Floor Statements

Mr. President, what is the status of the business before the Senate?

Mr. President, I wish to talk about the vote we had just a few minutes ago, a vote that was a victory for Wall Street but not a victory for the American taxpayer. We hear our Republican colleagues proclaim they are for Wall Street reform, that they are on the reform bandwagon, but then they seem to pull the emergency brake. They say they are on the reform bandwagon, and yet when they have a chance to move forward and simply to debate the process, they pull the emergency brake.

The approach our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have taken on Wall Street reform symbolizes America's worst fears about how the powerful operate. They held a closed-door strategy session with Wall Street executives that, from published reports, included solicitations for their campaign committee. Then they marched into this Chamber with a script, a Wall Street playbook written by the Nation's most significant Republican political consultant. Rather than debating what was in the bill, they went to the Wall Street playbook. They waved the flag. They proclaimed their patriotic intention to protect Americans from those who took us to the brink of economic disaster. But then they played the fear card and they talked about bailouts and told Americans they would pay.

Americans realize our Wall Street reform is actually what, in essence, has to be done to end taxpayer bailouts, that opponents are just playing fast and loose with the facts to protect the big banks instead of taxpayers. Our colleagues on the other side claim to embrace Wall Street reform in front of the cameras, while behind the scene, behind closed doors they continue to strategize with Wall Street about how to kill this legislation.

I am sure families in my State and across the country who are hurting, who lost their jobs, their health care, lost their homes because of the reckless excesses of Wall Street profiteers driven by profits at any cost, the value of their property has plummeted, their 401(k)s have been decimated, their hope for a decent retirement that they had worked for is largely gone at this point, American taxpayers want accountability, not trickery. They want all of us in this Chamber to stand up for them and mean it, not stand up for Wall Street and try to find a clever way to make it look like they are for Main Street.

We need only to look at the actions of those on the other side over the past 2 weeks to see the other story. They huddle with Wall Street. They strategize about how to protect Wall Street, but they make it sound like they are protecting Main Street. It is a game of mirrors: appear to stand for reform but do Wall Street's bidding. They hired a political consultant to tell them which words to use and came up with: The American people do not like taxpayer bailouts. All you have to say about this real effort for reform is that it is a taxpayer bailout, and they will hate it.

The only problem is, the facts do not fit their rhetoric. The bill we would have gone on to debate, in fact, ends taxpayer bailouts by reining in the excesses of Wall Street, and that is exactly why Wall Street is working so hard with the other side to defeat it. They play the fear card, as they always have. Then they try to distance themselves from that consultant, but not before they march in lockstep to the microphones and tell Americans this is a bailout bill, it will cost taxpayers billions and lead to more and bigger bailouts, that it is another government intrusion into their lives.

Fear is a powerful force, and in the short term sometimes fear is far more powerful than the truth. But in the long term, it simply is not true. Maybe that is why truth has been the first casualty of every argument we have heard from the other side, whether on the Recovery Act, on putting people to work, on making health care more affordable, on extending unemployment insurance for those who are struggling, and now on reining in those who brought us to the edge of economic ruin after 8 years of lax regulatory policies that let Wall Street run wild.

Now that the fear card does not seem to be working, suddenly our friends stand in front of the microphones and claim to be in favor of reform. Yet at the end of it all they could have cast a vote to let us begin to work together on the process. But they continue to confer with Wall Street and tell their members once again, as they have on every major piece of reform legislation that has come before this Chamber, to stand in lockstep and vote no--a ``no'' vote against even starting the debate.

I say to my colleagues today, blindly following your consultant did not work out so well, and neither will blindly following an obstructionist strategy work out very well either. The American people have figured out the trick. You cannot talk like a gladiator and put on the show for the taxpayers and then be a mouthpiece for Wall Street.

Doing nothing and calling it leadership is not an answer. Saying no once again and keeping the status quo is not an option. Saying no to sensible Wall Street reform is a sure-fire way to wind up right back in the same mess we just got out of recently. Saying no is the surest recipe for more taxpayer bailouts.

The bottom line is, we as Democrats are here to say yes to commonsense reform so that Wall Street excesses will never take us to the brink of economic ruin again, yes to a free market. But there is a difference between a free market and a free-for-all market. What we have had is a free-for-all market.

Our Republican colleagues seem to want the free-for-all system to remain exactly as it is: same lack of rules, same lack of oversight, same megaprofits for the large Wall Street banks. I ask, at whose expense, at what cost to American families, at what risk to the very foundation of our economic system?

If our colleagues are serious about ending taxpayer bailouts, then they should favor making banks pay for their reckless behavior. Instead, they come to the floor one after another in an attempt to gut it. What they oppose, what they are once again saying no to is asking the Wall Street firms to pay to insure against their own failure.

We should also remember today, after this vote, as we look back at 8 years of an administration that nodded and winked and turned a blind eye to Wall Street's schemes, that history has a way of repeating itself. Let's not forget the reckless behavior of the big banks and other entities and lenders and Wall Street speculators that sent the economy into a near depression last year has a historic precedent, as do the muscular safeguards and regulations that we must implement this year to protect consumers so it never happens again. That precedent was the Great Depression. It came after a period of Republican Presidents-- Harding, Coolidge, Hoover--who sided with free-wheeling companies to overcome commonsense regulations. We had no choice but to clean up the mess with a period of sustained, robust regulations implemented by another Democratic administration at that time.

Once again, the time has come after the economic damage has been done to put in place a series of robust reforms and safeguards so it never happens again. Once again, just as they did after the Great Depression, our Republican colleagues are saying, no, leave things as they are. There is no need for Wall Street reforms. Let the market take care of itself. They want to say no to the lessons of history. We need to say yes to commonsense reforms; yes to sensible oversight and regulations; yes to protecting the jobs, homes, and retirement savings of families who have been playing by the rules; yes to protecting them from more reckless financial gambling and creative derivative schemes; yes to guaranteeing taxpayers will never be on the hook the next time risky corporate decisions force a too-big-to-fail company into bankruptcy.

We cannot have a system where big Wall Street banks and others take huge gambles knowing they can keep the gains if they win but we as a country will pay the costs if they lose. That is playing Russian roulette with our economy. When that happens, the victims are hard- working families who did everything right. They played by the rules. Wall Street did not. And they expect us to make it right. They worked as hard as they could at every job they had and earned all their lives to buy a

home and raise their families, send their kids to college, and maybe, just maybe, put something away for a decent, safe, comfortable retirement.

Now they sit at the kitchen table at night asking heartrending questions: Can we afford the mortgage this month? Can we keep our health insurance? How do we pay our credit card bills? Will we keep our jobs? Will we lose our home? Can we ever retire?

These are the families who needed a ``yes'' vote a little while ago. They need our protection. They did not deserve what happened to them. We have a chance to make things right so it will never happen again. The Senate needs to take up Wall Street reform.

The choice is simple: Do we stand for a banking system that is fair, transparent, and honest or do we stand for a banking system that takes advantage of consumers, one in which speculation runs wild and puts the entire economy at constant risk? Do we stand on the side of working families who played by the rules, or do we stand on the side of Wall Street and big banks? Not the community banks because they are not the ones who got us into this but those large institutions that have gotten far too comfortable writing their own rules.

In my view, the choice is clear. It is time for the Senate to step to the plate on behalf of working families. It is time for reform. It is time to end too big to fail. It is time to rein in the bulls. It is time to protect hard-working taxpayers. It is time to simply move forward and take up the debate.

I hope the majority leader will bring us to another vote so that we can, in fact, get to that moment in which we can move forward and have the debate and have the amendments and ultimately know who stands for the taxpayer and who stands for Wall Street. I hope there will be enough votes here to make sure this institution of the people, by the people, and for the people is going to put them first.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote to confirm the nomination of Marisa Judith Demeo as associate judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

She has waited long enough and the Superior Court of the District has waited long enough. Judge Demeo epitomizes what it means to serve. A consummate community leader, she has always believed in the importance of public service.

She is currently serving as magistrate judge in the Criminal Division of Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

As an assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, she has ample experience prosecuting misdemeanor and felony cases.

Having said that, she also has deep roots in the community, a woman who cares about justice--about doing what's fair and what's right. She believes in the rule of law.

From her work at the AIDS Service Center of Lower Manhattan, her service for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, her time as a Texas rural legal aid and a paralegal in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, she has taken pride in acting on a spirit of community that is part of who she is--each of us working together for the betterment of all of us.

I know the good work she has done at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and what that work has meant to her and to those she has served.

The professional awards and honors she has received as well as her academic awards are far too numerous to mention here. Suffice it to say that, in my view, she is one of the most accomplished nominees we have had before us.

A graduate of Princeton University and New York University School of Law, Judge Demeo's credentials are impeccable.

I know her dedication and her keen mind, her judicial temperament, her belief in the rule of law and those powerful words that mean so much to her and to all of us in this Chamber--equal justice under law.

Judge Demeo is ready to serve on a busy urban court with a caseload of over 100,000 cases per year. As an associate judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia she will bring her knowledge, skills, and expertise to every decision in a busy courtroom dealing with hundreds of neglected and abused children who will come before her-- juveniles alleged to have committed crimes, and those who have been accused and charged with crimes ranging from misdemeanors to first degree murder and sexual abuse.

Judge Demeo will be there to serve as she always has, ready to make timely and fair decisions on domestic violence cases, housing issues, child custody and support.

The caseload will not deter her. It will invigorate her, and I am proud to cast my vote to confirm Judge Demeo as an associate judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and urge my colleagues to do the same.

The time has come to confirm this nominee.

Mr. President, due to an official event in New Jersey, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 109. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 4851, the Continuing Extension Act of 2010.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about an issue affecting some of the most vulnerable families living in our society. Under health reform, tax credits are provided to families between 100 percent and 400 percent of the Federal poverty line in order to purchase health insurance. Families below 133 percent of the poverty line become eligible for Medicaid. Certain lawfully present immigrants however are not eligible for Medicaid due to their immigration status. Fortunately, health reform does not leave them in the cold. Mr. Chairman, am I correct in saying that lawfully present immigrants, who are otherwise ineligible for Medicaid, are eligible for premium tax credits in the exchange?

I believe it is important to clarify that the Senate bill's treatment of certain lawfully present immigrants as having an income at 100 percent of the Federal poverty level was intended to pertain only to their eligibility for the affordability credit--not the size of the actual tax credit. Plainly put, a legal immigrant whose income is at 50 percent of the poverty line should not have to pay the same premium amount as someone whose income is at 100 percent of the poverty line. Was this the intent of this provision in the health reform legislation?

I thank the Chairman.

Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman and his staff for taking the time and effort to ensure the 4 million residents in Puerto Rico are treated fairly in our health care system.

Throughout my time in Congress, first in the House, and now here in the Senate, I have worked to see the people of Puerto Rico are not forgotten. The health care reform package we are debating today has several outstanding provisions for Puerto Rico. It is an example of the good we can do for its nearly 4 million U.S. citizens--who pay Social Security and Medicare taxes.

But there is one issue I want to raise and that is the Medicare Advantage program on the island. Approximately 83 percent of the eligible Medicare beneficiaries in Puerto Rico participate in Medicare Advantage, compared to 25 percent in the States. This can be tracked to the fact that eligible seniors in Puerto Rico are not automatically enrolled in Medicare Part B when they turn 65. As a result, it is more beneficial for seniors in Puerto Rico to enroll in Medicare Advantage to receive all of their Medicare services.

However, the fee-for-service, FFS, cost calculation for Puerto Rico is inaccurate and under counts expenditures per Medicare beneficiary. Last year the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, alerted Congress to this and recommends that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS, should expeditiously use its authority to employ an alternative calculation method . . .'.

The fee-for-service cost calculation is important because it will soon be the basis for Medicare Advantage rates throughout the country and Puerto Rico. I strongly believe CMS should take a look at the under count. If there is validation that the FFS expenditures are too low, I believe the HHS Secretary and CMS should use current authority and adjust the calculations appropriately.

I am asking HHS and CMS to look at the under count because there is a very real chance we could do harm to Medicare Advantage in Puerto Rico if we don't get the FFS costs accurate. I hope the chairman agrees with me.

I thank the Chairman for his leadership and commitment on this issue.

PEOs

Mr. President, I rise to talk about two issues. First, I will talk about the pending business before the Senate, which is the FAA reauthorization, in a moment. I certainly want to commend my dear friend and colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee, for what he has done in bringing the reauthorization to the floor and the manner in which he has fashioned it.

This is an opportunity to create 150,000 jobs, modernize our system for this 21st century, save millions of gallons of fuel that get spent under a system that is antiquated, and people sitting in planes just idling, and $9 billion in lost revenue to the Nation as a result of an antiquated system. All of this will be dealt with, with the FAA reauthorization.

But before I get to that I want to speak for a moment on an item that we will be voting on tomorrow which is critically important to make sure we put the Nation back to work, the HIRE Act. One of those items I believe is incredibly important that has been getting the wrong view here is the question of the Build America Bonds. It is

one that has been debated quite a bit on the Senate floor the last couple of times we have been in session. My view is that these bonds have been one of the most successful pieces of the economic recovery package passed last year. They have helped to finance nearly $80 billion in economic development projects in all 50 States.

Those are projects that are a win-win for America. By helping States and local governments finance vital public infrastructure projects, we are putting Americans back to work; building better, stronger communities, better schools, retooling our infrastructure, and preparing for the new economy. That is what makes the Build America Bonds so effective. By lowering borrowing costs, these bonds incentivize investments in our communities across America. This gives State and local entities resources to fund badly needed projects, projects from which we all benefit.

These bonds have been a resounding success. As a matter of fact, in a November article by Stephen Gandel that appeared on time.com, it ran under this headline: ``A Stimulus Success: Build America Bonds Are Working.''

In this article, Amy Resnick, the editor in chief of a publication which follows bond markets, was quoted as saying: ``It's clearly been a success as a means of stimulating the economy.''

When we talk about stimulating the economy, ultimately we are talking about putting Americans back to work. The bill we have before us, that we will vote on tomorrow, expands this successful program to allow issuers of school construction and energy project bonds to convert these tax credit bonds into a Build America Bond. Seems like a rather simple provision to me, a commonsense provision that says if it has been successful, why not expand on it. If we can stimulate needed construction for schools and communities across America, if we have a proven way to promote putting people to work on critical energy projects, why wouldn't we do it?

Some of my Republican friends say they want to work on job creation, but I find it ironic that on one hand they speak about creating jobs, but on the other hand they criticize Build America Bonds for ``doing too much'' to create jobs and facilitate investment in vital public projects in communities across America.

You can't have it both ways. You can't blame the majority for not focusing on job creation while criticizing one of the most successful programs as having done too much. At a time of 10 percent unemployment, the question is not are we helping our communities too much; rather, the fundamental question the Congress must be focused on is how do we create more investment so we can create more jobs so that we can put more Americans back to work. The lessons of history are important. Build America Bonds, the jobs they create, the good they do, underscore some of the historic differences between this side of the aisle and the other. History tells us that in difficult economic times, creating badly needed jobs for families struggling to make ends meet strengthens the economy and helps us rebuild a better future.

In the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt understood the need for government to step in and create jobs. He rebuilt America's rusted old 19th century infrastructure, retooled old systems and prepared the Nation for the 20th century. History has a way of repeating itself. We should not ignore it. We should instead learn from it, learn from our great successes so we don't repeat our worst failures. A proactive government creating a jobs agenda and putting people back to work during the New Deal and rebuilding our infrastructure was one of those successes. On the other hand, a static government doing nothing to create jobs in the face of massive unemployment, as Herbert Hoover did, was one of our worst failures.

The lesson of history is clear. If we are too shortsighted to repeat the things that work, we are doomed to repeat the things that failed.

Finally, on the second issue and the pending issue before the Senate, we need this FAA reauthorization bill because it will create jobs, over 150,000. It will reduce congestion, that $9 billion lost for America by airplanes idling and people not being productive at work as they try to get to their business appointments and others who get lost along the way in terms of the time lost being with their families and friends. It also improves safety, which should be job 1. It will invest in infrastructure that will get more people to their destinations on two words we want to hear more and more, as the chairman is trying to make happen: On time.

It will address several essential safety issues related to oversight, pilot training, pilot safety, and pilot fatigue after the tragic Colgan Air crash last year in Buffalo. This bill takes several steps to ensure that, 1, an extremely high level of safety exists throughout the entire transportation system. It protects passengers from being stranded on the tarmac like those at Stewart Airport in New York who sat on a plane that ran out of food. Things got so bad that each passenger was given four potato chips and half a cup of water. That is simply ridiculous and unacceptable. This bill will put an end to these stories by requiring each airline to provide adequate provisions to stranded planes and give all passengers the right to deplane after 3 hours, if not sooner.

I salute Senator Rockefeller and the members of the Commerce Committee who have worked to bring this important bill to the floor.

There are some things I hope we have offered that will be accepted into a managers' amendment. I look forward to some opportunities. We have something called the Clear Airfares Act. I believe when you buy a ticket, you should have the right to know what you are paying for. Anything short of that is simply unfair. My amendment No. 3506 would require airlines to be upfront with their fees so consumers can make an informed decision. It seems as though the airlines never have met a fee they do not like. These are some of them. We have two easels here to try to make the case. It is rather busy, but this gives you a sense to these two chart that lay out 13 common airline fees that 18 different airlines assign--fees for ordering tickets by phone, fuel surcharges, for traveling with a pet. Last year they invented a new fee. It is called the holiday fee. Because these fees don't appear alongside a ticket's base airfare, consumers have little idea of how much the ticket will eventually cost them.

I brought an example we worked on to dramatize what we are talking about here. Airline A's ticket from BWI to La Guardia appears to be $2 cheaper than airline B's ticket, $223.50 compared to $225.40. But then come the hidden fees. Airline A charges you $120 round trip to check two bags plus an additional $200 to travel with a pet. By contrast, airline B allows you to check two bags for free and charges you $150 to travel with a pet. The end result, when you add up the fees, what appeared to be the least expensive ticket for the same exact flight is actually $150 more expensive. My amendment shines a light on airline fees and surcharges so consumers have an accurate picture about what their trip is likely to cost them. We hope the committee will accept that.

We also have an amendment on focused flying which was written in response to the flight that flew 150 miles beyond its destination, allegedly because the pilots were too distracted to notice the airport. I am pleased. Working with the committee and Senator Dorgan, we were able to include language in the underlying bill that would prohibit unnecessary electronic devices from the cockpit. However, it is important we look at all pilot distractions. Our amendment calls for the FAA to conduct a study on the broader issue of distractive flying and its impact on flight safety.

The last amendment I have filed would require the FAA to monitor the air noise impacts of New Jersey, New York, and Philadelphia airspace redesign and simply provide the data to the public. I have not been supportive of the airspace redesign in part because it was done in such a way where noise impacts are rather severe. Now that the redesign is being implemented, the public has a right to know what consequences there are in that redesign and that some level of transparency should be provided to the flying public and the communities affected.

Lastly, I look forward to what I hope is an end product, as we move through this Chamber and have a conference,

that no longer makes it tougher for some workers to organize unions than others who do the same work. I believe the rules should be applied evenly across the board. Unions help improve safety standards which not only benefit workers, they touch all of us who drive on the roads and fly in the skies. I hope the ultimate result will create that opportunity. It is time we finally pass the FAA reauthorization. It will create jobs. It will make our flying experience safer. It will make it more efficient. We will save money in our economy.

I look forward to working with Chairman Rockefeller to make the bill one we can continue to be proud of as we fly the skies of our country.

I yield the floor.

I thank my distinguished colleague and chairman for his remarks and observations. We look forward to working with the committee to achieve some of these things and to achieve ultimate success with him at the end of the day.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I first spoke in favor of the nomination of Judge Joseph A. Greenaway for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit when I introduced him to the Judiciary Committee on September 10. This has been a long 5-month process, unnecessarily long for a good man and a noncontroversial nominee who was once unanimously approved by this Chamber under Republican leadership, and I might add received the full support, the unanimous support of the Judiciary Committee. Yet the minority has continued to delay his confirmation along with many others.

If confirmed, he would be only the 15th of President Obama's circuit or district court nominees to be confirmed despite more than 100 vacancies on the Federal bench.

Having said that, today we are finally here to vote on the nomination of a man who fully embodies respect for justice and the rule of law that should have made this a simple, clear, easy choice.

Let me briefly repeat his impeccable qualifications. At the age of 38, Justice Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr., was appointed by President Clinton to the Federal bench and has served for over a dozen years with distinction. He earned a bachelor of arts from Columbia University where he was honored, in 1997, with the Columbia University Medal of Excellence and with the John Jay Award in 2003.

He earned his J.D. from Harvard Law where he was a member of the Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, and an Earl Warren Legal Scholar.

He later clerked for the late Honorable Vincent L. Broderick, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, became an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Newark and later became chief of the narcotics bureau.

In the private sector, he was an associate with the firm of Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin, and Frankel--and served at Johnson and Johnson as in-house counsel.

He is chair emeritus of the Columbia College Black Alumni Council and has been an adjunct professor at Rutgers Law School.

Currently, he is an adjunct professor at both the Cardozo School of Law and Columbia College where he teaches a seminar on the Supreme Court. But however impressive his experience and qualifications, they do not do justice to the man.

He grew up in Harlem and the northeast Bronx not far from where Justice Sotomayor grew up, just across the river from Union City, NJ, where I grew up. He has a deep respect for the rule of law and a fundamental belief in fairness and the age-old notion of equal justice under law.

He is accomplished and successful in his life and career, and proud of the justice system to which he has devoted his career. But he has also given much back to the community, something for which we in New Jersey will remain forever grateful.

In 2006, before Judge Greenaway took the podium at the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva, Dean David Rudenstein introduced him as a man who touched many of his students' lives in meaningful ways. Those students, he said, had the privilege of witnessing his humanness and had been inspired by his example.

That observation came as a surprise to no one who knows Judge Greenaway. He has always been an inspiration to students and graduates alike, taking many of them under his wing as law clerks or fellows. Mediocrity has never been Joe Greenaway's norm. He has always strived for excellence, and taught young lawyers to do the same.

In conclusion, the confirmation of Judge Greenaway should have been an easy choice, but when all is said and done, when we put aside our political biases and look for those with the illusive qualities we like to call judicial temperament, those who best represent the fundamental concepts of justice and community, for as Edmund Burke once said: ``Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society . . .''

Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. stands out. I am pleased that his nomination has finally come to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this eminently qualified, capable, nominee.

I know I join with all of my colleagues and with the people of New Jersey in wishing Judge Greenaway good luck and Godspeed on this next journey in life.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 9, 2010, at 2:30 p.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague from New Jersey and speak for just a few minutes about Judge Greenaway. I had come to the floor in hope and expectation that we could actually go to his nomination this afternoon. I am pleased we will get a vote on Monday but, even still, this process has taken much too long.

This is a nominee for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals who has about as good as it gets in terms of bipartisan support. At the age of 40, he became a U.S. district court judge. Then, he passed by unanimous consent of this Chamber--Republicans and Democrats alike, unanimous consent. Now he passes out of the Judiciary Committee by, again, a unanimous agreement. Yet he has been held up for months on the Senate floor. Why? Simply because you can?

That is not acceptable. It is not acceptable, when I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for years talk about an up- or-down vote: Give us an up-or-down vote on a nominee, particularly a nominee who is eminently qualified, who is noncontroversial by virtue of the fact that he has achieved the ability to be agreed to in terms of his nominations, both past and present, as it relates to the Judiciary Committee without qualification, without objection.

So it is clear that up to this point the obstruction of this nominee is not about what is right for the Nation; it is not about acting in the best interests of an overburdened judicial system; it is not about ideology; it is not even about Judge Greenaway. It is about the politics of obstruction. That is consequential to the judicial system and to our citizens who depend on that system for the administration and delivery of justice. This is more than a nominee; it is everyone who is waiting for their cases on appeal.

I will point out to my friends on the other side that, hopefully, when we go to Monday's vote, we will understand that on countless occasions, they argued for an up-or-down vote, demanding that a simple majority vote on the President's nominees is all that is necessary, a position diametrically opposed to their position today. I recall they went so far as to proclaim that filibusters of the President's nominations, particularly for the court, were

unconstitutional, and they threatened what we call the nuclear option. I ask, again, which is it? Do my friends on the other side believe it is right that filibustering the President's nominees is unconstitutional or is the question what do they believe will work for them at any given moment?

So we are looking for this up-or-down vote. I don't hear arguments of the unconstitutionality of filibusters now, and I submit to my friends you can't have it both ways. I urge my colleagues to--I know there will be a unanimous consent request offered. I suspect it will be approved. If not, I will return to the floor and have more extensive remarks on this issue.

It is time for this nominee to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to get a vote, up or down. This is an eminently qualified nominee. My colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, talked a lot about his history. There is even more. This is a superb nominee. If this nominee can be held up for months, I can only imagine what we are in for as we move forward. At least when it comes to nominees of New Jersey or the district in which New Jersey is involved, I intend to come to the floor each and every time. But I look forward to some success here, at least today, and being able to make our system of justice actually work for our citizens and for that we need judges and justices in place.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me first of all thank my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania for yielding before he reflects on the history of his 10,000 votes. I am sure there are many of great consequence he cast that he is going to reflect upon.

I want to echo my colleague from Pennsylvania as well, Senator Casey's comments about Senator Specter. I will only focus on two points of the many he mentioned. One is the National Institutes of Health. The reality is, Arlen Specter's advocacy and passion--partly from his own personal experience when he has had to overcome some of his own personal health challenges--has given him a real understanding of what the National Institutes of Health is all about and what it means. His advocacy and work there has made a huge difference in the lives of literally millions of people across this country based on the research that is done there that ultimately can save a life or can enhance a life. That is a legacy that any one of us in the United States would want to give.

Secondly, the other thing I respect about Senator Specter is that when he has had to cross the aisle in order to make sure he has stood on behalf of the people of Pennsylvania and in the Nation's best interests, he has done that. Nowadays, that is a lot more difficult to find. Senator Specter has a history of crossing the aisle when it is necessary on behalf of the people of Pennsylvania to stand by their side. That did not impede him from moving to whomever he could with whomever he could in this body and with administrations, both present and past, in order to achieve those goals. I salute him in that respect.

I appreciate Senator Specter letting me have a few minutes on an incredibly important issue.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit of a distinguished jurist from New Jersey, Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr., which seems to be blocked by some people in this Chamber yet unknown. I know it is not from my side of the aisle because I have checked. So it is on the Republican side of the aisle. Yet Judge Greenaway fully embodies the respect for justice and the rule of law that we demand of all of our judges. He has strong bipartisan support, and his nomination could easily have been taken care of this evening but for a few Republicans blocking the vote.

I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: End the obstructionism. Do what is right. Let us have a vote on this eminently qualified, noncontroversial nominee. It is clear the obstruction of this nomination is not about this nominee. He is eminently qualified. I will talk about that in a moment. And it is not about what is right for this Nation. It certainly is not about acting in the best interests of a badly overburdened Federal judicial system. In fact, oddly enough, it is not about ideology. It is not even about Judge Greenaway or the other seven nominees whom our friends are delaying. It is about the politics of having this President and this Congress fail, the politics of no, the politics of obstruction, of stopping any progress on any issue and almost every nominee. Our friends on the other side came to the floor in the last administration, the administration of President Bush, on countless occasions to argue for an up-or-down vote. I heard that many times: ``Give us an up-or-down vote,'' demanding that a simple majority of the President's nominees is all that is needed--a simple majority of this Chamber. That is a position diametrically opposed to their position today. In fact, they went so far at that time to proclaim that filibusters of the President's nominations were unconstitutional, and they threatened what became known then as the nuclear option--to undo the right of Senators to filibuster a nominee. Well, which is it? What do my friends on the other side believe is right or is the question: What do they believe will work? Where is the call for an up-or-down vote now from our Republican colleagues? Where is the argument on the unconstitutionality of filibusters now? You can't have it both ways.

We can agree to disagree on some nominees on principle, and we have over the years. But the numbers this year belie any notion that the obstruction of Judge Greenaway and all the pending nominees is purely a matter of principle. In this past year, our Republican colleagues have obstructed virtually all the President's nominees, confirming only 12 Federal circuit and district court nominees, the lowest number in a half century. Let me repeat that: the lowest number in a half century. Contrast that to the 100 judicial nominees confirmed in the 17 months Chairman Leahy chaired the Judiciary Committee during the Bush administration.

As Chairman Leahy has pointed out on this floor, in December of 2001, the first year of George W. Bush's administration, Senate Democrats confirmed 10 of President Bush's nominees in December alone, leaving only 4 nominations on the calendar--in the first year. All four of those nominees were confirmed soon after the Senate returned the following year, in 2002. In stark contrast, this past December, our Republican colleagues left 10 judicial nominees without Senate action and insisted on returning 2 of them to the President for renomination.

So I urge my colleagues to reconsider, to end this obstructionism, and allow this body to exercise its constitutional authority of advice and consent and confirm the nomination of Joseph A. Greenaway to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He is eminently qualified and deserves consideration.

Let me close on that. At the age of 40, Justice Greenaway was appointed by then-President Clinton to the Federal bench, where he served for over a dozen years with distinction. By the way, he got put through by unanimous consent. It wasn't even--it was by unanimous consent of the Chamber when he was put on the Federal bench. He went through unanimously, out of the Judiciary Committee, for this position on the appellate division--unanimously out of the committee.

Joe Greenaway earned a Bachelor of Arts from Columbia University, where he was honored in 1997 with the Columbia University Medal of Excellence and with the John Jay Award in 2003. He was an Earl Warren Legal Scholar at Harvard University. He clerked for the late Honorable Vincent L. Broderick in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. He became an assistant U.S. attorney in Newark and later received a promotion to become chief of the Narcotics Bureau. In the private sector, he was an associate with the firm of Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin, and Frankel and served at Johnson & Johnson as in-house counsel. He has an incredible background. He is chair emeritus of the Columbia College Black Alumni Council and has been an adjunct professor at Rutgers Law School.

Currently, he is an adjunct professor at the Cordozo School of Law and at Columbia College, where he teaches courses on trial practice and a seminar on the Supreme Court.

But this is merely Judge Greenaway's impressive resume in one way--a distinguished resume to say the least--but it does not do justice to the man. There is an inscription over the 10th Street entrance to the Department of Justice a few blocks from here. It reads: ``Justice in the life and conduct of the State is possible only as it first resides in the hearts and souls of men.''

The two qualities of justice do indeed reside in the heart and soul of Joe Greenaway, and he deserves a vote.

He grew up in Harlem in the northeast Bronx. He is accomplished and successful, but he has always given much back. He has been instrumental in mentoring students and graduates, often taking them under his wing as law clerks or fellows. He once said:

I tell my students to work hard and work smart. Our

profession requires a drive to search for perfection; without

that goal mediocrity becomes the norm.

He has always strived for excellence. He has always taught young lawyers to do the same.

So Judge Joseph Greenaway respects the law. For all that Judge Greenaway stands for--for justice served; for honor and decency; for the qualities and qualifications that have brought him to this place in his career; for his years of service and his judicial temperament; for his respect for the Constitution and precedent; for the fact that justice does, indeed, reside in the heart and soul of this man; for the fact that, in fact, he was unanimously passed out of the Judiciary Committee and previously, to become a district court judge, had the unanimous consent of this body--somehow, despite all that history and all that qualification, there are colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle holding up this nominee.

I urge my colleagues to end the obstructionism and to give us a vote up or down. I know when we get that vote, Judge Joseph A. Greenaway will be confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. I will continue to come to the floor to dramatize this challenge. We cannot have a set of circumstances under which the judiciary labors, especially with eminently qualified, bipartisan candidates, because there are those who want to see this President or this Congress fail. It is about the Nation not failing. It is about our judicial system not failing. It is not about the politics of obstructionism.

With that, I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise to speak to the great debate we are having on historic health care reform, and I am reminded of the words of a great Republican, President Abraham Lincoln. He said:

We cannot escape history. The fiery trial through which we

pass will light us down in honor or dishonor of the latest

generation. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we

must rise with the occasion.

That is what Abraham Lincoln said. It is time to rise to the occasion because our friends on the other side of the aisle have chosen to sit on their hands and do nothing. They have no plan. They have chosen to delay and obfuscate.

If you look back in history, during the great debates on Social Security in 1935 and Medicare in 1965, our friends across the aisle were on the wrong side of history. But in the end, there was a minority that chose to stand up for historic social legislation and vote their conscience. They were not driven by the far rightwing of their party or by radio talk show hosts who demand ideological purity and see any attempt to support health care reform as an abandonment of principle.

Each of us is rarely called to act on such significant legislation, and when we are, it is our solemn duty to put aside our idealogy--turn off Rush Limbaugh--and leave politics in the cloakroom. Our vote on this ground-breaking legislation--comparable to Social Security and Medicare--will be one of the most significant votes in American history. It should not be driven by the hope of failure that the other side prays for, rather by the will to succeed for the American people. This Congress will be remembered for this vote for generations to come, and our friends across the aisle will once again be on the wrong side of history.

We have heard the same tired arguments over and over. We heard those arguments in 1935 against Social Security. We heard them again in 1965 against Medicare--the same arguments we hear today. History has a way of repeating itself. If past is prologue, historic health care reform legislation will be signed into law despite the naysayers, the fearmongers, the panderers to those who see any attempt at compromise as defeat.

To our friends on the other side, this is no longer about legislating, it is simply about obstructing. It is no longer about doing what is right for the American people but about stopping us from doing anything. It is not about finding common ground but drawing lines in the sand.

My friends on the other side have set up an army of straw men, as they did on Social Security and Medicare, manipulating the facts to create the illusion of refuting the false claims they created in an attempt to score political points.

They stand up the socialist straw man, call the bill a government takeover of health care, and make Americans fear it. Well, we say: Let's make sure the Bernie Madoffs of the world, and people like him, are not selling health insurance.

They wave the flag, stand up the un-American straw man, saying the bill is against old-fashioned American values and denounce it. We say: Don't you dare question our patriotism. Do not dare question our commitment to doing what is right for the American people.

They stand up the death panel straw man, claiming the legislation would kill grandma, and denounce it as inhumane. We say: Stop the outrageous misinformation and tell the truth to the American people.

They stand up the taxing straw man, and say health care reform will increase taxes. We say: We are making health care entities, such as insurance companies, pay their fair share.

They set up the spending straw man, and say the bill will indebt the next generation, despite Congressional Budget Office estimates to the contrary. We say: You can't pick and choose when to believe the Congressional Budget Office and stand by their numbers only when it is convenient to your cause.

For instance, my friend Senator Gregg, the ranking member on the Budget Committee, touts CBO numbers even on his specific bill, when they benefit his arguments, for example, on malpractice provisions. But now my friends on the other side conveniently dismiss the Congressional Budget Office numbers showing our health care plan reduces the deficit. So you can't have it both ways.

They bring along their partisan straw man, accusing us of drafting a bill or having votes in the middle of the night. We say: How quickly you forget the 4 months that we waited for Republicans in the bipartisan Gang of 6, three Democratic Members, three Republican Members, working, supposedly, to achieve a bipartisan effort in health care reform. Four months. Four months we waited for them to work with us in a constructive way, and then they all walked away. So don't come back now and say you had no input in the process when you chose that course.

And, by the way, these votes that take place at the time they take place are because the Republicans insist on stopping the process and delaying it and drawing it out. So under the procedures, once we start the process to finish that delay, it ends up at certain hours--30 hours each time from the moment we file a motion to say that is enough of the delay, let us move forward. Whenever those 30 hours end, that is when we have to have the vote. But they could consent to have that vote in the fullness of the day and light. But no, they want to have the vote as late as possible, hoping that 60 Members who want to see progress on this reform don't come to this Chamber and, therefore, cannot stop the filibuster. They want failure, and then they clamor about the time these votes take place.

Straw man after straw man. They have done nothing but block this legislation, as they have throughout the year on other legislation. They will do anything, say anything to delay, deny, and defeat health care reform.

They are on the wrong side of history now, as they were in 1935 and 1965. But the difference between 1935 and Social Security and 1965 and Medicare and today is that when the debates ended in 1935 and 1965, when the legislation was weighed on its merits, there were those few Republicans who voted their conscience, those who did not march in lockstep to the demands of rightwing talk show hosts or in fear of tea party anarchists.

In 1935 and 1965, there were a few on the other side, a few who voted for Social Security and Medicare because they knew it was right for America.

But in 2009 it appears there will be no votes for health care reform-- not one, not a single vote from the other side of the aisle.

The ideological differences were as intense then as they are now but pure obstinate ideology did not prevail then as it will in this Chamber when we vote. Before Social Security was debated, President Roosevelt laid out the changes in society and the reasons why we needed Social Security legislation before the Congress. He said then:

Security was attained in the early days through the

interdependence of members of families upon each other and of

the families within a small community upon each other. . . .

The complexities of great communities and of organized

industry make less real the simple means of security.

Therefore, we are compelled to employ the active interests of

the nation as a whole, through government, in order to

encourage a greater security for each individual who composes

it.

That is what he said about Social Security. That is why we needed Social Security and why we realize today that without Social Security more than half of our seniors in this country would be living in poverty--more than half--if the voices then in opposition had succeeded.

Then the debate began. There is no mention of death panels but there were those Republicans who raised similar straw men to the voices we hear today. A member of the New York delegation, a Republican, Daniel Reed said:

The lash of the dictator will be felt, and 25 million

Americans will for the first time submit themselves to a

fingerprint test.

Another said:

The bill . . . invites the entrance into the political

field of a power so vast, so powerful as to threaten the

integrity of our institutions and pull the pillars of the

temple down upon the heads of our descendants.

John Taber, another member of the New York delegation, a Republican, raised the antibusiness straw man, saying:

Never in the history of the world has any measure been

brought here so insidiously designed as to prevent business

recovery, to enslave workers.

In this Chamber, in the Senate, Senator Daniel Hastings of Delaware, a Republican, raised the death-of-a-nation straw man, saying that Social Security would ``end the progress of a great country.''

In this debate we have seen the same army of straw men standing against us. They have claimed that health care reform is a government takeover that will threaten the integrity of our institutions, when in fact we create an exchange of private insurance companies that people will be able to pursue.

They say it will ``pull down the pillars of the temple on our descendants'' and leave them in debt, that it will drive private health insurers out of business and put a bureaucrat between doctors and patients.

We already have bureaucrats between doctors and patients. They are health insurance company bureaucrats between doctors and patients. The difference is when the debate ended on Social Security in 1935, when the shouts of socialism and un-Americanism had faded, a few, a minority on the other side, had the political courage to cross the line and vote yes.

But there will not be a single vote from the Republicans in favor of this bill, not a single vote. Our colleagues on the other side want nothing more than to stop this bill, period, pure and simple. It is their intention to stand en bloc for insurance companies and against any health reform that would protect American families from losing everything if they get sick. Their plan is just to say no; and once again they will squarely be on the wrong side of history.

When President Kennedy and later Lyndon Johnson fought for Medicare, those on the other side raised the same army of straw men they raised 30 years earlier. They played the same game they are playing again now. Senator Curtis of Nebraska at that time voiced opposition in this Chamber saying, ``Medicare is not needed.'' He was a Republican Senator of the time, Mr. Curtis of Nebraska, who said:

[Medicare] is not needed. It is socialism. It moves the

country in a direction which is not good for anyone, whether

they be young or old. It charts a course from which there

will be no turning back. It is not only socialism, it is

brazen socialism.

In the other body, Congressman Hall of Missouri called it ``an ill- conceived adventure in government medicine.''

Those were the Republican voices of the past on Medicare. What senior in this country today--which one of our parents or grandparents-- believes those words of the past as they relate to their health care today? More straw men, more fear, more naysaying--all of it wrong then, all of it wrong now.

They said bureaucrats would come between doctors and patients. They are wrong. That is why it is interesting to see that today the American Medical Association, the Nation's doctors--the people who take care of you when you are ill, the ones who follow your progress when you have, maybe, a debilitating disease or a lifetime health challenge, your doctor, the voice of your doctor, not any Members of the Senate, the voice of your doctor in support of this historic reform--said:

This is a time of great opportunity for the American health

care system. We have the chance to substantially expand

health insurance coverage, implement insurance market reforms

that promote greater choice, affordability and security,

improve [this is the doctors speaking] the quality of the

care and help Americans live longer, healthier, happier and

more productive lives. To that end [the doctors of the nation

say] we urge all Senators to support passage of the Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act as amended.

This is the Nation's doctors. This is your doctor who is telling the Members of the Senate: Vote for it. They do not believe the line that bureaucrats are going to come between doctors and patients. They are wrong, those who are saying that.

They called Medicare unpatriotic and un-American. They were wrong again. They said it would mean the rationing of health care. They were wrong. They made the same argument they have been making for 74 years, and they are still wrong.

In 1965, the champion of my conservative friends, Ronald Reagan, issued a 19-minute-long LP, for those of us who still remember that, a long-playing vinyl recording at the time. It is past--gone. They are like antiques now. But it was entitled ``Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine.''

It featured an impassioned 2,000-word speech intended to get people to write to their Congressman against the idea of Medicare that was beginning to make its way through the Congress. That was 1965. It was referred to as Operation Coffee Cup, something of a precursor to today's tea parties. In his record message, Ronald Reagan said:

One of the traditional methods of imposing socialism on

people has been by way of medicine. . . .

Does it sound familiar, in the year 2009, in the debates we have heard here on the floor? When he became President, one of the pillars of his health policy was cutting benefits, in particular through increased cost sharing for Medicare and Medicaid recipients. He was wrong then, just as our conservative friends are wrong now.

In the face of yet another landmark piece of legislation, is it possible there is not one of my friends on the other side who does not in their heart believe we need to pass this legislation for the good of the American people, regardless of ideology? Is there not one of my friends on the other side who will vote yes to help Americans who have lost their jobs and their health care and stand to lose everything if they or a member of their family becomes ill?

My friends, saying no to accessible, affordable health care for the American people is too big a price to pay for ideological purity. When I think of what this legislation will do, I cannot believe there will not be one vote on the other side to provide competition and affordable choices for every American, as this bill does; not one vote for greater accountability for health insurance companies; not a vote for more choice and competition for consumers, for programs that will rein in health costs and make policies more affordable.

Is this bill perfect? No. But it is a great and historic foundation of reform. Yet there will not be one vote on the other side to improve access to quality care for children, as this bill provides for, and the most vulnerable among us, which the bill does. Not a single vote for tougher accountability policies, for health insurance companies that are included in this legislation? Not one vote to require insurers to spend more of the premium revenues on health care rather than on administrative costs, executive compensation,

and boosting the bottom line? Not a vote to hold health insurers accountable for excessive rate increases? Not a single vote on the other side to immediately ban insurance companies from denying children--we hear a lot about the sanctity of life--coverage for a preexisting condition? Not one vote for expanding eligibility for tax credits for small businesses and starting the health insurance tax credit next year? That is why it is interesting to note that among the many supporters of this, the Business Roundtable, they are quoted as saying:

The proposed legislation is a step towards our shared goal

of providing high quality, affordable health care for all

Americans.

It is why the Small Business Majority says the managers' amendment, Senator Reid's amendment, ``includes new provisions essential for small business protection and survival.'' That is the voice of business.

Not one vote for a bill that promotes competition for insurers and choice for workers? Or to test alternatives to civil tort legislation that emphasize patient safety, disclosure of health care errors, and resolutions of disputes? Not one vote.

Not one vote for people in my home State of New Jersey and every State who will see direct and immediate benefits from this legislation? Not a vote for every uninsured Jerseyan who has a preexisting condition and has been unable to find affordable health insurance in the marketplace? The health of our families is not a commodity. It is not a privilege for the wealthy. It is something everyone should be able to be protected from without going broke.

Under this legislation, 1.3 million seniors in my home State will be eligible for free preventive care for recommended services. Seniors will also be eligible for free annual wellness visits to their doctors, and will be provided with a personalized prevention plan so they can stay healthy.

When this legislation is signed, we will have lived up to our promise to fill the doughnut hole, that gap in coverage under Medicare Part D, to provide affordable prescription drugs to over 227,000 seniors in New Jersey and millions across the country so they will no longer have to choose between paying their bills and taking the medication.

When this legislation is signed, over 850,000 New Jerseyans will qualify for tax credits to help them pay for health insurance, easing the burdens, premiums, deductibles, and copayments. It will make tax credits for up to 50 percent of health care premiums available to over 100,000 small businesses in New Jersey. It will also put an end to the hidden tax that is passed along to everyone in my State through increased premiums and costs to pay for the over $1 billion spent on uncompensated care in New Jersey.

This legislation includes a health insurance exchange that would provide portability, security, and choice for 1.3 million New Jersey residents who presently do not have any health insurance whatsoever. It will increase the number of doctors, nurses, and dentists for the 150,000 New Jerseyans, 2 percent of the population who live in areas where they do not have access to primary care because of a shortage of health care providers in their communities, yet there will not be one single vote for this legislation on the other side, not a single vote for any of these health reforms to help hard-working families in my State and in States across the country.

This is the politics of no, pure and simple. I suppose it is nice to say no to health care reform when you have the full protection of health care yourself. But it is wrong to say you are unwilling to afford the same protections to others. It is nice to say no to health care reform when you and your family will not be denied coverage because of the privileged position you hold but wrong to let even one mother, one father hear that their child has been denied the medical treatment they desperately need.

I say to my friends, how dare you stand in unison on the other side of the aisle and deny to others that which you so fully enjoy yourselves. How can you deny to others that which you so fully enjoy yourselves. It is inconceivable to me that when all is said and done, when our differences have been aired and debate has ended, that not one of my colleagues on the other side will see the historic nature of this legislation. We can be proud of this legislation. I know when the dust settles and the provisions of the bill become clear, America will be proud of it as well.

This landmark reform legislation includes State-based insurance exchanges, creating a fair, open, competitive marketplace for affordable coverage. It includes an amendment I proposed for long overdue consumer protections for emergency services. When you are getting sent to a hospital, you are not thinking about calling your company and saying: Is this the right hospital? Am I going to be covered without regard to prior authorization?

It requires insurance plans to provide behavioral health treatments, such as those for children who are autistic, as part of the minimum benefits standard. It encourages investments in new therapy to prevent, diagnose, and treat acute and chronic disease with a tax credit for innovative biotechnology research. It ensures that minor children qualify as exchange-eligible and provides for the availability of child-only health insurance coverage in the exchanges. It stops insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions, health status, or gender, and it ends the medical benefits shell game that insurers have played with people's lives.

The bottom line is this legislation helps New Jersey and America. It is fair, balanced, and fixes a badly broken system. It is truly a historic piece of legislation and will be remembered as such. Yet every one of my colleagues on the other side will vote no. They will stand against all of it, all I have talked about, firmly, once again, on the wrong side of history.

Let me conclude by saying, as I have said before, and I will say again, history calls on us to stand up on rare occasions for what is fair and just and right for the American people. This is one of those occasions. This is a time to look into your heart, a time to see beyond your own political interests, your own hard ideology, and look at the lives of millions of Americans. Think about the millions of families on Main Street, in every community, where a child wakes up in the middle of the night to a parent who cannot afford to get them the basic care they need. Ask yourself: What is the right thing to do?

This is a time to do what is right for America. It requires more than parliamentary maneuvers to slow the process. It requires more than shrill voices raised under the banner of free market values at the expense of fundamental human values. It requires doing what is right for the millions of American families who have lost their jobs and their health care, those who have suffered from the economic policies of the last 8 years and now find themselves hurting. This is a time to remember them, a time to remember every mother who cries herself to sleep at night because she lost her job, lost her health care for herself and her infant and could lose everything she struggled for in her life, if she gets sick.

I say again to my friends, how dare you deny to her the protections that you so fully enjoy yourself. How dare you turn this into a parliamentary game of delay, deny, and defeat. Those who have continuously said no to any attempt at health care reform and yes to the needs of the insurance industry believe that the business of government is business. But for all of us who know the business of government, what it really is, it is about people. It is about those who send us here. It is their lives, their hopes, their dreams for a better life for themselves and their families. This is an opportunity to stand up for them. This is an opportunity to take care of their health care. This is an opportunity to show whose side you are on.

Are you on the side of those families or are you on the side of the special interests that would have you vote no, or the ideological interests that would have you vote no against these families? This is historic legislation. I am afraid our friends on the other side will once again, as they did in Social Security and Medicare, find themselves on the wrong side of history.

I intend to be on the right side of history and to vote yes on this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate my distinguished senior colleague from New Jersey yielding time. I know he is going to call up his amendment shortly, and that is what I want to speak to.

Mr. President, before I get to the core of my remarks, I want to tell my colleague who left the floor, I was tempted to rise under rule XIX that says:

No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any

form or words impute to another Senator or to other Senators

any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.

I could impute, if I wanted to, I guess, that maybe there are some who really do not care about this plan as much as they care about killing health care reform, but I would not do that. I would not do that. So I hope in the context of the debate I am not forced to rise under rule XIX.

Mr. President, I rise in favor of the amendment of Senator Lautenberg, who is going to offer it shortly, because it does two things that underscore the entire debate about health care reform: It protects the American people by putting the safety of families first-- and there is a lot of brushing aside of safety here; safety is paramount; safety is paramount--and it lowers costs. At its core, that is what this health care debate is all about.

I appreciate the intentions of the amendment that has been offered on the floor, but in my view it is regressive. It harkens back to a time when the lack of sufficient drug regulation allowed people to sell snake oil and magic elixirs that promised everything and did nothing. To allow the importation of untested, unregulated drugs made from untested and unregulated ingredients from 32 countries into the medicine cabinets of American families without serious safety precautions flies in the face of protecting the American people, and it is contrary to the context of health care reform.

The amendment by Senator Lautenberg brings us around to the real purpose of why we have been here on the floor, which is to create the type of reform that ultimately gives greater health insurance and greater safety to the American people.

They care about honest, real reform that makes health care affordable and protects American families, protects them from the potential of counterfeit drugs that promise to cure but do absolutely nothing, just as we are here to protect them from insurance policies that promise to provide health care for a premium and then deny coverage and provide no health care at all.

Basically, what Senator Lautenberg's amendment is going to do is modify the Dorgan amendment to allow reimportation but to do it when basic safety concerns to keep our prescription medications safe are complied with. It includes the Dorgan importation amendment but adds one fundamental element of broader health care reform: It protects the American people from those who would game the system for profits at the expense of the health and safety of American families. That is what this reform is all about. Specifically, when it comes to the importation of prescription medication, this amendment will help us be sure that what we think we are buying in the bottle is, in fact, what is in that bottle.

I want to make reference to a letter. We talk about safety, and there is a lot of pooh-poohing that, oh, there are no safety concerns. Well, there is one entity in this country that is responsible for safety when it comes to food and drugs, and it is called the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration. In a letter from FDA Commissioner Hamburg, she mentions four potential risks to patients that, in her opinion, must be addressed:

First, she is concerned that some imported drugs may not be safe and effective because they were not subject to a rigorous regulatory review prior to approval.

Second, the drugs ``may not be a consistently made, high quality product because they were not manufactured in a facility that complied with appropriate good manufacturing practices.''

Third, the drugs ``may not be substitutable with the FDA approved products because of differences in composition or manufacturing . . . ''

Fourth, the drugs simply ``may not be what they purport to be'' because inadequate safeguards in the supply chain may have allowed contamination or, worse, counterfeiting.

It addresses FDA Commissioner Hamburg's statement about the amendment of my colleague from North Dakota:

that there are significant safety concerns related to

allowing the importation of non-bioequivalent products, and

safety issues--

``Safety issues''--

related to confusion in distribution and labeling of foreign

products and the domestic product that remain to be fully

addressed in the amendment.

Senator Lautenberg's amendment addresses this concern. It allows importation, but it protects the American people by requiring that before any drug is imported to the United States, it must be certified to be safe and to reduce costs. So it does what the FDA Commissioner is talking about here, the agency responsible for protecting the American people. People may just want to not believe it, they may want to ignore it, but the fact is, this is the entity responsible in this country to protect the food supply and the drug supply.

We want to be as certain as we possibly can be of the conditions under which imported drugs are manufactured, that they are safe to use and we know where their ingredients originated before they are imported. We want to be absolutely certain patients are getting the prescription medications that are the same in substance, quality, and quantity that their doctor has prescribed. This amendment requires the Secretary of Health and

Human Services to certify that all imported drugs are safe and will reduce costs before they are allowed into America's medicine cabinets.

I have heard a lot about the European Union here. Well, let's look at what the European Union is now saying. They are constantly being offered on the floor for the reason why, in fact, we should follow what the European Union is saying. Well, let's see what happens if we allow unregulated importation. Let's look at the European Union.

Last week, the European Union Commissioner in charge of this issue said:

The number of counterfeit medicines arriving in Europe . .

. is constantly growing. The European Commission is extremely

worried.

In just two months, the EU seized 34 million--

Hear me: ``million''--

fake tablets at customs points in all member countries. This

exceeded our worst fears.

I do not want American families to see those fears come to life here. I believe that if we do not pass the Lautenberg amendment and if we were to pass the Dorgan amendment, we would open the floodgates. The European Union's experience only proves my concerns, not alleviates them as the other side would suggest.

Here is the problem: a $75 counterfeit cancer drug that contains half of the dosage the doctor told you you needed to combat your disease does not save Americans' money and certainly is not worth the price in terms of dollars or risk to life.

Let's not now open our national borders to insufficiently regulated drugs from around the world. It seems to me real health reform-- particularly for our seniors and those who are qualified under the Medicare Program who receive their prescription coverage under that-- comes by filling the doughnut hole in its entirety, which we have declared we will do in the conference, as we are committed to do, that provides for the coverage of prescription drugs that AARP talks about on behalf of its millions of members. That is what we want to see--not by unregulated reimportation.

We should have no illusions, keeping our drug supply safe in a global economy, in which we cannot affect the motives and willingness of others to game the system for greed and profit, will be a monumental but essential task. It will require a global reach, extraordinary vigilance to enforce the highest standards in parts of the world that have minimum standards now, so we do not have to ask which drug is real and which is counterfeit.

Let me just show some examples of those. People say: Oh, no, this safety issue is not really the case.

Tamiflu. We saw a rush, when the H1N1 virus came. People wanted to buy Tamiflu. As shown on this chart, which is the real one and which is the counterfeit one? There actually is one that is approved and one that is counterfeit, but the average person would not know the difference. Or if it is Aricept, a drug to slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease, which one is the real one and which one is the counterfeit one? If I did not tell you from the labels, you probably would not know, but there is an approved one and there is a counterfeit one. As someone who lost his mother to Alzheimer's, I can tell you that having the wrong drug in the wrong dosage would not have helped her slow the progression of her illness. It makes a difference.

Let's look at others. Lipitor; very important. You are walking around with a real problem with cholesterol, and you think you are taking the appropriate dosage and the appropriate drug. But, as shown on this chart, which is the real one and which is the counterfeit one? There is a counterfeit one and there is an approved one, a real one, but if you are taking the counterfeit one and you think you are meeting your challenges, you might have a heart attack as a result of not having the real one. By the time you figure it out, it could be too late to reverse the damage. That is the problem. That is the global economy opening up possibilities at the end of the day.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from New Jersey for an additional minute.

Finally, this is a gamble we cannot afford to take: To open up the potential for these drugs--or the ingredients used in these drugs--to find their way from nation to nation, from Southeast Asia, where the problem is epidemic, to one of the 32 nations listed in this amendment and then into the homes of American families. That is a gamble we cannot take. That is not about protecting our citizens. That is not about providing prescription drugs that ultimately meet the challenge of a person's illness. Filling the doughnut hole totally, which is what we are going to do, is the way to achieve it.

So I do hope that is what we will do. I do hope we will adopt Senator Lautenberg's amendment and defeat the Dorgan amendment, for I fear for the safety of our citizens, and I fear as to whether we can ultimately achieve filling that doughnut hole if this amendment, ultimately, gets adopted, and I fear what that means for health care reform at the end of the day.

With that, Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and thank the Senator from New Jersey.

Madam President, I rise to oppose the Dorgan amendment. Let's be clear, there are those who want to deminimize safety. But the one entity in this country that is responsible for the food and drugs is the FDA, and Commissioner Hamburg has mentioned in her letter all of the potential risks of the Dorgan amendment.

Secondly, we have heard about the European Union as an example why we should permit reimportation. What did we hear from the European Community last week? In 2 months, they seized 34 million fake tablets at customs points in all member countries, and this was beyond their greatest fears.

Thirdly, how do we create affordability? By closing the doughnut hole. And this amendment will not do that, it will undermine that.

And finally, Senator Lautenberg's amendment, which comes up after this amendment, is the one that permits reimportation but takes care of the safety issues that the FDA has said are critical.

We want to make sure when you buy Nexium that what you get is the substance and the quality and the quantity that you want, not something less that can undermine your health care. Vote against the Dorgan amendment.