get, you would not win the mac, finally, that you might end up not getting merrill lynch in any sense even after paying the fines, we felt because of all those factors that it was in our best interest as bank of america shareholder's best interest to go through with the merger. ..

to us today, fed officials concluded that you must have known about the accelerating losses at merrill much earlier, as early as mid-november when your shareholders could have voted to disapprove the merger. now, an email from a senior advisor sent to assistant to chairman bernanke on december 13th, 2008, and it's up there on the board for everyone to see, writes of clear signs in the data we have that the deterioration at merrill lynch has been observably underway over the entire quarter, albeit, picking up significantly around mid-november. ken lewis claimed they were surprised by the rapid growth of the losses, it seemed somewhat suspect, unquote.

another memo, restricted federal reserve analysis of bank of america and merrill lynch merger dated december 21st, 2008. bac management contention that the severity of merrill's losses only came to light in recent days is problematic and implies substantial deficiencies and the due diligence in the acquisition were clearly shown in merrill lynch's internal risk management reports that bank of america reviewed during their due diligence, unquote. and then there's an email from the fed general council to chairman bernanke on december 23rd, 2008, quote, lewis should have been aware of the problems of merrill lynch earlier, perhaps as early as mid-november. and not caught by surprise. that could cause other problems

for him around the disclosures bank of america made for the shareholder vote. now, mr. lewis, i'm going to ask you a series of simple questions and if you're not forthcoming, i'm not going to have any choice but to interrupt you and ask -- i'm asking for your cooperation. isn't it true that bank of america examined merrill lynch's book of businesses before signing the merger agreement and then received detailed financial reports every week from merrill lynch after signing the merger agreement on september 15th? >> that is true. >> and isn't it true that the merrill losses of mid-december, that you claim motivated you to go to the government were not the largest week to week losses at merrill you observed since agreeing to purchase the company. in fact, wasn't the week to week loss experienced in mid-november larger than the one in

mid-december? >> the losses that were -- that were causing this forecast to increase were partly based on losses in november. so i'm not saying that the losses in that time frame were what caused the increase. it was the increased projections of the losses based on some of those losses in november. >> mr. chairman, i move to insert into the record a bar graph representing the week to week losses reported by merrill lynch to bank of america which clearly shows that the mid-november loss exceeded the one in mid-december. >> without objection. >> i also move to insert an analysis by a statistics expert finding that the mid-november loss should have alerted bank of america to an accelerating deterioration in merrill lynch and the loss evident in mid-december merely confirms a trend apparent in mid-november.

now, mr. lewis, isn't it true that you understood the composition and performance of merrill's portfolio because it was similar to your own in that it was a portfolio that contained complex structured derivative products, isn't it true? >> it is true. the issue, though, is nobody predicted a meltdown that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2008. >> but you were getting -- you were getting weekly reports, and you certainly understood merrill because of the similarities in the composition and performance of their portfolio. now, our investigation found that the fed believed you should have understood the potential for losses at merrill because your own portfolio was similar to merrill's. i want you to look at the following from the fed's restricted analysis of bank of america and the merrill lynch merger dated december 21st,

2008. quote, the potential for losses from other risk exposures cited by management including those coming from leverage loans and trading in complex-structured derivative products, what they also call correlation trading, should also have been reasonably well understood particularly as bank of america itself is also active in these products, unquote. now, mr. lewis, how do you explain the apparent contradiction between your sworn testimony and the fed's findings that you knew about the acceleration and losses and the potential for future losses as early as mid-november? >> i can only tell you what i just said. that part of the november losses were causing this projection that we were getting in december.

and so they were a factor in the increased -- in the increased projection. >> my time has expired. so let me yield now to the ranking member from the california, congressman issa for his 10 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman at this time i would like to ask unanimous consent all opening statements by all members be allowed to be inserted into the record. >> without objection. >> i would ask unanimous consent that the minority background memo as well as documents referred to in it be included in the hearing record. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. lewis, in your 35 years, how many acquisitions, including stock trades, would you say you have been involved in roughly? including boards you sat on and, you know, were involved in some way. >> off the top of my head, 10. >> okay. and the hundreds that you have looked at in your review of other people's, competitors

transactions and so on, isn't it true that it is fairly common to get down the road -- particularly in a stock transaction and find that the original anticipated ratio has changed or not favorably and it's often written into the contracts that there are certain break points based on a material change in stock trading or other material facts such as you had in your mac agreement. >> right. >> the fed should not have been surprised that that would be questioned as this very turbulent market continued to have a number of changes in what was going on at bfa or at merrill lynch. well, let me just say this, were you at all surprised that there were day-to-day, week to week

changes that you had to evaluate and what they really met over a much longer period during this turbulent time? >> the way i would characterize it, not speaking for the fed but somebody on the someone who was familiar with mergers and acquisitions had that person known that we had not strongly considered a material adverse change. they would have thought we were asleep at the switch. >> and as a fiduciary to your corporation, now the combined, but at that time bofa, doesn't you have a responsibility to weigh that in fact when in doubt assert the possibility -- in other words you had to err and look on the material adverse change and not assume it was there. you had to assume that it could thereby and you had to look for it. >> when we saw the acceleration, yes, sir. >> i don't want to spend a lot of time on that part of it

because i think it's beyond the purview of this committee. but on december 17th, when you called chairman bernanke and secretary paulson to tell them you were thinking of exercising the mac clause in which you had an obligation to consider, were you motivated to do so because of your fiduciary obligation to your shoulders. -- stockholders? >> i was, sir. >> but to the extent that you were borrowing or potentially borrowing money from taxpayer money, was that really -- let me put it this way, that was still borrowed money. it wasn't a different. you were not trying to renegotiate a different from the government or even the amount of money coming from them if you had cited and they had said,

yes, go ahead and exercise that clause, would the more likely outcome change have been a difference in the purchase price of merrill lynch relative to boa. >> that is one possibility but i can't predict the future, obviously. >> and when you looked at the material adverse clause and particularly the losses that were building up, did you do so as a -- as an officer of a regulated company who if your -- if your capital dropped below a certain point could be, in fact, closed by the fdic? in other words, were you protecting boa's position that you not take an anchor that could lead to insolvency of your own company? >> yes, that was a factor. >> so we have a combination of what was merrill really worth relative to what they were getting in boa stock and as a regulated entity, the real risk

if you did not ensure that boa's capital base was sufficient -- we recently had the stress test, obviously, sufficient to be a growing concern? >> i want to at least make sure i get full disclosure here. if we had done this deal at least our tier 1 ratio which is one the regulators look at the most would still have been well overcapitalized but it would have been under our internal objective and would have been a relatively low ratio in this environment. >> so today's hearing, at least from this member's standpoint, is really about whether or not the government asserted either strong influence that would be outside the ordinary influence one would expect from a neutral

party or -- and whether or not you felt that there was an implied threat either to yourself, your board, or your company in any of the verbal or written correspondence you had with government officials including bernanke and paulson? >> well, there was the -- there was the strong advice that i just -- you know, that i just mentioned. i do want to -- >> i realize that you don't want to characterize it as a threat or any one word. >> right. >> but did you feel that you were being pressured to go through with the deal at least as strongly as that salesman trying to sell you the car and get you to close or the insurance salesman. were they advocating strongly and using both positive and negative forces to do so in those conversations? >> yes, sir, but i think it was in the context of them thinking

that was in the best interest of bank of america and the financial system. >> i'm going to call you to task a little bit. you said the best interest of bank of america and the financial system -- i'm not going to quickly over their motives on the financial system. but why do you say bank of america -- did you believe that they really believed this was a good deal for bank of america even though you were seeing a change which would have affected your arms-length negotiation of a price? >> well, their concern, obviously, was from the top and that is for the financial system. but we're so intertwined with the financial system, i think they thought that by us -- by all of this happening and the uncertainty coming back in the financial system, that, in fact, that would hurt the system and us. >> when you say bank of america, you really mean the financial system and as a member of the financial system, you would be affected? >> yes. >> but if they went and sold it

to somebody else or lowered the price and packaged it up or if merrill lynch had gone through a bankruptcy and been offered to you free and clear all of those alternatives, strictly relative to bank of america, would have been either better or at least no worse? >> yes. i can't speak to that, but those would be options, but i can't speak to whether it would be better or worse. >> okay, my last question and i'm going to yield to one of the other members, if you did not have the government at the table, and i know that's hypothetical -- but if you did not have the government at the table, would you have, a, asserted the clause? and, b, either walked away or substantially changed the deal? >> it didn't happen that way and so it's hard for me to project what i would have ultimately done. but, obviously, we were strongly considering it.

>> so it would be somewhere between possible and likely? >> i don't know how to characterize it. i'll stick to what -- how i described it, i think. >> thank you. and your constituent, mr. mchenry will control the balance of my time. >> thank you, ranking member issa. mr. lewis you've been with bank of america and its predecessor companies for how long? >> september will be 40 years. >> 40 years. how many mergers or acquisitions have you personally been involved with in your career? >> i would have to take a few moments and count them up. but, obviously, probably more than one, less than 10. >> okay. okay. would this be the largest merger or acquisition that your company and the predecessor companies have taken? >> no. the nation's bank, bank of america, acquisition, probably would have been -- i would have

to think back to the market caps and that would be the biggest and this would be one of the biggest certainly. >> in terms of how you analyze these deals, do you have a process within your bank to analyze appropriate growth measures and acquiring other institutions or merging with other institution isn't it so >> we do. >> you do. and did you conduct that same method with this merrill acquisition? >> yes, we did. we used the same methodology. >> okay. my time has expired and i've got other questions in that regard later. thank you. >> thank you very much. and let me now yield to the chairman of the subcommittee, mr. kucinich for 5 minutes. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, our investigation, mr. lewis, also finds that fed officials believed that you were potentially liable for violating security laws by withholding material information in your

possession from shareholders before the vote to approve the merger with merrill lynch on december 5th, 2008. mr. lewis, please look at the following email from the fed's general council to chairman bernanke on december 23rd, 2008, quote, a different question that doesn't seem to be the one lewis is focused on is related to disclosure. management may be exposed if it doesn't properly disclose information that is material to investors. this potential liability here will be whether he knew or reasonably should have known the magnitude of merrill lynch losses when bank of america made its disclosure to get the shareholder vote on the merrill lynch deal in early december, unquote. mr. lewis, did bank of america supplement the proxy solicitation it sent to shareholders with what the company learned in mid-november about the rapidly mounting losses and potential for future losses at merrill lynch before the shareholder vote on december

5th? >> congressman, we take disclosure very, very seriously. if that -- >> were there supplements? >> if anybody in our legal group had suggested we do anything of that nature, we would have done it. >> there were no supplements, isn't that right? >> there was no suggestions to have a supplements. >> okay. so mr. lewis, look at the following email that circulated among officials at the richmond fed on december 23rd, 2008. quote, i think he's worried about stockholder suits. knows they did not do a good job of due diligence, and the issues facing the company are finally hitting home and he's worried about his own job after cutting loose lots of very good people, unquote. now, mr. lewis, was your decision to tell the government you were considering invoking a mac which, of course, refers to a clause in a merger agreement that allows the acquirer to abandon the deal if a material adverse change is judged to have

occurred -- was your threat to invoke a mac was, in fact, a strategy you deployed to protect yourself from shareholder lawsuits? >> no, it was not. >> isn't it true, mr. lewis, that during the course of your conversations with chairman bernanke and secretary paulson, you, in fact, requested a letter from the government saying that the government ordered you to close the deal to acquire merrill? >> no. that was not what i asked for. our board was concerned -- >> your answer is no? are you sure that's your answer? >> our board was concerned that we had verbal assurances but had nothing in writing about getting some assistance. and so i called chairman bernanke and asked him -- >> but you're referring to a different letter. i'm talking about a letter -- you requested a letter from the government saying that the government ordered you to close the deal to acquire merrill. wasn't there such a letter? >> i don't recall such a letter. >> you're under oath but your answer is you don't recall. >> i do not recall.

>> isn't it true that your request of that letter was motivated by your desire to protect yourself from your shareholders? >> sir, if i can't recall it, i can't answer the second question. >> well, our investigation reveals that chairman bernanke believed that your request for such a letter was motivated by a desire to protect you from shareholder lawsuits as demonstrated in this email from chairman bernanke to the fed's general counsel on december 23rd, 2008, and i quote, he, speaking of you, mr. lewis, said he now fears lawsuits from shareholders for not invoking the mac giving the deterioration at merrill lynch, he, they're speaking of you, mr. lewis, still asked whether he could use as a defense that the government ordered him to proceed for systemic reasons. i said no, unquote. this is from chairman bernanke. mr. lewis, is chairman bernanke's email describing his

call with you an accurate statement of your concerns and of bank of america's situation? >> i can't recall the exact email but we did have -- we did have concerns and we wanted some assurances that they would support our position. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. i now yield to the ranking member of ohio, mr. jordan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me go back to this so-called threat concern here, mr. lewis. i just want to be clear on december 17th when you called mr. paulson and mr. bank of america, did you -- i just want to know the nature of your call. did you see we are going to exercise the mac clause or did you say we are thinking about exercising the mac clause? >> again, it seems like a long time ago. to the best of my recollection i said we're strongly considering a mac. >> so in other words, the response that you then got changed your decision?

you were going to exercise the clause? you thought that was the best interest of your bank, of your shareholders. you were going to do it and what the government told you -- based on what the government told you, you took a different course? >> no, sir. it was a factor because they felt so strongly. but it was not the only factor in making a decision. we also thought after a lot of consideration that there was downside risk in not winning the mac. >> let me change direction because we talk a lot about this. i want to get to just a big concern i have with the unprecedented level of involvement the government now has in the private sector in way too many industries in my judgment. and let me provide a little context. i was on a conference call a week ago sunday with members of the auto task force talking about the gm situation. i happen to come from car country as i said in i-opening statement. we had a gm plant that was closed a week ago monday. 800 jobs and families.

the night before that announcement, we were on this conference call. members of the task force talked about what was going to happen. and one member of the auto task force said we are not going to run general motors. we will only get involved if there's a major event, and -- major event was the language he used. and they explained the whole deal. when we got done, i asked the question -- it was mr. sperling who made that statement. i said, mr. sperling, define major event, you know, define what's major. and i said because it's going to be pretty major tomorrow in our district when 800 people are going to find out they're not going to have a job. he didn't have a definition. he said we don't have a working definition. it would be something along the lines of a merger, a major change of corporate structure. basically, it could be any darn thing they wanted it to be. so my question to you is, what day-to-day involvement does the government have in decisions you are making relative to t.a.r.p.

funds, relative -- talk about -- if any, talk about -- talk about that if you would, please. >> well, there is the -- there is an oversight committee, a t.a.r.p. committee, that actually does look at our lending and seeing if we're using the t.a.r.p. funds to lend money and so that is a report we just requested. there obviously is the involvement of our regulators as they normally would be. >> i'm talking over that. more than that. >> the only -- the only involvement that would be explicit would be after we were ordered to attain more capital in this stress test. they did stress to all banks who were raising that capital to relook at their boards for financial expertise and to look at their management and succession as part of this process and we have been doing that. but no day-to-day decisions made by regulators.

>> okay. talk to me about t.a.r.p. dollars -- t.a.r.p. funds you have. any kind of undue influence you felt there in relation to when you initially accepted the t.a.r.p. dollars? >> no undue influence, no, sir >> okay. i'll be happy to yield to the ranking member. >> thank you. and just a couple of follow-ups. although the threat seems to have been stated, whether or not it influenced you, to your understanding under u.s. law -- and i realize we're not asking a banker to be a lawyer, but does the federal reserve chairman have the right to fire you or any member of your board? >> i think there's something called a cease-and-desist which gives them power to make -- to do things like that, but i've been told that. i haven't read that myself. >> okay.

and the u.s. treasury secretary, any similar power? >> no, sir. i don't think he would have the power. >> okay, but when acting in concert, you would perceive that threat to be real. that he could execute on that threat of having you and/or your board relieved? >> my perception was that he was speaking on behalf of himself and the regulators and my perception was in concert they would have that power. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. i now yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania who has been working on these issues for more than 20 years. >> bank of america has business relations with 98% of the fortune 500 companies. what i want to know is, what are the 10 companies that aren't doing business? [laughter] >> i don't know. but it's a very interesting question. >> get home and check that.

>> mr. lewis, in some regard, we have important questions here that we're trying to resolve with reforming regulatory authority in the united states. so to that extent, these hearings are helpful. but i don't hear anything, thus far, either by my colleagues or yourself in responding that there was some perceived threat or abusive action. so i'm going to ask you directly, do you think mr. bernanke or anyone working under the federal reserve chairman took unauthorized, illegal or improper action toward you or the bank of america during these trying times? >> i do not. i would say they strongly advised and they spoke in strong terms, but i thought it was with good intention. >> if i had to characterize it, i was thinking that if the titanic were going down and some of us were in the life rafts it

sounds like an argument of the captain and someone that's in the water and they're refusing to get on board and he's ordering them to get on board. is that not dissimilar to what happened here on this mid-september to december period of time when all of us admittedly had our hair on fire. >> and i think they saw probably with their perspective, they saw rougher seas ahead that no one institution would be able to see. >> that was a portion of a hearing on the merger between bank of america and merrill lynch from last month. later today, live on c-span.org, former treasury secretary henry paulson testifies on the federal government's role in that merger. live at 10:00 am eastern. that'll be on c-span.org. today on the u.s. senate they'll continue work on the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill. senators expected to resume debate on a hate crimes amendment offered by senator patrick leahy of vermont.

now live senate coverage on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o god, our refuge and strength, whose compassion encompasses humanity and whose mercy never fails, empower our senators to be partners with you in your redeeming purposes for this earth. remind them that the only greatness they will ever know is

linked to your transforming might. as they strive to please you, make them seekers after peace, justice, and freedom. transform this storied chamber of our legislative branch into a place of vision, a lighthouse of hope, and a source of solace for those battered by the raging floods of life. may the members of this body become architects of a new order of peace and justice for the people of our world. we pray in your holy name.

amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, july 16, 2009. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten e. gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, president pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, there will be a period of morning business today for an hour. the republicans will control the

first 30 minutes, and the majority will control the second 30 minutes. following that morning business, the senate will resume consideration of the defense bill. today we have two matters that are pending. one is the f-22. in the bill there is a provision to provide an extra $1.75 billion for more f-22's. senators levin and mccain, the two managers of the bill, have offered an amendment to strike that. i would hope that we could have a vote on that today. that's been pending for several days. in addition to that, madam president, we will have a vote in the next 14 hours on the hate crimes amendment to this legislation. we can either do it earlier today or after midnight tonight, but we are going to do it before we adjourn here today. madam president, i have five children, and as they've grown,

we've moved on a number of occasions, but i have been able to keep as one of my prized possessions -- it brings back memories of my younger days -- a number of things p. if you have children, as the presiding officer knows, it's hard to keep things from being broken or misplaced, but i have a number of things that i've been able to keep. one is the badge that i wore when i was a capitol policeman here on capitol hill. i still have that. it is in my conference room and occasionally i look up and see that, and it reminds me of my days here in a different capacity, as a police officer. madam president, i came to washington, d.c., as a young man to get my law degree. i had a wife and a little baby, and i worked from 3:00 to 11:00

every night, except sunday. i went to law school full-time. but my time as a capitol policeman was really something i'll always remember. we didn't have the training that the police officers have today, and that is a gross understatement. we had very, very little training. but i carried my six-shooter and my uniform, which i still have some pictures of that, and i am very proud of that. i didn't do anything dangerous, madam president. i've said here on the senate floor before, the most dangerous thing i did was direct traffic. i say that because the old streetcar traction caused the -- the old street car tracks caused the trains to bump around.

so having had little experience as a police officer in the sense that we now see these police officers protecting us, i really have a deep and genuine appreciation for the sacrifices the men and women who are capitol police officers -- when i was a capitol policeman, all men, no woman, but now all over the capitol complex there are hundreds of women who help protect us. the reason i mention this brief introduction, madam president, is yesterday afternoon our capitol police, once again, did their jobs with great bravery and skill, and fortuitously, this came at such an interesting time. next week, a week from tomorrow, we're going to have a ceremony here in the capitol, as we do

every year -- i believe this is the 11th year -- where we recognize the bravery of two capitol police officers who were killed -- officers chestnut and gibson. gibson i knew. we were on a senate retreat in virginia, and my wife became ill, and gibson is the man that ran, with all the pair if he nail yarks to make sure she was going to be okay. he was profusely perspiring and i still can remember very clearly this wonderful, hard-working man who came to save my wife. well, these two officers were killed in the process of their being murdered from a madman -- by a madman. we don't know how many people's lives were saved in the capitol complex, but it was the impetus that caused us to complete this great capitol visitor center

that we have. it's a sacrifice that they certainly didn't intend to makers but they did make -- that they didn't intend to make, but they did make because of their training and skill. yesterday a man fled a traffic stop driving around erratically around capitol hill. we don't know all the details but we do know that he struck a parked car and we understand now a motorcycle and a capitol police car and almost ran over two police officers. when he got out of the car -- and that's a block from where we are right now -- he came with an uzi-type weapon, semi automatic weapon, started firing at police and anyone else around. fortunately, the capitol police officers stopped him before he had a chance to do anymore. he was shot numerous times, as was required with the circumstances.

but the interesting part about this, madam president, is what did the police officers do when the firing stopped? when you could no longer hear the bullets? they immediately ran over and administered first aid to this domestic terrorist. they tried to save the life of a man who just seconds earlier tried to take theirs. i don't know how we define "heroism," but i think that's a pretty good description. an investigation is, of course, under way. we don't know all the details nor can we know how many lives these officers saved yesterday. and we can't sufficiently thank them for what they did. but i can say, without any equivocation, and on behalf of the entire united states senate, we appreciate each of you and admire what you do. madam president, wherever we go on this capitol complex, there

are people looking over us. that is the way it always was, but now with terrorism being a war raged against our great country, we have to have all these police officers to protect, not only us but all the people that come here on a daily basis. we have people who we can see in uniform, we have people we don't know they're police officers, but the -- in plain clothes. so we deeply value the honorable work that these men and women do for us every day, putting their lives on the line to protect people they don't know.

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: madam president, i want to join my colleague, the majority leader, in extending my appreciation to or marvelous capitol police force. we were reminded in a very vivid way yesterday that they are on constant alert and that they are in constant danger. fortunately, incidents like the one that took place yesterday are rare. we're all glad for that, and we're glad that we have such a professional, well-trained, and courageous group of men and women to keep us safe day in and day out. they're always ready, and on behalf of the entire senate family, i want to express my appreciation for their hard work and their courage in the line of duty.

now, madam president, on another issue, for the past several weeks, i've come down to the senate floor just about every day we've been in session and brought a very simple message. americans want health care reform, and both parties want to deliver that reform. what americans don't want is a government takeover masked as a reform that leaves them paying more for less. and they don't want us to rush something as important and as personal as health care reform just to have something to brag about at a parade or a press conference. so it was perplexing to hear the president yesterday say that the status quo is not an option. i can't think of a single person in washington who disagrees with that statement.

we all agree the status quo is not an option. no one is defending the status quo, that i am a aware of. no one. what we're defending is the right of the american people to know -- to know what they're getting into, the exact details, and the cost. that leads me to another distressing aspect of the administration's approach to this debate. the artificial time line for reform. the president has said he wants to see a health care reform bill out of the senate in three weeks and on his desk in october. his rationale seems to be the same as it was during the debate over the stimulus. the economy is in bad shairntion so health care reform has to happen right away. certainly the two are connected, but the problem is that many of the democrat proposals we've

seen wouldn't pack the situation better; they'd make it even worse. and due to our current financial situation we need to be more careful how we spend our money -- not less. we saw the consequences of carelessness on the stimulus bill. we rushed that. and americans got burned. we must not make that mistake again. but we can start with a point of real agreement. americans want reform but they want us to be careful. an artificial deadline virtually guarantees a defective product. virtually guarantee a defective product. look no further than the drafts coming out of the house and senate this very week. both of them are shot through with weaknesses and deficiencies typical of a rush job.

first they cost way too much. according to early estimates the house bill would cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years and yet -- listen to this -- it still wouldn't cover all the uninsured. it includes a new tax on small business. that could keep companies from hiring low-wage employees. it creates a new nationwide government-run health plan that could force millions off their current insurance. and one of the worst parts is advocates of the house bill want small businesses and seniors to pay for it. small businesses and seniors they want to pay for it. businesses would pay through new taxes, seniors through cuts to medicare -- cuts that hospitals in my home state simply can't

sustain. i've talked to the hospitals in kentucky who are really worried about the impact these medicare cuts would have on the services that kentucky hospitals currently provide to seniors. i'd encourage all of my colleagues to talk to the people who care for patients day in and day out at hospitals in their own states and see what they have to say about this proposal. it may be a lot different than what some of the interest groups here in walk are saying. small businesses are worried, too. at a time when the unemployment rate is already approaching 10% the new tax on small business will inof thebly leaof inevitabb losses and business groups who have seen details of the house bill warn it would certainly kill jobs. under the house bill, taxes on some small businesses could rise

as high as roughly 45%. let my say that again: taxes on small business up to 45%. meaning their tax rate would be about 30% higher than the rate for big corporations. so small businesses which employ 60% to 80% of our people get a bigger tax increase than big corporations. madam president, it's worth asking request small businesses which as i indicated create about two-thirds of the new jobs in this country over the last 10 years get hit so hard under the house bill. is it because they can't fight back as hard as big businesses? either way, the house bill would lead to some small businesses paying higher taxes than big businesses even though the u.s. corporate rate for all of our corporations is already one of the highest in the world.

the senate bill is just as bad. as currently written the "help" committee bill would increase the federal deficit by at least $645 billion -- at least that much. if you add all the medicaid changes the "help" committee anticipates it increases the federal deficit by more than $1 trillion at a time we're already spending about $500 million a day just on interest on the national debt so far this year. $500 million a day in interest on the national debt so far this year. it, too, would kill jobs by requiring businesses to either ensure all of their employees or pay a tax if they don't. it would levee a tax on those americans who don't have or can't afford health insurance. it also fails to reform

malpractice laws. it spends billions on projects unrelated to the crisis at hand. it forces millions of americans off of their country plan. forces millions of americans off of their current plan despite repeated assurances from the administration that it doesn't. and like the house bill, it creates a nationwide government plan that could lead to the same kind of denial, delay, and rationing of care that we see in other countries. health care reform is vital but it's not easy. and if the house bill and the help bill are any indication it certainly is not something that should be rushed. both bills are too expensive particularly for small businesses and seniors, too disruptive of the health care americans currently have and they're ineffective in dressing the health care problem -- in

addressing the health care problem in its entirety. americans have a right to expect we'll take enough time on this legislation hot to make the same mistake we made on the stimulus. the house and senate bills we've seen this week show we're not there yet. not even close. we need to slow down and let the american people see what they're getting into with these so-called "reformforms." we all want reform but we want the right reform. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. corker: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be vitiated. i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will proceed to a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the time is equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the second half. mr. corker: madam president, thank you. i rise today to speak about where we find ourselves today. this is a momentous time in our country's history as all of us in both bodies on both sides of the aisle find ourselves focused on the issue of health care reform. madam president, in the middle 1990's i had the tremendous

honor of serving the state of tennessee in a position that allowed in toe oversee the state's medicaid program and many other programs in our state that focused on the needs of many of the underserved in our state. since that time i have been convinced we, all of us, have a moral responsibility, to do everything we can in this country to ensure americans of all walks of life have the tune for affordable, quality, private health insurance. madam president, i've probably attended 50 meetings in the last 90 days working with others toward that end. i am convinced there are at least 90 people in this body that share the goal of ensuring we have the -- that americans of all walks of life have the opportunity for affordable,

quality health care. it's my home we will end up with a bipartisan shiewtion. i have been very disappointed in the results, though, of legislation that has come forward thus far. my sense is that the house of representatives is promoting a bill this to me does not meet the mark. the "help" committee just passed out on party-line vote a bill that, again, does not meet the mark. madam president, what concerns me is there are so many things that i think we could agree on and yet we tend to focus on those things that are out of bounds and really don't take us to the place we would all like to be. and it is to that end i rise today to talk about this issue. madam president, i think all of us know our country has seen unprecedenented debt levels. the leader of the republican senate just spoke about that

issue. i know the president in some ways found himself in this place but on the other hand, since being in office, has accumulated debt on top of debt for future conventions. all of us understand our biggest observations exist in entitlements with medicare and social security and i think that most of us thought as we came into this congress one of the major focuses we would have would be to get our entitlements under control so while we're doing this unprecedented short-term spending which i oppose, while that is occurring, at least the world community would realize we're trying to tackle our long-term obligations so they would continue to buy our bonds in order we can go on here in this country. i hoped very strongly we would focus on that and we have a bipartisan bill, by the way, supported by republicans and

democrats to do just that. what's happened, though, and this is pretty unfathomable to me, during this health care reform, what has been focused on is medicare which has a $38 trillion unfunded liability, a program where the trustees have said that it is insolvent and is going to be going into the hole in a huge way in just eight years. what is being discussed in this body and what has already been agreed to by many on the house side is taking money from medicare, a program which is insolvent, one that, instead of taking money from we should be trying to make solvent but we're taking money from that program to create a whole new set of entitlements that, again, will add incredible amounts of debt to our country's balance sheets. madam president, it is, again,

almost unfathomable to believe that people in this body would be looking to make a program that is insolvent even more insolvent by leveraging it to create another program. for that reason, because i know the finance committee is in meetings in small groups but also as a committee, to try to figure out a way to solve this health care problem, it's my home they will do it in a way that makes sense; in a way that builds bipartisan support. to that end i have delivered today to the majority leader of the senate a letter signed by 35 senators, making this body, making the president, aware of the fact that we will not support further subsequent diezin -- furtherjeopardizing ty

using it to leverage a new entitlement. it is my hope in delivering the letter -- and we have 35 signatures at this moment; there will be more added -- while these are all republican signatures i think there are many on the other side of the aisle that question greatly leveraging an insolvent program for a new program. i have delivered this letter in hopes that the finance committee, the leadership on the democratic side in the senate and the president will seek a solution that is different than taking money from this insolvent program that aids our seniors to create a new entitle. one of the most discouraging issues is it is my understanding and i hope i'm wrong, that the folks that are talking about using medicare money to create a new entitlement are not even

dealing with s.g.r. every 18 months we sit down and discuss the doc fix -- docks across the country call us to make sure their payments are not going to be cut by 31% this year so each year we kick the can down the road and solve that for a year, a year and a half, because of budgetary constraints. it's my understanding, madam president, that what is being discussed at this moment, is taking money from medicare, leveraging a new program which will add increasing debt, and not solving that problem even during the ten-year budget window this legislation will deal with. madam president, again, i have attended every meeting that i have been asked to attend. i went to the white house yesterday. i met with a bipartisan group last night.

i believe this country does need to figure out a way that all americans can access affordable, quality health care. i know all americans are concerned about the cost of health care. i stand here as one senator committed to doing that if the right way. but i also stand here with 35 other senators saying that to do that and make another program that exists more insolvent is not acceptable. i oppose that. i hope that is not used to create a new entitlement. thank you, madam president.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. nelson: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: i ask that the republican time be preserved. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: and unanimous consent to have about six minutes to address the body on national defense. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: madam president, i also ask unanimous consent that heather blackwell, an air force major who is a military fellow in my office this year, be granted the privilege of the floor during the pendency of s. 1390.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: i want to begin my comments on this year's national defense authorization by first thanking all the members of the personnel subcommittee, and i'd particularly like to thank the committee's ranking member, senator lindsey graham. he and i have worked together for several years on this subcommittee, exchanging the chairmanship back and forth, and i've always found that our time on the subcommittee is decidedly nonpartisan, bipartisan, regardless of who currently chairs it. and all of the members of the personnel subcommittee strive to do what's right by service members and their families, and any disagreements we have are minimal, small, and are always focused on how best to serve those who serve us. madam chairman -- madam president, the annual national defense authorization act is one

of the most important pieces of legislation that congress passes every year. it provides -- it provides authority for everything the department of defense does, from the ships and planes it buys to the pay and compensation of its service members, to retirement and disability benefits. so i look forward to this year once again passing a defense authorization act for the 48th year in a row. as in past year, the committee has focused heavily on personnel issues, including taking care of the families of service members. there's an old axiom in the military that you recruit the soldier, but you retain the family. so providing support to those families is more important now than ever before. and i'm happy with the bill, and i trem to my fellow senators. -- and i recommend it to my fellow senators. i want to emphasize that the committee also voted this bill out of committee unanimously. the bill before us authorizes

$135.6 billion for military personnel, including pay, allowances, bong bonuses, death benefits. the bill contains many provisions that will improve the quality of life of our service members and their families. the bill would authorize a 3.4% pay raise, which is half a percent higher than the increase in the employment cost index and the administration's request, and reauthorizes over 25 types of bonuses and special pays aimed at encouraging enlistment and reenlistment. the bill also addresses the administration's request to increase the permanent end strengths of all the services over last year's authorization. the bill authorizes fiscal year 2010 end strengths of 547,400 for the army, 202,100 for the marine corps, 331,700 for the

air force, and 328,800 for the navy. the active duty end strength of every service will increase over last year's levels. moreover, the bill authorizes additional army active duty end strength in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, if needed. the bill authorizes also pay for travel and transportation expenses for reserve component members to go home when training has been suspended at their temporary duty station. "operation airlift, "as we call it, came to my attention when members of the 110th melba tail onbased in lincoln, nebraska, were stranded at st. louis, washington, when training was suspended and the base was shut down for the holidays. military rules prohibited using military funds to pay for their travel back to nebraska until training resumed. this measure addresses this problem, which has occurred in many other states and to many

other reservists and guardsmen and demands that the military commands appropriately -- that the military commands appropriately plan and schedule training exercises. the bill also supports the continued provision of world-class health care to our service members and their families, authorizing $27.9 billion for the defense health program. the bill authorizes tricare standard coverage for national guard and reserve retirees previously in an uncovered so-called gray area. the tricare gray area retiree measure ensures nearly 225,226 eligible retirees nationwide. it ensures that they have the opportunity to purchase coverage under the military's tricare health care program. in support of our increasing number of wounded war yes, the bill authorizes special compensation for caregivers for the time and assistance they provide to service members with

combat-related catastrophic injuries or illnesses requiring assistance in everyday living. additional support is provided through this bill which authorizes travel and transportation allowances for nonmedical attendance of very seriously wounded, ill, service members and we continue to increase the care of of our wounded warriors. this bill requires the establishment of a task force to assess the effectiveness of the policies and programs to assist and support the care, management, and transition of recovering, wounded, ill, and injured service members. to help restore the dire shortage of physicians needed to care for the mental health of combat-proven service members, the bill authorizes the service secretaries to aped to 25 officers each year as students at accredited schools of psychology for training leading to the degree of "doctor of psychology in clinical

psychology." in an effort to ensure our service members get the mental health care they need and help overcome the stigma associated with seeking mental health, the bill requires person-to-person mental health assessments at designated intervals for service members deployed in connection with contingency operations. the bill also requires initiatives to increase the number of military and civilian behavioral health personnel of the department of defense. continuing our efforts to support wounded warriors and their families, the bill requires the secretary of defense to undertake comprehensive assessment of the impacts of military deployment on dependent children of service members and a review of the mental health care counseling services available to military children. finally, the bill authorizes $45 million in impact aid to local school districts, including $5 million for educational services for severely disabled children

and $10 million for districts experiencing rapid increases in the number of students due to rebasing, activation of new military units, or base realignment and closure. now, these are just some of the highlights. there were over 60 legislative provisions affecting personnel policy, pay, end strength, health care, and family support. it's paramount that we take care of our service members by ensuring their pay and compensation is what it should be and needs to be to sustain the all-volunteer force and enable them to fight and win the nation's war and -- warsz and to take care of them and their families -- wars and to take care of them and their families when they return home injured and wounded. so, again, madam president, i'd like to thank senator graham and all the members of the personnel subcommittee of the armed services. i look forwarded to working with our colleagues to pass this extremely is important legislation as we continue the process of authorization of the

parent bill. with that, i conclude my remarks. thank you. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: ms. landrieu: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the roll. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you, madam president. i come to the floor to speak as

if in morning business for the purpose of introducing a bill called "families for orphans act," that senator inhofe and i are sponsoring together and to comment about a bill that i've already introduced, the foreign adopted children's equity act. i understand we have up to 10 minutes? the presiding officer: that is correct. ms. landrieu: thank you, madam president. we are very fortunate, indeed to have a secretary of state that is quite knowledgeable about this subject. and the office that we seek to create would be housed within the department of state under the watchful eye of secretary hillary clinton, who did so much work on this subject when she was a member of the senate and even prior to her service in the senate as first lady of arkansas and the united states. so i am particularly happy that we would be recommending what is a very appropriate i think

establishment of an office within the office of the secretary of state. this bill has been discussed for several years here. we've had several opportunities for debate on the floor, but a great coalition has come together representing advocates of orphans around the world to really come together in a unified way to make a strong argument that this kind of office should indeed be established, and there are some very compelling reasons why this should be, madam president. first of all, right now in our system there is no coordination in the office of the secretary of state or the department of state for policies related to orphans. and this is an alarming situation because the number of orphans are growing

exponentially in the world due to an increase in conflicts in many parts of the world. we have had some severe droughts and natural disasters that are causing families to be separated, children from adults. the aids epidemic is -- some people have referred to it as a factory that creates, produces orphans and you can understand the nature of that disease. so the actions that we take relative to trying to get a more coordinated policy is very, very important. and that's what this bill seeks to do. it's, i think, understood among all members of this body -- i don't even hear one dissenting voice -- that the most appropriate place for children to grow up is in a family, and we think that there are over 130 million orphans in the world who have been deprived, for whatever

reason -- death or war or famine or disease -- of their right to belong to a family. and it's our obligation, as the leaders of the world, to try to find the best possible substitute family for these children. children don't do a very good job of raising themselves. that is an impossibility. our focuses are on their survival and getting medical care, health care, food and nutrition. i don't think we are doing enough as our government to reuniting children with whatever extended family, first, might be possible for them to be raised. and then looking out somewhere beyond the extended family opportunity to domestic families that would take that child and their siblings. we most certainly have not made the kind of effort that i think

is appropriate and is a ready source of loving aways and families in terms of the international community that would like to step up and adopt many children who are unable to find families in their own countries. that, madam president, is basically what this office would do. it would coordinate efforts by the aid and development community that, as i said, are focused on nutrition, housing, education and medical care. and would refocus efforts on that mus reunification of families and adoption opportunities. first, as i said, the u.s. programs are disconnected. secondly, the u.s. right now in our opinion does not engage in enough proactive diplomacy on this issue. third, the united states should be able to advice and support other countries in the development of their own child welfare systems. we know, madam president, we have made so many mistakes in

the united states. we hate to see countries making similar mistakes and some of those mistakes would be terminating parental rights, not aggressively enough seeking placement within extended families, separating siblings in placement and then the worst of all, if those things aren't bad enough, the worst of all, leaving children who have had their parental rights terminated basically stuck in limbo for 10, 12, 14, and extreme cases, 18 years in foster care where they never have a permanent parent or permanent family to call their own. i would remind my colleagues because i continue to remind myself that a child is never too old to need a parent. we all think of adoption as adopting infants or toddlers or school-age children but i would suggest to this body and to those listening that you are never too old to need a father

or a mother. at the age of 54 i continue to talk to my parents regularly. they continue to give me advice and counsel. i've been blessed to have grandparents well into my adult life. and the thought of a child growing up at any age -- 18, 20, 5, 12 -- without any permanent attachment to a family is tragic and the fact of the matter is there are methods and resources we can bring to bear to change that outcome for the millions of orphans in the world in our own country and around the world. that's what this office does. the primary functions will be to act as a primary advisor to the secretary of state and to the president to provide diplomatic representation, to develop an evidence-based comprehensive global strategy, to support foreign governments through sound policy and technical assistance, to develop best practices with cultural

sensitivity, and to support in-country family reservation and permanency as primary solutions using domestic adoption and international adoption as basically the last possibles. the most important, one of the most important things in the bill is to conduct census because we really don't know how many orphans there are in the world and in what countries. trillion we get a handle on the numbers it's very hard to find appropriate solutions and to mobilize the world community to act. i contends that there are millions and millions and millions of families who are able and willing and ready to take in orphans to build their family through adoption, to add to the blessing of children --

buy logical children that have come to their families through adoption; i have had personal response myself with that issue. i'm excited about the possibility of coordinating this effort and, again, could think of no better person than secretary hillary clinton to provide the leadership to establish this office as the congress seeks to funds it and provide the resources to make it work. work. so madam president, that is a description of the family for orphans action, a bipartisan bill. we are getting extremely exciting feedback from our colleagues. in the house, representative watson from california and representative boosman from arkansas has introduced a similar bill so we are very encouraged by the house on this subject and look forward to a quick hearing and quick passage. if i could ask for an additional

minute. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: i would like to talk about the foreign adoption children's equity act making a small but important change in the way orphans are identified or classified when they are adopted overseas so they can become automatic citizens. i was very proud to work with senator kennedy on this issue, with senator nichols from oklahoma when he served in the body the we worked hard to find a way when families go overseas to adopt, once that adoption is final we believe the act of adoption itself makes that child an automatic -- puts that child at automatic custody of that parent, that parent being an

american citizen, should sort of automatically be able to transfer that citizenship to that adopted child. just like if you are born in the united states to an american citizen or you are born in the united states you are an automatic american citizen and most certainly if you are born overseas, if your parents are citizens you are an automatic citizen of the united states. you don't need any extra paperwork done on your behalf. because we believe the act of adoption should be treated the same way as the act of birth we believe this right should be transferred to orphan children adopted overseas. right now there's a little bit of a glitch in the law that is not allowing this. this act would correct that. i'll finally end with one of my most wonderful memories of my time in the senate was this boston with senator kennedy and

with congressman when we swore in citizens of the united states thousands of children who had been waiting to become citizens having been adopted by american families. and that was really a very proud moment of mine and something that many of us worked on. but this bill will take that to a new level when families travel overseas to adopt as my sister and many relatives and friends of member of congress took the opportunity to do, at the time the adoption is official in that country the child becomes an automatic citizen of the united states. that is a great benefit and as i grow older in my life i realize what an extraordinary privilege it is to be a citizen of the united states of america. so as our families adopt that

citizenship will be automatically transferred to their adopted children. i thank you, madam president. again, it's the foreign adopted children equity act i am speaking about and introducing for consideration of the body, the family for orphans act which i would like to send to the desk and ask to be scheduled or directed to the appropriate committee. thank you, madam president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. case cased ska that the quorum call be vitiated. -- mr. casey: i'd ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: i'd ask unanimous consent that i be recognized for 20 minutes and i be speaking as if in morning business. the presiding officer: is there an 0 objection?

without objection. mr. casey: madam president, thank you very much. i rise today to speak of two top iraq, the first being health care. we had a significant development yesterday in the health, education, labor, pensions committee of which i am a member where we actually vote add bill out of the committee. the first time in many, many years, a major piece of health care legislation, other than major initiatives like health care insurance, have been voted out of the senate committee. we obviously have a long way to go. we have the senate finance committee doing its work. the house is working on this, the president -- president obama has made this a major, central priority of his administration, and i believe part of his economic recovery, both short-term and especially long-term. i want to commend the work of -- there are a lot of people to thank, but i want to commend the work of chairman dodd, working in place of our chairman,

senator kennedy, and between the two of them, they did a great job of leading this effort, not just in the course of some 60 hours of hearings and probably another 20 or more hours prior to the hearings, prior to the so-called markup when we're offering amendments, but many months and weeks and in the case of both of these senators years working on health care. so i want to commend them. i want to commend the staff, my staff especially, led by maura murray. i say that pause it was a significant development but would you know it is just one chapter in a long book, and we've got a long way to go. but i think it was significant that a bill is now out of the committee and moving through the senate. i wanted to focus in particular on a couple of aspects of the bill and then move to some reactions on the question of health care that we get from

across pennsylvania. the bill itself has as its foundation this principle, i believe: that the status quo is not only unacceptable, it is in fact unsustainability. we cannot continue to ignore the issue of health care. have to act on it this year. not this year, not next year, not the year after. at long last, tackling a problem which the american people have been debating for decades now across the country and now we have a president who's leading on this in the opportunity to finally make progress. the bill does a couple of things. first of all, as part of its foundation as well, it covers -9d 7% of the american people -- 97% of the american people. it is critical that we make that part of any bill. second, in terms of the overall impact of this bill, it will reduce costs, it will preserve

choices, and it will in fact enhance quality, all of the issues that we've talked about for years are now going to be part of this law. people have been frustrated by the unfairness of the failure by insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions. it is right there in the bill. preexisting conditions in this bill will no longer be a bar to treatment and for the caring of disease and the treatment of individuals. it also has as a foundation to it the question of what are we going to do to preserve choice? the american people have a right to not only keep the health care that they like but also should have a choice, if they don't like what they have -- and of course if they have no health insurance at all -- they ought to be given a choice. and i believe part of that choice isn't just within the framework of private insurance, with insurance companies, but in fact a public option, giving not just -- and preserving not just

choice for the american people but they ought to be able to have a right to expect -- but also enhancing competition and therefore bringing down cost. that's essential, because even as we're concerned about the almost 50 million americans, including 5 million children, who don't have coverage, we have to make sure that we're preserving that choice. so reducing cost, preserving choice, and enhancing quality are very much a part of the bill that does change the status quo. and at some point people in washington are going to have to join one team or the other. they're going to either join the status quo teernlg the "can't do it now," are satisfied with the current system team, or they'll be on the side of changing the tat status quo, the side of reform, the team that's working with president obama to at long last address these questions of quality, questions of access, and questions of bringing down the cost of care for families

and businesses. so they've got to choose the team. and in my judgment, there's only two teams. the status quo team and the reform/change team with president obama. i wanted to highlight just two excerpts of letters that i've received from constituents in pennsylvania, just precede a sentence from each. but before i do that i wanted to cite one -- one element of one recent report. this is a report from "families u.s.a.," a recent romplet i'll just read one line of this report to make this point. "44,230 more people are losing health care coverage each week." 44,230 people every single week losing their health insurance. now, if anyone believes with that data staring news the face -- and you could point to other data -- in my home state and across the country -- with that data staring news the face, can

anyone really make the argument that we should just slow down and maybe not get this done this year, wait a little longer, wait another year, wait another two years? if you do that you are a talking about waiting 10 years or 20 years. so we can't do that. we have to act with a sense of urgency and a sense of common purpose. two lines from two letters. one from a gentleman in pennsylvania, and secondly a letter from another constituent of mine. i think they put this in sharp focus. this letter says, in part, "i, for one," and i'm quoting from the letter. "i, for one, find it impossible to understand how the nation nah that sent men to the moon, invented atomic energy ands, and won the largest conflict in history" -- a researchers to world war ii -- "cannot provide the basic right to medical care to all and most importantly its neediest citizens."

a pretty wise sum reaganmation y we have -- a -- a pretty wise susummation of why we have to gt this done this year. just a brief line from another constituent in pennsylvania. she speaks of the economic pressure that she feels and so many families feel with the status quo, with the current health care system we have. and she say, and i quote, "i am only trying to keep my family from becoming another statistic. "quags another statistic like 44,230 families losing their health care coverage every single week. a statistic like the number of families going into bankruptcy every week, every month because of one issue principally, for many families going into bankruptcy -- not all but many -- the issue of health care. so i think we've got to remember the wisdom but also the real-life experience of the

people that write to me, as representing pennsylvania, or any other state. and two more points. the question of premiums. there is a recent report that indicates that if we don't take action on the issue of health care reform, if you don't act now and finally at long last deal with all of these difficult issues on quality, cost, access and preserving choice, that in pennsylvania -- and this is a report by the "new america foundation" -- issued actually at the end of the last year. it said, "in pennsylvania, family health insurance with a price tag of $26,879 in 2016 would consume 51.7% of the projected pennsylvania median family income." and the national number was very similar to that.

so if you look at from over a 10-year period or over an eight-year period, what we're looking at herer hea here, if ns taken, families in pennsylvania and across the country paying more than half of their income for health care. that's the relate city othat's . that's the reason for the sense of urgency on in this year because we cannot sustain this. our economy cannot continue to go in this direction. we have to begin to tackle it this year. and finally, one point before i move to my second topic: that is the issue of children. i've made and senator dodd and so many others have made this a central priority when we're doing health care reform. we're very happy this bill is moving forward. we're very happy that health care is in sharp focus. but what -- one of the things we have to make sure of as we move through this process is to make

sure that no children, especially poor children and those with special needs, come out of this worse off than they've been. so one of my themes is, no child worse off -- four words. "no child worse off. and i would add as a corollary, especially poor children and especially special-needs children. we have some ideas in washington that run drear that. and i would urge those who are ignoring the question of children, urge those who are forgetting about the impact that this bill -- of this bill on children, a very positive impact by the way, to remember that line from scripture where it says that "a faithful friend is a sturdy shelter." a faithful friend is a sturdy shelter. we've got a lot of people in washington that do a lot of talking about being a friend of children, being add an advocate for children, standing for up

for children. that's wonderful that they say that. but if we're going to prove ourselves to be a faithful friend to children by being that sturdy shelter that protects them, not only from the ravages of a bad economy, not only from the other horrors that so many children face, but even protecting them from unintended consequences of health care legislation, if that's what we say we're going to do, we should prove it through the work we do in this bill. just a couple of points about that. one of the things that i worked very hard on in the bill, working with senator dodd, was to make sure that enrollment in care either through the so-called gateway, which is part of the health care bill, or through medicaid or chip is done in a way that we're actively assisting, that we are a actively assisting families to get them enrolled. not just saying you're on your

own and try to figure it out, but actively seeking to help families, especially poor fathers get enrolled. i've worked with senator dodd on a requirement that pediatric preventive care be included in the list of mandatory preventive services that insurance plans offer, with minimum cost-sharing requirements for families. i've also worked with senator dodd to make sure that -- ensuring that medical homes, which we know is not a place but an approach to care -- patient and family center care that's comprehensive and coordinated. that's what we mean by "medical home" -- that there is a medical home as well for children, a pediatric medical home for children that is part of the bill. and finally, we ensure the establishment of an oral health care prevention education campaign at the centers for disease control, focusing on preventive measures, targeted toward children and pregnant women. so for all these reasons and

more, we have to continue to focus on getting health care legislation passed at long last. and i was honored to be with the presiding officer yesterday in a discussion about preventive health care, and that's a central part of this, and i want to commend her work in this area. it is a central feature of this health care bill. let me notify move to a second topic in the remaining time that i have in addition to health care and that's actually a related issue, the issue of hunger and food security. on the scale of the world, the international staifnlgt -- stage and speak on the subject of significant achievement from last week's g-8 summit held in italy agreeing to commit $20 billion over three years to international agriculture development which the united states will pledge a minimum of

$3.5 billion over this president. as the president and white house noted that comprises doubling -- doubling of current u.s. level of agricultural developmental assistance and represents a dramatic shift in the way our government conceives of global food security. for too long the united states has relied upon the traditional emergency aid model a testament, of course, to the charity and generosity of the american people but also an inefficient and often delayed response to hunger overseas. a real investment in international agricultural development can help the developing world grow self-sufficient in agriculture and provide a livelihood for the significant share of the population that are small farmers across the world. everyone is familiar with the old saying, give a man a fish and you feed him for today.

teach a man to fish and you have fed him for a lifetime. we should bear that in mind when we think of this policy of globalled if security. so that's exactly what the international community, led by the g-8 and president obama, is seeking to do with an emphasis on several key principles. at least three: strategic coordination of assistance to ensure aid is provided in a fashion that maximizes effectiveness and efficiency; investment in country-owned plans to provide genuine domestic ownership and inclusive of benchmarks and other standards of accountability; third, a sustained commitment with follow through at future summits to ensure that the leading states are carrying through on their pledges. this g-8 initiative is a complement to the global food security act introduced early this year by ranking member of the senate foreign affairs committee, senator lugar, and myself.

as of today, eight other members have cosponsored the global food security act and i was pleased that secretary of state clinton recently offered her general endormant of this legislation. this bill would achieve three major objectives: number one, enhanced coordination within the u.s. government so usaid, the agriculture department and other entities are not working at cross-purposes. we do that by establishing a new position, a special coordinator for food security in the white house who would report directly to the president and would forge a comprehensive u.s. food security strategy. secondly, the bill expands u.s. investment in the agriculture productivity of developing nations so the nations facing escalating food prices can rely on emergencied for assistance and instead take steps to exexpands their own crop production, a leading agricultural expert recently

estimated that every dollar, every dollar invested in agricultural r&d subsequent rates $9 worth of food in the developing world. i'm grateful to senator lugar for his bold proposal by the acronym hectare, to establish a network of universities around the world to corroborate on agricultural research. and thirdly the bill would modernize our system of emergency food assistance so it's more flexible and can provide aid on short notice. we do this by authorizing a new $500 million fund for u.s. emergencied if assistance. this bill has been worked on and marked up in the foreign relations committee and we reported it out of committee. i'm working with senator lugar to bring this legislation to the floor so the full senate can take it up and pass it. madam president, we should not

wait, just as i said about health care, we should not wait for another massive food crisis like the one that hit the world last summer before taking action on this legislation. globalled if security is not only a humanitarian issue, of course -- and that's of immense portions but it's also a national and international security issue. hunger breeds instability and instability can set the same for failed states. and with what, madam president, i would yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be suspended. i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: as a member of the senate judiciary committee i left the confirmation hearings for judge sotomayor, president obama's nominee to the supreme court. this is her fourth day, i believe, of hearing before the committee. and it appears we'll be able to wrap up, perhaps today or early tomorrow. i think she has done an extraordinarily good job. she comes to this nomination with a remarkable life story. rising from public housing in the bronx, new york, losing her father when she was nine years old, being raised by a determined and capable mother. a brother who became a doctor.

she went on to law school after academic success at an ivy league institution and now serves 17 years on the federal bench. we have had many good witnesses before the judiciary committee. but i think she has really set a high standard in determines of answering questions with clear understand, of the law and a clear understanding of her responsibility if she is given this awesome assignment of serving on the highest court of the land. i can't help but watch at the hearings as her family sits through hour after weary hour of senator's questions. they are clearly in her corner. and cheering her on. her mother, nodding in agreement when he daughter tells of their life story. others in their testimony to her wonderful life, her professional life as an attorney and judge. i hope the senate will bring her

nomination before us in a timely fashion so if she is approved, and i believe she will be approved by the senate, she can cross the street to the u.s. supreme court and be there in september. to make certain that the court has a full complement of justices to consider important cases. at the same time on the floor we have the defense authorization bill, an annual exercise to authorize important expenditures for our national defense. a pending amendment relative to hate crimes as to whether or not there will be a federal cause of action against those who are guilty of physically assaulting and hurting people because of their sexual orientation, gender, their race, their ethnic origin. and, of course, there is another scwor debate underway about the future of health care in america. i've said i think this debate over health care may be the biggest domestic understanding of congress in its history.

just in shear numbers. the impact of this legislation will touch every single american immediately. we have considered big issues in the past. issues like social security but that was a program when it was con seened and passed that would affect senior citizens add a later date and only a few initially. it was passed at a time within few people lived to be 65, the qualifying age for social security so it was an insurance policy for a small group of americans. it was a payroll tax imposed on most workers in the country to pay for it. some 60 years later, president johnson considered the medicare program another far-reaching program which today provides health insurance for 45 million americans. it, too, is paid for primarily by payroll tax but it really reached retirees. this debate on health care goes

far beyond retirees. it affects all of us, every single one of us. there have been so many things said about this debate, some of the things that have been said at the outset are just plain wrong. i was sent an e-mail by my brother who lives in california. it was -- i don't know the source of the e-mail but it is one with wide description, loaded with mistakes and errors suggesting members of congress is some elite health care policy that pays for things that ordinary americans could never consider. for the record, speaking for myself and most members of congress, we're under exactly the same health care plan as eight million federal employees and their families. but make no mistake it's a good one because we have such a good bargaining pool for over 40 years, private insurance companies have been anxious to

get in and offer health insurance to not only members of congress but virtually every other federal employee. it is a plan that engages us with private health insurance companies. my wife and i can choose from nine different private health insurance that offer coverage to residents of illinois who are federal employees. and we can pick a land that has limited coverage or one that has more coverage and my payroll deduction depends on the type of plan i choose. the good news is that once a year there's open enrollment. if i don't like the way i have been treated in the plan i can move to a different company that might give me different benefits or coverage. every american should be so lucky as federal employees and members of congress but we don't have an elite plan. other things that have been said that are plain wrong, members of congress don't pay into social security. i can tell you when i was elected in 1982 to the house of representatives, that was a

fact. that was quickly changed within a year so that members of congress do pay into social security just as most americans do, today. these are all things that need to be set aside and we need to get to the heart of the issue. i've listened as republican senators have come to the floor and talked about this health care debate. i can't understand how most of these senators feel about the issue of health care. there is a sense that the cost of health inurns is going up too fast and you can't earn enough money to keep up with it. just over the last several years the cost of health insurance premiums have risen three times faster than the wages of americans. and i've heard about it in illinois. others have heard about it as well. those who want to keep the

current system have to answer the most basic question: how will individuals and families and businesses be able to afford health insurance, if we don't change? how can we deal with the deficits and debt that are being created by these inflated health care costs? the united states is the most expensive nation in the world when it comes to health care. we spend, on average, per person -- more than twice as much as most other countries, and we don't have the medical results to point to to demonstrate that that money is being well-spent. some of the republicans who've come to the floor -- for instance, senator mcconnell from kentucky, the republican leader -- talked about the failing of a plan in maine, a public plan called -- i may mispronounce this -- i hope i don't. it looks like dirigo. this relied on private insurance

in a state with very few companies. maine would benefit from the increased competition provided by a public option that we're talking about in the current national health care reform. i think states across the nation have done a good job in exploring creative innovations but there are some limits as to a state can do on its own, and many are financial. iit is not realistic to expect them to solve the health care problem state by state. cost is difficult to control on a state basis. states don't have access to the medicare program, the largest provider of health care in america. the states have really tried to do their best, but without federal leadership in addressing skyrocketing costs of health care, the states are in an impossible position. health care reform isn't going to be easy. but weengdz to do it.

fortunately, we have a president -- president obama -- 0 who has said this is his highest priority. he is prepared to spend the political capital necessary to make that th change knowing that it has been very, very difficult in the past. what most americans want to see is a system where you can walk in the doctor's office and not have fill out the same form over and over and over again, a system where doctors given the time to see their patients can make the right dying know sainsdz work through the questions that the patients might have, a system where patients aren't surprised by a medical bill they thought was covered under their insurance plan and ends up not being corvedz. a system where doctors don't have to hassle with insurance companies. a system where you're not covered by an illness you had five years ago because of your age. that's what 85% of the american people say they want out of this debate. this is what i would bet that

even the 77 million people satisfied with their health care today have in the future. some of my colleagues don't seem to agree with the idea for change. i know a little bit about malpravment before i was elected to congress years ago i handled medical malpractice cases as an attorney in springfield, illinois. for a long time i defended doctors and hospitals, and then with a new practice was on the plaintiff's side representing the injured, the patients, who were suing the doctors of hospitals. i've seen it from both sides of the table. it's unfortunate when these lawsuits are filed. it's even more unfortunate when innocent people have become victims of medical negligence. there are an awful lot of them each year. and we need to do more to reduce the incidence of medical negligence. many of these people just went to during the, did exactly what they were told and ended up in a situation where their health was

compromised and where they incurred massive health care costs because a mistake was made, sometimes an innocent mistake but other times clear negligence and worse on the part of medical providers. don't get me wrong. i have the highest regard for medical proceedings's professionals, and if my health or the health of someone in my family that i love, i want the doctor there to help. they don't work miracles. they can only do the best they can. and i am prepared to accept that. in some cases, though, negligence happens. malpractice occurs. terrible things happen. and to close the courtroom doors to those who are injured and face a lifetime of pain, suffering, scars, limitations, disability, health care costs is fundamentally unfair. the congressional budget office thinks that medical malpractice costs amount to less than 2% of health care spending. government economists estimate

restricting all patients' rights to go to court would only lower health care costs less than .5%. so when we talk about change in the health care system, of course, let's have a conversation about patient safety and reducing medical errors. and making certain that doctors that are not guilty of malpractice don't face lawsuits that never should have been filed. but let's also be honest about it. this is a very small part of the issue. we also need to make sure that public options are available. health insurance companies are some of the most profitable companies in america. a public option will make sure that there is an option, a choice, a voluntary alternative for every american who choose a public option plan, a plan that is a nonprofit, government-oriented plan, like medicare, that doesn't have high administrative costs, doesn't take profit out of what they're charge you, and doesn't have a lost of costs for market. that, to me, is a way to

guarantee honesty and more competition. we know that if we fail to act, that many millions of americans will continue to have no health insurance, others will find the cost of health insurance going up dramatically. the cost today is overwhelming for some americans. if you went to wrigley field last weekend to watch the cards and cubs play, there were about 41,000 people seated in the stands. it is a great rivalry, a terrific baseball rivalry that draws people from st. louis and chicago and all points in between. if that attendance at the stadium is representative of america, 2,000 of those 4,000 people seated in the stands are currently paying health care costs of more than 25% of their income. that is a back-breaking number. and we have to understand that the costs just keep going up beyond the reach of a lot of good people who are trying hard to provide the most basic health care for their families. i notice that my colleague is here from the state of delaware,

and i'm going to yield in just one moment. but i'd like to say before i yield that we have a chance here. some of the members of the senate are going to see these bills coming out of committee and say, this isn't the bill that i would write. in fact, there are parts of this bill that i don't like at awvment i'm sure that's the case for me, too. i know what i would like to write, but i understand the process, too. i also understand one other thing: this may be the last time the political years of every senator on the floor that we can honestly take on this health care issue. if we don't do it in a bipartisan fashion, if we don't follow the guidance of those who are telling us this current system is unsustainable, there may never be another chance. i have urged my colleagues, even if you disagree with some of the key elements of the bill coming out of one committee or the other, keep the process moving forward. let us work together, debate the issues, vote on the amendments and keep the process moving

forward. at the end of the day, if we understand up empty handed -- if we end up empty hand, it will be a great loss for america. we'll have to come back again under even worse circumstances where there is a lot more suffering and fewer people with good insurance in america. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of is $1390, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 89, s. 1390, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes. mr. kaufman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. kaufman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak if in morning business.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: mr. president, last week i spoke about the founding generation of americans and the legacy they passed down to us of sacrifice and service above self. these are the values that constitute the foundation of our civil service and it is these slals motivate our federal employees. it is what drives each of them each day to perform the small miracles that make the american government work. without their dedicated efforts and important contribution, we could not have a government that is responsive and representative. that is the birth right the founders left to us, that the people should be represented not only by officials they have elected but by civil servants entrusted to carry out the people's business. in thinking about these ideas and about the founders, i cannot help but think about those who risk their lives working as

policemen and federal prosecutes. one such federal prosecutor is jeffrey knox. jeffrey is on the front line in both the war on crime and the war on terror. at age 36, jeffrey has already achieved distinction in prosecuting a number of important cases. he has tried spues expect expece has tried suspects in terrorism cases. in his role, jeffrey has been the leader of investigations of terror groups like al qaeda, hamas and ltte. his colleagues have praised him for his roll of hup of your-sleeves philosophy and he's traveled to dangerous hot spots in pursuit of evidence. one of jeffrey's landmark cases was the successful investigation, arrest, and indictment of four suspects who were charged with plotting to attack the fuel tanks at j.f.k.

airport. the attack they had planned was intended to be as devastating as september 11. jeffrey worked closely with the military, the intelligence community, foreign governments, and local law enforcement agencies in an 18-month-long vesmghts another high profile case, he obtained the convictions of a group of conspirators attempting to deliver whelms to the ltte in scree language cavment he also worked to put behind bars an iraqi translator who stole information and passed it to insurgents tarring our troops. he has prosecuted violent street gangs in new york as well. did not start as a criminal prosecutor. before september 11, he was a corporate lawyer on wall street. after that terrible day, jeffrey was motivated to leave wall street and work in the federal government as assistant u.s.

attorney. when asked why he gave up such a lucrative job on wall street for a tough job prosecuting terrorists and gangsters, he said, "if you can put an individual behind bars so that individual will never jeepsidize another's life again, then it is worth it awvment" mr. president, jeffrey knox is one of many federal prosecutors and law enforcement officials who risk their lives every day to keep americans safe. the sacrifice they make, all too often, go unrecognized. i urge my colleagues to join me in honoring their service and sacrifices and i join all americans thanking them for the important contribution they make to our nation. thank you, mr. president.

mrs. gillibrand: madam mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i rise today if support of the matthew shepherd hate crimes prevention act of 2009. i am proud to join senator kennedy as an original cosponsor of this important legislation.

this legislation condemns the poisonous message that some human beings deserve to be victimized solely based on their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. hate crimes are serious and well documented problems that remain inadequately prosecuted and recognized. current federal hate crime law affords important protections to crimes motivated by a person's race, color, religion or national original wind. it fails to protect a significant number of americans when victims are targeted based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. this legislation will expand presentations to these groups ensuring that all americans are afforded equal protection under the law. in addition to recognizing and prosecuting all forms of hate crimes, we must also provide local law enforcement agencies

with the requisite tools to successfully combat the heinous acts providing significant support to local law enforcement agencies across the nation including critical technical, forensic, prosecuting and other assistance to state, local, tribal law enforcement officials for hate crime investigations and prosecutions. it's essential we send the message these crimes will not be condoned. when we fail to prosecute violence driven by hatred and protect americans' human rights we could have escalating of the activities and new york state has had numerous examples of hate crimes that would be prosecuted under this legislation. within three weeks three communities within an hour's drive have experienced violent hate crimes targeted at gay, lesbian and transgender, the

target of violent attacks while assail amendments communicated homophobic slurs. a transgender female was brutally attacked walking home. as she walked down her block she was repeatedly taunted by to men who only ended their taunting with homophobic slurs so they could focus on beating her with a metal belt buckle. harangue wished cries for help were met with laughter as they removed her clothing and left her naked and bleeding in the middle of the street. unfortunately, this case was not investigating as a hate crime because current law does not provide protection for gender identity. this victim from queens, like many others around the nation, was a target of violence because of who she was. this must end. in 2007 there were 500 such insurance dents if new york state alone. this is a reflection of a larger national trend where we see a number of documented hate crimes

is on the rise. in 1991 the f.b.i. collected statistics and the number of crimes motivated by sexual orientation have tripled. this legislation is supported by more than 300 civil rights, law enforcement, civil and religious organizations in addition to the vast majority of the american people. it is important we ensure that all americans and all states are covered under this comprehensive hate crimes legislation. there is some concern this bill would impact the first amendment. it does not. the matthew shepherd hate crimes prevention act of 2009 covers only violent acts or attempted violent acts that result in death or bodily injure and does not prohibit or punish speech expression or association. thoughts and speech are explicitly protected in this

bill. this bill is not infringing on freedom of speech. it's about safeguarding americans' human rights and equal justice. as doctor martin luther king once said, injustice anywhere is the threat to justice everywhere. i strongly believe that freedom and equality are inalienable american rights and should not be ascribed based on gender oration, religion or sexual orientation or gender identity. this legislation is an important step toward expanding human dignity and respect for all americans. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed. .the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. hatch: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent paul williams a detail he in my office from the food and drug administration, and a military in my office from the air force be beganned floor privileges for the reminder of the first session of the 111th congress. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. hatch: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i have been an active participants in the judiciary committee's sonia

sotomayor confirmation hearings, i have followed with great interest the floor debate on the continuing production of the f-22 raptor. i have heard a number of incorrect acertificates about the aircraft and have stood up to correct them but after listening to this week's debate and reading misleading articles, especially in the "washington post," about the f-22's performance and capabilities i believe the rapper's open poabts have hit bottom and begun to dig so i set the record straight about the f-22 and its extraordinarily war-winning capabilities. fact one, the f-22 is and will continue to be the preeminent fighter bomber for the next 40 years. it is the stealthest aircraft flying today. unlike the f-117 nighthawk and b-two bomber, f-22's can be deployed on stealth flight operations not just at night but twowsh hours a -- 24 hours aday

giving unprecedented nextibility to engage tbrownd and air targets at a time of their choosing denying any respite to the enemy. the raptor has super cruise engines unique because they do not need to go to afterburner to achieve super sonic flight. this provides the f-22 with a strategic advantage by enabling super sonic speeds to be maintained for a far greater length of time. by comparison, all other fighters require their engines to go to afterburner to achieve super sonic speeds consuming a tremendous amount of fuel and greatly limiting their range. the f-22 is the deadly of the fighter flying today. during a recent military exercise in alaska the raptor dispatched 144 adversaries versus the loss of only one aircraft. further advantage resides in the adollar. when entering hostile airspace,

the f-22 sensor fused avionics can engage enemy aircraft before at enemy can hope to engage the f-22. at the same time, the advanced sensors enable the f-22 to be a forward surveillance platform capable of gathering crucial intelligence on the enemy. often overlooked, the f-22 is a very capable bomber. it can carry two g.p.s. guided 1,000-pound joint direct munition bombs or eight small dinameter bombs. fact number two, the f-22 is not a cold war dinosaur. it is designed to meet and eliminate the threats of today and tomorrow. as the longest-serving member of the senate intelligence committee, i know full well the greatest air threat of today and tomorrow is and will continue to be the advanced integrated air

defense system. such a system is composed of two parts. the first component is advanced surface-to-air missile systems, such as the russian-made s-300, which has a range of over 100 miles. the second are highly maneuverable and sophisticated fighters, like the su-30, which have been sold to china and india. coupled together, these antiaccess systems makes penetrating hostile airspace extremely difficult, if not deadly, for those aircraft lacking the f-22's advanced stealth technology and sustained supersonic speeds, made possible by its supercruise energy. it is also important to remember the mainstays of our aerial fleet, the f-15, f-16, and fa-18 are not stealth aircraft and are not equipped with supercruise engines. unfortunately, integrated air defense systems are relatively inexpensive, placing them within the purchasing potential of nations like iran, with its

seeming insistence on developing nuclear weapons. the advanced integrated air defense system is exactly the threat the f-22 was designed to neutralize. in addition, the f-22 will almost simultaneously be able to turn its attention to other ground targets that threaten the national security of the u.s. and our allies. in a related argument, some argue the united states should devote more of its military resources towards bolstering its counterinsurgency capabilities. this is a fair point. unwisely, the united states did permit its counterinsurgency capabilities to atrophy after the vietnam war. as events in iraq and afghanistan have shown, we continue to pay dearly for that error. however, as we reconstitute our ability to successfully prosecute counterinsurgency campaigns, we cannot make a similar mistake and undermine

one of the fundamental foundations of our military strength, the gemini in the air. even defense secretary gates said this january -- quote -- "our military must be prepared for a full spectrum of operations, including the type of combat we're facing in iraq and afghanistan as well as large-scale threats that we face from places like north korea and iran." i could not agree more. and the aircraft that will enable our nation to decisively defeat our adversaries in the air happens to be the f-22. mr. president, others point out the f-22 has not been deployed in support of our operations in iraq and afghanistan. this is true. however, there were recent plans to deploy the f-22 to the persian gulf. but according to the july 9, 2008, edition of the widely respected "events news," the pentagon overruled those plans, citing concerns about --

quote -- "strategic dislocatio dislocation." this means the f-22 is hardly a dinosaur. it is a weapon that can change the balance of power in a region, and it's a weapon that can deter our adversaries. fact number three, 187 f-22's is an insufficient number to meet the requirements of our national military strategy. mr. president, our nation's military requirements are decided upon in detailed studies of the threats our nation and its allies confront. these studies also recommend force structures to deter and, if necessary, defeat threats to our national security. accordingly, the department of defense and the air force have conducted a number of studies to determine how many f-22's are required to meet our national military strategy. i am unaware of any comprehensive study that has concluded f-22 production should cease at 187 aircraft.

specifically, unclassified excerpts from the air force's sustaining air dominance study stated -- quote -- "180 f-22's was not enough." and the department of defense's take-care organization study concluded the requirement of additional raptors -- quote -- "was the best option." on april 16, these conclusions were reinforced by comments made by general norton a. schwartz, the chief of staff of the air force, after the f-22 procurement termination was announced. general schwartz stated -- quote -- "243 raptors is the military requirement." opponents of the raptor will most likely dispute this, pointing to comments made by general cartwright during his july 9 testimony before the senate armed services committee. during his testimony, the general stated the decision to terminate production of the f-22 is supported by a -- quote -- "study in the joint staff that

we just completed and partnered with the air force." however, my staff has inquired by this study and was informed a recently completed comprehensive analytic study does not exist. no doubt the joint staff has prepared some justification for f-22 termination, yet i believe it is only natural to question the objectivity of any assessment which justified -- justifies previously reached decisions. unfortunately, yesterday, mr. president, my suspicions about this so-called analysis were proven correct when geoffrey morrell, the pentagon's spokesperson, stated that the general was referring to -- quote -- "not so much a study but as a work product." therefore, i believe the congress should place great significance on the june 9 letter by general john coreley, the commander of air combat command, who stated -- quote -- "at air combat command, we have

a need for 381 f-22's to deliver a tailored package of air superiority to our combatant commanders and provide a potent, globally arrayed, asymmetric deterrent against potential adversaries. in my opinion, a fleet of 187 f-22's puts execution of our current national military strategy at high risk in the near- to midterm. to my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate 187 f-22's are adequate to support our national military strategy." that's a letter from general john coreley, the commander of the air combat command. now, mr. president, i believe these are important words from the four-star general who is responsible for the air force command which is the primary provider of combat air power to america's war fighting commands. fact number four, th "the washington post" article that alleged technical and maintenance difficulties of the

f-22 was misleading and inaccurate. in fact, mr. president, the air force has written two rebuttals to this article. after viewing the first rebuttal, i found it striking that the air force stated six of the points made in the article were false, four were misleading, and two were not true. specifically, the primary assertion made by the "post" was the f-22 caused far -- cost far more per hour to fly than the aircraft is replacing, the f-15. however, this is misleading. only when you include all of the one-time costs that are associated with -- with a new military aircraft is this true. a far more accurate measurement is to compare variable flying hours. the f-22 costs $19,750 per hour to fly versus $17,465 for the f-15. now, the f-15 costs less to fly but the 1960's designed f-15

does not have nearly the capabilities of the f-22. i want our young men and women who fly to have the best capabilities they possibly can. the article asserts the f-22 is only a -- has only a 55% availability rate for -- quote -- "guarding u.s. airspace." this is misleading. overall, the f-22's -- the f-22's boast a 70% availability rate and that has been increasing every year over the past four years. finally, the article states the f-22 requires significant maintenance. this is true. but the post article misses the critical point. the f-22 is a stealth aircraft. making an aircraft disappear from radar is not accomplished through magic. it is achieved through precise preparation and exacting attention to detail. i believe we can all agree it is

far better to expend manhow ares to prepare an airplane that will -- manhours to prepare an airplane that will win wars than to replace aircraft after they have been shot down, not to mention the moral costs of not exposing our pilots to unnecessary dangers. fact number five, the f 2450eu6 2's detractors argue erroneously that the raptors' role can be filled by the f-35, also known as the joint strike fighter. but the raptor and the joint strike fighter were designed to compliment each other, not be -- complement each oh, not be disputed for each other. the f-22 is the nascar racer of this air dominance team. fast and unseen, the raptor will punch a hole in the enemy's defenses, quickly dispatching any challenger in the air and striking at the most important ground targets. the joint strike fighter is the rugged s.u.v. of the team. impressive but not asthma move toable or capable of sustained supersonic speeds. the f-35 will exploit the hole

opened by the f-22 and attack additional targets and directly support our ground forces. this is not to say that the f-35 wais not a highly capable stealy aircraft, but the f-35's role is to supplement the f-22, not substitute for it. only by utilizing the strengths of both aircraft do we ensure air dominance for the next 40 years. fact number six, our allies recognize the critical capabilities of the f-22 and are eager to purchase the aircraft. this is one of the most compelling reasons for purchasing additional numbers of f-22's. the japanese and australian governments have consistently approached our government about purchasing the raptor for themselves. if the f-22 is such a boondoggle, why would these nations be willing to spend billions of dollars to purchase them? australia already plans to purchase up to 100-35's. why does it need the raptor?

perhaps it is because these nations realize the number of threats to their security can be defeated only by the f-22 raptor. mr. president, in conclusion, we have an opportunity to ensure this and future generations continue to benefit from one of the foundations of our national security: the ability to defeat any air threat and strike any target anywhere in the world. the world is changing. threats are growing. today, we have an opportunity to ensure those air threats are met. and to be honest with you, our young men and women who fly deserve the very best equipment we can give to them. not equipment that is getting old, outmoded and can't do the job. i hope my colleagues will join me and vote against the levin-mccain amendment. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated by unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johanns: and i ask unanimous consent to speak ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johanns: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, the medicare and medicaid programs are the largest single purchaser of health care in the world. these programs account for over 20% of all u.s. federal government spending.

more than one in five taxpayer dollars we actually spend will go to the medicare or medicaid program. mr. president, by the time my children become senior citizens, these two programs are projected to consume every dollar of tax revenue that is raised per year. recently the medicare trustees reported that the medicare program is literally projected to be bankrupt by 2017, just eight short years away. that's two years earlier than what was projected last year. our ability to offer financial predictions provides little consolation to the senior citizens who depend on the medicare program, who depend on this program to receive their

medical care. for the millions of baby boomers -- my generation -- who are expecting the medicare program to be there for them and their future health care needs, these projections basically say that on the current course, you're out of luck. unfortunately, the medicaid program outlook does not look much better. the program i'm very familiar with as a prior governor. medicaid is the largest source of general revenue spending on health care for both the federal government and the state governments. in fact, mr. president, medicaid represents 40% of federal government general revenue spending on health care and 41% of such spending by the states. that is why, as economic conditions have continued to worsen, state medicaid budgets are increasingly in crisis.

states are really struggling to pay their medicaid obligations and still balance their budgets. it's a tough job. i'll tell you from personal experience, one that is not for the faint of heart. the president is proposing, in my judgment, to exacerbate the problem by creating another government-run entitlement program. of course in order to pay for this new program, he has identified cuts in medicare and in medicaid. now let's be very, very clear. we have one soon to be bankrupt program that consumes a huge chunk of our health care spending today, and the rushed reform would take money from it to pay for a new health care program.

seriously. this is a vicious cycle and something you would only see in washington. the american people deserve a better effort than this. you see, mr. president, i would suggest that in the real world when budgets get tight, leaders have to make very, very tough decisions. programs are scrutinized with a fine-toothed comb to find out where savings can be found. if savings are identified, then that money is used to shore up the programming shortfalls and to try to keep the current program viable. medicare recipients are hoping we do that, because the clock is ticking on their program. you don't see new programs created as existing programs fall deeper and deeper and deeper into the red. you see, people and programs, well, they have to work

together. you start rolling up your sleeves. you start prioritizing. you start scrutinizing every dollar in every program in order to fulfill current obligations, in order to meet the promise to those who are receiving those benefits today. while i've laid down, mr. president, a resolution -- and that's why this resolution that i'm introducing today is necessary, to restore some semblance of sanity to this process. simply put, this resolution says that if we find savings within the medicare program -- let me repeat that -- if we find savings within the medicare program, we should put those savings back into the medicare program to keep the promise to our senior citizens that we will protect their program instead of creating yet another government

entitlement program with the savings that we have pulled from their program. it also says that if we find savings with the medicaid program, we should increase the federal medical assistance percentage to help out our states, to reduce the burden on state budgets, again, to fulfill the promise to those medicaid recipients that were serious about keeping their program going. these are very practical, commonsense views that i believe the vast, vast majority of americans would agree with. fix the programs in existence -- medicaid and medicare. keep the promise to those who receive those benefits today instead of taking the money from those programs to start yet another gigantic program.

if we identify true savings within these current entitlement programs, then i propose we fulfill that promise to the millions of americans who are relying upon these important federal programs. you see, mr. president, after all, it is not practical to rob peter to pay paul, especially when both peter and paul are going broke. thank you, mr. president. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: