Floor Statements

Madam President, 2 days ago, Senator Coburn offered a series of amendments to the debt ceiling bill requiring $120 billion in funding cuts, including $1.3 billion from the State Department. During the debate on those cuts, Senator Coburn stated that the ``foreign ops appropriations increased by . . . 33 percent last year.''

If that were accurate, I would share the Senator's concern. But when the Senator purports to speak for the American people, as he often does, he should stick to the facts.

The Senator surely knew that by suggesting the State and Foreign Operations budget increased by 33 percent in a single year he was distorting the actual increase, and that he was not counting the billions in supplemental funding for these programs in fiscal year 2009, every dollar of which was added to the Federal deficit and will have to be paid in future years because the former Republican administration wanted to pretend to be spending less.

In its fiscal year 2010 budget, the Obama administration, responding to pressure from Congress, stopped the budget gimmickry of funding ongoing programs like aid for Iraq, year after year, in off budget ``emergency'' supplementals. Instead, the President requested funding for these programs in its regular fiscal year 2010 budget. If you compare the fiscal year 2010 budget request with the fiscal year 2009 budget request minus the fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding, as the Senator from Oklahoma did, you obviously get a distorted result that suggests a much bigger increase than actually occurred. It makes a great talking point, it sparks cries of outrage, but it is not what actually occurred.

The actual increase for State and Foreign Operations from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010, if you count regular budget and supplemental appropriations, was 9 percent. And the bulk of that increase was for global health programs, to combat HIV/AIDS and H1N1, for humanitarian crises such as the funds we are using to save lives in Haiti today, and for personnel to fill vacancies at embassies and USAID missions around the world that have been short staffed--some by as much as 20 percent-- due to transfers of personnel to priority posts such as Iraq and Afghanistan. These increases were supported by Republicans and Democrats alike.

As I said during the debate on the Coburn amendments, there may be programs that are not achieving the results they should and which can be eliminated. No one wants to waste money that could be better spent. But Senator Gregg, the ranking member, and I spend a good deal of time each year making the difficult choices that Senator Coburn declined to make when he proposed his 5-percent cut. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and accuse others of overspending when you do not take responsibility for determining what the actual needs are, and decide which programs to fund and which not to fund, whether they are requested by the President or by other Senators. If we had funded them all, we would have spent two or three times our allocation. We always stay within our allocation, which in fiscal year 2010 was close to $900 million below the President's budget. And we did it with no earmarks.

So let's be honest about the budget. There was nothing close to a 33- percent increase last year, and it is important to set the record straight.

Mr. President, I will vote for President Obama's nomination of Benjamin Bernanke for a second term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.

Chairman Bernanke's nomination should be examined through the prism of how he performed during the recent financial crisis, and with full consideration of the best interests of the American people and their stake in the Nation's economic recovery.

It is clear that prompt and decisive action by Federal officials like Dr. Bernanke saved the country from another Great Depression. Since the economic meltdown in the fall of 2008, the Federal government has committed its resources to quell the financial turmoil and stabilize the economy. The Federal Reserve, led by Chairman Bernanke, played a central role in these efforts. They cut interest rates early and aggressively, reducing the target for the Federal funds rate to nearly zero. They created targeted lending programs to restart the flow of credit in critical markets. They worked with other agencies--like the Treasury Department, the FDIC, and overseas central banks--to ensure that financial institutions worldwide had access to short-term funding.

I supported these efforts to respond to the financial crisis to prevent the country from sliding into an economic depression, which was a very real possibility just a few months ago. Congress passed an economic rescue bill that staved off a full market retreat, and it enacted an economic recovery plan that is beginning to turn things around. Through these efforts our economy has begun to show signs of progress in recent months.

But much more is needed to jump-start our economy, and the Federal Reserve needs to focus more on helping Main Street, not just Wall Street. While I believe Chairman Bernanke acted wisely during the worst of the economic crisis, he now needs to concentrate his efforts on a broader economic recovery by helping small businesses gain access to affordable capital to expand their markets and create more jobs. Small businesses are the backbone of Vermont's and the Nation's economy. During his second term, Chairman Bernanke must direct the Federal Reserve to do more to support small business economic growth.

And with the Federal Reserve playing such a large role in the recovery effort, the American people deserve greater transparency by knowing the full extent of the Fed's lending programs, which is why I have cosponsored legislation introduced by Senator Sanders to provide for a full audit of the funds released by the Federal Reserve.

The early stages of an economic recovery are fragile--all the more during this recovery, as we inch back from a time, unprecedented in our lifetimes, when the United States and the world stood on the brink of financial collapse in the fall of 2008. Economic decisions and markets and ultimately our economy itself are unsettled by uncertainty, and the intended or unintended effects that a sudden turnover at the Federal Reserve would have right now on the economic recovery should not and must not be underestimated.

When considering who would best fill important positions like Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the President and the Senate must ensure that Federal agencies are led by qualified and competent officials. Chairman Bernanke has helped to steer our financial and economic system through the worst financial storm in nearly a century. With much work remaining, I support his nomination for another term.

Mr. President, I introduce today the Refugee Opportunity Act, legislation that corrects an unfortunate limitation under current law. I thank Senator Lugar for joining me in support of this legislation. The immigration statute requires a refugee who is resettled in the United States to remain on U.S. soil for a full year before adjusting to lawful permanent residence. For many, this requirement offers no obstacles. The majority of resettled refugees immediately begin to work, learn English, and contribute to their local communities. Yet the 1-year physical presence requirement poses a significant barrier to resettled refugees who are eager and willing to serve the U.S. Government overseas. If they do, they lose that settlement. We can correct that.

One of the tragic legacies of the war in Iraq is the humanitarian crisis that grew out of the conflict, in which millions of people have been displaced both internally and externally, and in which many others have been killed in horrific acts of political and religious persecution. Violent reprisals, kidnappings, and bombings were committed during the insurgency that rose up after May 2003, when President Bush declared the end of major combat operations. Diplomatic and military efforts to quell the insurgency and bring order to Iraq were aided by many brave Iraqi citizens, who, at great risk to themselves and their families, assisted the United States as interpreters or in other capacities. These individuals took such risks knowing the dangers they faced, and many lost their lives.

In 2007, I worked with Senator Ted Kennedy to enact legislation to provide special visas for Iraqi interpreters who had assisted the United States in Iraq and who wished to resettle in the United States to escape the grave dangers they faced as a result of their cooperation with our government. I was proud to join Senator Kennedy in that effort. The enactment of that legislation made clear our commitment to aiding those who had assisted the United States with the critical mission in Iraq. It was the right thing to do.

In 2008, I joined Senator Schumer in sponsoring the Military Personnel Citizenship Processing Act. This legislation removed bureaucratic barriers to becoming U.S. citizens for immigrants serving in our military. Congress enacted this legislation to recognize the contributions of immigrants who serve the United States and to fulfill many soldiers' dreams of becoming U.S. citizens. Also in 2008, I worked with Senator Mikulski to enact the complementary Kendell Frederick Citizenship Assistance Act, a bill that made the pathway to citizenship for immigrants serving in the military simpler and more efficient. Congress has spoken consistently in favor of recognizing the value of immigrants and refugees who embrace the United States through service to their adopted Nation.

Today I introduce the Refugee Opportunity Act, legislation that builds upon this strong commitment by correcting an unfortunate limitation under current law. I thank Senator Lugar for joining me in support of this legislation. The immigration statute requires a refugee who is resettled in the United States to remain on U.S. soil for a full year in order to adjust to lawful permanent residence. For many, this requirement presents no obstacles. The majority of resettled refugees immediately begin to work, learn English, and contribute to their local communities. The 1-year physical presence requirement poses a significant barrier to resettled refugees who are eager and willing to serve the U.S. Government overseas, whether as an engineer, a translator, or in some other meaningful capacity. Accepting such employment will result in the delay of a refugee's ability to adjust his or her status and fully integrate into our society. There is no logical reason to deter these refugees from taking U.S.-affiliated positions overseas, especially when they seek to serve the government that has offered them protection.

One example of such a case can be found in the story of Mr. Ahmed Alrais. Mr. Alrais came to the United States as a refugee with his family after he worked as an interpreter for the U.S. Army in Iraq. His work for the Army led to threats against his life, and the United States appropriately granted him refugee status. But then, after struggling to find work in the Chicago area and wanting to provide for his family, Mr. Alrais decided to again face the risks of working in Iraq. He joined the staff of a U.S. Army contractor and began to work on a military base in Iraq. Ironically, taking this risk has delayed his ability to earn lawful permanent residence in the United States because the Department of Homeland Security will not give him credit toward the 1 year physical presence requirement for the time he has spent working with the Army contractor in Iraq. If he had remained in the United States for a full year unemployed, he would not have been penalized under the immigration law. By choosing to work, to support his family, and serve our Nation's military effort in Iraq, he has sacrificed months toward obtaining a green card.

To recognize the past and future contributions of refugees like Mr. Alrais, this legislation proposes to create an exception in our immigration law to waive the continuous presence requirement for any refugee who, during their first year of residence in the United States, accepts employment overseas to aid the U.S. Government. This legislation will not only recognize the commendable actions of refugees who wish to honor the United States by working for our government overseas, it will also enrich our government's military and diplomatic missions by drawing upon the professional and language skills of refugees. Finally, this bill will encourage more refugees to assist the U.S. efforts abroad. These are goals we should all support.

Our refugee policies have long been a beacon of hope and promise to many around the world. This legislation is the beginning of a renewed effort to improve and modernize our refugee policies to adapt to our changing world. March 17 will mark the 30th anniversary of the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, a law originally introduced by Senator Kennedy, a champion of refugees and asylum seekers. I intend to introduce legislation this year to mark that important anniversary. In the coming weeks, I will introduce a bill to enhance protections by bringing our refugee and asylum laws up to date. This comprehensive refugee package will also build on legislation I introduced in the 106th and 107th Congresses, the Refugee Protection Act. I will speak in greater detail on this comprehensive refugee protection package in the coming weeks.

There is no reason to delay introduction of the bill I offer today, however. In 2007, Congress recognized the value and the bravery of those refugees who assisted us in Iraq, and once we pledge American protection, we must follow through with that promise. The circumstances of Mr. Alrais and his family demonstrate the grave inequity that results from current law. They escaped from tyranny and won protection here in the United States. They hope to build a safe and stable life in our country. They will contribute to our communities, educate their children, and become entwined in the fabric of the United States. And the evidence of such dreams is already seen in the actions of this family. Mr. Alrais' wife, Nada Alkhaddar, helps other refugees adjust to life in Chicago under the auspices of a nonprofit community organization. Mr. Alrais' 17-year-old son plays football at his Chicago high school and recently told a reporter that he wants to become a Chicago policeman the embodiment of the public servant ``for America,'' he said.

I urge all Senators to join me in supporting the Refugee Opportunity Act, a sensible, appropriate, and overdue modification to our immigration law.

Mr. President, I introduce today the Refugee Opportunity Act, legislation that corrects an unfortunate limitation under current law. I thank Senator Lugar for joining me in support of this legislation. The immigration statute requires a refugee who is resettled in the United States to remain on U.S. soil for a full year before adjusting to lawful permanent residence. For many, this requirement offers no obstacles. The majority of resettled refugees immediately begin to work, learn English, and contribute to their local communities. Yet the 1-year physical presence requirement poses a significant barrier to resettled refugees who are eager and willing to serve the U.S. Government overseas. If they do, they lose that settlement. We can correct that.

One of the tragic legacies of the war in Iraq is the humanitarian crisis that grew out of the conflict, in which millions of people have been displaced both internally and externally, and in which many others have been killed in horrific acts of political and religious persecution. Violent reprisals, kidnappings, and bombings were committed during the insurgency that rose up after May 2003, when President Bush declared the end of major combat operations. Diplomatic and military efforts to quell the insurgency and bring order to Iraq were aided by many brave Iraqi citizens, who, at great risk to themselves and their families, assisted the United States as interpreters or in other capacities. These individuals took such risks knowing the dangers they faced, and many lost their lives.

In 2007, I worked with Senator Ted Kennedy to enact legislation to provide special visas for Iraqi interpreters who had assisted the United States in Iraq and who wished to resettle in the United States to escape the grave dangers they faced as a result of their cooperation with our government. I was proud to join Senator Kennedy in that effort. The enactment of that legislation made clear our commitment to aiding those who had assisted the United States with the critical mission in Iraq. It was the right thing to do.

In 2008, I joined Senator Schumer in sponsoring the Military Personnel Citizenship Processing Act. This legislation removed bureaucratic barriers to becoming U.S. citizens for immigrants serving in our military. Congress enacted this legislation to recognize the contributions of immigrants who serve the United States and to fulfill many soldiers' dreams of becoming U.S. citizens. Also in 2008, I worked with Senator Mikulski to enact the complementary Kendell Frederick Citizenship Assistance Act, a bill that made the pathway to citizenship for immigrants serving in the military simpler and more efficient. Congress has spoken consistently in favor of recognizing the value of immigrants and refugees who embrace the United States through service to their adopted Nation.

Today I introduce the Refugee Opportunity Act, legislation that builds upon this strong commitment by correcting an unfortunate limitation under current law. I thank Senator Lugar for joining me in support of this legislation. The immigration statute requires a refugee who is resettled in the United States to remain on U.S. soil for a full year in order to adjust to lawful permanent residence. For many, this requirement presents no obstacles. The majority of resettled refugees immediately begin to work, learn English, and contribute to their local communities. The 1-year physical presence requirement poses a significant barrier to resettled refugees who are eager and willing to serve the U.S. Government overseas, whether as an engineer, a translator, or in some other meaningful capacity. Accepting such employment will result in the delay of a refugee's ability to adjust his or her status and fully integrate into our society. There is no logical reason to deter these refugees from taking U.S.-affiliated positions overseas, especially when they seek to serve the government that has offered them protection.

One example of such a case can be found in the story of Mr. Ahmed Alrais. Mr. Alrais came to the United States as a refugee with his family after he worked as an interpreter for the U.S. Army in Iraq. His work for the Army led to threats against his life, and the United States appropriately granted him refugee status. But then, after struggling to find work in the Chicago area and wanting to provide for his family, Mr. Alrais decided to again face the risks of working in Iraq. He joined the staff of a U.S. Army contractor and began to work on a military base in Iraq. Ironically, taking this risk has delayed his ability to earn lawful permanent residence in the United States because the Department of Homeland Security will not give him credit toward the 1 year physical presence requirement for the time he has spent working with the Army contractor in Iraq. If he had remained in the United States for a full year unemployed, he would not have been penalized under the immigration law. By choosing to work, to support his family, and serve our Nation's military effort in Iraq, he has sacrificed months toward obtaining a green card.

To recognize the past and future contributions of refugees like Mr. Alrais, this legislation proposes to create an exception in our immigration law to waive the continuous presence requirement for any refugee who, during their first year of residence in the United States, accepts employment overseas to aid the U.S. Government. This legislation will not only recognize the commendable actions of refugees who wish to honor the United States by working for our government overseas, it will also enrich our government's military and diplomatic missions by drawing upon the professional and language skills of refugees. Finally, this bill will encourage more refugees to assist the U.S. efforts abroad. These are goals we should all support.

Our refugee policies have long been a beacon of hope and promise to many around the world. This legislation is the beginning of a renewed effort to improve and modernize our refugee policies to adapt to our changing world. March 17 will mark the 30th anniversary of the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, a law originally introduced by Senator Kennedy, a champion of refugees and asylum seekers. I intend to introduce legislation this year to mark that important anniversary. In the coming weeks, I will introduce a bill to enhance protections by bringing our refugee and asylum laws up to date. This comprehensive refugee package will also build on legislation I introduced in the 106th and 107th Congresses, the Refugee Protection Act. I will speak in greater detail on this comprehensive refugee protection package in the coming weeks.

There is no reason to delay introduction of the bill I offer today, however. In 2007, Congress recognized the value and the bravery of those refugees who assisted us in Iraq, and once we pledge American protection, we must follow through with that promise. The circumstances of Mr. Alrais and his family demonstrate the grave inequity that results from current law. They escaped from tyranny and won protection here in the United States. They hope to build a safe and stable life in our country. They will contribute to our communities, educate their children, and become entwined in the fabric of the United States. And the evidence of such dreams is already seen in the actions of this family. Mr. Alrais' wife, Nada Alkhaddar, helps other refugees adjust to life in Chicago under the auspices of a nonprofit community organization. Mr. Alrais' 17-year-old son plays football at his Chicago high school and recently told a reporter that he wants to become a Chicago policeman the embodiment of the public servant ``for America,'' he said.

I urge all Senators to join me in supporting the Refugee Opportunity Act, a sensible, appropriate, and overdue modification to our immigration law.

Mr. President, legislation will facilitate trademark owners' maintenance of protection for their brands. I appreciate the Senate acting swiftly to pass this bill. Trademark protection is critical both for businesses that have invested in creating a reliable product, and for consumers who trust a ``brand name'' product to be safe and of high quality.

Last Congress, I authored legislation to provide our law enforcement community with the tools, resources, and intragovernmental coordination necessary to combat intellectual property theft. Theft of intellectual property harms our businesses, weakens our economy, and costs jobs. I am proud that the legislation, the Prioritizing Resources and Organization of Intellectual Property, or PRO-IP, Act, was cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 21 Senators, and was signed into law.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has held numerous hearings in recent years on the importance of intellectual property protection. In 2004, Burton Snowboards, a successful Vermont business, testified before the Judiciary Committee about how small businesses were being harmed by the rise in intellectual property theft. I am pleased that this administration is taking intellectual property protection seriously, and that it recognizes that effective enforcement of our intellectual property laws is an important component of our economic recovery.

The legislation we are introducing today is focused on the process for maintaining trademark protection. It is a targeted bill that will improve the efficiency of the trademark maintenance system. Inefficiencies cost businesses money, which can lead to higher prices for consumers and can cost workers their jobs. When Congress has an opportunity to take waste out of a government process, it should do so on a bipartisan basis. That is what we are doing today. This bill will harmonize the system for submitting maintenance filings to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO. Maintenance filings are required for continuing the protection of a trademark. Our legislation will also permit the Director of the USPTO to permit applicants to correct good faith and harmless errors and will make several technical amendments within our trademark laws.

This legislation also requires a study of how the current system can better protect small businesses from abuses of the trademark system by larger corporations. Congress provides strong enforcement tools to intellectual property owners, as we should, to deter infringing activity and to remove counterfeit products from the market. I have become concerned, however, that large corporations are at times abusing the substantial rights Congress has granted them in their intellectual property to the detriment of small businesses. In fact, we saw a high- profile case like this in Vermont last year involving a spurious claim against Rock Art Brewery in Morrisville. When a corporation exaggerates the scope of its rights far beyond a reasonable interpretation in an attempt to bully a small business out of the market, that is wrong. This legislation therefore directs the Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, to consider options for protecting small businesses from such harassing litigation, while ensuring that legitimate trademark infringement actions are handled efficiently and expeditiously by the courts.

This is commonsense legislation, and I thank all Senators for supporting it.

Mr. President, I am going to speak for just 3 or 4 minutes, but I do not want to interrupt my friend from Alabama.

Mr. President, first, I thank my friend from Alabama for yielding time.

Amendment No. 3303

Among the $120 billion in funding cuts that would be required by the Coburn amendment is a $1.3 billion rescission from the State Department. Section 13 of the amendment specifically directs the Secretary of State to eliminate two programs--the East-West Center and the Asia Foundation--saying this would produce savings.

Even if it made sense to eliminate these programs which have a long history of achievement for our Nation and strong bipartisan, bicameral support, to do so would produce savings of only $42 million--a long way from the $120 billion about which he spoke. The Senator's amendment does not say where the balance of the $1.3 billion cut would come from.

The Senator's Web site mentions two other small programs within the State and Foreign Operations budget that he believes should be cut which total $25 million, and $20 million of that, incidentally, is for the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, something that gets us praise around the world and actually protects the well-being of everybody in this country. It has long been supported by the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.

The explanation of the Senator from Oklahoma for eliminating these funds is that other nations should be responsible for the conservation of their own tropical forests. Would that it were so. But when they get cut down, they affect those of us in Vermont, Colorado, Oklahoma, or anywhere else. In fact, it is like saying to other nations, no matter how impoverished--for example, Haiti--that they should take care of their own health needs. That ignores the fact that deadly viruses, such as HIV and TB, are as oblivious to national boundaries as are carbon emissions from the destruction of tropical forests. It is a shortsighted and unworkable approach to global problems that affect the American people directly.

In defense of his proposal to rescind $1.3 billion from the State Department, Senator Coburn cites more than $13 billion in funding for Iraq reconstruction that has been wasted, stolen, or lost. I see my good friend from Oklahoma on the floor. I say in that regard, there is no doubt there was deplorable waste, fraud, and abuse of U.S. taxpayer funds by contractors, such as Halliburton, that received no-bid, sweetheart contracts under the last Republican administration. It was probably the most poorly implemented nation-building program in history. At that time, the Republican Congress rubber-stamped those funds that were wasted--probably not wasted if you were a shareholder of Halliburton; you thought it was a good idea because they walked off with so much of it. The White House even opposed efforts by some of us, including Republicans, to create the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction that discovered the misuse of funds.

I also remind everybody that it was the Republican Congress, with a Republican President, that inherited the largest surplus in America's history, created by a Democratic administration, that of President Clinton's, that left a surplus that was paying down the national debt, left a huge surplus to the incoming Republican President. The Republican Congress not only voted to use that surplus to pay for an unnecessary war in Iraq but even cut taxes when we were fighting what ended up being two wars. It is the only time in our Nation's history we have done that--spend the surplus, cut taxes, and somehow these wars that have been going on now for 8 years would pay for themselves.

I think to use the last Republican administration's waste of taxpayer dollars in Iraq as a rationale to rescind funds today that have bipartisan support for the security of our embassies and our diplomats overseas and for programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, the Middle East, Indonesia, Mexico, Central Asia, Israel, and Egypt, where the threats to U.S. national security interests are beyond dispute, would be foolhardy.

Every one of us should agree that not every Federal program deserves to be funded and certainly not because it was funded in the past. I have voted to cut programs in the Appropriations Committee and on this floor because they have gone beyond their useful life span or were ineffective. Some programs are effective. Those that are not should be eliminated.

But the Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, with leadership between myself and the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg--we spent the better part of last year making difficult choices of what to fund and what to cut. The Appropriations Committee approved those choices, Republicans and Democrats, all 29 members, with one dissenting vote, and that was on another issue involving abortion. This amendment would cut funding to combat HIV, TB. Countries receive help from us, from Colombia, to Israel, to Egypt, to Mexico. The Senator from Oklahoma, with one strike of the pen, would arbitrarily slash 5 percent of that funding. Should we look for places where we can save money, where programs are not meeting their goals? Of course. But to do it this way, willy-nilly, picking a percentage out of the air with no concern for the consequences, does not protect the security of the American people.

There is another section of the amendment about which I would like to speak. Section 5 of the amendment directs the Secretary of Education to work with the Secretaries of other relevant agencies to consolidate and reduce the cost of administering the student foreign exchange and international education programs. These exchanges are some of the most strongly supported programs by both Democrats and Republicans in the foreign aid budget.

This amendment takes aim at the Benjamin Gilman International Scholarship Program, as well as several Department of Education international education and research programs, some of which are administered by the State Department, and a National Science Foundation program.

The Benjamin Gilman Program, created by Congress, provides scholarships to American undergraduates to study abroad, including students in nontraditional destinations, or to study critical languages, such as Arabic, Persian, and Chinese. Our military, and our intelligence agencies, say there is an unmet need for Americans who can speak these languages. Senator Coburn would cut funding for it.

The Department of Education's Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowship Program provides funding for foreign language study at U.S. universities, and several of these programs focus on strengthening study in international business and education, at a time when we are becoming more and more aware we cannot compete just within our borders. Our businesses have to be able to compete with other countries around the world or we lose jobs in America. We should be strengthening our study of international business and education, not cutting these programs.

The amendment would cut other successful exchanges, such as the Fulbright-Hayes programs for teachers, high school students, graduate students, and business professionals. These exchanges bring foreigners with a range of economic, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds to the United States and they send Americans overseas. At a time when America should be reaching out around the world for our security, for our businesses, we should not be cutting these programs which have been woefully underfunded as both Republicans and Democrats have pointed out.

The Institute for International Education is one example of an organization that effectively administers these programs. It provides citizens of other countries with a chance to learn firsthand about American culture, our values, our government, and our way of life. These are among the most effective ways of countering the misrepresentation and false stereotypes about the United States that we see perpetrated by extremists. Some of these programs and their predecessors I saw during the Cold War period. I remember one of the early meetings I had, along with several others, with President Ronald Reagan. He had spoken about the evil empire, and he said: What would you suggest we do? Of the suggestions that several of us made, I said this: Why don't you visit the Soviet Union and invite their leader to come to the United States next year and visit here?

He said: Why?

I said: Because you really don't know much about them. I pressed him a little on that, but he heard me out, and I said: But they do not know much about you either, and it would force them to learn about you and your staff, and it would force us to learn about them and their staff.

Later, in his second term, President Reagan told me that was some of the best advice he ever got. We know how triumphant his visit was to the Soviet Union and how triumphant it was when Mr. Gorbachev came here, and the two of them learned about each other and worked together to lower the threat of nuclear war.

That is just one example.

Without losing my right to the floor.

I would tell the Senator from Oklahoma that if you look over the last 10 years, there have been significant shortfalls in many of these programs, and in personnel. The increases began first at the request of former President George W. Bush, and then followed by President Obama because they realized the need for us to have these programs for our own security.

My response would be: Where do we make cuts? Your amendment does not say. Do we start with individual countries--Israel, Egypt, and so on? Do we start with programs to combat HIV, or malaria, or programs to eliminate childhood diseases in Africa? These exchanges enable Americans and foreigners to conduct scientific research to increase understanding and cooperation.

Rather than cut funding, Senators on both sides of the aisle have consistently urged the Appropriations Committee to increase funding to expand our efforts to promote better understanding of the United States. If we had funded all the requests for increases, it would be considerably more than it was. Senator Gregg and I stayed within our allocation. Also, I think it was the only appropriations subcommittee that reported a bill with no earmarks.

If there are ways of consolidating to reduce some administrative costs without harming the effectiveness or reducing opportunities to participate in these exchange programs, I am for it. But rather than by amendment to the debt ceiling bill, rather than giving carte blanche to the administration--or any administration--let's consider this in the normal appropriations process in a deliberative way.

Mr. President, we actually work hard on these bills. We make difficult choices. Some things get funded, others do not. We vote up or down. We have to stay within our budget, and we did, and we did it without earmarks. So I believe the amendment should be rejected.

It sounds nice we should just eliminate $2 billion in waste. Who would not want that? Let us be specific. Let us make the hard choices and say where the cuts are going to come from. The Senator's amendment does not do that. I recall a Republican President who gave great speeches about a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and then during his administration tripled the national debt. I have heard great speeches by people who have voted to cut taxes during two wars, by people who instead of using the surplus left by the last Democratic President squandered it in a year's time.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished majority leader on the Senate floor, so I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we have all watched the widespread devastation and loss of life in Haiti caused by last Tuesday's earthquake. It is a tragedy on a scale that words cannot adequately describe. I have talked with a number of people who have been down there. No matter how horrific the photographs we have seen, in reality it is even worse.

Haiti is the hemisphere's poorest country, a history of repeated calamities, some, of course, caused by natural disasters, but some by past corrupt and abusive governments. Now it faces a humanitarian emergency, but also reconstruction needs of daunting proportions: 3 million people affected, hundreds of thousands left homeless, and an estimated 100,000--perhaps twice that many--lives lost, countless children injured and many orphaned.

The Haitian Government, which already has limited capacity, has been severely damaged. The U.N. mission in Haiti, which is doing heroic work, suffered catastrophic losses.

Americans and people around the world have reacted with compassion and generosity. A massive relief effort is underway. Search and rescue teams from the United States and other countries continue to pull survivors from the rubble more than a week after the buildings collapsed. The U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Departments of State and Defense, and many other Federal agencies have personnel on the ground.

Our military sent ships and planes and troops. We have responded as America does. We are, after all, the wealthiest, most powerful Nation on Earth. Morality requires us to help those, especially neighbors, so severely damaged.

I have visited Haiti as chairman of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, and each year I have worked to increase United States assistance for Haiti. I can tell you, this earthquake could not have come at a worse time.

There was hope that Haiti, after recovering from three severe hurricanes in 2008 which left most of the country's infrastructure damaged or destroyed, was poised to finally make some real strides toward political stability and economic development. All of us who care for Haiti thought finally things were getting better. Last Tuesday, in a few terrifying minutes, that hope was buried in rubble. The immediate focus, of course, is saving lives, helping those people who have no place to live and no way to support themselves. I do thank the many humanitarian relief organizations as well as the United Nations, OAS, the Pan-American Health Organization, the International Committee of the Red Cross, other international organizations, and other countries that have sent relief workers to help. They mobilized quickly. We have seen their doctors, nurses and other relief personnel working day and night since shortly after the earthquake hit. They are doing an outstanding job under the worst possible conditions.

I want to express my condolences to the Haitian people, and my admiration for them. They have shown remarkable fortitude and patience in the wake of this catastrophe. Even in the midst of so much misery, there are already glimpses of a recovery.

Some press reports have focused on incidents of looting, and crowds of people surrounding UN vehicles or scrambling for whatever food or water they can find. But in fact those incidents have been the exception. The vast majority of the survivors, in the midst of a destroyed city with little food, water or shelter, have refrained from violence and instead tried to help each other.

To the families of others who died or suffered severe injuries, particularly American citizens who were in Haiti, several of whom were Vermonters or who had relatives in Vermont and who lost their lives when the buildings collapsed, our hearts go out to them. How much we wish we could turn the clock back and bring them home.

A great deal is being done to alleviate the suffering, but I also think there are important lessons from this experience that will enable us to respond even more quickly and more effectively when the next disaster strikes. It is more than a week after the earthquake struck and many people left homeless have yet to receive food or water and they have no shelter.

The Central America-Caribbean region is among the most disaster prone in the world due to the many volcanoes, earthquake fault lines and tropical storms. There are things we can do to be better prepared and to deliver aid more efficiently next time.

This is in no way to detract from the heroic efforts of those not only from the United States but from nongovernmental organizations and from other countries who have worked against almost insurmountable odds to get aid to those who need it.

I am concerned with reports that some humanitarian organizations have been unable to obtain access to the Port-au-Prince airport for several days. Many tons of relief supplies have reportedly been flown instead to the Dominican Republic and then trucked by land to Port-au-Prince, which is not only expensive but time-consuming, and they are needed now. If you are a child, dehydrated and dying, and food and water are only a few miles away, or you are a parent to that child, you cannot wait.

The outpouring of generosity by Americans of all ages to the people of Haiti has been extraordinary. Millions of dollars have been donated. There have been far more offers to volunteer than the relief organizations can accommodate. I am very proud of the many Vermonters, from nurses to elementary school students, who have sent money or gone to Haiti to help.

While Haiti has suffered this devastating blow, our ties to Haiti and the Haitian people are stronger than ever. We will not only help the Haitian people through this crisis, we will work with them to transform this disaster into an opportunity to rebuild their country better than it was before.

That is what the State, Foreign Operations subcommittee will seek to do when we look at the next budget request for Haiti. We will ask: How can we make it better? How can we make them better prepared if disaster strikes again? How can we help the people of Haiti who want and deserve a better life? That is showing a sense of morality. As Americans, that is what we should do.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, at the end of this month, the dean of the Georgetown University Law Center, T. Alexander Aleinikoff, will resign his post to accept the highly distinguished appointment of United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees. I have come to know Dean Aleinikoff well in the 5 years he has served as the dean at my law school alma mater. I am very proud of the dean's appointment and look forward to working with him in his new position.

Dean Aleinikoff has devoted his entire professional career to public service on behalf of refugees, asylum seekers, and immigrants. After graduating from Yale Law School and serving as a clerk to the Honorable Edward Weinfeld, U.S. district judge for the Southern District of New York, Dean Aleinikoff served as an attorney advisor in the Department of Justice and later as General Counsel and Executive Associate Commissioner for Programs to the Immigration and Nationality Service. Dean Aleinikoff devoted years to teaching refugee and immigration law, both at the University of Michigan and at Georgetown University Law Center, where he was appointed dean in 2004. He also served as the cochair of the Immigration Policy Review Team for President Barack Obama's transition in late 2008 and early 2009.

With 34 million refugees and internally displaced persons of concern to the Office of the High Commissioner, Dean Aleinikoff's expertise and management skills will be required on a daily basis. I have long fought to expand the relief available to refugees around the world and to asylum seekers who turn to the United States for protection. I know that we share these goals, and I am confident that Dean Aleinikoff will ably rise to the challenges he will face, however daunting they may be.

I have worked closely with Dean Aleinikoff on a variety of issues throughout his tenure as dean and greatly admire his intellect and commitment to justice. The quality of the Georgetown legal education is extraordinary, and the institution's role as a national leader in law and policy has never been more prominent. As a graduate of the law school, I am sorry to see Dean Aleinikoff depart, but his work on behalf of refugees could not be more important or more timely.

I thank Dean Aleinikoff for his extraordinary leadership of the Georgetown University Law Center and wish him great success in this challenging but critically important new role.

Mr. President, as we return for the second session of the 111th Congress, the Senate at last considers the long-stalled nomination of Judge Beverly Martin of Georgia to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Even though Judge Martin is a well-respected district court judge with the strong support of both of her home State Republican Senators, Senator Chambliss and Senator Isakson, her nomination has been stuck on the Senate Executive Calendar for over 4 months since it was promptly reported by the Judiciary Committee without a single dissenting vote.

The delays for consideration of the nomination of Judge Martin, along with delays for seven other judicial nominations currently on the Senate's Executive Calendar, are the result of a Republican strategy to stall, delay, and obstruct that began last year. I urge the Senate Republican leadership to reconsider their strategy and instead join with us and with President Obama to fill the more than 100 vacancies that have now accumulated on our Federal courts around the country.

The obstructionist tactics that we saw last year from Republicans led to the lowest number of judicial confirmations in more than 50 years. Only 12 of President Obama's judicial nominations to Federal circuit and district courts were confirmed all last year. The 12 Federal circuit and district court nominees confirmed last year was less than half of what we achieved during President Bush's first tumultuous year. In the second half of 2001, a Democratic Senate majority proceeded to confirm 28 judges. In the 17 months that I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first term, the Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominees.

Republicans have refused to agree to the consideration of qualified, noncontroversial nominees for weeks and months. Last December, only 3 of the available 13 judicial nominations on the Senate Executive Calendar were considered. By contrast, in December 2001, the first year of President Bush's administration, Senate Democrats proceeded to confirm 10 of his judicial nominees. At the end of the Senate's 2001 session, only four judicial nominations were left on the Senate Executive Calendar, all of which were confirmed soon after the Senate returned in 2002. At the end of President Clinton's first year, just one judicial nominee was left on the Senate Executive Calendar. At the end of President George H.W. Bush's first year, a Democratic Senate majority left just two judicial nominations pending on the Senate Executive Calendar.At the end of the first year of President Reagan's first term--a year in which the Senate confirmed 41 of his Federal circuit and district court nominees--not a single judicial nomination was left on the Senate Executive Calendar. This past December, Senate Republicans left 10 judicial nominees without Senate action and insisted on returning 2 of them to the President so that they would have to be renominated.

None of the eight judicial nominations currently pending on the Executive Calendar are controversial. Six were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee without a single dissenting vote. We have wasted weeks and months having to seek time agreements in order to consider nominations that were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously and then confirmed unanimously by the Senate once they were finally allowed to be considered.

Judicial vacancies have now skyrocketed to over 100, undoing years of hard work. The lack of Senate action last year is attributable to Senate Republicans and no one else. President Obama has reached across the aisle to

consult with Republican Senators. The nomination before the Senate today is another example of that. He has made quality nominations. While President Obama has moved beyond the judicial nominations battles of the past and reached out to work with Republicans and make mainstream nominations, Senate Republicans continue their tactics of delay.

When President Bush worked with Senators across the aisle, I praised him and expedited consideration of his nominees. When President Obama reaches across the aisle, the Senate Republican leadership delays and obstructs his qualified nominees. The Republican leadership has returned to their practices in the 1990s, which resulted in more than doubling circuit court vacancies, and led to the pocket filibuster of more than 60 of President Clinton's nominees. The crisis they created eventually led even to public criticism of their actions by Chief Justice Rehnquist during those years.

Instead of praising President Obama for consulting with Republican Senators, the Senate Republican leadership has doubled back on what they demanded when a Republican President was in the White House. No more do they talk about each nominee being entitled to an up-or-down vote. That position is abandoned and forgotten. Instead, they now seek to filibuster and delay judicial and even executive nominations. They have also abandoned their initial position at the start of this Congress that they would filibuster judicial nominees on which home State Senators were not consulted. It turned out such consultation and home State Republican Senator support did not matter when they unsuccessfully filibustered President Obama's first judicial nominee, Judge David Hamilton. He was filibustered despite the support of Senator Lugar, his home State Senator and the longest serving Republican in the Senate.

Despite the fact that President Obama began sending judicial nominees to the Senate 2 months earlier than President Bush, last year's total was the fewest judicial nominees confirmed in his first year of a Presidency since 1953, a year in which President Eisenhower only made nine nominations all of which were confirmed. The number of confirmations was even below the 17 the Senate Republican majority allowed confirmation in the 1996 session.

This is wrong. The American people deserve better. The cost will be felt by ordinary Americans seeking justice in our overburdened Federal courts.

During President Bush's last year in office, we had reduced judicial vacancies to as low as 34, even though it was a Presidential election year. When President Bush left office, we had reduced vacancies in 9 of the 13 Federal circuits. As matters stand today, judicial vacancies have spiked and are being left unfilled. We started 2010 with the highest number of vacancies on article III courts since 1994, when the vacancies created by the last comprehensive judgeship bill were still being filled. While it has been nearly 20 years since we enacted a Federal judgeship bill, judicial vacancies are nearing record levels, with 102 current vacancies and another 21 already announced. If we had proceeded on the judgeship bill recommended by the Judicial Conference to address the growing burden on our Federal judiciary, as we did in 1984 and 1990, in order to provide the resources the courts need, current vacancies would stand over 160 today. That is the true measure of how far behind we have fallen. Justice should not be delayed or denied to any American because of overburdened courts and the lack of Federal judges.

We have seen this unprecedented obstruction by Senate Republicans on issue after issue--over 100 filibusters last year alone, which has affected 70 percent of all Senate action. Instead of time agreements and the will of the majority, the Senate is faced with a requirement to find 60 Senators to overcome a filibuster on issue after issue. Those who just a short time ago said that a majority vote is all that should be needed to confirm a nomination, and that filibusters of nominations are unconstitutional, have reversed themselves and now employ any delaying tactic they can.

These obstruction tactics took dangerous lows last year when Senate Republicans voted to leave our troops without funding at a time when we are fighting two wars. Had the Senate Republican filibuster of the Defense Department appropriations bill been successful, they would have cut off funding for our troops in the field. Senate Republicans also filibustered the veterans bill.

Judge Martin's nomination is the longest pending of the judicial nominees currently on the Executive Calendar. Judge Martin is a well- respected Federal district court judge. Her nomination received a unanimous rating of ``well qualified'' from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary and has the support of both Republican home State Senators, Senator Chambliss and Senator Isakson. Judge Martin has spent 25 years in public service as a Federal judge, as U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Georgia, as an Assistant U.S. attorney in that office, and as an assistant attorney general in the Office of the Attorney General of Georgia. Judge Martin's nomination should have been an easy one to have confirmed months ago. Republicans should have thanked President Obama for consulting with the home State Republican Senators and moved forward. I wish we could have reached a time agreement sooner. It should not have taken 4 months.

I urge Senate Republicans to reconsider their strategy and allow prompt consideration of the other judicial nominees awaiting Senate consideration: Judge Joseph Greenaway of New Jersey, nominated to the Third Circuit; Justice Barbara Keenan of Virginia, nominated to the Fourth Circuit; Jane Stranch of Tennessee, nominated to the Sixth Circuit; Judge Thomas Vanaskie of Pennsylvania, nominated to the Third Circuit; Judge Denny Chin of New York, nominated to the Second Circuit; Rosanna Malouf Peterson, nominated to the Eastern District of Washington; and William Conley, nominated to the Western District of Wisconsin.

Mr. President, I will reserve the remainder of my time and yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Delaware, an extraordinarily valuable member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

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, I see the distinguished assistant Republican leader on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that all time remaining on either side be yielded back.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been requested on the nominee?

I ask for the yeas and nays on the nominee.

Mr. President, today I would like to recognize Richard Gauthier, Chief of Police in Bennington, VT. Mr. Gauthier has been saving lives and protecting Vermont communities for nearly 30 years.

Chief Gauthier began his career with the Bennington Police Department in 1980 after graduating from the Vermont Police Academy in Pittsford. Six years later, he was promoted to detective, and in 1998, he was named chief of the department, a position he has held for the past 12 years.

Chief Gauthier received his bachelor's degree from Southern Vermont College in 1991, and later attended the FBI National Academy. He also holds a master's degree in criminal justice administration from Norwich University. As chief, he has led by example and consistently sought to improve the department, encouraging officers to seek additional education, improve their training and better their performance. He currently teaches courses in criminal justice at Southern Vermont College, his alma mater, where one former student described him as ``a phenomenal educator.''

During his time as chief, he has overseen a number of positive changes in the department and in the community including the formation of the Bennington County Child Advocacy Center/Special Victims Unit, of which he is a founding member. He also led efforts to specialize police investigation into drugs and gangs, and managed the department's move to a new police headquarters. A celebrated law enforcement officer, Chief Gauthier received the Vermont VFW Law Enforcement Officer of the Year in 2005 and the Vermont Commissioner's Award for Service to Children and Families.

Chief Gauthier will celebrate 30 years of service in September, and plans to step down as Chief of Police. I commend Chief Gauthier for his dedication to the city of Bennington and the State of Vermont. He has selflessly given so much to his community.

I ask unanimous consent that a story from The Bennington Banner about Chief Gauthier's career be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant in Vermont who passed away earlier this month.

Ralph Jackman joined the Vergennes Volunteer Fire Department in 1947, and took over the helm as chief of the department in 1954. Some 55 years later, in November 2009, he stepped down from his post--widely recognized as one of the longest serving fire chiefs in the Nation.

During his time as the chief, Jackman saw many changes at the fire department. The department grew immensely-- doubling the number of firefighters and tripling the number of vehicles. He oversaw the establishment of a cadet program and the construction of a new fire station. He also found time for a variety of community service activities, including serving as the two-time president of the Vermont State Firefighters Association. Throughout his entire career, Jackman was in the thick of the action, responding to emergency calls and managing the volunteer department's operations.

Chief Jackman's family had firefighting in its blood. Jackman's twin brother Fred, who passed away in 2008, was a member of the Bristol Fire Department for 62 years, including 14 years as that department's chief. Chief Jackman's wife, as well as his five daughters, helped the Vergennes Volunteer Fire Department throughout his career. And eight of Chief Jackman's grandchildren are now firefighters.

My wife, Marcelle, and I wish to express our deepest condolences to Chief Jackman's wife, Myrle Jackman, his immediate family and his extended family in the fire service community throughout Vermont. They are rightly proud of Chief Jackman's long and distinguished career and the legacy he has left behind in Vergennes and Vermont.

I ask unanimous consent that a story from The Burlington Free Press about Chief Jackman's storied career be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased that this month Katherine Paterson of Barre, VT, has been named the 2010 National Ambassador for Young People's Literature. Her books, which include ``A Bridge to Terabithia,'' ``Jacob Have I Loved,'' and ``Bread and Roses Too,'' motivate young readers to become excited about reading and understand struggles and joy in their own lives. She has long inspired readers in Vermont and across the country to make reading a daily part of their lives.

Reading at a young age can have a dramatic impact on a child's ability to succeed and learn more than can be taught in a classroom. In my home town of Montpelier, VT, the Kellogg-Hubbard Library serves as the center of the community to many local children. When I am home, I love seeing children flood the library after school and borrow new and exciting books or choose to reread old favorites.

Despite what I witness at my local Vermont library, reading rates among children today are on the decline, which makes Ms. Paterson's role as National Ambassador even more crucial as she tours the country to attract new, young readers. I cannot think of a better suited choice for this challenging role, and I congratulate her on her appointment. On a personal note, Marcelle and I have valued our years of friendship with Katherine and John Paterson.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a January 6, 2010, Washington Post article about this year's National Ambassador for Young People's Literature.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 20, 2010, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Yemen: Confronting Al-Qaeda, Preventing State Failure.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Hearing on the Nomination of Joshua Gotbaum for Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation'' on January 20, 2010. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 20, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Intelligence Reform: The Lessons and Implications of the Christmas Day Attack.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 20, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Securing America's Safety: Improving the Effectiveness of Anti-Terrorism Tools and Inter- Agency Communication.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 20, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 20, 2010, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, we have reached a defining moment for the Senate and for the American people. The bill we have considered will rank alongside other major decisions such as the creation of Social Security and Medicare and the Civil Rights Act. Health insurance reform has been talked about and attempted for seven decades. The American people for years have named health insurance as among the greatest concerns in their daily lives. Now, here at hand, is the opportunity to act.

This has been an arduous process. The President has rightly noted that if health insurance reform were easy, it would have been done long ago. The defenders of the status quo have spared no expense--nor have they been sparing in their distortions--to keep the system that pays them so handsomely. Health reform will benefit every American of today's generations. But let us especially think ahead one, two or three generations. If we were to abandon our responsibility now, saying it was too difficult, that would be an excuse for doing nothing that our children and grandchildren would never accept.

For many reasons, including the health of public discourse on the most pressing issues we face as Americans, it is regrettable that the defenders of the status quo, doing their utmost to influence this debate from their comfortable perches outside the Senate, have stooped to new levels to obstruct health insurance reform. Friction is a byproduct of reform, especially when well-funded and entrenched special interests rally to protect the status quo. The heat of this debate is a measure of the cozy setups that these reforms will unsettle. This year alone Senate Democrats have been forced to contend with 101 filibusters by the minority Republicans. Even on an issue this important, health insurance reform is still being subject to filibuster and parliamentary delay to a level I have not seen in 35 years in the Senate.

Opponents of reform unfortunately have wasted much of the public's time by provoking arguments over their distortions about what health reform really means. The country suffers when there is a failure to act on serious challenges that millions of ordinary Americans face in their daily lives.

The arguments that we hear today to prop up the status quo by knocking down challenges to the way things are seem eerily similar to those made against creating Medicare nearly 45 years ago. Opponents then tried to demonize the plan and claimed it would never work. During the debate decades ago on Medicare, one Senator said: ``It would achieve little for those who need it, while subjecting the very fabric of American life to the strain of severe and unnecessary sacrifices.''

Eventually during that historic debate, Members from both sides of the aisle worked together to pass a bill that is one of the most successful, purposeful and popular programs today. The Medicare Program, like Social Security, was not perfect when it began, but improvements have been made over time. Vermonters can be proud that our State's congressional delegation, all Republican at the time, supported passage of that landmark legislation.

The Senate has overcome the stalling and delay tactics, the filibusters and the roadblocks to the consideration of health care reform, and now we are closer than ever to passing comprehensive and meaningful health insurance reform.

Is the Senate health care bill without any problems? No. Is the bill before us the one I would have drafted or the one that any other Member of the Senate would have drafted? Of course not. Extensive negotiations and refinement were needed to produce a bill of this scope and importance, as it should be in the legislative process. The difficulty was magnified by the minority's calculated decision to spend their efforts to undermine, instead of to constructively engage. Not only majorities but supermajorities were required at several steps in the Senate's work on this bill. There are 100 Senators and 435 Members of the other body who will have to stand up and be counted in this historic process. The votes of most, I believe, will be tallied on the right side of history and of the real-life, everyday needs of the American people for real health insurance reform.

Some say the bill before us does not go far enough. Others say it goes too far. What everyone can agree on is what will happen if we do nothing.

In the next decade, without reform, half of all nonelderly adults will find themselves without coverage at some point. The number of people without insurance will jump by more than 30 percent in 29 States and by at least 10 percent in every State. American families will continue to pay a hidden tax of $1,100 on their health insurance premiums to pay for the costs of care for the uninsured. The very same insurance coverage a family has in 2008 is projected to nearly double to $24,291 by 2016, consuming a whopping 45 percent of projected median family incomes. Premiums will continue to double every several years, making health insurance vastly unaffordable for many Americans. Economists project that if health insurance reform fails, the resulting lower gross domestic product, GDP, will reduce family incomes by $10,000 by 2030. Small businesses will continue to struggle and fewer and fewer will be able to offer coverage to their employees.

Furthermore, as our population ages, Medicare is projected to be insolvent within 10 years, jeopardizing coverage for millions of American seniors. Each day that passes without reform, 14,000 Americans lose health insurance coverage. These are not minor problems to be brushed aside or kicked yet again down the road for another generation of Americans to tackle. These problems are on the Senate's doorstep, right here, right now. Keeping the status quo guarantees a struggling economy in the future, with more Americans unable to afford lifesaving treatments because of the rising cost of insurance.

In 2001, 46 percent of all bankruptcies were attributable to medical costs. By 2007, that number had grown to 62 percent. While hard-working Americans were losing their jobs, homes and savings simply because they got sick, insurance and pharmaceutical company executives were making record profits. In 2000, the 10 largest publicly traded health insurance companies had profits of $2.4 billion. By 2007, profits at those firms had jumped to $12.9 billion, a 428-percent increase. In 2007, CEO salaries at these firms were $118.6 million or $11.9 million for each CEO. In 2007, prescription drug companies had a profit margin of 15.8 percent. The same year, profit margins at all Fortune 500 firms were 5.7 percent.

Since the Nation's last attempt to pass health reform 16 years ago, millions of Americans have lost their insurance and costs have skyrocketed. In the absence of a fair and sensible health insurance system, families, businesses and taxpayers have been dragged along by an inflationary curve that only worsens with time. Next year, small businesses--already suffering from skyrocketing medical costs--will see their premiums rise by an average of 15 percent--twice the rate of last year's increases. Drug companies have boosted prices of brand-name drugs by about 9 percent over the last year, the steepest increase in years.

Even though Vermont has long recognized the importance of building a health care system that includes all Vermonters, individual States acting alone cannot make enough progress without comprehensive health insurance reform. Tens of thousands of Vermonters still lack basic health insurance. Workers nationwide are losing insurance for their families when they change or lose jobs. Insurance companies can and do discriminate against sick people.

I know so very many of these Vermonters. Many of them are my neighbors, my friends. Some of these Vermonters without health insurance went to school with me. Some grew up as I did in Montpelier, VT. Some are people I have known all our lives. They are hard-working, good, honest, decent people. It is a travesty that after working so hard and playing by the rules they still cannot begin to have the kind of health coverage that Federal employees--including those of us in this Chamber--are able to have because of earlier reforms of the Federal workforce health insurance system.

Too many Vermont families live in the shadow of constant insecurity because they know that if they have an illness or if they lose a job, it might mean the end of their health insurance. Too many Vermonters are forced to sell their homes or file for bankruptcy to pay their health insurance bills. In no other modern society are families confronted with such heartbreaking dilemmas.

Let me give a personal example. I heard recently from a Vermonter who only periodically had health insurance throughout his life and now goes without prevention and screenings and pays for everything out of pocket because he cannot afford any health care that is not urgently needed. Tragically, his wife was in a car accident, and even though the couple paid thousands in treatments, they ``had to stop short'' in giving her the necessary physical therapy and medications her doctors recommended because of the costs involved.

Another Vermonter, who is lucky enough to have insurance, says her family pays almost $1,100 each month in premiums, and yet they have to reach a $3,000 deductible before the insurance company will pay a dime. She told me that ``as the cost of health insurance continues to rise, it feels like we will be swallowed whole by it.''

These should not be stories heard in today's America. We remain the only

industrialized Nation in the world that lets its citizens fend for themselves without health coverage.

The bill before us would make giant leaps toward reforming our health insurance system. Under the Senate bill, 31 million more Americans would have health insurance, bringing coverage to 94 percent--the highest level of insured Americans ever in our history. More low-income Americans will be able to access the State Medicaid Programs, and middle-income families will get enough help to be able to buy health insurance through State-based health insurance exchanges, which will be closely monitored. Insurance companies will never be able to drop your coverage, charge you more, or deny you or your children coverage because of a preexisting health condition. This bill also sets standards for qualifying health insurance so the insurance companies can no longer sell you coverage that does not actually help when you are sick. The legislation also contains a Patient Bill of Rights, long championed by Senator Kennedy, which guarantees that patients have a right to appeal denials or decisions by their health insurance companies.

The insurance industry will no longer be allowed to pay excessive executive bonuses and salaries on the backs of their customers. All insurance companies will be required to spend more of their premium revenues on clinical services and quality activities, with less going to administrative costs and profits--or else they will have to pay rebates to policyholders. This change will improve quality of care and will hold the insurance industry accountable for their spending.

Small businesses, which make up more than 80 percent of the businesses in Vermont, at long last will have access to affordable care under this bill. This bill will make tax credits available to small businesses to help them offer health insurance to their employees. These tax credits will make health insurance more affordable both for small businesses and for their workers.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirmed that the reforms in the bill--including lower administrative costs, increased competition, and better pooling for risk--will lower premiums for American families. CBO estimates premiums for the overall population will be reduced by 8.4 percent.

In addition to the consumer protections and industry accountability provisions, this bill also takes significant strides to slow the growth of the spiraling health spending that has the potential to cripple our economy in the years to come. A substantial portion of the Senate bill is devoted to testing ways to reduce health care costs while improving quality over time. The bill contains pilots for efforts like Vermont's Blueprint for Health, under which patient care is coordinated to reduce unnecessary hospital visits and to keep patients healthy. Other programs will test various ways to pay doctors and hospitals that could be more efficient than the current fee-for-service structure. A greater emphasis on prevention--long supported by Senators Kennedy and Harkin in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--will reduce preventable deaths and hospitalizations.

While these improvements to our health care system are significant and noteworthy, I am disappointed that the bill no longer includes a public insurance option to compete with private plans, nor does it include a provision I have proposed to repeal the antitrust exemption for health and medical malpractice insurers. Though there are differing views on the best ways to inject competition into the health insurance market, we can all agree that health and medical malpractice insurers should not be allowed to engage in blatantly anticompetitive practices, such as colluding to set prices and allocating markets. My legislation would ensure that basic rules of fair competition apply to insurers. I believe that repealing this antitrust exemption, combined with the public option, would go far in providing fair competition and choice in the health insurance marketplace.

With all the progress the Senate's health care bill makes in the area of women's health--such as prohibiting insurance companies from discriminating against women through higher premiums and by allowing women free access to vital preventative services--it is unfortunate the bill also threatens to chip away at women's reproductive choices. Before a restrictive provision was added in the managers' amendment, the bill would have maintained current law by restricting Federal funds for abortions. The original Senate bill would have required insurance companies to segregate public and private funds to ensure no public funds would go to abortion services. Now, instead, the Senate bill would require women who purchase insurance on the exchanges to make two payments if they wish to have a wide range of choices. States could also opt out of allowing abortion to be covered at all on their exchanges, leaving women with fewer choices than they have now on the individual insurance market. While this language is far less restrictive than the language in the House-passed legislation, there is legitimate concern that despite the interest of women to have this choice available in the marketplace, this language would prompt private insurers to stop offering such options at all. I hope a better solution comes in conference.

After one of the cliffhanger votes over the course of this long Senate debate, I spoke privately with Vicki Reggie Kennedy, the courageous and insightful widow of our beloved friend, Senator Edward Kennedy. This is a bittersweet time for her and for all who know how fully he was committed to winning this battle to lighten the load for the ordinary Americans who are struggling so mightily today. Health reform was the first of the many causes of his life and of his work in this body.

We talked about how he would have relished this moment, and we talked about how he would have pressed his shoulder to the tiller to steer the Senate toward the right outcome for the American people. Though Senator Kennedy strongly supported including a public option, as I have, along with other reforms such as ending health insurers' antitrust exemption, Vicki Kennedy knows, as I do, that he would be fighting to pass this bill. This is the Senate's opportunity to advance real reform. This is a bill that reflects the core principles the President outlined in beginning this debate early this year.

This is reform based on the existing system of employer-based insurance, offered by private insurers with health services delivered largely within the private sector. But any objective reading of this bill makes crystal clear that this is real reform. This is a bill that will improve the lives of every American. This is a bill that is a credit to this good and great Nation and its people.

At its best, the Senate through our history has been able to act as the conscience of the Nation. Those moments were forged amid fervent debate and with the purpose of advancing a pressing national interest. This is such a time, and my hope and belief is that the Senate did rise to the occasion.

Mr. President, the urgent need for comprehensive reform of our health care system has not stopped opponents from launching spurious attacks. I understand that the junior Senator from Nevada recently raised a constitutional point of order against the pending health care reform bill. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I would like to respond to those who have called into question whether Congress has the authority under the Constitution to enact health insurance reform legislation. The authority of Congress to act is well- established by the text and the spirit of the Constitution, by the long-standing precedent established by our courts, by prior acts of Congress and by the history of American democracy. The legislative history of this important measure should leave no doubt with respect to the constitutionality of our actions.

The Constitution of the United States begins with a preamble that sets forth the purposes for which ``We the People of the United States'' ordained and established it. Among the six purposes set forth by the Founders was that the Constitution was established to ``promote the general Welfare.'' It is hard to imagine an issue more fundamental to the general welfare of all Americans than their health.

The authority and responsibility for taking actions to further this purpose is vested in Congress by article I of the Constitution. In particular article I, section 8, sets forth several of the core powers of Congress, including the ``general welfare clause,'' the ``commerce clause'' and the ``necessary and proper clause.'' These clauses form the basis for Congress's power, and include authority to reform health care by containing spiraling costs and ensuring its availability for all Americans. The necessary and proper clause of the Constitution provides that ``The Congress shall have Power . . . To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any Department or Officer thereof.''

Any serious questions about congressional power to take comprehensive action to build and secure the social safety net have been settled over the past century. According to article I, section 8, ``The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.'' This clause has been the basis for actions by Congress to provide for Americans' social and economic security by passing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Those landmark laws provide the well-established foundation on which Congress builds today by seeking to provide all Americans with access to quality, affordable health care.

The Supreme Court settled the debate on the constitutionality of Social Security more than 70 years ago in three 1937 decisions. In one of those decisions, Helvering v. Davis, Justice Cardozo wrote that the discretion to determine whether a matter impacts the general welfare ``is not confided in the courts'' but falls ``within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress.'' Turning then to the ``nation- wide calamity that began in 1929'' of unemployment spreading from State to State throughout the Nation, leaving older Americans without jobs and security, Justice Cardozo wrote of the Social Security Act: ``The hope behind this statute is to save men and women from the rigors of the poor house as well as from the haunting fear that

such a lot awaits them when journey's end is near.''

The Supreme Court reached its decisions upholding Social Security after the first Justice Roberts--Justice Owen Roberts--in the exercise of good judgment and judicial restraint began voting to uphold the key New Deal legislation. He was not alone. It was Chief Justice Hughes who wrote the Supreme Court's opinion in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish upholding minimum wage requirements as reasonable regulation. The Supreme Court also upheld a Federal farm bankruptcy law, railroad labor legislation, a regulatory tax on firearms and the Wagner Act on labor relations in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation. The Supreme Court abandoned its judicially created veto over congressional action with which it disagreed on policy grounds and rightfully deferred to Congress's constitutional authority.

Congress has woven America's social safety net over the last three score and 12 years. Congress's authority to use its power and its judgment to promote the general welfare cannot now be in doubt. America and all Americans are the better for it. Growing old no longer means growing poor. Being older or poor no longer means being without medical care. These developments are all due to congressional action.

These Supreme Court decisions and the principles underlying them are not in question. As dean Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of California Irvine School of Law wrote in a recent op-ed in The Los Angeles Times: ``Congress has broad power to tax and spend for the general welfare. In the last 70 years, no federal taxing or spending program has been declared to exceed the scope of Congress' power. The ability in particular of Congress to tax people to spend money for health coverage has been long established with programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.'' I will ask that this article be printed in the Record following my remarks.

The right-wing opponents of health care reform are so intent on partisan warfare that they are even calling into question the constitutionality of America's established social safety net. They would leave American workers without the protections their lifetime of hard work have earned them. They would turn back the clock to the hardships of the Great Depression, and thrust modern American back into the conditions of Dickens' novels. That is what some extremists will be urging another Justice Roberts--Chief Justice John Roberts--to do. That path should be rejected now, just as it was when another inspiring President led the effort to confront the economic challenges facing Americans. To strike down principles that have been settled for nearly three quarters of a century would be wrong and damaging to the Nation.

For months now, we have been debating whether or not to pass health care reform. We can debate whether to control costs by having all Americans be covered by health insurance. In fact, we have been having that debate for months and months in this Congress, through extensive public markups in two committees in the Senate, as well as in the House of Representatives, and now for weeks on the Senate floor. We have considered untold numbers of amendments in committees and several before the Senate. That is what Congress is supposed to do. We consider legislation, debate it, vote on it and act in our best collective judgment to promote the general welfare. Some Senators will agree and some will disagree, but it is a matter for the full Senate to decide. I wish we could do so by a majority but Senate Republicans abhor majority rule now that they are not in control. So it will take an extraordinary majority for the Senate's will to be done.

Tomorrow, we will vote on a point of order challenging the pending bill's constitutionality. The fact that Senate Republicans disagree with the majority's effort to help hardworking Americans obtain access to affordable health care does not make it unconstitutional. As Justice Cardozo wrote in upholding Social Security, ``whether wisdom or unwisdom resides in the scheme of benefits set forth . . . it is not for us to say. The answer to such inquiries must come from Congress, not the courts.'' I agree. Justice Cardozo understood the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution and the Supreme Court's precedent. In 1803, our greatest Chief Justice, John Marshall, upheld the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act in Stuart v. Laird noted that ``there are no words in the Constitution to prohibit or restrain the exercise of legislation power.'' That is true here, where Congress is acting to provide for the general welfare of all Americans.

I believe that Congress can and should decide whether the problems of the lack of availability and affordability of health care, and the rising health care costs that burden the American people, is a problem, ``plainly national in area and dimensions,'' as Justice Cardozo wrote of the widespread crisis of unemployment and insecurity during the Great Depression. I believe that it is right for this Congress to determine that it is in the general welfare of the Nation to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable quality health care. But whether other Senators agree or disagree with me, none should argue that we should take steps that turn back to clock to the Great Depression when conservative activist judges prevented Congress from exercising its powers to make that determination. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote in his landmark decision in McCulloch v. Maryland: ``Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adopted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.''

In seeking to discredit health care reform, the other side relies on a resurrection of long-discredited legal doctrines used by courts a century ago to tie Congress's hands by substituting their own views of property to strike down laws such as those guaranteeing a minimum wage and outlawing child labor. They have to rely on such cases of unbridled conservative judicial activism as Lochner v. New York, Shechter Poultry Corporation v. United States, Reagan v. Farmers Loan and Trust and the infamous Dred Scott case. Those dark days are long gone and better left behind. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, our history and congressional action all stand on the side of Congress's authority to enact health care legislation including health insurance reform.

Under article I, section 8, Congress has the power ``to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.'' Since at least the time of the Great Depression and the New Deal, Congress has been understood and acknowledged by the Supreme Court to have power pursuant to the commerce clause to regulate matters with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has long since upheld laws like the Fair Labor Standards Act against commerce clause challenges, ruling that Congress had the authority to outlaw child labor. The days when women and children could not be protected, when the public could not be protected from sick chickens infecting them, when farmers could not be protected and when any regulation that did not guarantee profits to corporations are long past. The reach of Congress's commerce clause authority has been long established and well settled.

Even recent decisions by a Supreme Court dominated by Republican- appointed justices have affirmed this rule of law. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in Gonzales v. Raich that Congress had the power under the commerce clause to prohibit the use of medical marijuana even though it was grown and consumed at home, because of its impact on the national market for marijuana. Surely if that law passes constitutional muster, Congress's actions to regulate the health care market that makes up one-sixth of the American economy meets the test of substantially affecting commerce. Conservatives cannot have it both ways. They cannot ignore the settled meaning of the Constitution as well as the authority of the American people's elected representatives in Congress.

The regulation of health insurance clearly meets the test from Raich, whether the activities ``taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce.'' Addressing these problems is at the core of Congress's powers under the commerce clause. In

fact, the Supreme Court expressly addressed this issue 65 years ago, ruling in 1944 that insurance was interstate commerce and subject to Federal regulation. Congress responded to this decision in 1945 with the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which gave insurance companies an exemption from antitrust laws unless Federal regulation was made explicit under Federal law. It is the immunity from Federal antitrust law enacted in McCarran-Ferguson that I have been working to overcome with my Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009 and the amendment I have sought to offer to the current health insurance reform legislation. Why would this exemption have been necessary if insurance was not interstate commerce? I strongly believe that the exemption in McCarran-Ferguson is wrongheaded but would anyone seriously contend that it is unconstitutional? Of course not. That is why I am working so hard to pass legislation to repeal it.

The legislation and amendment I have sponsored will prohibit the most egregious anticompetitive conduct--price fixing, bid rigging and market allocations--conduct that harms consumers, raises health care costs, and for which there is no justification. Subjecting health and medical malpractice insurance providers to the Federal antitrust laws will enable customers to feel confident that the price they are being quoted is the product of a fair marketplace. The lack of affordable health insurance plagues families throughout our country, and my amendment would take a step toward ensuring competition among health insurers and medical malpractice insurers. The need for Congress to repeal the out of date Federal antitrust law exemption only further demonstrates the tremendous impact of health care on our economy and congressional power to act.

The third clause of article I, section 8, to which I have referred, is the necessary and proper clause, as a basis for congressional action. This clause gives Congress the power ``to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the United States.'' The Supreme Court settled the meaning of the necessary and proper clause 190 years ago in Justice Marshall landmark decision in McCullough v. Maryland, during the dispute over the National Bank. Justice Marshall wrote that ``the clause is placed among the powers of Congress, not among the limitations on those powers.'' The necessary and proper clause goes hand in hand with the commerce clause to ensure congressional authority to regulate activity with a significant economic impact.

We face a health care crisis, with millions of Americans uninsured and with uncertainty and high costs for Americans who are insured. We need to ensure that Americans not risk bankruptcy and disaster with every illness. Americans who work hard their whole life should not be robbed of their family's security because health care is too expensive. During the New Deal we charted a path for America where growing old did not mean being poor, or being without health care. Americans should not lose their life savings because they have the misfortune of losing a job or getting sick. That is not America.

The success of the last century was the establishment of a social safety net for which all Americans can be grateful and proud. Through Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Congress established some of the cornerstones of American security. They are within the constitutional authority of the Congress just as health insurance reform is. No conservative activist court should overstep the judiciary's role by seeking to turn back the clock and deny a century of progress. The authority of Congress is well settled and well established by the Constitution, judicial precedent, and our history of legislation promoting the general welfare and protecting the economic security and health of Americans.

The cumulative economic effects on the Nation of the rising costs of health care are significant, with those costs making up a large percentage of our economy and with American businesses struggling to provide benefits to their employees. As set forth in a paper by Georgetown University and the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, the requirement for individuals to purchase health insurance would address the problem of free riders, millions of Americans who refuse to buy health insurance and then rely on expensive emergency health care when faced with medical problems. This shifts the costs of their health care to people who do have insurance, which in turn has a significant effect on the costs of insurance premiums for covered Americans and on the economy as a whole. A requirement that all Americans have health insurance--like requirements to be vaccinated or to have car insurance or to register for the draft or to pay taxes--is within congressional power if Congress determines it to be essential to controlling spiraling health care costs. Requiring that all Americans have health insurance coverage, and preventing some from depending on expensive emergency services in place of regular health care, can and will help reduce the cost of health insurance premiums for those who already have insurance.

Whether Senators agree or not on the necessity to reform our health care system and health insurance, I trust that all Senators, Republican, Democratic and Independent, agree that it is our responsibility to act and within Congress's constitutional authority to legislate for the general welfare of all Americans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Los Angeles Times op-ed to which I referred.