Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

I rise to call up amendment No. 1402 to the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

This amendment would prohibit the earmarking of two critically important homeland security grants: the Emergency Operations Centers and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program.

The Emergency Operations Centers, or EOC program, is intended to improve emergency management and preparedness capabilities, and it funds, among other things, construction of State and local EOCs. These centers are a vital part of the comprehensive national emergency management plan.

The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program is intended to implement hazard reduction measures before disasters strike. Eligible projects can include, for example, preparing mitigation plans, or retrofitting public buildings against hurricane-force winds, and constructing so- called ``safe rooms'' in tornado-prone areas.

While we may not all agree on the appropriateness of earmarking in general, I certainly hope we can agree certain things should not be earmarked, including FEMA grant programs such as those that protect Americans from terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

Obviously, these funds should be awarded by an impartial entity that is expert in matters of emergency operations and disaster mitigation. It is FEMA that actually possesses these qualities; Members of Congress do not. Indeed, FEMA has informed me that many past earmarks would not have even qualified for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program under the established guidelines. The result is that low-priority projects get funded and high-risk areas do not have adequate resources they need so people in those areas can truly be protected from natural disasters. I think these funds are too important to be passed out based on political dealings.

The Association of State Floodplain Managers supports this amendment and notes that a key element of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program is the encouragement of hazard mitigation planning. According to the Association:

Congressional earmarks, unfortunately, undercut the local

planning process when it became evident that process could be

short-circuited by getting a Congressional earmark.

This year, the House has earmarked all of its Emergency Operations Centers funds in its Homeland Security appropriations bill. The Senate has earmarked nearly half of its funds. The earmarks in the Senate are directed to 10 States. That means 40 States will have to compete for the remaining half of these funds.

If my amendment fails, 10 States get half and the other 40 States only get half combined. Many of these earmarks have historically gone to small communities while at the same time many State operations centers in major cities still need assistance. So my amendment would strike the earmarks in the text of the Senate bill so that FEMA can decide which projects are homeland security priorities and Federal responsibilities.

With regard to the Pre-Disaster Mitigation funds, the House report has earmarked one-fourth of the funds, and the Senate has so far not earmarked any of them. However, last year both the House and the Senate earmarked roughly 27 percent of the funds in conference. So my amendment directs FEMA to disregard any such earmarks in the explanatory statement of managers. As the majority of us will not be members of the conference committee, I urge my colleagues to consider whether it is in the best interests of your State to permit the earmarking of these critical homeland security funds outside of the regular legislative process.

The chairman and the ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee introduced legislation last year to mandate that Pre-Disaster Mitigation funds be awarded competitively. I, of course, commend both of them for their leadership on this issue.

Given that a percentage of these funds are guaranteed for every State in light of the fact that all States are at risk of natural disasters, there is even less reason for these funds to be earmarked.

President Obama has stated that he would like these funds to be awarded on the basis of risk. Federal law lays out the criteria for the competitive awarding of these grants and focuses on the need to fund those projects that will mitigate the most high-risk areas.

Therefore, I think this amendment is consistent with the President's request that we focus on those communities that are in most need of assistance. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain be added as a cosponsor.

Not only will the amendment restore objectivity to two homeland security grant programs, it will also help ensure important decisions about Federal spending are actually made on the merits not on the basis of political backroom deals.

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

Mr. President, tomorrow is World Refugee Day, a day to pause and recognize the millions of people who have been forced from their homes by natural disaster, conflict, or in some cases persecution. They often only carry with them the clothes on their backs and the new burdens and trauma that accompany the title of ``refugee.'' Yet as we acknowledge the tragedy of their loss, we can also celebrate their enduring resilience. Even after years of suffering and hopelessness, many refugees never give up hope that they will return to their homes to be allowed to live peaceful and full lives. They continue to struggle to ensure that their basic rights are protected and basic needs met.

Today, the overall number of refugees and internally displaced people is estimated at 42 million. The refugee experience cuts across borders and countries, but the circumstances that give rise to displacement are often unique. There are so many crises to talk about--in Colombia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Zimbabwe, for example--but I want to briefly highlight three in particular.

First, in Pakistan's North West Frontier Province, a humanitarian crisis continues to unfold as more than 2 million Pakistanis have been displaced from their homes due to fighting between militants and the Pakistani Government. The Pakistani people have borne additional hardship as friends, families, and strangers--already strained by the global economic crisis--have opened their homes and lives to many of the displaced. We must do more to encourage this generosity through creative means as well as providing traditional aid to the hundreds of thousands in camps.

I also wish to highlight the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. Hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced by the fighting between the Congolese military and armed groups in eastern Congo, forcing people into squalid camps where children are subject to forced recruitment and women suffer unspeakable levels of sexual violence. In eastern Congo and so many other conflict zones, rape and other forms of gender-based violence have become not just outgrowths of war and its brutality--they are used as weapons of war. We must do more to stop this horrifying practice, to provide protection to these vulnerable refugee populations, and to address the underlying causes of eastern Congo's conflicts.

Third, there continue to be more than 250,000 refugees from the Darfur region of Sudan in eastern Chad in addition to some 190,000 internally displaced people--Chadians--in the area. Moreover, millions of people remain internally displaced in Darfur. These people do not have access to many basic humanitarian needs such as water, health care, and education, and they continue to be subject to attacks by government forces and armed rebel groups. We need to address their needs and enhance civilian protection, while working to stand up a viable peace process for Darfur and the wider region.

Finally, World Refugee Day is also an occasion to celebrate the work of donor governments including our own, private individuals, nongovernmental organizations, and agencies like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that are working to meet the needs of the displaced. To those who have given generously, to those who have lived among the displaced, and to those who report their stories and refuse to allow them to be forgotten, I say, thank you.

Nonetheless, we must do more to bring attention to the plight of the tens of millions of refugees around the world and to ensure their fundamental right to be safe. The theme of this year's World Refugee Day is ``Real People, Real Needs''--a reminder of the human face of refugee crises around the world. Today, let us see that face and commit ourselves to meeting the real needs of refugees and IDPs around the world.

Madam President, if it is appropriate, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, every year I hold a constituent listening session, or townhall meeting, in every county in Wisconsin. After 1,188 of those sessions, I have heard a lot from my constituents on pretty much every issue you can imagine. But one issue in particular stands out, as it has consistently been one of the top issues raised throughout the past 17 years. That issue is, of course, health care.

Again and again--not just in listening sessions but in conversations and phone calls and letters and e-mails--Wisconsinites have talked to me about their struggles to obtain and afford health insurance coverage. Their stories have stayed with me and have been the foundation of my work to push for comprehensive health reform throughout my career in the Senate.

As a freshman Senator, I worked to increase access to long-term care and home and community-based services in the Wisconsin tradition during the 1994 attempt at health reform because I knew how valuable these programs were to my constituents. I continued to fight for real and fair access to affordable prescription drugs by speaking up for seniors during the debate on creating Medicare Part D. I ended up not voting for Part D because I knew it would help pharmaceutical companies before it helped seniors. For years I have tried to get the Senate to address the issue that was foremost in the minds of my constituents.

Frustrated by the inaction, I teamed up with Senator Lindsey Graham to introduce legislation that sought to break the logjam blocking health care reform legislation. While Senator Graham and I have had very different ideas about how reform should look, we agreed further delay was unacceptable. I know some of my colleagues are now arguing that health care is being rushed through the Senate.

Well, that is not my experience, and I think the Wisconsinites who have been talking about the need for reform for years would agree. That is why I am so excited that the Senate is preparing to consider health reform legislation, and I look forward to reviewing the bills the HELP and Finance Committees are expected to report shortly.

As this debate goes forward, I remain committed to reforming our health care system so every single American is guaranteed good, affordable health care coverage.

Today, I wish to talk about one of the most important elements of any reform, and that is a strong public health insurance option. Frankly, I am disappointed this has become a topic of so much controversy because it is such a fundamental part of making sure we provide the reform my constituents and all Americans deserve. Some have even suggested scrapping a public option in the interests of passing a bill with bipartisan support. Well, I want to pass health care reform, and I hope very much we can do it with bipartisan support, but I am not that interested in passing health care reform in name only. I am not interested in a bill that allows us to somehow tell our constituents we have done something but doesn't address their concerns they have had for so very long. We need real reform, and real reform means a strong public option.

Americans want a health insurance option. According to a recent poll by NBC and the Wall Street Journal, over three-fourths of those polled said they would like the ability to choose between public and private health insurance plans. Providing a public health insurance option does not discriminate against those with preexisting conditions and illnesses, and it will significantly improve the ability of people to access health care.

There are millions of Americans who will tell us their current so- called ``competitive'' market didn't work so well for them because they were denied coverage from the outset, or they were given a benefit plan that covers everything but the diseases they actually have. Health insurance should not be a privilege, but in today's insurance market that is actually what it is. Those who are healthy enough to be approved for coverage, or wealthy enough to afford it, are too often the privileged ones who receive health care. We must shift the competition back to where it should be--on the health insurers competing to provide better coverage at a more affordable rate.

A public health insurance option, if done right, will help shift the insurance market so plans focus on what is best for the patient to thrive instead of plans simply focused on the bottom line.

Just a few weeks ago, Geri Weitzel from Durand, WI, shared her story with me. Geri's husband suffers from renal

failure. His medicine costs hundreds of dollars each month, and the family has thousands in medical debt. Geri is doing her best to make ends meet for her family but sometimes has to choose between paying the mortgage on their home or her husband's medical care, without which he will die. Geri told me she came to Washington to share her story because her husband ``is choosing death over debt.'' She worries that they will lose their home, and they have already lost their savings, but above all, she worries she will lose her husband.

With a strong public health insurance option, we can help ensure that Geri and her husband can afford policies that cover their medical bills and can focus instead on getting well.

A strong public health insurance option is one the public can depend on to be available, regardless of preexisting conditions, place of residence, income, age, sex, health status, or job status. It is an insurance option that will be focused on helping the sick get the treatment they need instead of just turning the biggest profit for shareholders. It is also an insurance option that will help the public invest in wellness, disease prevention, primary care, and chronic disease management. A public option will help ensure no matter what, people have access to a health insurance plan that actually meets their needs.

One of my priorities in the health care reform debate--and one of my priorities throughout my whole time in the Senate--has been fiscal responsibility. It is not enough to pass a bill that expands coverage; we need to do so in a way that reins in runaway health care spending and ensures taxpayer dollars are not wasted. That is another reason we need a strong public health insurance option: because it will help keep costs down for individuals, for employers, and for the government.

Citizen Action Wisconsin estimates that a strong public health insurance option operating in a health exchange could save Wisconsin employers--both private and government--over $1.1 billion each year. For the average Wisconsin family, currently paying around $13,500 a year in health care premiums, this translates to a 33-percent savings, lowering their premiums to just over $9,000 a year.

Now this is real savings. It would have made a big difference to Danine Spencer of Rhinelander, WI. Danine has had a tough 4 years, recovering from multiple conditions which doctors expected to leave her a quadriplegic for life. Danine credits the medical professionals at Froedert Hospital in Milwaukee with helping her reclaim her mobility and, in many ways, her life. While Danine has already made incredible progress, she still has a long way to go.

Fortunately, Danine qualified for disability and Medicaid benefits to cover her medical costs, but she wants to be independent. She wrote me a letter in which she said she ``wants to get off disability very, very badly. I am horribly ashamed that I collect a government check every month. But as it stands, I simply cannot afford private health insurance.''

Danine writes that she has ``heard a public option health insurance plan would sharply lower costs for people like me. Please put everything you have into making sure it is part of the health care reform bill.''

Danine has already overcome incredible challenges. She wants to purchase health insurance but is denied that benefit by the existing system. So a public health insurance option would help ensure that Danine is guaranteed--guaranteed--affordable, high quality health care.

Too often Americans are at the mercy of the insurance companies when it comes to paying premiums and out-of-pocket costs and deductibles. While I commend the growing efforts of select insurers to increase transparency, for the most part consumers have little idea how much procedures cost, where premium dollars go, and whether they are truly getting the best value for their dollar. A public health insurance option would serve as a benchmark competitor for premiums, administrative costs, and benefits packages.

A strong public health insurance option is consistent with a healthy private market and effective private insurance plans. We have several insurers that operate in my home State of Wisconsin that provide great health coverage for their beneficiaries. Responsible insurers should have no trouble competing with a public insurance option on the merits of their plans, but a strong public health insurance option will provide a powerful incentive for less responsible insurers to reevaluate their own cost sharing and benefit plans to ensure that they are actually an attractive option for consumers.

There is another benefit of a public health insurance option which hits particularly close to home. My hometown of Janesville, WI, has one of the highest unemployment rates in the State. Recently, our GM assembly plant ceased production, and other related businesses throughout the community are struggling to stay afloat during these tough economic times. Of course, these challenges are shared by many other communities across the State of Wisconsin. A public health insurance option would be invaluable to families in Janesville and other parts of the State who have recently been laid off because it is a guaranteed, affordable option that can travel with an individual from job to job.

A public health insurance option would also make a tremendous difference to our small business owners who face crippling health care costs while trying to keep their business open.

Health care reform cannot wait. The President has said he wants a health reform bill on his desk by this fall, and I will work hard with my colleagues to make sure we send him a good bill that guarantees every American high-quality, affordable health insurance, and that includes a strong public health insurance option. After so many years of delay and inaction, now is the time to act.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I withhold.

Mr. President, just about 1 month ago I voted against the emergency supplemental spending bill and stated my reasons for doing so at some length. I will not repeat what I said then, but my concerns also apply to the conference report we are considering. While the President has provided a timeline for redeployment of our troops from Iraq, I remain concerned that we may see upwards of 50,000 U.S. troops remain in that country. Leaving such a substantial number of troops in Iraq could undercut the benefits of redeployment, and might result in a significant uptick in violence against U.S. troops.

I am also concerned that this supplemental pads the defense budget with items not needed for the war and outside the normal appropriations cycle.

Finally, and even though President Obama has a plan to focus the government's attention and resources where they are most needed--on Afghanistan and Pakistan--I am worried that the current strategy does not adequately address, and may even exacerbate, the serious national security problems we face in that part of the world. Those problems could be made worse, not better, by sending 21,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and they may be further aggravated if there is not an adequate response to the nearly 3 million Pakistanis who have recently been displaced.

Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of LTG Stanley McChrystal to command U.S. forces in Afghanistan for two reasons. The first relates to a classified matter about which I have serious concerns. I have conveyed those concerns in a letter to the President. The second issue is interrogation.

At his public confirmation hearing, General McChrystal responded to a question from Chairman Levin regarding interrogation policies that ``included stress positions, the use of dogs and nudity'' by stating that ``[s]ome of them were in use when I took over, sir, and then, as we immediately began to reduce that.'' When asked whether he was ``uncomfortable with some of the techniques'' in use, he replied ``[w]hen I took over, I was.''

However, following the hearing, Chairman Levin sent General McChrystal a question for the record describing many of the 14 interrogation techniques not listed in the Army Field Manual that were authorized under General McChrystal's command, up until May 6, 2004, when CENTCOM Commander General John Abizaid suspended the use of all such techniques. Chairman Levin's question then described a request from General McChrystal, submitted 3 weeks after the suspension, to continue using a number of these techniques, including ``sleep management,'' ``environmental manipulation,'' and ``control positions.'' The request defined ``control positions'' as ``requiring the detainee to stand, sit, kneel, squat, maintain sitting position with back against the wall, bend over chair, lean with head against wall, lie prone across chairs, stand with arms above head or raised to shoulders, or other normal physical training positions'' and requested that ``in the most exceptional circumstances, and on approval from [the commander]'' interrogators be allowed to ``use handcuffs to enforce the detainee's position.''

Asked to square his public testimony with this record, General McChrystal responded that, when he took command in 2003, he reviewed the interrogation program and, in March 2004, ``reduc[ed] the frequency of use of several of the techniques'' by requiring high-level approval. He also looked to ``increase the effectiveness of the entire process and make it more humane'' but offered no specifics other than ``improved facilities'' and improvements in the use of other, non- ``enhanced'' techniques. General McChrystal then acknowledged that he personally requested approval from General Abizaid to continue using several of the techniques that had just been suspended, including ``control positions.'' General Abizaid rejected the use of ``control positions,'' and, according to the Senate Armed Services Committee report, the use of ``hooding.''

I have numerous concerns, both about this history and about General McChrystal's public testimony. I have long opposed any interrogation techniques, whether conducted by the U.S. military or the intelligence community, that are not authorized by the Army Field Manual. I am thus dismayed by General McChrystal's personal support for the use of some of

these techniques, particularly the so-called control positions, and by his efforts to continue the techniques after they had been suspended. And, while I have no reason to believe that General McChrystal would not adhere to current law and policy, I am troubled by his failure to express any regret for his previous positions. Finally, I am concerned about General McChrystal's public testimony, which sought to convey that he was ``uncomfortable'' with various interrogation techniques and sought to ``reduce'' their use. Given the full history of his approach to interrogations, this testimony appears to be incomplete, at best.

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

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, last month Sri Lanka saw an end to the longstanding military conflict between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the LTTE, and the Sri Lankan Government. In the immediate days that followed the end of fighting, President Mahinda Rajapaksa delivered a speech to his nation's parliament which formally marked the conclusion of an armed conflict that has escalated since January, but stretches back over 26 years.

This tragic war has claimed the lives of over 70,000 Sri Lankans, displaced hundreds of thousands, and seen systematic and brutal atrocities committed by both sides. Over the last 5 months, as the conflict intensified, it drew increasing and unprecedented attention from the international community. Nevertheless, obtaining a clear picture of this conflict, especially the situation of the estimated 290,000 people living in internally displaced persons camps, has been obscured by the Sri Lankan Government's severe restrictions on access for media, international observers, and humanitarian aid workers. If we are to see a sustainable solution to this conflict over the long term, it is vital that the Sri Lankan Government remove these restrictions now and allow access to all independent actors.

I was pleased that President Rajapaksa acknowledged that Sri Lanka must not accept a military solution as the ultimate solution. As we have seen in conflicts around the world, a military ceasefire will not hold if the underlying causes that led to this conflict are not addressed. The fundamental grievances of the Tamil minority have been overshadowed, distorted, and in some cases silenced by the severe tactics of the LTTE, who since 1997 have been designated by the United States as a terrorist organization. The LTTE claimed to be the voice of the Tamil people, and yet their commitment to both indiscriminate and targeted violence, as well as reports from the last days of fighting that they used Tamil civilians as human shields, would indicate otherwise. If we are to see legitimate reconciliation in Sri Lanka, the grievances of the Tamil minority must be seen as distinct from the violence of the LTTE and addressed thoroughly and justly.

I urge President Rajapaksa to take steps now to demonstrate a serious commitment to a political solution, the rule of law, and most importantly, to genuinely addressing the needs of the Tamil people. At the same time, in proportion to the passion and effort with which the world's diplomats have demanded peace and respect for civilians throughout this conflict, donor countries must remain actively engaged and dedicated to helping bring about a lasting resolution to this decades-old conflict.

I am especially concerned about issues surrounding resettlement. In the wake of this conflict, land mines line those roads which still exist and cover farmers' fields in northern Sri Lanka. Schools, hospitals, roads, homes, and businesses have been damaged and in some cases completely destroyed. Some 290,000 internally displaced people languish in squalid humanitarian camps the safe and voluntary return of whom must be a top priority for postconflict recovery. The Sri Lankan Government must not shirk its responsibility to help these people return to their homes swiftly and safely. The international community, too, can provide assistance to help these people return home safely or seek other lasting solutions. The U.S. government should join with its international partners to coordinate demining efforts, work with the Sri Lankan government to develop and rebuild infrastructure, and ensure that those who have been displaced are able to reclaim the land that is rightfully theirs.

These events are critical steps in the right direction in a long and complicated history. If we seek to address this conflict comprehensively, we must learn from past setbacks and help identify new opportunities for the people of Sri Lanka. It will not be easy, but on behalf of all the innocent civilians whose lives have been caught in the crossfire of this conflict, we must support this opportunity to finally achieve lasting and long awaited peace in Sri Lanka.

Mr. President, this week the U.N. Special Rapporteur, Mr. Philip Alston, has released his final report on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in Kenya. His report states that, despite significant investigative work, no concrete steps have been taken to prosecute perpetrators of the violence after Kenya's December 2007 election. It also finds that both the Sabaot Land Defense Forces-- SLDF--and the Kenyan government's security forces engaged in widespread brutality in Mount Elgon, including torture and unlawful killings. These alleged abuses have not been seriously investigated by the police or the military. Finally, the report concludes that the police in Kenya continue to carry out extrajudicial killings and that death squads continue to exist within the police to assassinate high-profile suspected criminals.

The report makes a number of detailed recommendations for how Kenya can address these problems, beginning with the replacement of the existing police commissioner and a clear public order that extrajudicial killings will not be tolerated, then followed by a comprehensive reform of the police. In addition, the report calls for the attorney general to resign and for the Kenyan government to take steps to reduce corruption and incompetence in the judiciary. With regard to the postelection violence, the report calls for the Kenyan government to establish a special tribunal to seek accountability for persons bearing the greatest responsibility for the violence after the elections. And with regard to the killings in Mount Elgon, the report calls on the government to immediately set up an independent commission to investigate human rights abuses, including those committed by the

Mr. President, today I introduce the Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act, which would amend the Workforce Investment Act to help communities with both significant job losses and shortages in the health care professions create programs to retrain displaced workers for high-demand health care jobs. I have introduced similar legislation in the past to help workers who are displaced from the manufacturing and service sectors.

In light of the state of our economy and the tremendous increase in unemployment across this country, I have tried to broaden the bill to cover workers from all sectors. According to the Department of Labor, in the last year the number of unemployed people in the United States has increased by 6 million. In April alone, private sector employment fell by 539,000, bringing the unemployment rate to 8.9 percent. In my home State of Wisconsin, the unemployment rate is up to 8.8 percent.

In Wisconsin, we have seen the loss of many manufacturing jobs, including at the idled General Motors automobile assembly plant in my hometown of Janesville, and in Kenosha, where Chrysler recently announced that the Kenosha Chrysler plant will cease production in 2010. But these large factories are just the tip of the iceberg. Some small manufacturing businesses are also going out of business in communities around Wisconsin, and others are struggling to survive.

In addition, the economic troubles in the last few years have permeated other industries besides manufacturing, including construction, business, and also the retail industry.

The people in my State are facing tough economic challenges, but they are meeting them head-on. Wisconsin has a determined workforce that is a tremendous asset as we look to rebuild this economy. These talented, hard-working people are ready, willing, and able to work, and Congress should be doing more to help connect them with jobs in growing industries.

That is exactly what I am proposing to do as I introduce this Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act. This bill will help more dislocated workers find jobs in the growing health care industry. My bill would create $25 million in grants to help workforce development boards in our communities identify health care job openings and train people for these positions. This bill is also paid for, so it won't increase the deficit. This bill is a small step toward two critically important goals: helping the hard-working Americans whose jobs have disappeared and providing all Americans with the health care they deserve.

The Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act puts control in the hands of the local communities. It allows local workforce development boards to partner with institutions of higher education and other community leaders to design programs that can retrain dislocated workers for jobs in the health care industry. Allowing the local workforce boards and their partners to apply for the grant funds and design the programs means that each community can use the funds differently to address the specific needs it faces. Particularly in such challenging economic times, I think a one-size-fits-all approach will not work; communities know best about the resources they need to run an efficient program. I believe the Federal programs should be flexible enough to allow partnerships to tailor the programs to meet the needs of individual communities.

For years, despite limited resources and increases in demand for their services, our workforce development boards have worked tirelessly to retrain workers for new employment. These boards are a tremendous asset for local economies, bringing together members of the labor, business, education, and other communities to ensure that the boards are doing their best to provide the most valuable services and training. In Wisconsin, workforce development boards are leading the way in finding innovative solutions to retraining workers for new careers on shoestring budgets. I look forward to the long overdue reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act this year and to the opportunity to provide better support for these boards.

I wish to take this time to commend the leaders of these boards in Wisconsin and across the country for their dedication and hard work. Workforce development agencies in Wisconsin have already been training people for health care jobs. But in these difficult times, we have to do more to support our communities in these efforts. We must do our best to ensure that communities across the country have the resources they need to help employ more dislocated workers.

As we face the challenge of helping Americans who lose jobs, we must look to industries that continue to grow and demand more workers. As many of my colleagues know, there is, in fact, a real shortage of health care workers in the United States. Congress continues to fund programs that address nursing shortages and recently provided stimulus funds for health care retraining, but we need to develop longer term and wider ranging programs. Shortages of health care professionals of all sorts pose a real threat to the health of our communities by impacting access to timely, high-quality health care.

As Congress looks forward to reforming our Nation's health care system, we must also ensure that there are enough trained professionals to provide services. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we are going to need an additional 700,000 nursing aides, home health aides, and other health professionals in long-term care before the year 2016.

This bill will help provide communities with the resources they need to run retraining programs for the health professions.

Partnerships funded by the legislation will be able to use these funds for a variety of purposes, including for implementing training programs, providing tuition assistance, providing transportation assistance, and also to increase capacity for existing training programs that are already working but could use more resources.

We must ensure we are doing what we can to train laid-off Americans into fields such as health care that continue to demand more workers, and this Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act takes a small but important step toward that goal.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act, which would amend the Workforce Investment Act to help communities with both significant job losses and shortages in the health care professions create programs to retrain displaced workers for high-demand health care jobs. I have introduced similar legislation in the past to help workers who are displaced from the manufacturing and service sectors.

In light of the state of our economy and the tremendous increase in unemployment across this country, I have tried to broaden the bill to cover workers from all sectors. According to the Department of Labor, in the last year the number of unemployed people in the United States has increased by 6 million. In April alone, private sector employment fell by 539,000, bringing the unemployment rate to 8.9 percent. In my home State of Wisconsin, the unemployment rate is up to 8.8 percent.

In Wisconsin, we have seen the loss of many manufacturing jobs, including at the idled General Motors automobile assembly plant in my hometown of Janesville, and in Kenosha, where Chrysler recently announced that the Kenosha Chrysler plant will cease production in 2010. But these large factories are just the tip of the iceberg. Some small manufacturing businesses are also going out of business in communities around Wisconsin, and others are struggling to survive.

In addition, the economic troubles in the last few years have permeated other industries besides manufacturing, including construction, business, and also the retail industry.

The people in my State are facing tough economic challenges, but they are meeting them head-on. Wisconsin has a determined workforce that is a tremendous asset as we look to rebuild this economy. These talented, hard-working people are ready, willing, and able to work, and Congress should be doing more to help connect them with jobs in growing industries.

That is exactly what I am proposing to do as I introduce this Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act. This bill will help more dislocated workers find jobs in the growing health care industry. My bill would create $25 million in grants to help workforce development boards in our communities identify health care job openings and train people for these positions. This bill is also paid for, so it won't increase the deficit. This bill is a small step toward two critically important goals: helping the hard-working Americans whose jobs have disappeared and providing all Americans with the health care they deserve.

The Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act puts control in the hands of the local communities. It allows local workforce development boards to partner with institutions of higher education and other community leaders to design programs that can retrain dislocated workers for jobs in the health care industry. Allowing the local workforce boards and their partners to apply for the grant funds and design the programs means that each community can use the funds differently to address the specific needs it faces. Particularly in such challenging economic times, I think a one-size-fits-all approach will not work; communities know best about the resources they need to run an efficient program. I believe the Federal programs should be flexible enough to allow partnerships to tailor the programs to meet the needs of individual communities.

For years, despite limited resources and increases in demand for their services, our workforce development boards have worked tirelessly to retrain workers for new employment. These boards are a tremendous asset for local economies, bringing together members of the labor, business, education, and other communities to ensure that the boards are doing their best to provide the most valuable services and training. In Wisconsin, workforce development boards are leading the way in finding innovative solutions to retraining workers for new careers on shoestring budgets. I look forward to the long overdue reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act this year and to the opportunity to provide better support for these boards.

I wish to take this time to commend the leaders of these boards in Wisconsin and across the country for their dedication and hard work. Workforce development agencies in Wisconsin have already been training people for health care jobs. But in these difficult times, we have to do more to support our communities in these efforts. We must do our best to ensure that communities across the country have the resources they need to help employ more dislocated workers.

As we face the challenge of helping Americans who lose jobs, we must look to industries that continue to grow and demand more workers. As many of my colleagues know, there is, in fact, a real shortage of health care workers in the United States. Congress continues to fund programs that address nursing shortages and recently provided stimulus funds for health care retraining, but we need to develop longer term and wider ranging programs. Shortages of health care professionals of all sorts pose a real threat to the health of our communities by impacting access to timely, high-quality health care.

As Congress looks forward to reforming our Nation's health care system, we must also ensure that there are enough trained professionals to provide services. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we are going to need an additional 700,000 nursing aides, home health aides, and other health professionals in long-term care before the year 2016.

This bill will help provide communities with the resources they need to run retraining programs for the health professions.

Partnerships funded by the legislation will be able to use these funds for a variety of purposes, including for implementing training programs, providing tuition assistance, providing transportation assistance, and also to increase capacity for existing training programs that are already working but could use more resources.

We must ensure we are doing what we can to train laid-off Americans into fields such as health care that continue to demand more workers, and this Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act takes a small but important step toward that goal.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the reauthorization of

the Automated Defibrillators in Adam's Memory Act, or the ADAM Act. This bill is modeled after the successful Project ADAM that originally began in Wisconsin, and will reauthorize a program to establish a national clearing house to provide schools with the ``how-to'' and technical advice to set up a public access defibrillation program.

Every 2 minutes, someone in America falls into sudden cardiac arrest. By improving access to AEDs, we can improve the survival rates of cardiac arrest in our communities.

In my home State of Wisconsin, as in many other states, heart disease is the number one killer. Nationwide, heart disease is the cause of one out of every 2.8 deaths. Overall, heart disease kills more Americans than breast cancer, lung cancer, and HIV/AIDS combined.

Cardiac arrest can strike anyone. Cardiac victims are in a race against time, and unfortunately, for too many of those in rural areas, Emergency Medical Services are unable to reach people in need, and time runs out for victims of cardiac arrest. It's simply not possible to have EMS units next to every farm and small town across the nation.

Fortunately, recent technological advances have made the newest generation of AEDs inexpensive and simple to operate. Because of these advancements in AED technology, it is now practical to train and equip police officers, teachers, and members of other community organizations.

Over 163,000 Americans experience out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrests each year. Immediate CPR and early defibrillation using an automated external defibrillator, AED, can more than double a victim's chance of survival. By taking some relatively simple steps, we can give victims of cardiac arrest a better chance of survival.

Over the past 9 years, I have worked with Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, on a number of initiatives to empower communities to improve cardiac arrest survival rates. We have pushed Congress to support rural first responders--local police and fire and rescue services--in their efforts to provide early defibrillation. Congress heard our call, and responded by enacting two of our bills, the Rural Access to Emergency Devices Act and the ADAM Act.

The Rural Access to Emergency Devices program allows community partnerships across the country to receive a grant enabling them to purchase defibrillators, and receive the training needed to use these devices. This program is entering its ninth year of helping rural communities purchase defibrillators and train first responders, and I am pleased to say that grants have already put defibrillators in rural communities all over the country, helping those communities be better prepared when cardiac arrest strikes.

Approximately ninety-five percent of sudden cardiac arrest victims die before reaching the hospital. Every minute that passes before a cardiac arrest victim is defibrillated, the chance of survival falls by as much as 10 percent. After only eight minutes, the victim's survival rate drops by 60 percent. This is why early intervention is essential-- a combination of CPR and use of AEDs can save lives.

Heart disease is not only a problem among adults. A few years ago I learned the story of Adam Lemel, a 17-year-old high school student and a star basketball and tennis player in Wisconsin. Tragically, during a timeout while playing basketball at a neighboring Milwaukee high school, Adam suffered sudden cardiac arrest, and died before the paramedics arrived.

This story is incredibly tragic. Adam had his whole life ahead of him, and could quite possibly have been saved with appropriate early intervention. In fact, we have seen a number of examples in Wisconsin where early CPR and access to defibrillation have saved lives.

Seventy miles away from Milwaukee, a 14-year-old boy collapsed while playing basketball. Within three minutes, the emergency team arrived and began CPR. Within five minutes of his collapse, the paramedics used an AED to jump start his heart. Not only has this young man survived, doctors have identified his father and brother as having the same heart condition and have begun preventative treatments.

These stories help to underscore some important issues. First, although cardiac arrest is most common among adults, it can occur at any age--even in apparently healthy children and adolescents. Second, early intervention is essential--a combination of CPR and the use of AEDs can save lives. Third, some individuals who are at risk for sudden cardiac arrest can be identified.

After Adam Lemel suffered his cardiac arrest, his friend David Ellis joined forces with Children's Hospital of Wisconsin to initiate Project ADAM to bring CPR training and public access defibrillation into schools, educate communities about preventing sudden cardiac deaths and save lives.

Today, Project ADAM has introduced AEDs into several Wisconsin schools, and has been a model for programs in Washington, Florida, Michigan and elsewhere. Project ADAM provides a model for the nation, and now, with the enactment of this new law, more schools will have access to the information they seek to launch similar programs.

The ADAM Act was passed into law in 2003, but has yet to be funded. I have been very proud to play a part in having this bill signed into law, and it is my hope that the reauthorization of the Act will quickly pass through the Congress and into law, and that funding will follow. It would not take much money to fund this program and save lives across the country.

The ADAM Act is one way we can honor the life of children like Adam Lemel, and give tomorrow's pediatric cardiac arrest victims a fighting chance at life.

This act exists because a family experienced the tragic loss of their son, but they were determined to spare other families that same loss. I thank Adam's parents, Joe and Patty, for their courageous efforts and I thank them for everything they have done to help the ADAM Act become law. Their actions take incredible bravery, and I commend them for their efforts.

By making sure that AEDs are available in our nation's rural areas, schools and throughout our communities we can help those in a race against time have a fighting chance of survival when they fall victim to cardiac arrest. I urge Congress to pass this reauthorization, and to fund the ADAM Act and the Rural AED program at their full levels. We have the power to prevent death--all we must do is act.

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

Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Collins from Maine, I am reintroducing legislation to help businesses form group-purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, to reduce health care rates, and to improve quality for their employees' health care.

High health care costs are burdening businesses and employees across the nation. These costs are digging into profits and preventing access to affordable health care. Too many patients feel trapped by the system, with decisions about their health dictated by costs rather than by what they need.

Nationally, the annual average cost to an employer for an individual employee's health care is $3,983. For a

family, the employer contribution is $9,325. We must curb these rapidly increasing health care costs. I strongly support initiatives to ensure that everyone has access to health care. It is crucial that we support successful local initiatives to reduce health care premiums and to improve the quality of employees' health care.

By using group purchasing to obtain rate discounts, some employers have been able to reduce the cost of health care premiums for their employees. According to the National Business Coalition on Health, there are nearly 60 employer-led coalitions across the U.S. that collectively purchase health care. Through these pools, businesses are able to proactively challenge high costs and inefficient delivery of health care and share information on quality. These coalitions represent over 7,000 employers nationwide.

Improving the quality of health care will also lower the cost of care. By investing in the delivery of high-quality health care, we will be able to lower long term health care costs. Effective care, such as high-quality preventive services, can reduce overall health care expenditures. Health purchasing coalitions help promote these services and act as an employer forum for networking and education on health care cost containment strategies. They can help foster a dialogue with health care providers, insurers, and local HMOs.

Health care markets are local. Problems with cost, quality, and access to health care are felt most intensely in the local markets. Health care coalitions can function best when they are formed and implemented locally. Local employers of large and small businesses have formed health care coalitions to track health care trends, create a demand for quality and safety, and encourage group purchasing.

In Wisconsin, there have been various successful initiatives that have formed health care purchasing cooperatives to improve quality of care and to reduce cost. For example, the Employer Health Care Alliance Cooperative, an employer-owned and employer-directed not-for-profit cooperative, has developed a network of health care providers in Dane County and 13 surrounding counties on behalf of more than 160 member employers. Through this pooling effort, employers are able to obtain affordable, high-quality health care for their more than 80,000 employees and dependents.

This legislation seeks to build on successful local initiatives, such as the Alliance, that help businesses to join together to increase access to affordable and high-quality health care.

The Promoting Health Care Purchasing Cooperatives Act would authorize grants to groups of businesses so that they could form group-purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, reduce health care rates, and improve quality.

This legislation offers two separate grant programs to help different types of businesses pool their resources and bargaining power. Both programs would aid businesses to form cooperatives. The first program would help large businesses that sponsor their own health plans, while the second program would help small businesses that purchase their health insurance.

My bill would enable larger businesses to form cost-effective cooperatives that could offer high-quality health care through several ways. First, they could obtain health services through pooled purchasing from physicians, hospitals, home health agencies, and others. By pooling their experience and interests, employers involved in a coalition could better address essential issues, such as rising health insurance rates and the lack of comparable health care quality data. They would be able to share information regarding the quality of these services and to partner with these health care providers to meet the needs of their employees.

For smaller businesses that purchase their health insurance, the formation of cooperatives would allow them to buy health insurance at lower prices through pooled purchasing. Also, the communication within these cooperatives would provide employees of small businesses with better information about the health care options that are available to them. Finally, coalitions would serve to promote quality improvements by facilitating partnerships between their group and the health care providers.

By working together, the group could develop better insurance plans and negotiate better rates.

This legislation also tries to alleviate the burden that our Nation's farmers face when trying to purchase health care for themselves, their families, and their employees. Because the health insurance industry looks upon farming as a high-risk profession, many farmers are priced out of, or simply not offered, health insurance. By helping farmers join cooperatives to purchase health insurance, we will help increase their health insurance options.

Past health purchasing pool initiatives have focused only on cost and have tried to be all things for all people. My legislation creates an incentive to join the pools by giving grants to a group of similar businesses to form group-purchasing cooperatives. The pools are also given flexibility to find innovative ways to lower costs, such as enhancing benefits--for example, more preventive care--and improving quality. Finally, the cooperative structure is a proven model, which creates an incentive for businesses to remain in the pool because they will be invested in the organization.

We must reform health care in America and give employers and employees more options. This legislation, by providing for the formation of cost-effective coalitions that will also improve the quality of care, contributes to this essential reform process. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this proposal to improve the quality and costs of health care.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the reauthorization of

the Automated Defibrillators in Adam's Memory Act, or the ADAM Act. This bill is modeled after the successful Project ADAM that originally began in Wisconsin, and will reauthorize a program to establish a national clearing house to provide schools with the ``how-to'' and technical advice to set up a public access defibrillation program.

Every 2 minutes, someone in America falls into sudden cardiac arrest. By improving access to AEDs, we can improve the survival rates of cardiac arrest in our communities.

In my home State of Wisconsin, as in many other states, heart disease is the number one killer. Nationwide, heart disease is the cause of one out of every 2.8 deaths. Overall, heart disease kills more Americans than breast cancer, lung cancer, and HIV/AIDS combined.

Cardiac arrest can strike anyone. Cardiac victims are in a race against time, and unfortunately, for too many of those in rural areas, Emergency Medical Services are unable to reach people in need, and time runs out for victims of cardiac arrest. It's simply not possible to have EMS units next to every farm and small town across the nation.

Fortunately, recent technological advances have made the newest generation of AEDs inexpensive and simple to operate. Because of these advancements in AED technology, it is now practical to train and equip police officers, teachers, and members of other community organizations.

Over 163,000 Americans experience out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrests each year. Immediate CPR and early defibrillation using an automated external defibrillator, AED, can more than double a victim's chance of survival. By taking some relatively simple steps, we can give victims of cardiac arrest a better chance of survival.

Over the past 9 years, I have worked with Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, on a number of initiatives to empower communities to improve cardiac arrest survival rates. We have pushed Congress to support rural first responders--local police and fire and rescue services--in their efforts to provide early defibrillation. Congress heard our call, and responded by enacting two of our bills, the Rural Access to Emergency Devices Act and the ADAM Act.

The Rural Access to Emergency Devices program allows community partnerships across the country to receive a grant enabling them to purchase defibrillators, and receive the training needed to use these devices. This program is entering its ninth year of helping rural communities purchase defibrillators and train first responders, and I am pleased to say that grants have already put defibrillators in rural communities all over the country, helping those communities be better prepared when cardiac arrest strikes.

Approximately ninety-five percent of sudden cardiac arrest victims die before reaching the hospital. Every minute that passes before a cardiac arrest victim is defibrillated, the chance of survival falls by as much as 10 percent. After only eight minutes, the victim's survival rate drops by 60 percent. This is why early intervention is essential-- a combination of CPR and use of AEDs can save lives.

Heart disease is not only a problem among adults. A few years ago I learned the story of Adam Lemel, a 17-year-old high school student and a star basketball and tennis player in Wisconsin. Tragically, during a timeout while playing basketball at a neighboring Milwaukee high school, Adam suffered sudden cardiac arrest, and died before the paramedics arrived.

This story is incredibly tragic. Adam had his whole life ahead of him, and could quite possibly have been saved with appropriate early intervention. In fact, we have seen a number of examples in Wisconsin where early CPR and access to defibrillation have saved lives.

Seventy miles away from Milwaukee, a 14-year-old boy collapsed while playing basketball. Within three minutes, the emergency team arrived and began CPR. Within five minutes of his collapse, the paramedics used an AED to jump start his heart. Not only has this young man survived, doctors have identified his father and brother as having the same heart condition and have begun preventative treatments.

These stories help to underscore some important issues. First, although cardiac arrest is most common among adults, it can occur at any age--even in apparently healthy children and adolescents. Second, early intervention is essential--a combination of CPR and the use of AEDs can save lives. Third, some individuals who are at risk for sudden cardiac arrest can be identified.

After Adam Lemel suffered his cardiac arrest, his friend David Ellis joined forces with Children's Hospital of Wisconsin to initiate Project ADAM to bring CPR training and public access defibrillation into schools, educate communities about preventing sudden cardiac deaths and save lives.

Today, Project ADAM has introduced AEDs into several Wisconsin schools, and has been a model for programs in Washington, Florida, Michigan and elsewhere. Project ADAM provides a model for the nation, and now, with the enactment of this new law, more schools will have access to the information they seek to launch similar programs.

The ADAM Act was passed into law in 2003, but has yet to be funded. I have been very proud to play a part in having this bill signed into law, and it is my hope that the reauthorization of the Act will quickly pass through the Congress and into law, and that funding will follow. It would not take much money to fund this program and save lives across the country.

The ADAM Act is one way we can honor the life of children like Adam Lemel, and give tomorrow's pediatric cardiac arrest victims a fighting chance at life.

This act exists because a family experienced the tragic loss of their son, but they were determined to spare other families that same loss. I thank Adam's parents, Joe and Patty, for their courageous efforts and I thank them for everything they have done to help the ADAM Act become law. Their actions take incredible bravery, and I commend them for their efforts.

By making sure that AEDs are available in our nation's rural areas, schools and throughout our communities we can help those in a race against time have a fighting chance of survival when they fall victim to cardiac arrest. I urge Congress to pass this reauthorization, and to fund the ADAM Act and the Rural AED program at their full levels. We have the power to prevent death--all we must do is act.

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

Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Collins from Maine, I am reintroducing legislation to help businesses form group-purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, to reduce health care rates, and to improve quality for their employees' health care.

High health care costs are burdening businesses and employees across the nation. These costs are digging into profits and preventing access to affordable health care. Too many patients feel trapped by the system, with decisions about their health dictated by costs rather than by what they need.

Nationally, the annual average cost to an employer for an individual employee's health care is $3,983. For a

family, the employer contribution is $9,325. We must curb these rapidly increasing health care costs. I strongly support initiatives to ensure that everyone has access to health care. It is crucial that we support successful local initiatives to reduce health care premiums and to improve the quality of employees' health care.

By using group purchasing to obtain rate discounts, some employers have been able to reduce the cost of health care premiums for their employees. According to the National Business Coalition on Health, there are nearly 60 employer-led coalitions across the U.S. that collectively purchase health care. Through these pools, businesses are able to proactively challenge high costs and inefficient delivery of health care and share information on quality. These coalitions represent over 7,000 employers nationwide.

Improving the quality of health care will also lower the cost of care. By investing in the delivery of high-quality health care, we will be able to lower long term health care costs. Effective care, such as high-quality preventive services, can reduce overall health care expenditures. Health purchasing coalitions help promote these services and act as an employer forum for networking and education on health care cost containment strategies. They can help foster a dialogue with health care providers, insurers, and local HMOs.

Health care markets are local. Problems with cost, quality, and access to health care are felt most intensely in the local markets. Health care coalitions can function best when they are formed and implemented locally. Local employers of large and small businesses have formed health care coalitions to track health care trends, create a demand for quality and safety, and encourage group purchasing.

In Wisconsin, there have been various successful initiatives that have formed health care purchasing cooperatives to improve quality of care and to reduce cost. For example, the Employer Health Care Alliance Cooperative, an employer-owned and employer-directed not-for-profit cooperative, has developed a network of health care providers in Dane County and 13 surrounding counties on behalf of more than 160 member employers. Through this pooling effort, employers are able to obtain affordable, high-quality health care for their more than 80,000 employees and dependents.

This legislation seeks to build on successful local initiatives, such as the Alliance, that help businesses to join together to increase access to affordable and high-quality health care.

The Promoting Health Care Purchasing Cooperatives Act would authorize grants to groups of businesses so that they could form group-purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, reduce health care rates, and improve quality.

This legislation offers two separate grant programs to help different types of businesses pool their resources and bargaining power. Both programs would aid businesses to form cooperatives. The first program would help large businesses that sponsor their own health plans, while the second program would help small businesses that purchase their health insurance.

My bill would enable larger businesses to form cost-effective cooperatives that could offer high-quality health care through several ways. First, they could obtain health services through pooled purchasing from physicians, hospitals, home health agencies, and others. By pooling their experience and interests, employers involved in a coalition could better address essential issues, such as rising health insurance rates and the lack of comparable health care quality data. They would be able to share information regarding the quality of these services and to partner with these health care providers to meet the needs of their employees.

For smaller businesses that purchase their health insurance, the formation of cooperatives would allow them to buy health insurance at lower prices through pooled purchasing. Also, the communication within these cooperatives would provide employees of small businesses with better information about the health care options that are available to them. Finally, coalitions would serve to promote quality improvements by facilitating partnerships between their group and the health care providers.

By working together, the group could develop better insurance plans and negotiate better rates.

This legislation also tries to alleviate the burden that our Nation's farmers face when trying to purchase health care for themselves, their families, and their employees. Because the health insurance industry looks upon farming as a high-risk profession, many farmers are priced out of, or simply not offered, health insurance. By helping farmers join cooperatives to purchase health insurance, we will help increase their health insurance options.

Past health purchasing pool initiatives have focused only on cost and have tried to be all things for all people. My legislation creates an incentive to join the pools by giving grants to a group of similar businesses to form group-purchasing cooperatives. The pools are also given flexibility to find innovative ways to lower costs, such as enhancing benefits--for example, more preventive care--and improving quality. Finally, the cooperative structure is a proven model, which creates an incentive for businesses to remain in the pool because they will be invested in the organization.

We must reform health care in America and give employers and employees more options. This legislation, by providing for the formation of cost-effective coalitions that will also improve the quality of care, contributes to this essential reform process. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this proposal to improve the quality and costs of health care.

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

Mr. President, I am introducing today, along with Senators Burr, Bayh, Snowe and McCain, a resolution that will implement a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission--

the granting of appropriations authority to the Senate Intelligence Committee. This effort to reform and improve congressional oversight has a long bipartisan history. It began as an amendment offered by Senator McCain to the 2004 reorganizing resolution that accompanied the intelligence reform bill. And, in the last Congress, this resolution was introduced by Senator Burr. It should also be noted that it has the same bipartisan set of cosponsors as it did last year, despite the change of administration. This underscores the principle that effective congressional oversight is neither a partisan nor political issue and that it has nothing to do with who the President is. It is about ensuring that the Intelligence Community is keeping America safe, complying with the Constitution and laws of our country, and using taxpayer dollars in an appropriate manner.

Next month will mark the 5th anniversary of the release of the 9/11 Commission's report. The country is by now familiar with the many recommendations of the Commission that have been implemented, including the establishment of the DNI and the National Counterterrorism Center. Yet, the Commission stressed that, ``Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important.''

In November 2007, Lee Hamilton, the former Vice Chairman of the Commission testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee on behalf of himself and former Chairman Tom Kean and again emphasized what needs to be done. He testified that:

The single most important step to strengthen the power of

the intelligence committees is to give them the power of the

purse. Without it, they will be marginalized. The

intelligence community will not ignore you, but they will

work around you. In a crunch, they will go to the

Appropriations Committee. Within the Congress, the two bodies

with the jurisdiction, time and expertise to carry out a

careful review of the budget and activities of the

Intelligence Community are the Senate and House intelligence

committees. Yet all of us have to live by the Gold Rule: That

is, he who controls the Gold makes the Rules.

The testimony of the former Chairman and Vice Chairman highlighted three practical examples of why this particular reform is so critical. First, if and when the U.S. goes to war, the decision will ride largely on intelligence--and oversight is critical to ensuring that the intelligence community gets it right. Second, oversight is necessary to safeguard the privacy and civil liberties of Americans in an age of enhanced collection capabilities and data mining. Third, the success of intelligence reform requires sustained congressional oversight.

Vigorous, effective, independent congressional oversight is fundamental to the checks and balances of our constitutional system. In recent years, we have seen outright contempt for this oversight, particularly as the previous administration sought to hide the CIA's detention and interrogation and the NSA's warrantless wiretapping programs from Congress. But the inauguration of a new president has not removed all impediments to effective oversight, nor is it a guarantee that serious abuses won't occur in the future. That is why the implementation of this reform is just as important as ever and why this resolution has bipartisan support.

In the end, this reform is not just about our constitutional system, as important as that is. It is about how best to protect the American people. As Lee Hamilton testified, ``the strong point simply is that the Senate of the U.S. and the House of the U.S. is not doing its job. And because you are not doing the job, the country is not as safe as it ought to be, because one of my premises is that robust oversight is necessary for a stronger intelligence community.''

The implementation of this reform is long overdue. It has been more than seven and a half years since the attacks of 9/11, almost 5years since the 9/11 Commission made this recommendation, and a year and a half since the Senate Intelligence Committee heard directly from former Chairman Hamilton and former Vice Chairman Kean. There should be no more excuses, or delays.

Mr. President, I intend to vote against the current emergency supplemental spending bill--the second one of this fiscal year--and I would like to briefly list my concerns before explaining them in more detail. For years I have been fighting to bring an end to our involvement in the misguided war in Iraq. While I am pleased that President Obama has provided a timeline for redeployment of our troops, I am concerned that he intends to leave up to 50,000 of the United States troops in Iraq. I am also concerned that this supplemental may pad the defense budget with items not needed for the war. We should be paying for such items through the regular budget, not running up the deficit to purchase them. Finally, while the President clearly understands that the greatest international security threat to our Nation resides in Pakistan, I remain concerned that his strategy regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan does not adequately address, and may even exacerbate the problems we face in Pakistan, problems made even more clear by the current rising tide of displaced civilians.

I do want to make clear, however, that there are a number of provisions in the bill I support, including funding for humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. In addition, I am pleased that the bill addresses the increased demand for direct farm loans through the USDA's Farm Service Agency, FSA. As of May 7, the FSA reports backlogs of nearly 3,000 loans, including $250 million in ownership loans and over $100 million for operating loans. With many States having already completely utilized their initial fiscal year 2009 allocations of direct loan funds, the emergency addition of $360 million for direct farm ownership loans and $225 million for direct operating loans in the supplemental will help ensure that credit is available to farmers and ranchers. I was also encouraged that an additional $49.4 million was included for the costs associated with modifying existing

FSA farm loans, which will help ensure that FSA is able to work with farmers who are viable to avoid foreclosure.

Let me start by focusing on Iraq. President Obama has taken a necessary and overdue step by outlining a schedule to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq. This will help us focus on al-Qaida and its affiliates elsewhere, which continue to be the main threat to U.S. national security. I was disappointed, however, that the President decided to draw out the redeployment over 3 years. Furthermore, recent press reports indicate that in order to meet the June 30 deadline for U.S. combat troops to be out of Iraqi cities, certain military officials may redraw city borders instead of relocating nearly 3,000 Americans, as required under the Status of Forces Agreement. This kind of fluidity is troubling as it would further delay an already too long schedule for redeployment. While we have an obligation to help stabilize the region over the long term, we must not lose sight of the fact that our very presence has a destabilizing impact and the vast majority of Iraqis support a prompt withdrawal of U.S. troops. I am concerned that if the United States does not appear to be moving to redeploy consistent with the bilateral agreement negotiated with Iraq, there could be a surge in violence against the troops of the United States.

Finally, I note that the Bush administration chose to negotiate that deal as an executive agreement when its scope clearly exceeds that of any previous Executive agreement and extends far beyond the kinds of issues addressed in a mere status-of-forces agreement. It should have been submitted to the Congress as a treaty and been subjected to the requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate. The Congress always retains the ultimate authority to determine whether to continue to fund military operations abroad so it is in the interest of the President to seek Senate approval. Our national security is best served when the two branches work together to determine our policy on matters of such profound importance to the United States. The Congress should make clear that, in the future, any such agreements must be submitted for ratification.

President Obama's strategy review for Afghanistan and Pakistan finally focuses the Government's attention and resources where they are most needed. After years of our country being bogged down in Iraq, President Obama has brought to the White House an understanding that the key to our national security is defeating al-Qaida, and that to do so we must refocus on this critical region.

But while the President clearly understands that the greatest threat to our Nation resides in Pakistan, I am concerned that his announced strategy has the potential to escalate rather than diminish this threat without making things better in Afghanistan. According to credible polls, the majority of Afghans do not support a surge in U.S. forces and a majority in the south even oppose the presence of U.S. troops. For years, the Bush administration shortchanged the mission in Afghanistan, with disastrous results. But we cannot simply turn back the clock. Sending significantly more troops to Afghanistan now could end up doing more harm than good--further inflaming civilian resentment without significantly contributing to stability in that country.

Furthermore, sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan before fully confronting the terrorist safe havens and instability in Pakistan could very well make those problems even worse. And don't just take my word for it. When I raised this point with Ambassador Holbrooke during a recent hearing, he replied:

[Y]ou're absolutely correct that . . . an additional

[number] of American troops, and particularly if they're

successful in Helmand and Kandahar could end up creating a

pressure in Pakistan which would add to the instability.

By providing additional funds for our troops in Afghanistan, this supplemental may actually undermine our national security as increasing numbers of the Taliban could seek refuge in Pakistan's border region. Already, the Taliban's leadership has safe haven in Quetta, while the Pakistani military fights militants in the north. Without a concurrent plan for Pakistan, the movement of Taliban across the border could further weaken local governance and stability, while a flood of refugees from Afghanistan would compound Pakistan's already dire IDP problem. And let's not forget, we are talking about instability in a country with a nuclear arsenal that according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is being expanded.

The emergence of a new civilian-led government offers the United States an opportunity to develop a balanced and sustained relationship with Pakistan that includes a long-term counterterrorism partnership. I am pleased that this administration, unlike the last, has extended its engagement to a broad range of political parties and encouraged the development of democracy. I am also pleased that there are efforts to significantly increase nonmilitary aid and to impose greater accountability on security assistance. After years of a policy that neglected Pakistan's civilian institutions and focused on short-sighted tactics that were dangerous and self-defeating, this is a refreshing step in the right direction. Make no mistake about it, the threat of militant extremism has been and continues to be very real in Pakistan, but by embracing and relying on a single, unpopular, antidemocratic leader we failed to develop a comprehensive counterterrorism sustained strategy that transcended individuals. As a result, we must now recover from a policy that led Pakistanis to be skeptical about American intentions and principles.

While I support efforts to build a sustained relationship with Pakistan, I remain concerned that, even as we continue to provide support to the Pakistani military, elements of the Pakistani security forces remain unhelpful in our efforts to cut off support for the Taliban. During a recent hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain asked Admiral Mullen if he still worries about the ISI cooperating with the Taliban. Admiral Mullen responded that that he did. This bill contains over $1 billion for the Pakistani military, and while we must not over generalize or take an all or nothing approach, it would be unwise and very dangerous to convey to the Pakistani military that it has our unconditional support.

That would be especially dangerous now as recent fighting between militants and Pakistani forces has reportedly displaced nearly 1\1/12\ million people--the greatest displacement there since 1947. This is very troubling, and has potentially grave strategic implications for U.S. national security. As General Petraeus has said, ``We cannot kill our way to victory.'' As we continue to provide assistance to Pakistan's military, we must ensure they--and we--have the support of the Pakistani people. No amount of civilian aid after the fact can make up for military operations that are not tailored to protect the civilian population in the first place.

We must also recognize that, while the Pakistani security forces are undertaking operations in the Swat Valley, there are individuals in Baluchistan who also present a significant threat to our troops in Afghanistan. When I asked Ambassador Holbrooke if he knew whether the Pakistani Government was doing everything it could to capture Taliban leaders in Baluchistan, he replied that he did not know and that while they have ``captured . . . killed and eliminated over the years a good number of the leaders of the Taliban and al-Qaida [while] others have been under less pressure.'' I encourage the Obama administration to engage in tough negotiations with the Pakistani Government on this issue and to prepare contingency plans in the event that we continue to see members of the security services supporting militants.

We must continue to ensure al-Qaida and the Taliban are the key targets in Pakistan, but strategic success will also depend in part on the ability of the Pakistani military to demonstrate they are pursuing a targeted approach that seeks to protect the civilian population. For example, we should work to ensure that the Pakistani Government has taken steps to detain known militant leaders and is providing assistance to those who have been displaced by the ongoing violence. On the civilian side, working to help reform and strengthen vital institutions, including

the judiciary and education and health care systems, is essential. We must also work to reform the police, whose permanent presence in the community is less likely to engender hostility than the military's. In short, we must focus on helping to build the civilian institutions that are part of a responsive, accountable government needed to ensure al- Qaida and militant extremists do not find support among the Pakistani people.

Lastly, I would like to address an issue that has received much attention. A number of my colleagues have spoken on the floor in opposition to the President's commitment to close the detention facility in Guantanamo bay. I believe it is time for Guantanamo to be closed. Senator McCain, Senator Graham, Colin Powell and James Baker share this view. The facility has become a rallying cry and recruiting tool for al-Qaida. It contributes to extremism, anti-American sentiment and undermines our ability to build the international support we need to defeat al-Qaida.

Secretary Gates has testified that ``the announcement of the decision to close Guantanamo has been an important strategic communications victory for the United States.'' The Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has stated that:

The detention center at Guantanamo has become a damaging

symbol to the world and that it must be closed. It is a

rallying cry for terrorist recruitment and harmful to our

national security, so closing it is important for our

national security.

And, former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that

There are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that

the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat

deaths in Iraq--as judged by their effectiveness in

recruiting insurgent fighters into combat--are, respectively

the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

There are many unresolved questions about the process we will use to prosecute these detainees. We need to resolve those tough questions, but we should not use them as an excuse to avoid taking a step that is so important to our national security.

Mr. President, I am today introducing the Teachers at the Table Act of 2009. This bill is the Senate companion to legislation introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York and Representative Lee Terry of Nebraska and would create a Volunteer Teacher Advisory Committee to advise Congress and the Department of Education on the impact of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, also known as No Child Left Behind, NCLB, on students, their families, and the classroom learning environment. The teachers serving on this committee would be chosen from past or present State or national Teachers of the Year and would be competitively selected by the Secretary of Education and the majority and minority leaders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Every year I travel to each of Wisconsin's 72 counties to hold a listening session to listen to Wisconsinites' concerns and answer their questions. Since NCLB was enacted in early 2002, education has rated as one of the top issues brought up at these listening sessions. I have received feedback from constituents about the noble intentions of NCLB, but I have also heard about the multitude of implementation problems with the law's provisions. The feedback from teachers, parents, school administrators, and school board members has been invaluable over the past 7 years and has guided many of my education policymaking decisions.

As Congress seeks to undertake the reauthorization of ESEA this year, it is my hope that this legislation can be part of the reauthorization. Feedback

from good teachers is absolutely vital to understanding how federal education policy is impacting classroom instruction around the country. This legislation seeks to help ensure that continuous feedback is provided to Congress about how the reauthorized ESEA is impacting student achievement and closing the persistent achievement gap that exists in our Nation.

The Teachers at the Table bill I am introducing today seeks to help ensure that Congress and the Department of Education receive high- quality yearly feedback on how ESEA/NCLB is impacting classroom learning around the country. The teachers who will serve on this committee represent some of the best that teaching has to offer. The bill would create a committee of 20 teachers, with 4 selected by the Secretary of Education and 4 selected by each of the majority and minority leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives. These teachers would serve 2-year terms on the advisory committee and would work to prepare annual reports to Congress as well as quarterly updates on the law's implementation.

Every State and every school district is different and this legislation ensures that the teacher advisory committee will represent a wide range of viewpoints. The bill specifies that the volunteer teacher advisory committee should include teachers from diverse geographic areas, teachers who teach different grade levels, and teachers from a variety of specialty areas. Creating a diverse committee will help ensure that the committee presents a broad range of viewpoints on ESEA/NCLB to Congress and the Department of Education.

Much work needs to be done this year to reform many of the mandates of ESEA/NCLB and I look forward to working with my colleagues during the reauthorization to make those necessary changes. One thing is certain whatever form the reauthorized ESEA takes, there will be a need for consistent feedback from a diverse range of viewpoints.

We need to ensure that the voices of students, educators, parents, and administrators, who are on the frontlines of education reform in our country, are heard during the reauthorization of ESEA and going forward during the reauthorized law's implementation in years to come. This bill seeks to help address that need by enlisting the service of some of America's best teachers in providing information to Federal education policymakers. The advisory committee created by this legislation will provide nationwide feedback and will allow Congress to hear about ESEA/NCLB directly from those who deal with the law and its consequences on a daily basis.