Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, I rise to call my colleagues' attention to a truly disturbing development in the health care debate. A colleague of ours--a colleague of ours--has called for an investigation into a major health care company because this company informed its customers of its concerns about health care legislation that this colleague of ours introduced. Let me say that again. A colleague of ours has called for an investigation of a major health care company because this company disagreed with a bill our colleague introduced.

As a result, the Federal Government has now told all companies that provide Medicare Advantage to stop communicating with their clients about the effects of that legislation. Let me say that again. The Federal Government has now told these companies to stop communicating with their clients about the effects of a piece of legislation that is before us, even telling them what they can and cannot post on their Web sites. This gag order, enforced through an agency of the Federal Government at the request of a Senator, is wrong.

It started when a company based in my hometown of Louisville, KY-- Humana--had the temerity in the eyes of some of our colleagues to explain to its customers that if Medicare Advantage is cut, as the chairman's mark requires, it may reduce benefits which, of course, is a commonsense conclusion.

This is America, the United States of America. Citizens, either as individuals or grouped together in companies, have a fundamental right--a fundamental right--to talk about legislation they favor or oppose in this country.

This is the core of the first amendment's protections of speech. Unfortunately, this is part of a troubling trend of efforts to dismiss the concerns raised by the American people over the past few months.

Over the summer, we saw American citizens who raised concerns about the health care proposals before Congress dismissed--utterly dismissed--as somehow un-American by leaders in Congress. That is bad enough, but using the full weight of the Federal Government's enforcement powers to stifle free speech should trouble all Americans-- and all of us--even more. We cannot allow government officials to target individuals or companies because they do not like what they say.

The latest effort to squelch free speech raises several serious questions.

Is this what we have come to as a country; that an individual or company can no longer factually advocate their position on an incredibly important public policy issue? Is this what we have come to in America?

Shouldn't customers have a right to know the potential impact of a congressional action?

Is this what we believe as a Senate; that this body should debate a trillion-dollar health care bill that affects every single American while using the powerful arm of the government to shut down speech?

Is this how citizens and companies can expect to be treated if health care reform passes; that any health provider that disagrees with a powerful Senator will be subject to an investigation and a gag order for disagreeing with a powerful Senator?

How is this any different than what the Washington Post and the New York Times have done in lobbying for a reporter shield law? Would we stand by if the Judiciary Committee asked the FBI to investigate the media for taking positions on pending legislation with which we do not agree? Of course not.

Humana is headquartered in my hometown of Louisville, and, yes, I care deeply about its 8,000 employees in Kentucky. But this gag order now applies to all Medicare Advantage providers. Shut up, the government says. Don't communicate with your customers. Be quiet and get in line.

I remind my colleagues that I have spent a good part of my career defending the first amendment rights of people to criticize their elected officials, including me. I would make the same argument if this were a company based in San Francisco or Helena, MT, or Chicago.

The right to free speech is at the core of our democracy. Free citizens have a first amendment right to petition their government for a redress of grievances. This gag order on companies such as Humana and those in all our States, in my view, is a clear violation of that right and it is wrong.

Employers who warn their customers about the effects of legislation are not the ones who should be getting warnings. They are not the ones who ought to be getting warnings. Senators who threaten first amendment rights are the ones who should be getting the warnings.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I say to my friend from Tennessee, he is absolutely correct. There are two obvious violations of the first amendment here. One is the right to speak freely and the other is the right to petition Congress for a redress of grievances.

Here you have an industry, the health insurance industry, at least one company of which is communicating with its customers the truth about this legislation and being threatened by a powerful Senator and a government agency to shut up.

Mr. President, once again, I say to my friend from Tennessee, to call an agency of the government for the purpose of implementing a gag order against a company that is speaking freely about the impact of legislation on its business and its employees is an astonishing thing to behold in the United States of America.

I assume the particular industry the Senator from Tennessee is talking about, which has been out running millions of ads in support of what the administration is trying to do, is not getting such threats.

I thank my friend from Tennessee. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, are we in a quorum call?

Mr. President, eight years ago America was attacked at home by an enemy that we had underestimated for too long. As a result of this single planned attack, thousands of innocent people were killed, the Twin Towers were left in ruins, and our long-held confidence as a Nation in the security of our homeland was seriously shaken.

The horror of that day brought our country together, including lawmakers of every ideological stripe. And it was in this context of unity that we resolved to do everything in our power to ensure that America never experienced a day like September 11 again.

At the heart of that resolve was a recognition that al-Qaida and affiliated terrorist groups had been at war with the United States long before September 11, 2001. September 11 may have been the day that we saw the terrible consequences of inaction, but the pattern of smaller- scale attacks leading up to that day was also suddenly, undeniably clear. On 9/11, we saw that this was a war not of choice but a war of necessity that would take time and require great sacrifice, and that war continues.

From the very start, the centerpiece of our strategy has been the same: to deny al-Qaida and its affiliates sanctuary, and, crucially, to deny them a staging ground from which they can plan, prepare, or launch another attack on U.S. soil. We have carried out this strategy using the vast tools of intelligence, diplomacy, and force at our disposal, and our future success depends on our continued use of all these tools.

We have also recognized from the first moments of this fight that we can't succeed alone. America is not al-Qaida's only target, and we are not capable of defeating al-Qaida without the cooperation of many allies and friends, many of whom have experienced terrorism firsthand. The fight against al-Qaida is a global fight, and its success will continue to depend on a division of labor among many nations.

Nowhere is our reliance on partners and allies more apparent at the moment than in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Just as progress in Iraq depended on the training of an indigenous security force, so too does our progress in Afghanistan depend on the training of security forces there; and so too does our success in Pakistan depend upon the ability of the Pakistani Army to fight terrorists in the tribal areas.

Still, while Afghanistan and Pakistan may now be at the center of the fight, it's important to realize that our success will mean continued reliance on the cooperation of other friends and allies across the globe, from our own borders to other distant places where our forces can not go or where our presence is of limited use.

This is why I and others have pointed out that our success in preventing inmates from Guantanamo from returning to the fight depends on cooperation from political leaders in places like Yemen and Saudi Arabia. And this is why many of us have pointed out that al-Qaida's presence is growing in Yemen and threatens Saudi Arabia, where al-Qaida claimed credit just last month for the first terrorist attack on a member of the Saudi royal family in recent memory.

Many countries are engaged in the same fight that we are. As the war on terror continues, these countries need to be assured of our cooperation just as much as we need to be assured of theirs.

So far on Afghanistan, the President has shown admirable consistency. He has not lost sight of the need to pressure al-Qaida's senior leadership; he has stated, rightly, in my view, that the core goal of the war there is the disruption, dismantling, and defeat of al-Qaida and the prevention of safe havens for terrorists. And he was wise earlier this year to appoint General Stanley McChrystal to command our forces in Afghanistan in pursuit of these goals.

By now, General McChrystal has had time to develop an initial assessment of the situation. That assessment, elements of which are now public, calls for a genuine counterinsurgency. Soon, he will make a formal request for the resources he needs to carry this strategy out. We don't know all the details yet, but we do know that much more hard work lies ahead. And we also know that, according to General McChrystal, ``failure to provide adequate resources . . . risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support . . . [and that] any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure.''

Looking back, we can see that the work of fighting terrorism at home and abroad has been difficult, it has been long, and it has tested our resolve. But here is the good news: It has been a success. By searching out terrorists where they are, keeping up the pressure, and remaining flexible, our Armed Forces, intelligence professionals, and the help of our allies and

friends has achieved something few people thought possible on September 11, 2001. America has not been attacked at home since.

But this much is also clear: al-Qaida remains intent on attacking the United States. Its terror network is lethal, resilient, determined, and mobile, and the day we lose sight of this is the day that our good fortune in preventing another attack may run out.

The President, to his credit, has not lost sight of this sobering reality. But any failure to act decisively in response to General McChrystal's request could serve to undermine the other good decisions the President has made.

General McChrystal has made clear that more forces are necessary. But even that won't be enough. Even with the best strategy and the finest implementation, our efforts in Afghanistan will not succeed without the support of the American people. This is why, in my view, the President must soon explain to the American people his reasons either for accepting the McChrystal Plan or, if he chooses an alternative, explain why he believes the alternative is better.

As the President has noted, any commitment of additional forces is a decision of the gravest importance. No President takes a decision like this lightly. And this is why General McChrystal and General Petraeus should also come to Washington to explain to Congress and to the American people how their strategy will work.

Despite our best efforts to defeat al-Qaida and deny them sanctuary in Afghanistan and Pakistan, they remain a serious threat. The Taliban is gaining ground. But if our recent experience with Iraq shows us anything, it is that our commanders in the field are in the best position to tell us what will work. General McCyrstal says that without adequate resources, we will fail. In my view, we should listen to that advice.

Leading up to and during the surge in Iraq, many voices in Washington had given up hope of success. One prominent Senator said that a surge of American forces would do nothing. One of the Nation's top newspapers said that staying the course in Iraq would only make the situation more bloody and frightening, and that there was nothing ahead for Iraq but even greater disaster.

But we know what happened. By listening to our commanders in the field, the tide in Iraq began to turn. We salvaged our chances. And nearly 3 years later, a country and a war that many had given up for lost is showing strong signs of stability.

At the time, America was fortunate that in its moment of need, GEN David Petraeus came forward with a plan to secure Iraq and implemented it with the help of brave soldiers and marines in Baghdad and Anbar Province. General McChrystal has now sent his recommendation for a counterinsurgency strategy to protect the population and defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. Congress should support it.

The war ahead in Afghanistan would not be easy. Counterinsurgency is very demanding in terms of people, resources and vigilance. But the consequences of withdrawal, or even of a plan that is more narrowly focused on developing Afghan security forces, would likely be worse, since neither plan will lead to the defeat of al-Qaida or reverse the gains that the Taliban has made in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

By ceding Afghanistan to the Taliban and al-Qaida, we would all but ensure that the terrorists have the ability to plan and carry out another attack from the very same place that they plotted and carried out the attacks of 9/11; al-Qaida in Pakistan would serve as a magnet to every young man wishing to enter the jihad; and our ability to stop either of these frightening developments would be severely diminished.

The President has said he will not allow these things to happen: For the sake of our long-term security, we should support the McChrystal Plan. Anything less would confirm al-Qaida's view that America lacks the strength and the resolve to endure a long war. We have proved them wrong before. Let's prove them wrong again.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, over the past few months, the American people have been sending us a clear message on health care. They want reforms that make health care more affordable and more accessible, that increase choice, and that keep government out of their health care decisions. What they don't want are so-called reforms that cut seniors' health care, force Americans off private health plans they have, cost hundreds of billions of dollars, raise taxes, and put government bureaucrats in charge of health care. But that is exactly what they would get under the plan released by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee just yesterday. So while I appreciate the hard work of the senior Senator from Montana on this legislation--and he certainly has spent enormous amounts of time on it--I am extremely disappointed that it does not reflect the concerns Americans have been expressing for weeks about health care reform. That much is very clear.

Now it is time to let the American people study the bill themselves. Before we bring any legislation to the floor, we need to make sure the American people and all of our colleagues, every single one of them, have the time to carefully read it and evaluate its potential effects on our health care system and the economy in general. Americans got rushed on the stimulus. They will not be rushed on health care--not on an issue that affects every single American. Before we discuss or vote on any plan, we need to know what it does, how much it costs, and how it will be paid for.

Here is what we know now about the Finance Committee plan.

First, the Finance Committee proposal would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from seniors' Medicare benefits to pay for new government programs. America's seniors want us to fix Medicare, not take money from it to pay for a new, untested, trillion-dollar government program. This bill would also break the President's promise to seniors that they will not be required to change the coverage they have. Right now, 11 million seniors are enrolled in Medicare Advantage, a program that gives them more options and choices when it comes to their health care. Ninety percent of these seniors are satisfied with their plan. The Finance Committee bill would make massive cuts to Medicare Advantage and force some seniors to give it up, something that even one of our Democratic friends just yesterday called ``intolerable.''

Senators from both sides of the aisle are concerned about the new burdens this bill would impose on States in the form of Medicaid expansion. Unlike the Federal Government, many States are constitutionally--in fact, I think virtually all of them are constitutionally required to have balanced budgets. This means that if politicians in Washington force them to increase spending on Medicaid, they very likely will have to cut services or raise taxes right in the middle of a recession.

The Finance Committee bill would kill jobs by forcing employers to provide insurance, regardless of whether they can afford it. While advocates of the bill say it does not contain an employer mandate, their claims just do not square with the facts. If you tell an employer that they either have to provide insurance or pay a penalty, that is a mandate.

The Finance Committee bill contains approximately $350 billion in new taxes, and some of these taxes, such as those on medical devices ranging from MRIs to Q-tips and new taxes on insurance plans, will drive up insurance premiums and make health care even more expensive for American families. If there was one thing we thought everybody agreed on, it was that any reform should not make health care more expensive. Yet this Q-tip tax would actually increase health care costs. That is why Senators from both parties have warned that it would put thousands of jobs in jeopardy and actually deter innovation.

The Senate Finance Committee bill also contains a co-op, which is just another name for a government plan. It still gives the government far too much control over our health care system. It cuts seniors' benefits, spends hundreds of billions of dollars, and raises taxes to pay for another trillion-dollar government program. And it still does not contain the kind of commonsense reforms the American people support and Republicans have consistently recommended, such as meaningful reforms to get rid of junk lawsuits against doctors and hospitals and reforms to level the playing field when it comes to taxes on a health care plan.

There is no question that Americans want health care reform, but they want the right reforms and they want us to take the time we need to get it right. During the month of August, the American people sent us a clear message on health care. I am disappointed that many of my colleagues apparently were not listening.

Madam President, the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia first opened its doors on July 4, 2003. Situated just steps away from the Liberty Bell and historic Independence Hall, it is the only museum in America solely dedicated to honoring America's Constitution.

Our Constitution was signed on this day--this very day--in 1787 by 39 brave, outstanding Americans. Now, 222 years later, we thank them for devising the finest system of government mankind has ever produced. By recognizing that rights flow from the people to their government and not the other way around, our Constitution is firmly dedicated to the preservation of liberty. That is why we celebrate every September 17 as Constitution Day. It is a day for all Americans to learn more about the Constitution, to understand how it works, and to appreciate how it has guided our Nation through growth and through change.

I thank the senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, for sponsoring this legislation 5 years ago to observe this historic day. We all know the love Senator Byrd has for his country and his country's history. He knows that you cannot truly understand how liberty is preserved in America without understanding the Constitution. Thank you, Senator, for your efforts to ensure that future generations also learn this important lesson.

On this day, we recognize citizens across the Nation who are honoring our Constitution by honoring its values and passing them along to our children and grandchildren. And we say a special thanks for the men and women in uniform who defend it. Thanks to them, the Constitution's promise will be there for the next generations of Americans.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the debate over health care continues to be a top concern for most Americans, but it is important to realize that this debate is not taking place in a vacuum. It is taking place in the context of a nation that is increasingly concerned about the size and the scope of government.

Over the past year, Americans have seen the government take over automakers and insurance companies. They have seen government spend hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out banks and other financial institutions. They have seen government run up unprecedented debt. And now they are seeing the government trying to take over health care.

If the White House wants an explanation for all the unrest it is witnessing across the country, all the worry and concerns Americans have about their health care plans, this is a crucial piece. Democrats in Washington may see all these government

programs and interventions as separate, individual events. But to most Americans who are weathering a recession, it seems as if every time they pick up a newspaper or turn on the television, Democrats in Washington are pushing another trillion-dollar bill, calling for more spending, more taxes, and more debt. That is why people are becoming more vocal, and that is why they have been delivering a consistent message for weeks: no more government takeovers, no more spending money we do not have, no more tax increases, and no more debt. Americans are concerned about government running their lives and ruining their livelihoods, and they do not get the sense that either the administration or Democrats on Capitol Hill are listening.

Nowhere is this disconnect between the people and the politicians in Washington more apparent than in the debate over health care. Americans do not think a bigger role for government in health care would improve the system. Yet despite this, every single proposal we have seen would lead to a vast expansion of the government's role in the health care system.

It is not that the Democrats in Congress do not sense the public's unease about a new government plan for health care. I think they do. It is the primary reason some of them are backing away from proposals that include it. What some Americans do not realize, however, is that even without a government plan, the health care plans Democrats are proposing would still vastly expand the government's role in our health care. That is what I would like to discuss in a little more detail this morning.

Let me list just a few examples of how government's role in health care would expand even without a government-run plan.

Even without a government plan, the proposals we have seen would force employers to pay a tax if they cannot afford insurance for their employees. Employers have warned that this provision would kill jobs. At a time when the Nation's unemployment rate stands at a 25-year high of 9.7 percent, we should help businesses create jobs not kill them.

Even without a government plan, these proposals would require all Americans to choose only from health insurance plans with standards set by the government and would let government bureaucrats dictate what benefits are available to families. On this point, Americans have been equally clear. People want more choice and competition in the health care market so they can pick a plan that will work for their family, not one dictated by politicians in Washington. Yet even without a government plan, that is what they would get under the proposals we have seen. Anyone who saw any of the townhall meetings last month knows this idea is about as popular as chicken pox.

Even without a government plan, these health care proposals would require States to expand their Medicaid Programs, something the Senator from Tennessee, who is here on the floor, has spoken about frequently. Governors from both political parties have expressed serious concerns about the effect this particular proposal would have on their State budgets. They think these kinds of decisions should be left up to them, the States, not the Federal Government, and, frankly, so do most Americans.

Even without a government plan, these health care proposals would impose new taxes on small businesses and on individuals. Under the House bill, for example, taxes on some small businesses could rise as high as roughly 45 percent, a rate that is approximately 30 percent higher than the rate for big corporations. Under the same House bill, the average combined Federal and State top tax rate for some individuals would be about 52 percent--more than half of their paychecks.

Finally, the President has said his plan will not require any Americans to give up the health insurance they have and like. But what about the 11 million seniors who are currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage? Nearly 90 percent of them say they are satisfied with it. This program has given seniors more options and more choices when it comes to their health care. Yet under the administration's plan the government would make massive cuts to Medicare Advantage, forcing some seniors off this plan that so many of them have and like. When it comes to Medicare Advantage, Democratic rhetoric just does not square with reality.

Let me sum it up. While getting rid of the government plan would be a good start, the Democratic bills we have seen would still grant the government far too much control over the health care system.

Over the past few months, Americans have been saying they have had enough of spending, enough of debt, and enough of government expansion. How are the Democrats in Washington responding? By trying to rush through another trillion-dollar bill Americans do not even want and cannot afford.

The American people do want health care reform--not with more government but with less. They do not want a new government-run system; they want us to repair the system we have.

On all of these points, the American people are sending a clear and persistent message. It is time we in Congress started to listen.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, over the past months, Americans have grown increasingly alarmed about the high levels of spending and debt we have seen under the new administration. They have become increasingly vocal about these concerns out of a growing sense that the White House does not seem to be listening to them, that it is talking over them.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the debate over health care and never more so than in the President's speech to Congress last week. For weeks and weeks, Americans had expressed their concerns about the Democrats' health care proposals at townhall meetings across the country. Yet the President returned from the August break with a speech that did not address any of them.

Instead, he stated his intention to spend nearly $1 trillion on a plan he says will expand coverage without increasing costs or adding to the deficit. These are precisely the claims Americans are finding so difficult to square with reality. The speech itself was certainly well delivered, but in the end Congress is not going to be asked to vote on a speech. It is going to be asked to vote on specific legislation.

In my view, the President's speech only highlighted the concerns that millions of Americans and Members of both parties in Congress continue to have with the Democratic plans for health care reform because when you strip away the pageantry of the speech itself, what you are left with is simply this: one more trillion-dollar government program and a whole lot of unanswered questions about how we are going to pay for it. What is it going to mean for seniors and small business owners, and how is it going to affect the quality and availability of care for millions of Americans, the vast majority of whom are happy with the care they have? These are legitimate questions, and it is unfair for anyone to dismiss those who ask them as either cranks or scaremongers. The answers to these questions impact some of the most important aspects of people's lives, and people just aren't getting answers.

Take the issue of cost. The President says he is going to pay for his plan by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse out of the system. That raises a couple of questions. First of all, if there is such waste, fraud, and abuse, then why isn't the administration doing something about it already? Second, if we are seeing this kind of waste, fraud, and abuse in an existing government program, why shouldn't we expect it to exist in the new government program the White House wants to create? Of course, we should root out waste, fraud, and abuse. I don't know anybody who is against that. But let's do it for its own sake, not to justify a very brandnew government program most Americans aren't even asking for.

How about Medicare? The administration plans to pay for much of its health care proposals with hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare. A significant portion of this would involve cuts to Medicare Advantage, a program that serves more than 11 million American seniors, nearly 90 percent of whom say they are satisfied with it. But faced with questions about his proposed cuts to Medicare, the administration insists services to seniors won't be cut. Mr. President, this is absurd. How can the administration tell America's seniors with a straight face that it is about to cut $\1/2\ trillion from Medicare but that those cuts won't affect the program in any noticeable way?

What about the hundreds of billions of dollars the administration would have to raise to pay for its plan even after its proposed cuts to Medicare? The White House hasn't said where it plans to get all of that money, but to most people, the answer is pretty obvious: more spending, more taxes, higher deficits--or, most likely, all three.

What about the deficit? The White House says its health care plan won't add a dollar to the deficit. How do they square that with the fact that the Congressional Budget Office has said repeatedly and unequivocally that every proposal they have seen would, in fact, add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit?

Any schoolkid in America could tell you that creating a massive new government program will cost a lot of money, that cutting Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars will lead to cuts in services people currently enjoy, and that higher taxes on small businesses will lead to even more job losses.

These are serious questions. The administration's response to them is not. Their response is to accuse anyone who asks them of being a scaremonger and to give them the same two-word answer they gave everybody who questioned the stimulus: Trust us.

When it comes to health care, Americans are saying these arguments don't add up. These are simple questions. The administration should answer them. If they can't, it is even further validation that the questions are worth asking.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I read with great interest a recent article published in the Lexington Herald-Leader, retracing the 50 years of hard work that Don and Mira Ball have put into making their business the largest provider of new homes in central Kentucky. On top of their success in business, Don and Mira should be commended for the good work they have done on behalf of their community. They have supported several community initiatives, including the Hope Center that helps at-risk and homeless individuals get the stability and the help they need to improve their lives. I am proud to have joined them in support of this and other efforts for the good of everyone in their city and surrounding region.

I know all of my colleagues will join me in recognizing Don and Mira for all they have done for the Lexington community, and for 50 years of Ball Homes.

I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to Jim Williams, the director of communications of one of Kentucky's most storied racetracks, Keeneland in Lexington. After 38 years at the forefront of Kentucky's racing community, Mr. Williams has left a legacy worthy of the champion thoroughbred horses who have won there, and the entire State wishes him well as he retires from the job he loves.

Keeneland racetrack is located in the beautiful Bluegrass region of Kentucky. Since 1936 Keeneland has operated two meets per year, every April and October. For nearly 40 of those years, Mr. Williams has helped transform what was once a small racetrack

that began on a local farm into a premier equestrian facility.

Mr. Williams's passion and dedication for Keeneland and horse racing began when he was just a boy, when he moved to Lexington and attended his first race at Keeneland. Since that first race, Mr. Williams has been in attendance at a majority of Keeneland's races.

Mr. Williams has had the opportunity to serve under three Keeneland presidents: Mr. Ted Bassett, Mr. Bill Greely and the current CEO, Mr. Nick Nicholson. Mr. Nicholson spoke dearly of Jim when asked to reflect on his service. In a recent article in the Lexington Herald-Leader, he said:

To put Jim's tenure in perspective, when he joined

Keeneland in 1971, Richard Nixon was president, ``All in the

Family'' premiered on television, and gas was 30 cents a

gallon. Since that time, Jim has been the public face of

Keeneland, and he has conducted himself in a manner that has

enhanced Keeneland's stature in the eyes of everyone who has

had the pleasure of meeting him. Jim is a man of character,

integrity and humility. We at Keeneland thank him for his

many years of service and wish him the best in his

retirement.

Jim Williams is a legend in Kentucky horse racing and his contributions to the Commonwealth's most hallowed sport are immeasurable. His retirement is going to leave a large hole that will be very hard to fill. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Jim Williams for his 38 years of service to Keeneland and to Kentucky horse racing.

Madam President, I read an article of great interest in the Bowling Green Daily News involving the Bowling Green Area Chamber of Commerce. The article commended the chamber on being recognized by the American Chamber of Commerce Executives as the number-one chamber in the nation. Bowling Green and the surrounding community has experienced significant growth in the areas of business and industry, due to the chamber's efforts to keep Bowling Green a flourishing and vibrant city. I know my colleagues join me in commending the Bowling Green Area Chamber of Commerce for all it has done to better their community and State. I am pleased to see their hard work being recognized.

I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, September 11 is a day of the year that has special resonance for all Americans and always should. Earlier this week I was honored to stand with some of the family members of those who died 8 years ago this morning on flight 93. They were here to mark the establishment of a memorial to those brave men and women who gave their lives that day over a field in Pennsylvania and who in the process may very well have saved the lives of many of us here. Their role in history will now be forever memorialized here in the Capitol, ensuring that we never forget their sacrifice nor the sacrifice of the thousands of other innocent men and women who were taken from us on that terrible day. This is just as it should be, because as I said during the ceremony earlier this week, there are some moments in the life of a nation that are worth remembering. There are others that are impossible to forget. September 11, 2001, is both.

All of us who lived through that day know this to be true. We know that with each passing year, the day itself may become more distant in time but the memories do not. And yet it is important we mark that day each year with sadness for those whom we lost; with solemn pride in the heroes of 9/11; and with renewed determination to confront terrorism wherever it is found. The memory of the fallen impels us.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the remarkable accomplishments of the Logan County Little League All-Star team. While I remember fondly the years I played America's pastime in my youth, none of my experiences can compare to those of these 10 Little Leaguers as they competed in this year's Little League World Series.

Despite its small-town feel, Logan County has produced a number of notable individuals, from astronauts and governors to NBA players and Major League Baseball pitchers.

So it is not surprising that a community that has already produced such notable figures would rally behind a group of 11- and 12-year-old players who represented the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Great Lakes Region in this year's Little League World Series. As the first team from Kentucky to reach this level of competition in 4 years, Logan County's All-Stars demonstrated their talent in the games leading up to their World Series bid.

When four players homered in the regional final in Indianapolis, the Logan County All-Star team set its sights on Williamsport, PA. Thankfully, their vision found support in the community. In order to afford the sizable cost of travel and lodging, the Little Leaguers and their supporters raised funds in all manner of ways, from selling steak sandwiches and auctioning off signed baseballs to holding a telethon at a local radio station.

The team played its first two games of the double elimination tournament against the West Region champions from Chula Vista, CA. While the Western team proved to be overpowering, Logan County's team demonstrated remarkable sportsmanship. As the proud winning-bidder of an auctioned T-shirt put it, ``Their character is impeccable, and we know a lot of them . . . they behave themselves and they represent Logan County and Kentucky perfectly.''

Regardless of what the scoreboard read, Logan County's All-Stars are winners. Moreover, this experience stretches beyond moments played out between the chalk-marked lines of the field. These youngsters were able to meet and develop bonds with other players from countries all over the world. Several players described their trip with one word-- ``awesome.''

It is with great honor that I place the names of this year's Logan County Little League All-Stars into the Record. Under the leadership of manager Kevin Gettings, team members Caleb Bruner, Joe Holliday, Zack Denney, Tucker Baldwin, Daniel Beaty, Desmon Quarles, Matt Harper, Barrett Croslin, Ian Woodall, and Jacob Wood made their hometown, their State, and this Senator very proud.

Mr. President, I, too, would like to speak of our departed colleague, Ted Kennedy, whose passing last month focused the attention of the Nation and whose extraordinary life has been memorialized over these past weeks in so many poignant stories and heartfelt expressions of gratitude and grief.

Today, the Senate also grieves--not only because he was a friend but because the Senate was so much a part of who he was and because he became so much a part of the Senate.

The simplest measure is sheer longevity. At the time of his death, Ted could call himself the third longest-serving Senator in history, having served almost one-fifth of the time the Senate itself has existed. Or consider this: When I was an intern here in the sixties, Ted was already a well-known Senator. When I was elected to the Senate nearly a quarter of a century ago, Ted had already been here for nearly a quarter of a century. He served with 10 Presidents or nearly 1 out of every 4 of them.

No one could have predicted that kind of run for Ted on the day he became a Senator back on November 7, 1962--no one, that is, except maybe Ted. Ted had signaled what his legacy might be as far back as 1965, when he spoke of setting a record for longevity. Mike Mansfield saw a glimpse of it, too, a few years later. When somebody mentioned Ted as a possible Presidential candidate, Mansfield responded:

He's in no hurry. He's young. He likes the Senate. Of all

the Kennedys, he is the only one who was and is a real Senate

man.

As it turned out, Mansfield was right. But Ted knew even then that his legacy as a lawmaker would not come about just by sitting at his desk; he would have to build it. And over the course of the next 47 years, that is exactly what he did, slowly, patiently, doggedly, making his mark as much in tedious committee hearings as on the stump, as much in the details of legislation as in its broader themes.

Ted's last name ensured he was already one of the stars of American politics even before he became a Senator. To this day, he is still the only man or woman in U.S. history to be elected to the Senate while one of his relatives sat in the White House. But to those who thought Ted, even if elected, would avoid the rigors of public life, he became a living rebuke. In short, he became a Senator.

He surprised the skeptics, first of all, with his friendliness and his wit. When he made his national political debut in 1962 on ``Meet the Press,'' a questioner asked him if maybe there were already too many Kennedys. His response: ``You should have talked to my mother and father . . . ''

Russell Long was an early admirer. In what has to go down as one of the falsest first impressions in modern politics, Long spoke approvingly of the new Senator from Massachusetts as ``a quiet . . . sort of fellow.''

Ted got along with everybody. The earliest memories family members have are of Ted laughing and making other people laugh. His secret weapon then, and years later, as Chris Dodd rightly pointed out at one of the memorial services, was simply this: People liked him, so much so that he could call people such as Jim Eastland, somebody with whom he had absolutely nothing in common, a friend.

Ted had learned early on that he could be more effective through alliances and relationships than by hollering and carrying on. We all know he did a fair amount of that as well. He provided some of the best theater the Senate has ever known. But once he left the Chamber, he turned that off. He sought out allies wherever he could find them-- Strom Thurmond, Dan Quayle, Orrin Hatch, John McCain, and even George W. Bush--and he earned their cooperation by keeping his word and through thousands of small acts of kindness. Senator McCain has recounted the birthday bash Ted threw 10 years ago for his son Jimmy's 11th birthday. Senator Barrasso remembers the kindness Ted showed him as a new Senator. And Senator Barrasso's family will long remember how much time Senator Kennedy spent

sharing stories with them at the reception after the swearing in and that he was one of the last ones to leave.

Like so many others, I have known Ted's graciousness firsthand. Anyone who watches C-SPAN2 could see Ted railing at the top of his lungs against my position on this policy or that policy. What they didn't see was the magnificent show he put on a few years ago in Kentucky at my invitation for students at the University of Louisville or the framed photo he gave me that day of my political role model, John Sherman Cooper. I interned for Cooper as a young man. Ted knew that, and he knew Cooper was a good friend and neighbor of his brother Jack's.

Ted's gregariousness was legendary, but his passion and intensity as a lawmaker would also reach near-mythic proportions in his own lifetime. Even those of us who saw the same problems but different solutions on issue after issue, even we could not help but admire the focus and the fight Ted brought to every debate in which he played a part. Over the years, we came to see what he was doing in the Senate.

When it came to Ted's future, everyone was always looking at it through the prism of the Presidency. They should have focused on this Chamber instead. It was here that he slowly built the kind of influence and voice for a national constituency that was common for Senators in the 19th century but extremely rare in the 20th.

He became a fiery spokesman for liberals everywhere. Ted and I would have had a hard time agreeing on the color of the carpet when we were in the Chamber together. Yet despite his public image as a liberal firebrand, he was fascinated by the hard work of creating consensus and jumped into that work, even toward the end, with the enthusiasm of a young staffer. Ted's high school teammates recall that he never walked to the huddle; he always ran. Anyone who ever sat across from Ted at a conference table believed it.

Ted realized Senators could do an awful lot once they got past the magnetic pull Pennsylvania Avenue has on so many Senators. His brother Jack once said that as a Senator, he thought the President had all the influence, but it wasn't until he was President that he realized how much influence Senators had. It was a similar insight that led Ted to tell a group of Boston Globe reporters in 1981 that for him, the Senate was fulfilling, satisfying, challenging, and that he could certainly spend his life here, which, of course, he did. Then, when it was winding down, he saw what he had done as a Senator and what the Senate had done for him. He wanted others to see it too, so he set about to establish the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate, a place that would focus on this institution the way Presidential libraries focus on Presidents.

The Founders, of course, envisioned the legislative and executive branches as carrying equal weight. Article I is about Congress, after all, not the Presidency. His life and legacy help restore that vision of a legislative counterweight of equal weight. That is an important institutional contribution every Senator can appreciate. It is something he did through hard work, tenacity, and sheer will. It was not the legacy most expected, but it is the legacy he wrought, and in the end he could call it his own.

Toward the end of his life, one of the great lawmakers of the 19th century, Henry Clay, was asked to speak to the Kentucky General Assembly. Thanks to Clay's efforts, the Compromise of 1850 had just been reached, and Clay had become a national hero through a job he had spent most of his career trying to escape. His speech received national coverage, and, according to one biographer, all acknowledged his privileged station as an elder statesman.

For years, Clay had wanted nothing more than to be President of the United States. But now, after this last great legislative victory, something else came into view. Clay told the assembled crowd that day that in the course of months and months of intense negotiations leading up to the Great Compromise, he had consulted with Democrats just as much as he had with members of his own party and found in them just as much patriotism and honor as he had found with the Whigs. The whole experience had moved Clay away from party rivalry, he said, and toward a new goal. ``I want no office, no station in the gift of man,'' he said, ``[except] a warm place in your hearts.''

Every man has his own story. Ted Kennedy never moved away from party rivalry. He was a fierce partisan to the end. But over the years, he reminded the world of the great potential of this institution and even came to embody it. We will never forget the way he filled the Chamber with that booming voice, waving his glasses at his side, jabbing his fingers at the air, or the many times we saw him playing outside with his dogs. How many times did we spot him coming through the doorway or onto an elevator, his hair white as the surf, and think: Here comes history itself.

As the youngest child in one of the most influential political families in U.S. history, Ted Kennedy had enormous shoes to fill. Yet in nearly 50 years of service as a young Senator, a candidate for President, a legislative force, and an elder statesman, it is hard to argue that he didn't fill those shoes in a part he wrote all by himself.

It is hard to imagine the Senate without Ted thundering on the floor. It will be harder still, I am sure, for the Kennedy family to think of a future without him. You could say all these things and more about the late Senator from Massachusetts, and you could also say this: Edward Moore Kennedy will always have a warm place in our hearts.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have had a chance today to recognize our colleague, Senator Mel Martinez, who, sadly for most of us, is leaving the Senate. Today will be his last day. He had an opportunity to address the Senate this morning and give some final thoughts. I would like to take a few moments to give my final thoughts about Senator Martinez. I expect to see him many times in the future as a private citizen, but my thoughts about him and his contribution here and his life story.

Obviously, all of us have a story to tell, the story of a journey to this place. But in the case of Senator Martinez, the journey certainly has more twists and turns than most.

Mel Martinez first came to this country when he was 15. A political exile, he spoke no English, and did not know when--or if--he would ever see his family again. His journey from that point to now is proof of the boundless promise that exists in America.

More than 50 years ago in a small town in Cuba, an 11-year-old Mel Martinez comforted his little brother as they lay on the bedroom floor while gunfire erupted in the streets. It was Fidel Castro's takeover, and life changed very quickly for the Martinez family and every Cuban.

When Mel's parents overheard Cuban militiamen threatening to kill their son for wearing a religious symbol, they had had enough. Through a humanitarian effort sponsored by the Catholic Church, Mel was sent to America to find a better life.

Eagerly embracing his adopted hometown of Orlando, Florida, soon Mel came to feel part of America. He mastered English and earned both his bachelor's and law degrees from Florida State University.

And four long years after leaving Cuba, he was reunited with his parents in Florida after they too escaped Castro's regime--and they were so proud to see the brave young man their boy had become.

Because of this long separation from his parents, I can understand now when Mel says it is the tug of family ties that calls him back home to Florida. But those of us who had the pleasure of working with him in Washington are sorry to see him go.

In the Senate, Mel made his mark as a leading voice for greater democratic freedoms in Cuba. He has fought to strengthen Social Security and to eliminate fraud in Medicare and Medicaid.

He has given hope to millions of families by working to increase funding for research to cure Alzheimer's. And he has stood for America's defense in a dangerous world, and for the troops that so bravely take up the fight to defend us.

For 3 years as the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Senator Martinez worked to increase home ownership. After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, his agency was charged with directing funds to rebuild lower Manhattan. He fulfilled his duties even as he, along with all of us, reeled at the senseless deaths of 3,000 innocents.

And as the cochair of the President's Commission for the Assistance to a Free Cuba, he played a leading role in the administration's efforts to bring freedom to the land of his birth.

While in Washington, Mel forged many friendships as well. I first got to know Mel during his days as a Cabinet secretary. Elaine and I certainly enjoyed the company of Mel and Kitty.

My wife Elaine and Mel had one thing in common. I used to pose the following quiz to people: Who were the only Cabinet Secretaries who never missed a State of the Union? As everyone knows, it is typically somebody in the line of succession who misses the Cabinet meeting because the entire government is up here on one night. Mel and Elaine never missed a Cabinet meeting because they were the only two members of the Cabinet who were not born in the United States and therefore were not eligible to assume the Presidency if an emergency required that.

We came to understand Mel's connection to his adopted hometown of Orlando, where for 25 years he worked as a successful lawyer. We learned how his election as chairman of Orange County--a job analogous to a mayor, and in one of Florida's largest counties--started a second career in public service to the country that had given him so much.

Now Mel will return to Florida, and I don't know what his future may hold. But I do know that he'll accomplish anything he sets his mind to. The incredible journey he has taken, ever since he flew on a DC-6 from Havana to Miami, is proof of that. Mel's life shows us that in America, any dream is possible.

Mel, it has been an honor serving with you, and it has been a pleasure for Elaine and I to get to know you and Kitty through the years. Whenever you may return to Washington next, please remember you will always have plenty of friends in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. President, as we all know, the President will be here tonight, and he will get a warm reception, as Presidents always do when they address the Nation from the Capitol. It is a short trip from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but it is always meaningful whenever a President from either political party speaks to a joint session. So we welcome him.

He picked a good topic. Americans are extremely skeptical about the health care proposals the administration and Democrats in Congress have been talking about over the past several months. And they are understandably baffled by some of the arguments that have been used to promote them.

Americans don't understand how a massive expansion of government will lower costs, as the administration claims. They don't understand how $500 billion in cuts to Medicare won't affect the millions of seniors who depend on it. Americans don't understand how they'll be able to keep the health plans they have if government is allowed to undermine the private market. And they don't understand why the administration doesn't seem to be listening to these and many other concerns.

Americans want specifics. They want solid assurances about what health care reform would mean for themselves and for their families and, just as importantly, what it won't mean. Americans have been clear about what they don't want to see in health care reform. Now they want the administration to be clear with them.

One thing that is already apparent in this debate is that the problem isn't the administration's sales pitch. The problem is what they are selling. Americans are rightly concerned about a rush to hike taxes on small businesses, cut seniors' Medicare benefits, and add trillions of dollars in more government spending and debt. For months, the President and Democrats in Congress have been describing their plans for reform. The status quo is unacceptable. But if August showed us anything, it is that so are the alternatives that the administration and Democrats in Congress have proposed.

Tonight, the President has an opportunity to reframe the debate, but only if he recognizes that the Democrats' original plan for health care reform doesn't wash with the American people. When it comes to health care, Americans don't want government to tear down the house we have. They want it to repair the one we have. That means sensible, step-by- step reforms, not more trillion dollar grand schemes. It means preserving what people like about our health care system, not destroying it all at once or starving it over time.

A government takeover on the installment plan--or a ``trigger'' as some are calling it--is still a government takeover. It is a bad idea now. It will be a bad idea whenever the trigger kicks in. Proponents of a trigger say that it might not be needed. But you can be sure of this: if Democrats are in charge, they will pull the trigger at some point. Let's be honest. Letting Democrats decide whether to pull the trigger on government-run health care is like asking the pitcher, not the umpire, to call the balls and strikes.

Proponents of a trigger also say that Republicans approved one for the Medicare drug benefit. What they don't say is that ours was designed to ensure competition, not to stifle it. That trigger would have prohibited the government from being a fallback plan. This trigger would make the government the regulator, the payer, and a competitor, and put the taxpayer on the hook for its cost. Don't be fooled: proponents of government-run health care realized last month that ``government plan'' had become a dirty word, so they latched onto a new way to describe the same thing: a trigger. Americans aren't confused by the Democrats' reform proposal. They are not asking for a new sales pitch. How many ways do they need to say it: Americans oppose a government takeover of health care, regardless of what it is called.

Over the past several weeks, I have visited with doctors, nurses, seniors, hospital workers, small businessmen and women, and countless others citizens across Kentucky and throughout the country--none of whom would call our current health care system perfect. But all of them are worried about so-called reforms that would undermine the things they like about the American health care system.

People are concerned about a proposal that would raid Medicare rather than strengthening and preserving it. Most of the Democratic proposals we have seen would increase taxes on small businesses. People don't understand why the administration would even entertain the idea of raising taxes on the businesses that create jobs in a country that has already lost millions of jobs since January.

Every Democratic proposal we have seen expands Medicaid, a program that is administered by the Federal Government but largely paid for by the States. Republican and Democratic Governors cannot believe the administration is proposing a massive new expenditure at a moment when many of these States cannot even pay the bills they already have.

Many of these States are struggling just to survive in the current economy, and yet Democratic lawmakers in Washington want to spend billions to expand Medicaid and then send the bill to the States. No wonder so many Americans think lawmakers in Washington are totally and completely out of touch.

Most States are constitutionally required to have a balanced budget. This means if the Federal Government forces them to increase spending on Medicaid, they will have no choice but to either cut services or raise taxes. That means Americans would be hit twice, first by the taxes on small business, then by the higher taxes from State government, all from massive overhauls they do not want.

People do not want risky, sweeping changes that increase the national debt and do not solve the problems we have. That is why I have been calling instead for commonsense reforms that build on the current system, for things such as ending junk lawsuits on doctors and hospitals that drive up health care costs, lowering the costs for individual consumers by equalizing the tax treatment for individuals and businesses, and incentivizing healthy living to prevent diseases and to treat problems early.

For years, Republicans have sought reforms that would increase access to care, reforms that had the strong support of the American people, whether it was proposing to let small businesses pool their resources together to get the same competitive rates as big businesses or by establishing health savings accounts that give people greater control over their care and their dollars. For years, we have pushed for medical liability reform and called on Congress to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid by fixing these necessary but financially strapped programs.

Most Democrats have resisted most of these incremental changes, hoping the day would come when they could create a whole new dramatic scheme from the ground up under government control. This summer they actually tried to do that, and the American people told them to try again. Their message has been loud and it has been clear: No more spending money we do not have on programs we do not need. No more debt. No more government expansion. And no government takeover of health care.

Americans do not want us to walk off the field. They want us to recommit ourselves to the reforms they want. If Democrats agree, we will be their partners. If they resist the pleas of the American people to start over, we will not. All of us have heard a lot from the American people last month. Now is the time to show we were listening.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.