Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today during Black History Month to honor the history and legacy of the First Kansas Colored Infantry, a regiment of former slaves, which was the first group of Black men to fight in the American Civil War.

This regiment of escaped Black slaves was the first organized into service for the U.S. Government. They were commanded by COL James M. Williams. For the first time during the Civil War, Black troops were fighting alongside White troops in the name of freedom and equality.

In June 1862, Kansas Senator James H. Lane started recruiting troops from among free Blacks, especially the increasing numbers of fugitive slaves in Kansas, men who had fled their masters in Missouri and Arkansas. The progressive nature of Kansas made it appealing to slaves fleeing Missouri and Arkansas as soon as the Civil War fighting began. By August 1862, Colonel Williams assembled 500 men in a camp outside Leavenworth. These men fought bravely in July of 1863, at Cabin Creek, when the First Kansas Colored Infantry along with other Union forces worked to drive the Confederates out of nearly all of Arkansas.

President Lincoln also took note of the bravery of the First Kansas Colored Infantry when he noted to a group of visitors from South Carolina who came to complain about the arming of Blacks: ``You say you will not fight to free Negroes. Some of them seem to be willing enough to fight for you.'' These men of the First Kansas Colored Infantry continued to fight until the end of the Civil War, being credited with seeing action at Sherwood, MO; Honey Springs; Indian Territory; and Lawrence, KS; Poison Springs, AR. They saw more regular combat than any other black regiment of the war. In October 1865, the men of the First Kansas Colored Infantry were discharged at Fort Leavenworth.

Frederick Douglass once stated, ``In a composite nation like ours, as before the law, there should be no rich, no poor, no high, no low, no white, no black, but common country, common citizenship, equal rights and a common destiny.'' These men were willing to give their lives in the hopes for a better future, an equal future, for their children. It is a struggle that continues today, and we look to our history as we continue to engage in it.

Mr. President, the men of the First Kansas Colored Infantry helped shape this nation into a society of freedom and a beacon of hope around the world. I ask that we all thank them and honor their legacy of service.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Tony Bell of Harveyville, KS. Tony has been selected as a 2009 Great Comebacks Recipient for the Central Region. This very important program annually honors a group of individuals who are living with intestinal diseases or recovering from ostomy surgery.

The Great Comeback Award celebrates the lives of people with painful and debilitating diseases like Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, colorectal cancer and other diseases that can lead to ostomy surgery. Tony is one of over 700,000 Americans, from young children to senior citizens, who have an ostomy, a surgical procedure that reconstructs bowel and bladder function through the use of a specially fitted medical prosthesis. Ostomy surgery is a life-altering and sometimes life-saving procedure which both addresses a medical issue and improves a patient's quality of life.

Hundreds of thousands of those suffering from Crohn's or ulcerative colitis rely on a certain type of ostomy to function on a daily basis. Just like a prosthesis, ostomies help restore patients' ability to participate in the normal activity of daily life. Recipients are patients who live full and productive lives with their ostomies.

Born with a defect of his colon, Tony Bell received an ostomy immediately after birth. A few years later, the ostomy was reversed, but after years of struggling with incontinence, 9-year-old Tony received a permanent colostomy. All of a sudden, this inactive, withdrawn boy who was scared to leave his home was ready to saddle up and grab life by the horns.

In control of his body--and his life--at last, an empowered Tony embraced a bright future--one he hoped would include a career as a professional bull rider. He wasted no time, mounting his first bull at the age of 10. As Tony trained for rodeo events, he also pursued his love of music. In fact, as a high school senior, he was chosen to join the elite Kansas Ambassadors choir on a European tour.

While attending college on a singing scholarship, Tony went pro on the rodeo circuit and competed professionally for 2 years, even riding in the Cheyenne Frontier Days Rodeo, known as ``The Daddy of Them All.'' Having achieved this childhood dream, Tony has set his sights on a new goal, following in his parents' footsteps to become a teacher.

Through it all, Tony says he drew tremendous strength from his parents, who taught him to be resilient and to bounce back from whatever life threw his way. He also credits his ``second family,'' Youth Rally, a summer camp for adolescents with an ostomy, for helping him through some rough patches in his life. He now returns each summer as a counselor and enjoys ``paying it forward'' by providing support and encouragement to campers.

Today, Tony, 28, lives in Harveyville, KS, with his wife Pam and 6- year-old stepdaughter Haiden. He works on the family farm and is only a few credits shy of his special education teaching degree. Although Tony didn't end up a country music star, he channels his passion and performs in a barbershop quartet with his dad. An outdoor enthusiast, he enjoys skydiving and noodling--fishing for catfish with your bare hands. ``I want to share with the world my story of success so that others with life-changing conditions know that they are not alone,'' said Tony. ``No matter what comes your way, always reach for the stars and grasp your dreams--they are only a bull ride away.''

I urge my colleagues to take the time to meet with Tony and some of the other Great Comebacks Regional Award Recipients. Their personal stories are inspirational and will raise your awareness about some of the Great Comebacks being made by people living with intestinal diseases or recovering from ostomy surgery.

Madam President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Madam President, I am happy to go back and forth if that would be the agreed-upon order of things. That would be certainly acceptable to me. I wanted to make sure what time we had on our side.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add the following cosponsors to my amendment No. 3309: Senators Barrasso, Crapo, and Johanns.

Madam President, the CARFA bill that will be voted on shortly has passed this Senate every Congress since the 107th Congress. It has either passed by rollcall vote or unanimous consent. This is nothing new. It has passed this body multiple times. Now it counts. Now when people vote on it, this will count. The CARFA bill breaks the Federal Government into four pieces. A fourth of the Federal Government is looked at each year, and then recommendations are made in a privileged motion that must be voted on. It is a spending commission. It is targeted at reducing Federal spending, which is clearly where the American public wants us to go. They don't want to raise taxes; they want to focus on getting wasteful spending under control.

This is a mechanism we have done before. It is a mechanism that has passed this Congress multiple times in the budget agreement. This time it counts. I ask my colleagues to look at this and say: If you voted for it in the past, do it now. We clearly need to do it.

Last night, the President spoke about the need to track the deficit. He was clear that we need to get the deficit under control. The first step in getting the deficit under control is to reduce spending, get spending under control.

Here is the latest chart on the gross Federal debt as a percentage of the GDP. This year, we passed the 90-percent threshold of debt to the economy. So of the total economy size, about $14 trillion, 90 percent of that is going to be gross debt. This is publicly and privately held debt combined. This is the level at which economists say this starts hurting the economy. It can drive down growth as much as 4 percent per year. We have had many years where we haven't even had 4 percent growth. We could put ourselves in negative growth by carrying this level of debt. And we blew through that number this year, headed toward 100 percent of debt to GDP. That is this year's number. That is the one that is just out.

Here is a breakdown of that. Some will say we are at 60 percent debt to economic activity. That is of the publicly held debt. That is the piece the Chinese own, and others. But if we look at total debt--this is what we owe to ourselves, the Social Security trust fund, other trust funds that I think we ought to pay back--we ought to be responsible with that. That is way up here, up over the 90-percent level. It is in the danger zone. It is time to get it under control.

CARFA is the way to do it. CARFA is a simple mechanism. It is eight people appointed, four by this body, four by the House. It makes recommendations on elimination of programs. Those must pass by six of the eight members who vote on that. That then is reported to the committee structure that is in the applicable areas of the recommendations for elimination. The committee has 30 days to review the recommendations. They can't amend it, but they can review the recommendations, say to the public: Here is what this is going to do if we make these cuts. Then it is subject to a privileged motion. The actual report comes before the body as a privileged motion. There is 10 hours of debate before we go to the bill. Then there is debate on the bill and a required vote with a 51-vote margin to pass it. That is all in the statute. This is the BRAC process, the Base Closure and Realignment Commission process used in the past to close military bases and to save us $60 billion annually in spending on military bases, closing down bases, putting them in more efficient alignment. This will do the same at the Federal level.

It is not as if we don't have wasteful spending at the Federal level. This chart shows the scorecard the OMB does on Federal spending by agencies. We can see a bunch of agencies get Ds or Fs on program reviews. The Department of Labor, Department of Education get Fs on their spending as far as its utility and for what it was targeted to do. If we have entire agencies rated at F or D or D-minus, don't you think there are a few programs in there that ought to be eliminated and that probably we can do without, without hurting the overall government or people or the economy? Absolutely. That is what the American people are screaming for us to do. They don't want us to raise taxes; they want us to cut spending. That is what the public is doing in this process. This is very clearly the process we should follow.

This is the time that this vote counts. My colleagues have been willing to support this concept in the budget resolution. Now is the time that it would have the force of law, if we are able to get it through. This is one the public is going to hear more and more about, as everybody gets focused on spending and what we need to do there. This will be the type of process that we need to do and that we need to use.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the CARFA amendment, and I would hope my colleagues would put that in the bill so we can get a process by which we could legitimately start cutting Federal spending in a responsible way.

I yield the floor.

I understand I have 2 minutes to speak on the amendment.

Madam President, I wish to show two other charts. This is not new information, but I think it is pretty dramatic in its presentation, the level of the massive addition of Federal debt at levels we have never seen before. We are looking at $1.4 trillion in deficits. That is the annual addition. We have not seen numbers this size before. We haven't seen these percentages since World War II, the massive war effort we went into in World War II.

This is a critical situation at a critical time, and it must be addressed. The answer isn't to just extend the line of credit, which is what this bill--the base bill extends the line of credit by $1.9 trillion. It is nice that we have the ability to say: OK, we will have the line of credit extended by $1.9 trillion, but it doesn't address this, it just allows this to go on.

The CARFA bill gets at this line and starts cutting that. It starts cutting irresponsible Federal programs. It starts cutting duplicative Federal programs and programs that have accomplished their purposes. We have things we are funding that were started 50, 100 years ago, and they have actually accomplished what they were supposed to do and ought to be terminated. Yet they don't get terminated because there is no culling process that goes on. The Federal Government hasn't cut its own funding system for 100 years.

When I first came to Congress, we made a 1-year cut in Federal spending of 1 percent from one year to the next year. We eliminated some 200, 300 Federal programs. I used to give a speech asking people: Do you remember any of those programs we cut? Can you name two? I would pay people $10 if they could name two we eliminated. They heard about the ice being delivered to Members' offices, so they got that one. But they could never get a second one. Think of the number of programs that are rated as failing that we could eliminate and nobody would notice. They would applaud the fact that we were actually cutting Federal spending which has been very difficult for this body to get done. Here is a mechanism with which we can get it done.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.

Mr. President, thank you very much.

I think this is a healthy discussion we are having. We do not usually discuss much the Fed Chairman or the appointment or the nomination of a Fed Chairman. Yet monetary policy affects all of us in a huge way and dramatically affects the world. This is, to me, the sort of debate we ought to be having, and I am glad we have some differences of opinion.

For a long period of time it seemed as if everybody just treated monetary policy as something that is in the theoretical world of economists and mathematicians and central bankers, and they are the only ones who understand the language; they are the only ones affected by it; therefore, they are the only ones who ought to discuss it. I am not at all suggesting that Congress or the legislative branch ought to be setting monetary policy; we shouldn't. But we ought to be discussing the people and the principles that are involved and the people we appoint to these government positions and this government position, which is so critical and so important to all of us in this country and around the world.

So I am delighted we are having a discussion about the Fed Chairman, the appointment of the Fed Chairman in this particular case. I think Ben Bernanke is a bright gentleman. I have met with him. I have been the ranking member on the Joint Economic Committee. I have had him in to testify. I find him quite interesting, bright, and a gentleman. However, I believe now it is time for us to break this sort of Washington-New York corridor that establishes monetary policy and bring somebody in from outside that system to start at the Fed and in the Fed chairmanship and start looking more toward what Main Street needs in a monetary policy rather than what Wall Street needs in a monetary policy. I am not opposed to Wall Street, but they have dominated this position, people from this Washington-New York corridor, for too long a period of time. It too dramatically affects all the rest of us, to simply shut out the rest of the philosophy and thought from across the country. We need to get to Main Street.

I also have another concern that is taking place beyond the issue of us breaking out of this New York-Washington corridor for the Fed Chairman and monetary policy. The second concern I have is I think we are headed for a huge government bubble. We have seen the dot-com bubble come, burst, and go. We have just gone through--and we are still going through--a housing bubble bigger than the dot-com bubble get big and blow up. Lots of fiscal and monetary policy to blame in both situations. I think we can look back on the housing one and see both actions here or lack of actions toward Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to pump up this housing bubble. I think we can see the monetary policy pumping up this housing bubble that burst with huge impact; a number of people say a near depression type of impact. Now we are heading possibly toward the biggest bubble of all, a huge government bubble, blown up by the Fed; huge amounts of money being put out in the system now to try to prop up, to try to carry us on through this situation. If not handled correctly, it could burst in a more profound and difficult way than the housing bubble. To me, it is just one of those difficulties that is staring us right in the face. Now is the chance for us to talk about a different direction, and I think we should do that.

Yesterday, they had a vote of the FOMC, the money supply committee, and there was one dissenting vote. That dissenting vote was from Tom Hoenig, who is the chairman of the Kansas City Fed. He believes--and he is hawkish on the money supply--that we have to start pulling the money supply back and out of the system before the inflationary bubble takes off. When you put this much money into the system, you are bound to get an inflationary bubble and you have to start pulling it back before you start feeling it. This is the time we have to start addressing those issues.

I think we ought to look at somebody such as a Tom Hoenig, hawkish on the monetary supply, to get us into a stable, long-term position and get us ahead of a government bubble bursting on us; also, somebody from outside the system, somebody who is more focused on Main Street than Wall Street, on monetary policy and monetary supply. Now is the time to do it. This is a good chance to debate this. I don't suppose that is going to happen here. We are probably going to go ahead with Mr. Bernanke, who is a fine man, but now is the time to break out of this before this bubble gets bigger, bursts on us, and causes more of a problem than what we have even seen with the prior two bubbles. Let's get outside of that, and let's deal with that before it is on us.

I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.

I think under a previous agreement I was to call up an amendment. I ask that my amendment be callled up, No. 3309, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the following members as cosponsors to the amendment: Senators Chambliss, Ensign, and Vitter.

Mr. President, as I understand, there are no further votes this evening, and there will not be votes tomorrow. We will have this up Thursday, and we will debate it then and vote on it. I will put in somewhat of a statement tonight and then talk about it further on Thursday.

This is a commission that has been in front of this body several times. We voted on it. It passed this body twice before in the budget debates. It is CARFA, the Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies.

It is modeled exactly after the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, the BRAC, that has been so successful on closing military bases and consolidating assets and put the military in a better position. This is the same thing. It is to all of government. It has been voted on by this body twice before. It has passed this body. It is done in the budget agreement. It is time it became the law of the land.

That is the process whereby we can actually cut government spending. It is a simple process--eight members on the Commission, four appointed by this body, four appointed by the House. For any recommendation to move forward, it has to pass by six of eight members, so either party cannot dominate or determine it. It has to be six of eight. It will take one-fourth of the government each year for 4 years and review that fourth of the Federal Government and make recommendations for closure during that year's period of time.

The report for that year then is submitted to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction for a period of 30 days. They can review the report. They can hold hearings on the CARFA commission recommendations for a period of 30 days. They can look it over and see which ones they like, which ones they do not like, but they cannot amend it.

At the end of that 30 days, it is then subject to a privileged motion to come in front of this body so it has to be voted on by this body with a limit of 10 hours of debate prior to going to the motion, 10 hours of debate on the bill itself. It cannot be amended. Then it is an up-or-down vote, with a 50-vote threshold of passage. It is a privileged motion that comes in front of this body, with a majority vote for it to pass through this body.

This is the way we will get spending under control and done. This is an agreeable way. It is a way that has proven itself in the past. Now is the time we have to do this.

I wish to show one chart that is new out today. It is no new news, unfortunately. This one is new out today. This

is the projection of our Federal debt as a percentage of GDP. That is the one to watch, the projection of the Federal debt as a percentage of

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota. I will miss his voice around here. He and I both are leaving this body at the end of this year, and I have appreciated the chance to serve with him and work on many different issues of significance and concern for the country. He has always had a strong voice, done an excellent job in representing his constituency and his point of view, and I will miss serving with him.

Mr. President, right now, at this very minute, hundreds of thousands of people are amassing in this town for the 37th annual Right to Life March--hundreds of thousands. It will be a crowd where 80 percent will be under the age of 25. It is a young movement. It is a movement that believes in human dignity and that life begins at conception and goes to natural death. They are energized, motivated. They are here and they need to be heard. They stand to be a voice for the voiceless; to stand for a cause they believe in, that they believe is right, and I believe they are right. I believe they are winning this cause.

In 1973, the Supreme Court banned most impediments to having an abortion in the United States. Since that tragic decision, many experts estimate that between 40 and 50 million--40 to 50 million--abortions have happened in the United States. It is a number that plagues our government and defies our constitution.

This tragedy is why we continue to call for the end of abortion in the United States. Today, in memory of the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we want to talk about how the pro-life movement should be credited for changing America's attitude on the issue of abortion. The President's campaign theme in 2008 on change is also relevant to the pro-life movement, which has effectively changed millions of hearts and minds by challenging the central tenets of the flawed Roe decision.

The Roe decision, which took State law and said State laws can no longer cover the issue of abortion and federalized the whole issue, has been the centerpiece issue of this whole debate, saying this should be an issue decided at the State level. These protestors are here en masse to again call for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. The decision has been proven to be antithetical to individual liberties and to human dignity.

There will be young people at the march who have learned they have lost siblings because of abortion. They will never know a younger brother, an older sister, and they are profoundly saddened by such a loss. There will be women at the march for life who have had abortions and now regret making that decision; they are still grieving for their lost children, and they will say that which is politically incorrect: Abortion hurts women. The number of women who have joined this ``Silent No More Campaign'' represents a fundamental change in attitudes regarding the controversy of the issue of abortion.

I hope Congress will listen to those who mourn and advocate for their government to do something to right this wrong. If they do listen, they will notice that the country is changing in several significant ways. The pro-life movement has transcended beyond my generation into a new movement that is young, passionate, energetic, creative, and resilient. President Obama said during his campaign last year:

A new generation inspires an old generation, and that is

how change happens in America. It doesn't just happen in

elections and campaigns. We know that young people everywhere

are imagining something different than what is.

I believe that this younger generation is inspiring an older generation. Today, there will be hundreds of thousands of Americans-- many of them young people, who believe in defending innocent human life--who will march across the National Mall for real change.

We found out earlier this week, with the upset victory by Scott Brown in Massachusetts--one of the bluest of blue States--that politicians have to respect the voters on the issues they care about. The American people are dismayed at our government's radical approach to promoting abortion. The American people don't want government-run health care that includes abortion mandates and Federal subsidies for abortion. They don't want foreign aid going abroad to promote abortion. They don't want to relax commonsense regulations that are proven to reduce the incidence of abortion.

Even for those who are pro-choice, the mantra around here for some period of time was to have abortion be safe, legal, and rare. The policies I just listed are all policies that would expand abortion. The last time the Federal Government paid for elective abortions, we paid for nearly 300,000 a year--a shocking number and certainly not a rarity.

People are realizing that abortion had promised liberty but instead has brought death. Doubters have turned into believers and people are waking up to the reality and the truth about abortion. Our movement is truly changing hearts and minds.

Although it is true the pro-life movement saw many setbacks this past year, we also have much to be thankful for and hopeful for in the future. A Gallup poll earlier this year--for the first time since Gallop started asking this question in 1995--showed our country to be a pro-life majority country. This year, 51 percent of Americans called themselves pro-life on the issue of abortion and 42 percent pro-choice.

In 1995, 56 percent of Americans called themselves pro-choice, and in 2008 that number was 50 percent. I see our movement changing, striving to continue getting a little better each day.

The movement continues to value people over ideology and political parties. Pro-lifers found a hero and strong ally in Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak this year for taking the tough stance in defense of life in the health care reform debate. It was a blow to the abortion advocates when Democratic Congressman Stupak led the charge and continues to lead the charge in that fight. The pro-life movement is changing because it has rallied new leaders from both major political parties, which is something for which we should be very grateful.

Another way our movement is changing is through new outreach tools. Pro-lifers are sharing the truth about abortion with friends on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, iPhone, and countless other new technologies. Young people are utilizing these new media tools to uncover and expose an abortion industry. I am excited about this because I know the pro-life movement's focus and energy has never been so devoted or determined.

The movement's message is more expansive. We have changed and attracted a majority of the country to our cause with compassion for all human life--being pro-life and whole life. Our movement has become more consistent and attractive because the pro-life movement speaks to the respect for human life in all places and in all stages--for those who are in the womb, for those who are in prison, for those who are in Africa, for those who are in poverty, for those who have plenty, for those who have experienced natural disasters such as the recent earthquake in Haiti.

The pro-life movement has been successful because it has changed people's views on the issue. We are now seeing more and more studies coming out about the impact on people who have had abortions. Even the evidence has been changing and we now know that 80 to 90 percent of children diagnosed with genetic defects such as Down syndrome are aborted. We are getting that evidence in. We also have evidence now that shows children in the womb feel pain when they are aborted. New science, ultrasound equipment, and other advances in technology are giving new-found hope in spreading the truth about abortion.

Ultimately, the cause for human dignity cannot be silenced and will not stay still. Human liberty and freedom will prevail and I hope this year's March for Life will again inspire a country that longs for change and that many hope will embrace, fully embrace, the culture of life.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence a quorum.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

I rise to speak on the budget deficit and a mechanism this body has embraced in two prior budget agreements that I think it is time to put in place now. It is called the CARFA mechanism, the Committee on Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies. It is a BRAC process on spending. We passed it in the budget resolution twice, with votes on both sides of the aisle for it. What it does is it basically says: OK, we have to look at all of the Federal Government. Places that aren't working, we need to eliminate, and the rest, then, we can use to pay down our debt and deficit. If there were ever a time to do this, this is the time. I have argued for a decade that we need to do this, and I put this bill forward for a decade. This is my last year in the Senate, and I hope we can get it done this year. It has received bipartisan votes, as I mentioned, two times before in the budget.

It is a simple mechanism. What it does, it is an eight-member commission, four appointed by each side of the House and the Senate. It has to pass by--six of the members, of the eight have to vote to put forward the recommendations of the commission. It takes a fourth of the Federal Government each year and it recommends spending cuts in that fourth. That is then referred to the appropriate committees, and then within 30 days after the commission reports out, it is subject to a privileged motion, that the actual recommendation of the commission must be voted on by Congress. It then has a limited timeframe for debate without amendment, and you get a vote up or down--very similar to the BRAC process that we have followed

for many years on base closing and realignment.

I might remind my colleagues, that BRAC process, while creating consternation across the country, has now saved us $60 billion. We have had several places in Kansas that have been closed in that BRAC process, but we have also had consolidation of troops and operations at, say, Fort Riley that have gained by that, and we have an economy and we have a better aligned military.

This is the same process. It is only on spending, it isn't on taxes, and it is applied now to the full breadth of the government, discretionary and mandatory spending. So it is everything included within a BRAC process. It is a supermajority within the commission itself. Six of eight members must sign on to it, so you cannot get it just gamed one way or the other. It is a simple majority once it gets to the body; it is under the privileged motion. It isn't a 60-vote point of order, it is a 50-plus-1 vote to be able to get it on through this body, and a majority in the House.

This is a tried-and-true practice. It doesn't include tax increases, and my other colleagues are putting forward a commission process as well that does include tax increases which a number of people have a great deal of difficulty with and certainly people across the country have difficulty with. This is not the time nor the economy for us to be talking about tax increases. We have been pounding away at that for a long period of time, but clearly people are saying: No new tax increases. I think they certainly would say that prior to us going through our own spending. There is nothing that prevents this body from passing a tax increase. We can pass it at any point in time. But I think, to have any validity, you would have to go through the Federal spending first and say: Let's cut the spending before we even look at the tax increase side of this equation. That is what this does. This looks at the spending piece of the equation, not at the tax piece of the equation. We owe that to the American public. If there is going to be any credibility of saying we need to raise taxes, which I don't think we need to, but if there were to be any credibility, you would have to first go through Federal spending and say: We have cleaned out everything we can.

I, frankly, believe there are a number of Federal agencies that could take a major reduction and that we could end up with better government.

I want to point this chart out to you. This is a report card that the Federal Government does on itself on the effectiveness of its programs given the design they were based on in the Congress. The OMB does this. They do this on an annual basis. They take different agencies each year and rate them for total effectiveness of that program. And you can see we have a couple of agencies here. We have a 100-point scorecard. The best one is the State Department which gets a 79.47 grade average. We have the Education Department at 49.91. We have the Labor Department at 58.14, of an average grade score of the programs reviewed within that agency, within Labor, 35, within Education, 93.

My point in saying that is that my guess is that within the 35 programs, we can find quite a few there that actually should be eliminated, that are not hitting the target, that are not getting the job done.

This is the process we went through with military bases. For instance, in my State, we had a munitions plant that was closed down near Parsons, KS, and we had a munitions plant near the Kansas City area that was closed. These plants were providing services. They were doing legitimate functions for the military. But the military said: We can consolidate this in one place and save money and close these plants down, and then we will turn the land back over to private and public entities. That is what is taking place. We have done that across the country, creating a more efficient military installation process. It had a negative impact on a couple of my communities, but now we are kind of dealing with those issues and working hard on them. But we have a better structured military. What if we did that in the rest of the Federal Government? And we clearly should do that at this point in time. We are looking at a Federal deficit, a government-run Federal deficit of $1.472 trillion--116 percent greater than the 12-month period ending December 31, 2008.

I have asked my colleagues to consider this amendment in the Federal debt limit ceiling, for us to go back to this process that has already passed this body in budget votes before, but we have never been able to get a vote that would take it all the way through the system. So my colleagues are very familiar with this process. It has worked. Let me repeat that. It has worked before for us. It will work again. We are not building from scratch. We already have some scorecards. And we have to start taking care of this. This is the legacy we are leaving our grandkids--deficits that are running in huge quantities.

The first thing to do in a deficit is--if you are digging a hole, you have to stop digging--stop spending, stop spending in the wasteful areas. There is nothing that drives my constituents more crazy than wasteful government spending. People look at that, and it is just mind- boggling to them. This is a legitimate process to get at wasteful spending in a process we have approved before, and it is clearly time for us to do it.

With this sea of red ink, anybody in this body who has been a Governor has looked at these sorts of issues and said: OK, first, where can we cut our spending? And you would look at that. This does that process. The CARFA project and the CARFA bill and the CARFA structure go at spending first, and that is the first place you would look, and you would certainly look there before you would look toward any tax increases. I think this is something whose time has come and this is something this body really should support.

I would also point out that the route we are going right now, with massive increases in spending and sharp drops in revenues--you talk about bending cost curves down, let's bend this cost curve down on spending by the Federal Government. That is what CARFA can do in a bipartisan, fair process, not just one side or the other saying, cut here, cut there. It is looking at all of the Federal Government, and it is then putting it in a process where we make recommendations--the commission makes recommendations on spending first. Address spending first. That is clearly what our constituents want us to do. They want us to look at spending. That is not a partisan statement, that is what the public wants us to do, and to get at the wasteful pieces of it first.

So I would urge my colleagues, in this bill--I hope we are going to be able to get this up as a piece of it, an amendment, the CARFA bill that has been voted on previously, and that we will have a chance for people to say: Yes, let's go at spending, let's go at spending.

I yield the floor.

Yes.

Madam President, I am glad to join my colleagues in talking about the health care bill. If you looked in the New York Times today, there was a full-page ad describing the bill. I am putting it up here, the same thing that was in the New York Times today. It starts with the question, I want to receive care from my doctor. This, on one page, puts the 2,600 pages in kind of what you are going to see with this bill. It is convoluted. It is difficult. It is expensive. This is what you are going to get. This was in the New York Times today. This is where I sit or this is what is going to happen to me in this overall system. It is no wonder the American public doesn't want this. They are not excited about this. They are not excited about what it is going to do to the budget--$2.5 trillion. That is about $700 million a day, if you are counting in millions a day as one way to look at it.

There are some interesting things hidden within the bill. One of the things I want to point out is the transfer of wealth from young people to old. One of the things that has really bugged me about what we have done in so many of the government systems here--it has been a wealth transfer from younger people to older.

Several of my children are students and working part-time jobs, and they are paying payroll taxes. They say: What is this payroll tax going to? I say: Well, talk to your grandparents and tell them to say thank you to you. These are funds collected that are going to pay for their retirement funds. They do, and the grandparents say thank you. But it doesn't seem to be satisfying to them because they are saying: Why aren't I putting this in something I am saving money for me so that I can have something later on instead of this sort of, OK, I am paying and they are getting. What is going to be there when I get there?

That sort of wealth transfer from young people to old people continues in this bill. Look at this wealth transfer. Younger workers will pay more for health insurance premiums so that older workers can pay less. Their cost at age 25 will go up 25 percent for health insurance premiums. If you are 64, it will go down 20 percent for health care. This is another one of the wealth transfers that take place. It isn't right. It is taking from the kids. It is taking from the grandkids. It should not be continued. It is continued in this bill.

You can look at it another way: Subsidies in this bill go disproportionately to older Americans. Average subsidies for the 55- year-olds are nearly 10 times that of a 25-year-old. A 25-year-old gets a subsidy of $458, a 55-year-old gets a subsidy of $4,427--another wealth transfer from younger to older.

Then you can look at the claims in this bill that there are going to be tax cuts for the middle class. That is if you are in the lucky group. For every low-to-middle-income family with a tax cut, three low- to-middle-income families have a tax increase in this bill by the structure of this bill, by this structure, this convoluted, difficult- to-navigate, hard-to-understand, expensive, $2.5 trillion structure.

That is where we stand. Likely to pass this body and then go to the House of Representatives where there is a major issue that is still brewing, difficult, and must be dealt with, and that is the issue of public funding of abortion that is in this bill.

If you want to cut some of the cost out of this thing, why don't you take some of those expenses out of this. That would be one way to cut back some of the expenses. But in the House bill, they included Stupak language which continued the Hyde tradition and law of the land that the government will not pay for abortions other than cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. Except now buried in the Senate bill, in the Reid amendment, is the public funding of abortion, which we haven't done for years.

Yesterday I talked to both Congressman Stupak and Senator Nelson. They both agree that the Stupak language is far superior. It doesn't publicly fund abortions, whereas what is in this bill now does. You don't need to take my word. Here is what others have said. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who want a health care bill but are opposed to the public funding of abortion and opposed to abortion, say:

The bill is morally unacceptable unless and until it

complies with longstanding current laws on abortion funding

such as the Hyde amendment.

We voted on this floor for the Nelson-Hatch amendment which is now not in the bill.

You don't have to take that. You can take Bart Stupak, Democrat from Michigan, who voted for the bill in the House. He says:

It is now not acceptable. A dramatic shift in Federal

policy that would allow the Federal Government to subsidize

insurance policies with abortion coverage.

The American public doesn't want that either. The latest poll of December 22 shows that 72 percent of Americans oppose using any public money in the health care overhaul to pay for abortion, including 54 percent of Democrats and 74 percent of Independents. That is where they are. That is where the public is.

National Right to Life, which is the gold standard on standing up for life, says:

The Reid managers amendment requires that all enrollees in

an abortion covering plan make a separate payment into an

account that will pay for abortions. The bill also contains

language that is intended to prevent or discourage any

insurer from explaining what this surcharge is to be used

for. Moreover, there is nothing in the language to suggest

that payment of the abortion charge is optional for any

enrollee.

This base bill has another thing in it: It takes the individual opt- out and moves to it a State opt-out. So while let's say Kansas may opt out of the abortion funding in the bill, they still have to pay their taxes that go to another State to pay for abortions there which are equally offensive to my people or other States that don't want to see this funding take place.

It doesn't address the issue of having preventive services include abortion. There was discussion that we are not going to include preventive services in it, but that is not in the language. There was discussion. We tried an amendment. That is not there. It can still be defined. Now it may ultimately

unwind the entire bill based upon the funding of abortion that is in the Senate bill. It will be up to House Members, a number of whom are very concerned and quite fired up about this particular piece, to take this out. I know Congressman Stupak is working to do that, wants to see that done, agrees with Senator Nelson that his language is far superior, actually does that. It is supported by the Catholic Bishops, the National Right to Life, and other pro-life groups that say the way to go is the Stupak language.

It is not what is in the Senate bill. The Senate bill will actually fund abortions. Then we go through the specifics, as I have in here, of the various places that it has. I met with Senator Nelson about those specifics. I have addressed a number of those concerns. I know he continues to work on it, but at the end of the day this is one of those babies you cannot split. You need to have the Stupak language in this bill. I am afraid at the end of the day that is not going to be in there. I know Congressman Stupak is pushing very hard for its inclusion, and I wish him all the best.

If this legislation passes this body, it is going to be up to the House of Representatives to put in that Stupak language. And they can do it. It is my hope they will do it. I do not think the overall bill should be passed, but certainly you should not have this piece of funding in this bill, in breaking the longstanding work we have had in the Hyde agreement, in the Hyde language.

Thank you very much, Madam President. How much time do we have remaining on our side?

Madam President, in that concluding minute, what I would like to briefly speak about is the overall process.

I think there are people in this body who did not want to include things such as abortion funding in the bill. But when you operate in a closed process like this, these sorts of things end up happening because the people who work on these issues are excluded. I certainly was not consulted. I am not saying anyone said: Well, look, we are not going to get your vote anyway, so we do not need to have it. But if you do not want to have abortion funding in it, one should look past that and say: Let's get the people who understand and work on this issue-- and we agree, we should not have it in there; that is what President Obama said; it should not be in there--and let's see what language passes by their muster.

That was not done. Unfortunately, that is part of what has happened in this process. I think it is tragic that it has happened that way in this process. I think it is wrong. I think it builds a bill that then people are not satisfied with, and certainly a process they do not agree with that takes place in this overall bill.

It is still not too late. There is still time to address these issues, now that we have the bill to be able to look at. If people of good faith on the other side want to get these addressed, there are ways, and we have the language on how to address it. It is called the Stupak language. It has already passed the House of Representatives. It is called the Nelson-Hatch amendment that was debated here, although it was not passed. We can do that. It is important that it get done.

This bill is not supported by the American public, and particularly this funding piece that is so offensive to so many Americans. We can debate about abortion, but the government should not be funding it, and that is agreed to by over 70 percent of the American public.

I just ask my colleagues on the other side, as you move on forward with this--if this bill passes here--take this piece out. We know what language is agreed to and works. This piece can be taken out. It can be taken out yet. And I think the whole bill may unwind if it is not taken out--unwind because of a number of Democrats who voted for the bill on the House side who want the Stupak language, and they do not want the inferior language that was put in on the Senate side that will actually allow and start the funding of abortion, that we have not done for 30 years.

Madam President, I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would also like to highlight a section of this conference report that means a great deal to many American Indian tribal leaders in this country, to several of my colleagues and to me personally, the Native American apology resolution.

I am very pleased to report that with the addition of this language in the defense appropriations conference report, we--the United States of America--will officially apologize for the past ill-conceived policies and maltreatment by the United States toward the Native peoples of this land.

With the passage of this language, we, as a Nation, will reaffirm our commitment toward healing our Nation's wounds rooted in a difficult past of Federal-tribal relations and work toward establishing better relationships rooted in reconciliation and forgiveness.

Native Americans have a vast and proud legacy on this continent. Long before 1776 and the establishment of the United States of America, native peoples inhabited this land and maintained a powerful physical and spiritual connection to it. In service to the Creator, Native peoples sowed the land, journeyed it, and protected it. The people from my State of Kansas have a similar strong attachment to the land.

Like many in my State, I was raised on the land. I grew up farming and caring for the land. I and many in my State established a connection to this land as well. We care for our Nation and the land of our forefathers so greatly that we too are willing to serve and protect it, as faithful stewards of the creation with which God has blessed us. I believe without a doubt citizens across this great Nation share this sentiment and know its unifying power. Americans have stood side by side for centuries to defend this land we love.

Both the Founding Fathers of the United States and the indigenous tribes that lived here were attached to this land. Both sought to steward and protect it. There were several instances of collegiality and cooperation between our forbears--for example, in Jamestown, VA, Plymouth, MA, and in aid to explorers Lewis and Clark.

Yet, sadly, since the formation of the American Republic, numerous conflicts have ensued between our government, the Federal Government, and many of these tribes, conflicts in which warriors on all sides fought courageously and which all sides suffered. Even from the earliest days of our Republic there existed a sentiment that honorable dealings and a peaceful coexistence were clearly preferable to bloodshed. Indeed, our predecessors in congress in 1787 stated in the northwest ordinance:

``The utmost good faith shall always be observed toward the Indians.''

Today we live up to this goal, today, we right a wrong that has been committed in this Nation.

This amendment extends a formal apology from the United States to tribal governments and Native peoples nationwide--something we have never done; something we should have done years and years ago.

Further, this resolution will not resolve the many challenges still facing Native Americans, nor will it authorize, support or settle any claims against the United States. It doesn't have anything to do with any property claims against the United States. That is specifically set aside and not in this bill.

What this amendment achieves is recognition, honor, and the importance of Native Americans to this land and to the United States in the past and today and offers an official apology for the poor and painful path the U.S. Government sometimes made in relation to our Native brothers and sisters by disregarding our solemn word to Native peoples. It recognizes the negative impact of numerous destructive Federal acts and policies on Native Americans and their culture, and it begins--begins--the effort of reconciliation.

Apologies are oftentimes difficult, but like treaties, go beyond mere words and usher in a true spirit of reconciling past differences and help to pave the way toward a united future--a future that transcends the individual but strives to reach into eternity. The notion of the creation of the ``Beloved Community'' that Dr. King spoke of . . . that my good friend representative John Lewis speaks of is very appropriate at this moment for this time. ``The end is reconciliation, the end is redemption, the end is the creation of the beloved community.'' This is our goal; this is my hope for our Nation united as one people.

Mr. President, I appreciate the chance to hear my colleague from South Dakota speak and talk about the bill. Statements he has made I am in agreement with. This is a huge bill the American public doesn't want. Gallup polling finds 61 percent of the American public oppose the Senate Democratic health care bill. In Kansas, I find widespread opposition--much higher than that. You can look at these numbers and quickly see why. Just one of the pieces of it--the Medicare cuts--will hurt Kansas. There is a 63.7-percent cut in Medicare Advantage. The benefits will affect more than 1 in 10 of Kansas Medicare beneficiaries. Those cuts are to the point that the program will no longer exist.

There is $1.5 billion in cuts to Kansas hospitals--many of our rural hospitals operating on the margins, on the edge. They get cuts. There is $239.8 million in cuts to home health agencies. This is going to put over 60 percent of them out of business in a 10-year timeframe. They don't like this. Great Christmas present.

There is an 11.8-percent cut in hospice payments. Hospice? Of all things to cut. It is a program that has been helpful to so many people late in life, and it is being cut. There is $124.2 million in cuts to skilled nursing facilities. All of those are things being cut directly to Kansans, directly to people who benefit under current programs, and this is all to start a new entitlement program--cuts Medicare and raises taxes, neither of which we can afford. Medicare is already scheduled to go bankrupt, as we well know, so this is like writing a big fat check on an overdrawn bank account and saying we will come up with the money. It is not going to work. It is going to take money from Medicare. It is going to raise taxes in a weak economy. It is going to hurt overall.

One of the issues that has come down to be one of the final pieces of this that the Democrats have put forward is the issue of funding of abortion. We have had 30 years of agreement in this body and in this Capitol that the Federal Government would not fund abortions other than in cases of rape, incest, and saving the life of the mother. That was it.

Thirty years ago, the Hyde amendment was put in place. It said we would not fund abortions. There was a big debate in the country about abortion, but there has been no debate about funding of abortion. We said we are not going to fund it. Taxpayers should not be funding abortions. If people want to do that, that is their choice on elective abortion. We are not going to fund it.

In this bill, we are going to break that amendment for the first time in 30 years.

What the President said in the joint session of Congress is no longer true. This will not be true if this passes in this bill. What the President said in the joint session of Congress:

One more misunderstanding I want to clear up.

I was listening.

Under our plan no Federal dollars will be used to fund

abortions, and Federal conscience laws will remain in place.

I point out that he said ``no Federal dollars'' and ``Federal conscience laws will remain in place.'' He said he wanted to clear up the misunderstanding. This is not the case.

We just got the managers' amendment recently, so this has been feverishly where we have had to go through what is actually in the managers' amendment. What you will find is that all the major pro-life groups are opposed to the managers' amendment because it does fund abortion. I will go through the specifics.

Bart Stupak a Democratic Member on the House side. He has been the lead guy on the House side to say we should continue with the Hyde language. There are disputes about abortions. There is not a dispute about the funding of it by taxpayer money. So Bart Stupak has led a group of Democratic Members on the issue overall and said we are going to pull it out. It is not in the House bill, but now it is in the Senate bill. He says:

Not acceptable . . . a dramatic shift in Federal policy

that would allow the Federal Government to subsidize

insurance policies with abortion coverage.

That is what Bart Stupak says about it. What do some of the other pro-life groups say about what is in the managers' amendment. These groups track this stuff. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which wants a health care bill--I think they are a pretty fair reviewer of this because they want a health care bill to go through, but they are committed to life. They do not want taxpayer money to go to end a child's life. They are opposed to that--completely opposed to that on moral grounds, saying this is the highest moral order that has to be protected. Human life has to be protected, and they say, of this legislation, the managers' amendment:

This legislation should not move forward in its current

form. It should be opposed, unless and until such serious

concerns have been addressed.

This is on the abortion language. Now let's look at the National Right to Life Committee. The National Right to Life Committee--they are the gold standard of review. They have been looking at this issue and tracking it since Roe v. Wade was passed. They are committed to life at all stages, in all places, believing that life is sacred; it is unique; it is beautiful; and it should be protected. What do they say about the managers' amendment? They say:

Light years removed from the Stupak-Pitts amendment that

was approved in the House of Representatives on November 8 by

a bipartisan vote of 240-194.

The new abortion language solves none of the fundamental

abortion-related problems with the Senate bill, and it

actually creates some new abortion-related problems.

Let's go through the specifics, because I think what we should do is go through the specifics of this bill and look at what are the specific areas of concern. Many of the abortion changes that Senator Reid smuggled into his managers' bill behind closed doors make the bill worse than ever before. It violates the Hyde amendment and Hyde principles set in precedent through all other Federal administered health programs like Medicare and Medicaid. It preempts State laws and conflicts with some existing laws on abortion.

Third is the so-called firewall. There is a firewall provision between Federal and private funds. That is inconsistent with the Hyde and Stupak-Pitts amendment. The firewall language is not very fireproof. It is a mere accounting gimmick, where they put the money in one pocket and pay for abortions from the other. It is still money that goes through the Federal Government to the Federal Government to pay for abortions.

Fourth, it departs from the way the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program is governed with respect to private plans covering abortion, so it changes that.

Fifth, it allows executive branch officials to require private health plans to cover abortions simply by defining them as ``preventive care.''

We have debated this piece calling abortions preventive care in committee and on the Senate floor. Both times we have tried to take that out and say preventive care does not include abortions, and we have not been able to get that definition to the point where abortion can still be called preventive care. This is the Mikulski amendment, which mandates that all plans cover abortion by defining abortion as a preventive service. If you just define it as a preventive service, you can pay for it. But it is still being paid for then, and that is in this bill.

No. 6, it inserts text of the Indian health reauthorization bill. That passed last year and didn't get signed into law. It passed this body. That does not contain the Senate-passed Vitter amendment to permanently prohibit coverage of elective abortions in the federally funded Indian health programs.

And, No. 7, basic conscience protections, like the Weldon language, are not included in the Senate version. There are other problems, but these are just seven of the most egregious. I can't imagine that people across the country--certainly people across my State and other places, such as Virginia, Missouri, California, Wisconsin, or anyplace else would agree that the Federal Government should break with longstanding policy against federally funded abortions, but that is exactly what has happened and what is in this bill.

Abortion is not health care. Why is it even in this bill at all? The President himself said that at the joint session of Congress.

At the end of the day, the vote for cloture is an affirmative vote for the Federal funding of abortion. There is no way around that fact. Some people on the Democratic side, particularly Senator Nelson of Nebraska, with whom I have been working closely on this issue, want to keep abortion out of this bill. I believe there are huge flaws still in it. He has been fighting to keep abortion out of it. He said this:

Taxpayers shouldn't be required to pay for abortions.

That is his statement on the issue. He says it should not be in there. He worked to try to get this out. I think there are still enormous flaws and holes in this.

If we start the funding of abortions, the last time we did fund them, over 300,000 were paid for by the Federal Government in a 1-year period of time through Medicaid Programs; 300,000 annually were funded from 1973 to 1976. How many are we looking at now if we start down this road?

We need one Democrat in the Senate who will stand and say this is not taking care of the unborn. This is breaking the Hyde language that many on the other side have supported for years, saying they are pro-choice, but they don't think the Federal Government should fund abortions. This breaks the Hyde language in the six ways I mentioned and, seven, it does not provide for conscious clause protection so someone, maybe they are in a Catholic hospital and they do not agree with providing abortion services. They would be required to do things in certain circumstances--maybe that is not one of them--but certain circumstances to which they would not agree.

This is a big part of this debate, and it has certainly elevated it here. The American public does not want the abortion language in the bill. Mr. President, 6 in 10, in a CNN survey, say they do not want it in this bill. In fact, one-quarter of House Democrats voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment. That is the compromise that continued on the Hyde principle and said we will not fund this.

National Right to Life, I mentioned earlier, goes through some of the specifics on this language.

I will just say, where we are right now all seems so odd to me. We are in the final days of Advent season. We are here when we should be home with our families. I am missing a lot of the celebration of the Christmas season. This is the final days of Advent. Advent is the season of anticipating the birth of a child. It is a season of joy, a season of happiness. You are looking forward to the day of the birth of Christ, December 25. That is the season we are in right now. It is a season of joy. How sad we might see the end of lives of children in this bill, in this season of joy. It does not have to be that way. It should not be that way.

But now this is, I believe, the central issue in this health care debate. If this body passes this bill--and I do not think it should--it goes back to the House of Representatives, where Congressman Stupak and a group of others

have said they will not support the language if it has the abortion language.

The issue of funding abortion has now become a central issue in the health care debate. It should not be there. It is wrong. It is opposed by the American public. I ask my colleagues on the other side, please, please, please take this out. It does not belong here. It is not the thing to do. It is harmful. It is hurtful to the country, and it does not belong anywhere near the health care bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of the most distinguished and recognized organizations for young people in the United States, the Boy Scouts of America. Specifically, I want to recognize its tremendous efforts to uphold the principle of service to others.

Today, the Boy Scouts of America is the largest youth service organization with nearly 3 million members. Its teachings of citizenship, character development, and self-reliance are those which all Americans should strive to emulate in their daily lives. The programs give participants the opportunity to engage in a wide range of outdoor activities, education programs, and career-oriented programs in partnership with many community organizations. Boy Scouts of America celebrates 100 years of service on February 8, 2010, with the theme ``Celebrating the Adventure, Continuing the Journey.'' This motto will serve its members as they continue teaching the necessary skills to many more generations to come.

I want to recognize the efforts of the Jayhawk Area Council in northeast Kansas. These members are planning for the next 100 years of Scouting through their ``Building Tomorrow's Leaders'' project. This is just one of many projects that will honor the spirit of service in communities of Scouts across the Nation.

Boy Scouts of America recognizes that young leaders are developed over time, and has expanded its programs to help young men and women up to 20 years of age through Venturing Crews, Explorer Posts, and the Learning for Life groups. These programs have been shown to be meaningful and to improve a Scout's likelihood for success as an adult and enhance the quality of life in the community where he resides. Boy Scouts of America has kept up with the evolving and changing needs of our Nation, by adding programs in areas such as environmental ethics and responsibility. President Dwight Eisenhower recognized the contributions of the Boy Scouts 56 years ago when he praised the organization, as it ``yearly enriches our Nation, and contributes generously to the economic, physical and spiritual resources of the country.''

Mr. President, the Boy Scouts of America have helped shape young people of America for the past 100 years. This achievement is one to be celebrated, and I hope many of my colleges will join me in wishing this organization the best for the next 100 years.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use 5 minutes of Senator McConnell's time--the Republican leader's time.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for this opportunity to address the Lautenberg amendment and speak in favor of the Lautenberg amendment.

I oppose the base bill. I oppose the bill overall. I have spoken a number of times in opposition to the overall bill. It is way too expensive, it cuts Medicare, raises taxes, and inserts the funding of abortion, which is something we haven't looked at in 30 years. The Hyde language has not allowed funding of abortion, and instead this does and puts it in, and I think it will result in poorer health care for a number of Americans.

But the issue I rise on today is on the Lautenberg amendment, and in support of the Lautenberg amendment. This is an amendment we have seen in this body four times previously over the last 10 years. Each time the Lautenberg amendment has passed overwhelmingly, and that is because of the safety concerns for drugs coming into the United States.

I would note that Secretary Sebelius, Secretary of HHS--Health and Human Services--who before being named to this position was the Governor of the State of Kansas for 6 years, with whom I worked over the years, through her office has stated they cannot basically certify the safety of these drugs.

There is a letter that has been gone over in some depth and length from the Food and Drug Commissioner saying that it is going to be very difficult for them to certify the safety of these drugs. Yet what the Lautenberg amendment does is it says: OK, if you can certify safety, and this is going to reduce the price, then they can be admitted.

That seems to make sense. That is why 4 times over the last 10 years this body has passed the Lautenberg amendment, or an equivalent, and I think that is appropriate.

I would also note there is a huge industry in the United States--the pharmaceutical industry--that is quite concerned about the safety and efficacy of what this bill would do in not allowing the safety of the drugs if you don't pass a Lautenberg amendment. They are very concerned about that. And toward that regard, I will read pieces of a letter sent to me by Kansas Bio. It is the Kansas Biosciences Organization. They sent this letter to me saying:

On behalf of the members of Kansas Bio, please accept this

letter in opposition to Senator Dorgan's drug importation

amendment to the health care reform legislation which may be

voted on by the Senate. We believe that the promotion of drug

importation is an extremely risky endeavor which threatens

the livelihood of one of Kansas' fastest growing bioscience

industry sectors--the service providers to our Nation's and

our world's drug development and delivery companies.

KansasBio is an industry organization representing over 150

bioscience companies, academic institutions, State

affiliates, and related economic development organizations in

the State of Kansas, throughout the Kansas City region. . . .

Senator Dorgan's amendment opens up the risk of allowing

foreign drugs that do not have FDA approval into the United

States and thereby posing significant health and safety risks

to the patients.

It is signed by the president and CEO, Angela Kreps, of KansasBio.

I am ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and the Food and Drug Administration, so I am keenly interested in the committee structure in this issue.

In addition, the University of Kansas in my State, in addition to having the top-ranked basketball team in the country, has the top- ranked pharmaceutical school in the country. They are a part of KansasBio and concerned about the Dorgan amendment in place. That is why they support things like the Lautenberg amendment which assure two things: that you have safety and that any value in this proposal is passed along to the consumer.

The FDA has been tasked with the responsibility of safeguarding this country's prescription drug supply and has executed that responsibility, I believe, quite well. It would be unwise for this body, then, to not value their opinions in regard to this matter. The Lautenberg amendment counts on the FDA expertise and proven track record and permits legal importation of prescription drugs into the United States only if Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary Sebelius in this administration, as head of the FDA, can certify to Congress that prescription drug importation will do two things: No. 1, pose no additional risk to the public health and safety; and, No. 2, result in a significant reduction in the cost of covered products to the American consumer. The safety and cost savings certification amendment would restore this language.

The Lautenberg amendment does that. This Congress must require a safety and cost savings certification from the Secretary of HHS before opening the floodgates of drug importation. Requiring this certification is the responsible way to ensure that American citizens will be protected from potentially life-threatening counterfeit, contaminated, or diluted prescription drugs.

As I mentioned, the Senate has voted on this previously four times, each time overwhelmingly adopting something like the Lautenberg amendment. As many of my colleagues may remember, the safety and cost savings certification was first signed into law when the Senate passed the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act of 2000. During that debate, concerns were raised by many in this body that drug importation would expose Americans to counterfeit and polluted prescription drugs. To alleviate these well-documented fears, the Senate passed this second- degree amendment then unanimously.

To date, as noted earlier, no HHS Secretary has been able to certify that drug importation will not pose a significant health and safety threat. For those reasons, I support the Lautenberg amendment.

I yield the floor.