Floor Statements

Mr. President, as we consider the best way to reform health care, some have argued that a so-called government option would not lead to a government takeover of health care. They promise safeguards to ensure a level playing field between private plans and a government-run plan. But no safeguard could ever create a truly level playing field. The reason is simple: Unlike private insurance plans, a government-run plan would have unlimited access to taxpayer money and could borrow as much money as it wants to subsidize the cost of services. The Federal Government is already planning to borrow $1.8 trillion this year alone. If a company were allowed to borrow that much money, it could easily wipe out its competition, set prices, and create a monopoly. That is just what a so-called government ``option'' for health care will, in all likelihood, lead to.

A government-run plan would set artificially low prices that private insurers would have no way of competing with. Rates for private health plans would either skyrocket, leaving companies and individuals unable to afford them, or private health plans would simply be forced out of business. Either way, the government-run plan would take over the health care system, radically changing the way Americans choose and receive their care, from routine checkups to lifesaving surgeries. No safeguard could prevent this crowdout from happening, and no safeguard could, therefore, keep the millions of Americans who currently like the health care they have from being forced off of their plans and onto a government-run plan instead.

This isn't some fantasy scenario. We are already seeing in the government takeover of the auto industry how government interference in business forces firms out of the way by leveraging taxpayer dollars against their private competitors. Now that the government runs General Motors and has provided billions to its financing arm, GMAC, the company is offering interest rates that Ford, which hasn't taken any government money, and other companies which haven't taken any government money just can't compete with. What this means is that one American auto company that actually made the tough decisions so that it wouldn't need a government bailout is now at a competitive disadvantage to a company that is being propped up by billions of dollars of borrowed tax money. This is how the government subsidizes failure at taxpayers' expense and can unfairly undercut good companies, and this is precisely why so many Americans are worried about the trend of increased government involvement in the economy. The government is running banks now. It is running insurance companies. As of this week, it is running a significant portion of the American automobile industry. Now it is thinking seriously about running the entire health care industry, and chances are Americans won't like the result any more than they like the government takeover of the banks or the auto industry.

Americans who now take for granted the ability to choose their care may suddenly find themselves being told by government bureaucrats that they are too old to qualify for a certain kind of surgery or that they have to go to the back of the line for a procedure they can now get right away. As I have said, Americans want health care reform, but this isn't what they have in mind. Americans don't want their health care denied and they don't want it delayed. But once government health care is the only option, bureaucratic hassles, endless hours stuck on hold waiting for government service representatives, restrictions on care, and, yes, rationing, are sure to follow. Americans don't want some remote bureaucrat in Washington deciding whether their mothers and fathers or spouses have access to a lifesaving drug. They don't want to share the fate of Bruce Hardy.

Bruce was a British citizen who was suffering from cancer. According to press reports, his doctor wanted to prescribe a new drug that was proven to delay the spread of his disease. But the government agency that runs Britain's health care system denied the treatment. They said it was too expensive--that Bruce Hardy's life wasn't worth prolonging, based on the cost to the government of the drug he needed to live. In a story discussing Bruce's plight, the New York Times noted that if Bruce had lived in the United States, he likely would have been able to get this treatment.

But that could change. What happened to Bruce Hardy could happen here. Americans who now have the freedom to find the care they need and to make their own health care decisions could be stripped of that right by a new government agency. This happens every single day in countries such as Britain. It happens to people like Bruce Hardy, against their will and against the will of their loved ones. As Bruce's wife put it:

Everybody should be allowed to have as much life as they

can.

In America, we are free to make those decisions ourselves. If Congress approves a government takeover of health care, that freedom could soon be a memory.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, yesterday I noted that all of us wish to reform health care but that we need to do so without sacrificing what Americans like about our current system. They like the freedom, they like the choice, they like the quality of care, they like the options, and they like the efficiency. I also noted that the kind of government takeover of health care that some of our Democratic friends are contemplating could lead to a decline in every one of those things. This morning, I wish to explain in a little greater detail how it could happen.

The first point I wish to make is that the very concept of a government option is itself misleading. What starts out as an option could quickly become the only option. This is clear to anyone who realizes that, unlike market-based health plans, any government-run plan would have unlimited access to taxpayer money and could use that money to subsidize the cost of services, and artificially lower prices would make the government-run plan more attractive to individuals and businesses. Some say this could be avoided by creating ``safeguards'' to ensure a level playing field for the market-based insurers and a government plan. But no safeguard could create a truly level playing field, and any safeguard could easily be eliminated once a government plan is enacted. A government plan would also be able to operate at a loss--a loss the taxpayers would have to cover one way or another.

Government could also keep health care costs artificially low by paying providers less than private insurers do, just as it already does with both Medicare and Medicaid. At first blush, that

may actually sound appealing, but as we know, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Let me explain.

Right now, doctors and hospitals make up the difference between what a procedure costs and what the government is willing to pay for it by passing those costs on to private insurers. But doctors and hospitals would likely get even less under a new government health plan, so they would shift even more costs on to private insurers, who would then raise rates for individuals and businesses even higher than they were before. Once these higher rates take effect, employers would be all but certain to start encouraging workers to enroll in the government-run plan.

As a result of all of this, it is easy to see how private market health plans would become more and more expensive and thus less and less affordable and accessible. At some point, private health plans would likely be crowded out altogether, and government care would be the only option left. That is where the delays and the denied care would begin to kick in. Under a government system, Americans would have no choice but to accept all the bureaucratic hassles and the endless time spent on hold waiting for a government service representative to take their calls. They would also have to deal with all of the restrictions of care that inevitably follow. What is being advertised as an option will eventually lead to delays--delays in testing, delays in diagnosis, and delays in treatment.

So the question Americans need to ask themselves is whether this is the reform they really want. Do we really want a government takeover of health care, because that is what a so-called government option would lead to in very short order. Americans need to realize that when someone says ``government option,'' what could really occur is a government takeover that soon could lead to government bureaucrats denying and delaying care and telling Americans what kind of care they can have.

The irony in all of this is that as a result of a government takeover of health care, the private plans tens of millions of Americans currently enjoy will eventually only be available to just a very few wealthy Americans--to those who are able to pay for more health care than they currently have and like. According to a recent study, 119 million Americans would lose the private coverage they currently have as a consequence of a government plan. The best options would only remain available to a select few.

Over the last few months, we have seen government getting involved in virtually every aspect of our economy. Washington is suddenly running the banks and the auto companies. Now it is thinking about running America's health care. The results, I am afraid, would not lead to the kinds of reforms Americans really want in their health care. Instead, it would lead to a system that most Americans would deeply regret.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will have to object, I would just say to my friend from New Mexico, we have not been able to get that nomination cleared yet on this side, but we will be consulting with the Republican colleagues and at some point let him know whether it is possible to go forward. Therefore, I object.

Mr. President, let me say to the distinguished majority leader welcome back from the recess. It is good to see him. We are ready to get to work.

Mr. President, on the matter of the Supreme Court, I note that I spoke with the President's nominee, Judge Sotomayor, over the recess, and I assured her she would be treated fairly and respectfully during the confirmation process. I will deliver the same message when the two of us have a chance to sit down and talk later this week.

Republicans take very seriously our obligation to review anyone who is nominated to a lifetime position on our Nation's highest Court. The Senate will therefore thoroughly review Judge Sotomayor's judicial record to ensure a full and informed debate over her qualifications to become one of the chief guardians of our Nation's Constitution and its laws. We believe the American people expect nothing less.

Judge Sotomayor is no stranger to the process. This will be the third time she has come before the Senate for confirmation to the Federal bench. In considering her for a seat on the Supreme Court, the standards for review become understandably more rigorous, as the Vice President observed when he chaired the Judiciary Committee. Yet the basic qualities we look for in our justices are the same qualities we look for in any Federal judge: superb legal ability, personal integrity, sound temperament, and, most importantly, a commitment to read the law evenhandedly.

In this last respect, some of Judge Sotomayor's past statements and decisions have raised some understandable questions and concerns. One of these is a statement she made a few years back that the Court of Appeals is, ``Where policy is made.'' I think that is a tough statement to square with Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which clearly contemplates a far more limited role for Federal judges, and I suspect that a number of us over here in the legislative branch will want to ask Judge Sotomayor questions about that statement.

The reason is simple. I think most Americans would agree that the courtroom is not an appropriate place to exercise one's political beliefs or personal preferences. As far as most of us are concerned, politics ends at the courthouse door. The courtroom is where you go to get a fair and evenhanded reading of the law, regardless of who you are or where you came from or who you voted for. Legislators make the laws, not judges. Most people understand that and place a high value on it. And the last time Judge Sotomayor came before the Senate for confirmation, I voted against her nomination precisely out of a concern that she would bring pre-existing personal and political beliefs into the courtroom.

Many of the same concerns I had about Judge Sotomayor 11 years ago persist. But a fresh review of her record has now begun and, as I said, Republicans will insist that the confirmation process for Judge Sotomayor is conducted in a fair and professional manner. This is the way Republicans have treated judicial nominees in the past, and this is the way we will continue to treat them: with respect.

But respectful doesn't mean rushed. Judge Sotomayor has a long record, and it will take a long time to get through it. She has served 17 years on both the trial and the appellate court. She has been involved in more than 3,600 cases since becoming a judge. In order to conduct a thorough examination of all these cases, it is vital that the Senate have sufficient time to do so.

During the last three Supreme Court confirmations, the average amount of time the Senate had to prepare for a hearing was more than 60 days. For Justice Alito, the Senate had 70 days to prepare for an informed hearing. And like Judge Sotomayor, Justice Alito had thousands of cases for Senators to review. Our Democrat colleagues who were in the minority during the Alito nomination appreciated the fairness they were afforded; both the senior Senator from Vermont and the senior Senator from New York noted at the time that in handling the Alito nomination it was important to do it right, not quick.

This time around, our friend Senator Schumer notes that Judge Sotomayor has a very ``extensive'' record, and we certainly have a ``right'' to ``scrutinize'' it. So in considering this nomination I am confident our Democratic colleagues will treat us fairly and allow us to do it ``right.''

Throughout this process, Republicans will be guided by a few simple principles. But perhaps the most important ones are these: Americans expect and should receive equal treatment under the law, and Americans want judges who understand their role is to interpret the law, not write it. As Chief Justice Roberts put it during his confirmation hearing, the American people expect a judge to be like an umpire-- someone who applies the rules but doesn't make them. No one ever went to a ballgame, as he put it, to watch the umpire.

Lawmakers make law, and they have to answer for those laws every 2 or 6 years to the voters. Federal judges, on the other hand, never have to face the voters, and thus aren't supposed to

make policy. Lifetime appointments are a serious matter, and voting on a Supreme Court Justice is one of the most important decisions a Senator will ever make. Republicans approach this nomination with a clear set of guiding principles, and we will make every effort to determine whether Judge Sotomayor shares them.

Mr. President, we're all interested in reforming health care. And while this debate has yet to fully play out, we already know one thing for sure: any action we take on this issue will affect every single American.

There is no doubt Americans are frustrated with the increasing cost of health care and that many are worried about losing the health care they have. Many Americans can't afford health care or have to choose between basic necessities and medical care they need. This is what is wrong with the current system, and we need to fix it.

Yet it is also true that many Americans are satisfied with the care they have. They like being able to see their doctor and being able to get the care they need, when they need it. These are the things that are right about patient-focused American-style healthcare, and that we wouldn't want to sacrifice.

So while both parties recognize that serious reform of our health care system is needed, we must also recognize the importance of getting it right. Americans want reform. The question is what kind of reform. Reform is necessary, but not all so-called reforms are necessarily good.

Based on some of the things we have been hearing out of Democrats in Washington in recent weeks, Americans have good reason to be concerned about what the future holds for health care.

The biggest concern is the talk of a Government takeover of health care. Americans suspect that what's being sold as a Government ``option'' would soon become the only option.

Those who like the care they have don't particularly like the idea of the people who brought us the Department of Motor Vehicles handling life or death health care decisions, like whether or not they are eligible for surgery or whether they qualify for a certain medicine according to some impersonal Government board in Washington. They don't want to rely on bureaucrats in Washington to get their phone calls returned or their office visits covered. But the prospect of a Government takeover of health care is becoming more and more real.

Democrats in the Senate want Government to play a dominant role in health care delivery. Both the chairmen of the Senate Finance and HELP Committees have said they want to produce legislation that relies on a Government-run plan. And nearly half of Senate Democrats have endorsed a resolution stating that any health care reform must include a Government-run plan.

Democrats in the House of Representatives are circulating an outline of how they would like to change American health care. Their plan would create a Government-run insurance model that could limit patient choices. Americans who want to keep their health insurance plan should be allowed to do so. Yet one respected study showed that 118 million Americans could lose their current private insurance and end up in a Government plan if this proposal was enacted. The House Democrats' plan could also lead to the creation of a Government board that would determine what benefits and drugs are available to patients and what prices would be charged.

The administration also wants the Government to take a leading role in health care. During the campaign, the President said that if he were designing a system from scratch, he would probably ``go ahead'' with a single-payer system. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shares the President's belief that any reform must guarantee the inclusion of a Government plan.

The American people want health care decisions left up to families and doctors, not bureaucrats in Washington. They don't want a Government takeover that denies or delays the care they need, and they don't want politicians telling them how much or what kind they can have.

That is why many of us who recognize the need for reform will insist on making health care more affordable and accessible, while protecting the doctor-patient relationship and ensuring every American can get the care they need, when they need it. This is the kind of health care reform that Americans want, and this is the reform we will support.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to the accomplishments of the Campbellsville University Tigers' Baseball Team from my home State of Kentucky. Their recent 4-0 win over Kansas Wesleyan earned the Tigers their first trip to the NAIA Baseball World Series in Lewiston, ID.

The Tigers' hard work and dedication throughout the season has paid off as they represent their school in the tournament. The players embody the principles of teamwork and their tireless efforts resulted in a successful season that has lead to this monumental and meaningful honor.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the team and coaches from Campbellsville for their performance during the regular season and for making it to the World Series. I further ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record as well as the names of the players and coaches.

Madam President, a little later this morning, the President will discuss his decision to close Guantanamo by an arbitrary deadline that is now only 8 months away. It is clear to both Republicans and Democrats in Congress that the administration does not currently have a plan for closing Guantanamo and that closing it without a plan is simply unacceptable. So I hope the President uses his remarks this morning to present a concrete plan that demonstrates how closing Guantanamo will keep Americans as safe as Guantanamo has.

We know the FBI has serious concerns about any plans to release or transfer other detainees into the United States. Just yesterday, FBI Director Mueller said detainees who are sent to U.S. soil, even if they are only sent to secure detention facilities, might still be able to conduct terrorist activities, much like gang leaders who have been able to run their gangs from prison. Director Mueller also stated that detainees released or transferred

into the United States could endanger the American people by radicalizing others or providing financial support for terrorism. Director Mueller's testimony appears to undermine the claim that sending detainees to the United States is a safe alternative to Guantanamo.

Yesterday, the Senate spoke with near unanimity, by a vote of 90 to 6, against sending terrorist detainees to U.S. soil--a vote that mirrored a vote 2 years ago on the same question. The Senate also expressed its view yesterday that Congress expects its relevant committees to be briefed on the threat posed by the terrorists at Guantanamo. So it is clear that Senate Democrats do not believe circumstances have changed over the last 2 years in such a way that would warrant releasing or transferring terrorists into America.

If the President believes circumstances have changed, then he has an opportunity to explain those changes this morning. The American people are asking the administration to guarantee that any terrorist it releases or transfers will not return to the battlefield. This is particularly urgent in light of a New York Times report this morning that says one in seven detainees already released has returned to terrorism. The President has an opportunity to reassure the American people that future releases will not lead to the same result. If he is not able to provide specifics about his plan for terrorist detainees at Guantanamo, he could still provide this assurance by simply revising his policy. The President has already shown adaptability on military commissions, on prisoner photos, on Iraq, on Afghanistan, and on Pakistan. Here is an opportunity to show more of that flexibility on Guantanamo.

Madam President, Americans have noticed a steady uptick in the price of gasoline over the past few weeks, and it is only going to get worse during the summer driving season. The economic downturn may have caused gas prices to fall from last summer's record highs, but as the economy recovers, $4 gasoline could well return and Americans will want answers.

Fortunately, many of us have been busy putting together a balanced, sensible solution that gets at the root of our energy crisis and addresses the concerns of everyone involved in this debate, including some who traditionally have been at odds. We believe it is possible to build a bridge to the clean energy future all of us want without introducing crippling taxes on consumers or on industry. So this morning, with Memorial Day fast approaching, I would like to briefly outline this balanced approach.

The first step is to admit we have a serious problem. Something must be done to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. America uses more than a fifth of the world's supply of oil, much of it from countries that do not like us. If we start by using less, we will need a lot less from other countries. So conservation and increased efficiency are certainly necessary. It is something on which everyone can agree. We need to use less.

But conservation is only half the equation. Even as we use less energy, we need to produce more of our own. America sits on an ocean--a literal ocean--of untapped oil and natural gas and vast stores of coal and oil shale. Our geography also makes us rich in renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal. Taken together, these resources are the perfect complement as we move toward the day when cars and factories can run on cleaner, more efficient fuels. But we have to be realistic about how far off that day is. We have to admit there is a gap between the clean renewable fuel we want and the reliable energy we need. So as we invest in technologies that will bring us cleaner, more efficient energy, the only way we can expect to truly reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil is to produce more American energy and use less. This may sound like a simple proposal. The best solutions usually are. Unfortunately, the idea of finding more energy at home and using less is needlessly controversial because some are unwilling to admit that a gap exists between the energy we need now and the energy we want, and still others do not like a number of our proposals for finding more domestic energy.

Here is what we have proposed. We propose building 100 new clean nuclear energy plants as soon as possible. We propose offshore exploration for natural gas and oil. We propose making plug-in electric cars and trucks half of all new vehicles sold in 20 years. And we propose doubling research and development on energy to make all of this possible. These and other proposals, including the development of clean coal and coal-to-liquids technologies, constitute a balanced, comprehensive approach that would do all the things we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, help reduce our consumption, and build the bridge to a cleaner, more efficient energy future.

This approach would strengthen our economy by preserving jobs in existing industries even as we create new jobs by investing in new technologies. It would enhance our security by reducing our dependence on foreign suppliers. And it would help the environment by embracing the cleaner, more efficient energy sources of the future.

All of us recognize we should reduce the amount of energy we use. We also recognize the energy we use should be as clean as possible, as reliable as possible, and as inexpensive as possible. Our balanced approach of finding more American energy and using less would bring about all these things without hurting the economy or disrupting our lives or hindering security.

So as the summer driving season continues, Americans will be reminded, once again, that our Nation's energy crisis has not gone away. But the approach I have outlined addresses that crisis head-on. Republicans will continue to speak out about the produce-more, use-less model. We hope our friends on the other side recognize it is the only sensible approach to a crisis that must be addressed.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, regretfully I have to reserve the right to object. I have to check on one thing. Shall we enter a quorum call?

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the first Honor Flight from Kentucky for the 2009 operational season. Many members of this body have had the chance to see their constituents at the World War II Memorial because of the noble work Honor Flight does in transporting surviving World War II veterans from around the country to see their memorial free of charge. I am honored to have been invited to participate in previous flights from the Commonwealth, and I regret that my schedule prevented me from attending the one that took place this past weekend. I hope to have the chance once again to visit with Kentucky Honor Flight participants.

On Saturday, May 16, Honor Flight's Bluegrass Chapter arrived in our Nation's Capital with 79 World War II veterans from my home State of Kentucky to see the memorial which they inspired. It is my hope that these veterans felt a sense of pride in seeing their memorial after all, pride is the very same feeling these men and women inspire in their fellow Americans.

In my previous experiences in meeting with the participants of Honor Flight trips, people of all ages have been humbled by the presence of these veterans at the memorial. School children have shook hands with the men and women who served in World War II and thanked them for their service. Others have asked for the privilege of taking a photo with a real-life American hero. Still more, including myself, have shared stories that have been passed down through generations about how World War II affected their family. In watching these interactions, one thing is clear: the sacrifices that these men and women made will never be forgotten.

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the Kentucky veterans who were here over the weekend for having served to protect our great nation's principles from the enemies of freedom. I ask unanimous consent that the names of the 79 World War II veterans from the Commonwealth be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to note passage of a Senate resolution on Burma. This resolution reflects the U.S. Senate's unequivocal condemnation of the show trial currently being conducted by Burmese officials against Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. It is bad enough that Suu Kyi has been imprisoned for 13 of the past 19 years. Now the Burmese regime, the State Peace and Development Council, has come up with the flimsiest of pretexts to try to detain her further. It appears the regime will do anything to consolidate its grip on power. One suspects that the regime wants Suu Kyi behind bars at least until elections under its sham constitution are held in 2010.

I am gratified that this resolution reflects the strong, bipartisan view of the Senate on this matter. This resolution, which was authored by Senator Gregg, is cosponsored by Senators Feinstein, Durbin, McCain, Brownback, Lieberman, Collins, Bennett, Bond and me. It is also cosponsored by the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senators Kerry and Lugar. A clearer signal from this chamber about Suu Kyi could hardly be sent.

As I noted earlier in the week, the members of the Senate have been and will continue to monitor the trial of Suu Kyi with deep concern.

Mr. President, let me say to my good friend, the majority leader, I concur with his observations about how the Senate should appropriately work. I think we have had a process for handling legislation this year that both sides can be proud of, and I wish to say I concur entirely with his observations about the way the Senate is working.

Obviously, the minority does not agree with a lot of the things we are doing, but the opportunity to shape legislation and for each Senator to make a difference has been respected this year, and for that I commend the majority leader.