Floor Statements

Mr. President, I understand the majority leader was asking about clearing some military promotions earlier today. I wanted to indicate--and I see the assistant majority leader is here--we are clear with those and never had an issue with these particular promotions. Therefore, I suggest that we call them up and confirm them immediately.

Unless there is an objection from the other side, and having notified the other side, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following military promotions: Calendar Nos. 192, 193, and 194. I further ask unanimous consent that these nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I can only repeat what the President's spokesman himself said. I am responding to the question propounded to me by the Senator from Illinois. It is my understanding the President's spokesman yesterday refused to say what would happen to Ghailani if he were found not guilty. So there is some confusion about that.

Is the Senator asking me a question?

Let me say I am only quoting the President's spokesman. He says he doesn't know what would happen if Ghailani is released.

Let me say to the Senator from Illinois, let's assume that he is sent back to the country from which he came. I ask, in what way is America safer if this terrorist subsequently, under this hypothetical release in the United States, goes back to his native country from which he potentially could launch another attack on the United States?

I say to my friend from Illinois, he has made this point before, and I answered it before. I will answer it again.

I was against it when President Bush was in favor of it. I have been consistently against closing Guantanamo all along the way, no matter who the President was. At least you could say this about President Bush: He didn't put a date on it before he had an idea what he was going to do with them. And that is the core issue here.

I say to my friend from Illinois, maybe we found an area of agreement. He is critical of the Bush administration for not conducting military tribunals more rapidly. I agree with him. I think they should have been tried more rapidly. But that

is the place to try them, right down there in Guantanamo.

If my friend is suggesting it is a good idea to bring these terrorists into the United States and, if convicted, put them in U.S. facilities, the supermax facility has basically no room. There may be one bed. As far as I know, there is no room at supermax.

Not only do we have, if we bring them into the United States--I don't know why I am smiling. This is not a laughing matter. Say what you will about the previous administration, but we were not attacked again after 9/11.

I don't have the floor, I say to my friend from Arizona. Maybe he can get the Senator from Illinois to yield for a question as well.

I don't think we want to complain about the fact we haven't been attacked again since 9/11, I say to my friend from Illinois. Containing terrorists at Guantanamo, going after terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, clearly something worked. And to argue we would somehow be made more safe in this country by closing down Guantanamo I find borders almost on the absurd.

Mr. President, let me say Senator McCain and Senator Graham can speak for themselves, but neither of them has ever been in favor of closing Guantanamo without a plan to do something. They want to see what the plan is to deal with these terrorists. Beyond that, they can speak for themselves. But they are not in favor of closing Guantanamo without a plan.

With regard to the suggestion that we should bring these prisoners to the United States and try them, my good friend from Illinois has suggested there is no down side to that. Why not do it? We could. But the question is, Should we? We should not because we passed the military commissions for the purpose of trying these very detainees. There are courtrooms and a $200 million state-of-the-art facility at Guantanamo to both incarcerate them and to try them. We know no one has ever escaped there, and we know we haven't been attacked again since 9/ 11.

But let's assume we did bring them up here for trial. My good friend has suggested no harm done. During the Ramzi Yousef trial, he tipped off terrorists to a communications link. During the Zacarias Moussaoui trial, there was inadvertently leaked sensitive material. The east Africa Embassy bombing trials aided Osama bin Laden. The blind Sheikh Abdel-Rahman trial provided intel to Osama bin Laden. When you have these kinds of trials in a regular American criminal setting, there are down sides to it.

In terms of community disruption, I would cite the mayor of Alexandria, VA, right across the river. Ask him

how he felt about the impact of the Moussaoui trial on their community.

So I think the suggestion that somehow it is a good solution to bring these terrorists to the United States and to mainstream them into the U.S. criminal justice system is simply misplaced. If they are convicted, we don't have a good place for them. Everybody cited the supermax facility. Well, there is no room there. It is quite full. We have the perfect place for these detainees, for them to be detained and to be tried and ultimate decisions made.

I share the view of the Senator from Illinois that the previous administration did not engage in those military tribunals as rapidly as we all would like. They had a lot of disruptions from lawsuits and other things, and I expect they would argue that slowed them down. But I think they are in the right place--the right place to be incarcerated and the right place to have their cases disposed of.

Mr. President, my friend from Arizona is here and wants to address this, or another issue, and so I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Nicky Hayden, a native of Owensboro, KY., who has followed his passion and is an inspiration for all Kentuckians.

Hayden is among the world's elite in Grand Prix motorcycle racing. Driving at speeds of up to 200 miles per hour, with his knees sometimes only inches off of the ground, Hayden has won countless races all over the world

Nicky's racing career has led him to win the Moto Grand Prix Championship in 2006, the AMA Superbike Championship in 2002, and the AMA Supersport 600 Championship in 1999.

Nicky's parents, Earl and Rose Hayden, could not be more proud of what their son has already accomplished since he began racing at a very young age.

An article in the June 2009 edition of Kentucky Living magazine chronicled Nicky's career, highlighting his exciting and successful career, his extensive travel schedule, and his love of his home State and town. I ask unanimous consent to have the full article printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, I further ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the achievements of Nicky Hayden and I wish him continued success throughout his career.

Mr. President, when it comes to health care, Americans are looking for answers. They don't understand why basic medical procedures are so expensive. They don't understand why millions of Americans have to go without basic care in a nation as prosperous as our own. Many are worried about losing the care they already have and like.

So the need for health care reform is not in question. All of us want reform. The question is: What kind of reform will we deliver? And two very different approaches are now beginning to come into view.

According to one approach, the government plays the dominant role by getting into the health care business and leverages taxpayers' money to muscle everybody else out of the way. Under this approach, the vast majority of Americans who like the health care

they have risk losing it when a government-run system takes over.

The other approach is to find ways of controlling costs, such as discouraging the junk lawsuits that drive up the cost of practicing medicine and limit access to care in places like rural Kentucky; lifting barriers that currently diminish the effectiveness of prevention and wellness programs that have been shown to reduce health care costs, like quitting smoking, fighting obesity, and making early diagnoses; and, finally, letting small businesses pool resources to lower insurance costs--without imposing new taxes that kill jobs.

This second approach acknowledges that government already plays a major role in the health care system, and that it will continue to play a role in any solution we devise. But this approach is also based on the principle that government cannot be the solution. Americans want options, not a government-run plan that drives every private health plan out of business and forces people to give up the care they currently have and like.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services acknowledged this concern about a health care monopoly when she described those parts of the country where certain private health plans already have a monopoly. ``In many areas in the country,'' she said, ``the private market is monopolized by one carrier . . . You do not have a choice for consumers. And what we know in any kind of market is a monopoly does not give much incentive for other innovation or for cost-effective strategies.''

Well, if this is true of private health plans, then it would be especially true of a government-run health plan. If a government-run plan came into being, concerns about a monopoly would not just be regional, they would be national.

Another problem with a government plan is a feature that has become all too common in nations that have adopted one. Many of these nations have established so-called government boards as part of their government health plans that end up determining which benefits are covered and which benefits are not covered. Our former colleague and the President's first choice for HHS Secretary, Tom Daschle, envisions just such a board in his widely cited book on the topic. ``The Federal Health Board,'' he writes, ``would promote `high value' medical care by recommending coverage of those drugs and procedures backed by solid evidence.''

What this means is that the Federal Government would start telling Americans what drugs they can and cannot have. We know this because that is exactly what is happening in countries that have adopted these government boards. They have categorically denied cutting-edge treatments either because the treatments cost too much or because someone in the government decided the patients who needed it were either too old or too sick to be worth the effort. When these countries enacted health boards, I am sure their intention was not to delay and deny care. But that is exactly what these government boards are doing.

The writer and commentator Virginia Postrel, who has written for the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal recently wrote an account of her own first-hand experience with breast cancer and her ability to treat it successfully with the drug Herceptin here in the U.S. Postrel said the availability of the drug increased her chances of survival from a coin flip to 95 percent. A year after beginning her treatments, Postrel wrote that she had no signs of cancer.

In the same article, Postrel points out that the situation is far different in New Zealand, where a government board known as Pharmac decided that Herceptin should not be made available to some cancer patients in that country. As one cancer doctor in New Zealand put it, New Zealand ``is a good tourist destination, but options for cancer treatment are not so attractive there right now.'' Bureaucrats in New Zealand finally relented and allowed coverage for Herceptin, due in part to a public outcry over the limited availability of the drug.

New Zealanders have also been denied access to drugs that have proven to be effective in reducing the risk of heart disease and strokes. According to an article from 2006 in The New Zealand Medical Journal, the restrictions placed on statins by New Zealand's government board significantly hampered the preventative approach to heart disease. As the authors of the article put it, ``[it is probable that . . . this one decision] has caused more harm and premature death to New Zealand patients than any of their other maneuvers.''

Americans want health care reform. But they do not want reform that destroys what is good about American health care in the process. They do not want a government bureaucrat making arbitrary decisions about which drugs they or their loved ones can or cannot take to treat an illness. And they do not want to be told they have to give up the care they have. Americans do not want a government-run health plan. And they certainly do not want a government board to dictate their health care coverage. They want real reform that solves the problems they face without sacrificing the benefits they enjoy.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions, Senator Kyl, and I will take a few moments to discuss the pending Supreme Court nomination and the proceedings leading up to that. I have notified the Democratic floor staff that it might slightly delay the 4:20 vote. I find that not objectionable on the other side.

I would inform our colleagues that we are going to proceed as if in morning business. I ask unanimous consent that we may do so.

It will not cause much of a delay on the 4:20 vote.

Senator Sessions is up and will be first to speak.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Alabama for his observation about this nomination. He and I have been involved in a number of these confirmation proceedings over the years. In every one of them, I think there is a sense of fairness that can be reached on a bipartisan basis so that the nominee is adequately and appropriately vetted. That is what the Senator from Alabama is looking for as we go forward on the Judiciary Committee.

Frankly, I was surprised to learn that the majority decided unilaterally, basically, that the schedule would involve hearings beginning on that specific date, July 13, to which Senator Sessions referred.

During the Senate's consideration of both the Roberts and Alito nominations, we heard a lot from our Democratic colleagues about how the Senate wasn't a rubberstamp and about how it was more important to do it right than to do it fast. If that was the standard, I suggest to our colleagues, just a few years ago, why wouldn't it be a good standard today? If that was the standard when the Republicans were in the majority, why wouldn't it be a good standard when the Democrats are in the majority? We are talking about the same Supreme Court, the same lifetime appointment to which Senator Sessions referred.

The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, today, said back then that ``We need to consider this nomination as thoroughly and carefully as the American people deserve. It is going to take time.'' That was Senator Leahy then. He also said, ``It makes sense that we take time to do it right.'' I think the American people deserve nothing less. He also said that we want to do it right, we don't want to do it fast. Again, if that was the standard a few years ago when Republicans were in the majority, I don't know why it wouldn't be the standard today.

I don't know what our friends in the majority are fearful of. This nominee certainly has already been confirmed by the Senate twice. She has an extensive record, and it takes a while to go through 3,600 cases. In the case of the Chief Justice, there were only 327 cases. He had only been on the circuit court for a couple of years. She has been on one court or another for 17 years. It is a larger record. I am confident, and our ranking member, Senator Sessions, confirms that the staff is working rapidly to try to work their way through this lengthy number of cases. But a way to look at it is the committee had to review an average of six cases a day in order to be prepared for Judge Roberts' hearings--six cases a day. The committee will now have to review an average of 76 cases--76 cases--per day in order to be ready by the time the majority has proposed for the Sotomayor hearing.

The Senate functions on comity and cooperation, and the majority leader and I are a big part of that every day, trying to respect each other's needs and trying to make the Senate function appropriately. Here the Democratic majority is proceeding, in my view, in a heavy- handed fashion, completely unnecessary, and is basically being dismissive of the minority's legitimate concerns of a fair and thorough process. There is no point in this. It serves no purpose, other than to run the risk of destroying the kind of comity and cooperation that we expect of each other in the Senate, all of which was granted in the case of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.

Let me be clear. Because of what our Democratic colleagues are doing and the way they are doing it, it will now be much more difficult to achieve the kind of comity and cooperation on this and other matters that we need and expect around here as we try to deal with the Nation's business.

I hope they will reconsider their decision and work with us on a bipartisan basis to allow a thorough review of this lengthy record that the nominee possesses.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the annual renewal of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. Once again, I am joined by Senators Feinstein, McCain and Durbin who have been steadfast and longtime advocates for the Burmese people.

This resolution extends for another year the sanctions that are currently in place against the illegitimate Burmese regime, the State Peace and Development Council, SPDC. This bill would keep those sanctions in place unless and until the regime takes a number of clear steps towards democracy and reconciliation. This measure also includes renewal of the enhanced sanctions enacted last year as part of the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act of 2008.

As many of my colleagues know, the news from Burma has been particularly troubling of late. Nobel Peace Prize winner Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been under house arrest for 13 of the last 19 years, was charged last month with permitting a misguided American to enter her home. As a result, she faces up to 5 years in prison. My colleagues in the Senate and I remain deeply concerned about the outcome of her ``trial.'' I was pleased that the Senate responded to this outrageous prosecution by unanimously passing S. Res. 160, which condemned the ``trial'' of Suu Kyi and the dubious actions taken by the SPDC against her.

The Obama administration has indicated that a new strategy on Burma is forthcoming, and I look forward to reviewing it. Whatever the content of this strategy, it appears from correspondence between my House colleagues and the State Department that the administration will continue to support sanctions against the Burmese regime, even as it considers additional means of effecting positive change in the troubled country.

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

Mr. President, when it comes to health care, Americans are looking to Washington for real reform. Americans are rightly frustrated with the ever-increasing cost of health care, and many are concerned about losing the care they already have. Americans also believe that in a nation as prosperous as ours, no one should go without the health care they need. All of us agree reform is necessary, that we must do something to address the concerns Americans have on this issue. The only question is, What kinds of reform will we deliver?

Will we deliver a so-called reform that destroys what people like about the care they already have or will we deliver a reform that preserves what is good even as we solve the problems all of us acknowledge and want to address?

Unfortunately, some of the proposals coming out of Washington in recent weeks are giving Americans reason to be concerned. Americans have witnessed a government takeover of banks, insurance companies, and major portions of the auto industry. They are concerned about the consequences. Now they are concerned about a government takeover of health care--and for good reason.

What Americans want is for health care to be affordable and accessible. What some in Washington are offering instead is a plan to take away the care people already have--care that the vast majority of them were perfectly satisfied with--and replace it with a system in which care and treatment will either be delayed or denied.

Last week, I offered some examples of real people in Britain and Canada who were denied urgent medical treatment or necessary drugs under the kind of government-run system those two countries have and that many in Washington would now like to impose on Americans, whether the American people like it or not. This afternoon, I will describe how government-run health care systems such as the one in Canada not only deny but also delay care for weeks, months, and even years.

By focusing on just one hospital in one city in Canada--Kingston General, in the city of Kingston, Ontario--we can begin to get a glimpse of the effect that government-run health care has on the Canadians and the long waits they routinely endure for necessary care.

I have no doubt that the politicians in Canada never intended for the people of that country to see their health care denied or delayed. I am sure the intention was to make health care even more accessible and affordable than it was. But as we have seen so many times in our own country, government solutions have a tendency to create barriers instead of bridges. The unintended consequence becomes the norm. That is what happened in Canada, and Americans are concerned it could happen here too.

A medium-sized city of about 115,000, Kingston, Ontario, has about the same number of residents as Lansing, MI, to its south. But while it is not uncommon for Americans to receive medical care within days of a serious diagnosis, at Kingston General Hospital wait times can be staggering. Take hip replacement surgery, for example. A couple of years ago, the wait time for hip replacement surgery at Kingston General was almost 2 years. A lot of people were understandably unhappy with the fact that they had to wait more than a year and a half between the time a doctor said they needed a new hip and their surgery to actually get it. So the government worked to shorten the wait. Today, the average wait time for the same surgery at the same hospital is about 196 days. Apparently in Canada, the prospect of waiting 6 months for hip surgery is considered progress. That is hip replacement surgery. What about knee replacements? At Kingston General, the average wait is about 340 days, or almost a year, from the moment the doctor says you need a new knee. How about brain cancer? In Ontario, the target wait time for brain cancer surgery is 3 months--3 months. The same for breast cancer and for prostate cancer. And for cardiac bypass

surgery, patients in Ontario are told they have to wait 6 months for surgery Americans often get right away.

The patients at Kingston General Hospital in Kingston, Ontario, have been understandably unhappy with all the waiting they have to do. Fran Tooley was one of them.

Two years ago, Fran herniated three disks in her back and was told that it would take at least a year before she could consult a neurosurgeon about her injury which had left her in constant pain and unable to sit or stand for more than a half hour at a time. According to a story in the Kingston Whig-Standard, Fran's doctor referred her to a neurosurgeon after an MRI scan showed the herniated disks were affecting the nerves in her legs. The story went on to say that patients in Ontario can be forced to wait for up to 2 years and sometimes even longer for tests, appointments with specialists, or even urgent surgery.

Americans don't want to end up like Fran Tooley. They like being able to get the care they need when they need it. They don't want to be forced to give up their private health plans or to be pushed into a government plan that threatens their choices and the quality of their care. They don't want to wait 2 years for surgery their doctors say they need right away. And they don't want to be told they are too old for surgery or that a drug they need is too expensive. But all of these things could be headed our way. Americans want health care reform, but they don't want reform that forces them into a government plan and replaces the freedoms and choices they now enjoy with bureaucratic hassles, hours spent on hold, and surgeries and treatments being denied and delayed. They don't want a remote bureaucrat in Washington making life-and-death decisions for them or their loved ones. But if we enact the government-run plan, that is precisely what Americans can expect.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask my friend before he leaves the floor, what was the no-vote day in the July work period?

The 17th. I thank the leader.

Madam President, one thing that unites Democrats and Republicans this morning is that all of us want health care reform in this country. Americans want reform that addresses the high cost of care and gives everyone access to quality care. In America in 2009, doing nothing is simply not an option. We must act, and we must act decisively. The question is not whether to reform health care; the question is how best to reform health care.

Some are proposing as a reform that the government simply take over health care, but Americans have seen the government take over banks, they have seen the government take over insurance companies, they have seen the government take over auto companies, all of that in recent months, and they are concerned about it. So as we discuss health care reform, it is understandable that many Americans would be equally if not more concerned about a government takeover of health care.

Some are openly calling for this government takeover of health care, making no apologies about it. Others disguise their intentions by arguing for a government ``option'' that we all know will really lead to government-run health care being the one and only option. But it should be perfectly obvious to anyone who has followed government takeovers in the financial sector and the auto industry that government creates an unfair, not level playing field that puts other companies at a disadvantage and only ends up hurting consumers in the end.

We have seen this with the insurance bailouts. When most companies want to raise money, they have to show they are viable and their products and services are a worthwhile investment. That is what most companies have to go through. Bailed out insurers just have to ask for more money, and the government hands it over. Apply this model to health care, and the government would be able to create the same kind of uneven playing field that would, in all likelihood, eventually wipe out competition, thus forcing millions of people off the private health plans they already have and which the vast majority of them very much like.

We are also seeing the ill effects of government control in the auto industry. The government has already given billions of dollars to the financing arms of Chrysler and General Motors, allowing them to offer interest rates Ford and other private companies struggle to compete with. This means the only major U.S. automaker that actually made the tough choices and didn't take bailout money is at a major disadvantage as it struggles to compete with government-run auto companies such as GM. If Ford needs money, it has to raise it at an 8-percent rate of interest. If GM wants money, all it has to do is to call up the Treasury and ask for it. No company can compete with that.

This is how the government subsidizes failure and undercuts private companies, and this is how a government plan would undercut private health care plans, forcing people off the health plans they like and replacing those plans with plans they like less.

No safeguard could prevent this from happening. Eventually, Americans would be stuck with government-run health care whether they like it or not. That is when the worst scenario would take shape, with Americans subjected to bureaucratic hassles, hours spent on hold waiting for a government service representative to take a call, restrictions on care, and, yes, lifesaving treatment and lifesaving surgeries denied or delayed. Medical decisions should be made by doctors and patients, but once the government is in control, politicians and bureaucrats would be the ones telling people what kind of care they can have. Americans could find themselves being told they are too old to qualify for a procedure or that a treatment that could extend or improve their lives is too expensive.

If anybody doubts this can happen, they should consider what happened to Bruce Hardy.

Bruce was a British citizen suffering from cancer. His doctor wanted to prescribe a drug that was proven to delay the spread of the cancer and may well have extended his life. But the government bureaucrats who run Britain's health care system denied treatment, saying the drug was too expensive. The British Government told Bruce his life wasn't worth prolonging because of what it would cost the government to buy the drugs he needed. The government decided that Bruce Hardy's life wasn't worth it.

Or take the case of Shona Holmes, a Canadian citizen who was told by the bureaucrats running the health care system in that country she would have to wait 6 months--6 months--to see a specialist to treat her brain tumor. Here is how Shona described her plight:

If I had relied on my government, I would be dead.

Shona's life was eventually saved, fortunately, because she came to the United States for the care she needed. With her vision deteriorating, she went to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, and the doctors there told her immediate surgery would be needed to prevent permanent vision loss and maybe even death. Meanwhile, the government-run system in Canada would have required more appointments and more delays. Ms. Holmes got the treatment she needed, when she needed it, in the United States.

The American people want health care reform, but creating a government

bureaucracy that denies, delays, and rations health care is not the reform they want. They don't want the people who brought us the Department of Motor Vehicles making life-and-death decisions for them, their children, their spouses, and their parents. They don't want to end up like Bruce Hardy or Shona Holmes.

Madam President, on a very timely subject, we understand that discussions are underway on the conference report on the supplemental. I think it is important to remind everybody in the House and in the Senate that, just a few weeks ago, the Senate answered the question that has concerned Americans and that is this: whether the terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be transferred stateside to facilities that could be in or near their communities.

By an overwhelming vote of 90 to 6, the Senate said: No way, not without a plan. It passed the bipartisan Inouye-Inhofe amendment that bars the administration from transferring these terrorist detainees into the United States--90 to 6.

This is not a change in the Senate's position. Just a few years ago, the Senate, by a vote of 94 to 3, said the same thing: We should not move some of the world's most dangerous terrorists out of Guantanamo's modern, safe, and secure facility into our country.

The views of the Senate are abundantly clear. Nevertheless, it has been reported that congressional Democrats are privately considering the entreaties of the White House to repudiate these very clear views and to allow terrorist detainees to come into the United States.

What has changed? What has changed in the last couple weeks?

The views of the American people have not changed. In fact, they are more firmly opposed to this now than they were 2 months ago. Nor have the dangers and difficulties of moving the detainees into the United States.

The FBI Director, a couple weeks ago, testified about the dangers of holding these terrorists in the United States. Most of us are familiar with the problems Alexandria, VA, experienced with the trial of just one terrorist: security problems, transportation problems, logistical problems, commercial problems and on and on. Indeed, if you want to try these detainees by military commission--something I support--there is no better place than the $12 million modern courtroom right there at Guantanamo Bay.

The administration's supporters point to Supermax as a place to house these terrorists. But our colleagues from Colorado don't support moving them there, nor is there anyplace in the facility to put them.

The Denver Post reports there is just one bed open at Supermax--just one. That means these terrorists would have to come somewhere else, perhaps to a facility in your State.

Why in the world would Senate Democrats be considering the idea of giving the administration millions of dollars for doing this, especially since we still don't have a plan?

According to a Member of the Democratic leadership, it is because keeping terrorists at Guantanamo is a ``problem politically'' for the administration.

That is most curious. Assuming this is a political problem, with whom does the administration have it? It is not with the American people. They don't want Guantanamo closed, and they certainly don't want its inmates transferred here. It is not with our colleagues from Colorado. They don't want these detainees transferred into their State any more than the rest of America does.

It seems like the administration's ``political problem'' is a diplomatic one with the Europeans, who want the United States to accept some of these dangerous terrorists before they will. It is not in the interest of the United States to compromise our security to appease our European critics.

Similar to most Americans, I am for keeping Guantanamo open. It is safe and securely away from our civilian population. Perhaps I could be persuaded to change my mind if the administration comes up with a plan. They have time to do that and still receive funding to execute a plan through the regular order when we take up the 2010 appropriations bills in a few months.

But we should not rush to give the administration a blank check to do something, sight unseen, that Americans overwhelmingly oppose.

As Senate Democrats have often said, the Senate is not a rubberstamp. We should not flip-flop on our vote of a few weeks ago.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, we have not had an opportunity to get that cleared on this side. Therefore, I object.

Madam President, I make the same observation with regard to this nominee. We have not yet

been able to clear it on this side. Therefore, I object.

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

Mr. President, at some point we will be back on the postcloture time. When that occurs, I ask unanimous consent that my hour postcloture be given to the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Burr.

Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about the FDA legislation we have been debating on the floor this week. First, I thank Senator Enzi for his hard work in managing this bill. He always does a great job. I also wish to acknowledge Senator Burr's thoughtful leadership on this legislation. This is a complicated set of issues. No one--I repeat, no one--knows the intricacies better than the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Burr. He has been a good friend and ally of producers and growers dating back to his days in the House, and he has offered a thoughtful alternative to this very flawed legislation which we have before us.

A few years ago, I led the effort in Congress to enact a tobacco buyout which ended the Federal Government's support of tobacco production. Although the number of tobacco farms in

Kentucky has decreased as a result of that legislation, thousands of Kentucky farm families and communities still depend on the income from tobacco production. I have concerns about the effect this legislation might have on them.

Still, no one in this Chamber would deny that tobacco is hazardous to the health of those who use it. Everyone knows that. If the purpose of this bill is to reduce the harm it could cause the people who consume it, then forcing the Food and Drug Administration to do the regulating would be the wrong route to take.

Former FDA Administrator Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach has predicted that forcing the FDA to regulate tobacco would undermine the agency's core mission of protecting the public health and ensuring that foods, medicines, and other products don't pose a risk to American consumers. When the FDA approves a product, Americans expect the product to be safe, but as we all know, there is no such thing as a safe cigarette. It doesn't exist. Forcing the FDA to regulate cigarettes will not make them safer for the American people.

This legislation is flawed for other reasons as well. As Senators Burr, Enzi, and others have repeatedly pointed out, the FDA is already overworked in carrying out its core mission of protecting the public health. When it comes to contaminated peanut butter, tainted toothpaste, or unsafe drugs coming into the United States, Americans expect that all of FDA's resources are being used to protect them. Yet instead of freeing additional resources for the FDA to perform this important function, this legislation could divert the agency's limited resources toward an impossible task: Vouching for the safety of a product that cannot be made safe. The American people don't want the FDA's resources diverted on a fool's errand.

It is hard to understand what the supporters of this bill are trying to accomplish. If the goal is to reduce smoking, then why isn't there a single dime--not one dime--in this bill directed at smoking cessation programs? If there is no such thing as a safe cigarette, the best way to help smokers is to help them kick the habit. This bill doesn't do that. If the goal of this legislation is to launch a public campaign to reduce smoking and promote better health, then why is there no focus on Federal programs that are already in place to achieve this goal?

This legislation is the wrong way to regulate tobacco, and that is why Senator Burr will offer a thoughtful way to accomplish the goal. Senator Burr's proposal would create a new agency whose sole responsibility is to regulate tobacco. This would address the problem without undermining FDA's mission or straining its resources.

Forcing the FDA to regulate and approve the use of tobacco would be a distortion of the agency's mission and a tremendous misuse of its overstretched resources. We should be focused on giving FDA the resources it needs to protect the public health, not burdening it with an impossible assignment.