Floor Statements

Mr. President, the resolution I submitted, on behalf of myself, Senator Lieberman and others, is exactly the same as has been introduced by Congressmen Berman and Pence in the House of Representatives. It is the exact same resolution. It expresses support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, rule of law, and for other purposes.

The resolution expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law, and for other purposes. It condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and progovernment militias as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cell phones and affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.

Basically, what this is is a resolution that has been introduced in both Houses, which affirms America's fundamental respect and commitment to human rights, to people no matter where they reside in the world.

It is unfortunate, in a way, that this resolution is required since the administration does not want to ``meddle,'' and the President has refused to speak out in support of these brave Iranian citizens, most of them young, who are risking their very lives to protest what was clearly an unfair and corrupt election.

What we are seeing in Iran today is sort of a sequence of events that should worry all of us who have watched this before. The demonstrators, some beaten, some killed, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calls together the participants in the election and then says there should be no more demonstrations and strong action will be taken.

That is coupled with ejecting the world's media from Iran--first restricting it and then forcing them out so as not to record events. Unfortunately for the Iranian mullahs, Twitter has become an incredible means of communication, as well as cameras in cell phones. The word is still coming out as to the degree of oppression that is being practiced by the Iranian Government.

There is a lot I wish to say today about what is going on in Iran; the fact that we, the United States of America, have a long history of speaking out on behalf of people who are oppressed, who are victims of a corrupt election. We stood tall, America did, for the workers in Gdansk, in solidarity with Lech Walesa. We stood tall for the people of Prague during the Prague Spring, and we were not afraid, as Ronald Reagan was not, to go to the Berlin Wall and say ``Take down this wall,'' and call an evil empire what it was, an evil empire.

One of the ironies of this situation that I wish to address very briefly is that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's political adviser said Thursday that the United States will regret its interference in Iran's disputed election. In other words, our President says he does not want to go meddle and at the same time, of course, they are accusing us of doing exactly that.

He, the adviser, said:

I hope in the case of the elections they realize their

interference is a mistake and that they don't repeat this

mistake. They will certainly regret this. They will have

problems reestablishing relations with Iran.

In the history of this country, since July 4, 1776, we affirmed the fundamental rights of all people throughout the world, and that is the inalienable rights granted by our Creator to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That commitment to human rights was there then and it is there today. The United States of America must, and this body must, affirm our support for fundamental human rights of the Iranian people who are being beaten and killed in the streets of Tehran and other cities around Iran. We are with them.

It is not an accident that the signs ``Where is my vote?'' are in English. They are waiting for an expression of support from the Government and the people of the United States of America. I think this resolution is an important way to do so.

Madam President, I appreciate very much the wise words of the Senator from Georgia, who has been heavily involved in health care issues dating back to his time in the Georgia legislature and brings a unique perspective to the issue, that of a person who has had to, as an elected representative, wrestle with these issues from not only the Federal level but also the State. So I appreciate his words.

As the Senator from Georgia pointed out, this is probably the single most important domestic issue that will be taken up by the Congress of the United States, at least this year, and maybe in the next couple years, and maybe in a long time when you look at the fact that we are addressing an issue that basically consumes one-fifth of our gross national product, not to mention the fact that the system is broken, that the inflationary pressures are unsustainable, and there are millions of Americans who do not have access to quality, affordable health care.

So where are we now in the Senate? I think it is time for a little status report.

The Finance Committee--remember, there are two committees that are on parallel tracks taking up this health care legislation, the Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee--the Finance Committee yesterday announced they will delay their consideration until after the Fourth of July recess.

The day before, the Congressional Budget Office came out with a report that was nothing less than stunning. It indicated that the proposal the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is considering would have a cost of $1 trillion and only insure approximately one-third of the 47 million who are uninsured, which would lead one to the conclusion--doing the most elementary math--that if we were able to insure all of the uninsured in America, that would be a cost of $3 trillion. And we still have no proposal as to how we would pay for this dramatic expansion of the role of government in America's health care system.

Never before in the years I have been here have I seen a ``markup,'' which means we begin the amending process of a bill through the legislature, as we teach our children in school, and yet three major policy pages are still completely blank--completely blank.

We are told we will see these new policies at some point tomorrow. That is after we were told we would see them today. And then the majority, the Democrats, who are coming up with this language themselves--without any consultation with this side of the aisle--will give us a chance to review it. Those three areas are the most difficult aspects of reforming health care in America.

Those policies, as we all know, concern the way we pay for the new language on employer mandates, the government plan, and the biologic drug regulation.

There is a government option that will be part of this legislation, i.e., a government takeover eventually, in

my view, of the health care system in America, something a majority of Americans have voiced their deep concern about--employer mandates, and biologic drug regulation.

So here we are supposedly moving forward, and the administration spokesperson in the last couple of days said the bill that is being considered by the HELP Committee is not, ``the administration's bill.'' What is the administration's bill? Where is the administration's bill? We have no idea what the provisions I just mentioned will cost or whether they will create jobs and whether the American people will be called upon to pay an increase in taxes and, if so, who will pay them. I do not know how you move forward with legislation that, frankly, you do not know how you are going to pay for.

How can the President and the majority expect the American people to take them seriously when they talk of wanting a bipartisan product that addresses their needs when, at the same time, majority members and their staff have written the entire bill without any input from this side of the aisle? I assure you, the American people would have much more confidence in this effort if both Republicans and Democrats were working together on health care reform. Instead of changing Washington, it sounds an awful lot like a one-sided effort to jam a bill through before the American people understand what is in it.

This morning, there is some very interesting data. According to a CBS/New York Times survey, the President holds a 57-percent approval rating, which is very good. On health care, his approval rating is 44 percent. That is way down, and it is down because the American people are beginning to figure out that we are going to have a proposal that will end in government control of American's health care, it will squeeze out competition, and it will be incredibly expensive. As I mentioned, the CBO preliminary estimate is $1 trillion, but insures only one-third of the American people, and it leaves 32 million people without health insurance.

So we hear that the Finance Committee, as I mentioned, is in such disarray over the costs and policies in their bill that they have postponed their consideration until after the Fourth of July break. They obviously don't have their policies together enough to move forward. It appears to me, from my service on the Health Committee, that it does not either.

I think the only reasonable thing to do is to go back to the drawing board. Let's go back to the beginning. Let's sit down together and work out a reasonable proposal that we can go to the American people with that says we will provide them with affordable and available health care. Every American knows the costs are out of control, everybody knows it needs to be reformed. But we will do so without a government takeover of America's health care system.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, here we have a supplemental appropriations conference report, supposedly, ostensibly to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and to make sure the men and women who are serving have the necessary equipment and wherewithal to pursue those conflicts with the utmost efficiency. It is business as usual in our Nation's Capital. It is business as usual in the Congress of the United States. Instead of legislation to fund our troops and efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have a bill that includes such things as $2 million for freeze-dried platelet and plasma development, $35 million for the FBI to investigate mortgage fraud, predatory lending, financial fraud and market manipulation, $13.2 million for payments to air carriers for participation in the essential air service program.

Of course, one of the most remarkable feats of legerdemain I have seen in my many years here, cash for clunkers. Someone should at least attempt to explain how cash for clunkers has any relation whatsoever to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It bribes Americans to trade in less fuel-efficient vehicles, considered clunkers, despite the fact that the car could have been bought yesterday, for a voucher worth up to $4,500 toward the purchase of a new car that must get at least 18 miles per gallon, at least 18 miles per gallon--18 not 38? It is estimated to cost about $1 billion, but some economists have declared the real cost will be between $3 and $4 billion. I predict it will be a lot closer to $3 to $4 billion than it will be to $1 billion.

A giveaway of this nature will be obviously something that will be irresistible to many.

Here we are considering a supplemental appropriations conference report totaling $105.9 billion, $13 billion less than the President's request, $9 billion more than the House-passed bill, and $14.6 billion above the Senate-passed bill. So what we have done is, we pass a bill over here, they pass a bill over there, and we add to the sum of both. The conference report provides crucial funding for ongoing military, diplomatic, and intelligence operations. It provides emergency funding to strengthen response to the H1N1 influenza outbreak and the borrowing authority for the International Monetary Fund and, as I mentioned, vouchers for consumers to trade in old cars for new, ``old'' meaning as short a time as 1 year.

The majority of the conference report contains urgently needed funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, our military is engaged in an effort that can and must succeed. It also contains important assistance for the Government of Pakistan, including funding for the Pakistan counterinsurgency fund. The provision of this funding should send a message to the people of Pakistan that the United States has made a long-term commitment to stand by their side in the region and at home as they battle domestic insurgents and extremists. However, the conference report also contains billions of dollars in unrequested spending that is largely unjustified and certainly nonemergency.

President Obama's message to the Congress was to keep funding focused

on the needs of our troops and not to use the supplemental to pursue unnecessary spending and to keep earmarks and other extraneous spending out of the legislation. Despite the President's insistence not to include unnecessary spending in the supplemental, the conference report contains a number of earmarks and unrequested congressional program additions.

I am disappointed the majority chose to use the supplemental as a vehicle to add billions in unrequested funding and policy proposals which should have been fully vetted and considered on their own merits, while at the same time stripping out the Senate-passed detainee photo provision offered by Senators Lieberman and Graham. The conference report is also being used by the appropriators as a back door for funding fiscal year 2010 ``base'' requirements.

The House allocations for 2010--commonly referred to as 302(b) allocations--cut defense spending by $3.5 billion and reduced international affairs funding by $3.2 billion. In other words, the sleight of hand of adding nonemergency program funding to supplemental appropriations is becoming all too familiar as a way of skirting fiscal discipline by increasing discretionary spending above congressional discretionary caps outlined in the budget resolution. In other words, we are continuing what was, unfortunately, common in the previous administration. Again, about cash for clunkers, it is remarkable.

On June 16, 2009, Citizens Against Government Waste wrote a letter to all Members of the Senate stating that this provision ``is really another bailout for the auto industry. American taxpayers have already spent $85 billion.''

We now own two automotive companies, we and the unions. Why do we need another bailout for the auto industry?

The ``Cash for Clunkers'' provision has no place in a bill

that provides emergency war funds.

I couldn't agree with Citizens Against Government Waste more.

The Wall Street Journal wrote in a June 11, 2009, editorial:

Congress wants to pay you to destroy your car . . . as

economic policy, this is dotty. It encourages Americans to

needlessly destroy still useful cars and then misallocates

scarce resources from another, perhaps more productive, use

in order to subsidize replacement. By the same logic, we

could revive the housing market by paying everyone to burn

down their houses, to collect the insurance money and build

new ones . . . The proposal is really intended to help

Detroit out of a recession by subsidizing new car purchases .

. .

Maybe that is why the president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers wrote asking all Senators to support this program, as well as the United Auto Workers legislative director, who called this provision ``the single most important step Congress can take right now to assist the auto industry.''

Hasn't Congress done enough for the auto industry? When is $85 billion not enough for the auto industry?

Lastly, this provision is a lemon, according to a June 13, 2009, article from the LA Times that stated:

Critics say the improvements required in the trade--as

little as 1 mile per gallon for certain light trucks--

In other words, you trade in your old light truck and buy another one that is 1-mile-per-gallon more fuel efficient. So you can swap one gas guzzler for another.

So for $1 billion, this provision doesn't achieve the environmental goals its authors set forth either. My colleagues, Senators Feinstein and Collins, argued such in an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal on June 11, 2009, and also wrote that this provision ``being pushed by the auto industry is simply bad policy,'' that it is ``designed to provide Detroit one last windfall in selling off gas guzzlers currently sitting on dealers lots because they're not a smart buy.''

This unrelated provision is an unwise use of taxpayers' hard-earned money and bad environmental policy. It doesn't belong in this bill, and I strongly disagree with its inclusion.

There are a few more earmarks I would like to highlight: $2.2 billion in unrequested funding for eight C-17 Globemaster cargo aircraft. Currently, we have either bought or ordered 30 more C-17 cargo aircraft than is the military requirement. This is not a jobs program, as the backlog of C-17s is so great that Boeing will not begin building these eight aircraft for another 3 to 5 years. While Secretary Gates called the C-17 ``a terrific aircraft,'' he stressed that the military users ``have more than necessary capacity'' for airlift over the next 10 years. These are, again, testimonies to the power of the military industrial congressional complex in Washington, DC.

An unholy alliance between manufacturers, Members of Congress, and lobbyists brings these things about. There is $504 million in unrequested funding for seven C-130 Hercules cargo aircraft. In testimony on May 14, 2009, Secretary Gates said:

We have over 200 C-130s in the Air National Guard that are

uncommitted and available for use for any kind of domestic

need.

All I know is that I have a great deal of unused capacity

in the C-130 fleet.

That is what the Secretary of Defense says. So we are going to spend $504 million more for seven C-130 Hercules cargo aircraft.

There is $3.1 billion in unrequested funding for international affairs operations and programs. The additional funding added by the House majority and agreed to in conference is to offset the $3.2 billion reduction recently made by the Congress to the base budget request.

There is $49 million in unrequested funding for hurricane damage repairs to the Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant. This funding was added even though the Army advised the managers of this bill there are no storm-related repairs required at the plant--so we are going to spend $49 million to repair a plant that does not need to be repaired-- and that no valid military requirement exists for the funding.

Mr. President, $186 million is provided above the President's request for lightweight howitzers built in Mississippi for the Marine Corps. The additional funding is not requested in the Future Year Defense Plan, nor was it on the fiscal year 2009 or fiscal year 2010 Marine Corps Unfunded Requirements Lists. In other words, the Marine Corps does not need it. The Department of Defense says it is not needed, but we are going to spend $186 million additionally for howitzers built in the State of Mississippi.

Mr. President, $150 million is included for Air Force A-10 Warthog aircraft wing kits and installations. While Davis Montham Air Force Base is in my State of Arizona and additional wing kits would be welcomed, the additional funds were not requested by the administration, and I oppose this $150 million.

It end runs the Defense Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, process by prohibiting the Secretary of Defense from carrying out a 2005 BRAC decision to discontinue the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.

I was very disappointed the House Democrats succeeded in their efforts to strip from the supplemental spending bill the detainee photo provision offered by Senators Lieberman and Graham. This provision, which would support the President's efforts to bar the release of photos of past detainee abuse, would help protect our troops from the inevitable recriminations that these photos would incite. Releasing the photos would not supply new information about the issue of detainee abuse, but, rather, expose evidence of alleged past wrongdoing and put our fighting men and women in greater danger.

That is not my view. It is that of our leading military commanders, including GENs David Petraeus and Ray Odierno. Both of these distinguished military leaders have stated that the release of these images could endanger the lives of U.S. soldiers and make our counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan more difficult.

That is why I commend the leadership demonstrated by Senators Lieberman and Graham, both of whom have steadfastly demanded that this crucial provision be addressed now by the Congress. Their efforts culminated in the passage, by unanimous consent, of stand-alone legislation that will help prevent the release of these damaging images.

So there are other troubling aspects of detainee policy included in this supplemental bill. Provisions in this bill attempt to address detainee policy in a

piecemeal way that fails to constitute a comprehensive plan for what to do with detainees at Guantanamo and those terrorist suspects captured off the battlefield in Afghanistan.

It does not include the $80 million requested by President Obama to close Guantanamo. This is a serious rebuke by Congress and reflects a bipartisan backlash against the idea of announcing a date for the closure of Guantanamo while failing to provide a plan for what comes next.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the fiscal year 2009 supplemental earmarks and unrequested congressional add-ons be printed in the Record.

So in what the American people believed was a time of change, the American people now should know that it is business as usual. A combination of lobbyists, industry campaign contributions, unnecessary spending continues completely out of control. This was a piece of legislation that was supposed to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So now we add billions of dollars for things such as cash for clunkers, unneeded and unnecessary and unwanted military equipment that is made in the home States of certain powerful Members of Congress.

It is not good. Sooner or later, the American people will demand that it comes to an end.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today Senators Coburn, Grassley, and I are introducing the Department of Defense Financial Accountability Act of 2009, which imposes hard legislative deadlines on the Department of Defense to finally fix its broken bookkeeping system. This legislation is not only necessary, it is long overdue.

The bill establishes a series of deadlines, beginning next year and running through 2017, for DoD and the Services to become audit ready. In particular, it compels the Services to account for military equipment, real property, inventory, operating materials and supplies, environmental liabilities, and fund balances with Treasury. Thereafter, DOD must undergo a full, independent audit of its financial statements. If DoD fails to meet any deadline set forth in the bill, it must timely document and explain its failure to Congress.

The Department of Defense is the most massive and complex of any organization, public or private. It is entrusted with more taxpayer dollars than any other federal department or agency. For fiscal year 2009 alone, Congress appropriated over $513 billion for DoD's base budget. It added an additional $7.4 billion for DoD in this year's so- called stimulus bill.

To support its business functions, DoD has thousands of separate business systems that it has layered upon one another for decades. They are archaic, overly complex, and error-prone. They are sometimes redundant and often lack standardization. It is no wonder that since 1995, GAO has classified the Pentagon's financial management as high- risk, which makes it vulnerable to fraud and waste. Indeed, according to GAO, DoD's accounting problems cost the American taxpayer $13 billion in 2005--that's $35 million a day.

This has been a problem for decades. In 1975, the Army disclosed that it had spent $225 million over its budget because of a serious breakdown in its accounting and financial management reporting system. For fiscal year 1986, the Navy failed to disclose $58 million in real property, $1.7 billion in guaranteed loans, and data on operating leases on ships. According to the Government Accountability Office, between 1970 and 1980, the Air Force incurred numerous over obligations in amounts up to $210 million of its industrial funds. This would never be tolerated in the private sector.

This is not only about numbers and audits--this is also about the security of our troops and our nation. These broken systems affect operations and endanger our troops. Over the years, the GAO has reported that the Pentagon's poor financial management has caused pay problems for National Guard and reservists; impeded delivery of food and other essential supplies to U.S. troops; and had the Pentagon scrambling to identify and locate 250,000 defective chem-bio suits, some of which were being sold over the Internet.

Let me read into the record one account of how this impacted ongoing operations in Iraq. According to a February 5, 2006 Star Tribune news article: ``When Perry Jeffries was serving in Iraq, the computers showed that his 4th Infantry Division troops had access to drinking water, a place to shower and working wheels on their vehicles. As the first sergeant came to understand when scrounging for water, towing immobilized tanks and driving to other posts or to Kuwait to pick up needed parts, the Pentagon's bookkeeping doesn't always match reality. Jefferies saw the real-life results of what has been a visible `accounting' problem in Washington--the Pentagon's inability to keep accurate track of transactions and assets.''

Congress has already enacted several laws mandating financial management reform and the Office of Management and Budget has issued circulars on internal controls over financial reporting and financial management systems. Notably, none contain hard deadlines for an audit.

Meanwhile, DoD has repeatedly promised Congress that it would fix the problem. In 1999 and 2000, then-DoD Comptroller William Lynn testified before Congress that financial management reform was his highest priority. In fact, Mr. Lynn's successor, Dov Zakheim, set a deadline to have the Department of Defense audit ready by 2007. Under DoD's latest Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan, that deadline is now 2017.

I want to recognize that the Department has tried, with varying degrees of effort, to improve financial management, but DoD auditors and GAO continue to report significant weaknesses.

I appreciate that our military is engaged in ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is why Senators Coburn, Grassley and I have sought to be reasonable and realistic with the deadlines. They are the same deadlines in DoD's current Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan.

It has been 19 years since the CFO Act was passed requiring DoD and other departments to have an audit. It will be 2019--nearly 30 years after the passage of the CFO Act--before the Department of Defense is able to get an audit opinion, if we hold them to their current timeline. If we do not, this may never happen.

The ultimate outcome of this legislation will be the implementation of effective financial management processes, efficient business systems and strong internal controls that are essential to producing timely, reliable and useful financial information. Quality information will allow DoD to make informed business decisions and ensure accountability on an ongoing basis.

Every dollar we save through improved financial management is another dollar for our troops--for body armor, for medical supplies, for veterans care. Improved financial systems will ensure that troops in the future do not find themselves in the same straits as the 4th Infantry Division, searching for supplies that a computer says they already have.

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

Mr. President, today Senators Coburn, Grassley, and I are introducing the Department of Defense Financial Accountability Act of 2009, which imposes hard legislative deadlines on the Department of Defense to finally fix its broken bookkeeping system. This legislation is not only necessary, it is long overdue.

The bill establishes a series of deadlines, beginning next year and running through 2017, for DoD and the Services to become audit ready. In particular, it compels the Services to account for military equipment, real property, inventory, operating materials and supplies, environmental liabilities, and fund balances with Treasury. Thereafter, DOD must undergo a full, independent audit of its financial statements. If DoD fails to meet any deadline set forth in the bill, it must timely document and explain its failure to Congress.

The Department of Defense is the most massive and complex of any organization, public or private. It is entrusted with more taxpayer dollars than any other federal department or agency. For fiscal year 2009 alone, Congress appropriated over $513 billion for DoD's base budget. It added an additional $7.4 billion for DoD in this year's so- called stimulus bill.

To support its business functions, DoD has thousands of separate business systems that it has layered upon one another for decades. They are archaic, overly complex, and error-prone. They are sometimes redundant and often lack standardization. It is no wonder that since 1995, GAO has classified the Pentagon's financial management as high- risk, which makes it vulnerable to fraud and waste. Indeed, according to GAO, DoD's accounting problems cost the American taxpayer $13 billion in 2005--that's $35 million a day.

This has been a problem for decades. In 1975, the Army disclosed that it had spent $225 million over its budget because of a serious breakdown in its accounting and financial management reporting system. For fiscal year 1986, the Navy failed to disclose $58 million in real property, $1.7 billion in guaranteed loans, and data on operating leases on ships. According to the Government Accountability Office, between 1970 and 1980, the Air Force incurred numerous over obligations in amounts up to $210 million of its industrial funds. This would never be tolerated in the private sector.

This is not only about numbers and audits--this is also about the security of our troops and our nation. These broken systems affect operations and endanger our troops. Over the years, the GAO has reported that the Pentagon's poor financial management has caused pay problems for National Guard and reservists; impeded delivery of food and other essential supplies to U.S. troops; and had the Pentagon scrambling to identify and locate 250,000 defective chem-bio suits, some of which were being sold over the Internet.

Let me read into the record one account of how this impacted ongoing operations in Iraq. According to a February 5, 2006 Star Tribune news article: ``When Perry Jeffries was serving in Iraq, the computers showed that his 4th Infantry Division troops had access to drinking water, a place to shower and working wheels on their vehicles. As the first sergeant came to understand when scrounging for water, towing immobilized tanks and driving to other posts or to Kuwait to pick up needed parts, the Pentagon's bookkeeping doesn't always match reality. Jefferies saw the real-life results of what has been a visible `accounting' problem in Washington--the Pentagon's inability to keep accurate track of transactions and assets.''

Congress has already enacted several laws mandating financial management reform and the Office of Management and Budget has issued circulars on internal controls over financial reporting and financial management systems. Notably, none contain hard deadlines for an audit.

Meanwhile, DoD has repeatedly promised Congress that it would fix the problem. In 1999 and 2000, then-DoD Comptroller William Lynn testified before Congress that financial management reform was his highest priority. In fact, Mr. Lynn's successor, Dov Zakheim, set a deadline to have the Department of Defense audit ready by 2007. Under DoD's latest Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan, that deadline is now 2017.

I want to recognize that the Department has tried, with varying degrees of effort, to improve financial management, but DoD auditors and GAO continue to report significant weaknesses.

I appreciate that our military is engaged in ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is why Senators Coburn, Grassley and I have sought to be reasonable and realistic with the deadlines. They are the same deadlines in DoD's current Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan.

It has been 19 years since the CFO Act was passed requiring DoD and other departments to have an audit. It will be 2019--nearly 30 years after the passage of the CFO Act--before the Department of Defense is able to get an audit opinion, if we hold them to their current timeline. If we do not, this may never happen.

The ultimate outcome of this legislation will be the implementation of effective financial management processes, efficient business systems and strong internal controls that are essential to producing timely, reliable and useful financial information. Quality information will allow DoD to make informed business decisions and ensure accountability on an ongoing basis.

Every dollar we save through improved financial management is another dollar for our troops--for body armor, for medical supplies, for veterans care. Improved financial systems will ensure that troops in the future do not find themselves in the same straits as the 4th Infantry Division, searching for supplies that a computer says they already have.

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

Mr. President, as we all know, health care dominates the agenda and the thoughts and efforts of the Congress of the United States, and it has to be addressed. It is a historic opportunity to achieve the health reforms Americans need today more than ever. We need fundamental reforms--reforms that not only help people get affordable health care coverage but reforms that bring down the cost of health care.

Given the enormous cost associated with the bill that has been proposed, I have called on the other side to scrap the bill and start from scratch. We have to get it right. It shouldn't be a partisan process that forces a bad bill through committee. In starting over, we must address the fundamental components of health care reform, including the major drivers of increasing health care costs.

One of the main factors keeping health care cost trends too high is defensive medicine. Many medical practitioners order additional procedures for fear of litigation, which drives up the medical malpractice insurance costs faced by so many in the medical profession. Medical liability insurance is a direct result of out-of-control lawsuits that force physicians to practice defensive medicine to avoid these often costly and baseless liability lawsuits. Any legislation reforming our health care system is incomplete if it doesn't address this important issue.

A 2003 HHS report estimated the cost of defensive medicine to be between $70 billion and $126 billion a year. Put that in the light of the report that is in the Washington Post this morning, which states that CBO says Obama's health plan needs spending controls. It goes on to say of President Obama's plan to expand health coverage to the uninsured:

It is likely to dig the Nation deeper into debt unless

policymakers adopt politically painful controls on spending,

such as sharp reductions in payments to doctors, hospitals

and other providers.

There is a way to save about $100 billion a year--$100 billion a year. Because if it were updated, the cost estimate would likely increase to $100 billion to $180 billion a year. Where is it in this bill? It is nowhere. It is nowhere. That is a testament to trial lawyers of America.

On Monday, before a receptive crowd at the American Medical Association, the President stuck his toe in the medical liability reform waters by acknowledging that medical liability reform is real. But the President also took caps on noneconomic damages off the table by saying:

Don't get too excited yet, just hold onto your horses here,

guys . . . I want to be honest with you, I'm not advocating

caps on malpractice awards.

This all but ensures that meaningful reform won't happen. Today, the Wall Street Journal stated in an opinion piece:

President Obama mentioned the medical liability problem and

. . . we suppose this is progress [but] Mr. Obama's [call]

might have had more credibility had he not specifically ruled

out the one policy to deter frivolous suits.

Without caps on medical malpractice awards, ``the tort lottery will continue.''

Interestingly, my neighboring State of California addressed this precise problem in 1975 by passing legislation that capped jury awards for ``noneconomic damages,'' such as pain and suffering, from medical malpractice lawsuits. Not only does this cap reduce the amount of damages, but it has had the effect of deterring lawsuits. Malpractice filings have fallen in almost every county in California. According to a 2004 RAND study, this has led to awards in medical malpractice lawsuits being 30 percent less than other States. Such a cap is sure to also lead to lower medical malpractice insurance rates.

Not only do you have a reduction in the number of suits themselves, a reduction in awards, but you can imagine the costs that have been saved because doctors no longer feel compelled to practice defensive medicine, thereby prescribing unnecessary and unneeded tests and procedures simply to protect themselves in court from medical malpractice

There are plenty of ideas that should be considered. Caps on noneconomic damages, health courts, and national standards of care are just a few thoughtful concepts. In State malpractice reform over the years, we have demonstrable success stories that capping noneconomic damages brings down the cost of malpractice insurance. California and Texas both have reformed malpractice to stem the tide of doctors leaving their States.

There is also intriguing ideas involving health courts--courts focused only on health disputes, with specially trained judges having expertise in health court adjudication to make injury compensation decisions.

Some have also pushed for a concept establishing a national standard of care. The concept envisions establishing specific clinical practice guidelines that doctors would be required to follow and enforced by the Department of Health and Human Services. Supporters believe this approach might reduce liability concerns.

These are but three examples that can be considered on both sides of the aisle. There are other ideas we would be well served to consider.

When health care costs are said to be driven up by over $100 billion and up to 40 percent of medical liability lawsuits being entirely groundless, don't you think the other side would have some provision in their bill to address this fundamental problem; maybe even a modest provision? Well, I am here to tell you that the other side has yet to suggest any provision to address medical malpractice reforms. Shocking. It should be addressed, and it must be addressed as part of real health reform.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Could I amend the unanimous consent request that I follow Senator Wyden?

Mr. President, tomorrow the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions will begin consideration of a 615-page bill that seeks to reform our Nation's health care system. This bill, introduced by Senator Kennedy and others last week, has very great ambitions.

We all agree that health care reform is necessary. We all agree that Congress must act. But we must not act recklessly. We must not act with haste and political expediency. Health care reform will affect each and every American and we must do it right. I strongly believe that we have to start over and act in a truly bipartisan manner to address the issue.

Unfortunately, the legislation before that committee seeks to enact a massive government-run health care program that intrudes into the lives of all Americans by making decisions on each American's choice of doctors, employer health plans, and insurance providers, and it leaves major questions unanswered.

Every American should know the answer to how much will this massive expansion of government cost. And every taxpayer should have a clear answer to how are taxpayers going to pay for this massive government expansion.

Yesterday the Congressional Budget Office released a letter which stated that the Kennedy bill, the bill now pending for markup beginning tomorrow in committee, would insure only one-third--would insure only one-third--of the 47 million Americans who are currently uninsured, for a cost of $1 trillion--$1 trillion--over 10 years.

Again that only insures one-third of the uninsured. Let me quote from the Congressional Budget Office report. It says:

Once the proposal [that is the bill that we are now

considering in the HELP Committee] was fully implemented,

about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through

the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of

people who had coverage through an employer would decline by

about 15 million or roughly 10 percent, and coverage from

other sources would fall by about 8 million. So the net

decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16

million, because 47 million are without health insurance in

America.

So this matches an executive summary entitled ``The Impact of the 2009 Affordable Health Choices Act'' which was completed by the HSI Network, done by Steve Parente, Ph.D., and Lisa Tornai, M.S.

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

This study authenticates the Congressional Budget Office, because what it says is, if you want to insure every American, it is going to be $4 trillion--not $1 but $4 trillion--over a 10-year period.

So to insure coverage for all Americans, as proposed in the legislation, it would cost $460 billion annually or $4 trillion over the next 10 years, according to a report issued last week, as I mentioned.

The best we can tell, the cost of the legislation that we are now considering is $4 trillion. How are we going to pay for that? How are we going to pay for it? Is there a proposal yet, besides eliminating fraud, abuse, and waste?

It is unacceptable. It is not health care reform. I believe the CBO letter should be a wake-up call to all of us in this Chamber to scrap the current bill and start all over, and start all over in a bipartisan fashion with true negotiations.

Yesterday the President of the United States said the opponents of his legislation or his proposal were fear mongering. I cannot agree with that assessment nor do I accuse the proponents of this bill of that motivation. This is not health care reform. Any bill that strips 23 million Americans of their current health care coverage and insures a mere third of the 47 million uninsured Americans is not what Americans are looking for in legislation.

Let me say, Americans are not calling for a massive government expansion. They are not calling for a new government insurance plan that will do away with existing private insurance plans or an act of a broad government panel exerting command and control of individual, small group and large employer health care plans. They are not calling for new tax cuts to health care services or penalties to individuals or small businesses if health coverage does not comply with Washington's standards. They are not calling for $1 to $4 trillion to be spent to fund the appetite of some who are hungry for more government intrusion into the daily lives of Americans.

Americans need health insurance, good and complete health care coverage, the security of knowing they have a job, and even better, a job where an employer can afford to provide health care coverage. If the employer does not provide coverage, we need to make it easier and affordable to get health care coverage for an American.

Two ideas: One, give every American family a $5,000 refundable tax credit and let them go out and get an insurance policy that meets their needs. And let them go across State lines if they feel like doing it. That is pretty simple. It is not real complicated. It can be done in a bipartisan way in a matter of weeks.

That is not what is happening here, despite all of their calls, along with the President's, for bipartisanship. But it can be done if we wanted to solve the problem for the American people.

I believe it is time for Democrats and Republicans to come together and draft a bill that gets Americans the health care coverage needed at affordable rates. This should be our goal, ensuring that all Americans have coverage, not just 16 million as the Congressional Budget Office study indicates, but have everybody covered, not an unsustainable government expansion.

Again, I am calling on the White House and the Democrats to scrap this unsustainable bill and sit down and let us start from scratch. According to news reports in New York, Robert Gibbs states this morning, ``This is not the Administration's bill,'' after the CBO letter came out.

Well, where is the administration's bill? We are supposed to be enacting legislation before the end of July. Where is the administration's bill?

We cannot afford this one. We cannot afford the one that is supposedly going to be enacted into legislation that will come to the floor of this Senate. It does not do justice to our taxpayers and their children. Forty-two percent of U.S. voters say cutting the deficit is the most important priority for the country. The bill that is being considered tomorrow in the HELP Committee is an extraordinary step in the wrong direction.

So let me just say, scrap this bad bill. Pay attention to the Congressional Budget Office. Understand it does not achieve the goal of coverage. Understand the costs would be around $4 trillion over a 10- year period for which, so far, there is almost no provision to pay for it. Let's sit down together and work together in order to provide Americans with the health care they need at a reasonable cost.

Exhibit 1

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise to discuss two issues this morning, health care reform and also the pending supplemental spending bill that, according to news reports, does not include the Senate language that explicitly allowed President Obama to keep photos of detainee abuse during the Bush administration confidential.

I thank my friend from Kentucky, the Republican leader, who has shown such impressive leadership on, as he describes, probably the most important domestic issue that certainly will be addressed by this Congress. I look forward to working with my colleagues over the next few weeks on legislation reforming our current health care system.

Americans are looking to Congress to enact health care legislation that provides all Americans affordable access to health insurance and the ability to choose the health insurance policy that fits each American's needs. Yesterday, it was reported that 62 percent of Americans support Congress enacting a major overhaul of the U.S. health care system, according to a Diageo/Hotline poll.

I believe health care should be available to all and not limited to where you work or how much money you make. I believe any proposal must use competition to improve the quality, availability, and affordability of health insurance and match people's needs, lower prices, and promote portability. I believe American families, not Washington bureaucrats or insurance companies, should be in charge of any health care decision. But I don't believe we need to expand government's bureaucracy to control one-sixth of our economy to ensure the uninsured get health coverage. Nor do I believe Americans should be asked to pay more in taxes to cover the costs of any comprehensive health care reform legislation.

Last month, the Wall Street Journal stated:

But now Democrats need the money to finance $1.2 trillion

or more for their new health insurance entitlement. . . .

A sampler:

End or limit the tax-exempt status of charitable hospitals.

. . .

Make college students in work-study programs subject to the

payroll tax. Also targeted are medical residents, perhaps on

the principle that they'll one day be ``rich doctors.''

I agree that any real health care reform proposal must address the tax treatment of employer-provided health benefits, but not in such a way that would force Americans to fork over more of their hard-earned money to the Federal Government, particularly during these difficult times.

Today individuals who receive health insurance through their employer are not taxed on their health care benefits, as we know. However, those who purchase coverage on their own do not receive such a tax break. That is unfair and regressive. It hits those who need this tax break the most--the self-employed or working poor whose employer does not offer health insurance coverage.

To offset the taxable treatment of this income, I believe Americans should have funds returned to them to assist with the cost of acquiring health insurance. An approach such as this treats individuals equally, in stark contrast to the system we currently have.

Key to any proposal is a policy that allows people to have accessible, portable, and affordable health insurance coverage. Policies should also address what I hear from Americans everywhere I go--choice. Americans want

choice. They want choice of their doctor, their care, their coverage, and employment freedom--freedom to seek employment that is not dependent on whether an employer provides insurance coverage. This is particularly important in today's difficult economic times when Americans are uncertain about whether they will have a job tomorrow. Some, including the President, criticize this approach. However, the New York Times reported:

The Obama administration is signaling to Congress that the

President would support taxing some employee health benefits.

While I appreciate the President's and the Democrats' new consideration of such a proposal, it is not acceptable to turn this into a tax-and-spend health care reform. Any new resources derived from changing the existing tax treatment of private health insurance should be devoted to a fairer and more efficient mechanism for Americans to acquire private insurance.

The United States spends over $2.4 trillion on health care. Health insurance premiums continue to rise as employer-based family coverage increased and Medicare and Medicaid spent $818 billion in 2008 and is projected to reach $1.7 trillion by 2018.

I also want to mention something that should trouble every American and every Member of this Chamber.

Last week, I spoke about what the special interests were doing to derail much needed health reform dealing with prescription drugs, a reform that is very bipartisan. Any Member in this Chamber knows I work across the aisle on policies that are important to the American people. Health reform is one issue that fundamentally must be bipartisan.

All Americans are affected by what we do here, so we should be working in a bipartisan manner. It is with extreme regret that I read in ``Roll Call'' this morning about a meeting that Democratic staff was threatening--let me repeat--threatening Democratic lobbyists or the organizations they represent against meeting with Republicans and that attending meetings with Republicans ``will be viewed as a hostile act.''

This is outrageous. I hope the article is inaccurate. I hope the staff on the other side does not view health reform as a process they control by threats and hostilities. I hope we are above that.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the ``Roll Call'' article.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Madam President, it appears the House Democrats, according to a ``Roll Call'' article this morning about the supplemental bill--I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this morning's ``Roll Call'' article titled ``Intraparty Fights Pervade Agenda'' concerning the war supplemental bill.

I quote from it:

The war bill, which has swollen with items including a

cash-for-clunkers incentive, will eliminate Senate language

explicitly allowing President Barack Obama to keep photos of

detainee abuse during the Bush administration confidential.

The Graham-Lieberman amendment that would classify these photos was accepted by voice vote. In other words, any Senator who wanted to object or vote against it could have called for a vote. Instead, it was unanimously adopted.

According to the ``Roll Call'' article I quoted, that provision will be removed from the emergency supplemental. According to that article:

One senior Democratic aide said Lieberman's and Graham's

threat to hold up the supplemental indefinitely [unless their

provision was included] was unlikely to last and predicted

that Defense Secretary Robert Gates would likely pressure the

two defense hawks to relent so that funding for the wars

wouldn't run out.

I think this Democratic aide highly underestimates Senator Lieberman, Senator Graham, and the rest of us.

I had a conversation with General Petraeus the day before yesterday. I believe those conversations are confidential, and I asked his agreement to quote from him: If these photos are released, it would harm the ability of the United States military to pursue our national security interests and could put American lives in danger. That is a serious statement from the most respected military leader this Nation has.

I want to point out something very important. Today the President of the United States could issue an Executive order classifying those photos and not allowing them to be released. He could do it today. It is time for the President of the United States to stand up to the leftwing of his party for the good of the national security of this Nation.

I join others, that if that supplemental comes over without the provision which was adopted unanimously by the Senate to make sure those photos are not released because of the harm it would do to America's effort in combating radical Islamic extremism throughout the world and put the lives of the men and women who are serving in our military in greater danger--I intend to join my friends Senator Lieberman and Senator Graham in doing everything we can to oppose such legislation.

This war supplemental is intended to help us win this battle, the war on terrorism, dare I say. It is supposed to help the men and women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan as they pursue an implacable and evil enemy and try to instill democracy and freedom in these countries. And if these photos are made public, it will harm their effort and put their lives in danger.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing a bill that would eliminate the provision that prevents these photos from being published, and I call on the President today to relieve this pressure and declare, by Executive order, that these photos are classified and not to be released to the world's public.

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

Mr. President, I take the floor this afternoon to discuss the issue of importation of prescription drugs and the amendment, which is No. 1229, which is pending but may be made nongermane because of a vote, if cloture is invoked.

There has also been some discussion about the fact that I am holding up the bill because of my desire for this amendment. I am not. I am simply asking for 15 minutes or even 10 minutes of debate and a vote. I understand there are other amendments, such as one by Senator Lieberman and one by Senator Burr, that also should be considered. I wish to point out that I am not holding up the bill nor putting any hold on the legislation. The fact is, importation of prescription drugs is certainly germane and should apply to this legislation before us.

Last week, the majority leader was kind enough to say he would see about this amendment and when it could be considered. He has just informed me that he has discussed the possibility that it be brought up on the health care legislation when it comes to the floor. One, the issue cannot wait and, two, that is not an ironclad commitment. As much as I enjoy people's consideration around this body, from time to time I have found that without an ironclad commitment, sometimes those commitments of consideration go by the wayside. But I do appreciate very much the majority leader seeking to help me address this issue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate begins consideration of H.R. 1256, it be in order for the Senate to consider amendment No. 1229 regarding prescription drug importation, the text of which is at the desk, and I ask that the amendment be considered in order, with 15 minutes of debate on the amendment equally divided between both sides, and that at the disposition of such time, the Senate vote on or in relation to the amendment.

I thank the Chair. I am not surprised. But if there is to be any allegation that this bill is being held up because of this amendment, that is simply patently false. In fact, I am more than eager to vote on this legislation because it has been before this body for a long time and it is a very clear-cut issue. The pharmaceutical industry has spent millions of dollars to sway lawmakers against the idea of drug importation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from The Hill newspaper.

Mr. President, it says:

Just a few years ago, before Democrats took control of

Congress, the pharmaceutical industry was busy funneling

millions to Republican candidates, at times giving the GOP

three dollars for every one headed to Democrats.

Over the last two cycles, though, drug makers have been

much more generous with the other party. In the 2008 cycle,

pharmaceutical companies gave the two parties about $14.5

million each, and this year the industry has given $714,000

to Republicans and $721,000 to Democrats.

Which helps to explain the e-mail sent by the top lobbyist for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, known as PhRMA, which stated:

The Senate is on the tobacco bill today. Unless we get some

significant movement, the full-blown Dorgan or Vitter bill

will pass. . . . We're trying to get Senator Dorgan to back

down--calling the White House and Senator Reid. Our

understanding is that Senator McCain has said he will offer

regardless . . . Please make sure your staff is fully engaged

in this process. This is real.

It really is real. It is real that it would provide savings to the millions of Americans who have lost a job, millions of Americans who are struggling to put food on the dinner table, and millions of Americans who are struggling with health care costs and the high cost of prescription drugs.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this amendment would save American consumers $50 billion over the next decade. Let me repeat--$50 billion. Why is that? The Fraser Institute found in 2008 that Canadians paid on average 53 percent less than Americans for identical brand-name drugs. Specifically, the institute found that the most commonly prescribed brand-name drug, Lipitor, is 40 percent less in Canada, Crestor is 57 percent less in Canada, and the popular arthritis drug Celebrex is 62 percent less expensive in Canada. Americans would love a 60-percent off coupon for prescription drugs and deserve such a discount now more than ever.

This morning, President Obama met with his Cabinet and announced that he intended to accelerate the distribution of the $787 billion stimulus funds, which, by the way, were all supposed to be shovel-ready, but that is the subject of a different debate. Many have lamented the slow pace at which the stimulus funds are being spent. This amendment would provide an immediate stimulus to each and every American if enacted. Over half of all Americans must take a prescription drug every day, according to a 2008 poll by Kaiser Public Opinion, and millions more take prescription drugs when diagnosed with a virus or other ailment. Many Americans who are cutting household expenses cannot afford to cut out the prescription drugs they must take each day for their health. We must help these Americans by enacting this amendment.

Some of my colleagues have argued that this amendment should not be considered on legislation regulating tobacco and my efforts to add this amendment to the bill are actually holding up the bill.

The amendment is directly relevant to the underlying legislation. The bill would require the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco because of its well-known negative health effects. This amendment would require the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the importation of prescription drugs from importers declared safe by the FDA. I reject any argument that this amendment is not related.

Furthermore, it is well documented that smokers have higher health costs than nonsmokers. So this amendment is necessary to assist those who have experienced so many health issues due to smoking. Smoking kills. I have supported stricter regulation of tobacco products for 10 years. In fact, this bill contains many of the provisions included in the National Tobacco Policy and Youth Smoking Reduction Act I introduced and fought for weeks on the floor of this Senate to achieve passage.

I don't seek to hold up consideration of the bill. I merely ask for an up-or-down vote on the amendment. Therefore, I think the American people deserve better than the monetary influence buying by PhRMA, an organization that has spent tens of millions of dollars to prevent the American consumer from being able to acquire prescription drugs, screened by the FDA, at a lower cost. That is what this is all about. It is the special interests versus the American interests, and special interests--in this case, PhRMA--have won rounds 1 through 9. We will not quit this fight because the American people deserve it, particularly in these difficult economic times.

We may be blocked on this bill. We may be blocked on the next bill. But we will come back and back and keep coming back. That is my message to the other side and those at PhRMA. We will succeed in allowing Americans to acquire much needed, in some cases lifesaving, prescription drugs at a lower cost for themselves and their families. That is what this amendment is all about.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Illinois. I will be brief.

I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his outstanding work, and I thank also the majority leader, who assured us that he would give consideration to this issue. He has. He has agreed to bring it to the floor. And when the majority leader gave that assurance, frankly, I was a little skeptical about our ability to do so. I am happy he is bringing it forth for a vote, and I appreciate it very much. And I again thank Senator Dorgan for his outstanding work. It has been a lot of years we have been working on this, but I think we can move forward.

I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague from Illinois.

Reserving the right to object, what did we do?

Madam President, I have an amendment that I have been trying to get a vote on, I would say to the distinguished majority leader, and it certainly is important to the American people.

It is certainly important on this bill and the function of the FDA concerning the importation of prescription drugs into this country. I believe the Senator from North Dakota has an amendment. I would agree to a time agreement of an hour to be equally divided, or half hour, and then vote on it.

I think the American people ought to know whether we are going to be able to import prescription drugs into this country so we can save them billions of dollars every year, rather than taking so much of their hard-earned money, especially retirees.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I am very appreciative of the difficulties the majority leader faces on a bill of this nature, the challenges of amendments being nongermane, and also the difficulties he faces in managing legislation. This issue has been around for a long time, I say to my friend from Nevada. We should address it. It is important to the American people. It does have a lot to do with pharmaceuticals in this country and the availability.

Again, I point out to the majority leader that there should not be a lot of debate on this. People have taken their positions.

I have an e-mail that was sent to us by mistake by the lobby for PhRMA, regarding how important it is to stop this amendment and not have a vote on it. If my friend will indulge me, this is urgent. This is from, as I understand it, one of the lobbyists for PhRMA:

The Senate is on the tobacco bill today. Unless we get some

significant movement, the full-blown Dorgan or Vitter bill

will pass as an amendment and a Cochran or Brownback safety

amendment will fail.

(1) We need to locate a Democratic lead cosponsor for the

second degree amendment--which will be either Brownback or

Cochran. Can the J&J, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and the other

New Jersey companies coordinate and contact Senator

Menendez's office and ask him to take the lead?

(2) We are trying to get Senator Dorgan to back down--

calling the White House and Senator Reid. Our understanding

is that at least Senator McCain has said he will offer

regardless, so even if Dorgan withdraws, he may still go

forward.

We believe we have 39 `yes' votes for a safety second

degree amendment and 25 members in the `undecided' column.

Kennedy--who whipped this for us last time--is not here.

We are scheduling a call for later this morning to follow

up on our targets from yesterday's whip call. Please make

sure your staff is fully engaged in this process. This is

real. We only had six companies participate in the last call.

My friends, that is a little insight as to how the special interests in Washington work. I would like to have a vote on this amendment, I say to my friend from Nevada, with a full appreciation of the difficulties he has in getting this legislation through--a very important piece of legislation.

I thank my friend from Nevada for his indulgence and allowing me to read that e-mail.

Mr. President, today we celebrate the unveiling in the Capitol of a statue of Ronald Reagan, one of our country's great Presidents and a personal hero to me throughout my political life. While there are many aspects of President Reagan's legacy we might reflect on today, I would like to take the opportunity to discuss one of them--his dream of a world free of nuclear weapons.

Speaking before the Japanese Diet on November 11, 1983, President Ronald Reagan said:

The only value in possessing nuclear weapons is to make

sure they can't ever be used. I know I speak for people

everywhere when I say our dream is to see the day when

nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the earth.

That is my dream, too, and it is one shared by many of our most distinguished national security practitioners. In 2007, former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, along with former Secretary of Defense William Perry and Senator Sam Nunn, authored an article entitled ``A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,'' in which they laid out their vision of the globe free of the most dangerous weapons ever known.

This is a distant and difficult goal. We must proceed toward it prudently and pragmatically and with a focused concern for our security and the security of allies that depend on us. But the Cold War ended almost 20 years ago, and the time has come to take further measures to reduce dramatically the number of nuclear weapons in the world's arsenals. In so doing, the United States can--and indeed must--show the kind of leadership the world expects from us, in the tradition of American Presidents who worked to reduce the nuclear threat to mankind.

Our highest priority must be to reduce the danger that nuclear weapons will ever be used. Such weapons, while still important to deter an attack with weapons of mass destruction against us and our allies, represent the most abhorrent and indiscriminate form of warfare known to man. We do, quite literally, possess the means to destroy all mankind. We must seek to do all we can to ensure that nuclear weapons will never again be used. As the administration renews its nuclear weapons posture, it should, I believe, seek to reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal to the lowest number possible, consistent with our security requirements and global commitments. This means a move, as rapidly as possible, to a significantly smaller force. As we take such steps, it will be crucial to continue to deploy a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent, robust missile defenses, and superior conventional forces capable of defending the United States and our allies.

Today, we find ourselves at a nuclear crossroads. As rogue nations, including North Korea and Iran, push the nuclear envelope, the perils of a world awash in nuclear weapons is clear. Yet we should also consider the more hopeful alternative--a world in which there are far

fewer such weapons than there are today and in which proliferation, instability, and nuclear terrorism are far less likely.

In achieving this world, Ronald Reagan's dream will be more important than ever before. As Secretaries Kissinger and Shultz wrote with their colleagues in 2008:

Progress must be facilitated by a clear statement of our

ultimate goal. Indeed, this is the only way to build the kind

of international trust and broad cooperation that will be

required to effectively address today's threats. Without the

vision of moving towards zero, we will not find the essential

cooperation required to stop our downward spiral.

Make no mistake, we must arrest the downward spiral. North Korea's recent nuclear test is just the latest provocative demonstration of the troubling reality the world faces today. Together with Iran's ongoing commitment to nuclear development, we face real dangers in the proliferation of the world's most terrible weapons. The United States must lead the world not only in reducing the size of existing nuclear arsenals but also in reversing the course of nuclear proliferation. This requires a tough-minded approach to both Iran and North Korea, both of which have gotten away with too much for far too long.

We must also help ensure that other potential nuclear programs do not get off the ground. Last week, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft joined two colleagues in calling on the President to promote the international ban on the spread of fissile materials that can be used in the production of nuclear weapons. I agree and urge the President to do so.

But we must also strengthen enforcement. We must insist that countries that receive the benefits of peaceful nuclear cooperation return or dismantle what they have received if, at any point, they violate or withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Leading up to the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review conference, we should lay the groundwork for building an international consensus to ensure that the International Atomic Energy Agency has the tools to be a meaningful agent for achieving the dream of a nuclear weapon-free world. We should work with allies and partners to interdict the spread of nuclear weapons and materials--including any borne on vessels traveling to and from North Korea--under the Proliferation Security Initiative.

As a nation, we have a number of important decisions in the coming months, including those related to a follow-on to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, the administration's planned resubmission of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty for ratification, and the need for a robust missile defense shield.

As we move ahead with these and other decisions, let us keep in mind the dream of a nuclear-free world, enunciated so eloquently by our 40th President. As Secretary Shultz has written, this was a dream President Reagan pursued with great patience and depth of conviction. We would be wise to follow his lead.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two articles by George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn, one of January 4, 2007, and the other of January 15, 2008.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, it is my privilege to support S. Res. 165, a resolution encouraging the recognition of 2009 as the ``Year of the Military Family.'' I am honored to be an original cosponsor of this resolution, along with my colleagues on the Committee on Armed Services, Senator Levin, Senator Ben Nelson and Senator Graham.

Our Nation is honored by the brave men and women who selflessly risk their lives for our freedom, and by their families, who accept risks, both known and unknown, in support of their country and loved ones who serve. The programs and resources our Nation provides must match the quality of the service and sacrifice of military families. That is why I and others fought so hard to include a special provision in the post- 9/11 G.I. bill to allow career service members the opportunity to share the educational benefits that they earn with their immediate family members.

Many military families are distinguished by generations, who have served, from the American Revolution, to the American Civil War, World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, the first gulf war and recent conflicts. The resolution before us today recognizes the contributions and resilience of all military families, and especially those who have endured multiple deployments, or the loss of a loved one who answered the call to service and paid the ultimate price in defense of our Nation.

SFC Kimberly Hazelgrove was serving as an intelligence expert in the U.S. Army when she received the news on January 23, 2004, that her husband, Army CW2 Brian Hazelgrove, had died. His helicopter crashed on its return from a combat mission in northern Iraq. On that tragic day, Kimberly Hazelgrove became a survivor of an American hero. But, like so many whose spouses have died as a consequence of their service to our Nation, she is also a hero in her own right. Kimberly had to abandon her own promising military career to care for four young children. She struggled, with the help of family and friends, to start over--to transition to civilian life, to find employment in which to apply her military skills, and return to school--and with courage and determination she succeeded. Today she balances a new career with the needs of the children that she and Brian had planned to raise, and has never abandoned her selfless advocacy on behalf of survivors of the fallen. Kimberly Hazelgrove represents the essence of service and sacrifice of military families, and I salute her.

Not all military families are defined only as the service member, a spouse,

and children. Many of the young men and women serving our country are unmarried and identify as a family with their parents and siblings. My friend 1LT Andrew Kinard graduated from the Naval Academy in 2005 and chose to lead Marines in Iraq. Andrew deployed as a platoon leader with the Second Marine Division in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in September 2006. He was gravely wounded by an IED attack while leading a security patrol in Al Anbar Province. His father Harry immediately left his surgical practice so that he could buoy Andrew's spirit through dozens of surgeries that followed. His mother, Mary, remained with Andrew for 5 more months after her husband returned to his medical practice. The separation that Andrew's parents and siblings endured represents a family's selfless sacrifice, to support Andrew and his quality of life even as he faced many surgeries and grueling physical therapy. Andrew Kinard is now a retired marine and will enter Harvard Law School in the fall. The Kinard family represents the unifying, supportive force of a military family that helps a service member survive the most grievous wounds of war, and then get back to the important work of citizenship. I salute them.

MAJ Brian Love is a Green Beret. His family accompanied him to assignment in Germany where, in 2004, their son Patrick was diagnosed with autism. Today Brian and his wife Naomi apply the unique problem solving skills of military special forces to the daily challenge of meeting Patrick's complex needs--a challenge compounded by the rigors of a career as a military leader, and the uncertain limitations of Federal, State and local programs. Major Love has deployed to Iraq twice since 2005. He believes that he is a better leader--that his family relationships are stronger--for having seen the world through the eyes of a child with special needs. Brian is now preparing to assume command of an Army special forces unit and faces the possibility of future deployments. His service, and that of his wife Naomi, honors each of us. Because of their service, and thousands like them, we can all view our victories differently. As an emblem of the dedicated service of military families and to their children, I salute them.

Finally, Mary Scott modestly asserts that hers is a ``normal military family.'' Her father was killed in 1972 in Vietnam; her husband served for 30 years in the U.S. Army; each one of their six children serves their nation in the military today. Kate is an Army captain and lawyer and now serves in Iraq; Karoline, an Air Force captain and public affairs officer; Andy, an Army captain and lawyer who has also deployed to Iraq; 1LT Kerney Scott pilots an Army Blackhawk in Korea; 2LT Alec Scott is a newly commissioned officer in the Army Chaplain Corps, and Cadet Adam Scott, followed his family's well worn path to the U.S. Military Academy. ``It's not unusual,'' Mary says, ``for kids to go into the family business.''

All of those whom I have described and their families, live the values of military service, and enrich us all. They volunteer and advocate on behalf of causes greater than their own. They support one another during challenging times, and find that even in difficulty they are bound more closely together.

I rise in support of the resolution encouraging the recognition of 2009 as the ``Year of the Military Family.'' I salute all military families, and it is to their service that I dedicate my own.