to buy health insurance anywhere in the country.

Republicans are not standing with special interests. Look at the proposals that have been put on the table in the House and Senate by the Democrats, which the President will be advocating when he speaks tonight. Let's see what party is representing special interests.

First of all, the abortion industry, Planned Parenthood, and other organizations that make their money performing abortions--their interests are clearly represented in this bill. This proposal the President is advocating would require that health insurance plans cover elective abortions in this country, which means taxpayers who are morally opposed to abortion will be forced to subsidize insurance plans that pay for abortion.

I ask my colleagues, who is representing special interests? Who is representing the abortion industry in this debate?

What about who loses their health care coverage in these new plans that have been proposed? The independent Lewin Group has looked at these proposed plans by my Democratic colleagues in the House and Senate, and they concluded that 80 million Americans who have health insurance that they now like will lose it under this current proposal.

But who is protected? Who would not lose their health insurance? It is union members who are protected. Do we think that has anything to do with politics--that the average American will lose their health insurance but the unions that support the Democratic Party are protected? Who is standing up for special interests in this health care debate?

Let's talk about the plaintiffs' attorneys. One of the biggest problems in health care today is what doctors call defensive medicine-- running all kinds of unnecessary tests so they avoid all these expensive lawsuits. We have talked for years about reforming the health care system to eliminate these wasteful, frivolous lawsuits that cost so much money, and every doctor and hospital has to have huge liability policies for the cost of the lawsuits that come every year. You would think a health care reform proposal would have some lawsuit abuse reform in it. But who is protected? What special interests are protected in this health care proposal? The plaintiffs' attorneys. There is absolutely no tort reform, no reform of abusive lawsuits in this plan.

So I ask my colleagues: Who is representing the special interests here--the big insurance companies, the abortion industry, the unions, the plaintiff's attorney? All of those are represented and protected in this so-called health reform legislation that does nothing to help individuals access affordable personal policies for themselves.

When the President was in the Senate, I personally every year proposed major health care reform. I proposed that individuals who do not get their insurance at work at least get to deduct the cost of that insurance from their taxes, as we let businesses do. Barack Obama voted against that, and so did my Democratic colleagues.

I proposed that individuals be allowed to buy health insurance anywhere in the country so that it would be more affordable, more competitive. Barack Obama voted against that, and so did my Democratic colleagues.

Republicans proposed small businesses come together and buy health care less expensively so they could provide more health insurance to their employees. Barack Obama voted against that, and so did my Democratic colleagues.

I ask you: Which party is standing for the status quo of trying to keep things the same? Real health care reform has been proposed in the Senate many times by Republicans. But the truth is, the Democrats do not want individual Americans to have access to affordable health insurance. What they want is a government takeover of health care. The President has made that clear by his own voting record.

As he holds his press conference tonight, I am sure the crowd will be loaded with friendly reporters, but there are a few questions I would like him to answer.

If the major provisions in this health care bill he is promoting do not take effect until 2013, which they don't, why this mad rush to pass a bill that is over 1,000 pages that no one in this body has read? Why the mad rush to pass it before we go home for the August break?

I can answer it for him. Because if Americans find out what is in it, they are not going to support it.

I have a second question: You said your health care bill will cut costs and not increase the deficit. But the independent analysis of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office contradicts those claims, saying it will raise costs and increase the deficit by $240 billion. The policy does not support the promise.

A third question: The President has repeatedly said that the health care bill will allow Americans who like their current plans to keep them. But as I said, an independent expert group, the Lewin Group, has analyzed this legislation and concluded that it will force over 80 million Americans to lose the health insurance they have today.

Question No. 4: The President said the other day when he was speaking at Children's Hospital that opponents of the plan are content to perpetuate the status quo. How does that compare

with your record, Mr. President, when you were in the Senate? What health reform did you propose? Why did you vote against every health reform proposal that could have increased access to affordable health insurance for all Americans?

And just a yes-or-no question: Will you guarantee that pro-life Americans under your plan will not be forced to subsidize elective abortions?

I hope the President will answer some of these questions for the American people because I am convinced that if Americans know the truth about this legislation, they will conclude this is not about getting them affordable health insurance or access to quality health care. This is a continuation of this power grab that is going on in Washington.

This spending spree, this proposal for more and more taxes, is a power grab for the government to take over yet another industry, the health care industry in America. Health care is the most personal and private service we have for ourselves and our families. Why would we want to turn that over to government to make the decisions for us?

Mr. President, I thank you for your indulgence. I encourage my colleagues to read any bill we vote on before the August break.

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

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

Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few minutes about health care and the need for health care reform in the country today. I think most Americans would agree we need to do everything we can to make affordable health insurance available to every American and, hopefully, that is what this health reform debate will be about.

Unfortunately, we are seeing a pattern develop here that has been going on all year--since the President took office--that has many Americans alarmed at the rapid pace we are spending and borrowing, imposing new taxes, and taking over various aspects of the American economy. I know a lot of Americans are alarmed and some are outraged. More than any other comment, I am hearing Americans say: Why don't you slow down and read the bills before you continue the expansion of government.

Now we are talking about health care, and we see that same pattern of crisis and rush and it ``has to be done today, hair's on fire'' type of mentality here in Washington so that we almost have to call this a ``son of stimulus'' health care bill. Because certainly the last time the President tried to ram a massive bill through Congress before we had a chance to read it, we ended up with this colossal stimulus failure that has actually resulted in the loss of jobs in America and a burden of debt on our children that is almost unimaginable. It makes no sense for us to follow that same pattern with health care--nearly 20 percent of our economy--to have a government takeover with a bill we haven't even completely seen yet, that is supposed to be passed in the next 2 weeks, even though the bill wouldn't take effect until 2013. What is the rush? The whole purpose of the Senate is to be the place where the legislation comes to cool down, where we deliberate, we look at the details. The President himself has admitted he is not aware of the details of the bill he is out selling every day.

We do have serious problems in health care that we need to fix. The unfortunate thing is I have no confidence that the President actually wants to make health insurance affordable and available to all Americans because when he was in the Senate, Republicans proposed a number of alternatives that would have done that. Yet in every case-- every opportunity he had to make health insurance more available and affordable to Americans--he voted no. Let's review some of them, because I think we have to recognize that the point of this health care debate is not to make sure every American is insured, but to make sure the government is running our health care system. The most personal and

private part of our lives they are talking about turning over to bureaucrats at the Federal level. This makes no sense.

What we could do is be fair to those who don't get their health insurance at work. If people get their health insurance at work, as we do here in Congress, your employer can deduct the cost of it and the employee is exempt from paying taxes on those benefits. That is equivalent to about a $5,000 a year benefit to families who get their health care or health insurance at work. Why can't we offer that same fairness to Americans who don't get their health insurance at work? It is something I actually proposed here in the Senate while President Obama was a Senator, that we would give fair tax treatment; at least let them deduct it from their taxes. He voted no, as did I believe every Democrat, and they killed the bill in the House. This was basic fairness to make health insurance a little more affordable to people who didn't get it at work. The President voted no.

We hear a lot of talk about how we need a government plan to make the private plans more competitive. Why not make all the insurance companies compete with insurance companies all over the country instead of what we do now? A lot of Americans don't know that the reason we don't have a competitive private health insurance market is that the Federal Government makes it impossible. You have to buy your health insurance in the State where you live, so a few insurance companies basically have monopolies in every State of the country. What if someone such as myself who lived in South Carolina could look all across the country, find a policy I wanted at a better price, and buy it? Why can't we do that? Well, I proposed we do that. We introduced it on the Senate floor. It would have created a competitive health insurance market and allowed people to buy all over the country. Barack Obama voted no, as did all of the Democrats, to kill the bill. Now they are talking about: Well, we need a government option to create some competition, to have a real competitive market. He voted against it.

What about allowing Americans who put money in a health savings account, or their employer puts it in there for them--their own money-- why not let them use that money to pay for a health insurance premium if they don't get it at work? It sounded like a good idea to me, to make it a little bit easier, a little more affordable to have your own health insurance, so I proposed that bill here in the Senate. Barack Obama voted no, as did all of the Democrats, and they killed the bill.

What about the idea of allowing a lot of small employers--I was a small businessman for years. It was hard to buy health insurance as a small employer, but I did. It cost me a lot of money, a lot more than the big employers. But what about allowing a lot of small employers to come together and form associations and buy health insurance so they could offer it to their employees less expensively? Well, it is a good idea that was offered right here on the floor of the Senate by Republicans. Barack Obama voted no, as did most of the Democrats, and they killed the bill.

There is a long list here I could go through, but every single bill, every single health reform idea that has been proposed here, the President, when he was in the Senate, voted against. Everything that would have made health insurance available and affordable to the average American who doesn't get their insurance at work was voted no by this President.

Now he is saying, We need the government to take it over because it is not working. The reason it is not working is we won't let it work. The part of health insurance, the health care system that works the best today is when you have your own health insurance and you pick your own doctor and you and your doctor decide what kind of health care you are going to get. It is not a perfect system, and insurance companies have a lot of work to do to make things work better because I have to argue with them a lot myself. But the part of the health care system that doesn't work is the part that the government runs, Medicaid and Medicare, the SCHIP and TRICARE. Some of the people who get those benefits such as our seniors say Medicare works fine, but, unfortunately, doctors don't want to see them coming because Medicare and Medicaid don't cover the cost of even seeing a patient. So many physicians are closing their practices to our seniors because they have government health insurance. Government health care does not pay enough for the physician and the hospital to see the patient, so they shift the cost over to the private market.

The worst part of all of these government plans is they are trillions of dollars in debt--debt that our children are going to have to pay back. These programs are broke. Yet they want to expand these programs. They want to take the part of health care that is not working and essentially force it on every American. They want every American to have a Medicaid plan where doctors don't want to see us coming because we are not paying enough of their costs.

As I look at this whole health care reform debate--and I am glad to see the President out taking shots at me for saying we have to stop him on this, because we have been on a rampage since he took office, passing one government program after another, expanding spending and debt at levels we have never imagined in this country. It is time to slow down and take stock of where we are. Other countries that have to lend us money to keep us going are beginning to wonder, Can we pay our debts? We have doubled our money supply by the Federal Reserve, and that means big inflation, higher interest rates. Yet we are moving ahead with this health care plan that is going to expand our debt as a nation, raise taxes on small businesses that create the jobs. It looks as if we are going to penalize Americans who don't decide to buy health insurance, and we are moving again toward a government program that we know won't work. There is not one Federal program that has worked as advertised, that has worked to the budget we said it would be to. This week we have had announcements of what we have already passed as far as stimulus over the last year is going to mean trillions of dollars-- trillions of dollars--we are going to have to borrow and that our children are going to have to pay back.

I appeal to my colleagues: We don't need to rush through a bill in the next 2 weeks before we go on our August break that affects one- fifth--20 percent--of our total economy, that gets the government to effectively take over the most personal and private service that we ask for as Americans. We don't need to pass a bill such as that, that we won't even have time to read. What the President and I think a lot of the proponents of this bill are afraid of is if we are able to go home on the August break and we take this bill and we put it on the Internet where people can read it, and radio talk shows and bloggers all around the country are able to tell the American people what this bill is and what it will do, and get past this utopian rhetoric that we are hearing from the President and look at the nuts and bolts, because everything he is saying this bill is going to do the Congressional Budget Office and other experts are saying, No, it isn't going to work that way. It isn't going to save us money, it is going to raise our taxes, it is going to cost jobs in America, and it isn't going to fix health care.

We need to go back to the basics, including some of what I have mentioned already, that would reform health care and make private health insurance work better, make it more affordable, and get it into the hands of more Americans. Why should we give up on freedom and move to a government plan when we haven't even given freedom a chance to work in health care?

I know the government can't run health care and I don't want them running my plan. One of the best ideas I have heard in this debate is whatever we pass, Congressmen and Senators ought to have to take that health plan. I am going to have an amendment to that effect if they try to get this on the floor before August.

But I appeal to my colleagues: Let's listen to the American people. Let's stop this rampage toward bigger and bigger government. Let's take our time and look at this bill and, for once, do something right. Our health depends on it.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes and Senator Hutchison to follow me.

Madam President, I know we are debating the Defense Authorization bill and a myriad of other things we are sticking into the bill. Nationally, Americans are focused on health care and what the President and the majority are trying to push through in a mad rush that we seem to have been in all year long under this guise of crisis. It is pretty amazing in that the legislation we are talking about would not take effect for several years, so it is incredible we are being told we need to pass this in the next couple of weeks before we go home in August.

The last time the President made grand promises and demanded passage of a bill before it could be reviewed or even read, we ended up with the colossal stimulus failure and unemployment near 10 percent. Now we are being told they misread the economy. But we were urged to pass this within a day or two because we had to do it in order to keep unemployment below 8 percent.

Now the President wants Americans to trust him again but he cannot back up the utopian promises he is making about a government takeover of health care. He insists his health care plan will not add to our Nation's deficit, despite the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office saying exactly the opposite.

Today we learned that the President is refusing to release a critical report on the state of our economy which contains facts essential to this debate. What is he hiding? If the actual legislation came close to matching the President's rhetoric, he would have no problem passing this bill, with huge Democratic majorities in both Chambers. But Americans are not being fooled and we are discovering the truth about his plan, which includes rationed care, trillions in new costs and high taxes, and penalties which will destroy jobs, and even government- funded abortion.

In addition, we are looking at a deficit increased by hundreds of billions of dollars and billions in new taxes on small businesses. It could destroy over 4 million more jobs, according to a model by the President's own chief economic adviser, and it could force 114 million Americans to lose their health care, according to a nonpartisan group.

Let's be clear. There is no one in this debate advocating that we do nothing, despite the President's constant straw man arguments. Republicans have offered comprehensive health care reform solutions that cover millions of the uninsured without exploding costs, raising taxes, and rationing care. Since I have been in Congress, we have introduced a number of proposals that would help the uninsured buy their own policies.

We have introduced bills that would allow them to deduct it from their taxes just as businesses do, but our Democratic colleagues have killed it. We have introduced legislation that would allow Americans to buy health insurance anywhere in the country, to make it more competitive and more affordable, but the Democrats have killed it. We have introduced legislation that would allow Americans to use money in their health savings accounts to pay for an insurance premium, but the Democrats have killed it. We have introduced legislation that would stop all these frivolous and wasteful lawsuits that cause the cost of medicine to go up, but the Democrats have killed it. We have introduced association health plans that would allow small businesses to come together so they could buy policies less expensively, but the Democrats have killed it. Now they want to come back and say the government needs to take over health care.

It makes absolutely no sense at all. We can give every American access to affordable health insurance plans if we get out of the way and allow the market to work.

This is no time to rush into another government takeover of another part of the American economy, spending billions of dollars we do not have and raising taxes on the small businesses that create jobs.

There are good solutions. I introduced one a couple of weeks ago that

would give people fair treatment. If you do not get your insurance at work or you are unemployed, we will give you $5,000 a year to buy health insurance. That is fair treatment. It is the same basic benefit we give people who get insurance at work, good insurance that does not cost any more money.

I would encourage the President to stop the rhetoric, let us take some time for debate, let's reform health care in a way that makes it possible for every American to have a health insurance plan they can afford and own and keep. We do not need the government to take it over.

I yield for the Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, I have to say there have been some amazing proposals coming out of the House and the Senate in the last few weeks in some fairly desperate economic times, when job loss is at some of its highest rates in years, when borrowing and spending have gone through the roof. It is pretty amazing that we have come out with proposals, such as cap and trade, that are going to add huge taxes on electricity and other energy when we should be doing all we can to create more energy in our country and to lower the cost, if possible, for Americans. It is pretty amazing to me that we would consider adding taxes and cost onto the cost of living when so many are out of work and we are in very difficult economic times.

Now we see this health care proposal that the Congressional Budget Office says is going to hurt our economy, it is going to insure very few uninsured people, and it will cost trillions of dollars. Again, at a time when we are having difficulty paying the interest on the debt we already owe, we have proposed this massive expansion of government.

Here we are today supposedly discussing funding for our whole defense system in our country, the Defense authorization bill, and the majority has decided to add on to that bill hate crimes legislation. They apparently have scheduled a vote at 1 a.m. tomorrow morning for hate crimes legislation in the middle of a defense authorization debate which should be bipartisan, should be focused on the defense of our country, a clear constitutional responsibility. But we are spending the day waiting for a cloture vote at 1 a.m. tomorrow morning on hate crimes.

There are many practical problems with this hate crimes amendment they are trying to force us to attach to the Defense authorization bill. The broad language will unnecessarily extend Federal law enforcement beyond its constitutional bounds, it will undermine the effectiveness and confidence of local law enforcement, and it will create conditions for arbitrary and politicized prosecution of certain cases. But instead of the practical problems, I want to focus on basic, fundamental problems with Federal hate crimes legislation.

The rule of law requires that we oppose this amendment on principle. Justice is blind, and under the rule of law justice must be blind-- blind to the superficial circumstances of the victims and the defendants.

The law says crime must be investigated and punished. There is no evidence to suggest that crimes defined by this amendment as hate crimes are not being prosecuted today. This amendment is, therefore, unnecessary as a matter of criminal law.

There is no need, or even any law enforcement benefit, to create a special class for crimes based on--and I quote from the amendment-- ``the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim.'' Indeed, as a matter of justice, this amendment is patently offensive. It is based on the premise that violence committed against certain kinds of victims is worse and more in need of Federal intervention and swift justice than if it were committed against someone else. I am sure most parents of a minority, homosexual, or female victim would appreciate the extra concern, but that also implies that certain crimes are better, for lack of a better word. Where does that leave the vast majority of victims' families who, because of the whims of political correctness, are not entitled under this amendment to special status and attention? How can a victim's perceived status or the perpetrator's perceived opinions possibly determine the severity of the crime?

The 14th amendment explicitly guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws. This amendment creates a special class of victims whose protection of the laws will be, in Orwell's phrase, more equal than others, and if some are more equal, others will be less equal; that is, this amendment will create the very problem it purports to solve.

Let's talk about thought crimes for a minute. This amendment will also move our Nation a dangerous step closer to another Orwellian concept--thought crime. This legislation essentially makes certain ideas criminal in that those ideas involved in a crime make that crime more deserving of prosecution. The problem, of course, is that politicians are claiming the power to decide which thoughts are criminal and which are not.

Canadians right now live under this regime where so-called human rights

commissions operating outside the law prosecute citizens for espousing opinions with which the commissioners disagree. This concern is only heightened by the last section of this hate crimes amendment which says it does not allow ``prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of . . . religious . . . beliefs.''

Let me repeat that because we are being told this would not affect anyone expressing a religious opinion or value judgment:

Prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of

religious beliefs . . .

Two questions come to mind: First, if the hate crimes amendment is really just about law enforcement, why should it even need a restatement of the self-evident fact that religious expression is constitutionally protected? And second, why include the adverb ``solely'' if not to allow for the potential prosecution of people's religious speech so long as it is part of a broader prosecution of the accused hater?

Today, only actions are crimes. If we pass this legislation, opinions will become crimes. What is to stop us from following the lead of European countries and American college campuses where certain speech is criminalized? Can priests, pastors, and rabbis be sure their preaching will not be prosecuted? In Canada, for instance, Pastor Stephen Boissoin was so prosecuted by Alberta's Human Rights Commission for publishing letters critical of homosexuality, a biblical concept. Or will this amendment serve as a warning to people not to speak out too loudly about their religious views lest the Federal law enforcement come knocking at their door? What about the unintended consequences, such as pedophiles and sex offenders claiming protected status as disabled under this legislation? There is no such thing as a criminal thought, only criminal acts. Once we endorse thought crimes, where will we draw the line? And more importantly, who will draw the line?

Let me talk a little bit about equality and how it relates to this bill. If my own children were attacked in a violent crime, justice-- true justice--demands that their attackers be pursued no more or less than the attackers of any other children.

We also say we want a colorblind society--even Judge Sotomayor. But we cannot have a colorblind society if we continue to write color- conscious laws. Our culture cannot expect to treat people equally if the law, if the ruling class treats citizens not according to the content of their character but according to their race, sex, ethnicity, or gender identity.

As we wait through the night to vote on this hate crimes bill, I encourage my colleagues, first of all, to set this aside and let's focus on it separately, if it needs to be focused on. It is not part of the Defense authorization bill. But they are holding the Defense authorization bill hostage to other things, much like we did a few weeks ago when we were trying to pass a defense appropriations bill and they attached a $100 billion giveaway to the International Monetary Fund. In order to vote for the support of our troops, we had to vote to give away another $100 billion from American taxpayers.

This hate crimes legislation makes no sense. It violates all the principles of equal justice under the law. It makes what we think and what we believe a crime, rather than what we do. It asks judges and juries to determine what we were thinking when we were committing a crime, instead of trying to decide what we really did. This is not what is carved above the Supreme Court, which says ``equal justice under the law.'' It violates all the principles we have talked about as far as blind justice, that a judge does not look at who is in front of him but considers the facts of the case.

Hate crimes violate everything that is essentially American and fair and equal about a justice system. It makes no sense to bring it up at all. It makes even less sense to bring it up under the Defense authorization bill.

I encourage my colleagues, particularly the majority, to withdraw this amendment and let us move ahead with the debate of the defense of our country.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Andrew Julson of my staff be given the privilege of the floor throughout the duration of the debate on the Department of Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly about an amendment that will be up second, I believe, this morning. It is about our southern border in this United States.

I think we have made some propositions to the American people to secure our southern border. We have

passed laws that are currently not being followed, and I think we see the result of that in Mexico as well as in the United States. Our southern border has become a battleground. It is a place not only where illegal immigrants and workers come into our country, but drug trafficking and weapons trafficking are real security issues. We are destabilizing Mexico with all that is going on because we refuse to carry out our promise to the American people to secure that border. We cannot have security in the United States unless we have a secure border.

We passed a law that says we have to have 700 miles of reinforced, double-layer fencing along the southern border of the United States. Of the 700 miles, 370 miles were required to be built by December 31 of last year, and we have not met that requirement.

In fact, there are only 330 miles of the single-layered fencing and only 34 miles of the double-layered fencing that was required by law to be built.

So far they claim 661 miles of fencing are completed, but that includes both vehicle barriers and single-layered fencing.

They continue to speak of virtual fencing, which is basically just detectors if someone is going across. All the evidence is that doesn't work well, if at all.

The point of my amendment is to keep our promise to the American people. Let's move ahead with securing the border. I don't like a fence. I don't like the way a fence looks. But in this world today, where we are threatened in many ways, it is critically important that we are able to determine who comes and goes and what comes and goes on the borders of the United States.

My amendment does two things. It requires that 700 miles of physical pedestrian fencing be completed, and it sets a deadline of December 31, 2010. We can do this if we just make that commitment and fund it in this bill.

A physical fence is effective, compared to the untested hundreds of millions of dollars of virtual fencing they are trying to substitute, even though we passed a law that says we need to secure the borders.

I remind my colleagues we made a promise to the American people. We passed a law. This country is based on the rule of law, and we need to follow it in the Congress. We need to fund this and set a deadline so this promise will be fulfilled.

I encourage all my colleagues to vote for the DeMint amendment this morning. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, current law promises the American people that we will secure our southern borders with 700 miles of pedestrian fence. Obviously, we have seen violence increase and drug trafficking and weapons trafficking. We have destabilized the Mexican government because of our inability to carry out that promise. At this point there are only 34 miles of double-layered pedestrian fences as promised in our laws. We are supposed to have 700 miles. My amendment simply enforces current law and sets a deadline that we finish a pedestrian fence as required by law, finish the fence that is required by law by the end of next year. This is a promise we should keep to the American people.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, what we are doing is not working. This amendment is designed to add some force and funding to current law. I encourage my colleagues to support it.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Thune, for pointing out, again, the disastrous course we are on as a nation with the level of spending, borrowing, and debt we are creating and the amount of government intrusion into so many areas of our economy that have alarmed so many Americans. I appreciate the Senator bringing up that issue today.

Amendment No. 1399 to Amendment No. 1373

I rise today to express my grave concerns about the administration's response to the situation in Honduras. There are few absolutes in the arena of diplomacy and international affairs. As circumstances and regimes change, so do our interests and allegiances. But one principle that should stand as a bedrock constant is this: a friend of freedom is a friend of America. Our commitment to freedom is not confined to a culture or a continent. It is absolute and universal.

It was this principle, hardwired into our DNA, that President Obama appeared to violate during his 8 days of silence while innocent democratic demonstrators were tortured and murdered in the streets of Tehran by Iran's tyrannical regime.

Thankfully, the President finally changed his rhetoric and offered some support to the people of Iran risking their lives for their freedom. But he stopped short of any criticism or action that might be construed as ``meddling,'' in his words, in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation.

But in the last week, the President has reversed course, meddling up to his ears in the domestic affairs of another sovereign nation, Honduras. Depressingly, the President has once again sided with an illegitimate and anti-American autocrat over democracy, the rule of law, and an oppressed people who only want to be free.

The facts on the ground in Honduras are neither disputed nor confusing, but they have been largely ignored by an international media distracted by the death of a celebrity.

Let me read these facts into the record.

Honduras is a constitutional republic and a longtime ally of the United States. It is one of the poorest nations in the Western Hemisphere, especially since it was ravaged by the direct hit of Hurricane Mitch in 1998.

In 2005, Hondurans elected as their President Manuel Zelaya, a left of center but seemingly moderate candidate from the Liberal Party. Given Latin America's troubling history of military coups and self- appointed Presidents for life, the Honduran Constitution strictly limits Presidents to one term.

So seriously do Hondurans take their Presidential term limits that in Latin America, the phrase--and I will butcher this Spanish, but I want to give it a try--``continuar en el poder.'' It means to continue in power. It carries with it a dark connotation to the region for everyone living there.

For a President to overthrow the Constitution and violate term limits is violating the constitutional form of government. So seriously that article 238 of the Honduran Constitution says any President who even proposes an extension of his tenure in office ``shall immediately cease performing the functions of his post.'' So it is a de facto resignation of office in Honduras for a President to attempt to do what their President did.

Zelaya's 2005 campaign was supported by Hugo Chavez, the Marxist Venezuelan dictator bent on amassing

power in the Western Hemisphere at the expense of what he calls ``the North American empire.'' That is us.

Zelaya quickly aligned his government with Chavez's and joined anti- American socialists, such as the Castro brothers in Cuba and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, in Chavez's economic cartel.

With Zelaya's term coming to an end early next year, Chavez convinced him to do as he has done in Venezuela: to force a constitutional amendment extending his Presidential term. This would be in direct violation of what their Constitution says.

Earlier this year, Zelaya called for a referendum to initiate a constitutional convention. In the ensuing litigation, the Honduran courts ruled the referendum was unconstitutional and illegal, as the Honduran Constitution explicitly gives only its Congress the power to call such a vote.

Zelaya forged ahead, calling his referendum a ``nonbinding survey.'' This, too, the supreme court found unconstitutional.

Zelaya then ordered the head of the Honduran military, General Vasquez, to conduct the election anyway. Vasquez expressed concerns about the vote's legality, so Zelaya fired him.

The supreme court ordered Zelaya to reinstate Vasquez, and Zelaya refused. The supreme court ordered the military to seize the referendum ballots to prevent Zelaya from going ahead with the illegal vote. Zelaya then personally led an armed mob to steal back the ballots, which, it should be noted, were suspiciously printed in Venezuela. Zelaya ordered his government to set up 15,000 polling places to conduct the referendum for June 28.

On Friday, June 26, the Attorney General of Honduras, Luis Rubi, filed a complaint before the Honduran Supreme Court petitioning for an arrest warrant for President Zelaya. The court issued the warrant unanimously and, according to the Constitution, ordered the Honduran military to execute it.

Early in the morning of Sunday, June 28, the day of the vote, the military arrested President Zelaya at his home. They put him on a plane to Costa Rica, as Honduras has no prison capable of withstanding a mob riot of the sort they feared Chavez and Ortega might whip up. So they did it for his safety.

That same day, the Honduran Congress, controlled by his Liberal Party--his own party--voted 125 to 3 to replace Zelaya with their speaker, Roberto Micheletti, as a member of the Liberal Party. This transfer of power was strictly in keeping with Honduras's constitutional line of succession as the Vice President had recently resigned.

The regularly scheduled general elections remain set for this November, and interim President Micheletti is not a candidate. The previously nominated candidates from the two major parties remain on the campaign trail, and both candidates and parties overwhelmingly approved the ouster of Zelaya.

At every step in the process, the legitimate democratic government strictly adhered to the Honduran Constitution and civilian leadership of the military remained intact. The military did not execute a coup. It thwarted the coup plotted by Hugo Chavez and implemented by Manuel Zelaya.

Honduras's democratic institutions are operating today, and its government functions are secure. The only aggrieved party in this process is Mr. Chavez, whose brazen attempts to corrupt Honduran democracy was thwarted by what has now been nicknamed ``the little country that could.''

The people of Honduras stood up to Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, the Castro brothers, and they stood up for freedom and the rule of law. For their courage, President Obama has condemned them. He has called the constitutional ouster of President Zelaya not legal, claiming an expertise in Honduran law over and above that of a unanimous Honduran Supreme Court and a nearly unanimous Honduran Congress.

Secretary of State Clinton lazily joined the international media in calling the removal of President Zelaya ``a coup,'' a term fraught with dark memories of military juntas and banana republic. Of course, this is the same administration that insists on calling the recent fraud in Iran an election.

The Obama administration joined Chavez's preposterous Soviet-style propaganda resolution in the Organization of American States condemning Honduran democracy. Hondurans I have spoken with--I have spoken with a number of folks who have missionary groups there, medical groups. I have talked to Miguel Estrada who was born and raised in Honduras and is now a constitutional expert in this country. This morning I talked to former Honduran President Ricardo Maduro. They are all totally befuddled at the strange response they are getting from the supposedly free world, including our own administration. Why are we siding with Hugo Chavez?

This morning in Russia, President Obama reiterated his support for Zelaya, the would-be dictator, as the rightful President of Honduras. According to ABC News, he said:

America supports now the restoration of the democratically

elected President of Honduras, even though he has strongly

opposed American policies.

Continuing with the quote from President Obama:

We do so not because we agree with him. We do so because we

respect the universal principle that people should choose

their own leaders, whether they are leaders we agree with or

not.

The President appears to think his support for Zelaya is based on some principles of self-determination. He speaks as if opposition to Zelaya is based on partisan political differences. Zelaya was not ousted by political enemies; he was ousted by a government controlled by his own party. He was ousted by a unanimous supreme court operating in accordance with the Honduran Constitution and in conjunction with the nation's attorney general and Supreme Electoral Tribunal. These folks followed the rule of law.

The Honduran people have chosen their own leaders. Those leaders--in a constitutional, bipartisan, and nearly unanimous process--removed Manuel Zelaya from office. The Honduran people have upheld our President's so-called universal principle. The people seeking to undermine that principle are Hugo Chavez, the Castro brothers, Daniel Ortega, Mel Zelaya, and--unbelievably--the Obama administration.

This is not about politics. This is about the rule of law, freedom, and democracy, all of which are being defended by the Hondurans right now against their enemies--of which we appear to be one. Why are we not standing with them? Blood was shed in Iran while we stood idly by. Zelaya's return to Honduras on a Venezuelan jet and with the moral authority of the United States will almost certainly lead to more bloodshed. What are we doing on the side of tyrants and sworn enemies of freedom; going as far, on their behalf, to threaten economic sanctions against one of our poorest and bravest allies?

Secretary of State Clinton is reportedly planning a meeting with Mr. Zelaya in Washington this week. I implore her to reconsider that meeting. Elevating an impeached and disgraced autocrat is more than an insult to Honduran democracy, it is a green light to other would-be Chavezes around Latin America. It is a signal to the enemies of democracy and freedom that the United States no longer stands as a beacon of liberty. It is a signal that the rule of law is now passe in Latin America and that Hugo Chavez and his corrupt and brutal idealogy has free rein to meddle wherever he pleases in the Western Hemisphere.

What do we stand for, if not for freedom, democracy, and the rule of law? Where is the spine of the administration to stand up to anti- American and antidemocratic thugs in our own back yard? Where is the intellectual clarity to see the facts on the ground as they are? Manuel Zelaya is a criminal, a constitutionally removed former President of a proud and noble country. To my knowledge, no administration official has refuted or even grappled with the facts regarding Zelaya's attempted coup.

Given those still undisputed and documented facts, on what basis does the administration demand Zelaya's reinstatement? His removal from office was no more a coup than was Gerald Ford's ascendance to the Oval Office or the election to the Senate of our newest colleague, Al Franken. It is bad enough that the President's ad hoc and highly personalized foreign policy seems to be less about supporting the

rule of law than it is about supporting particular rulers. But the last 4 weeks suggest that the President cannot even be counted upon to support our legitimate allies.

What happened in Honduras last week was not a tragedy, it was a triumph of democratic courage and the unyielding determination of a free people to stand up to despotism. The tragedy has been the failure of the West and of our own government in Washington to stand up for justice and freedom in Latin America.

It is not too late. I have written to Secretary Clinton, and there is growing congressional support for the legitimate government in Honduras. Everywhere I go someone comes up to me and tells me to stand up for freedom in Honduras. There is still time to look at the facts, even to visit Honduras itself. Call down there, talk to the people, even Americans in the Peace Corps or on missionary work, and ask them if they are living under an oppressive military junta. They will laugh and tell you they are living under an independent and vibrant democracy, with a representative government led by people they elected. They will tell you about the free and open debate in the ongoing Presidential campaign and whom they are supporting in the November elections.

There is still time to correct our position and support our true allies. And because we can, we should. We must. Because today--and I will try my Spanish again--``un amigo de libertad es un amigo de Honduras''--a friend of freedom is a friend of Honduras.

Mr. President, before I yield, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up the DeMint amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.

Mr. President, I will speak to the amendment later. I see a colleague wanting to speak and so I will yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I hope everyone had a good break. I can't say that I am glad to be back, but there are some important things to do. I start by calling up amendment No. 1370, which is at the desk, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, this amendment is about the Capitol Visitor Center. Among other things, we all know the new Capitol Visitor Center, which is very beautiful, welcomes folks from all over the country and the world to the Capitol. It includes interesting and valuable museum-style exhibits about the history of the Capitol and Congress. Unfortunately, the way the Capitol Visitor Center has been built and the way the displays have been set up, it conspicuously ignores America's unique religious heritage and the role that heritage played in the founding of the Republic. Indeed, the original exhibits now there seem to suggest the Federal Government was the solution to all our problems and the fulfillment of all human aspirations, as if we were a government with a nation instead of the other way around. Even the national motto was misrepresented--as out of many, one.

My unanimous consent agreement will help correct the record as it is displayed at the Capitol Visitor Center. It will authorize the engraving of our true national motto, which is: In God we trust. It will also order the engraving of the Pledge of Allegiance with its reference to one Nation under God in a prominent position in the Capitol Visitor Center. From the beginning many of us were concerned about what looked like a historical whitewash of our Nation's faith heritage from the Capitol Visitor Center. I thank Senators Feinstein and Bennett for their support. I have a letter they both signed formalizing our agreement for the historical corrections in my amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

I also want to make a point about the unfortunate expense associated with these design corrections. I regret these funds must be spent. That the historical whitewash of the original design contained these inaccuracies was unfortunate, certainly. But the $150,000 this project will cost is less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the cost of the Capitol Visitor Center. Anyone interested in finding offsets can count on my support in identifying waste in the underlying bill that is funding Congress for next year. When these engravings are completed and when we can welcome God back into the Capitol Visitor Center, visitors to the Capitol will see a fairer and more historically accurate depiction of the all-important relationship between faith and freedom in America.

I understand the majority is prepared to accept the amendment by a voice vote or unanimous consent.

Madam President, I have another amendment I have been informed the majority plans to block consideration of, which is No. 1367 regarding transparency at the Federal Reserve. I wish nonetheless to take a few moments to discuss it.

The unelected central bank of the United States, the Federal Reserve, enjoys a monopoly over the flow of our money and credit but has never been completely transparent and accountable to Congress since its creation in 1913. Since 1913, our dollar has lost more than 95 percent of its purchasing power. My amendment is called the Federal Reserve sunshine amendment. It is modeled after legislation sponsored by Representative Ron Paul of Texas in the House and our colleague Senator Sanders of Vermont in the Senate. This amendment amends section 714 of title 31 of the United States Code to remove existing restrictions on how the Government Accountability Office can audit the Federal Reserve. With these limitations gone, the Fed's discount window operation, funding facilities, open market operations, and agreements with foreign central banks and governments would all be finally open to congressional oversight. The Government Accountability Office would be required to audit the Fed by the end of 2010 and to report its findings to Congress.

Every dollar created by the Fed has an effect on the value of the dollars in our pockets and bank accounts. We need to pay more attention to the effect of Washington decisions, whether fiscal policy made by Congress or monetary policy made by the Fed. They all are ultimately borne by the American people. The Federal Reserve will create and disburse trillions of dollars in response to our current financial crisis. Americans across the Nation, regardless of their opinion on the bailout, want to know where the money has gone, exactly how much has been spent, and what collateral has been taken in return. That is why we see so much bipartisan support in the House, in Bernie Sanders and Jim DeMint being on the same side in the Senate. Inflation is a hidden tax. We, unfortunately, forget about it too often when we are debating spending bills in Congress.

Our fiscal actions, higher deficits, increased long-term debt, and entitlement obligations will necessarily need to be paid for by printing new money or borrowing more money from an increasingly skeptical world. Either option results in higher interest rates for consumers and a devaluing of the dollars they have already earned and saved. Allowing the Fed to operate our Nation's monetary system in almost complete secrecy leads to abuse, inflation, and a lower quality of life for every American. Unfortunately, the majority has decided to use a procedural tactic to block a vote on this amendment by invoking something called rule XVI. This is a rule that prevents policy being added to spending bills. The majority claims we do not legislate on appropriations bills. Of course, that is false. In fact, there are already rule XVI violations in the bill we are trying to amend. We saw this majority airdrop the cash for clunkers program into the recent supplemental appropriations bill.

The majority may claim this amendment is not relevant to the underlying bill, but in fact there are already provisions in this bill related to Government Accountability Office audits, so this language is quite appropriate on this bill. The legislation has already received the support of more than one-half of the House of Representatives within a few short months of its introduction. It is time for the Senate to show its support.

I ask the majority leader again to allow a vote on amendment 1367 regarding a GAO audit of the Federal Reserve.

I call up amendment 1367.

Madam President, I regret the objection. Since the other side is arguing that rule XVI applies here, my amendment contains language to an existing GAO audit of the Federal

Reserve. Because it is legislative in nature--in other words, because it actually addresses the audit itself and not just the funds for the General Accountability Office--they say it is out of order. I have a parliamentary inquiry: Is the language in section 1501(b) dealing with an existing GAO audit of the National Transportation Safety Board legislative?

I thank the Chair. Does it violate rule XVI?

So the Democrats are suggesting that it is somehow illegitimate for me to offer an amendment dealing with an existing GAO audit when they themselves have included language dealing with other audits that flatly violates rule XVI.

Further parliamentary inquiry: Is the language in section 1501(c) regarding a GAO audit of local educational agency spending legislative in nature and in violation of rule XVI?

I thank the Chair. What about section 1501(d) which repeals a GAO audit of the small business participation in the Alaska national pipeline; is that legislative in nature and does it violate rule XVI?

Madam President, I have a long list here for which I understand from the Parliamentarian the answers will continue to be yes. We have several provisions, obviously, dealing with the GAO and GAO audits in this bill. The other side cannot stand behind a rule they have flagrantly violated themselves.

There is an earmark in this bill for Nebraska. It is the only earmark in the bill.

I would ask the Chair, what about the provision in the Library of Congress section containing a $200,000 earmark for the Durham Museum in Omaha, NE? Is that a legislative item? And does it violate rule XVI?

Thank you, Madam President. Then, would it be accurate to say the provision contains legislative language that meets the definition of rule XVI, even though it is arguably germane to the House language?

Thank you, Madam President.

I think I have made my point, and I will not take this any further. Clearly, there is a double standard.

One of the most sought after amendments we have probably brought up in the House and the Senate since I have been here is an audit of the Federal Reserve. Everywhere I went last week people were thanking me for finally looking at what the Federal Reserve was doing and trying to let the American people know what is happening.

This is an audit that has broad support, and I would encourage my colleagues on the Democratic side to allow this amendment to be voted on. But, apparently, the other side has decided to challenge it with rule XVI, which they do not apply to their own language.

But as I said, Madam President, I have probably said enough and I thank you for your indulgence.

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

Mr. President, I would like to speak for a moment about a pending nomination that is not necessarily the topic of dinner table conversations around the country, but is nonetheless very important in all our daily lives. I am speaking of the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC.

Wireless phones, cable, and satellite television, Internet services, and local television and radio are a part of everyone's daily lives in one way or another. And while we may all have a customer service issue from time to time, for the most part these industries and the products they offer are a showcase of the freedom and innovation that has made America the most dynamic economy and society in the world's history.

We have seen these innovations in dramatic ways in recent days with Twitter reporting, YouTube videos, and mobile updates from the streets of Iran. Of course, the most important element of this new technology is that it gives an unprecedented power to individuals to speak about and share their personal experiences--everyone is empowered and the individual controls the message.

This is very important as it changes the media paradigm we have known for a generation. We often hear the terms ``old'' and ``new'' media. It is more accurate to say ``centralized'' and ``personalized'' media. Not long ago, the average American had access to only a handful of radio and television programming, a local newspaper, no Internet, no mobile telephone service, no texting, and certainly no mobile broadband. In other words, the average person had far less access to information than today, and from far more centralized sources.

The changing communications landscape calls for a knowledgeable and forward-looking FCC; not one looking to regulatory structures of the past that will hamstring future growth and innovation. The President has nominated Julius Genachowski to be Chairman of the FCC. While I believe he is very knowledgeable about today's communications landscape, I am afraid he may have tendencies to direct the development of our private communications industries, particularly broadcast media, with an eye towards the past.

Many of my colleagues have chosen to give Mr. Genachowski the benefit of the doubt, and are supporting his nomination. I believe he has enough votes to be confirmed as FCC Chairman. While I remain concerned that Mr. Genachowski will take us backward, towards more government control of media, more government interference in commerce, and, unfortunately, more government control of media content--I will not prevent his nomination from proceeding.

I will, however, be vigilant in the weeks and months ahead and will fight any effort that even appears to have the effect of limiting or mandating political speech on the airwaves. Mr. Genachowski has said that, under his guidance, any rules that the Commission considers would be through ``processes that are open, transparent, fair, and driven by facts about the industry and the marketplace.'' I hope this is true and promise to hold him to his commitments.

Nomination of Robert S. Litt and Stephen W. Preston

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, it seems that you are always stuck with listening to me. I apologize for that.

I wish to respond to my colleagues' grand design of our new health care system in just a moment, but I would like to back up a little bit and discuss health care and some other things in context.

There is no question in anyone's mind that these are difficult times for America. Millions are unemployed, and the unemployment rate continues to climb. Our economy has been in decline for a number of months. Our military is strained all around the world at a time when our enemies seem to be gaining strength and increasing in numbers. Back here at home, our spending and borrowing and debt are out of control, and this massive government spending plan we call the stimulus has yet to show any results. We see government intervention in many areas of our economy--in the banks, financial markets, the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the takeover of large insurance companies, our auto industry. People back home and all around the country are alarmed. As I heard someone say last week as they tried to explain their alarm to me, they threw up their hands and they just said, ``I am outraged out.'' They could not speak anymore.

My question for my colleagues today is, Is this a good time to create another government program? The answer on the other side has obviously been yes. Yesterday, they all voted, I believe, to get the Federal Government in the tourism business, to close off debate and pass a plan that would get the Federal Government to promote tourism in America all over the world. I think it is like $400 million--in today's terms, a small amount of money. But the tourism industry, while hurting because of the economy, is certainly not in collapse, in need of a government bailout. The tourism industry spent billions of dollars on advertising last year.

It is not as if the rest of the world does not know we are here. The problem with tourism in America can be laid at the feet of an inept government. If you ask people abroad why they are not coming here in such numbers as they have in the past, we find the statistics show that we are the most unwelcoming at our Customs office, in the lines to get through to America. If you want to have a business convention or trade show in America, it is very likely you cannot get the visas for your customers to come here, so many of these conventions and trade shows have had to move overseas.

The problem with getting people here is in what the government is not doing well. We don't need to get the government in the tourism business. I have plants back home, such as BMW, that would like to bring people from their headquarters in Germany over here to train the American workforce, but they found it is easier just to send our people over there because it is so hard to get their people to come here. They could come here and stay in our hotels, eat at our restaurants, and improve our economy. But instead an inept government causes us to send Americans to stay in their hotels, eat in their restaurants, and rent their cars.

It is illogical for us to create a Federal tourism agency, a la Fannie Mae, a new government-sponsored entity that is going to help promote tourism, but it is this same kind of logic we are now using for health care. We are saying we have a crisis in health care, so therefore the government needs to get more involved and to take over various aspects of the health care industry, such as was just described by my colleague from New York. But if we look at this situation a little more clearly, we will see that it is the government that is causing most of our problems and not allowing the free market health care system to work.

Let's look at this a little bit closer because there was a whole lot of misinformation that was just shared on the floor here today. Let's look at health care coverage in America. You have about 60 percent now who are in employer-sponsored plans and almost another 10 percent who have purchased their own insurance on the individual market. So we have about 70 percent of people with private insurance. You have about 25 percent Medicare-Medicaid and another 4 percent or so who are in military plans on the government side. So you have between 25 and 30 percent of Americans who are now in a government health plan. And my colleague from New York was just bragging about how well the government health plans work in Medicare. Certainly, if you have Medicare and you can get a doctor to see you, it works just fine. But the problem is, every dollar that has come in from Medicare since its inception has been spent. The 2.5 precent that comes out of every paycheck has not been saved for our senior citizens, to pay for their health care; it has been spent and there is absolutely no money in the system to take care of America's baby boomers. This works like a government plan my colleague was just bragging about. It has trillions of dollars of unfunded debt that will fall on the heads of our children and grandchildren, trillions of dollars that we have no idea how we are going to pay for. And Medicare is hopelessly in debt at the State and the Federal level.

But even worse is this problem. And let's keep looking at government versus the private plans. I think most people in America would believe the best situation now in health care is to have a health insurance policy so you can pick your own doctor and decide with your doctor what kind of health care you are going to get. No plan is perfect. There are always problems in health care. It is very complex. But

you have here about 70 percent of people who are in that situation, but every year their insurance costs more money.

My colleague was saying that is caused by private insurance, but let's find out the truth. Every year, these government plans pay physicians and hospitals less. They pay a physician less than their costs to see a patient. And I have doctors I know back in South Carolina and rural areas. They have to close their practice to new Medicare and Medicaid patients because once over 60 percent of their patients are Medicaid or Medicare, they can no longer make a living. That is happening all over the country. But you know how these costs are picked up. The hospitals and doctors who take Medicare and Medicaid have to charge private insurers more money every year because every year the government pays doctors less. That is why fewer and fewer of our best and brightest students are going to medical school and that is why we are headed for a real physician shortage in this country--not because of private health insurance but because of government plans.

We have about 16 percent who have no coverage in our country today. Those are the ones whom we say we are concerned with right now. The government requires hospitals to provide them service whether they have any insurance or money anyway, and where do these costs go? They are transferred to those who have private insurance. So every year the inept government is transferring huge amounts of costs over to those employers and those individuals who are buying private health insurance.

My colleagues are trying to say that the private market is what is failing us and we need to expand this part of the health care market-- the part that is not paying doctors and hospitals to see patients, the part that is trillions of dollars in debt, and the part that is already beginning to ration health care for those who are under those plans.

If you want to know how the public option is going to work, I encourage you to drop by a Social Security office, take a number, and sit down and wait for them to get to you, or maybe go to a veterans hospital or another government service. Do we really want the government involved with health care? Health care is the most personal and private service we have as Americans. Do we want to turn health care over to the most impersonal, the most bureaucratic, the most wasteful and, in many cases, the most corrupt aspect of our society?

What we do need to do is look at how we can get these private plans in the hands of those who have no insurance. That is something we can do and we can do it for a lot less than the current administration is talking about. But before we talk about how we are going to get these people insured, let's look at who they are, because this is being misrepresented to exaggerate the problem, to create a crisis so we can justify another government takeover of another area of our economy.

We say we have about 46 million uninsured in America. Here is how that breaks down. We have about 6.4 million who actually have Medicaid today, but they are undercounted in the census. This has been proven and we know it to be true. We have another 4.3 million who are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP or another government program, but they haven't signed up for it. We need to make more of an effort to get people to sign up for the programs they are eligible for. We have about 9.3 million who are noncitizens, many of whom are illegal in this country, and the taxpayer should not be paying for their health care. We have about 10 percent who have incomes of 300 percent or more over poverty and they are not buying health care. I have had some of those work for me when I was in business. I would offer to pay for most of their insurance. I would pay $500 a month, they would pay $50. Some people turn it down because they don't want to pay $50. There are some people who don't want to buy insurance. We have some people between 18 and 34 years old without insurance, and we have 10.6 million who are uninsured. If we look at this, at least half of these should not be subsidized by any type of government plan who are not already eligible for a plan or not citizens of our country. We could look at 20 million to 25 million.

I want to make clear that if there is one person in America who doesn't have access to good health care, that is a crisis to them, and we need to do everything we can to make sure we are fair and that affordable health care policies are available to every American. That is my goal. That is the goal of the Republican Party.

This week--this afternoon, as a matter of fact--I am going to introduce a plan that will solve the problem at a fraction of the cost of what the Democrats and President Obama are proposing. In various ways, their plan is to expand the government option, whether it is a government health plan or a government-mandated plan on the private insurance market. One way or another, they want to expand government rather than expand private insurance. I know this for a fact.

This is my fifth year in the Senate. I have introduced a lot of resolutions that would help these people get insurance, and every time my Democratic colleagues have voted it down. We have had proposals for association health plans that would allow small businesses to come together and buy insurance at a lower price to offer their employees. They voted it down. I had a proposal I introduced called Health Care Choice that would do what my colleague from New York was talking about, which is break up that single State monopoly of a few health care plans. My plan would allow Americans to buy health insurance from any State in the country. Wherever a plan is registered, certified by that State, someone in South Carolina could buy it from Arizona or Colorado, and that is how most industries work in America. If I want to go across the line and buy a car in North Carolina, I am not prohibited to do that, but I can't do it if it is a health insurance plan. So we allow these quasi-monopolies to develop in every State. I have introduced a plan that would allow Americans the freedom to buy health insurance from any State in the country, and to a person the Democrats voted it down.

I have introduced a plan that would allow people to use what they have in a health savings account to pay for health insurance premiums. Common sense, right? They voted it down.

The fact is this: The people who want to expand the government option do not want these people to have private insurance, because they believe in government and they do not believe the private market can keep itself accountable. But the problems we have with the private market now can be attributed, to a large degree, to the government not paying its share of the costs, to the government having policies that keep quasi-monopolies in every State.

I have had a proposal that would allow individuals to deduct the cost of their health insurance, just as we allow employers. The Democrats to a person voted it down.

Folks, we don't have to look far to understand what is going on. The people who like taking over General Motors and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac want these government health plans to be expanded all the way around this circle. This is something we have to stop. We can do it very simply if we use fairness and freedom.

My plea to all Americans, and particularly my colleagues, is before we give up on freedom in the health care area, let's let it work. That is what my proposal is.

This afternoon I am going to introduce a plan that tells every American: If you like the plan you have, whether it be Medicare or Medicaid or an employer plan or a military plan, you keep it; we are not going to mess with it. But if you have no coverage at all, or if you are buying your policy on your own on the open market, we are going to, for the first time, treat you fairly and give you the same tax break we give the people in the employer-sponsored plan.

This plan does this: If you are a family, we are going to give you a certificate for $5,000 to buy health insurance. If you are an individual, we will give you $2,000 a year to buy health insurance. Some will scream and say, Oh, you can't get a good policy for that, and you can, because I have bought it for my adult children who aged out of my plan.

My plan also includes the option for an individual to buy health insurance in any State so we will increase competition and lower the prices. The plan

also allows an employer to put money in a health savings account for you that you can use to pay for your health care or to pay the premium to support you to buy additional coverage with your health insurance. We have a provision that deals with lawsuit abuse, and we have a provision that funds high-risk pools for States so people who have high-risk conditions, uninsurable conditions, preexisting conditions, can buy insurance they can afford at the State level.

The estimates are by the Heritage Foundation that within 5 years, more than 20 million of these uninsured--most of them--will have private insurance plans, because they can't use their health care certificate unless they use it to buy health insurance.

I would ask my colleagues this: If we had the option to get everyone in an individual or employer plan or expand these government plans, which aren't paying their way, which are transferring costs to other people, and which are hopelessly in debt, which way do we go? But we can fund my plan without one additional dollar of taxpayer money. The estimates are over the next 10 years, getting these people insured with private policies, giving them a $5,000 a year health care certificate, will cost about $700 billion. If that number sounds familiar, that is about how much money we have outstanding with the bailout money we call TARP here in this Congress. Instead of them bringing this money back and spending it on something else, my proposal pays for my plan by recapturing this TARP money. So as this bailout money comes back over the next 5 years, it can pay to give every American access to a plan they can afford and own and keep. It is basically no additional cost to the taxpayer at this point over what we are already committed for, for the bailout.

The choice belongs to Americans. Are we going to buy this idea that a government option is going to give us more choice, more quality, more personal attention? Will it attract more physicians into the profession? Any thinking American knows that isn't going to happen. The ideal plans now are those when individuals have a plan they own and can keep, they pick their own doctor, and the doctor and the patient decide what health care they are going to get. This is within our reach. We don't need a massive government takeover of health care in order to make health care accessible to every American. Let's not buy this idea that we are in such a crisis that we have to rush over the next couple of months to create another government program, another government takeover, when we see what happens to government-run health plans right in front of our eyes. It won't work. We can't afford it. They are going to end up rationing care. They are going to take employer plans, irrespective of what they say--if you have a low-cost government option that doesn't pay doctors enough to see you, you are going to see insurers dropping their health plans and you are going to end up in the lap of government whether you like it or not.

Let's not give up on freedom. Let's look at the facts. Have we seen any government program, over your lifetime or mine, that has actually done what it said it was going to do at the cost it said it would be done at? My colleagues know that is not true.

Social Security is so important to seniors, and a promise we must keep. It is hopelessly in debt, because this government has spent every dime Americans have put in it, and there is not a dime in the Social Security account to pay future benefits. The same with Medicare-- trillions of dollars. This is a commonsense solution that every American can see, if we don't listen to the misrepresentations we are starting to hear in this body. Every American with a policy they can afford and own and keep is available to us, within our reach, without any government takeover of health care. We just have to believe that what made America great can make health care work, and that is freedom.

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

I withhold.

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