Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of the people of Louisville, my hometown, and across Kentucky who were saddened by the news that after 40 years on the air, WAVE-3 chief meteorologist Tom Wills is retiring. Tom first joined the station and began to be welcomed into people's homes over the airwaves back in 1969.

Many Louisvillians cannot imagine turning on the TV and not being able to find a forecast from Tom Wills. It is a rare and remarkable achievement to reach 40 years in broadcasting and even more so at the same station, serving the same community.

Tom earned the level of respect he has in Louisville by being one of the best meteorologists in the Nation. He is the only broadcast meteorologist in Louisville to hold the Certified Broadcast Meteorologist Seal from the American Meteorological Society, and he is among the earliest holders of the AMS Seal of Approval in the Nation to still be on the air.

We Louisvillians have appreciated waking up every morning the last 40 years knowing Tom is there to tell us whether we need our coat or our umbrella. Tom has also been a calming presence on the television screen at the time of severe weather, helping to save lives by providing crucial information.

Tom was on the air on April 3, 1974, the day when the most severe tornadoes in living memory cut a path of destruction through the city of Louisville. When it was over, lives had been lost, hundreds were injured, and over 900 homes were destroyed.

Throughout the night and into the early morning hours of the next day, Tom Wills was on the air telling people the information they needed to know. As tragic as those events were, we know things could have been worse if not for the lives saved and the tragedy averted thanks to Tom's work.

Tom Wills grew up in West Reading, PA, and knew by age 7 he wanted to do the weather when he grew up. While earning meteorology degrees at Penn State and Colorado State, he specialized in the science of tornado formation.

In addition to his WAVE-3 duties, he has passed along his knowledge and experience by teaching meteorology at the University of Louisville.

Now that he will no longer have to wake up at 2:30 a.m. every day, I hope Tom will have time to pursue his other interests, including gardening and following our Louisville Cardinals sports teams. Of course, his wife Pam, his kids, and his grandkids will be happy to see more of him. Tom is known throughout the community not just as a fine meteorologist but also a gentleman and friend to the many people he has met in his 40 years on the air. He is going to be greatly missed, and I wish to take this moment to thank him on behalf of Kentuckians everywhere for his service.

We are honored that for four decades he chose to share his talents with the people of Louisville and the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Finally, I am saddened by the recent loss of my good friend David Fuller. This was a man who certainly had an impact both on his community and on the Nation as a whole. It is no exaggeration at all to say that thanks to David, thousands of workers at nuclear plants in this country have safer jobs and healthier lives.

That includes David's coworkers at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Paducah, KY, where for 10 years David served as president of the Nuclear Workers Union. You see, the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant has produced enriched uranium since 1952 and is currently the only operating uranium enrichment facility in the United States.

For much of the Cold War, the Paducah plant produced fissionable material for our country's nuclear arsenal. It also enriched uranium for commercial nuclear reactors, helping to provide the benefits of cleanly generated electric power to millions of people.

Those Kentuckians who worked in the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant played a vital role in America's victory in the Cold War. Unfortunately, their own government did not look out for them as it should have.

About 10 years ago, we learned there were risks associated with working at the Paducah plant, particularly during the early years of its operation. Some workers were exposed to cancer-causing chemicals and radiological hazards. Some would later sicken and even die.

David was tireless in advocating for the workers at Paducah. He was one of them. He put in 33 years as a cascade operator and electrician. His testimony before Congress was key to advancing the effort to care for those who had been harmed by the government's careless treatment. Thanks, in part, to

David, we created the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program to ensure that our Nation's nuclear workers finally now get the attention they deserve from their government. Medical screening is available to all Paducah workers so they may be tested and treated for any illness they contract as a result of working at the plant. We are working to clean up some of the legacy waste materials left at the Paducah plant.

I also might say my wife Elaine Chao, who served as Secretary of Labor during the Bush years, was deeply involved in setting up this compensation program there at Paducah and she too became a friend of David Fuller's.

David testified before Congress on behalf of his fellow workers, including before a committee I chaired. He served as his union's president for 5 years, longer than anyone before, and never lost an election.

David and I worked side by side for a long time on this issue. He visited my office frequently here in Washington, and on several occasions I was his guest at the Paducah Nuclear Workers Union Hall to meet with and speak to the local membership. In that time, I saw how determined David was to help develop a program that would ensure all current and former plant employees were tested for exposure and that would provide sick employees with the treatment they need and deserve.

Of course, nothing can take the place of a life or good health, but David wanted to see every effort made to provide compensation for the workers and their families. Thanks to his extraordinary work, he lived to see that happen.

I know his tireless service will not be forgotten by his friends and coworkers. Even the Paducah workers who did not get to know David personally know they certainly have him to thank for the justice that was provided to the workers who took on this vital duty.

Elaine and I have lost a good friend. We send our prayers to his wife Katherine Cooper Fuller; his daughters, Julie Fuller Leidecker, Laura Ann Nichole ``Nikki'' Fuller, and Meagen Joan Fuller; his son John David Fuller; his three grandchildren; and many other beloved family members and friends.

Not everyone, after he or she is gone, will be able to show as easily as David that theirs was a life spent helping others. David gave so many the simple gift of time: more time spent with their family, friends, and loved ones.

Sadly, David's family has run out of time with David himself, as he passed away on July 19 at the age of only 62. But I hope they can take some solace in the tremendous work he did on behalf of others. Kentucky has lost a great man. He will not be forgotten.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma. I will be brief. I appreciate the opportunity to work in my comments. Thank you so much.

Mr. President, the American people want health care reform--and they want us to take the time we need to get it right. As I have said repeatedly, and as an increasing number of Senators and Congressmen from both sides of the aisle are also now saying, the last thing Americans want is for Congress to rush through a flawed bill that would make our health care system even worse just so politicians in Washington can have something to brag about at a parade or a press conference.

The President and some Democrat leaders in Congress now acknowledge that getting health care reform right is more important than rushing through some slipshod plan no one has even looked at and calling it reform. Last week, the President said he wants to get health care reform right and that the most important thing is that Members of Congress continue to work together on the difficult issues in this debate. And one senior Democrat said last week that ``it's better to get a product that's based on quality and thoughtfulness than on trying to just get something through.''

Republicans agree, and so we are encouraged to hear our friends on the other side acknowledge that health care reform is too big, too important, and too personal an issue to rush.

In the coming weeks, Congress should work to achieve real reforms that actually address the problems in our health care system without tampering with the things that Americans--and many other people from around the world--like about our health care system and can no longer find in other countries.

The American people want health care that is more affordable and easier to obtain. What they don't want is a government takeover of health care that costs trillions of dollars, adds to our unsustainable national debt, forces them off the health insurance they have, leaves them paying more for worse care than they now receive, and leads to the same kind of denial, delay, and rationing of care we see in other countries.

One thing Democrats and Republicans should be able to work together on are practical ideas the American people support, such as reforming malpractice laws and getting rid of junk lawsuits; promoting wellness and prevention programs that encourage people to make healthy choices like quitting smoking and fighting obesity; encouraging more robust competition in the private insurance market; addressing the needs of small businesses through new ideas that won't kill jobs in the middle of a recession; and leveling the playing field when it comes to taxes. Right now, for example, if your employer offers health insurance, they get a tax benefit for providing it. If they don't, and you have to buy it yourself, you don't get the same benefit they do. In my view, this isn't fair, and we should change it to make it fair.

These are commonsense ideas that would enable Republicans and the increasingly vocal block of skeptical Democrats to meet in the middle on a reform that all of us want--and that all Americans could embrace.

The President has already acknowledged that both Democratic bills working their way through Congress are not where they need to be. In fact, by the President's own standard that any health care reform must not increase the national debt and must reduce long-term health care costs, he would not even be able to sign either of these bills we have seen so far.

According to the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, both bills would lead to an increase in overall health care costs. Just this weekend, the CBO said there is a high probability one of the administration's central proposals for reducing long-term costs would not lead to any savings in the near future and would generate only modest savings in the future.

Moreover, even if this proposal did generate any savings, they would likely be dwarfed by the new spending and deficits in the Democratic bills we have seen. It is like charging a new Cadillac to the family credit card and getting excited about saving a few dollars on the cup holder.

On top of that, the CBO says both bills would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the debt. Simply put, these bills are moving in the wrong direction and would make the problems in our health care system even worse than they are today.

So it is clear we need to hit the restart button and begin working on real reform that would address the problems in our health care system. Americans want the two parties to work together on something as important and as personal as health care reform. Embracing the ideas I have mentioned and finding responsible ways to pay for reform are a good place to start.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank again my colleague from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, when we stand in this Capitol dedicated to freedom, we must remember freedom's costs. So I rise to speak

about Jacob Joseph Chestnut and John Michael Gibson.

Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson, both of the Capitol Police, gave their lives 11 years ago today in defense of the men and women who work in and visit the Capitol.

A plaque in this building commemorates their bravery. Their names have been etched upon the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, which stands 1 mile from here. And the headquarters of the U.S. Capitol Police bears their names.

Officer Chestnut, or J.J. to his friends, was a 20-year veteran of the Air Force, and had 18 years of service to the Capitol Police. John Gibson also had 18 years of Capitol Police service, and until that day had never had to draw his weapon.

Both men left behind their wives, children, beloved family members, and friends. Both men were part of an elite team. Capitol Police officers, with their unique mission, are charged with protecting not only our lives but our very system of government.

My friend, the majority leader, a former Capitol Police officer himself, knows both the honor and the danger that comes with the job. And so as we honor Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson today, we also honor every man and woman of the Capitol Police who have bravely volunteered for this hazardous but important duty.

So today the Senate honors J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson. We are grateful for their heroic sacrifice, and we remember their families, whom we embrace as we would our own.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to congratulate the senior Senator from Oregon for his extraordinary contribution to this most important topic. He has been open. He has been convinced of the need for bipartisanship and has been entirely constructive throughout this process, and we look forward to continuing our conversations in the weeks and months to come.

Madam President, last night, the President, to his credit, reiterated what the American people have been saying for weeks: that the Democratic health care proposals we have seen so far aren't where they need to be. I couldn't agree with him more. President Obama also said that rising health care costs are an imminent threat to our economy and that any reform must reduce these long-term costs.

The problems the President highlighted are real and, here again, Republicans agree with him. Unfortunately, the solutions to these problems are not in the Democrat plans now working their way through Congress. In fact, the bills we have seen would make these problems even worse. The director of the Congressional Budget Office has said that these proposals would increase overall health care spending, not reduce it. All of us want health care reform. But we want reform that brings down costs and long-term spending, not a so-called reform that makes things even worse.

The President also said health care reform must not increase the national

debt. Republicans agree with that too. But, again, both Democrat bills we have seen would saddle Americans with hundreds of billions of dollars of additional debt, making the situation even worse. Just yesterday, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve warned that unless we get serious about spending and debt, we are endangering not only our recovery from the current recession but also endangering future economic growth. That is why he said any health care reform must get control of costs. Otherwise, it could bankrupt both our government and eventually our entire economy.

So the last thing we need is a flawed health care bill that adds to the national debt and increases long-term health care costs. Instead of trying to rush through proposals that don't work, we need to take the time to do it right and make the reforms the American people are asking for--reforms that won't put us on the road to bankruptcy.

Madam President, earlier this year I came to the Senate floor and outlined a number of foreign policy principles that have served our Nation well in the past and which I believe would serve us well in the future. In doing so, it was my hope that these principles would serve as the basis of steady bipartisan cooperation between the Senate and the new administration. These principles transcend party; they are time-tested; and they can be summed up in a single sentence: the cornerstone of U.S. National security policy lies in maintaining a strong and ready defense and in keeping our alliances strong.

As the Senate continues to debate the Defense authorization bill, I would like to take the opportunity to reiterate the importance of this fundamental principle of action and to highlight something that seriously endangers our ability to uphold it. I am referring to our Nation's staggering National debt.

The national debt threatens our way of life; it threatens the value of our national currency; and it threatens our ability to pay for entitlements that millions of Americans depend on. Yet, just as importantly, the national debt also endangers our position in the world, the long term capabilities of our military, and the long-term viability of the all-volunteer force that is currently serving us so ably and courageously in two very challenging wars. And that is why it is increasingly urgent that we focus on this growing threat and do something about it.

Let us put the current situation in context. The story of the American military over the past century reflects what historians have described as a feast or famine approach to defense. The pattern goes back at least as far as our entry into World War I and extends through our involvement in World War II, the Korean war, and Vietnam. In every case, the U.S. military underwent an abrupt expansion of manpower and armaments only to be followed by calls for a drawdown in the size of our force and a reduction in defense spending. This pattern, though not always well-advised, may have been understandable in some cases in the past. But the nature of our current threats and position in the world makes it indefensible today.

With developments in weapons technology, America no longer has the luxury of isolation. And September 11 showed us that we can no longer leave ungoverned territories unwatched. The demands on today's military are constant. We are either on offense, or we are at risk. Feast or famine and isolationism no longer work.

And this is why our ever-growing national debt is so perilous-- because even those who believe as I do that a strong and ready defense is the cornerstone of our security will not be able to guarantee it if current fiscal trends persist. Put simply: if we do nothing to pay down this debt and address the needs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, then America risks finding itself so weakened financially that some day in the not-too-distant future we just will not have the resources we need to equip and maintain our forces in the places they are needed most.

Consider the fact that the Federal Government is now spending an average of $100 million a day just to pay the interest on a single piece of legislation, the $1 trillion stimulus bill that Congress passed earlier this year. Or that it is estimated we will pay $347 billion in interest on just this one bill over the next 10 years. At current rates of spending, that is enough to provide health care for our Nation's veterans for more than 5 years. It is enough to cover the salaries and benefits of all our active-duty and reserve forces for 2\1/2\ years. Or it is nearly $350 billion we could put back into the pockets of the American people at a time when they could really use it.

And that is just one piece of legislation. Now imagine what it costs to finance our entire national debt. By the end of the decade, it is estimated that under the President's budget we will spend nearly $800 billion a year just to cover the interest on the national credit card-- not reducing what we owe, but just keeping the creditors from knocking on the door. Here is the frightening part of where we are: by 2017, the amount of money we are expected to spend on interest alone will exceed the amount of money we are expected to spend that year on all of defense.

The implications of this for our national security are clear. More and more, our ability to deploy forces with state-of- the-art weaponry is in competition with our financial obligation to the countries that hold our debt, and we get closer to the day when countries that hold large amounts of U.S. debt, such as China and Saudi Arabia, could directly influence the foreign policy decisions of a future President.

We also get closer to the day when our allies and partners will rethink the value of a relationship with the United States.

Sooner or later, we will have to face the fact that we are on a path that leads to some very unpleasant choices. Either we default on our debts, which we will not do, print more money to cover those debts and tempt a massive inflationary spiral, or be forced to withdraw from our security commitments, just as Great Britain did at the end of the Second World War.

America's all-volunteer force costs a lot of money to maintain. Indeed, one of the major reasons we have been able to avoid conscription in this country since the Vietnam war has been our ability to maintain recruiting and retention policies through an attractive retirement system, recruiting bonuses, incentive pay and sensible housing allowances. In current dollars, military personnel costs have increased from $69 billion to $131 billion a year over the past decade.

But these necessary expenses will soon be crowded out by the growing cost of long-term entitlements and the growing principal and higher and higher interest payments on our debt. And spending increases we now regard as necessary may no longer be possible. The choice is clear: in order to provide for the common defense, we must reform entitlement programs that are consuming a larger and larger share of our budget and reduce the national debt.

Cutting $100 million here or there in discretionary costs will not do the trick. In 1965, discretionary spending accounted for 62 percent of the budget. Today, it accounts for just 38 percent. As discretionary spending has become a smaller and smaller part of the pie, mandatory spending on entitlements and debt has become a bigger and bigger part of the pie. In 1965, mandatory spending and interest accounted for 38 percent of the budget. Today, they account for 62 percent or nearly two-thirds of the entire budget.

This means that in order to face our problem head on, we will have to address the problem of entitlement spending. And the only serious option on the table is the Conrad-Gregg proposal which would provide a clear pathway for fixing these long-term challenges by forcing us to get debt and spending under control.

I have had a number of good conversations about this proposal with the President. Based on those conversations, I am hopeful it will be given serious attention. For the safety and security of our Nation, the Conrad-Gregg proposal deserves broad bipartisan support.

Every Secretary of Defense must confront the tension between America's near-term readiness and future investment. But some future Defense Secretary will no longer be able to make

either choice if we do nothing to address the problem of long-term debt. Regardless of the global threats we face, we will be forced to field a smaller and less capable force. The money will not be there.

When most Americans think about threats to our security, they come up with a standard list. But few people include our growing national debt. They should--because it is real and it is serious.

Based on current trends, it is quite possible to imagine some future Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff walking into the Oval Office one day and informing the Commander in Chief that he has no choice: he can either protect the sealanes in the Persian Gulf or he can protect the sealanes in the Sea of Japan, but he cannot do both. On that day the United States of America will no longer be the guarantor of the international trading system, sea lines of communication, the security of our allies, or even our own independence.

All of this should matter to Members of the Senate. Americans trust our Nation's intelligence and uniformed personnel to protect them from distant threats. But it is incumbent upon the men and women of this body--those of us who control the purse strings--to make sure the Nation's resources are managed in a way that enables these forces to do their work. The men and women of the Senate must look beyond the narrow demands of a single political term in office or the next election to the long-term security of our Nation and, indeed, the world. No one else can protect the American people from the diminishment of power and capability that come with our dangerous and ever-increasing national debt.

Madam President, with sadness I rise today to speak about a fallen warrior from my home State of Kentucky. On December 31, 2007, PFC Brian L. Gorham succumbed to injuries sustained earlier that month when an explosive device struck his vehicle while on patrol in Afghanistan.

Private First Class Gorham hailed from Woodburn, KY. He was 21 years old and was able to spend the last days of his life not halfway around the world but back in America--in a hospital in Fort Sam Houston, TX, to be precise--surrounded by his loving family.

For his bravery in uniform, Private First Class Gorham received several medals, awards, and decorations, including the Army Good Conduct Medal, the Purple Heart, and the Bronze Star Medal.

At Brian's funeral service in Franklin, KY, hundreds of people came to offer their sympathies to his family and friends. Brian's father, Toney Gorham, said:

It's hard to believe that so many people, a lot of them I

don't know, walked up to me, shook my hand or patted me on

the back, and told me, ``We're proud that your son fought for

us and sacrificed for us.''

Maybe it is not so surprising if you know the dedication Brian put into everything he did from a very early age. Jack Wright, Brian's Sunday school teacher, remembers when Brian was a young middle school student who would participate in the two-hand touch football games that were played after Bible study services on Wednesday nights.

``Brian was never the biggest or fastest,'' Jack says, ``But no one put more effort into the game and no one enjoyed playing any better than Brian.''

That enthusiasm carried over when Brian joined the football team at Drakes Creek Middle School. Brian also liked basketball and baseball and could often find a pickup game with the neighborhood kids many nights after school.

In high school, Brian joined the Junior ROTC Program, and just like in those football games, he put his all into becoming the best. He succeeded by being in the first group to complete his ROTC Program's Leadership Academy.

That achievement was symbolized, on Brian's dress uniform, by a silver band around his right shoulder. Jack Wright remembers Brian would proudly wear his ROTC uniform to services at Woodburn Baptist Church for many years.

Brian still found time for fun, of course. He loved to fish, explore the caves near his house, and float down the creek in his friend's boat. One time Brian and some of his friends were racing go-carts and decided to hold a contest to see who could drive through a huge mud puddle and come out the muddiest.

This is one contest Brian's parents are probably glad he did not win. Another boy was so muddy that when his mom came to pick him up, she made him ride home in the trunk rather than on the seat.

Brian was close to his sister Brandie and his brother Henry. When they were kids, Brandie made Brian play dolls with her, although the easy-going Brian did not seem to mind. Henry was his big brother's little shadow. The two would watch wrestling together and act out the wrestling moves.

Henry remembers during one of his football games at school, both his parents were unable to attend. Henry was not doing so well until he heard his big brother Brian cheering him on from the sidelines. That gave him the extra confidence he needed.

Brian's mother Shirley also remembers a time when she and Toney went away for the weekend, and Brian called her to say he was cooking dinner for some friends and not to worry, they were sharing the cost. He said he would have food ready for them, too, when they got back.

So Shirley and Toney came home to find Brian had barbecued, and they sat down to a wonderful meal. It was not until the next day when Shirley realized Brian had emptied out the freezer, and there was nothing left in the house to cook.

Brian graduated from Greenwood High School in 2003, and after serving as commander of his school's Junior ROTC Program, he enlisted in the Army. He was assigned to Company D, 1st Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, stationed in Vicenza, Italy.

Brian's family remembers how Brian loved what he was doing and took pride in his work. His mother Shirley was proud of her son's humanitarian work in uniform. In Afghanistan he distributed seeds to the Afghan farmers and helped provide security for the engineers to build roads and rebuild the country.

Madam President, we must keep Brian's family and friends in our thoughts as I recount his story for the Senate today. We are thinking of his mother and father, Shirley and Toney Gorham; his sister Brandie Dixon, and her husband Lawrence; his brother Henry; his maternal grandparents, Roger and Esther Bunch; his paternal grandmother, Neil Tabor; his aunt, Regina Peterson; and many other beloved family members and friends.

Madam President, Brian had a 1976 Chevy pickup that was passed down through the family. He called it Old Blue. He would often have a hard time starting it and had to wake up his sister to start it for him on some days.

When Brian was in the hospital in Texas, he told his father that he wanted the two of them to work on restoring Old Blue together. Brian did not get to finish that task. But Toney has the pickup in his garage now, and he promises to fulfill his son's wish.

Our country must also fulfill a promise to PFC Brian L. Gorham and forever honor his service. It is the least we can do after his tremendous sacrifice.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as some of my colleagues may be aware, this week the State Department acceded to a Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, TAC. This action reflects an effort by the administration to engage vigorously in the region, which I applaud.

The State Department consulted with the Senate prior to taking this step. During the course of these consultations, Senator Kerry, Senator Lugar, and I sought clarification on issues related to the substance of the TAC and to the unique process suggested for U.S. accession. To confirm our understandings on these points, Senators Kerry, Lugar, and I sent a letter to the Secretary of State on July 10, 2009. On the basis of the understandings set forth in this letter, we did not object to the Department's plan for acceding to the TAC. I believe the letter may be of some interest to Senators since it involves both the constitutional role of the Senate in the treaty making process and American foreign policy in Southeast Asia.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter to Secretary Clinton dated July 10, 2009.

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge passage of H.J. Res. 56, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, which is now on its way to the President's desk for his signature.

As in years past, this resolution will extend import sanctions for another year against Burmese goods in order to maintain economic pressure on the ruling State Peace and Development

Council--SPDC. It also continues the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act, which was enacted last year and further increased sanctions against the junta.

In some circles the value of sanctions has been questioned and, at some point, greater engagement with the regime may be in order. However, by passing this measure, Congress has clearly concluded that such a change in policy would be premature, and for good reason. The very fact that Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi has been put on trial by the regime for trumped-up charges reflects how essential it is to continue these measures against the SPDC. To do otherwise would implicitly condone the junta's actions in trying her. It also would turn a blind eye to the regime having imprisoned Suu Kyi for 13 of the past 20 years, to say nothing of the scores of less well-known political prisoners who currently languish in Burmese prisons.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's recent trip to Burma, I think, demonstrates yet again the true nature of this regime. During his visit, he was denied access to Suu Kyi and apparently received no concessions from the junta. This reflects that it is the SPDC that does not want to engage meaningfully with the international community, not the other way around. Therefore, my colleagues and I believe that sanctions against the junta should remain in place until such time as the regime truly commits itself to a course of democratization and reconciliation.

Nor should anyone be fooled by the junta's transparent efforts to legitimize its rule through the scheduled 2010 elections. By excluding Suu Kyi from participating in the elections and by including provisions that would permanently entrench military rule, the new Burmese charter is no more legitimate than the regime that sponsored it. More than halfway through 2009, it is hard to see how next year's elections in Burma are redeemable.

Congress's posture toward the Burmese regime is not just borne out of humanitarian concerns; it also involves important national security considerations. Just this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly raised questions about alleged military links between the junta and North Korea. The details of the Burmese-North Korean relationship are murky but, according to the Washington Post, concern has been raised among U.S. officials about a possible budding nuclear relationship between the two autocracies.

Finally, I note that this resolution has brought together 66 Members of this Chamber as cosponsors, more cosponsors than any previous year. This showing reflects yet again the genuine bipartisan support for the people of Burma and opposition to the junta's rule. In this effort, I was pleased to work closely again with my friend Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has long been a vigorous advocate for the Burmese people. Senators McCain and Durbin have also been stalwarts in their support for freedom in Burma, and they once again were at the vanguard of this legislative undertaking. I would close by thanking Brandi White and Ally Bird of my staff for their hard work on this bill.

Mr. President, yesterday, the President, to his credit, acknowledged what the American people have been telling us for weeks: that the Democratic health care proposals currently making their way through Congress aren't where they need to be. I couldn't agree with him more.

All of us recognize the need for reform. That is not in question. And that is why day after day, I have come to the floor of the Senate and proposed concrete, commonsense reforms that all of us can agree on, reforms that would increase access, decrease costs, and guarantee that no one in this country would be forced to give up the care they currently have.

As I have said repeatedly, we should reform malpractice laws; encourage wellness and prevention programs that encourage healthier lifestyles like quitting smoking and fighting obesity; promote more competition in the private insurance market; and address the needs of small businesses in a way that doesn't kill jobs in the middle of a recession.

Unfortunately, the administration seems bent on its own proposal for a government-driven plan that costs trillions of dollars and asks small businesses and seniors to pay for it.

Once this plan is implemented, the American people could be left with a system that none of them would recognize and that most of them would regret--a system in which health care is denied, delayed, and rationed, a system which delivers worse care than Americans currently receive at an even higher cost. Americans want reform. But they don't want this. And they don't want either of the two proposals we have seen so far.

Both proposals could lead to a government takeover of health care, increase long-term health care costs, and cost trillions of dollars--on the backs of seniors, small businesses, and by adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the already-staggering national debt.

The President has said that both of these bills need work. And in my view, Democrats in Congress should listen to the President and come up with something Americans really want. This may take time. But Americans would rather that we get these reforms right than just get them written. When it comes to health care, Americans are sending a clear message: slow down and get it right. It is a message many of us have been delivering for weeks, and it is a message one of the Senate's top Democrats in the health care debate seemed to echo yesterday when he said that the critical test isn't whether we meet a certain deadline but whether we get this reform right, whether it stands the test of history.

We know Americans reject an artificial deadline on closing Guantanamo without a plan on what to do to keep us safe from the detainees who are housed there. And they regret accepting a rushed and artificial deadline on the stimulus. Health care is simply too important to rush, just to meet a date someone picked out of the air.

The arguments we have heard in favor of rushing just don't square with reality.

The administration and some in Congress say that we have to pass these bills right away because rising health care costs are an imminent threat to the economy. Yet the Democrat plans we have seen so far would make the problem worse. According to the independent Congressional Budget Office, the Democrat proposals would very likely increase overall health care spending, not reduce it. There goes that argument.

Others say we need to pass these bills right away because people can't live under the current system a day longer. Yet many of the proposals we have seen wouldn't even go into effect for at least another four years. There goes that argument.

Some say that under the proposals we have seen Americans won't lose the coverage they have. Yet independent studies show that millions would be pushed off plans they currently have and like. There goes that argument too.

The only possible explanation for passing a bill in 2 weeks that could hand over one-sixth of the U.S. economy to the government is that the longer this plan sits out in the open, the more Americans oppose it. Already, Americans are shocked at the idea of funding a government takeover of health care on the backs of seniors through cuts to Medicare or through taxes on small businesses in the middle of a recession. They are shocked to hear that the final proposal could force taxpayers to fund abortions. They have serious concerns about adding to the national debt. And they are worried about the prospect of being forced off the plans they currently have. These concerns are serious. They should be taken seriously, not brushed aside in the service of some artificial deadline.

No one in Washington wants to block health care reform. But many of us do want to take the time that is needed to deliver the kinds of reform that Americans actually want, not a so-called reform that leads to a government takeover of health care that leaves people paying more for worse care than they currently have.

The President was right. The proposals we have seen are not where they need to be--not even close. But that does not mean reform is not possible,

that reform is not coming, or that anyone does not want reform. What it does mean is we need to take the time to get the health care reforms the American people want. That is what they expect, and we should do no less.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to honor a Kentuckian who is a true American hero: Robley Henry Rex.

When Robley passed away in April of this year just a few days shy of his 108th birthday, he was recognized across my State as Kentucky's last World War I-era veteran and hailed as a champion of his fellow service members.

Ninety years ago, Robley bravely put on his country's uniform and left Christian County, KY, where he was born and raised, to patrol the hills of France in the immediate aftermath of what was then called The Great War. After leaving the Army in 1922, he returned to the Commonwealth.

In the years following his Army service, Robley began volunteering at the Louisville Veterans Affairs Medical Center, VAMC. He would go on to devote over 14,000 hours of service, right up until the last years of his long and productive life.

My legislation would name the current VA hospital in Louisville after Robley Rex. It also ensures that when a new VAMC is built, that future facility will also bear his name.

The idea to name this facility after Kentucky's pre-eminent volunteer on behalf of veterans came from a constituent of mine, himself also a veteran. Moreover, the Kentucky Department of Veterans of Foreign Wars had the very same idea and endorsed the proposal during its recent state convention. I'm just pleased that as a Kentucky Senator, I am in a position to make it happen.

I can't think of a more appropriate person to name the facility after than Robley Rex. And I can't think of a more appropriate source for the idea than the Kentucky veterans community.

The new VAMC will be vital to Kentucky's veterans, as well as to Louisville's economy. Once complete, the VA hospital will ensure that the men and women who served our country will receive the quality health care they deserve.

That devotion to ensuring quality care to our veterans is exemplified in the life and service of Robley Rex. How fitting that his fellow veterans--so many of whom knew Robley personally from his countless hours of volunteer service--will see his name above the door.

Finally, I note that this is bipartisan legislation. It enjoys the support of Representatives John Yarmuth and Ben Chandler in the other chamber. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to honor a Kentuckian who is a true American hero: Robley Henry Rex.

When Robley passed away in April of this year just a few days shy of his 108th birthday, he was recognized across my State as Kentucky's last World War I-era veteran and hailed as a champion of his fellow service members.

Ninety years ago, Robley bravely put on his country's uniform and left Christian County, KY, where he was born and raised, to patrol the hills of France in the immediate aftermath of what was then called The Great War. After leaving the Army in 1922, he returned to the Commonwealth.

In the years following his Army service, Robley began volunteering at the Louisville Veterans Affairs Medical Center, VAMC. He would go on to devote over 14,000 hours of service, right up until the last years of his long and productive life.

My legislation would name the current VA hospital in Louisville after Robley Rex. It also ensures that when a new VAMC is built, that future facility will also bear his name.

The idea to name this facility after Kentucky's pre-eminent volunteer on behalf of veterans came from a constituent of mine, himself also a veteran. Moreover, the Kentucky Department of Veterans of Foreign Wars had the very same idea and endorsed the proposal during its recent state convention. I'm just pleased that as a Kentucky Senator, I am in a position to make it happen.

I can't think of a more appropriate person to name the facility after than Robley Rex. And I can't think of a more appropriate source for the idea than the Kentucky veterans community.

The new VAMC will be vital to Kentucky's veterans, as well as to Louisville's economy. Once complete, the VA hospital will ensure that the men and women who served our country will receive the quality health care they deserve.

That devotion to ensuring quality care to our veterans is exemplified in the life and service of Robley Rex. How fitting that his fellow veterans--so many of whom knew Robley personally from his countless hours of volunteer service--will see his name above the door.

Finally, I note that this is bipartisan legislation. It enjoys the support of Representatives John Yarmuth and Ben Chandler in the other chamber. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

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