Floor Statements

I would echo my colleague's remarks, and I share his concern about a reduction in the current ICBM force. The current force of 3 missile wings of 150 missiles is appropriate for our national needs.

America's dispersed and alert Minuteman III ICBM force is a critical element of the nuclear triad and represents our most responsive, stabilizing, and cost-effective strategic force.

The strategic nuclear forces that deterred Soviet aggression and kept the limited conflicts of the Cold War era from escalating continue to play a critical role in deterring aggression and dissuading new near- peer competitors. At its present size, our ICBM force represents a nearly insurmountable hedge against strategic surprise. That force, because of its broad dispersion and high survivability, is nearly impossible to preempt or disarm. Additionally, the current ICBM force offers a high level of crisis stability. This capability also helps to reduce the risk of regional arms races that could encourage friends and allies to develop their own nuclear capabilities.

As our Nation proceeds to analyze and make decisions on future strategic posture and U.S. nuclear policy, I believe that ICBMs will continue to be the most responsive and stabilizing element of the nuclear triad. Minuteman III is a robust, cost-effective, and highly capable system.

I also thank my colleague, Senator Conrad, for his work on behalf of the coalition on this issue.

Mr. President, we need clean energy. We need cheap energy. We need abundant energy from right here at home. Why not concentrate some of our efforts on hitting a triple play?

Coal is our Nation's most abundant energy source. It provides more than 50 percent of our Nation's electricity today and makes electricity more affordable for millions of Americans. It provides for thousands of well paying American jobs and is an essential part of my home State's economy.

Unfortunately, in the discussions surrounding climate change, some have suggested that we should end our Nation's use of coal. Because of the abundant, cost-effective nature of this resource, that doesn't make sense. Instead of talking about eliminating one of our country's most important energy sources, we should be talking about how we can make coal cleaner.

An essential element of the effort to make coal cleaner will be the development of carbon capture and storage, CCS, technology. There are many pieces to that effort, and today, Senator Casey and I have introduced The Carbon Storage Stewardship Trust Fund Act of 2009 to address one issue with CCS liability for the stored CO2.

Our legislation sets up a framework that answers the question of who is responsible for the CO2 once it is placed underground. The Carbon Storage Stewardship Trust Fund Act of 2009 requires companies injecting CO2 into the ground to obtain private liability insurance for a period of time. After the CO2 is injected and the injection site is certified as closed by the Federal Government, liability for the CO2 is transferred to the Federal Government.

To cover any claims that may arise from damages caused by the injected CO2, the bill sets up a Federal trust fund that is paid for through a small fee charged for each ton of CO2 that is injected. Additionally, it provides a method for compensation for those damages.

While this legislation is far from everything we need to make commercial CCS a reality, it is an important step and answers an important question about long-term liability of CO2. I appreciate Senator Casey's leadership on this issue and look forward to working with him and other Members of the Senate to move this legislation forward.

Mr. President, we need clean energy. We need cheap energy. We need abundant energy from right here at home. Why not concentrate some of our efforts on hitting a triple play?

Coal is our Nation's most abundant energy source. It provides more than 50 percent of our Nation's electricity today and makes electricity more affordable for millions of Americans. It provides for thousands of well paying American jobs and is an essential part of my home State's economy.

Unfortunately, in the discussions surrounding climate change, some have suggested that we should end our Nation's use of coal. Because of the abundant, cost-effective nature of this resource, that doesn't make sense. Instead of talking about eliminating one of our country's most important energy sources, we should be talking about how we can make coal cleaner.

An essential element of the effort to make coal cleaner will be the development of carbon capture and storage, CCS, technology. There are many pieces to that effort, and today, Senator Casey and I have introduced The Carbon Storage Stewardship Trust Fund Act of 2009 to address one issue with CCS liability for the stored CO2.

Our legislation sets up a framework that answers the question of who is responsible for the CO2 once it is placed underground. The Carbon Storage Stewardship Trust Fund Act of 2009 requires companies injecting CO2 into the ground to obtain private liability insurance for a period of time. After the CO2 is injected and the injection site is certified as closed by the Federal Government, liability for the CO2 is transferred to the Federal Government.

To cover any claims that may arise from damages caused by the injected CO2, the bill sets up a Federal trust fund that is paid for through a small fee charged for each ton of CO2 that is injected. Additionally, it provides a method for compensation for those damages.

While this legislation is far from everything we need to make commercial CCS a reality, it is an important step and answers an important question about long-term liability of CO2. I appreciate Senator Casey's leadership on this issue and look forward to working with him and other Members of the Senate to move this legislation forward.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for such time as I might consume.

Mr. President, many of my colleagues have called me an ``eternal Optimist.'' Since I entered the Senate more than 12 years ago, I have consistently worked across party lines to find new solutions and broker bills that then become law. I have a long and consistent track record of working in good faith with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. I had hoped, and still hope, to do that on the complex issue of health care reform.

Last Congress, I proposed Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America. I traveled 1,200 miles across my home State last March to bring my message of reform directly to the people of Wyoming. My message was built on the belief that the American people needed more choice and more control over their health care. I put it together by working with people on both sides of the aisle. I found a way to get coverage for everybody if we did all 10 steps, and any one of them would increase access and cut costs.

Among other things, my plan attempted to level the playing field in the tax treatment of health insurance and also provide a helping hand to low-income Americans in the form of subsidies to ensure access to quality, affordable health insurance. My plan also provided greater equity and ease to our Nation's small business owners by allowing cross-State pooling. Each of my proposals targeted three fundamental goals: Increasing access to health care, reducing costs within our health care delivery system, and improving the quality of care.

As the only accountant in the Senate, I was and remain very concerned about the effect of any health reform proposal on our Federal budget, as well as personal and family budgets. We all want coverage for everyone, including preexisting and chronic conditions. We want portability. We want health care, not sick care.

I have continued my work on health care reform this Congress. As the ranking member on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, a member of the Finance Committee, and a member of the Budget Committee, I assumed a unique role in the health reform debate this year. I worked hard to foster a constructive dialogue with the members of all three committees, and I have met with the President and administration officials to share ideas on how to best craft a strong bipartisan bill. As the debate on health care reform progresses in the Senate, I continue to stand ready to work on this critical issue. As I have noted many times before, this is likely to be the most important piece of legislation that we will work on as Members of the Senate. It touches the life of every single American in a very real way.

Our health care system is approximately one-sixth of our Nation's economy, and the changes we make in it will ultimately affect the lives of every single American. I have never worked on a bill that was that extensive. It is a sacred trust we have, and we must not be moved by artificial deadlines and short-term political considerations.

I do not think a good bill and a bipartisan bill are mutually exclusive. To the contrary, I believe a health care reform bill will need strong support from

both sides of the aisle to gain the credibility and the support of our constituents. It is still my hope we can produce a strong bipartisan health care bill that upwards of 80 Members of the Senate could support. I see that as a possibility.

I remain eternally hopeful we will deliver the American people the strong bipartisan health care bill they deserve. But I have to tell you I am disappointed by the recent developments of the House of Representatives and, more particularly, in the Committee of the Senate on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

Yesterday, on a party-line vote, 13 to 10, the committee passed the Affordable Health Choices Act. But don't let the name fool you because, with a $1 trillion pricetag, the bill is anything but affordable.

Unfortunately, the HELP Committee chose to gallop down a path of partisanship. Despite my strong urging that we start with a blank piece of paper, HELP Committee Republicans were presented with roughly 600 pages of longstanding Democratic policies. It seems not a single Democratic member of the committee was told no, as every pet project was included in this bill. Because Republicans were shut out of the drafting process, we were forced to file hundreds of amendments. Unfortunately, of the 45 committee rollcall votes on Republican amendments, 2 were successful. There were a number of amendments that were accepted, but they fall more in the category of proofreading amendments and some slight changes.

President Obama has repeatedly called for a health care bill that will reduce costs. He has called for a bill that will help every American get access to quality health care, a bill that allows people who like the care they have to keep it, a bill that will not increase the deficit. Republicans strongly support those goals. Unfortunately, the HELP bill does not meet any of them.

In my view, and graded on the criteria specified by the President, the bill voted out of the HELP Committee fails on all counts. The bill breaks the President's promises and falls short on achieving the commonsense goals the Republicans and President share. Instead, the partisan HELP bill adds $1 trillion to the deficit, despite the President's promise that health care reform must and will be deficit neutral. The bill increases that deficit by more than $1 trillion over 10 years. It is not as bad as the House bill. It is my understanding that increases it by $4 trillion over 10 years. Maybe it is just more honest, because there are ways to avoid a cost by phasing in authorizations and by using such sums in authorizations--little tricks of budgeting that avoid the score. But this is on the heels of news last week from official scorekeepers that the Federal budget deficit was $1.1 trillion for the first 9 months of fiscal year 2009.

According to scorekeepers, this bill will bend the cost curve the wrong way, driving up the cost of health insurance for most Americans and increasing total spending on health care.

I refer people to an article by Lori Montgomery in the Washington Post today, ``CBO Chief Criticizes Democrats' Health Reform Measures.''

Instead of saving the Federal Government from fiscal

catastrophe, the health reform measures being drafted by

congressional Democrats would worsen an already bleak budget

outlook, increasing deficit projections and driving the

nation more deeply into debt, the director of the nonpartisan

Congressional Budget Office said this morning.

Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget

Committee, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said bills crafted

by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not

propose ``the sort of fundamental changes that would be

necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending

by a significant amount.''

``On the contrary,'' Elmendorf said, ``the legislation

significantly expands the federal responsibility for health

care costs.''

Though President Obama and Democratic leaders have said

repeatedly that reining in the skyrocketing growth in

spending on government health programs such as Medicaid and

Medicare is their top priority, the reform measures put forth

so far would not fulfill their pledge to ``bend the cost

curve'' downward, Elmendorf said. Instead, he said, ``The

curve is being raised.''

The CBO is the official arbiter of the costs of

legislation, and Elmendorf's stark testimony is certain to

undermine support for the measures even as three House panels

begin debate and aim to put a bill on the House floor before

the August recess. Fiscal conservatives in the House, known

as the Blue Dogs, were already threatening to block passage

of legislation in the Energy and Commerce Committee,

primarily due to concerns about the long-term costs of the

House bill.

Cost is also a major issue in the Senate, where some

moderate Democrats have joined Republicans in calling on

Obama to drop his demand that both chambers approve a bill

before the August recess. While the Senate health committee

approved its bill on Wednesday with no Republican votes,

members of the Senate Finance Committee were still struggling

to craft a bipartisan measure that does more to restrain

costs.

The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad

(D-ND), has taken a leading role in that effort. This

morning, after receiving Elmendorf's testimony on the

nation's long-term budget outlook, Conrad turned immediately

to questions about the emerging health care measures.

``I'm going to really put you on the spot,'' Conrad told

Elmendorf. ``From what you have seen from the products of the

committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort

being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?''

Elmendorf responded: ``No, Mr. Chairman.''

Asked what provisions would be needed to slow the growth in

federal health spending, Elmendorf urged lawmakers to end or

limit the tax-free treatment of employer-provided health

benefits, calling it a federal ``subsidy'' that encourages

spending on ever more expensive health packages. Key

senators, including Conrad, have been pressing to tax

employer-provided benefits, but Senate leaders last week

objected, saying the idea does not have enough support among

Senate Democrats to win passage.

Elmendorf also suggested changing the way Medicare

reimburses providers to create incentives for reducing costs.

``Certain reforms of that sort are included in some of the

packages,'' Elmendorf said. ``But the changes that we have

looked at so far do not represent the sort of fundamental

change, the order of magnitude that would be necessary to

offset the direct increase in federal health costs that would

result from the insurance coverage proposals.''

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dismissed Elmendorf's

push for the benefits tax. ``What he should do is maybe run

for Congress,'' Reid said.

But Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus expressed

frustration that the tax on employer-funded benefits had

fallen out of favor, in part because the White House opposes

the idea. Critics of the proposal say it would target police

and firefighters who receive generous benefits packages. And

if the tax is trimmed to apply only to upper income

beneficiaries, it would lose its effectiveness as a cost-

containment measure.

``Basically the president is not helping,'' said Baucus.

``He does not want the exclusion, and that's making it

difficult.''

But he added, ``We are clearly going to find ways to bend

the cost curve in the right direction, including provisions

that will actually lower the rate of increase in health care

costs.''

Ideas under consideration include health-care delivery

system reform; health insurance market reform; and empowering

an independent agency to set Medicare reimbursement rates, an

idea the White House is shopping aggressively on Capitol

Hill.

But Baucus is not giving up on the benefits tax. ``It is

not off the table, there's still a lot of interest in it,''

Baucus said.

I would mention the members of the committee are still working to find that bipartisan match, but it does take time. There are so many moving parts to this bill. But the partisan HELP bill breaks the President's promise, ``if you like what you have, you can keep it.'' The scorekeepers report the bill would force millions of Americans to lose their health care plan they have and like. Several Republican members offered amendments that aimed at ensuring Americans who like the coverage they have they can keep it, but they all suffered the same failing fate.

The partisan HELP bill kills jobs and cuts wages. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concludes the bill will result in lower wages and higher unemployment. These jobs and wage cuts would hit low- income workers, women, and minorities the hardest. It is hard to believe that with unemployment at a generational high, Democrats on the committee will even consider putting more jobs on the chopping block.

Despite passage of the so-called stimulus bill earlier this year, Americans are facing the highest unemployment rate in 26 years. At the same time, the HELP Committee and the House Democrats are attempting to impose new taxes on small employers that will eliminate jobs for low- income minority workers.

The partisan HELP bill raises taxes at the worst possible time. Despite several amendments offered by Republican members, which the Democrats defeated on party-line votes, the bill breaks President Obama's promise not to raise taxes on individuals earning less than $250,000 per year. The bill would impose a new tax on people without health insurance. The partisan

HELP bill allows Washington bureaucrats to ration health care. The bill lays the groundwork for a government takeover of health care, giving Washington bureaucrats the power to prevent patients from seeing the doctor they choose and obtaining new and innovative medical therapies.

I could go into the cost effectiveness--the clinical effectiveness research, but I will not go into the details of that at this time. But that is a way that care could be rationed. How do we know? We tried a bunch of amendments that would specify what could not be rationed, and every one of those was defeated.

The partisan HELP bill traps low-income Americans in a second-tier health care program. Despite several amendments, the other side refused to give Medicaid patients the choice to access higher quality care.

The other side claims to support giving patients choices but when the choice is a new government-run health plan. However, they refuse to give low-income Americans the chance to get out of the worst health care programs in the country.

I would mention government-run programs, instead of giving the lowest income Americans a choice to enroll in private insurance with subsidies, the HELP Committee bill forces them to stay in a program where 40 percent of the physicians will refuse to see them and the care they receive will be worse than what is available through private health insurance.

I have to remind you, if you cannot see a doctor, you don't have health care.

Instead of reducing health care costs, the partisan bill will spend billions of taxpayer dollars on new porkbarrel spending. The bill would build new sidewalks, jungle gyms, and farmers markets through a mandatory spending $80 billion slush fund. That is just the first 10 years, which is delayed 2 years; otherwise, it would be $100 billion. That is for additional porkbarrel projects.

Talk about a rating system. A rating system is how much difference you have between the low age and the high age, the more well and the sicker people. That is being compressed dramatically, which will raise the rates for virtually everybody in America.

The partisan HELP bill preserves the costly, dangerous, medical malpractice system. Again, despite several blocked attempts by multiple Republican committee members, the bill fails to reduce medical lawsuits which drive up the cost of health care and force doctors to order wasteful tests and treatments to cover liabilities.

The bill worsens doctor shortages. According to an analysis by the Department of Health and Human Services, the bill would worsen the Nation's primary care physician shortage by providing fewer medical students with financial assistance in return for work in underserved areas.

In short, the HELP Committee bill costs too much, covers too few, and if you like what you have you can't keep it. Under this bill, if you like your job, you may not be able to keep that either. With all these bad policies comes a $1 trillion pricetag. That is $1 trillion this country cannot afford right now and a trillion reasons why it is a bad bill for America. We have not even talked about clinical effectiveness or some other programs that were not actuarially sound.

As I said at the beginning of the speech, I am an eternal optimist. Despite my comments on the perils and policies in the HELP bill, we still have a chance. We can write a good bill, a bill that ensures every American has quality, affordable health care; a bill that is fully paid for with savings exclusively from health care; a bill that reverses the cost curve; a bill that lets Americans keep what they have if they like it; a bill the American people deserve. We are working on that now. We are trying to put together that bill, but it takes time.

Those are all things that can be done. One way to enact real change is to sit down and work out the details. Health care is complicated. The laws of unintended consequences are severe and unforgiving. We cannot rush into something that will change one-sixth of our Nation's economy and affect 100 percent of Americans. We must take our time and get the policies right.

I have heard reports of White House staff calling the HELP Committee bill a bipartisan bill. I heard White House staff say this bill incorporated Republican ideas. White House staff speak for the President, not for Senate Republicans.

I can tell you as the ranking Republican on the HELP Committee, the partisan vote speaks for itself. Republican ideas were excluded from the process and from this legislation. We have five bills that have ideas that would meet the goals of the President and the ones I have stated. Parts of those were considered; most were rejected.

I passionately want to reform our health care system to improve quality, reduce costs, and increase access. I think the HELP Committee legislation fails to meaningfully address those goals and sticks the American people with a bill we cannot afford. I hope we can get back to work and construct real reform that has the support of the American people.

I appreciate the openness that Senator Baucus has had in dealing with Finance Committee members and am optimistic eternally that something good can come out of it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, might I inquire what the status is?

Are there time restrictions?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for such time as I might consume.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need to reform our Nation's health care system. If we are to be successful, we must undertake this effort with the greatest care and deliberation.

When it comes to health care reform, we have started down this road before. Last Congress, I proposed legislation called Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America in an effort to provide a blueprint from which we could begin to address the challenge of improving our health care system.

I might mention the way that came about is that Senator Kennedy as the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and I as the ranking member, worked together on a number of bills. In fact, I have quite a record for being able to work in a bipartisan way to get bills completed. We were very busy on the Higher Education Act and other education issues, so I took some leadership in the health area, and we talked about principles we wanted to achieve. Then I collected ideas from both sides of the aisle and put together this package of 10 steps that will transform health care in America as a blueprint to improve and address this challenge of improving our health care system. So it isn't something on which he or I just started working.

After I introduced the bill, I took my message of health care reform directly to the people in my State. I traveled 1,200 miles and held a series of events in March of last year to provide the people of Wyoming with the chance to see what I was working on and to voice their concerns with our current system. Everywhere I went, I heard the same message repeated over and over, and that was that people want change. They want a system that will provide them with a health care system that is affordable, more available, and easier for them to access. Simply put, the people of Wyoming, as do people all across the country, want more choices and more control over their health care. That was the goal of my Ten Steps bill. It was drafted with the aim of leveling the playing field in tax treatment of health insurance. It was also intended to provide a helping hand to low-income Americans in the form of subsidies that would ensure access to quality, affordable health insurance.

As I traveled through the State, I also heard from members of the small business community. They made it clear that they wanted greater equity and access to a plan that would allow cross-State pooling so they could band together with small business owners in other States and get better rates on the health insurance they provide to their employees.

In the end, no matter whom I spoke with, they all had one message they wanted me to bring to the Senate: Keep costs down and under control. There have to be limits. That is why, as the only accountant in the Senate and as a member of the Budget Committee, I was and remain very concerned with the effect any health care reform proposal will have on our Federal budget, both in the short and the long term.

I can't be the only one who heard those things when I was back home. I think my experience on the road was very similar to that of almost every one of my colleagues. Last year, whether they were campaigning for themselves or for other members of our party, we logged on a lot of travel miles. We met with and spoke to people from all walks of life who came from every imaginable background. Some were from large cities and towns with large populations and others came from the smaller cities and some very small towns with fewer people and resources. Whomever we spoke to and wherever we were, we all heard the same concerns: We need a better health care system, and we need it now.

In response, I was pleased to join with several of my colleagues as we continued to work on health care reform this year. As the ranking member on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and in my service on the Senate Finance Committee, I have been working to foster and facilitate a constructive dialog with my colleagues on both committees. I have also met with the President and administration officials on numerous occasions so we could share ideas on how to best craft a strong, bipartisan bill. As the debate on health care reform proceeds, I continue to stand ready to work on this critical issue.

This is likely to be the most important legislation we will ever work on as Members of the Senate, no matter how many terms we serve. How well we handle this crucial issue will have an impact not just today but for many tomorrows and countless years to come. If we fail to provide the change that is needed, it may be a long time before the Senate will ever try to do this again.

I am convinced we have a perfect storm before us as we face this issue. The time is right, the political winds are with us, and we have the support and encouragement of the current administration and the people of this Nation to get something done. That is why a good bill and a bipartisan effort are well within our grasp.

If we are to do the work that is before us and do it well, however, we can't have one side or the other try to grab the reins and lead the effort exclusively in their direction. The American people are looking for us to solve the problem, and they want to know we wrote this bill together, amended it together, and, most importantly, finished it together. They know no one side has all the answers, so they do expect us to put partisanship aside. This is too important an issue not to follow a path that will produce a bill that will have the support of 75 or 80 Members of the Senate. I have every belief we can do that, and that is why I am so strongly committed to bringing massive change to the policies laid out in the recently filed Kennedy bill. I will continue to try to bring that change to the work being done by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and in the Finance Committee.

Let me be very clear about what I believe we can do if we put partisanship aside and work together. We can draft a good bipartisan bill, one that will draw a large majority to its side, and we can get it done this year.

Last week, the HELP Committee began to mark up a very flawed piece of legislation. I understand the difficult circumstances that brought Senator Dodd to chair this extraordinarily complex bill, and I appreciate Senator Dodd's willingness to take on the task, as he also chairs the Banking Committee. However, the legislation we are considering in the HELP Committee is broken, almost to the point of being beyond repair. It is too costly and it is incomplete. Of course, we are promised we will get the other pieces of the bill. Arguments made about the unfairness of estimating the cost of an incomplete bill show that in the race to revamp our health care system, this bill was a false start. In order to get this right, we should slow down, and in some areas we need to start over.

This shouldn't be a matter of speed. To stay with the analogy of health care, no one goes to a doctor or a surgeon based on how fast they can operate or conduct an examination. It never matters how long it takes. All that matters is that they get it right. We should do the same.

I am not suggesting that we come up with a new process to develop this legislation. All I am saying is that we need to make better use of the one we already have in place, the way we have always done things in the Senate when we want to make sure we get it done right.

For instance, it wasn't all that long ago that we had to do something about our Nation's pension system. We worked together. We talked about what we had to do together. Then we came up with a way to get there, together.

The result was a bill that when it came to the floor was over 1,000 pages long and it had the immense involvement of two committees--the same two committees we are talking about with health care, the HELP Committee and the Finance Committee. Those two committees came together on a bill of over 1,000 pages. When it came to the floor, we already had an agreement between the two committee members which was taken to the leaders, which meant we had an agreement with everybody in the Chamber that there would be 1 hour of debate, two amendments, and a final vote. I asked the Parliamentarian when the last time was that there was a bill of that complexity that had that kind of an agreement before we even debated it, and that person said: Not in my lifetime. That is what is possible around here if we work together. That is what we did with the Nation's pension system.

I think we were talking about the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation being short a drastic $24 billion. Boy, that doesn't look like much money anymore, does it? No. We are talking about some errors on this one that are over $58 billion. That pensions bill wasn't so long ago. We worked together, we talked about what we had to do together, and then we came up with it together. The result was a bill that only had the two amendments offered to it because the agreement on both the illness and the remedy was so strong.

As we prepared to begin the markup of this bill last week, we received a troubling preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation regarding the costs and coverage figures associated with the legislation. In its review of the proposal, the CBO found that enacting the proposal would result in an increase in spending of about $1.3 trillion, with a net increase to the Federal budget deficit of about $1 trillion over the 2010-to-2019 period. This cost estimate did not include the promised ``significant expansion of Medicaid or other options for subsidizing coverage for those with an income below 150 percent of the poverty level.'' As the markup continues, we will be asking the CBO for an official analysis of the impact of the addition of such a policy on the Federal budget deficit.

We are having more and more seniors moving into the category of long- term care--and we have a proposal before us, which we will debate when we get back. The Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, ranking member on the Budget Committee, pointed out that the only part of that proposal that gets scored are the premiums people would pay in over that first 10 years for their long-term care, which comes to about $59 billion, which shows a surplus of $59 billion. But what it doesn't take into consideration is the obligation to those people who are paying in those premiums that they will get long-term care.

The expected cost of that long-term care to those people paying in that $59 billion is $2 trillion. The proposed payment doesn't match the proposed costs, and it would not be sustainable beyond the 10 years. Whether or not people actually start taking long-term care benefits right away, we will have another Federal Government program with a budget deficit. At the same time we received notice of the preliminary analysis of the Kennedy bill, we got word the Finance Committee was postponing the markup on health care legislation, after reports surfaced that the CBO was preparing an estimate of its legislation that projected an increase to the Federal deficit of $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years. All of this was on the heels of President Obama's speech last week at the American Medical Association, in which he said:

Health care reform must be and will be deficit neutral in

the next decade.

The bill we have before us misses the target of this commitment by more than $1 trillion. Again, the bill is still missing language in three key areas.

I will take a few moments to speak about our Nation's deficit and overall fiscal and economic condition. My concern about the runaway spending in the Kennedy bill--I should call it the Kennedy staff bill; I know the Senator, had he been able to work with me, would have come up with some different conclusions on the bill. My concern with the runaway spending in the Kennedy staff bill is not simply a concern that it breaks faith with the President's health care reform commitments. Rather, I am deeply troubled by the direction this bill would take us during a truly perilous fiscal age.

I was elected to this body in 1996. In my first years in Congress, we moved from a budget deficit to a budget surplus. I am deeply disappointed that nearly 13 years later, our projected deficit for this fiscal year exceeds $1.84 trillion, and our national debt exceeds $11.4 trillion. That is bad. People are starting to take notice, and that, unfortunately, includes our creditors. Add to this the losses to our gross domestic product and an unemployment rate heading toward 10 percent and the news is worse. Again, there have to be limits. People have them in their families, municipalities have them, and most States have them. The Federal Government doesn't.

According to the Federal Reserve, the level of debt-to-GDP ratio is estimated to reach the highest levels it has since immediately after World War II. The increasing spread between short-term and long-term treasuries is evidence that global investors are increasingly concerned about our Nation's level of debt and the real potential for future inflation.

In recent weeks, Treasury Secretary Geithner traveled to China to attempt to ease growing concerns about our ability to pay off our growing debts. When Geithner told an audience of Chinese students at Peking University that ``Chinese assets are very safe,'' reports are that this statement drew loud laughter.

It is really not a laughing matter for us. It is serious. Tough action, not ``I will tell you what you want to hear'' speeches, is what we need.

On the State and local front, our economic indicators are equally troubling. On Thursday, the Rockefeller Institute of Government issued a report on State personal income tax revenues for 2009. They are falling fast; 34 of the 37 States in the report saw declines in tax revenue, indicating that it will be increasingly more difficult than expected for States to close their widening budget gaps. I can hear calls for more bailouts, but my question is, who is going to bail out the Federal Government?

These numbers provide the critical backdrop as we consider the new deficit spending included in the Kennedy staff bill. Recently, Fed Chairman Bernanke stated that ``achieving fiscal sustainability requires that spending and deficits be well controlled.'' He went on to note that ``unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal sustainability in the longer term, we will have neither financial stability nor economic growth.'' For these reasons, the Kennedy proposal requires an entire rewrite with respect to its impact on our Federal budget deficit.

Just as troubling as this bill's impact on the deficit is its failure to help tens of millions of Americans get the health insurance they need. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, if enacted, this bill would only provide health insurance for one-third of the Nation's uninsured. Let's see, $1 trillion for 16 million people. This number falls far short of the President's stated goal of ``quality, affordable health insurance for all Americans'' in his recent letter to Chairmen Kennedy and Baucus.

Of even greater concern, the CBO projects that about 10 million individuals who would be covered through an employer's plan under current law would not have access to that coverage under the Kennedy legislation. This figure breaks President Obama's often-repeated promise during both the 2008 campaign and since taking office that under his health care plan:

If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep

your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no

matter what.

Under the Kennedy plan, that promise rings hollow for millions of Americans, and that is simply unacceptable. I know the President has already scheduled an event on one of the networks to push his health care ideas. When it airs, I am sure we will hear him repeat the line over and over: If you like the health care plan you already have, you can keep it.

If he makes that promise again, every time we hear him say that, we should remind ourselves that the White House has already admitted that such statements aren't to be taken literally. I think that means they are not true.

I cannot recall ever hearing something like that from the White House, but those are their words. Maybe they should be applied to the whole presentation--that none of it should be taken literally.

I know one thing that can be taken literally, and we ought to give it straight to the American people, and that is this: Under the Kennedy proposal being rolled out, you would not be able to keep the care you have right now. Washington bureaucrats will be able to deny you and your family the care you need and that you fully deserve.

Unfortunately, that is not the only thing that we are in denial about. We are also in denial when it comes to the cost of the Democrats' health care plan and our ability to work our way out of a hole of debt that only promises to grow deeper and deeper for a long time and for many years to come.

A lot of times we talk about how we are spending our kids' and grandkids' money. I really feel compelled to point out that we are already spending our seniors' money. Why is that? Well, normally, what happens in this country is that a little bit is taken--well, a bunch is taken--out of your check for Social Security, which is matched by the employer. That amount of money each month has always gone to pay the seniors who are retired, their pensions, and to have a little bit of surplus. But do you know what? It is not doing that anymore. We are having to take money out of the trust funds now to supplement that to be able to pay the people who are retired now--and we are not even to the baby boomers yet. So we have a problem.

Unfortunately, that is not the only thing we are in denial about. Having shown the devastating impact of the Kennedy bill on the Federal deficit, and the failure of it to provide access to adequate health coverage for millions of Americans, I want to turn to one of the three foundational principles of my 10-step plan; namely, improving the quality of care.

On this front, I think the Kennedy plan again fails to live up to the promise laid out by President Obama to ``improve patient safety and quality of care.'' That is very important--to improve patient safety and quality of care.

I am deeply troubled by the real possibility that comparative effectiveness research, which is mentioned in the bill and has been debated in the committee, and which has been held intact in there, will be used as a cost-containment measure to ration care under this legislation. The result would be, for millions of Americans, a Federal bureaucrat would dictate the type of care they receive and interfere with the doctor-patient relationship.

As the Kennedy bill proceeds through Congress, I will fight to strip those provisions that will delay and deny needed health coverage to Americans. I spoke at length in committee about the truly horrible stories of rationing care that we hear about from the United Kingdom. I will continue to speak out to make sure this type of so-called care is not imported to the United States.

Finally, I am deeply troubled with a number of other policies advanced in the Kennedy bill. I believe the community rating provisions will result in skyrocketing premium costs for younger Americans. I am troubled that the bill doesn't provide incentives to encourage individuals to make healthier choices. There are a lot of choices we can make to improve our health ourselves.

As we complete the second week of the HELP Committee markup, we are still missing the guts of the Kennedy proposal. We expect that the final proposal will include a government-run plan, a mandate on employers to provide insurance, and a provision dealing with biosimilars. It is difficult to comment on these provisions until they are released.

Proponents of the government-run option--including the President-- consistently argue that a public plan is necessary to keep the insurance companies honest and to foster competition. With respect to provisions dealing with preexisting conditions, rate bands, and other reforms, we are all committed to taking action to keep insurers honest and make sure people with preexisting and chronic diseases can get insurance. The creation of a new government program at a time when the experts and Medicare trustees tell us that Medicare stands on the brink of insolvency, does nothing to foster honesty; it fosters fiscal irresponsibility. We are borrowing to pay for the government-run programs we have now. If you already have trouble making your mortgage payments, why would you go out and buy a boat and an RV?

With respect to the notion that we will be fostering competition with the creation of a government-run health plan, I think the public is growing tired of government intervention in our day-to-day lives. First, there was our involvement in the mortgage system and then the banking system and then we got more involved in our Nation's automotive industry. It is certainly more than a possibility that the government has taken on more than it can handle. We are operating at more than the maximum capacity already. Having government take over our Nation's health care system may be the last straw.

Think about that--about all the things that just this year the government has decided to take over. The comment I get at home, and in other places I have traveled across the United States, is, doesn't the government have a little bit of trouble just running government?

There is certainly a role for government as a strong regulator of free market enterprise, but the inclusion of the government as a principal player in our competitive markets is entirely inconsistent with our Nation's capitalist economic system. I will forcefully oppose the creation of a government-run health plan.

Before I conclude, I would like to say a few words about the current process of health care reform in the Senate Finance Committee. I said at the outset that I am committed to working toward bipartisan health care reform. As a member of the Finance Committee, I have witnessed and have been a part of at least the foundations of such reform. There are many hurdles to remain, but I thank Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley for their very hard work on this extremely complex, difficult issue. We have never had an issue that involved as many people in this country--100 percent of the people. It is important we get it right, that we take the time to get it right. Ranking member Grassley has been cooperative and Chairman Baucus has been open and that has been extremely helpful. We have spent hours upon hours in that committee receiving inputs and options from both sides on how to reform our Nation's health care system.

This stands in great contrast to the partisan process that has, unfortunately, unfolded in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee we have been tediously working through. There have been comments about how many amendments we turned in. We had 388 amendments. I had to remind them that if you don't get any piece of the drafting, you have to get your opinions in somehow and you do it through multiple amendments. Probably half those amendments were to fix grammatical errors, punctuation, typos--about half of them. Those were accepted.

It is my hope that the difference in process will result in a difference in substance between the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee legislation and the Finance Committee legislation. I will continue to work in the Finance Committee to shape legislation that improves the quality of our health care, reduces costs, is responsible in its budgetary impact, and increases access to care for all the American people.

As I have said, there is a long way to go on that committee and many differences to resolve, but I continue to work in good faith and hope for bipartisan, responsible health care reform. I am holding out hope a better, more inclusive process will emerge as we continue our work in the HELP Committee. I hope that a change will come about soon, but the bill we currently have before us is a clear sign that just as we have been excluded early on in the health care reform effort, it looks like we will continue to be excluded as the process continues. There is time to get us included. There is an important reason to get us included. But we will see.

In the end, for me and many people across this country, our discussions

about health care can be summed up in a short story with a simple moral. I was reading a book about a Wyoming doctor who came home and decided to settle in a town called Big Piney. He found some ranch land he liked, and he decided to make it his home. When he was attending a local rodeo, one of the cowboys competing in the contest looked at him and said: You aren't from here, are you?

He said: Well, I am going to be, I am a doctor.

Unable to control his enthusiasm, the cowboy walked away shouting to all within earshot: Hey, we finally got ourselves a doctor.

That is what health care is all about in Wyoming, the West, and countless towns and cities all across our country.

I have to tell you, this doctor spent most of his life in the Congo. He studied Ebola and established a lot of health clinics over there. When he retired, he did move to Wyoming. He did health care the old- fashioned way. He made house calls. He sat with people while they were dying. He had a lot of friends over there. Incidentally, he did not take Medicare or Medicaid. He said there were too many strings attached to it. He set up a foundation, and people he worked with could make a donation to his foundation instead. That way he wouldn't violate any Federal rules about treating some people and taking money. He was a tremendous doctor. Unfortunately, we lost him this year. So that area is once again without a doctor. If you can send me one who likes rodeos, we would be happy to have him there. That is what health care in Wyoming is about.

In the big cities and towns of Chicago, New York, Boston, and Los Angeles, it seems to me there is a hospital or doctor's office on almost every corner. In States such as Wyoming, however, they are few and far between, which makes health care a very precious commodity. I always tell people the statistics are we are short every kind of provider in Wyoming, including veterinarians, which always brings the comment: Surely, veterinarians don't work on people. We say: Yes, if you are far enough from a regular doctor, you are happy to have a veterinarian. You just hope he doesn't use the same medicines!

If we are not careful with this legislation, it will not make health care more plentiful and abundant, it will make it even more rare and difficult to obtain, and when health care gets more expensive and less available in places such as the big cities in this Nation, imagine what it will be like in the small towns of Wyoming and the West. People back home know what it will be like--another one-size-fits-all policy that did not fit so well into the rural areas of this country to begin with. That is why people are worried right now. The only way we can assure them they do not have to worry is if we take the time to make sure we get it right the first time. Then, and only then, will the American people feel like they will be getting what they said they wanted during our campaigns last year--not just change but change for the better.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of this bill and our need to make important technical corrections to the Higher Education Opportunity Act. I thank Senator Kennedy for his willingness to approach this bill in a bipartisan manner, I always believe that working together we produce a better policy.

Any time this body considers a bill that has over 1,000 pages, there is bound to be a need to do some ``clean up'' and to correct unintended consequences. Fortunately, we were also provided an opportunity to broaden benefits to the children who have lost a parent in either Iraq or Afghanistan since 2001. It is important that we do all we can to support these individuals whose families have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. I am appreciative of Senators Burr and Alexander for their leadership in getting this bill done.

A college education is not a luxury in the 21st century economy. It is a necessity. This bill will improve the ability of our student assistance programs to function and meet the needs of institutions of higher education, students and their families.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. I have thought long and hard about this legislation, and after a lot of work and a few good improvements, I believe this bill is the only bill we will consider seriously that will make it difficult for kids to get tobacco, make it difficult for them to start smoking, and that is the important point.

I want to be clear, I still do not think there is enough in this bill to stop smoking. One smoker is too many. But maintaining the current state of tobacco regulations is not acceptable to me.

One issue we have not discussed much is the cost of tobacco use to nonsmokers. Many smokers say it is their business what they put into their bodies. Ordinarily, they would be right.

But when it comes to tobacco, we all pay for what smokers put into their bodies and breathe out into the air. We all bear the increased financial costs of the diminished health of smokers. When one of your colleagues smokes, health insurance premiums go up for everybody. Every senior who uses tobacco creates a further strain on Medicare, and since you pay for that, too, through your taxes, it puts a strain on your wallet.

If smokers were the only ones who paid the price for smoking, we would not be having this debate at all. But since the extra costs get shifted to the rest of us, it becomes our problem too. Secondhand smoke penalizes those who do not smoke, particularly the families of smokers. I hope they listen to that and realize that.

Unfortunately, I know a lot about this since my parents' smoking impacted me. My mom, we thought, quit, but she became a closet smoker, which goes with Senator Dodd's comment that it is hard to give it up, and I understand how hard it is to give it up. When she quit smoking and was not smoking around me, my doctor told me he was glad I quit smoking. I said I never did. He showed me the lung x rays he had taken the year before at my athletic physical and that year at my athletic physical. When they quit smoking around me, I also got over extreme hay fever.

Nearly 22 million U.S. children aged 3 to 11 are exposed to secondhand smoke. Approximately 30 percent of indoor workers in the United States are not covered by smoke-free workplace policies. Those numbers are just too high. We cannot keep paying that price.

I also have concerns about the long-term financial health of this new center at FDA. The bill gives FDA increases in funding for this program for the first 10 years but leaves it flat after that. I think Congress will have to revisit that issue or this program will wither on the vine and we will not have meaningful tobacco regulation. We cannot let that happen.

This bill does contain three important provisions for which I fought; increased fines on tobacco companies, larger color graphic warning labels, and reporting to Congress on how the program is going. I would like to talk about each of these for a moment.

We know from decades of experience that the tobacco companies are not inclined to follow the law. They do not have a history of being forthcoming with the health information in their possession. Just 2 weeks ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that the tobacco companies were guilty of `` . . . a decades-long conspiracy to deceive the American public about the health effects and addictiveness of smoking cigarettes.''

I am pleased I was able to add a measure to the bill that increased civil penalties for violations of the new law and sends a strong message that we are serious about expecting compliance from the tobacco industry.

The new larger color graphic warning labels provision I authored will do a lot to reduce smoking. Everyone from the World Health Organization to the Congressional Budget Office says these warnings work. Research shows these warnings have a big impact. One-fifth of the participants reported smoking less as a result of the labels. Only 1 percent reported smoking more.

We should want kids who are thinking about taking up this deadly habit to have a bit of a shock just by looking at the package. We should want smokers to think about these health issues each time they light up. Any tool in our arsenal that makes people think twice about taking up tobacco should not be an option, it should be a requirement. Now these labels are a requirement.

Finally, we now require reports on the performance of FDA's tobacco center and on the financial situation of the program. Without this regular reporting, Congress would have little insight into the operation and status of this new program. These reports play an important role in establishing the health of the programs and FDA's performance in carrying out the law.

I want to make sure the agency is doing what it is supposed to do and that the fees are paying for FDA's tobacco control activities. These reports will help us do just exactly that.

I have always stood against tobacco. The footing would have been better if changes such as my phase-out amendment to reduce tobacco use over 100 years was accepted. I know how addictive it is. I did not want to make it too short a period of time. I thought 100 years was plenty reasonable. We did not have a chance to debate that or look at it. I actually offered that a little more than a year ago. It was a new amendment then. New amendments have trouble getting traction, except in New Zealand. New Zealand liked this approach to stopping smoking and looked at it in their legislature. They even called it the Enzi bill. Of course, you have to realize that is how it sounds and that is the way they spelled it, but in New Zealand, ``NZ'' stands for their country. I think they were talking about their country's bill rather than something I had written. It was kind of fun to watch anyway.

I think we need to look at some approaches such as that idea where the tobacco companies have to reduce the number of cigarettes they are selling each and every year or purchase a number from another company to make up for the increase in cigarettes they sold, which would reduce smoking at least in one part and over a long period of time would eliminate this problem.

This bill is just one step toward the goal I know we all share, which is reducing the public health toll of tobacco use. I urge my colleagues not to rest on their laurels and think this bill is enough to combat tobacco. I intend to continue the fight against tobacco, and I ask my colleagues to join me.

I thank Senator Dodd, who has been chairing this effort and working on this bill with me, for giving us a voice and taking the bill through the whole process. It was extremely important, extremely valuable. The floor discussion took longer but with less debate than I anticipated. I know some parliamentary issues got in the way of that. We could have had more success, but there were some additional amendments that could not be resolved.

I always ask people to do relevant or germane amendments to the bills. When they talk about doing other ones, it sometimes slows our process down dramatically and usually does not result in any of those amendments happening anyway.

I also wish to thank all the staff who worked on this bill. They, too, have been very diligent, have looked at everything, have done tremendous research. I particularly thank Amy Muhlberg for her efforts on this legislation. I think she knows the tobacco bill and other proposals better than probably anybody. She has real diligence and passion for it. I also thank Greg Dean of my staff for his efforts. He has a legal mind that helps us on these issues.

I thank Senator Burr for his hard work during this process. Although he ultimately was not successful, his efforts helped advance the debate and highlight some areas where improvement is needed. He put considerable time and energy into preparing a viable alternative, and I appreciate the way he created options.

Chris Wall of Senator Burr's staff was extremely helpful during the markup and floor debate, and I thank him and compliment his work with my staff and others on this bill. Jeff Teitz and Ben Olinsky of Senator Kennedy's staff, and Jim Fenton and Jeremy Sharp of Senator Dodd's staff were also critical to our progress on this bill. Finally, Megan Hauck from the Republican leader's office and the floor staff for their assistance.

I do intend to continue the fight against tobacco. I ask my colleagues to join me in this fight. I thank Senator Dodd for all of his efforts. There is true passion.

I yield the floor.

Regulating tobacco warehouses

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

I thank the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, who is working as chairman on this committee, for his passion, enthusiasm, and for listening to us. We do have a few things that are in the bill, but there are several other things that ought to be considered. We want the bill to be as good as possible. When we do cloture, we cut off that possibility.

I have a couple amendments that I think, if they were addressed--I know one is kind of accepted on both sides, but we cannot get them in. That is a frustration. We should not be having frustrations on something as important as this bill. It is important that we stop kids from starting smoking and that we get people already smoking to stop smoking. It is adding to the health care bills of all of us. It is a cost shift we are experiencing. It is not good for their health. Then there are family members who are having secondary smoke. People do not realize the problems they are giving to their family members by doing that.

I do oppose cloture today. There are several amendments I would like to offer. They are all germane amendments. I am glad they were germane amendments. We have been trying to reach an agreement on offering these amendments but it has been without any success, and if we invoke cloture we will not have a chance to consider any of these amendments.

I hope we have a way to give these amendments serious consideration. If we cannot, I have to oppose cloture and I ask my colleagues to do the same. I think we can get it worked out in a relative hurry but not unless the train stops for a moment, a little hesitation here.

I want to get this bill done. I am hoping we can complete it. But I think there are some important points that have to be made on it.

I yield the floor.

characterizing flavor

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Burr amendment No. 1246. The Burr substitute amendment takes major steps to restrict tobacco. It creates a new office within HHS to regulate tobacco. It puts in place a realistic, science-based standard for the approval of new and reduced risk products. It also requires states to do more on tobacco control--something we can all support.

As many of you know, I support strong tobacco regulation. I want to remind my colleagues that supporting a different approach to tobacco regulation doesn't mean being soft on tobacco.

The Burr amendment is extensive--longer and more detailed even than the underlying bill. It makes it more difficult for kids to get tobacco and start smoking, and that is the most important thing of all.

Whether we see the Burr proposal or the Kennedy proposal put in place, we still have our work cut out for us when it comes to putting out tobacco use. I am going to keep working on this issue, and I am going to keep putting forward new ideas to stop smoking. These proposals are a first step, but we have a long way to go.

I urge my colleagues to support the Burr amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time in the quorum call be equally divided between the two sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I thank the Chair, and I thank the chairman, but from the speeches, one can tell that the Senator from Connecticut has more passion than I do. Nobody is more passionate than the Senator from Connecticut, and I appreciate his passion, particularly on this issue.

I am very hopeful we can get something done. It has been at least 10 years--I know I have worked on this all the time I have been here, and it is true in the Senator's explanation that sometimes it makes it through the House and sometimes it makes it through the Senate but it never makes it through both Houses at the same time. I think to get it done, though, it is going to take a little bit longer. I appreciate the offer the leader is making that he wishes to have votes on the relevant and arguably germane amendments that are before us, but there isn't any assurance of that if there is cloture on the bill, and that is the difficulty.

It seems to me as though we ought to be able to work out some kind of an agreement so we can quickly get into the couple of amendments that have already been debated and debated extensively, and that we would be assured of at least those two, but we haven't had a vote on anything.

I appreciate the cooperation we have had from Chairman Dodd in working out a couple of the provisions, but there are some other people who have some provisions they think ought to be debated and brought up and perhaps included, but if we invoke cloture, there is no assurance they get to do that. So I have been asked to suggest that we not invoke cloture at this point in time and then do it quickly another time if it can be brought up again.

One of the amendments is Senator Burr's alternative. Even though he represents a tobacco State, he has a substitute amendment that takes major steps to restrict tobacco. It takes a tougher stance than some of the things we have in the bill. It creates a new office within HHS to regulate tobacco. I spoke about the difficulties of having the FDA do it, as they are supposed to take poisonous materials and get them off the market. Instead of giving that kind of a seal of approval, this new office would regulate the tobacco industry. It puts in place a realistic, science-based standard for the approval of new and reduced risk products. It also requires States to do more on tobacco control-- something we can all support. The Burr amendment makes it more difficult for kids to get tobacco and start smoking, and that is the most important thing of all, and that is what Senator Dodd has concentrated on in his remarks.

But we won't be considering that amendment, nor will we consider my amendment to ensure that the FDA continues to have the resources to carry out this program, or any amendments on smoking cessation. We won't have an opportunity to improve the bill and attack the root of the problem, which is tobacco use.

For example, I had an amendment to reduce smoking by 1 percent a year. That is a 100-year phaseout that ought to be fairly reasonable, but we aren't going to get to debate that at all or have a vote on that amendment if we invoke cloture. So I hope we can find a way to give germane amendments serious consideration over a short period of time.

I have to oppose cloture at this point in time, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor, reserve the remainder of the time, and suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to be divided equally.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Len Zwelling, a fellow in my office, for the remainder of the debate on H.R. 1256.

Madam President, I rise today to talk about one of the great icons of the American West--the cowboy. The cowboy is an enduring symbol of strong character, honesty, integrity, respect, and patriotism. I am proud to carry on a tradition started by my late colleague and friend, Senator Craig Thomas, by sponsoring S. Res. 142, which honors the men and women called cowboys by designating July 25, 2009, the National Day of the American Cowboy.

Craig truly showed us what it meant to be a cowboy. He knew that they come from all walks of life. Cowboys are men and women of any age, any race, and can be found across the country. The cowboy spirit isn't about boots and spurs and a hat. It is about strength of character, sound family values, courage, respect, and good common sense. Senator Thomas said:

Trying to define a cowboy is like trying to rope the wind,

but you certainly recognize one when you see them.

It was easy to recognize that Senator Thomas truly was a Wyoming cowboy in every sense of the word.

The cowboy way of life has been passed down for generations since the first cowboys settled the American West. They were true pioneers who came west to settle an untamed frontier. Many of the cowtowns that sprung up around the cattle business when the West was being settled are still there now. They continue to live their western heritage. The first cowboys relied on hard work and persistence to make their living in a tough country. Today's cowboys haven't changed all that much from when the first wranglers and ranch hands started herding cattle on the Great Plains.

Today's cowboys continue to rope and ride across the United States. They live and work in every State to manage nearly 100 million cattle. They are an integral part of the economy of Wyoming and many other Western States. Cowboys work hard but they also play hard. Rodeo is a sport that tests skill with a rope or challenges a cowboy's ability to stay on the back of bucking rough stock for 8 long seconds. Rodeos across the Nation, from big events such as Cheyenne Frontier Days and the National Finals Rodeo in Las Vegas, to weekly smalltown jackpots at community arenas around the country, draw millions of fans every year.

The cowboy legend still lives in our culture and our imaginations through music, movies, and books. From cowboy blockbusters on the big screen to the thousands of country radio stations on the air, the cowboy remains a larger-than-life figure. We look up to cowboys because they are examples of honesty, integrity, character, patriotism and self-reliance. Cowboys have a strong work ethic, they are compassionate, and they are good stewards of the land. We look to cowboys as role models for how to live up to the best American qualities.

I am proud to be from a State that continues to live the cowboy tradition every day. Their contributions have helped shape what it means to be an American and have created a high standard we can all strive to meet. I am proud to continue Senator Thomas's tradition of recognizing the many contributions cowboys have made to our country. I look forward to celebrating the National Day of the American Cowboy on July 25, 2009.

Madam President, I yield 45 minutes postcloture time to Senator Burr.