quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: and i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. yesterday was a wonderful day for this institution but, more importantly, was a spectacular day for millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of americans who are concerned about our health care system. the health, education, labor, pension committee completed the markup of its health care reform legislation. the whole point -- the first rule of thumb that was if you're in your health insurance -- if you're satisfied with the health insurance you have today, you can stay in it. the whole point of health reform is to reduce health care costs and expand access to quality care for all americans. to reduce costs and to expand quality care for all americans. earlier this week, the "help" committee had an historic opportunity to cut costs for millions of americans by creating a commonsense pathway for generic versions of what are called biologic drugs.

biologic drugs are -- are live cells, not the -- not the more old-fashioned but still very, very, very common chemical drugs that are made that we've known for many, many years. biologic drugs treat cancer, parkinson's, diabetes, arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, alzheimer's, other serious conditions. earlier this week, the committee, the "help" committee, could have exclusivity rights, what we call around here, but strip it away, monopoly rights, could have limited monopoly rights for biologics to seven years instead of enthaiblg monopoly for 12 -- enabling that monopoly for 12 years. but earlier in this week in the committee, consumers lost, the biotech industry won. how can we improve access to health care if people cannot afford their biologic drugs? how can we reduce costs if we don't inject competition into the marketplace? if we grant monopoly and block

any competitors from coming in and competing with thee drugs? during the debate, we heard a lot of numbers on how many years the big drug companies should have unchecked monopolies. we heard it should be 13 years or one of them was 13 1/2 years, or 12 years or 10 years. i wanted five years or maybe seven years at the most. but let me include some other numbers as we debate the minutia of health care reform. let me include some other numbers that are too often yet sometimes deliberately overlooked. 190,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year. herceptin is the brand-name biologic that treats breast cancer. it costs $48,000 a year. that's $1,000 a week. if you're lucky enough to have insurance, you might get part of this paid for but you'll probably have a 20% copay. so then it's $200 a week. that's if you're lucky. if you're not so lucky, you simply can't afford it. more than 1.3 million americans

live with rheumatoid arthritis. remicaid is the brand-name biologic that treats rheumatoid arthritis t. costs $20,000 a year f. you're lucky, you have insurance. but it you have insurance, you're probably paying a 20% copay that. would be $4,000 a year, just on the -- just on the biologic drug for your treatment. not counting lost work, not counting paying doctors' bills, not counting trips to the hospital, not counting tests. that's just $4,000 a year for that drug. if you're lucky enough to have insurance. this year, more than 148,000 people will be diagnosed with colon cancer avastin is the brand-name biologic that treats colon cancer and costs $100,000 a year. that's $2,000 a week. so if you're lucky enough to have insurance, if you're lucky enough to have insurance, you pay a copay of $400 per week, which is an awful lot of money.

to put these numbers in perspective, the average annual income -- household income in ohio is $47,00 $ $46,000. so these drugs, herceptin is $1,000. remicaid for rheumatoid arthritis is $20,000 a year. avastin for colon cancer is $2,000 a week. so again, if you're lucky enough to have insurance, your copay, your 20% copay for that $100,000 a year is $20,000. and an average income, as i said, in ohio is $46,000. brand-name biologics, these new kinds -- relatively new kinds of treatments l,il wl make up 50% of the -- will make up 50% of the pharmaceutical market by the year 2020. the prices for most of these drugs are increasing far faster than inflation, fast faster even than medical inflation. we know what that's all about. about 9.3% each year. the price for biologic drugs for

multiple sclerosis increased by 23% last year. madam president, i remember about a dozen years ago when wurp outraged when -- when we were outraged and just so surprised and shocked and -- and upset if had you a family member that was suffering from -- if you had a family member that was suffering from cancer when taxol, the came kl cancer drug in those days, cost $4,000 a year. we thought that were outrageous, exorbitant, unaffordable, out of reach. $4,000 a year. but in cancer drug now is $40,000 a year. herceptin is more than $40,000 a year. so where's the spout rage now? -- outrage now? i understand drug conditions need to protect their investment and their profit. they take the risk. they often -- i would say that many of these biologics that have been developed came initially from research that all of us as taxpayers put forth. we -- we appropriate every year

about $31 billion for the national sthiewts of health. something i fought for. when i was in the house, i was part of the group that doubled funding for n.i.h. in those days from about $from abou -- from at $15 billion -- from $12 billion to $25 billion a year. it was a roughly investment. but as we invest in these drugs, invest in this research that is the foundation for these drugs, it's a good thing. then these companies can take these and at their risk, can develop them into wonderful medicines, wonderful medication. but when they're making -- when they're charging this month after you building their foundation on taxpayer research, they're charging this much for these biologics. and even if you have insurance, if you're lucky enough, you simply can't afford them. now, but we -- so -- so i want -- i want these drug companies to protect their investment and their profit, but we can't give companies open-ended protection from exichtion the committee voted earlier this week to grant 12 years -- 12 years of monopoly. nobody else, no other -- orphan

drugs get a seven-year monopolyy protection. standard drugs, which have been wonderful for so many people in this country, very important drugs, pretty much as complicated as thigh biologic drugs, they get five years of monopoly market protection. so orphan drugs get seven years. these get five years. other products on the market have patents, as these do, and have those protections don't get additional monopoly protections. but -- but this committee this week i thought outrageously so gave 12 years of monopoly protection. that's unacceptable to many of us. president obama says it should be seven years. the aarp it says should be five to seven years. the federal trade commission reported that additional years of monopoly protection actually crimps -- crimps innovation, actually more monopoly, that giving these extra years of monopoly protection actually hinders innovation. i would argue that -- that this monopoly protection harms

innovation because it discourages biotechs from searching for new revenues. let me -- let me give you an example, madam president. if a new -- if a drug company produces a biologic that can matter in making, and it's important treatment for people, they get a 12-year monopoly protection. just consider that biologic might be administered by injection in a doctor's office. now, those same scientists that have done, that have created this biologic that you inject can, after five or six years, they come up with a new way to do it, you can take it by aerosol -- everybody i know would rather do it by aerosol than stick a n.i.h. dell in their arm every day or so, however often they need this treatment. but you know what? that supposed innovation, it's not going to come until the 12 years are up. that is why the committee erred

so extravagantly, it made such a mistake when it gave 12 years of protection to the drug industry, 12 years of monopoly protection because it hinders innovation. that means patients are going to keep getting the shot every day for 12 years instead of -- and then have to wait until the 12 years are up before they introduce the new aerosol way of administering, of using this treatment, of administering this drug. if there had been a six-year, five-year or seven-year monopoly protection, they would have brought this new drug on the market much quicker. that's why the only argument that the biotechs use, the only way their allies on the senate "help" committee use was pure and simple is that hurts innovation. it only hurts their products because it doesn't help innovation. the only study put forward other than a study from phrma, the big drug company lobbyists or a study from bio the lobbyists for

these biologic companies, other than their study, the only other study was a study from the food and drug administration saying this 12 year harms innovation. nobody can afford them. hatch-waxman, the legislation which introduces generic version has proved we can lead the world in biologic innovation. 25 years ago when hatch-waxman passed the drug company said the same thing. there's no way we'll innovate. this will put them out of business. patients in akron, bowling green, chillicothe and dayton understood this generic hraug from 25 years ago helped to keep prices down, $700 billion in savings. those same people around my state, people in zenia, springfield, mansfield, akron, portsmouth need that same access to generic versions. the vote earlier this week was not in the best interest of

patients suffering from multiple sclerosis or arthritis or cancer or alzheimer's or heart disease. it was not in the best interest of taxpayers because who's paying the bill here? either people are paying out of their pocket -- most can't afford it -- or insurance companies are paying it. insurance companies are going to raise their rate to employers and the patients. or taxpayers are paying it. that's who it's costing money. the beneficiaries of it aren't patients. it hurts innovation. the beneficiaries are the drug executives and the biologic company executives. it's not in the best interest of taxpayers. it was in the best interest of the large drug and biotech industries that fought to continue unchecked monopoly. there is an article in "roll call" or "hill" today or yesterday that pretty much said that biologic industry bought this one. the biologic industry spent $500,000 in ads in the last few days. they spent $1 million a day -- the health care overall spends

$1 million a day lobbying, and they were rather successful in what they did. i'm proud to have been part of this historic health debate that fought to -- that won -- that passed a bill as good as we passed. i'm also proud to have been pafrt of this -- part of this debate that continues to talk in here and educate the public about what's happened with biologics. the fight for afford generic drugs is not over. i'll fight to do whatever is best for taxpayers and patients, and that means a continued effort to make this law work as hatch-waxman worked for so many americans. i'll fight for the breast cancer patient who has to spend $1,000 a week for a biologic receptin. i'll fight for the colon cancer patient who spends $2,000 a week or that person with rheumatoid arthritis who spends $2,000 a month for medicine they desperately need. i look forward to working with members of the house and senate

and the administration who are fighting for what's right. i thank the president. madam president? the presiding officer: yes. mr. brown: i have 11 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. and i ask unanimous consent that these requests be tkpwred to, these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: friends and colleagues, i rise today because of a document that our forefathers signed 233 years ago, the declaration of independence. specifically, the declaration

stated, "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. they're endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." that simple phrase created the bedrock foundation for a nation founded under the equality under the law and freedom from persecution and the pursuit of happiness by our citizens. government by and for the governed under the concept of equality and freedom from persecution. it is an honor to rise today to advocate for that philosophy. i rise in strong support of the leahy amendment which would amend the department of defense bill to include the matthew

shepard hate crimes prevention act of 2009. first, i want to thank and acknowledge senator kennedy for his strong decade-long commitment to this legislation. i extend my appreciation to senator leahy for leading this effort with senator -- leading this effort in senator kennedy's absence. it has been more than then years since matthew shepard was brutally murdered simply because of his sexual orientation. it is long past time we take action to strengthen the federal government's ability to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. there is no room in our society for these acts of prejudice. hate crimes fragment and isolate our communities. they tear at our collective spirit. they seek to terrorize our society through brutal violence against targeted individuals. the math shoe shepherd hate crimes prevention act -- the

matthew shepard hate crimes prevention act is a critical step for those who are victimized simply for who they are. now, hate crimes legislation is not a new concept. in fact, the united states of america has had hate crime laws in place for 40 years. the hate crime act of 1969 was passed shortly after the assassination of martin luther king. that assassination motivated congress to action. that law says -- and i quote -- "it is illegal to willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with any person or attempt to do so by force or threat of force because of that other person's race, color, religion or national origin." that hate crimes law was passed by our parents' generation to

address the hate crimes so evident through the assassination of martin luther king and so many other actions in the 1960's. now it is time for our generation to pass a hate crimes bill that will strengthen the work done by our forefathers 40 years ago and that will address new forms of hate crime that have become far too prevalent in our society. we need to add provisions to prosecute those violent act based on gender, gender identity, disability and sexual orientation. of the 7,624 bias incidents reported in 2007, more than 16% resulted from sexual orientation bias. indicating that members of the gay and lesbian community are victimized nearly six times more frequently than an average citizen.

this last spring we experienced a terrible incident in my home state. in march two men's, samson deal and kevin peterson were visiting the oregon coast during their spring break. they wandered away from an even camp fire and ran into a group of four strangers who asked if they were gay and then called them derrogatory names. and then these two men were beaten brutally and left unconscious on the beach. now this is in the town of seaside. a place that i visited many, many times in my life. a beach i kawcd on man -- i walked on many times in my life. the police said that the seaside police had some hate crimes before, mostly threats, but never dealt with anything this serious. now i'm happy to report that sampson and kevin lived through this incident, but many do not. the attack could have been

worse. according to the national coalition of antiviolence program, 2007 saw the greatest number of anti-lbgt murders in eight years. 21 gay and transgendered people were murdered in the united states in 2007, more than double the number in 2006. currently only 11 states and the district of columbia include laws including gender identity based crimes. we must make sure that it is included in this legislation. but members of the gay community are not the only victims. we were all shocked last month when steven johns, who guarded the holocaust museum was shot and killed by a white supremist. an recent numbers suggest that hate crimes against individuals in the hispanic community increased by a staggering 40%

between 2003 and 2007. according to a recent report from the leadership conference on the civil rights education fund in the nearly 20 years since the enactment of the hate crimes statistic act, the number of hate crimes whoeverred around -- house oversight committeed around 700 annually. nearly one every single hour. as if that figure isn't high enough, it is well known that data collected on hate crimes almost certainly understates the true numbers because victims are often afraid to report the crimes or local authority do not accurately report the crime as hate crimes, which means they don't get reported to the federal government. now, what specifically is in this legislation? it gives the department of justice the power to investigate and prosecute bias motivated violence. it provides the department of justice with the ability to aid state and local jurisdictions. it makes grants available to

state an local communities to combat violent crimes. it authorizes the attorney general to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial and other assistance to state and local government. it authorizes grants from the justice department of up to $100,000 for state, local, and tribal law enforcement officials who have incurred extraordinary expenses in the prosecution or investigation of hate crimes. it authorizes the treasury department and the justice department to increase personnel to better prevent and respond to allegations of hate crimes. and it requires the f.b.i. to expand their statistic gathering so that we can better understand the types and structures of hate crimes in the united states of america. now these provisions will strengthen the original facets of the legislation from 1969 and

that legislation, as i noted, addressed issues related to race and color and religion or national origin. all of that has improved in this piece of legislation. but in addition we expand this legislation to address the hate crimes that we now see so prevalent in the lgbt community as victims. our constitution laid out a vision. now we didn't have complete equality under that vision in 1776. indeed it was a vision far ahead of it's time and we gradually worked towards it. we have extended our law to protect women, to include more folks to vote, to enable people to get rid of the racial boundaries that existed for voting. and so and so forth. we have steadily sought to take

strides towards that vision of equality under the law and the ability to pursue happiness without the fear of persecution. today i'm advocating that we take another important stride toward that goal our forefathers -- that vision our forefathers laid out before us. martin luther king said the long arc of history bends towards justice. but it doesn't by itself. it is bent by citizens who say this is wrong and we're going to do something about it. and this great strengthening of hate crimes legislation near the united states is a huge stride towards equality under the law and freedom from persecution. i encourage all of my colleagues to join in taking this historic stride forward.

thank you, madam president. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that gabriel be granted floor privileges until the end of this session in congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you, madam president, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mrs. lincoln: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. lincoln: thank you. mr. president, i also ask for unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. lincoln: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, today i rise to speak in support of five amendments that i have introduced to the bill before us, the national defense

authorization bill for fiscal year 2010. and each amendment focuses on improving the benefits and care for the members of our nation's national guard and reserve forces so that we can improve military readiness, strengthen our efforts to recruit and retain quality men and women to serve. i know each of us from our states recognize the tremendous bravery and courage, the dedication of our national guard and reservists in each of our states. they're parts of our community. they are certainly in many instances, i know for us from seeing the deployments, they're people of public service but they're also people who are there serving communities, whether they're firemen or police officers, maybe they're school principals, maybe they have small businesses that hire a tremendous number of people in those communities. but they're hard-working

americans, but they also find time to serve their country. they're dedicated, they're brave, and we certainly know the critical role that they play. and it is a reality, mr. president, that our military is relying increasingly upon our reserve components. as an operational reserve, not just simply a strategic reserve. my amendments reflect that reality by taking needed steps to honor the increased service and invest in these men and women who give so much on our behalf. when duty called, they stepped up to the plate and now it's time for congress to do the same. my first amendment, mr. president, is identical to the selected reserve continuum of care act which i introduced in may. now, this legislation will ensure that periodic health assessments for members of the guard and reserve are followed by government treatment to correct any medical or dental readiness deficiencies that are discovered at those screenings. now, we know that ---- that we

will begin to see these periodic health assessments. they're mandatory beginning in september. we need to make sure that we follow up on these. as an operational force serving frequent deployments overseas, these men and women require greater access to health care so they're able to achieve the readiness standards demanded by current deployment cycles. far, far too many men and women are declared nondeployable because they have not received the medical, the steady medical and dental care that they need to maintain their red dipness. we have all heard the horror stories of the military simply pulling soldiers' teeth and sending them on to iraq or afghanistan because they don't have the time to provide adequate dental care to bring them up to the medical dental readiness status that they need to be at to be deployed. now that w*er going to have

mandatory -- now that we're going to have mandatory assessments, there's no reason why we wouldn't want to provide them the medical care that they need in order to meet that assessment. this is absolutely unacceptable that we would not, and it is inexcusable. considering the sacrifices that we are asking of them to make on our behalf, the least we can do is to provide them the care that they need, to meet the readiness standards that we have set. pulling your teeth and rushing them to war is simply not going to get it done. this practice itself has become so prevalent, we now have a name for these men and women. they're called pumpkin soldiers. how absolutely awful is that? awful that it is such a prevalent practice that it has a nickname. come pounding this challenge is the -- compounding this

challenge is the fact short term deployments occur regularly. last year prior to the second deployment of the arkansas national guard's 39th infantry brigade combat team to iraq, members from 11 units across our state were pulled to fill out the combat team. some of these cross-leveled members had as little as two or three weeks notice prior to their deployment. they were having to fill in because when it came time, those that were in those units, the regular guard and reserve that were there, did not meet the deployable standards. consequently we had to pull people from all different units at a late notice to put them in there while these others met

that medical and dental readiness. my amendment would prevent in large all of this from happening in the future by providing the necessary care at the front end of these assessments. instead of compressing treatment costs into a short predeployment period or the bottle necked medical support unit at the mobilization station, my amendment would spread the same costs over a longer period with a more orderlynd reliable result. we're having a huge debate right now on health care reform, and one of things we see is that if we can provide prevention or wellness or certainly make sure that medical care gets there when we first detect what that medical problem is, the outcome is better and it is usually less costly in the overall. the further out from the deployment uncorrectable conditions are discovered, the more time a unit will have to

replace the discharged member and mitigate the effects from that loss. so it's not just the well-being of the soldier that we're looking at. it's also the well-being of the unit. we can and should, mr. president, do more to bring our selected reserve members into a constant state of medical readiness for the benefit of the entire force. and my amendment does just that. that's why it's been endorsed by the military coalition, a consortium of nationally prominent uniformed services and veterans associations representing over 5.5 million members across this country. i am proud to have worked with senators landrieu and tester, reich and byrd on this important legislation, and i thank them for their support and realizeation of how important, how practical and how much sense it makes for us to use these assessments to move quickly to provide the medical treatment that is necessary to

ensure that our soldiers, when they do receive those orders to be deployed are meeting the medical and dental readiness that they need to meet in order to be deployed. mr. president, my second amendment calls for an increase in the montgomery g.i. bill rate for members of the selected reserve to keep pace with their increased service and the rising cost of higher education. now, i am pleased my friend, senator mike crapo of idaho -- mike and i worked together on so many different issues, everything from wildlife to education and certainly with our military, representing states that have large rural areas and, therefore, large numbers of guard and reserve. so, senator crapo and i have joined in this effort. it has also been endorsed by the military coalition as well, the group i mentioned earlier. this amendment would simply tie education benefit rates for guardsmen and reservists to the national average cost of tuition

standards that is already applied to active-duty education benefits rates. we've worked hard to try to increase the educational benefit to be commensurate with the time that these tkpwaurpbd reservists are working on -- guard and stpefrbgts are working on -- guard and reservists are working. the problem is now that we have increased their access to a more commensurate educational benefit, the value of that benefit is immediately losing value, because they depend on the appropriators and us to increase that amount. and when it's increasing at half the rate of the cost of higher education, then they're getting further and further behind each year in keeping that commensurate benefit at a rate that makes sense and certainly is adequate for what their needs

are in education. so i think it's absolutely critical that we do this. it builds upon my total force g.i. bill first introduced in 2006 which was designed to better reflect a comprehensive total force concept that ensures members of the selected reserve receive that educational benefit more commensurate with their increased service. and the final provisions of this legislation became law last year with the signing of the 21st century g.i. bill. now it only makes sense that we would maintain that benefit at a rate, again, just at the rate of increase that we're seeing in higher education that certainly makes sense for our guard and reserve. mr. president, my third amendment would lower the travel reimbursement threshold for national guard and reserve members that are traveling for drills from 100 miles to 50 miles. our current high threshold has caused undue hardships for

members of the selected reserve, especially those in rural areas who often incur significant expenses traveling because they have to travel significant distances. if we cannot ease their burden, i fear that we're creating significant obstacles to recruit and retain men and women to serve in the guard and reserve, particularly during times of economic hardship. we saw the price of gasoline explode last year. we know how difficult it is, particularly for many of our guard and reserve that live in those rural areas. again, i just think this is a commonsense thing that we can do on behalf of these brave men and women. i'm so very pleased to be joined here by senators tester and wyden in offering this amendment and was among the recommendations of the independent commission on the national guard and reserves. it is supported by numerous military and veterans service organizations, and it only makes

sense, mr. president, that we would appropriately provide them the reimbursement they need and the travel expenses to get to where they need for their drills and for their training. mr. president, my fourth amendment would enable a valuable program, the national guard youth challenge program, to expand to new cities and new sites and reach even more of our young troubled americans. currently operating in 22 states, the youth challenge trains and mentors youth who have dropped out of high school and it puts them on a path to become more productive, employed and law-abiding citizens. and i recommend to any of my colleagues in this body who have not visited a national guard youth challenge program to go and visit. i have visited our youth challenge program on more than one occasion and have been amazed both at those who have graduated from that program and have come back to mentor these

other youth who are disadvantaged, who have found themselves in the court systems, thrown out of school, or certainly in a troubled nature. but to be able to come into this environment and to feel the security of the military and the rules of the military that prompt them into a sense of pride and a sense of courage and a sense of accomplishment -- they finish their education and they go on to do so many great things, so many things that otherwise could have turned sour for these youth. so i just encourage, as i said, any of the members of this body, if you've never visited one of those national guard youth challenge programs, i really encourage you to do so. you know, for 22 weeks these young men and women receive more than 200 hours of classroom, learning designed to prepare them to take the general equivalency diploma exam. i attended the graduation of the

class in arkansas, and i can attest to the program's positive results. at a time when we know that financial security or financial insecurity in our country is shaking our families, our youth who are finding themselves in certainly different circumstances that many of us did growing up, with all kinds of temptations and distractions and things that can put them on the wrong pathway, here we have an opportunity, when they start out on that wrong pathway, to grab them and put them into a program that is going to continue to build on them, build on the positive things that they have to offer and set them on a good pathway. since its inception, the national guard youth challenge program, 85,000 young men and women have graduated nationwide. they have received their high school agrees. nearly 80% have gone to college

college. currently the department of defense provides 60% of the funding while states are responsible for the remainder. unfortunately, the current cap on funding has restricted so many of our states from establishing additional programs or building on their existing programs. along with additional funding, this amendment would help jump-start the youth challenge by fully funding new programs for two years while they get their feet on the ground and when they better understand the tremendous value of this program and, more importantly, how their states can begin to invest in a program like this. and it ensures that the federal government's share is 75% into the future instead of the current 60% that it is right now. this amendment is endorsed by the national guard youth foundation, the enlisted association of the national guard of the united states and the national guard association of the united states. and i'm so pleased to be joined

by senators burr, casey, cornyn, hey again, landrieu, murkowski, reich, rockefeller, snowe, udall of colorado and wyden in this effort. it is identical to the legislation i have previously introduced which has 32 bipartisan cosponsors. it is a great move to help our children, particularly our troubled children, and more importantly, it really sends it in the right direction so they can become contributing parts of this great nation. so i encourage my colleagues to look at this amendment and help us get it passed in this very important bill. mr. president, you've been incredibly patient, and i appreciate that patience, having to talk about five different amendments. bus these -- but these are issues critically important to me and critically important to the people of arkansas. my final amendment would grant full veterans status to those in the armed forces who have 20

years of service. i am joined in this effort by senator hutchison of texas. this amendment is endorsed by the military coalition, which is a large coalition of military groups. under current law, members of reserve components who have completed 20 or more years of service are considered military retirees. at the age of 60, they're eligible for all the benefits received by active-duty military retirees. unfortunately, mr. president, they are denied the full standing and honor that comes with the designation of veteran. if they have not served a qualifying period of federal active duty other than active-duty training. and as a result, these men and women are technically not included in various veterans ceremonies and initiatives such as an effort to have veterans wear their medals on veterans day or memorial day or in legislation authorizing veterans to offer a hand salute during the playing of the national anthem or the presentation and

posting of the colors. i don't know about you, mr. president, but when i'm at events at home in arkansas or here at well, but certainly at home when i'm surrounded by my family of arkansas people, and the flag comes down the parade or the colors are presented, you know, making sure that everyone that has stood up and said "i am ready to serve my country when it calls on me," should be given that respect of being noticed as a veteran. now, my amendment does not seek to change the legal qualifications for access to benefits. it simply seeks to correct this inequity by honoring and recognizing those who have served their country for 20 years or more. those who have said continually over those 20 years when my nation needs me, if my nation needs me, i will be there. i will take up my arms.

i will do what is asked of me as a member of the military forces. these men and women wore the same uniform, were subject to the same code of military justice, received the same training and spent 20 or more years being liable for callup whenever it did happen. this amendment recognizes their long careers of service and would entitlement them to -- entitle them to receive proper recognition as a veteran of the united states of america. i know of few recognition. these men and women embody those traits and it's time that we tbrant them the recognition -- grant them the recognition they earned. mr. president, i ask my colleagues to give these efforts thoughtful consideration. these five proposals help us to keep our promise to these brave men and women and help to strengthen recruitment an retention for our national guard and reserve and increase their

readiness as an operation force in the continued defense of this great nation that we all love and are all so very blessed to be a part of. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. noting the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i ask that the calling of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: i rise today in support of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2010. first, i would like to speak briefly about the matthew shepard hate crimes prevention act. we have seen far too many cases of these crimes of violence motivated by prejudice and hatred of people. this would extend the current definition of hate crimes to include crimes committed on the basis of someone's gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or disability. this does not federalize all

hate crimes. it authorizes the federal government to step in as a backstop only after the government just nice it. it provides federal aid to local law enforcement officials. this amendment confirms our commitment to those most basic of american values, the dignity of the individual and the right of that individual to be himself or herself. i am pleased to lend my support. that is an issue that we will confront in the context of our armed services bill and i think we should go forward and adopt it. i would like to commend with respect to the specifics of the armed services bill my colleagues on the committee for their work, the leadership of senator levin and senator mccain. and i hope that this is a bill that president obama can sign. and during the committee's markup, i voted against amendments to provide funding for additional f-22's and for the joint strike fighter altered

engine and i remain opposed to these programs. and we should not put this bill in jeopardy of a veto, so i urge my colleagues to vote when it comes to the floor for the levin-mccain amendment to strike the f-22 funding, which i hope will be considered soon. as evidenced by the f-22 issue, this bill is a product of many tough decisions, and i want to commend secretary gates particularly for his very judicious, very thoughtful approach to this budget and his uniformed colleagues. they have thought long and hard about the new world of threats. they have thought long and hard about how we can provide the most necessary resources for our men and women in uniform. and they have recommended to us i think a very sound approach. and with certain exceptions, the

legislation before us recognizes and accepts those recommendations. i think the new administration and president obama has done also a remarkable job in terms of trying to change strategic direction, change acquisition policies, to develop a fighting force that will meet the threats of today and prepare ourselves for future possibilities. this defense authorization bill contains many aspects which are critical to the success of our men and women in uniform, and let me suggest a few. first of all, it once again recognizes the extraordinary service and sacrifice of these young americans by authorizing a much-needed 3.4% across-the-board pay raise. the extraordinary sacrifices that they make every day can never be compensated by dollars and, indeed, their motivation is not financial. it is to serve the nation and

serve it with courage and fidelity, and they do it so well. i've had the privilege to travel to afghanistan and iraq on numerous occasions, and to witness the heroic and decent service of these remarkable people. but this pay raise reflects at least in part the value we place on their service. the legislation before us fully funds army readiness and depot maintenance programs to ensure that forces prepare to deploy are properly trained and equipped. it also authorizes $27.9 billion to the defense health program and permits special compensation for designated caregivers for the time and assistance they provide to service members with combat-related catastrophic injuries or illnesses which require assistance with everyday living. what we are seeing is success medically on the battlefield, where the mortality rates relative to the injuries have

declined as they have since world war ii, but we have a significant population of very severely wounded young men and women, and they need help and their car givers need help, and this legislation recognizes that. the legislation fully funds the president's budget request at $7.5 billion to train and equip the afghan national army and the afghan national police forces. the bill also includes a provision that emphasizes the need to establish measures of progress for the administration's strategy for afghanistan and pakistan and to report to congress regularly on efforts to achieve progress in that region. and i saw the merits of this approach in my recent trip along with senator kaufman to pakistan and afghanistan in april. and, in fact, as we observed the increase the tempo of operations in southern afghanistan led by our marines and british forces, we are also recognizing the need

to partner with more afghani police and security forces and military forces. our strategy can't be just an american presence. it has to be an american-afghani presence, which ultimately will translate to a almost exclusive, if not exclusive, afghan presence. to do that we have to support the building and the -- and the professionalization of the afghan security forces. there is within this budget funding for our navy that is absolutely critical. it is includes funding to complete the third-class destroyer. this ship is critical to maintaining the technical superiority of our navy that it enjoys across the oceans of the word." future maritime fleet must be adaptable, affordable, survivable, flexible and responsive, and the stone wall class provides all of these --

the stonewall class provides awful these characteristics in a multisurface combatant tailored for land attack and navatorial dominance t. will provide for independence, provide gun support for joint forces ashore, and its advanced censors ensure absolute control of the combat airspace. all of this capability is based on today's proven and demonstrated technologies. we can't build the same ships that we were building 20 years ago and hope to maintain our superiority and, indeed, hedge against the emerging threats of tomorrow. this zumwalt -- stonewall technology is also the transition to the next class of combatants which will likely be a new class of cruisers. the hope is that we can leverage what we learn on zumwalt so that the next class of service combatants will be even more capable and we hope extremely

cost-efficient. i would also note that the underlying legislation fully funds the continued procurement of the virginia class attack submarine. these attack submarines are on the highest level of demand by area commanders. the cincs when they're asked in terms of what they need in terms of resources invariably place very close, if not on the top of their list, additional submarines because of their stealth, because of their ability to operate in intelligence areas, their ability to have a forward presence without being recognized. these are critical, and i'm pleased with the recognition by the administration and the committee in this regard. this year, i was once again extremely for the purpose of the, indeed, honored, to serve as the chairman of the emerging threats and capabilities subcommittee. i want to particularly thank and commend senator wicker and his staff. they were true collaborators.

their cooperation was significant in terms of improving the quality of our subcommittee report. we worked together very well and i want to begin particularly commend and thank senator wicker for his insights, for his energy and for his great collaboration in this effort. the emerging threats and capabilities subcommittee is responsible for looking at new and emerging threats to our security and considering appropriate steps we should take to develop new capabilities to face these threats. in preparation for our markup, senator levin, the chairman, provided guidelines for the work of the committee, including the following two items: improve the ability of the armed forces to counter nontraditional threats, including terrorism, the proceed live rescission of weapons of mass destruction, and their means of delivery; and, second, enhance the exaiivelt th capabie

armed forces to conduct counterinsurgency operations. in response, our subcommittee recommended initiatives in a number of areas within our jurisdiction. these areas include supporting critical nonproliferation programs and other efforts to combat weapons of mass destruction. supporting advances in medical research and technology to treat such modern battlefield conditions as traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. increasing investments in new energy technologies, such as fuel cells, hybrid engines and alternate fuels to increase military preference and reduce costs. increasing investments in advanced manufacturing technologies to strengthen our defense industrial base so that it can rapidly and efficiently produce the material needed by our nation's war fighters. and increasing investments in research at our nation's small businesses, government labs and universities so that we have the most innovative minds in our country working to enhance our national security.

specifically, some notable actions in this bill that originated in the emerging threats and capabilities subcommittee include authorizing full funding for the special operations command and adding $131.7 million to meet unfunded equipment requirements identified by the commander of our special forces to enable them to conduct counterinsurgency operations and to support ongoing military operations. authorizing full funding requested for the joint i.e.d. defeat organization, jiedo. this is particularly important as we read about the increasing i.e.d. attacks against our forces in afghanistan since our offensive began in hellman province weeks ago. these i.e.d.'s are the number-one threat to our forces in the field and our allied force in the field. this organization, very sophisticated, use their information technology, innovation, communication, new techniques, working closely with

the battlefield commanders to protect our forces and our allied forces. and they have a critical role, a critical mission and we fully support did in this -- support it in this legislation. we authorize the cooperative threat reduction program and we provided an additional $10 million to new initiatives outside the former soviet union. in russia, we provided $3 million for chemical weapons demilitarization and elsewhere $7 million for tragic offensive arms elimination. we have to recognize that these weapons are distributed too broadly in many respects and our efforts to restrict them and to we hope dismantle them have to be brought also. we added $50 million for nonproliferation research and development for nuclear friends ition and other r -- forensics and other r&d activities and require the development of an interagency forensics and nuclear attribution program.

one of the hopes -- and, again, this must be based on very careful sign dispisk technological research -- scientific and technological research -- is that if we can identify the source of a nuclear detonation positively, we would have an extraordinarily powerful deterrent card which we could use diplomatically to indicate that if any nation either particularly covertly attempts directly or through terrorist groups to deploy a nuclear weapon anywhere in the world, we could trace it back immediately and we could respond immediate immediately. that could give us, again, an enhanced determination. this, of course -- enhanced deterrence. this, of course, depends upon the progress we make in research but we must begin, and we must begin i think with energy. this research w and we have in e legislation. the bill also highlights the

importance of a strong industrial manufacturing base. bill would create a new position, the assistant secretary of defense for manufacturing and industrial base, to oversee the department's policies and programs for our nation's industrial base. further, the bill increases funding for manufacturing research and d.o.d. by roughly $100 million to support the defense industrial base and reduce the costs of production for weapons systems and our ability to meet surge requirement demands of operating forces. this bill also reauthorizes the d.o.d. small business innovation research program in coordination with the efforts of senator mary landrieu, chair of the senate committee on small business and entrepreneurship. important investments in next-generation technologies and advanced military capabilities, this bill would increase the department's funding for innovative science and technology programs by over $480 million to a total of $12.1 billion. the bill authorizes full funding that was requested by chemical and biological defense programs

and the full amount requested for chemical weapons demilitarization in the united states. and this funding totals over $3 billion. with regard to counter drug programs, the bill fully funds d.o.d. drug interdiction and counterdrug activities. it also includes a provision that would extend the authority to use counterdrug found support the government of colombia's unified campaign against narcotics cultivation and trafficking and against terrorist organizations involved in such activities. it also recommends a $30 million increase in funding for high-priority national guard counternarcotics programs. and this issue of narcotics is particularly central to our efforts in afghanistan. when i was there in april, we were in hellman province which was covered literally with opium poppies. the opium trade provides support for our opponents, the taliban.

and if we disrupt that trade and we are able to reduce the flow of resources to the taliban but also provide legitimate family farmers with the opportunity to -- and the profitability to grow alternate crops, then we can i think make a successful dent in the power and the presence of the taliban there. these counternarcotic programs not only in colombia but also afghanistan are absolutely important. this is a good bill. it is, i think, wise legislation, with the exceptions i noted. the members of the committee and the committee staff have worked many hours to get this bill to the floor. we are a nation engaged in two conflicts and an ongoing struggle in many parts of the world to intercept, interdict and preempt terrorists.

we need to support our military forces, and i urge my colleagues to work together to pass it so that we can quickly have a conference with the house and send it to the president for his signature. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor, and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. burris: i'd like to ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. burris: mr. president, i'd like permission to also speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burris: mr. president, the judiciary committee is hearing the testimony from the distinguished judge sonia sotomayor, and today i rise in strong support of judge sonia sotomayor's nomination to the united states supreme court. i believe that while judge sotomayor's expansive legal experience make her a logical choice, it is her background and unique perspective that will make her an ideal selection for a seat on our nation's highest court. certainly no one can argue with judge sotomayor's legal qualifications. after graduating from princeton

university, and law school she served as assistant u.s. torn and had a successful legal practice of her own. in 1991, president george h.w. bush appointed ms. sotomayor as the first hispanic judge to the united states district court in new york state. eight years later president clinton elevated her to the united states court of appeals where she serves today. throughout her distinguished career, mr. president, judge sotomayor has been a prudent and thoughtful jurist. she has constantly exhibited the highest standards of fairness, equality and integrity. i was proud to write to president obama on may 15 urging her nomination. however, it is not simply judge sotomayor's wealth of legal experience and long public record that make her the best possible candidate for the

supreme court. her life story will make her a dynamic and thoughtful addition to that august body. born into relative poverty and raised in a housing project in the bronx, young sonia's childhood was remarkable in that it was overwhelmingly normal. she was not a child of privilege, yet she had come to value her cultural traditions while also embracing the needs for judicial objectivity and legal impartiality. this dedicated balance is precisely what will make her such an important voice on the supreme court. as we consider her nomination, we must bear this in mind, mr. president. when we evaluate the makeup of the court which seeks to build dissent rather than consensus. we seek to engender debate among

its members, diversity of perspective, background of opinion, legitimacy and integrity to judicial rulings. throughout her career, sonia sotomayor has proved herself to be a moderate, restrained judge whose rulings are bound by the weight of precedent. judgment must remain free from passion and passion for the law cannot be lost. mrs. sotomayor carries with her a lifetime of that passion, something that i would consider a valuable asset. mr. president, as a supreme court justice, judge sotomayor will bring much-tphaoepded diversity and a rich understanding -- much-needed diversity and a reach understanding of the american dream in every opinion she writes. as she has said, she has achieved on her own merit, and it is a relatable quality that will lend fresh perspective to

the court. i applaud president obama's nomination of judge sotomayor. as her confirmation hearing continues, we must ensure that there are tough but fair. we must hold her to the same standard to which we would hold any nominee. and just as the senate has confirmed her twice before, i am confident that we will do it once again with strong bipartisan support this time, mr. president. it will be an honor to cast -- it will be an honor for me to cast my vote in favor of her nomination when the time comes. i look forward to the day she takes her rightful seat on the bench in the highest court in our land. thank you, mr. president. and i kwr-fp and suggest the absence of a -- and i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the

clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. dorgan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota is recognized. mr. dorgan: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. dorgan: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. dorgan: mr. president, in recent days and weeks, the house of representatives has passed legislation called the waxman markey bill that deals with the issue of climate change, and particularly deals with the issue of trying to decarbonize the energy use in this country in order to protect the planet. i support the goals of a low-carbon future and trying to

decarbonize the use of certain energy that we have that puts greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which causes a scientific conclusion that i think is a consensus of scientists that we are endangering our planet with respect to the potential of future warming of the planet. so, i support the goal of trying to deal with this issue of climate change. the question is: how do we address it? how do we move forward? the house of representatives has established one approach. i want to mention a couple of approaches that i think we ought to try that represents a different approach than that which will come to us in the waxman-markey legislation. and as i do, let me just say this is a very big issue with consequences for virtually all americans, for families, for businesses, and for our climate certainly. the question for us is: how do we move forward in a way that

uses energy and creates energy in a different way, in a better way to protect the environment? we wake up in the morning, all of us do, and begin our day taking energy for granted. one of the first things we do is we flick a switch and a light comes on. perhaps we use a hair dryer or we put something in the oven. in so many different ways, virtually thaefrg we're doing is a use of energy. we get in our cars and drive to work, we're using energy, and we're using a lot of energy. the current secretary of energy, dr. chu, is a noble-prize winning scientist. he's had a way of describing at one point that i heard he he talked about going back a couple of thousand years when a couple of thousand years ago someone wanted to go to find out something to eat they got on one horse, because we had horse

power then. someone would get on a horse an find something to eat, presumably through hunting or gathering. these days times have changed, we still use horses in a different way. we measure it in horsepower in an eng anyone a vehicle. someone wants a loaf of bread, they'll crank up 270 horses and go get a loaf of bread. you never think much about the advantage of having energy at our command at almost any moment and we haven't thought very much about what the use of that energy does to the climate. so here we find ourselves in the year 2009 with what the consensus of most scientists is a very serious problem for the future of this planet. and that is greenhouse gasses, which would warm the planet and cause substantial consequence, and, therefore, we need to try to find the way toward a low-carbon future. lower emissions of co2 into

the atmosphere. how do we do that? well, as i indicated the house of representatives has written a bill, the waxman-markey, 1,400-plus pages of legislation. very, very complicated, i might add. let me describe another approach. we have written in the energy committee near the united states senate a new energy bill. -- here in the united states senate a new energy bill. it was completed some weeks ago. passed with bipartisan support in that committee. let me describe a bit of what we have done in that energy bill. we reduced our dependence on foreign oil. we increase domestic production of domestic electricity. electricity in diversifying our -- oh, electrify and diversify our vehicle fleet to move toward a different kind of future. we create a transmission superhighway so you can produce renewable energy where you can

best produce it, wind or solar, and put it on the transmission grid to the load center where it is needed. and we train an energy workforce of tomorrow. these are a few things we have done. we established a renewable electricity standard. -- standard of 15%. and it needs to be higher. but the fact is it is the first time that we will have established a standard -- we want to mks miez the production of renewable -- maximize the production of renewable energy. that is green energy in my cases. when you take energy from the wind, gather energy from the sun and producing electricity and putting it on transmission grid and moving it to where it is needed, you are producing green energy. that is a significant, giant step toward climate change. or, rather, i should say, toward addressing the things that we need to do to deal with the climate change threat. producing green energy, maximizing the production of green energy. and we've done so many things in

that legislation. even as we do that, we have twin issues we need to address protecting our planet, yes, but at least with the respect to the vulnerability of our country, it is also a case of 70% of our oil coming from off our shores, so we want to make us less dependent on foreign oil. the legislation also expands the production of energy here in this country. it opens up some areas that have not been open in the eastern gulf of mexico to oil and gas. as you know, natural gas is a clean-burning fuel. it has some great properties. and we need to increase production in those areas. so we're doing a lot of things in this area to address or move toward the solution to the threat to our planet. electrifying our vehicles, moving toward an electric drive transportation system. clearly we're going to move in that direction and our

legislation moves aggressively in that direction. so i believe that what we ought to do, addressing a number of these issues, is we ought to address the piece of legislation that we passed in the energy committee, bring it to the floor of the senate. i mean i've -- i, of course, talked about this at some length in recent weeks. but i really think the energy bill we produced is a significant step toward the climate change challenge. it seems to me to make sense to do the energy piece first and bank that progress in addressing climate change. get that to the president. get it signed and legitimately being able to boast about what we have done in a significant way to maximize the production of green energy, maximize the use of energy from the wind and the sun and biomass and so on and move it to where it's needed. that is not an insignificant achievement at all. i think we ought to do that.

second, on the question of cap-and-trade or waxman-markey or a carbon restrained piece of legislation of some type, let me talk about that for just a moment. clearly the senate is going to deal with that. my preference would be that we not take up the waxman-markey bill as such. i know a lot of work has gone into that legislation. but hi preference would be that we start in a -- but my preference would be that we start in a different direction. i do not have a problem with cap and carbon. i believe we will cap emissions of carbon. the question is especially establishing targets and timelines that allow us to do that and at the same time that we provide a low-carbon future, we don't cause the substantial disruption that's we could cause if we he create targets and timelines for co2 emissions simply unachievable. we have a lot of people all across this country that are

doing inventive work, really interesting, world-class cutting-edge research that will unlock the opportunity to find out how do we sequester, how do we capture, how do we provide beneficial use of co2 so we protect our environment. i'm absolutely convinced that we will achieve that goal. the opportunity through research and technology to unlock the mystery of how we separate or perhaps just carbon or sequester and provide beneficial use and protect our environment for the substantial emissions of co2. i'm convinced that we'll do that. i don't think there's much question about that. but what i have difficulty with is this -- not with respect to goals. i'm for a low-carbon future. i believe we're going to move in that direction. and i will support that goal. i do not support, however, a cap-and-trade system in which some 400 pages of the house bill is about cap-and-trade and

especially trade establishing a new trading system of a carbon securities market. let me describe why in my judgment there are better ways to deal with these issues than establish very substantial carbon securities trading system in which the biggest investment banks in the country and the biggest hedge funds in the country sink thee their teeth into the -- their teeth into the marketplaces and make massive amounts of money. and my profound feeling about that is that we have seen a decade in which many of these markets have been manipulated. many of these markets have failed to work at all with respect to the market signals of supply and demand. and i have very little interest in con signing our interest with respect to a carbon restrained future to a trading system of carbon securities that the biggest trading companies in the world will be involved in and it won't be very long before we will have derivatives, we'll have swaps, we'll have synthetic

swaps, you name it, we'll have all of them and it will be a field day for speculation, which i think is not in the interest of this country. now, let me just describe something that i think might be a part of this concern or of things to come, i might say. these are actual oil prices. you all remember what happened to oil prices. they went from -- down from $60 a barrel to $147 a barrel in day trading last july. even as the price of oil was going like this, the bes experts looking at -- the best experts looking at supply and demand were implying this is where the price of oil is going to be. here is where we think the price of oil is going to be straight on across. sheer what they suggest in may of 2007, here's the price. the price went like that. here's what they suggested in january of 2008. the price went like that. why is it that you have an oils

future market where supply and demand doesn't determine where the line goes? the price goes right of off the chart. yet supply -- right off of the chart. yet supply is up and demand is down. if you like what you see in the futures market with speculators engaged in two-thirds or three-fourths of the trade in which they're trading 20 to 25 times the amount of oil and creating a speculation orgy. and it went down like a roller coaster. if you like that sort of thing, you're going to love the trade piece in cap-and-trade. because we're going to create a big perhaps trillion dollar market for carbon securities and it won't be long before the same investment banks, the same hedge funds, and they'll all be engaged in trading derivatives and swaps and you name it. i happen to think that makes no

sense at all. "the new york times" said: managing emissions is one of the fastest growing specialties in financial service. investment banks like goldman sachs and morgan stanley have rapidly expanded their carbon businesses. big investment banks very interested. i'm told, by the way, most of the land investment banks -- large investment banks have traded their carbon trading units. "the charlotte observer," firms like goldman sachs and morgan stanley already have carbon desks and teams. former commodities traders or former securitization are those who lost money in wells fargo and bank of america. and as congress gears upper a debate about cap-and-trade, "the new york times" in a news story -- programs to eliminate

greenhouse gas emissions resonate from wall street or ex-wall streeters are flooding into the carbon trading shops. chris le rch ds, the head of emissions trading in merrill lynch said that carbon could become one of the fasting growing markets ever, with volumes comparable to credit derivatives inside after decade. louis redshaw, head environmental markets at barclays capital said that carbon will be the world's biggest commodity market and it could become the world's biggest market overall. so, do we really want to sign up to a future in which we can sign the question of con training carbon and doing what we should -- constraining carbon and doing what we should to do -- do to

protect this planet? do we want to create a carbon market, a carbon securities market that in my judgment would likely subject to us to the same vision of the last decade with unbelievable speculation, movements in markets that seem disconnected from supply and demand. that's not future that i want. there are other ways of capping carbon and addressing these issues. i'm for capping carbon. i'm for a low-carbon future. but in my judgment those who would bring to the floor of the united states senate a replication of what has been done in the house with over 400 pages describing the -- quote -- "cap-and-trade" piece of capping carbon will find very little favor from me and i would suspect from some others as well. there are better and other more direct twice do this to protect our planet. but i -- i've been to the floor

many, many, many times talking about what has happened with credit default swaps, what's happened with c.d.o.'s, what happened with the oil futures market. on and on and on. if what has happened gives anybody confidence, then they're in a deep sleep and just don't understand it. and, again, i come back to the chart i showed a moment ago, the head of emissions trading at merrill lynch saying carbon could become one of the fastest growing markets, with volumes comparable to credit derivatives. i mean, think of this, the unbelievable volumes of credit derivative swaps that most people couldn't pronounce and didn't know exists and it turn out that have tens of trillions of dollars and worldwide hundreds of trillions of dollars. frankly, i think that is not in the country's interest to establish a new financial market to have the same players engaged

in the same games that gamble on this country's future. so, mr. president, i think two things. number one, there is a piece of legislation that is ready to come to the floor passed by the energy committee that moves in the direction of climate change. we ought to, it seems to me, get the benefit of that legislation and pass that bill along to the president of the united states for signature. maximizes renewable energy -- does a lot of things that will dramatically impact our carbon footprint. that's number one. number two, those in the senate who are working very hard and talking about the issue of climate change and how we might want to cap carbon and what kind after low-carbon future we might be able to do should understand at least there are some of us -- and i certainly speak only for myself -- who believe that cap-and-trade -- quote, unquote

around the "trade" -- makes no sense to meevment i thin me. i wanted to explain at least as those who are writing this bill and attempting to take that which was produced in the house with 400-and-some pages on cap-and-trade, i want them to understand that some of us will resist very aggressively the trade side of cap-and-trade. mr. president, i yield the floor and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: would the senator withhold his request? mr. dorgan: i withhold my q. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky is recognized. mr. bunning: i would like to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. bunning: mr. president, today i rise to speak on the nomination of judge sotomayor to be a justice on the united states supreme court.

after much consideration, i cannot support this nomination. i have been following this process closely. i have been reading her rulings and her speeches. i have been watching her hearings at the senate judiciary committee. i met her for a half an hour on a one-on-one and was able to ask her eight specific questions. unfortunately, i find her to be unsuitable to be a member of the united states supreme court. the first problem i would like to discuss is her lack of direct answers to direct questions. i had this problem with my meeting with her, and it appears, from watching the judiciary committee hearings, that other members have had that problem, too. my biggest concern is in the

area that she answered the question from the perspective of the job she has, not the job she has been nominated for. as a member of the district or circuit court, she must rely heavily on precedent. however, as a justice of the supreme court, she is in a position to set precedent. when i asked her simple questions about how she would treat certain subjects, she retreated to saying that she would use precedent to decide how to proceed. i found this unsatisfactory because she would be setting precedent as a member of the supreme court. the fact throughout her nomination process -- in fact, throughout her nomination process, i have seen her sidestep direct questions time and time again.

we have seen this happen numerous times during her hearings before the judiciary committee. i think we deserve answers to these questions, and we have not gotten them. however, we can learn about her views and how she might perform on the supreme court by studying her record. she has an extensive record, which includes 17 years as a judge and prior to that time spent as a prosecutor in the private practice. and as a member of groups such as the puerto rican legal defense and education fund. this gives us much to look at, such as her decisions, speeches, and other sources. i have studied these, and i would like to comment on them and her views. when i spoke on the nomination of chief justice john roberts in

the year 2005, i pointed out the problem of the supreme court and other judges trying to replace congress and state legislatures. important social issues have been taken out of the political process and been decided by unelected judges. i can say with certainty that this was not the way our founding fathers and authors of the constitution intended for it to work. the creation of law is reserved for elected legislatures. -- legislat-- legislators chosee people. the supreme court is not a nine-person legislature created to interact with or replace the united states congress w when judges or justices take the law

into their own hands and act as if they were a legislative body. it flies in the face of our constitution. because of this, whether in the supreme court or in lower courts, many people have lost respect for our judicial system, and this cannot continue to happen. in addition to the obvious constitutional concerns, if some day the public and the rest of the political systems begin to tune out the courts and ignore their decisions altogether, it would be a grave situation for our country. during their confirmations, i felt that chief justice roberts and justice alito understood this. that is probably the biggest reason why i voted for them. i'm afraid that i cannot say the same for judge sotomayor.

much has been said about judge sotomayor's wide latina woman comments. even though they have been discussed many times over, they are still relevant and speak to her views on the role of judges. in her infamous 201 speech, she said that a a wise latina woman would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male. this shows a clear method of her thinking and indicates she accepts the idea that personal experiences and emotions influence a judge's rulings rather than the words of law and

the constitution. she uses the words "wise latina woman" phrase in at least four other speeches, the most recent being in 2004. the fact that she repeated it so often indicates that she really believes it. she has said that the notion of being impartial on the bench is an aspiration and has gone on to claim that by ignoring our differences as women or men of color, we do a disservice both to law and society. when president obama began discussing what sort of person he wanted to nominate to the supreme court, he put a premium on the nominee having empathy.

well, it appears that he got his wish. empathy in and of itself is not a bad thing. however, in this context, it means that the law would lose out to a justice who feels an emotional pull to rule one way or the other. empathy belongs best in legislatures where it can reflect the wishes of the people who vote for the members of those bodies. this is not the job of a supreme court or any other court of law, for that matter. i do not have the faith that judge sotomayor would fully respect the rules -- the roles of the judiciary and the differences of the legislature.

well, understanding that that role of the supreme court is interpreting law instead of making it might be the most important quality a justice could have. there will be times when precedent must be set, and it is critically that it is done correctly. now, i understand a nominee's hesitancy to discuss a case or an issue that might come before them, but i do not think that they can explain their methods for -- i do think they can explain their methods for arriving at a conclusion. during the confirmation hearings of justice roberts and alito, they were both willing to walk through their decision-making processes. however, justice -- or judge sotomayor has been unwilling to do even this.

it is unfortunate, but i have no basis to understand how judge sotomayor will think through a case as a member of the highest court in the land. her views on race, as seen in the ricci case, are troubling. the city of new haven decided to throw out the results of their firefighters' promotional exam because they felt that not enough minorities had passed it. many who passed that exam had made great sacrifices to prepare for that test, including the leading plaintiff, frank ricci, who overcame a disability to pass it with flying colors. 17 white and one hispanic firefighter filed suit that this

was reverse discrimination, and their case eventually found its way before judge sotomayor. -- judge sotomayor at the second circuit court. she dismissed their claims in a one-paragraph opinion that cited no precedent and was later roundly criticized by judges of all stripes. unfortunately -- or fortunately, for that matter -- just last month the supreme court overturned this erroneous decision. judge sotomayor has shown an unacceptable hostility also to the second amendment. in the recent heller supreme court ruling, it was found that the second amendment conferred an individual right to keep and

bear arms. however, in two cases, judge sotomayor has lent her name to, extremely brief opinions that the second amendment is not a fundamental right. her rulings and the lack of explanation of them indicate that she is hostile to the second amendment and will not protect it with the same urgency and energy as she might for any other of the nine amendments in the bill of rights. she has not stated that she believes a clearly spelled out right, such as the second amendment, is fundamental; but she is willing to recognize that something that is not clearly spelled out, such as a right to privacy, is fundamental. i fear that her appointment to

the supreme court could induce the decision from the heller decision that recognize that americans have the right to defend themselves. another area of concern is judge sotomayor's view on the use of foreign law in american courts. less than three months ago, she said she believed that unless american courts are more open to discussing the ideas raised by foreign cases and by international cases, that we are going to lose influence in the world. first of all, the court's responsibility is to review the law passed by the government that it is a part of, not laws passed by a foreign government.

second of all, if there is a foreign law that looks like a good idea, then an elected legislature should consider it, and if it has merit, pass it into law. judges should not be looking around the country or the globe for laws that they like and then try to implement them. judge sonia sotomayor has a history of writing or signing on to briefs and inadequate opinions that are not suitable for the gravity of the matters she is ruling on. in the ricci firefighter case i discussed earlier, half of the judges on her court criticized her opinion as "perfunctory" disposition that rests un uneasy

with the weighty issues of the appeal. the opinion was only one paragraph long. when the supreme court issued its majority opinion on that case it was 34 pages long. in one case i mentioned above she joined the summary panel opinion and discarded the requested of the second amendment as a fundamental right in a one-sentence footnote. ithis is unacceptable. what is perhaps the most shocking about these exceedingly brief investigations of the law was that they affected very important cases and very important issues. for instance, in the ricci case could become the affirmative

action case of this generation and it received only a one-paragraph analysis from judge sotomayor. her casual treatment of the second amendment cases filed in the face of the efforts the supreme court has put in these decisions. the united states supreme court is the last stop for important legal decisions and a justice must provide explanation and insight to the country open how and why they ruled the way they did. judge sotomayor did not do that for these extremely important cases. this will be the first time i have ever voted against a supreme court nominee and i am not happy that i have to do so.

however, it is the constitutional role of the senate to provide confirmation for this position and my duty as a senator to be part of this process. on viewing the record of judge sotomayor i do not find her to be a suitable candidate for justice of the supreme court of the united states and will vote against her whenever the senate considers her nomination. i thank the chair. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. demint: thank you, mr. president. i ask united states andrew jillson of my staff be given floor privileges throughout the

duration of debate on the department of defense authorization action. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. demint: thank you, mr. president. i think we have to, i think say that there are some amazing proposals that have been coming out of the house and the senate in the last few weeks. and some fairly desperate economic times when the job loss is at some of its highest rates in years, when spending, borrowing and debt have gone through the roof, it's pretty amazing we've come out with proposals like cap and trade that will add huge taxes on electrickist and other energy when we should be doing all we can to create more energy in our country and lower the cost, if possible, for americans.

it's pretty amazing to me we would consider adding taxes and cost, on to the cost of living when so many are out of work and we're in very difficult economic times. and now we see this health care proposal that congressal budget act says will hurt our economy. it's going to ensure very few uninsured people. and it will cost trillions of dollars. again, at a time when we're having difficult paying interest on the debt that we already owe we've proposed this massive expansion of government and here we are today supposedly discussing the funding for our whole defense system in our country, the defense authorization bill, and the majority has decided to add on to that hate crimes legislation. hate crimes legislation. it apparently scheduled a vote at 1:00 a.m. this morning for

hate crimes legislation in the middle of a defense authorization debate which should be bipartisan, should be focused on the defenses of our country, clear constitutional responsibility. but we're spending the day waiting for a cloture vote at 1:00 a.m. tomorrow among on hate crimes. there are many practical problems with this hate crime amendment they are trying to force us to attach to the defense authorization bill. the broad language will unnecessarily extend federal law enforcement beyond its constitutional bounds. it will undermine the effectiveness and confidence of local law enforcement and it will create conditions for arbitrary and politicized prosecution of certain cases. but instead of the practical

problems i want to focus on basic fundamental problems with federal hate crimes legislation. the rule of law requires we oppose this amendment on principle. justice is blind and under the rule of law justice must be blind -- blind to the superficial circumstances of the victims and the defendants. the law says crime must be investigated and punished. and there is no evidence to suggest that crime defined by this amendment as hate crimes are not being prosecuted today. this amendment is therefore unnecessary as a matters of criminal law. there is no need or even any law enforcement benefit to create a special class of crimes based on -- and i quote -- "the actual or

perceived race, color, religion, national original gyp, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of the victim." indeed, as a matter of justice, this amendment is patently offensive. it is based on the premise that violence committed against certain kind of victims is worse and more in need of federal intervention than -- more in need of federal intervention and swift justice than if committed against swup else. i'm sure most parents of a minority, homosexual or female victim would appreciate the extra concern but that also applies that certain crimes are better, for lack of a better word. and where does that lead the vast majority of victims' families who, because of the whims of political correctness,

are not entitled under this amendment to special status and attention? how can a victim's perceived status or the perpetrators perceived opinions possibly determine the severity of the crime? the 14th amendment explicitly guarantees all citizens the equal protection of the laws. this amendment creates a special class of victims whose protection of the laws will be, in orwell's phrase "more equal than others." and if some are more equal, others will be less equal. that is, this amendment will create the senior problem it purports to solve. let's talk about thought crimes for a minute. this amendment will move our nation a dangerous step closer to another orwellian concept --

thought crime. this legislation makes certain ideas criminal in that those ideas involved in a crime makes that crime more deserving of prosecution. the problem, of course, is that politicians are claiming the power to decide which thoughts are criminal and which are not. canadians right now live under this kind of regime where so-called human rights commissions operating outside the law prosecute citizens for espousing opinions the commissioners disagree with and this is heightened by the last section of this hate crime amendment which says it does not allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of religious beliefs. let me repeat that because we're being told this what not express

anyone expressing a religious opinion or value judge -- and i quote -- "prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of religious beliefs." two questions come to mind. first, if the hate crimes amendment is really just about law enforcement why should it even need a restatement of the self-evident fact that religious expression is constitutionally protected? and second, why include the adverb "solely" if not to allow for the potential prosecution of people's religious speech so long as it is not part of a broader prosecution of the accused hater. today, only actions are crimes. if we pass this legislation, opinions will become crimes. what is to stop us from following the lead of european countries and american college campuses where certain speech is

criminalized? can priests, pastors, rabbis, be sure their preaching will not be prosecuted? canada, pastor steven boyson was so prosecuted by the human rights commission for publishing letters critical of homosexuality, a biblical concept. or will this amendment serve as a warning to people not to speak out too loudly about their religious views les testimony federal law enforcement come knocking at their door. what about the unintended consequences such as pedophiles and sex offenders claiming protected status as disabled under this legislation? there is though such thing as a criminal thought only criminal acts. once we endorse thought crimes where will we draw the line?

and more importantly, who will draw the line? let me talk a little bit about equality and how it relates to this bill. if my own children were attacked in a violent crime justice, true justice demands their attackers be pursued no more or no less than the attackers of any other children. we all say we want a color blind society, even judge sotomayor. but we cannot have a color-blind society if we continue to write color-conscious laws. our culture can't expect to treat people equally if the law, if the ruling class treats citizens not according to the content of their character but according to their race, sex, ethnicity or gender identity.

as we wait through the night to vote on this hate crimes bill, i'd encourage my colleagues, first of all, to set this thing aside and let's focus on it separately if it needs to be focused on. it's not part of a defense authorization bill. but they're holding the defense authorization bill hostages to other things like we did a few weeks ago when we tried to pass a defense proposition bill and they attached a $100 billion give away to the international monetary fund. so in order to vote for the support of our troops we had to vote to give away another $100 billion from american taxpayers. this hate crime legislation makes no sense. it violates all the principles of equal justice under the law. it makes what we think and what we believe a crime rather than what we do.

it asks judges and juries to determine what we were thinking when we were committing a crime instead of trying to decide what we really did. this is not what's carved above the supreme court which says equal justice under the law. it violates all the principles we have talked about such as blind justice. a judge does not look at who is in front of him but considering the facts of the case. hate crimes violates everything fair in america and equal about a justice system. it makes no sense to bring it up. it makes lessens to bring it up under the defense authorization bill. i encourage my colleagues, particularly the majority, to withdrawal this bill and let us move ahead with the debate of the defense of our country. and i thank you, mr. president, and i yield back.

mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, in september of this year, just a couple months away, the highway bill, the program under which we build bridges and roads and highways around the country, is set to expire. even more worrisome, in august of this year, next month, the highway trust fund which funds all of that activity is scheduled to run out of money. and so, mr. president, i think, i hope there is a broad consensus here that we need to act to continue the ongoing highway program. to not act, to allow the highway trust fund to run out of money, to allow the highway program just to end would be an enormous

antistimulus for the economy. because a lot of significant productive infrastructure spending and activity would just stop overnight. and so, mr. president, we must act, and i believe everyone acknowledges that. what i'm concerned about, mr. president, is that we're going to go right up to the 11th hour, to the precipice and then we're going to be given one choice and one choice only here on the floor of the senate rather than have a calm and reasoned debate about the best way to act and the best way to pay for that. and so, mr. president, i strongly urge the senate to take up this matter sooner rather than later and to consider all of the reasonable and all of the available options. mr. president, as i understand it, the obama administration will propose an 18-month

extension of the current highway program, and i have absolutely no problem with that and i plan to support that. the key issue in my mind, mr. president, is how we pay for that extension, how we replenish the trust furntiond a trust fune next 18 months. we faced this shortfall late last year, and unfortunately there was no good idea, no option presented except to spend more money, borrowed money, increase the debt to keep that trust fund going. i suggest with debt rising so dramatically with all of the actions this congress has taken -- the stimulus, the budget that doubles the debt in five years and triples it in ten -- we need a better solution than merely to print more money or borrow more money from the

chinese. that's why, mr. president, i have introduced my proposal, senate bill 1344, and that bill specifically is called "the highway investment protection act." it would extend and reauthorize the highway program for an initial 18 months and it would fund that out of existing stimulus dollars which have already been appropriated. now, mr. president, what is the point of that? the point is real simple. if we use existing, already-appropriated stimulus dollars, we're not borrowing more money, we're not printing more money, we're not borrowing more money from the chinese. so we're not yet again increasing the deficit and increasing the debt. that's very important. we're also not increasing taxes, which is a horrible thing to do,

particularly in the middle of a very serious recession. one of the clear lessons from the great depression is of the things you don't do that unfortunately leaders back then did in some cases. one was to increase taxes, which made the depression far worse and far longer in duration than it otherwise needed to be. so this program doesn't print more money, doesn't borrow yet more from the chinese, doesn't raise taxes, and that's the great advantage of it. in addition, mr. president, it's specifically structured to give maximum flexibility to the obama administration in terms of where to find those stimulus dollars. so we don't say specifically take it from this, which they may favor, take it from that account, which they may prefer. we give the obama administration maximum flexibility.

now, mr. president, i think virtually everyone acknowledges that at the end of the day, when the entire $800 billion-plus stimulus program is worked through, there will be over this amount of money that remains unspent and unobligated. there will be more than what is required for the next 18 months for the highway trust fund, about $20 billion, which department be spent out of the stimulus anyway. and so this is simply capturing that money and using it to extend this vital highway program, this important infrastructure spending. now, mr. president, several months ago when we debated the stimulus here on the floor of the senate, there were many of us, democrats and republicans alike, who wanted more infrastructure spending, more highway spending in the stimulus. it's very clear from every poll

that was published that the american people felt that way. and then one of the absolute top categories of stimulus spending money the american people supported was highway construction: roads, bridges, highways. and so this is very consistent with the idea of a consensus broad-based stimulus program and not inconsistent with that at all. again, mr. president, the alternatives are to simply move money from the general fund and that means we're borrowing more money from the chinese, or whomever, in a sense printing more money, or there may be a proposal to increase taxes to pay for it, which i believe no matter what the source, is a very bad idea in the middle of a serious recession, very antigrowth.

again, mr. president, my fear is that given our very constricted busy schedule between now and the august recess, this matter is going to be pushed to the very end right before we're set to leave for the august recess. and one alternative and one alternative only, just print more money, just borrow more from the chinese is going to be attempted to be rushed through the senate. i don't think that's the way to get the best result and the most consensual result on this important issue. i propose we think about this now, sooner rather than later. i propose we discuss all the reasonable alternatives and certainly look at the very commonsense alternative of using already appropriated stimulus dollars. again, no new dead death, n debw spending, use what's already been appropriated in the stimulus, give the administration maximum

flexibility in terms of how to do that. finally, mr. president, i would also point out that the bill is drafted very carefully so that within these 18 months off if the congress were to enact a new highway reauthorization program, a new milt year program, this extension would automatically dissolve and go away. and this money from the stimulus would automatically stop, and whatever the provisions of that new multiyear highway bill would be would come into full force and effect. i urge all of my colleagues, democrats and republicans, to consider this commonsense approach. and in that vain, mr. president, i would like to propound a unanimous consent. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 1344, a bill

to use stimulus funds to protect the solvency of the highway trust fund. i ask unanimous consent that the technical amendment at the desk be agreed to and the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. levin: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. vitter: well, mr. president, in light of the objection, i would ask the distinguished senator from michigan, would the senator at least agree to a unanimous consent agreement to allow this bill to be the next order of business after the current defense authorization bill is fully dealt with? that would provide for limited time agreements and relevant, germane amendments. mr. levin: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. vitter: well, mr. president, in closing, let me say i think

it's unfortunate we don't take up the serious matter next, after the defense authorization bill, and we don't take it up in plenty of time to look at all of the reasonable alternatives. i hope when we finally take it up it isn't in a mad dash to the august recess, it isn't under all of the normal artificial pressure that's built up "we must act in the new few hours and you have one choice and one choice only." we've heard all that before. we've heard it before we were forced into quick consideration of the bailouts. we've heard it about the stimulus. now we're hearing it about health care. let's try to do some things right and not just quick. this has to be done before the august recess because the highway trust fund will run out of money during the august

recess, so let's take this up sooner rather than later. let's take this up right after the current defense authorization bill on the floor is dealt with and look at all the available alternatives, including using stimulus funds already appropriated so we don't raise taxes in the middle of a recession, so we don't increase debt, so we don't borrow more money from the chinese and print more dollar bills. the american people are very fearful of that growing trend. thank you, mr. president. with that, i yield the floor. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president, i'd also ask unanimous consent to be able to speak as though in morning business for such time as i might consume. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. enzi: thank you, mr. president.

many of my colleagues have said that i'm an eternal optimist, and since i entered the senate more than 12 years ago, i've consistently worked across party lines to find new solutions and broker bills that have become law. i have a long and consistent track record of working in good faith with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. i had hoped and still hope to do that on the complex issue of health care reform. last congress, i proposed ten steps to transform health care in america. i traveled 1,200 miles across my home state last march to bring my message of reform directly to the people of wyoming. my message was built on the belief that the american people needed more choice and more control over their health care. i put it together by working with people on both sides of the aisle. i found a way to get coverage for everybody. if we did all ten steps and any one of them would increase access and cut costs. now, among other things, my plan attempted to level the playing

field in the tax treatment of health insurance and also provide a helping hand to low-income americans in the form of subsidies to ensure access to quality, affordable health insurance. my plan also provided greater equity and ease to our nation's small business owners by allowing cross-state pooling. each of my proposals targeted three fundamental goals: increasing access to health care, reducing costs within ou ourly health delivery system, and improving the quality of care. and as the only accountant in the senate, i was and remain very concerned about the effect of any health care proposal has on our federal budget. as well as personal and family budgets. now, we all want coverage for everyone, including preexisting and chronic conditions. we want portability. we want health care, not sick care. i've continued my work on health care reform this congress as the

ranking member on the committee of health, education, labor, and pensions and a member of the finance committee, and a member of the budget committee. i assumed a unique role in the health reform debate this year. i worked hard to foster constructive dialogue with the members of all three committees and i have met with the president and administration officials to shore ideas on how to craft a strong bipartisan bill. as the debate on health care reform progresses in the senate, i continue to stand ready to work on this critical issue. as i've noted many times before, this is likely to be the most important piece of legislation that we will work on as members of the united states senate. it touches the life of every single american in a very real way. our health care system is approximately one-sixth of our nation's economy, and the changes we make in it will

ultimately affect the lives of every single american. i've never worked on a bill that was that extensive. it's a sacred trust that we have, and we must not be moved by artificial deadlines and short-term political considerations. i do not think t that a good bil and a bipartisan bill are mutually exclusive. to the contrary, i believe that a health care reform bill will need strong support from both sides of the aisle to gain the credibility and the support of our constituents. it's still my hope that we can produce a strong bipartisan health care bill that kwraup wards of 80 members -- that upwards of 80 members of the senate could support. i see that as a possibility and i remain eternally hopeful that we will deliver the american people the strong, bipartisan health care bill that they deserve. but i have to tell you, i'm disappointed by the recent developments by the house of representatives, and more

particularly on the committee of the united states senate health, education, labor and pensions committee. yesterday by a party-line vote of 13-10, the committee passed the affordable health choices act. but don't let the name fool you. because with a $1 trillion price tag, the bill's anything but affordable. unfortunately, the "help" committee chose to gallop down a path of partisanship despite my strong urge that go we start with a blank piece of paper, health committee republicans were presentd with 600 pages of long h standing democrat policies: it seems not a single member of the committee was told no as every project was in in bill. because republicans were shut out of this process, we were forcedo file hundreds of amendments. unfortunately of the 45 committee roll call votes on republican amendments, two were successful. there were a number of amendments that were accepted, but they fall more in the

category of proofreading amendments and some slight changes. president obama has repeatedly called for a health care bill that will reduce costs. he's called for a bill that will help every american get access to quality health care, a bill that allows people who like the care they have to keep it, a bill that will not increase the deficit. republicans strongly support those goals. unfortunately, the "help" bill does not meet any of them. in my view and graded on the criteria specified by the president, the bill voted out of the "help" commit kph*t fails on all counts. the bill falls short on achieving the commonsense goals the republicans and the president share. instead the partisan "help" bill adds $1 trillion to the deficit, despite the president's promise that health care reform must and will be deficit-neutral. the bill increases that deficit by more than $1 trillion over

ten years, not as bad as the house bill. it's my understanding it increases by $4 trillion over ten years. maybe it's just more honest, because there are ways to avoid a cost by phasing in authorizations and by using such sums in authorizations, little trucks of budgeting to avoid a score. but this is on the heels of news last week from official scorekeepers that the federal budget deficit was 1.1 trillion. according to scorekeepers this bill will bend the cost curve the wrong way, driving up the cost of health insurance for most americans and increasing total spending on health care. and i would refer people to an article in "the washington post" today where the c.b.o. chief criticizes the democrats' health care measures. "instead of saving from fiscal

catastrophe, the health reform measures would increase deficit budget projections and driving the nation more deeply into debt." that is from the tkerbgt of the nonpartisan congressional budget office. under questions by members of the budget committee, director elmendorf said it does not propose the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the federal trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. on the contrary, elmendorf said, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs. though president obama and democratic leaders have said repeatedly that reining in the skyrocketing growth and spending on health care programs such as medicaid and medicare is their top priority, the reform measures put forth so far will not fulfill their pledge to bend the cost curve downward. the curve is being raised.

the c.b.o. is the official arbiter of the legislation and elmendorf's stark testimony is certain to undermine support as three members begin debate and aim to put a bill on the house floor before the august recess. fiscal conservatives in the house are threatening to block passage of the energy primarily due to concerns about long-term costs of the house bill. cost is also a major issue in the senate where some moderate democrats have joined republicans in calling on obama to drop their demand that both chambers approve a bill before the august recess. while the senate "help" committee approved its bill on wednesday with no republican votes, members of the senate finance committee are still struggling to craft a bipartisan measure that does more to restrain costs. and i'd ask unanimous consent that a small article could be -- the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. enzi: and i would say that the members of the finance committee are still working to find that bipartisan match, but it does take time. there are so many parts, so many

moving parts to this bill. but the partisan "help" bill breaks the president's promise, if you like the care you have now, you can keep it. the scorekeepers reported that the bill would force millions of americans to lose their health care plans they have and like. several republican members offered amendments aimed at ensuring americans who like the coverage they have they can keep it, but they all suffer the same failing fate. the partisan "help" bill kills jobs and cuts wages. the nonpartisan congressional budget office concludes the bill will result in lower wages and higher unemployment. these jobs and wage cuts would hit low-income workers, women and minorities the hardest. it's hard to believe that with an unemployment of generational high, democrats on the committee would even consider putting more jobs on the chopping block. despite passage of the so-called stimulus bill earlier this year, americans are facing the highest

unemployment rate in 60 years. at the same time the "help" committee and the house democrats are attempting to impose new taxes on small employers that will eliminate jobs for low-income minority workers. the partisan "help" bill raises taxes at the worst possible time despite several amendments offered by republican members which the democrats defeated on party-line votes, the bill breaks president obama's promise not to raise taxes on individuals earning less than $250,000 per year. the bill would impose a new tax on people without health insurance. the partisan "help" bill allows washington bureaucrats to ration care. the bill lays the groundwork for a government takeover of health care giving washington bureaucrats the power to prevent patients from seeing the doctor they choose and obtaining new and innovative medical therapies. i could go into the cost-effectiveness, or the clinical effectiveness research, but i won't go into the details of that at this time.

but that's a way that care could be rationed. how do we know? we tried a bunch of amendments that would specify what could not be rationed and every one of those were defeated. the partisan "help" bill traps low-income americans in a second-tier health care program. despite other amendments, the other side refused to give medicaid patients the choice to access higher-quality care. the other side claims to support giving patients choices, but when the choice is a new government-run health plan. however, they refuse to give low-income americans the chance to get out of the worst health care programs in the country. i would mention government-run programs. instead of giving the lowest-income americans the choice to enroll in private insurance with subsidies, the "help" committee bill forces them to stay in a program where 40% of the physicians will refuse to see them and the care they receive will be worse than what's available through private health insurance. i got to remind you that if you can't see a doctor, you don't have health care.

instead of reducing health care costs, the partisan bill will spend billions of taxpayer dollars on new pork barrel spending. the bill would build new sidewalks, jungle gyms and farmers' markets through a mandatory spending, $80 billion slush fund and that's just the first ten years which is delayed two years. otherwise it would be $100 billion. that's for additional pork-barrel projects. talked about a rating system. that is how much difference you have between the low age and the high age, the more well and the sicker people. and that's being compressed dramatically, which will raise the rates for virtually everybody in america. the partisan "help" bill preserves the costly, dangerous medical malpractice system. again, despite several blocked attempts by multiple republican committee members, the bill fails to reduce medical lawsuits which drives up the cost of health care and forces doctors to order wasteful tests and

treatments to cover liabilities. the bill worsens doctor shortages according to an analysis by the department of health and human services, bill would worsen the nation's primary care physicians shortage by providing few medical students with financial assistance in return for work in underserved areas. the "help" committee bill costs too much, covers too few and if you like what you have, you can't keep it. under this bill, if you like your job, you may not be able to keep that either. and with all these bad policies comes $1 trillion price tag. that's $1 trillion this country can't afford right now and a trillion reasons why it's a bad bill for america. and we haven't even talked about the clinical effectiveness or some other programs that weren't actuarially sound. as i said at the beginning of the speech, i'm an eternal optimist. despite my comments on the perils of the policies in the "help" bill, we have a chance.

the finance committee can still write a good bill, a bill that ensures every american has quality, affordable health care, a bill fully paid for with savings exclusively from health care of the. a bill that recertificateses -- that reverses the cost curve, a bill that that the american people deserve. we're working on that now. trying to put together that bill. but it takes time. it takes time. but those are all things that can be done. one way to enact real change is to sit down and work out the details. health care is complicated. the laws of unintended consequences are severe and unforgiving. we can't rush into something that will change one-sixth of our nation's economy and affect 100% of americans. we must take our time and get the policies right. i've heard reports of white house staff calling the "help" committee bill a bipartisan bill. i've heard white house staff say that this bill incorporated republican ideas. white house staff or the

president, not for senate republicans. i can tell you as the ranking republican on the "help" committee the partisan vote speaks for itself. republican ideas why excluded from the process and from this legislation. we have five bills that have ideas that would meet the goals of the president and the ones that i've stated. parts of those were considered. most were rejected. i passionately want to reform our health care system to improve quality, reduce costs and increase access. i think the "help" committee legislation fails to meaningfully address those goals and sticks the american people with a bill we can't afford. i hope that we can get back to work for and construct real reform that has the support of the american people. and i have some -- i appreciate the openness that senator baucus has had in dealing with the finance committee members and am optimistic eternally that something good can come out of that. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you,

mr. president. mr. president, in every corner of our country, communities have been working to end hate crimes despite the great gains in equality and civil rights throughout the last century, too many americans today are still subjected to discrimination, violence and even death because of who they are. that's why i have joined with many of my colleagues as a cosponsor of the matthew shepard hate crimes prevention act. this is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that will stand up for the victims of hate crimes and their families. and i'm glad that it has been offered as an amendment and that we will now have a chance to act on it this week. you know, it takes only a quick glance at a newspaper to see places around the world where people are regularly attacked because of their religion, for their color of skin or their swal orientation. it's important to remember that even though we in america have made great strides in reducing discrimination, there is still plenty of work to be done. i'm proud that we are working towards ending these crimes once

and for all in the memory of matthew shepard. math shoe was a 21-year-old college -- matthew was a 21-year-old college student murdered because of his sexual orientation. that crime was not prosecuted as a hate crime because there was no applicable state or federal hate crimes law that covered sexual orientation. just this year we were all saddened by an horrific shooting of a security guard at the holocaust museum a few blocks away but those are two examples and not all of these terrible hate crimes make headlines. in t year for which the f.b.i. has statistics, there were over 9,000 hate crimes offenses. the thousands of people who have been victimized by hate crimes received inadequate protection from under the law and that is unconscionable. and that's why this amendment that we are considering this afternoon is long overdue. mr. president, this amendment would strengthen our existing

laws by providing the justice department with additional tools to investigate and prosecute crimes that were committed based on a victim's race, color, national origin, religion, consume orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. now communities across our country have been working to respond to hate crimes. and state and law -- local law enforcement continue to bear the responsibility for prosecuting the bulk of these crimes. this is not a federal takeover. however, states and localities would greatly benefit from the help that the federal government can provide. the state or local community is unable to prosecute a hate crime. this amendment would mean that the federal government could lend a hand. this amendment would provide a number of other tools to help end hate crimes. it would provide states and local governments with grants designed for hate crime prevention. it would expand data collection

about hate crime so that law enforcement will have more information to help prevent prejudicial crimes committed against women. and it would expand the legal definition of what a hate crime is allowing for stronger prosecution in more cases where a violent crime is clearly motivated by hatred. in that way, mr. president, this amendment would put into law what we already know -- that crimes are different when they're motivated by discrimination. burning down a building is a crime. but that crime takes on a new character when that whic buildis a church or synagogue or mosque. it is wrong if a person attacks another person on the street for sure, it has a different meaning when violence occurs because the victim is a different race, religion or sexual orientation. we can't stand idly by while americans are subjected to discrimination, violence or even death because of who they are.

passage of this amendment would be another major victory for equal rights in our country and i come to the floor this afternoon to urge our colleagues to support this amendment when it comes to a vote later this afternoon. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i may be proceed as if in morning business. 3r50 is there objection? without objection, so ordered. a senator: mr. president, thank you very much. i mind myself in a rather unique position here. if you look in the biosection of all of the outfits, they will record me as a journalist. that's an unemployed newspaper

man, by the way. mr. roberts: i have a great -- we have five generations in the roberts family in the second older newspaper in kansas and still carry around my reporter's notebook and have a great respect for those of the fourth state who shine the light of truth with their own individual flash light. i don't think that i've done this in 28 years of public service, but i'm irritated. i'm more than irritated and i rise today to clear up some recent flagrant mischaracterizations about medicare payments and especially since the medicare payments are now being used as a target, as a pay for for the health care reform. the alleged health care reform that senator enzi was talking about. specifically the statements made on the front page of today's "washington post", the fountain of all knowledge here in washington. in an article "obama eyes the

purse strings for medicare." i would describe this article -- i read it and i read it again. i was a relatively happy person, watching the weather. don't watch the news much. had my cup of coffee. was going to turn to the sports pages, and happened to read this and it ruined my whole morning. i came in, was mean to my staff and everything else. so i thought i better get it off my chest. this article is patronizing. it's condescending and the bad part about it is that it is egregious in nature. article of -- the author of this article sees what she cease as one of the most effective and lucrative forms of constituent service, i.e., setting reimbursement rates for doctors,

hospitals, home health centers and other health care providers. oh, i wish i had that power as opposed to c.m.s., which is the acronym agency for the department of health and human services who does settle reimbursement rates for all health care providers in the united states. and the author continues -- accusing long-time members of congress of such atrocities as championing new york city's teaching hospitals and making sure rural health services are amountly funded -- are amptly funded. it is -- quote -- "flush" f-l-u-s-h with medicare cash as a result. in my 28 years in congress, i have been absolutely one of those disasterly members intent on making sure the rural health care delivery system can remain

alive and serve our people. even if it has to be kept on life support, which is the true characterization of what we face. and i wonder, since it never appears anywhere in the person's article in her article, the author of this piece aware that the average medicare reimbursement rate for doctor is about 80% of what the commercial market pays or that medicare only pays about 70% of the market rates for hospitals. that's why we have hospital after hospital after hospital for decades in kansas passing bond issues just to keep their doors open. these are not flush payments. these are not posh places in regards to hospitals. and then i go back to the fact that doctors get paid 08%, and that's why doctors, many -- 80%, and that's why doctors, many of them are refusing -- are refusing to pay in regards to medicare patients.

and that is that terrible word that people say is too scary. that's called rationing. that when we set a reimbursement rate, we, meaning the c.m.s. and h. -- these agencies can't reimburse doctors enough so they can make a living or other health care providers, that they cease -- they cease providing medicare to seniors. what does the senior do then? well, they are really, really in a very difficult situation. how do you think these providers survive? the answer is that they shift that loss tonight private market to the tune of nearl nearly $09 billion a year. let me repeat that. everybody that goes to the hospital, everybody that goes to a doctor, and has private insurance, you are payin paying $90 billion a year in a hidden tax in regards to the people that basically are not covered by medicare and by medicaid.

if, in fact, you would do what the president has suggested and maybe take some -- maybe take some money, i use the purse strings for medicare. medicare being a target. medicare being the service for seniors. wake up seniors, wake up aarp. wake up everything else in the medical health field. if any senator had come down here, except during these last six months and said let's cut medicare by 10%, they would have been excoriated by this newspaper hurting senior citizens. well, in my state of kansas and in other rural states across the country, we don't have a private market to shift the costs on to. our areas don't have the population base to shift a cost shift of $90 billion. in addition the folks in these towns are much more likely to depend on medicare or medicaid

or simply to be uninsured. in short, without some sort of special payment from medicare, these hospitals would not survive. now, you tell me, "washington post", what you would say to the residents of smith center here, top center in kansas -- what would you say to the residents of smith center if their hospital closed? smith center's a great town, close to the geographic center of the lower 48 states. it has a population of a little less than 2,000 people. they have a great football team, mr. president. the high school football team, pride of north central kansas, one of the greatest football teams in america. it is served by the smith county memorial hospital, a critical access hospital with 25 beds. now for those of you who are unfamiliar with the terminology, a critical access hospital is a

rural hospital with 25 beds or less which is at least 35 miles away from another hospital and which provides 24-hour emergency services. critical access hospitals get special treatment under medicare. they get paid 101% of their cost for in-patient and out-patient and swing bed services. probably shouldn't mention that or this reporter will run out to smith center and say, you're getting 100%, sure wish she should go out and take a look and talk to the hospital administrator and the people in that hospital. in other words, they do not get the usual 70% of the market rate reimbursement for medicare for a very good reason, because of the distances that they would have to travel. without the critical access hospital program, the closest hospital for the residents of smith center would be in hayes, hayes, kansas, america, right here, 90 miles away. you tell me what a person's

chances of survival are after a car accident or tractor accident if they have -- have to travel 09 miles away for emergency care. smith county memorial is one of 83 critical access hospitals in kansas. they're absolutely essential to the very lives of the people in rural america. indeed, they are essential to the very existence of rural america at all. i have the privilege of being the co-chairman of the world health care caucus, along with tom harkin of iowa, we're fighting tooth and nail holding on by our fingernail to exist to provide care to people who provide care to the people in these communities. i hope that reporter comes in for a cup of coffee, and i'd be happy to give her a cup of coffee. no cream or sugar, might be a little vinegar in it. please come in for a cup of coffee. i will be bend over backwards to preserve the payment rates that allow these hospitals to stay

open and to continue to serve the people in smith center cans -- smith center, kansas and elsewhere and throughout america. i believe this position is completely justified. i sleep fine at night knowing that i used my so-called influence through legislation, through the rural health care coalition, through the finance committee, through the "help" committee to ensure that medicare pays these hospitals just enough to average a 1% medicare margin. 1%. 1% when she's hospitals are still fighting for their -- when these hospitals are still fighting for their lives. i would like to personally invite the author of this article or any other member of "the washington post" board, to visit some of the rural hospitals in kansas with me. reporter's nail and i hope i get it right. i apologize if i don't. i apologize for picking on her. shala murray. shala, come to kansas with me and let's go out to smith center. here is the hospital.

this is the posh resort that you apparently think we finance with medicare, with -- and it's true. you know, you go through the door and there are two-inch carpets and you go in and there's -- let's see, i think there are mozart's concert number 21 and they call you by your first name and you get immediate treatment and there is massage facility and a spa in the back and that's a lot of what we have in our dodd city feed lots. that's just not the case. the c.e.o.'s, the doctors, nurses, and patients walk around the small hospital and see the equipment and facilities. flush with maybe cash? come on. and flush with medicare cash that is influenced by individual members of congress. i wish. i've been fussing and feuding and pleading and cajoling with c.m.s. to try at least to get these payments to doctors and hospitals up to the level that they continue to exist.

flush with medicare cash, i think not. now just look at this hospital. do you think anything that would lead to a description of this sort? i'm not too sure of anybody that will give up their vacation and go to smith center hospital. they ought to. they have the finest people in the world. and there -- there are mighty fine folks. i'm not picking on smith memorial. they're doing a fantastic job with the resources they have. it makes me angry that some washington, d.c., paper and also a reporter would demonize a proem that keeps america's heart beating. it is a patronizing and dead-wrong description and it offends mends the people i am privileged to represent in rural kansas. but i want to tell shala, ms. murray, i'm never going to stop fighting these hospitals,

no matter how many deals the american hospital association cuts with the white house, no matter how many ugly articles are written here in d.c. i'm rather amazed at the deal at the american hospital association allegedly cut,15 billion cuts to senior citizens. waning, americans, it's your medicare. going to be more rationing, when doctors say, i'm so, i can't afford to continue. that's the target now on the finance committee, medicare. i never thought i would see the day that that would havment but i'm not going to stop fighting for these hospitals and here we have the american hospital association -- i'll tell, the kansas hospital association, mott mo hospital association, other hospital associations are not happy with the national association when you call in bed and get fleas with the administration. what's the old saying? when you go 0 to bed with the federal government, when you wake up in the morning, you get something other than a good

night's sleep. that's exactly what's happened with the american hospital association. they've come through my door and say, "help, help, help, help, help! please get these reimbursement rates up." every year we've done that with medicare and the medicare program. we're being cut by 11% and the cost o of inflation has gone up. they blame republicans, once in a while, they blame democrats and said, why on earth did you cut medicare? and now we're using medicare as a target for health care reform for this bill that's impossible for most people to even comprehens? it's amazing. the american hospital association bought into it with $15 billion cuts. you've come through my door before every year when you wanted to keep the reimbursement rates level. don't come through my door for at least a month, until i calm down. that's my duty to the people of my state, and i perfectly feel

comfortable, very comfortable, with that. now, mr. president, i've been a little tough here. on a roifort a never met, obviously. she is speangdz lot of her time in the people's house -- she is spending a lot of her time in the people's house and talking to mucky mucks on the committee -- those are people with seniority -- i used to be one. you about i would urge her to talk to members who represent rural areas and the rural health care delivery system and understand that this is not a question of this hospital having flush payments. they're hanging on, as i said, by their fingernails just to keep open. and this is not true that members of congress, even the distinguished presiding officer, anybody else that might happen to be listening to my remarks -- the great senator thune standing to my rear who also represents rural areas, has even a sparser area than i do, and it's just not true. and this -- and this article

comes right at the apex of the debate of the health care reform debate, and it's just -- it's just not right. it's just not right. so anyway, let me again say to s shvment alsshala, why don't yout to kansas. we'll go on out to the smith center, if you'd like to, and visit the hospital, or we'll visit as many hospitals you a you want. we'll see who's flush with regard to medicare payments. that's certainly not the case with them. i think i've made my paint, and i must say, as a former journalist, former newspaperman, i used to check the facts. i used to check my facts. and i would just simply ask that they do the same. i yield the floor.

mr. thune: mr. president, the senator from kansas made some excellent points about rural america and rural hospitals and, as all, did did in the most effective way. but i think that it shouldn't be lost on anyone in this chamber or anyone around this country when we talk about health care reform that these decisions that we make here in washington have real impacts in the real world, and they impact people in different parts of the country differently. the senator from kansas, it was very clear about the hospitals that he represents and, like he said, i represent hospitals in

rural areas. and i can assure you, these are not hospitals that are out there cutting a fat hog. these are hospitals out there trying to deliver service and health care in areas of the country that make it challenging because of geography. sometimes they don't have the most up-to-date, modern equipment but they are out there providing critical health care services to people across this country. so soy associate myself with the comments -- so i associate myself with the comments of the senator from kansas, and i would also suggest that anybody who cares about the impact of some of these proposals on hospitals in rural areas like kansas and south dakota should be really concerned about the c.b.o. discussion that occurred this morning in front of the senate budget committee, because it made it very clear that not only is this going to cost a trillion dollar, probably minimum, in the near term; that in the long term, us a you project out in the future, the costs for the health care reform plan that is

currently moving through the congress explode over time. you get into the out years, it is going to be even more expensive, and it is going mean even bigger and bigger reductions in cuts from providers, in many cases, as he said before, as the senator from kansas, who eloquently pointed out, in rural areas that are already struggling to make ends meet and to keep their hospital doors open. but this report that we got today from the congressional budget office is really pretty stunning in light of the -- in the context of the debate that we're having over health care reform. the c.b.o. director, doug elmendorf, was asked today point-blank by senator conrad whether the cost curve is bent under the health care reform legislation currently being considered. elmendorf says, "no," then he goes on to say, "the way that i would put it is that the curve is being raised, and has been

pointed out by president obama before, he said, "i said very clearly, i said if any bill arrives from congress that is not controlling costs, no that s not a bill i can support." that's the president's own criteria for health care reform. that only means, based upon the report that we got from c.b.o. this morning that the administration is going to have a very difficult time embracing or endorsing the health care plan that's currently moving through the senate that sees costs not come down, not bending the cost curve in a down ward direction but rather bending it upward so you're going to see the costs go up. mr. elmendorf was asked, "so the cost curve is being bent but it's being be bent in the wrong way, is that correct?" here wheys said. that is long quote but i want to get it into the record because i think it puts into context the vish that he raises with regard

to health care refrm and its costs and when we're imping to see the true effect of those costs. "the way i would put it is that the curve is being raised. as we tbloat our letter to you and senator gregg, the creation of new subsidies for health insurance which is a critical part of expanding health care coverage in our judgment would by itself increase the federal responsibility for health care that raises federal spending on health care, raises the a activity that is growing at this unsustainable rate, but offset -- but there would have to be very substantial reductions in other parts of the federal commitment to health care, either on the tax revenue side through changes in the tax exclusion or on the spend side through reforms in medicare and medicaid. certainly reforms of that sort that are included in some of the packages and wire still analyzing the reforms in the house package, the legislation that was only released, as you know, about two days ago, but the changes that we have looked at so far do not represent the

sort of fundamental change, the order of magnitude that would be necessary to offset the direct increase in federal health care costs -- health costs from the insurance coverage proposals." end quote. and so, mr. president, what i would i guess conclude from having thread and having heard what he said this morning is that he is very skeptical that there is anything about the health care plan that's pending in the senate or the one that passed the house last week that is going to in the long-term redos costs. and it would seem to me that a fundamental principle behind health care reform ought to include efficiency, streamlining, finding savings. when i think of reform, i think when most americans think of reform, they don't think of adding to cost or making things more expensive. they think of how does this reform actually achieve savings by making us more efficient and streamlining operations and coming up with new and innovative ways of doing things so that we can do things less

expensively? that, to me, would be the essence of reform. that's not what is being talked about here, obviously, because not only does the reforms that have been proposed -- the house version, which was -- has been i think reported out of the committee, or at least is being deliberate thdeliberated in thee over there -- according to a house democrat aide, and that is new report, said the total bill would add up to about $1.5 trillion. over ten years. the aide spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private calculations. but $1.5 trillion, you might have a hard time getting used to the concept, but $1 0eu 5 trillion i -- but $1.5 trillionn the house-passed version, there are many independent analysts and estimates that have been done that suggest that it could be north of $2 trillion and perhaps well north of $2

trillion when a lot of these changes actually go fully into effect after the transitional period is over with. so you're talking about trillions of dollars at a minimum in the near term, perhaps multiples of that trillions of dlarks in the long term. and that, to me, doesn't meet any sort of criteria or definition of reform. to me, reform ought to be, let's find some savings, let's see what we can do to achieve some efficiencies. and as i have suggested here on the the floor of the senate, we spend already in this country, about $2.5 trillion annually on health care. that represents about 17% of our gross domestic product. that's on its way to 20%. very soon, $1 in $5 in our entire economy is going to be spent on health care. so i would argue that we are -- it's not that we're not spending enough money on health care in this country. it's into the we're -- it's that we're not spending wisely and well. we are not spending smart. we need to spend smarter when it comes to health care. we need to put more of an

emphasis on wellness and prevention. we need to do some things that would allow individuals and small businesses to join larger groups to get the benefit of group purchasing power so they can start buying in volume ring driving down their costs, to create more competition in the marketplace, where individuals can buy insurance across state lines. we need to address the growing cost of defensive medicine. there is a direct -- that is a direct result of lawsuit abuse in this country. so there are lots of remedies that we think make sense in terms of bending the cost curve down and actually doing something to reform health care, to gain efficiencies, and to get costs on a more reasonable and affordable level for more americans. but it's pretty clear from the c.b.o. report this morning in front of the senate budget committee that the current proarnlings the house proposal and now the senate proposal that was reported out of the "help" committee here in the senate yesterday, do nothing of the sort. there is no way that it can be argued that these are reforms. it's certainly not reforms that

lead to saving savings in the l. we're going to see increased costs, we're going to see costs spike in the out years and that was -- came across unequivocally clear in the report that was made by the c.b.o. director, douglas elmendorf this morning in front of the senate budget committee. diswr that leave us? h-- so where does that leave usf caution to people here in washington, d.c., that perhaps this is something we ought to take our time with because clearly what's been proposed so far is going to increase costs significantly. it is going to lead to the takeover of the health care system by the federal government, which i think most americans would take issue with. and if you don't believe that, there are again lots of great independent studies out there. one of the criteria that the president put forward in a health care bill that he would sign had to do with, if you have insurance today that you like, you can keep it.

well, that's not true under this bill either because these independent analyses that have been done have also pointed out that there are going to be about six in 10 americans or about 118 million total americans that are going to be driven into the government-run program because the private health insurance marketplace, when it has to compete with the government will not be able to do so because the government, due to its very size is going to drive a lot of the private insurance coverage out of the marketplace, a lost small businesses who currently offer insurance to their employees are going to just say, i'm not going to do this anymore, it costs too much. and they are real estate going to shift everybody in this big government-run program, which not only i guess -- i have issued with the whole notion that the federal government would hand the keys to one-sifnlg our entire economy, to the federal government, but i , i think, more importantly than that, it gets to the issue that most americans agree with, they

ought to have freedom and choices to choose their health care provider and make decisions in consultation with their physicians about what's the best procedure to use. the problem with the approach the democrats on the "help" committee have taken and, incidentally when it passed was on a partisan line vote. all amendments offered by republicans to try and change it or make it better or improve it or have some of their policy ideas incorporated were shot down on a party-line vote, but it seems to me at least if we're going to do something about health care we shouldn't give the entire health care system in this country, hand it over to the federal government and have them impose themselves and them making the decisions that historically have been made by individuals, by consumers, by patients and their health care providers. that, i think, is a fundamental principle of our american tradition. that is, that we believe in

freedom. the european model, the canadian model on health care which is often used is different. but that's not the american way. that's never been the american way. the american way is freedom, choice, individual responsibility, all of which should be emphasized in any health care reforms we pass. and i might add, again, all of which ought to lead not to higher cost but lower cost in our health care system. now, just for the record, as well, madam president, there are a number of organizes who is looked very closely at the house-passed bill, are now analyzing the senate "help" committee passed bill and have concluded that it is a really bad idea. not just a bad idea for the taxpayers who are going to be stuck with the higher taxes or increased borrowing to future generations, and not just a bad idea because it puts the government in the way fundamentally and interjects them into the relationship between parents and physicians

and health care provider but because it would kill jobs in our economy. we have an economy that is fraj i, struggling, unemployment -- fragile, struggle, and unemployment perhaps beginning to double dig its for the first time in a really long time in our history. so you've got the chamber of commerce, the national federation of independent business and the business roundtable who have senato senta letter in response to the house reform, health care reform legislation, objecting to a number of provisions. specifically the letter warns the pay or play provision could end up killing many jobs. -- and i quote -jobs -- and i quote -- "would have significant power but highly unaccountable to the american people," and cost-shifting created by the government-run plan -- and i quote -- "would significantly increase costs for every american who purchases private insurance."

so the major organizations that represent the job creators in this country, the chamber of commerce, the national federation of independent business, the business roundtable, a number of other organizations i would add to that, i think, are issuing similar type statements and letters have concluded it would kill jobs, that it would reduce the amount of accountability we have with the american people and, finally, it would significantly increase costs to members who have to purchase insurance. so madam president, i guess the bottom line in all of this there is sort of a big rush to get this done. the theory y is we have to get this done before the august recess. the house is spouse supposed toe this marked up next week the following week and the senate is trying to figure out a way to wedge this in to all the things we have to do. we have the defense authorization bill on the floor this week and next.

we have sonia sotomayor nomination that will come before the senate at some point before the august break but somehow there is this belief we need to just rush, we have to jam through this health care bill because if we don't seize the moment and do it now we're not going to get it done, i argue we ought to get it done right rather than do it fast and do it in haste. the hippocratic oath for physicians is "do no harm." that ought to be the oath we take with regard to heal care. from everything i have seen and read from the experts, from the professionals, from the congressional budget office who have analyzed the health care bill, both the house-passed version and now -- not the house-passed but the one that will be debated in the house and the senate committee-passed version, all the analysis that has been done suggests it would do great harm. great harm to the taxpayers who are footing that $1 trillion or $2 trillion bill; great harm to the economy where it will cost us jobs; and great harm, i

believe, as well, to the american consumer, the health care consumer, who is going to have to pay the cost of this in the form of high are premiums. and, also, deal with what could be rationed health care. that is, fewer choices, fewer options, because the government is going to be deciding which procedures are covered and which are not. so madam president, we need to take our time. we need to do this right. there are lots of things, as i mentioned earlier, actually do reform the health care system in this country; do lower costs and make it more affordable to more americans. those ought to be the things we focus on. but as was recorded this morning by the c.b.o., a program that will bends the cost upward, not just from the trillions we all know it will cost in the near term but perhaps trillions of dollars in the long term, is a bad direction to go for health care in this country. it's a bad direction to go for our economy. and it's a bad direction on go

for the american taxpayer. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. brownback: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. brownback: i certainly concur with the states of my colleague from south dakota and what he is saying about the need to do it right rather than fast. that is critically important. i would like to bring the body's attention to something on the front page of "the washington post" today. it is an article about who will succeed kim chong-il? and the point being that here's a country that's recently tested missiles that can reach hawaii, recently tested a nuclear device, is gravely ill, some report pancreas cancer but we don't know for sure what he has. but the question is, who will succeed kim chong-il? and what does that mean to the united states? and, what are we doing about it? we're working on a piece in our

office and some legislation to try to start some planning on our part as to what we should be doing if the leader in north korea falls. and if the state fails in north korea. which is a very real possibility that the overhaul state apparatus in north korea will fail. that you'll have hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people seeking to flee that country or in a grip of searching for food, moving around, to try to find food. nuclear weapons that are not being well watched. missile capacity that's there all in a state that is failing and may fall altogether. the reason i point this out is we're on the defense authorization bill. it moveit's a key piece of legin that we pass every year because it's so important to the future of this country, so important to the defense of this country. and here's a moment where we're

looking at a potential nuclear threat, missile threat, to the united states and we ought to take this issue up and we ought to deal with the defense authorization bill and instead we're on hate crimes legislation. and the majority party has 60 votes to be able to move to that on another pete of legislation then should if they want to bring that up. but why here? and why we are eating up a couple of days to do this on this year when we have these sort of threats staring us in the face? i'm going to put forward an amendment on the defense authorization bill asking that we relist north korea as a terrorist country. i think we ought to look at going at their financial instruments. i think we clearly need to be landing for the failure of this state. and we ought to be looking as a humanitarian issue at the failure of the state. we ought to be looking at a security issue of the failing of

the state. if north korea falls, are we rubbing in to try to secure the nuclear sites? is south korea? is china? is everybody in some sort of agreement what takes place to secure these nuclear sites? what are we doing on humanitarian issues for 20 million people, many of which will be starving during that period of time, a number of which are starving now, taking place in north korea? and this is a very much rent and pressing issue. instead, we're on hate crimes legislation. now, i, as a nation, we will not tolerate violent crime. and i'm appalled by news stories of individuals being assaulted or even killed because of their ethnicity, their beliefs, who they are. i'm appalled by violence done. i believe we must send a strong message to law enforcement and judicial system that such attacks by the full force of law on those that commit such

terrible acts. i do appreciate the good will and sincerity of those who wish to expand hate crimes legislation but i do not believe such legislation in this body from the federal government is the answer and i don't think that's something we should be doing on the department of defense authorization bill when we're facing such key strategic threats internationally and that we've got armies in the field, in iraq and in afghanistan today. this isn't the place. this isn't the time. madam president, in that regard, i want to ask that my full statement on this issue be placed in the record at the end of my statement. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. brownback: thank you, madam president. i say to my colleagues, particularly with the chairman on the floor, my hope is that once we get past hate crimes we remain department of defense and take up the issue of north korea. some say say that's not germane

to the department of defense bill but i think it's closer than what we're on now and i hope we bring this issue up because of the clear and present problems we are facing on this. i know the chairman of this knows this issue very well. and i have worked with him on this previously. so, we've gotten out bipartisan bill to relist them as a terrorist country that we're bringing forward. i met with our nominee to be ambassador to china today saying we should begin planning with the chinese government today for the failure of the north korean state taking place if this success. that north koreans are acting peculiar even by north korean standards with all the missiles they have lawped, the nuclear weapons they have put in play, the things they have stated lately. they are normally provocative but this is all-out stale of problem indication they're taking place now. and it would be my hope we could bring this up. and at least start to address

what clearly is opening up to be a major problem whether the obama administration wants to address it now, whether the united states senate wants to address it now, we may not have a choice. if he is facing pancreas cancer and a battle is taking place with a nuclear armed missile country in north korea and us having 25, or 27,000 troops just south in south korea, we may not have a choice. we really need to get this addressed. i would hope that the chairman of the committee could take this up at that proper time. i appreciate that chance and this to be able to put this in the record. and i think it's just prudent for us to start to address some things that are right on and in front of us rather than this hate crimes legislation that doesn't apply to the department of defense bill. yield imreei yield the floor.

mr. levin: my good friend from kansas is on the floor let me say we would look forward to seeing the language that he is going to be offering on north korea. his description of north korea as a let is an accurate description and i don't know that the terrorist state list fits them but surely the threatening state list fits them very directly and we would look forward to seeing that language and trying to work with him and his colleagues on that amendment. madam president, nobody should be targeted because of the color of their skin, religion, disability, gender, or sexual orientation. for years i have joined with many colleagues and the leadership the senator kennedy in supporting passage of the matthew shepherd local law enforcement hate crimes prevention act. we've seen hate crimes increase in this country most recently at the holocaust museum here in washington. according to the f.b.i. between

1998 and 2007 more than 77,000 hate crimes were recorded. the legislation that we offered here, are offering here that the majority leader has introduced, will help prevent and deter these crimes. this language, the matthew shepherd bill, passed the u.s. senate with bipartisan support as an amendment to the defense authorization bill. that was in september of 2007. this is not new. this language is offered on this bill. cloture was invoked then by a vote of 60-39. the hate crimes amendment before us will, for the first time, give the justice department jurisdiction over crimes of violence which are committed because of a person's not only race, color, religion and national origin which we already have on the books but also based

on gender, sexual orientation or disability. now, there's been some statements made here about restraints on speech. the language is very clear. it only applies to violent acts and it emphasizes explicitly in this amendment that it puts no limits or restraints on constitutionally-protected speech, expressive conduct or activities including but not limited to the exercise of religion which is protected by the first amendment or peaceful activities like picturing for demonstrations. the law that we are proposing will continue to punish violent acts only. not beliefs. it is crucial we understand this: this legislation only allies to violent bias-motivated crimes. it does not infringe on any conduct protected by the first

amendment. the first amendment's right to organize, to preach against, to speak against any way of life for any person is left intact with this legislation. and again, we're not starting from scratch here. the law already prohibits violent crimes based on race, color, national origin, or religion. this amendment would add disability sexual orientation, gender, and gender identity. the amendment ensures that state and local law enforcement will retain primary jurisdiction over investigations and prosecutions. the amendment has a strong certification provision that authorizes the federal government to step in only when needed. prior to indicting a person, the justice department must certify that the state in which the hate crime occurred either does not have the jurisdiction, that the

state has asked the federal government to assume jurisdiction, or that a state prosecution has failed to vindicate the federal interest against hate-motivated violence or a federal prosecution is necessary to secure substantial justice. now, why this bill? why on this bill? first, it is common practice in the senate to offer bills, although the amendment is of a different subject. in other words, this is not the first for 200-plus years. amendments have been offered to bills which are not relevant to the bill before us. that's the u.s. senate. it occurs dozens of times every session. there are no -- not many subjects that are more important than the subject of hate crime. this bill is an available vehicle for an important subje subject. we have done this before on this bill. and one other thing that i feel keenly about as chairman of the

armed services committee. this bill bodies values of diversity and freedom that our men and women in uniform fight to defend. as senator kennedy said in 2007 when we debated this legislati legislation, "we want to be able to have a value system that is worthy for our brave men and women to defend. they are fighting for our valu values, and one of the values is that you should not in this country, in this democracy," senator kennedy said, "permit the kind of hatred and bigotry that has stained the history of this nation over a considerable period of time. we should not tolerate it. we should keep faith with these men and women who are serving overseas when we battle that hatred and bigotry and prejudice at home. so we're taking a few minutes in the morning to have this debate and discussion." those were senator kennedy's words. this is not a long debate by senate standard. this is a reasonably long debate

to give everybody an opportunity to express their views, but we have debated this before two years ago, we have adopted this before, two years ago, it was the right thing to do then for the men and women of our country as well as to keep the faith with the men and women who put the uniform of this nation on and fight for the values that this nation represents. and, finally, madam president, america has taken many steps throughout our history on a long road to become a more inclusive nation, and our diversity is one of our greatest strengths. our tolerance for each other's differences is part of the lamp that can help bring light to a world which is enveloped in bigotry and intolerance. and hopefully we can take another step if we adopt this amendment. so the matthew shepard hate crimes prevention act of 2009

furthers the goal of protecting our citizens from crimes of hate and deterring those crimes. i hope we have a resounding cloture vote and, again, hopefully that can occur later on this evening. i yield the floor and note the absence -- note the absence -- i yield the floor. note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. physical quorum call:

mr. kerry: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: i ask unanimous consent that the proceedings of the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: i thank the chair. and i ask further unanimous

consent that i be permitted to proceed as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: thank you. madam president, earlier today during the democratic policy committee luncheons, we were privileged to hear from the c.e.o.'s of three of america's largest companies: dupont, seamens and duke energy. and it seems that it was reaching that point here in washington where folks are starting to line up to argue ideological and nonfactual points of view with respect to one of the major issues facing our country. this is not unusual. every great debate in history, certaintcertainly since i've bee in the senate and well before

that, has always been subject to one interest group's or another interest group's intses. and those are often conditioned by phony studies, by one particular industry's funded study, almost inevitably always not peer reviewvmentd an review. and so it is we're beginning to see this kind of a lineup now as a response to the action taken by the house of representatives which passed climate change legislation. and a response to the schedule that the majority leader has put us on here in the senate with respect to this legislation. so i -- i wanted to just take a couple of minutes and come to the floor, and i intend to do this on a periodic basis over the course of the next weeks and months as we begin to think about our own approach in the united states senate to this critical issue.

let me say to the chair and to my colleagues that i hope we can all keep open minds so that we'll look at this in the context that it ought to be looked at, which is the national security interests, the security interests of our nation, ie. energy independence, the fact that we send hundreds of billions of dollars every year to parts of the world that doesn't wind up being invested in american jobs, in america's direct future, and in many cases money which winds up in the hands of jihadists of one country or another and -- and works against american competitiveness. that's one reason to think about this issue seriously. another is that china, india, other countries are taking this issue very seriously. today we heard from the c.e.o. again of one of america's

largest corporations. i think dupont is one of the largest chemical companies in the world. and the c.e.o. said very directly to us that he is concerned about china's commitment to this as opposed to our commitment and the fact that out of the top 30 solar, wind and battery companies in the world, only five are in the united states of america. we're the country that invented many of these technologies, but because ideology trumped fact and reason in the course of the 1980's, the guts were pulled out from the energy laboratory out in colorado and the united states lost its lead in photovoltaics, returnables, renewables to japan, germany and other countries.

and ironically, as the cold war ended and we'd invested so nefl that victory in the -- so heavily in that victory in the beginning of the 1990's, we saw the countries that had been locked in by the communist bloc. the former now czech republic, then czechoslovakia, bulgaria, romania, other countries that sought to undue the devastation of the command-control policies that had spread ash within 50 miles of a power plant so there was no living plant or, you know, couldn't grow anything and the rivers were polluted and the lakes and so forth and they ought to undo that. where did they go for the technology? they went to germany and japan. we lost hundreds of thousands of jobs, economists currently estimate, by the blinders that we put on that precluded us from buying into the future, from -- from investing in that future. andd so i hope colleagues will look carefully at the economic realities that are staring at us

right now. china is investing $12 million-plus per hour in a green economy. they're investing six times the amount of money of the united states of america. the pew foundation has found that from 1996 approximately until 2007, the greatest job growth in our country came from alternative renewable energy sector, from new technologies. about 9.1% as opposed to the growth of about 3.7% or so that we saw in the normal job sector. in a state like north dakota, for instance, i think they've had about 30% growth in alternative renewable energy sector. they rank today 24th in the nation in terms of wind power production. but the wind institute tells us they could be number one because we have the best wind in the

world, in the united states, at any rate. and they could produce 10,000 times the entire electricity needs of the state of north dakota just from wind power alone. that's, you know, a huge amount of jobs could be created and a huge amount of money to be gained, a lowering of costs for their consumers. and you could go to other states around the country and find similar patterns where there are very significant increases in the economic base of the alternative renewable energy sector to the exclusion of a very flat level, if not no growth, with respect to normal sectors of our economy. but what's critical is china -- i just spent a week in china about a month ago or so, purposely going over there to meet with chinese leaders about global climate change. because obviously, i'm as committed as any colleague in

the senate to creating an agreement with other nations which pulls everybody -- which holds everybody accountable. obviously if the united states does this all by itself, it isn't going to work. but china's sitting there saying the same thing. if we do this and the united states doesn't do it, it isn't going to work. and the problem is that the united states bona fides on this aren't very good. the fact is that we have been deniers of the existence of the problem while other countries have been proceeding to try to deal with it. the fact is we were, until last year, the world's major emitter of global greenhouse gases. it's very difficult to go to other countries in the world and say you've got to do this and you've got to do this, and they look at us and say, well, what have you done about it? for countries in africa and in the less developed world and indonesia and parts of south

asia and other places, they look at us and they scratch their heads and say, listen, for the last 50 years you guys have been creating this problem. we haven't been able to develop. we're not a developed nation. and so you're sitting around telling us that we've got to make up for the problem you've created? and now we've got to spend a lot of money for it. the fact is they're willing to be part of it. they're willing to be part of a solution. but the united states has got to step up and show leadership and take action here. and here's the bottom line. if the united states doesn't step up and take action and show leadership here, we're not going to get an agreement in copenhagen. then everybody's going to sit there and things are going to get worse. some people will say so what. maybe we'll do it in a year or two or do it down the road. i've got news for you. this is suitly substantiated in the science as well as the technology and economic modeling, if we don't do it now, every year that we delay, it gets harder and it gets more

expensive and it gets more dangerous. if you really want to look out for your citizens in your states, do it now because it's going to be less expensive to do it now than it is going to be in the future. the real taxpayer protection effort here is to do climate change now. that's why, as i said, c.e.o.'s of major corporations in our country are saying give us certainty in the marketplace and give it to us now so that we know what our investments are going to be as we go forward and we can put together a business plan that is intelligent and thoughtful and based on the realities of where the economy is going to go. huge fluctuation in natural gas prices or in the price of coal or what's going to happen with respect to sequestration, all those kinds of things create enormous uncertainty. now, if you're a coal state, if you're a coal interest -- and we've got plenty of them here -- you ought to step back and look

at what's happening in the marketplace. the fact is that coal is under pressure now. we had jim rogers of duke energy tell us today they've canceled a whole bunch of coal plants. they have had them canceling on them by states that are refusing to proceed forward using coal. and the fact is you've got a lot of states -- new england, california -- are turning away from coal, and they're turning away from coal because of price issues but also because of the polluting issues. so if you're a coal state and you want a future for coal, the way to protect that future is not to wait until the e.p.a. regulates on its own without coming to the table with help for the transition costs. the way to protect it is to recognize that you've got to develop a clean-coal capacity. and the only way to develop a clean-coal capacity is to get

the allowances that come through a cap-and-trade system to be able to provide the transitional support system that allows those companies to transition to the future. the fact is that in the bill that passed in the house -- i don't know what the level would be here in the senate yet. but in the bill that passed in the house, there $1 billion a year for ten years to coal, for clean-coal efforts. so the best way to protect coal and to protect america ultimately, because we have a lot of coal and it would be wonderful if we're able to burn it but burn it clean. the best way to do that is to commit now to a system where we are able to provide the support necessary to develop clean coal. and the truth is, you know, we know what happens if you don't make this a mandatory structure. in 1992, president bush george herbert walker bush committed us

to a voluntary protocol in rio at what was called the earth summit. i went down there together with other senators here -- max baucus i think was there. frank lautenberg. then-senator larry pressler. john chafee. tim wirth, al gore. we went as a delegation. the president of the united states came and gave a speech there, and we committed to a voluntary framework to deal with global climate change in 1992. and here we are years later, it hasn't worked. during the 1990's, america's emissions went up -- excuse me. during the last eight years america's emissions of greenhouse gases went up four times faster than during the 1990's. we've gone backwards. we've absolutely gone backwards here. and while we're going backwards, the science is coming back more

and more compelling by the day. the siberian shelf study just released a few months ago shows columns of methane rising on the ocean floor because the permafrost lid of the ocean floor is melting, as it is on dry land in alaska, where they have voted recently to move a village nine miles inland. there are dozens of villages in alaska that are now moving as a consequence of what's happening to the ice shelf and to rising sea levels. and as the permafrost lid melts, methane is going to be released in russia and the arctic and other places where it's exposed, and methane is 20 times more damaging than carbon dioxide. on the ocean floor you have these columns of methane visibly rising through the ocean. and when they burst out into open air, if you were to light a

match, it would ignite. that's how potent it is. that's -- that is an uncontrollably dangerous potential threat to everybody unless we tap into it or learn how to do that or commit to some other methods of controlling this. the fact is that a 25-mile ice bridge that has existed for thousands upon thousands of years that connected the wilkins ice shelf to antarctica shattered a couple months ago, just fell apart, melted as a consequence of what's happening. a number of senators have been to greenland and seen the level of ice melt taking place on the greenland ice melt. and the greenland ice sheet, unlike the arctic ice sheet which is floating in the ocean and as it melts doesn't change the displacement of the ocean, the greenland ice sheet is on rock. and many scientists are worried that the river of melt that is occurring underneath the ice sheet might in fact create a slide effect for massive amounts

of ice that might break off and fall into the ocean. if the arctic -- if the antarctic, west antarctic ice sheet melts and the greenland ice sheet melts, that represents a 16- to 23-foot sea level increase. that's beyond comprehension in terms of what the impact would be. just a meter, a meter of increase which is currently predicted for this century and which we are on track to actually meet or exceed, just a meter means the disappearance of diego garcia, the island that we use to deploy important supplies to afghanistan, pakistan and to deal with other issues. that disappears. countries like bangladesh, other places disappear. the coast of florida. the threat is enormous. the piers in norfolk, virginia,

if they rise to the meter, that's a cost. you can run down the list of things that begin to happen, madam president. so the arctic ice sheet is currently -- it had previously a few years ago been estimated that it would disappear by the year 2030 or so. scientists are now telling us that we will have the first ice-free arctic summer by the year 2013. four years from now, the first arctic ice freeze summer. what does that mean? it means a lot of different things. it can mean the change of ocean currents. it could mean clearly the change of ecosystem. but it means simple things like this. as more ice is melted and the ocean is opened up, the ocean is dark. the ocean absorbs sunlight. and as the sunlight comes down

directly on, you know, on to the earth, that is absorbed into the ocean rather than reflecting back up as it used to off the ice and snow. the result is the ocean warms even faster, which accelerates what's happening in the arctic. it accelerates what's happening in greenland. so there's a boomerang effect to all of this. it is ultimately what scientists call the tipping point. and that brings us to the issue of urgency here. why is this urgent? well, it's urgent because scientists for years have been telling us that you've got to hold down the level of greenhouse gases to about, originally they said 550 parts per million. then they revised that as the science came in and people realized that things were happening a lot faster than we thought. so they revised it down to 450 parts per million. now scientists are revising again, and they are revising again because the right at which

the science is coming back to tell us, hey, folks, this is happening a lot faster than we thought and to a greater degree than we thought, now they're revise it go from 450 parts per million to 350 parts per million. not everybody has accepted that, but that is going on. and why is that alarming? it's a phrarplg because we are at 385 parts per million today. and the rate currently of coal-fired power plants coming on line, the rate of increase of emissions through new buildings, through the lack of adequate standards on automobile, all the other things, we're just pouring emissions out there into the atmosphere willy-nilly as if there's no tomorrow. well, that could happen the way we're going. the fact is that what's up there already -- this is scientific fact. there's nothing that any opponent of global climate change has ever said or done or

produced to indicate that this is not fact. that the greenhouse gases live in the atmosphere anywhere from 100 to 1,000 years. and as they live up in the atmosphere, they continue to do the warming. so the warming we've done already, madam president, the warming we've done already has warmed the earth about .8 degrees centigrade. so we could absolutely anticipate a compounding of that warming because the same amount or more is up there. it's going to continue to do the damage. we don't know how to take it out of the atmosphere. so we're looking at a certainty of another .8 degrees. that takes you up to 1.6. and scientists are telling us the tipping point is at 2 degrees centigrade. i ask my colleagues to go look at the mott telling -- modeling that has been done by countless groups around the world. this is not an american

conspiracy somehow. this is not a democrat thing or republican thing. it doesn't have that kind of label on it. there are thousands of scientists who for 25 years or more have been drawing conclusions based on scientific analysis. and scientists by definition, if you're a good scientist, you're also conservative. because all of the proclamations or findings you make are subject to peer review, if you're a good scientist. if you're a legitimate study. the fact is there are thousands of legitimate peer-reviewed studies that document what is happening in terms of the impact of global climate change. there are no -- zero, not one peer-reviewed study that denies those thousands. not one. for all the industry studies you hear, all the scary tactics, the chicken little, the sky's falling in numbers that are put out, no peer-reviewed study supports an analysis that what the scientists say is happening

is not happening. so we're looking at the potential here of catastrophic implications, which is why the united states needs to move on this. madam chair, the science is one thing, take the science and put it over here. other countries have committed to this, their prime ministers, their finance ministers, all of these people have come together and made a commitment for those countries. they're moving. they accept the science. they also accept the dynamics of the marketplace. they want to be leaders in solar, leaders in wind, leaders in alternative renewable, biofuels. you name it. unless the united states cease this economic opportunity, we will lose the chance to be leaders in one of greatest markets in history. the market that led us to great welt during the course of the

1990's in the united states was the internet and data -- data management systems. and that market is about a trillion dollar market. about a billion users at the time during the 1990's at least when we saw great wealth created. the energy market is a $6 trillion market with abou about $4.05 -- 4..5 billion -- 4.5 billion users. many in india, where they could run electricity pumps where they have no water and no development there are countless things that could happen as a consequence of this that would have profound implications on poverty and would have a profound implication on jihad around the world. this could change the paradigm that we've been locked into.

i want those batteries made in detroit and countless other cities across the country. i named detroit because you have a skilled workforce. the automobile industry is hurting. we should build the cars for america's high-speed rail system there. we should build the batteries there. not in china. we should develop these technologies and these are ongoing jobs that repeat for future and they can't be exported. what can be exported is the technology itself, which we have an ability to go out and sell to other countries which is good for the american marketplace. so, madam president, as -- as these weeks go on, we need to talk about this. so i want to just come back to one particular component of this. i want to underscore the national security implications of this. in 2007, 11 former admirals and high-ranking generals issued a report from the center for naval

analysis saying that climate change is a threat multiplier with a pr potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale far beyond those we see today. in 2008 a national intelligence assessmenassessment echoed thoss from inside the government. general zinni was characteristically blunt in assessing this threat. he said that without action i quote, "we will pay the price later in military terms and this will involve human lives there will be a human toll. the estimates of the intelligence community and those looking at the national security implications are that we could have as many in a few years as 20 million climate refugees. we have an internally displaced issue today in pakistan. we have it in afghanistan, other countries, iraq.

we could have environmentally displaced people who are forced november because they can't produce food. because they lose water and the problem of failed states will only be compounded as the instability that comes with those moving populations and the challenges of providing for those people just grows. believe me, american ingenuity, american military capacity, american lift, american medical capacity, american food aid, all of these things will be called on and unless we act now, they will be called on to a greater degree than is necessary. so climate change, in fact, injects a major new source of chaos, of tension, of human insecurity into an already volatile world. it threatens to bring more famine. all -- i invite my colleagues, talk to the developmental people and so many of these -- in so many of these countries about

the problem they're having with growing crops, the change of rainfall, the lack of war, about the desertfication that takes place in places like darfur. there was an article that said, you want to get serious about car far, get serious about climate change. none of the modeling that has been done to date that tries to estimate the costs to the consumer and that's a concern, and, in fact, there's an enormous amount of money being put on the table through the aallowances to cushion this impact. so american citizens are not paying more for electricity and not paying more as a consequence of these changes. and i believe there's a minimal cost. but the truth is that cost has not even yet be properly represented because no model to this date shows the impact of energy efficiencies in america

that will reduce the costs for families. no study properly shows the cost of technology advances that will reduce the cost for communities and families. and no study shows the cost to the american consumer of doing nothing. if the united states doesn't do this, believe me, that's a tax on americans. and it is a lot bigger than the costs that are going to come affiliated with the transition to a new economy which is sustainable for the long term for our nation. so, madam president, as we go forward, i want to just say to colleagues, a couple of concerns people have expressed about cap-and-trade and other issues. the marketplace, will the marketplace abuse this? can we trust the marketplace to function? well, the answer is all of us have learned some tough and bitter lessons as a result of the lack of regulatory oversight of the 1990's and -- in the last

-- and the last eight years. we will have in our legislation in the senate, which is not in the house, some mechanism by which -- i'm not going to go into the details now. we're not going to lay out all of the details of what we're going to do. we will address this concern of market regulation in order to adequately guarantee transparency and accountability as we go forward. there are other concerns that people have expressed. as the next days go on, we're going to show day for day exactly what the real costs are, what the real opportunities are and how we can proceed. i just close by saying, madam president, that here's the choice, really for us as americans and as human beings. let's say that the people who have no peer-reviewed studies at all, the people who just wananto kind of be on the flat-earth

caucus, whatever, and argue this isn't happening. let's say that they're right and we're wrong. and we do the things that we're going to do because we think they're the right thing 0 to do. what is the downinside the downside is that america would have led the world in terms of technology. anybody who sits there and says, what about china? ought to go to china and see what china is doing. china is determined to be the world's number one producer of electric vehicles and they're on their way to doing it. china has tripled its wind power goals and targets. china is putting in place right now a 20% reduction in energy intensity and they're ahead of the curb in almost every sector except for one in meeting or exceeding that goal. we're not doing that. they're doing that. china is the leader in wind and solar technology. china has a stronger commitment on automobile levels of

emissions than we do and it's going into effect before ours. i've talked to a number of well-respected observers both in business and in -- in journalism who have been to china recently and they come back shaking their heads and say, if we don't get our act in gear, china is going to clean our clock and we're going to be chasing china in three or four years. now, if you're concerned about holding china accountable to a system, we better put something in place, because that's the only way we're going to get a mechanism that will hold everybody in place. here's the bottom line. if we don't get that mechanism, my friends, the president isn't going to send anything up here and we're not going to pass it at that point we're not going to accept some global system that doesn't address this globally. we've been through that with kyoto. so the fact is that the united states has got to do what we've got to do in order to make copen

hagan happen in order to lead the globe in this effort. i hope my colleagues will recognize. what else might happen if we're wrong and they're right? well, we would have cleaned up the air. we'll have better health quality in america because we'll have better air quality because we reduce air particulates in the air. the largest single cost of children's health care in the course of a summer in the united states of america is children committed to the hospital because of air quality, asthma attacks in the course of the summer. and it is rising as a problem in our country. it will reduce hospital costs, better quality of air, better health. what else is a downside of doing this if we do it correctly and we would have created millions of new jobs. we see that happening right now. think of what happens when you set a global target and when the united states sets its own national target and businesses say, hey, there's money to be

made there. we have better transmission lines so we can send electricity produced in solar in nevada or oklahoma or texas or somewhere and you can sell it to the we don't have a transmission system that allows us to do that. we move down the toad have cheaper electricity -- down the road to have cheaper electricity, have a smarter grid and have the ability to reduce costs for americans. what's another down-- well, another downside is we might actually reduce poverty around the world because the technology advances. we might reduce the instability of countries, improve our own security and we will reduce energy dependence because we

will be able to reduce our -- produce our own energy at home and not depend on sending hundreds of billions of dollarser to countries in the middle east and elsewhere. that's the down side. what's the down side if they're wrong? catastrophe. absolute catastrophe because we go beyond the tipping point. i can't stand here and tell you everything that's going to happen. but i've read enough and saw -- seen enough of what the scientists say of the potential impacts and i have seen enough of those impacts already coming true that just by evidence and common sense, you say to yourself -- i don't want to put this to the tess because there's no way -- test because there's no way to come back from it. there is no way to go over the tipping point and turn the clock backwards. that's the choice for all of us. and i hope in the course of this debate we will have the kind of debate on the facts on real studies, peer-reviewed studies, on analysis that make sense so

we can make the kind of judgments that the united states senate deserve and that the american people deserve. i thank the chair. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. a senator: i ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: i heard the senator from massachusetts laying out the scenario that we face not just as americans, but as members and inhabitants of this wonderful planet earth and i was asked to come to the floor and telling you what we do in colorado in seizing the opportunity as the senator from massachusetts described to us. he described ably and eloquently as a no regrets policy. we ought to take all of these steps, because whether or not climate change materializes, i believe that the science is

pointing in that direction, all of those steps would result in the benefits that he described. and i want to bring my home state perspective here today to this debate over transtoition cleaner and safe -- transition to cleaner and safer and more secure energy sources. when we make this change, we'll improve our national security, lessen our dependence on foreign oil, protect our earth, preserve the air we breathe and the water that we drink. most of all, we keep faith with our children. i long believed that we don't inherit the earth from our parents, we're actually borrowing it from our children. and colorado has a -- i think a unique perspective on this opportunity and i think that america can benefit from our experiences. for many years we've been a national leader in developing energy sources that are traditional like coal and natural gas and then in recent