constitutional second amendment right that citizens in this country enjoy and the states' abilities to restrict that right and any conceal carry permit holder who has a conceal carry permit in their state of residence that travels to another state, has to abide by and is subject to the laws that are enacted by that individual state *78 state. so, mr. president, i hope my colleagues will vote for a commonsense amendment that allows people across this country that are law abiding citizens from the very criminals who break those laws and try and commit those crimes. mr. president, i yield the floor and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the road. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: that my statement in opposition to the thune amendment be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote?

the senator from arkansas. the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 58. the nays are 39.

under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is withdrawn. without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i would ask at this point that senator kyl and then -- the presiding officer: the senate please be in order. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that senator kyl be recognized as though in morning business for ten minutes and then senator tester be recognized as though in morning business for ten minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none, so ordered. the senate will be in order.

mr. kyl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: will the senators please be in order. please take your conversations out of the chamber. mr. kyl: mr. president, every american should be proud that an hispanic woman, one with a very impressive background, has been nominated for the supreme court. in evaluating a nominee, it's important that the senate examine all aspects of the individual's career and his or her merits as a judge and not make judgments on the basis of gender or ethnicity. it starts with a judge posts opinions and decision, also important to understanding what an individual really thinks about things are speeches, writings and associations. judge sotomayor's most widely known speeches, of course, her "wise latina woman" speech given

in various fora over the years. it is clear it is the essence of those speeches. her central theme in those speeches was to examine when gender and ethnicity bias a judge's decision. judge sotomayor concludes that they do, that it's unavoidable. she develops this theme throughout the speech, including examining opposing arguments and examining evidence that suggests that gender makes a difference. she then quotes former skwrufrts sandra day o'connor's statement that men and women judges will reach the same decision and in effect disagrees saying she's not so sure. that's when she says that she -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. that's when she says she thinks a wise latina would reach a better decision. her attempt to recharacterize stream credulity. i will address this at greater

length during the confirmation debate. suffice it to say i believe judge sotomayor should set asthaoeusd biases and render the law neutral hreufplt her address to the puerto rican aclu also raises red flags. in this speech judge sotomayor inferred foreign law should be used but later testified it should not. i will also discuss at length my concerns related to this matter during the confirmation debate. and the problems i have squaring her testimony with the contents of the speech. the central point, of course, is that it's completely irrelevant to consider foreign law in u.s. courts. i don't believe judge sotomayor is sufficiently committed to this principle. judge sotomayor's supporters argue that we should not focus on her speeches but on her mainstream judicial record. they claim that judge sotomayor

agreed with her colleagues, including republican appointees, the vast majority of the time. that may be true, but as president obama reminded us, most judges will agree on 95% of the cases. the hard cases are where differences in judicial philosophy become apparent. i've looked at judge sotomayor's record in these hard cases and have found cause for concern. the u.s. supreme court has reviewed directly ten of her decisions. eight of those decisions have been reversed or vacated. another sharply criticized and one upheld in a 5-4 decision. the most recent reversal was ricci, a case in which judge sotomayor summarily dismissed before trial the discrimination claims of 20 new haven firefighters and the supreme court reversed 5-4 with all nine justices rejecting key reasoning. in my view, the most astounding thing about the case was not the incorrect outcome reached by judge sotomayor's court.

it was that she rejected the firefighters' claim in their one-paragraph opinion and she continued to maintain in the hearings that she was bound by precedent that the supreme court said did not exist. as the supreme court noted in ricci -- noted, ricci presented a novel issue regarding -- i'm quoting -- regarding two provisions of title 7 to be interpreted and reconciled with few, if any, precedents in the court of appeals discussing the issue." one would think this would be a case that deserves a thorough analysis. judge sphoeur -- judge sotomayor's court disposed of the case containing zero analysis. some said her panel intentionally disposed of the case in a short unsigned opinion in an effort to hide it from further scrutiny. was it intentionally kept off her colleagues' radar? did she have racial views that

prevented her from seeing the merit in the firefighters' claims? judge sotomayor was asked about the ricci decision at length. her defense was she was following established supreme court precedent is belied noting few, if any, circuit court opinions addressing the issue. when i pressed judge sotomayor to identify this controlling supreme court and second circuit precedents that allegedly dictated the outcome in ricci, she dissembled and ran out the clock. her answers answered nothing. and in my opinion, violated her obligation to be forthcoming with the judiciary committee. i'm also concerned about judge sotomayor's analysis or lack thereof in maloney, a second amendment case that could find its way to the supreme court next year. maloney was decided after the supreme court's landmark ruling in district of columbia vs. heller which held that the right to bear arms was an individual right that could not be taken away by the federal government.

in maloney, judge sotomayor had the opportunity to consider whether the -- whether that individual right could also be enforced against the states, a question not before the heller court. in yet another unsigned opinion judge sotomayor and two other judges held that it was not a right enforceable against the states. what are the legal implications of this holding? state regulations limiting or prohibiting the ownership and use of firearms would be subject only to the rational basis review. as sandy froman, a respected lawyer, said in her testimony, this is a very, very low threshold that can easily be met by a state or city that wishes to prohibit all gun ownership, even in the home. thus, if judge sotomayor's decision were allowed to stand as precedent, states will ironically be able to do what the federal district of columbia cannot: place a de facto prohibition on the ownership of guns and other arms.

as we've seen, judge sotomayor's testimony about her previous speeches and some of her decisions, it is difficult if not impossible to reconcile with her record. similarly her testimony about the extent of her role with prldf is intentioned with the evidence that we have. "the new york times" has detailed her active involvement as recounted by former plrdef colleagues who have described judge sotomayor as a top policy-maker who played an active role as the defense fund staked out aggressive stances. what were the litigation positions advanced by the prisoner appeal defense fund -- by the puerto rican defense fund? it argued restrictions often abortions are annual skwrus to slavery -- analogous to slavery. unfortunately, madam president, i've not been persuaded that judge sotomayor is absolutely

committed to setting aside her biases and impartially deciding cases based upon the rule of law, and i cannot ignore her unwillingness to answer senators' questions straightforwardly. for these reasons, i oppose her nomination. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: madam president, i ask unanimous consent as if to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: madam president, i rise today to call on the senate to take action on a bill that i introduced last week in montana, the forest jobs and recreation act. the forest jobs bill is the product of years of effort from montanans who worked together to find common ground on how to best manage and protect our forests. these folks and mill owners, conservationists, hunters, motorized users fought each other for decades, as little as

ten years ago their differences were so great, they were so much apart that they could not even be in the same room together. in the meantime, forest management came to a virtual halt. a beetle epidemic swept through the for the. amid all the shorgt, no one got what -- shouting, no one got what they wanted and all montanans and our forests suffered for it. with help from my fellow montanans, we're working to fix that. that's why i'm enormously proud to carry forward their work and the forest jobs and recreation act. besides putting aside old battles, this bill will help protect our communities from a crisis on montana's forest lands. and make no mistake about it, montana's forest communities face a kraoeusz. our forest -- crisis. our forests' crisis demands action and demands action now. in the beaver head dear lodge national forest in southwester

than montana, a shocking 6,60-- 660,000 acres are dead. that's a big figure, even for big sky country. and it's a number that only's only rise. so what follows dead trees? fire. as i speak, 200 firefighters are battling a wildfire just a few miles southwest of deer lodge montana and those beetle-killed trees. while no amount of work in the forest could put a stop to beetle kill, if enacted into law, this bill will help protect our communities and our water supplies from threats of future forest fires. on the beaver head deer lodge forest, this bill mandates that an average of 7,000 acres a year be harvested. this work will happen in the context of larger stewardship projects aimed at restoring

fishing and hunting habitat. a council of local stakeholders will work with the forest service to help shape each of the projects, providing a voice to local folks and how we manage our forests. the bill also addressed two districts on two other forests in montana. the three rivers on the cutiny and the sealy on the lolo. similar work will occur in these places. big stewardship projects driven by local collaborations so the forests and our communities within them will be healthier in the end. let me be clear, this bill won't just help restore forests and their watersheds. it will help restore our communities. it will put people back to work in the woods, harvesting trees, growing up roads, building bigger culverts for fishing and tackling stream restoration projects. a lot of mills closed in montana. we're at the risk of losing more. and if we lose that infrastructure, we will suffer an even bigger loss. we will lose the folks who know

how to work in the woods. without their know-how, without the mills to process the by-product of their work, we won't be able to tackle head on the years of work that lies ahead, work to restore the woods around our towns, to make them more resilient to the fires that may one day come. and of course in montana, we just don't work in the woods. we play in them. that's why montanans asked me to put aside recreation areas in this bill, and i did, lands that will be set aside for motorized and nonmotorized use. lastly i'm proud to set aside some of montana's best hunting and fishing habitat with this bill. this bill will keep some spectacular wild places with the cleanest water you can imagine around for our kids and grandkids to hunt, fish, hike and camp. places like the sapphire, the snow crest and roderick mountain and lands next to the bob marshal wilderness.

madam president, it's a new day when motorized users, timber mill owners, back country horsemen, hunters, fishermen and conservationists agree it's time to set aside our differences for the sake of the forests and for the sake of our communities. i have reached out to folks in western montana to get feedback on these issues. i have held listening sessions throughout timber country open to any and all montanans who want to work together on a commonsense plan for our future. last weekend i held a series of open meetings to announce the introduction of the bill and to hear more feedback. i've invited montanans to visit my web site tester.senate.gov/forests. folks can click on color-coded maps to see for themselves exactly what we're proposing. and they can sign up as citizen cosponsors of this important legislation. already hundreds of montanans have signed on to make their voices heard and to help put their shoulder to the wheel to

get this bill moving. i can tell you montana is buzzing with excitement about this proposal. folks see it as an opportunity, an opportunity to work together to support this made-in in-montana solution to the conflicts that have stalemated us for far too long. working together, we will create jobs. working together, we will create new opportunities in recreation. working together, we will protect montana's clean water. and working together, we will safeguard montana's fishing and hunting habitat for our kids and grandkids. montanans are blessed to live among some of this nation's finest public lands. we're willing to do our part to help wisely manage and protect these lands. now it's time for congress to step up to plate and do its part. with that, madam president, thank you and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. a senator: madam president, with respect to the nomination of

judge sonia sotomayor to be an associate justice on the united states supreme court, i find that i share many of the concerns just expressed by the distinguished senator from arizona, mr. president kyl. mr. cochran: first i want to thank senators leahy and sessions for their handling of the hearings, the meetings in the judiciary committee on the subject of the supreme court confirmation of judge sotomayor. their meetings were both informative and respectful. and i think reflect the traditions of the united states senate. both judge sotomayor and the judicial confirmation process were treated with the respect they deserve. the senate's constitutional role to advise and consent on federal

judicial nominations is one that all senators take seriously. and i, like most senators, have traditionally shown deference to the president's role in submitting to the senate nominees for the federal judiciary. it's a role that the senate shares with the president as many senators know. if a nominee was qualified by education, experience, and judicial temperment, then that nominee would likely be confirmed by the senate regardless of the political party of the president. but in recent years we've seen that standard dramatically altered. during the administration of president george w. bush, for example, several well-qualified nominees from my state for positions in the federal

judiciary, including charles pickerring, michael wal wallaced leslie southwick saw their nominations opposed because of their political differences, differences of opinion about politics. for better or for worse, a new standard for evaluating judicial nominees has r emerged. and has been well documented during her confirmation process, judge sotomayor was confirmed to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit by the senate on october 2, 1998. i voted in favor of her confirmation. however, a nomination to one of the federal circuit courts of appeals is not the same as a nomination to the court of last

resort. the highest court in our land, the united states supreme court. during her recent hearing judge sotomayor was asked several questions regarding statements that she had made in recent years. in writings and speeches judge sotomayor repeatedly stated that a judge's personal experiences can and will impact judicial outcomes. she has also argued that judges should allow their personal sympathies and prejudices to influence their decision making. she described the ideal of judicial impartiality as an aspiration that she believes cannot be met in most cases. these statements raise serious

concerns regarding the lack of commitment to the notion of equal justice under the law. judge sotomayor's responses to questions about these comments have failed to alleviate my concerns about whether she would apply the law in an even-handed manner. it is the responsibility of the senate to make certain that those who are confirmed to the supreme court not only are fully qualified by reason of experience and training, but also that they show a commitment to equal justice under the law. some of judge sotomayor's statements during the last decade have given me reason to question her fidelity to equal justice. and unlike the federal circuit court where she has served since 1998, a justice on the supreme

court is not necessarily bound by existing legal precedence. if confirmed there would be no higher court to deter judge sotomayor from making decisions that would become the binding law of the land. for these reasons, madam president, i intend to oppose her nomination. i 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 south carolina. gram gram i ask permission to -- mr. graham: i ask permission to terminate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: i ask to be recognized for 30 minutes, but i don't think i will take nearly that long. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: thank you, madam president. i trainin take the floor to infy colleagues on how i intend to vote on the supreme court nominee judge sotomayor. i understand the path of least resistance from me to vote no. anytime you're in a minority party and you lost the election,

but i feel compelled to vote yes and i feel this is the right vote for me and, quite frankly, for the country in this case. why do i say that? elections have consequences. i told judge sotomayor in the hearing that if i had won the election, even though i wasn't running, or senator mccain, she would probably have not been chosen by a republican. we would have chosen someone with a more conservative background, someone like a judge roberts or miguel estrada. she is definitely more liberal than a republican would have chosen, but i do believe that elections have consequences and it's not like we hid from the american people during the campaign that the supreme court selections were at stake. both sides openly campaigned on the idea that the next president would be able to pick some judges for the supreme court. that was known to the american people and the american people

spoke. now, in that regard having been one of the chief supporters of senator mccain and one of the chief opponents of then senator obama, i feel that he deserves some deference on my part when it comes to his first selection to the supreme court. i say that understanding that under our constitution i or no other senator would be bound by the pick of a president. but when you look at the history of this country, generally speaking, great deference has been given to that selection by the united states senate. while i'm not bound to vote for judge sotomayor, it would be the path of least political resistance for me. i choose to vote for judge sotomayor because i believe she is well qualified. we're talking about one of the most qualified nominees to be selected for the supreme court

in decades. she has 17 years of judicial experience. 12 of those years she was on the second circuit court of appeals. i've looked at her record closely. i believe that she follows president dent. that she has not been an -- precedent. that she has not been an activist judge in the sense that would make her disqualified in my view, left of center reasoning, but within the mainstream. she has an outstanding background as a lawyer. she was a prosecutor for four years in new york, and her record of academic achievement is extraordinary. coming up from tough circumstances. being raised by a single mother. going to princeton, being picked as the top student there, doing a -- an extraordinary job in law school, has a strong work ethic, that all matter to me.

and it's just not my view that her legal reasoning was within the mainstream. she received the a.b.a., american bar association's, highest rating as well qualified. and the reason i mention that is i don't feel bound by the rating, but during the alito-roberts -- alito, roberts confirmation for the supreme court, i used that as a positive for both of those nominees. file as a republican, i can't use it -- i feel as a republican, i can't use it one time and not the other. i feel that she received the highest rating at the american bar association makes a difference to me. her life story, as i indicated before, is something that every american should be proud. -- proud of. and if her selection to the supreme court will inspire young women, particularly latino women to seek a career in the law, that is a good thing. and i hope it will.

on balance i do believe that the court will not dramatically change in terms of ideology with her selection. justice souter, who i respect as an individual, has been far more liberal than i prefer in a judge. and i think that judge sotomayor will not be any more liberal than him. and on some issues, quite frankly, may be more balanced in her approach, particularly in the war on terror and potentially the second amendment. time will tell. i'm not voting for her believing i know how she will decide a case. i'm voting for her because i find her to be well qualified. elections matter, and the people who have served along her side for many years find an extraordinary woman in judge sotomayor and i confirm their findings. now, what standard did i use? every senator in this body at

the end of the day has to decide how to give their advice and consent. one of the things that i chose not to do was to use senator obama's standard when it came to selecting -- casting my vote for judge sotomayor. if those who follow the senate will recall senator obama voted against both alito and roberts and he used the rationale that they will well qualified, that they were extraordinarily gifted when it came to being able to intellectually gifted, but the last mile of confirmation when it came to judge roberts was the heart. because the 5% of controversial cases that kind of change society, you have to look to see what's in a judge's heart. then and now i totally reject that. if the united states senate tries to have a confirmation process where we explore another person's heart, i think we're going to chill out people wanting to become members of the judiciary. who would want to come before

the senate and have us try to figure out what's in your heart? can you imagine the questions we would be allowed to ask? i think it would have a tremendous chilling effect on the future recruitment of qualified candidates to be judges. and let me say this -- judge sotomayor agreed with me and senator kyl that trying to find out what's in the judge's heart is probably not a good idea. he also indicated that philosophy -- judicial philosophy were outcome to determine judge alito. if i learned her standard that her philosophy is different than mine, and her ideology was different from mine, she would not dare to get the vote and not one using the obama standard would confirm her. i reject that because it is not in the long-term use for the

senate or the judiciary. i went by the standard that has stood the test of time. the qualification standard. is this person qualified to sit on the court? are they a person of good charkter? do they present an -- character? do they present an extraordinary circumstance having something about their life that they would be extraordinary? there was a time in this country where a justice like justice ginsburg, who is clearly left of center received 90-something votes from this body. there was a time where a conservative judge like justice scalia received 09 votes from this -- 90 votes from this body. every democrat who voted for justice scalia was getting an extremely qualified, talented man who was qualified for the job who had a different philosophy from the democrats. for somebody who voted for judge ginsburg, you had to know what you were getting, someone

talented, extremely well qualified, extremely smart and general counsel for the aclu. you had to know what you were getting, but you had to understand that president clinton in that case had the right to make that decision. what happened to those days? i would argue to my democratic colleagues and i'm sure that republicans have made our fair share of mistakes when it comes to judges, but this effort not too far in the past, a filibustering -- of filibustering judges, declaring we're on the judiciary, has really hurt this body and in my opinion the a little bittization of this -- the politicalization of this body has to stop for the good of the senate and for the good of america. what am i trying to do today? i'm trying to start over. the political golden rule is to do on to others as they did unto you. the actual golden rule is do unto others as you would have

them do unto you. i hope to get back to a traditional sense of what the senate has been all about. that brings me back to the recent past. this body was on the verge of blowing up. our democratic colleagues were filibustering presidential -- president bush's nominees for the appellate court and even the supreme court in a fashion never known by the body. there was an effort by frustrated republicans to change the rules so that all you needed was a majority vote to get on the bench, the supreme court. in this body for a couple of hundred years had not gone down that road. a gang of 14 was created. seven republicans and seven democrats that tried to find a better way. tried to get the senate back to a more reasonable position. and what we did, seven democrats and seven republicans, we said that filibustering judges should only be done in an extraordinary circumstance. and we left that up to the members of the body, but we were focusing on someone who was

clearly out of the mainstream when it came to judging. and if you look at judge sotomayor's record for 17 years, it is left of stpherbgs but not a record of someone -- left of center but is not of someone who is wearing the robe, but under the robe is an activist. an extraordinary circumstance would be somebody clearly not qualified, a pick political in nature alone. well, i am glad to say that my colleagues on the democratic side and the republican side who were part of that group and are still here did not see an extraordinary circumstance. i would like to compliment senator sessions who did a very fine job in this hearing. he has acknowledged there is stphog extraordinary about this nominee for the republican party to try to block her through filibustering. i think that is a correct assessment. but then it comes down to your individual vote. i have tried to indicate the best i can that i desire as a senator to find a new way to

start over and get back to a senate that's more rational in its approach when it comes to confirmation. having said that to my colleagues who vote "no," i understand your concerns, and there are things about this nominee that are troubling. the speeches. the speeches that she has given in the past are troubling because i think they embrace identity politics, something i don't embrace. the wise latina comment that's become now famous that she believes more often than not that a wise latina woman with her background and experience would reach a better conclusion than a white male. we had a long discussion about how that does not sit well with most americans, and that is not what we want to be expressed by people trying to become supreme court nominees. but having said that, do we want to exclude from consideration people with boldness, that are edgy? do we want milk toast nominees who are afraid to speak their

mind and to disagree with their fellow citizens? i think not. her speeches, while troubling, have to be looked at in terms of her record. and when you look at this 17-year record, you will find someone who has not carried out that speech. and i will take her at her word. she rejected this idea of picking winners and losers and was very mainstream in her understanding of the role of a judge. understood the difference between a policy-maker and a judge. i will take her at her word. i cannot understand her heart anymore than she can understand mine. the speeches are troubling, but i guarantee you, i made some speeches that are probably troubling to people on the other side. i hope they would look at everything i've done, not just the speeches i may have given. her time as a lawyer -- they vs. important to me. during the alito and roberts hearings, they were really pushed hard about some legal

memos they wrote for ronald reagan espousing conservative thought and how that made them dangerous. how dare you write a memo about the civil rights act that somebody on the other side may disagree with. well, lawyers who advocate positions should not feel chilled in terms of picking their clients if they hope to be a judge. the worst thing we could do is take a lawyer's advocacy position, their clientele, and hold it against them for being a judge. she was a board member of the puerto rican legal defense fund. some people say we shouldn't talk about her time as a lawyer, even mention that organization. i do not believe that at all. because when i'm looking at this nominee, i'm looking at every aspect of their life. and during her time as a board member, the board and the organization advocated positions i think that are out of the

mainstream, that i don't agree with, but certainly are legitimate positions to take. like taxpayer-funded abortion. i cannot disagree with her more. i don't think most americans want their taxpayer dollars to be used to fund abortion. the puerto rican appeal defense fund argued to the court that if you do not allow taxpayer-funded abortion for poor women, it is a form of dred scott-kind of oppression. well, i couldn't disagree more. but that's not the point. disagreeing with me is okay. now what i hope will happen in the future is if a skefrbgt gets in the white house and -- if a conservative gets in the white house and we picked someone on the other side of that case, you will have the same understanding i do. being aggressive advocate for causes i disagree with doesn't disqualify you from being a judge if otherwise you've demonstrated the capability. the advocacy role of a lawyer is

unique. i have represented people who i disagree with. i have represented people accused of child molesting. i've been a criminal defense lawyer. there's nothing more noble in our st*eupl than make -- in our system than making the government prove their case regardless of how you feel about the defendant. so, the fact that she was an advocate choosing causes i don't agree with does not, in my opinion, disqualify her. because when i look at her record, i did not see a judge who was continuing to be a lawyer for the puerto rican legal defense fund. i saw a judge who felt bound by the law. temperament -- those members who have practiced in court, i don't like a bully judge, and i know it when i see it. i don't mind being pressed. i don't mind being challenged. i don't mind being interrupted. i just don't want to be belittled in front of my clients for no good reason. there were some things said

about judge sotomayor, anonymous comments from lawyers who were asked by the federal almanac how you rate the temperament of people in the second circuit, and judge sotomayor had some things said that were, quite frankly, disturbing. but i looked at the other part of the record, the people who had served with her as a prosecutor, defense attorneys who wrote on her behalf, people who served with her on the court, and i found on balance that her temperament does not disqualify her. and quite frankly i found somebody that a lot of people from different background admire. ken starr, one of the strongest conservatives in the country found her to be a kwaoul tpaoeud person. louis freeh, former director of the f.b.i., someone who came and vouched for her character and her qualities as a person. so when i look at the record, the anonymous comments by lawyers who were asked by federal legal service did not

win the day, nor should they have. now, i don't know what's ahead for this country when it comes to picking supreme court judges. i don't know what openings may occur and when they will occur. i know this. that elections have to matter, that i don't want to invalidate elections by disagreeing with someone who i ran against or opposed politically. because when the election is over, everything has to change to some extent. i'm not bound to agree with every pick of president obama. but when it comes to trying to show some deference, i will. i will try to do better for him than he was able to do for

president bush. i don't want to turn over the confirmation of judges to special interest groups on the left or the right. and that's where we're headed if we don't watch. special interest groups are important. they have their say. they have every right to have their say. but we can't make every supreme court vacancy a battle over our culture. i am trying to start over. i've only been here one term plus a few months. but since i've been here, i've been worried about where this country's going when it comes to judges. i happen to be here at a time when we're about to change the rules of the senate in a way that they have never been done in 200 years. i was new to the body, but i was understanding of the law and how our system works well enough to

know that i did not want to be part of that. i hadn't been here long, but i understood what would happen to this country if we had changed the rules of the senate, even though people felt frustrated and justified to do so. now as a member of the minority, i promised president obama that i will look hard at his nominees. i will try to help him where i can. but i will not abandon the right to say no and to stop in an extraordinary circumstance a nominee that i think will be bad for the country and will dramatically change the power of a branch of the government -- the supreme court -- that is very important to every american. as to my colleagues who find a different decision on the republican side, i can understand and appreciate why you did not feel comfortable

giving your confirmation vote to judge sotomayor. but i'm trying to look beyond this moment, look to the future, and come up with a reason to support her that will create a different way of doing business that will help the judiciary, the senate and the country as a whole. senator sessions did an outstanding job. senator leahy did a very, very good job. people wanted to know more about her at the hearings, but she is limited, like every nominee in terms of what she can say. and one last comment about judge sotomayor. she's one year older than i am. i grew up in the deep south. i'm the first person in my family to go to college. and i lost my parents when i was in college and had a 13-year-old sister to raise.

she grew up in the bronx, came to this country from puerto rico. her mother joined the army. she lost her dad when she was very young. her mother raised judge sotomayor and her brother under difficult circumstances. her brother is a doctor. she has been able -- judge sotomayor -- to excel academically and reach the highest rung of america's legal system, and that, to me, is a hell of a story. nobody in my family ever expected me to be a united states senator, including myself. only in america can these things happen. so, i choose to vote for judge

sotomayor, looking at her from the most optimistic perspective, understanding i could be wrong, but proud of the fact that my country is moving in the right direction when anybody and everybody can hit it out of the park. i would not have chosen her if i had made this choice as president, but i understand why president obama did choose her, and i'm happy to vote for her. i yield back. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from nevada.

mr. ensign: madam president, i ask that the call of the quorum be tis spenced with. -- dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ensign: i ask unanimous consent at 1:45 today the senate stand in recess for 10 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ensign: madam president, i rise today to talk about a bipartisan amendment on military voting. a bill that i've cosponsored because counting every vote in our elections is a foundation of our democracy. and i want to thank senator schumer, bennett, chambliss and corcornyn on this matter. this is a matter long overdue that our service men and women face in exercising their constitutional right to take part in elections. a right for which they so bravely fight to protect. military personnel have encountered many problems in recent elections. they have trouble receiving

timely information about elections in their home state. they have trouble registering and obtaining their absentee ballots. they have trouble preparing their ballots. and most of all, they he have trouble -- they have trouble returning the ballot to the local election officials in time for that ballot to be counted. it has been a national embarrassment to read news stories of military ballots that have been delayed despite the best effort of those voters, those votes were not even counted. those military voters were dis enfranchised from the same democracy that they are charged with protecting because of administrative red tape. according to the pew charitable trust study one-third -- one-third of the state do not provide military voters stationed abroad enough time to vote. one-third of the states do not provide enough time for our

military personnel to get their votes in in time to vote. in additionally found that 25 states and the district of columbia need to improve military absentee voting to ensure that our men and women stationed around the globe can participate in the democratic poets. and will -- process. while it concluded that my home state of nevada gave voters enough time to vote, there are steps that could be taken to make the process simpler. providing half of the country with insufficient time is unacceptable. this study went on to say that by almost every measure military an overseas voting participation is much lower than the general population. in 2006 voter turnout was only approximately 20% for military voters as opposed to approximately 40% for the general population much these statistics illustrate that those who are fighting to protect our

democracy are not being afforded the opportunity to participate in it. in both the department of defense and state and local election officials have not done enough to address these problems. military and overseas voter empowerment act of 2009 would address some of these problems to help military personnels have their votes count. the bill establishes new requirements for the states and for the department of defense to make it easier for military and overseas voters to participate in elections. the key requirement is for states to allow sufficient time for these voters who are overseas to receive their ballots, vote, and return them in time to be counted. other provisions in the bill include having states provide online and fax systems to deliver registration and absentee ballots, making the

department of defense provide improved ballot delivery and mail service for troops. and, third, having the department of defense provide improved federal voting assistance like designating and training voter assistance officers and providing registration an absentee ballot information at -- and absentee ballot information at every single installation. while these are challenges, they are not insurmountable especially when you consider the outcome. providing our men and women in uniform with the opportunity to vote, i think we, as americans, owe them that opportunity. my office has been in touch with the office of secretary of state in nevada to continue to work through these challenges. implementing these changes will not be simple. my colleagues and i have modified the bill to address some of these concerns and will continue to work with our states and localities going forward. for example, the original

version of the bill focused attention on the steps that states must take even though we know that many states like my home state of nevada have local election officials carry out important election activities. we never had any intention of reaching into states and rearranging that relationship. that is why the rules committee modified the bill to clarify that election responsibilities identified in the bill can, of course, be delegated to the appropriate local election officials. this work and negotiation process is ongoing because the objective itself of getting military, those persons in the military, having their votes counted on election day is so critical. i fully expect that we will find new issues to work through, but we must keep our eyes on the main goal, improving the system to protect the voting rights of our military -- military personnel. there are few rights we exercise

greater than choosing our own elected officials. we cannot call ourselves a democracy if we do not count the votes of our citizens in elections of government officials. the men and women who put their lives on the line for you and me to protect our country are certainly no exception. and it is time that we take steps to protect their right to vote. so, madam president, i encourage our colleagues to make sure that this particular amendment is included in the defense authorization bill this year. this is critical ahead of the election where the states have time to prepare so that we can have every person in the military who wishes to exercise their right to vote that that willingness to exercise the right to vote is allowed to take place and their vote is counted in time during the 2010

elections. madam president, i yield the floor, and note the absence -- let me hold off on that. i ask that we begin the recess a couple of minutes early. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate stands in recess until 1:55. lawmakers

to take their time and opponents the chance to marshal their case against the bill. joining us is sam youngman, white house correspondent for " of the hill" newspaper. what did you expect to hear from the president? guest: i think a lot of what we have been hearing so far appeared quite an echo chamber -- we got back from his trip, his plan was battered and came back to see his position weakened and it has only grown more and so.

tonight we will hear in prime time what we have been hearing almost every day since he got back, which is, we have been talking about delay and defeat for 40 years and this time to move this down the road. host: how active has the president been -- with members of congress to move the bill forward? guest: while he was gone the plan was battered and we heard a lot of democrats on the hill saying he needs to show more of a leadership role. since he has returned there has been almost a revolving door at the white house. i know we have been waiting outside almost every day. i think he has definitely stepped evanses -- stepped up its presence. there is a question whether he needs to make a trip to the hill to see how serious he is. but he definitely stepped up his present. host: a couple of polls and the last week showing his approval ratings dipping a little bit, on health care in particular dipping a little bit. talk about the timing. do they have to get it done this year? guest: i think without question

benefited them this year because next year is an election year. ki

as these florida. >> duff-- if you have a question? t-mac i have been watching the health care issue, and i usually watch cnn nonstop. but i'm not hearing solutions to the issues. and just hearing that our president, lost ratings and this and that in the other, and i personally, so so security, disability, i presently have

fretted care complete for the licence, and we are having to call to find our own providers. and we are getting cold pay to death-- so with that in mind, if i know what is happening on my side of the house, how many others, insurance companies, are doing it to less? and i just ask that question and i pray not win, not hal, but when is everybody getting bipartisan and getting up with a decent health care plan? >> i think that is the case the president has been making, it's not about the politics at the moment the pill-- people with

real stories that we heard from panama city. in fact, we have seen the president serve campaign wing of the democratic national committee taking these real people, these real stories and putting them on display in sort of as a campaign tactic, if you will, to put a human face on what is going on and make it bigger than the usual back and forth here in washington. spilak next call, from georgia. >> caller: good morning. kotsay good morning. >> caller: obviously, health care agrees that it needs to be had. i was in washington the last week and the public and democrats, insurance brokers and insurance companies, everybody agrees every form is needed but one of the main issues is, the government needs to be a player, or does it need to be the referee? one thing that i think people are realizing when you look at the details, something needs to be done, but the details of the

issues. and right now, a thousand pages are to be written and nobody has read it and the people who have written the legislation, some of those are people out after 1980, and none of the details have been even discussed, but the main issue is government plans. does the government need to beat a player or does it need to be a referee? that is my question. how can the government be a player and the referee and if that happens, who will the government be accountable to? >> well, that is steadily a sticking point in the be the sticking point in washington. with the president arguing, and absolutely agree with scott, everybody does seem to agree there is a need for reform, more people coming to the table, the american medical association so the doctors, the nurses, hospitals, the insurance companies, also joining the president to try to push this through. i can answer for you, scott, the

other public option, government ran option is the best way to go but i think that is certainly the with this battle scenes to shape up. >> independent line, from wisconsin. >> caller: good morning. >> good morning. >> ben o'connell we are hearing at hunt of political rhetoric regarding the health care but we are hearing no facts. and health care has needed reform for a long time coming and i am a retired insurance agent. the insurance company started under rating claims instead of the application in the 1980's or 90's, and i can remember when i saw the first claim with an underwriting question. part of the rhetoric we are hearing you are going to lose your choice of what prescription you have comic doctor, and so forth. well, number one from if you are going to plan social security, gebhardt lost your right to choose your prescriptions because they target which one

you can't take. number two, as far as choosing your doctor, if you are an hmo or preferred provider group, they tell you that you have to go with our doctors. why have we not been getting more details of what is going into the plan, and why all the rhetoric and policy in formation that is going out over the notes? >> i think tradition moseley. that is just washington has worked so long. i think what of the reasons we're not curing more details, perhaps you are not getting more details as a lot of the details are shaking up. i think the battles of the previous caller, the details, we are seeing a lot of closed-door meetings in the senate house and the white house as they try to figure out exactly how to shape this up. as for the rhetoric, i think we see people go with what plans coming and that is just a washington tradition because

they met with durham, north carolina, albert. good morning. >> caller: good morning. yes, i have a question, and everybody calling in, it is like they are blind or something is going on but what i want to say is common now, the insurance companies, people just point-- paying for private insurance, the insurance companies are not pay one dime on medicare. medicare is then that whole bill, and they are just giving money off of medicare and they tell people that, you can't go to certain doctors, and the insurance company, of throwing people off track. when you pay, maybe that half-price money, but the private insurance, they are not pay one dime. the scam that money off of medicare peer or can't understand why these people take into this plan. >> albert comedy you have medicare? >> caller: yes, i have blue shield blue cross, and when i got to the hospital, i tell them, it is my primary and my

wife paid big money for that insurance. by the time you walked out of the door, they return of around and change it back to medicare is paid first because blue shield blue cross, you know what komi-- cody nance committed to recognize it. spilak are you satisfied with-- are you satisfied with your health care? >> yes, i am. i hope they pay it because people are getting messed out of their money. it is like having a private insurance commit your car insurance committee pay half price insurance or years and years and never have a risk in every time the insurance goes up, they want to go up instead of down. it is chas freeman a. >> let's go from tom from maryland. tom, are you there? >> caller: i was just wondering if the guests and everybody else, how much interest there is in other groups in dabbling-- most of the money is coming into programs

that is being doubled and tripled off as certainly we have seen companies in town, of the shops in town benefited from this debate as all sides are looking to do get their special side, their special interests here in the legislation. if i could just mentioned the previous caller, i think basically what he said bull mated buffoon that the president is trying to make for the public auction, increased competition to sort of really forced the private insurance companies to offer better services for low horcoff paragliding that the caller from north carolina, i believe, was making the point the president is in trying to make your kotsay we have a clip of senator minority leader and barack obama talking, and we bull talk about it and come back. >> americans are eager for health care reforms that will work costs and increase access. this is why many of us are proposing reforms that should be

easy for everyone to agree on. such as reforming our medical liability laws, strengthening wellness and prevention programs, would encourage people to make healthy choices, like quitting smoking and losing weight and addressing the needs of small business without imposing new taxes that kill jobs. administration is taking a different approach to health care reform and the more americans learn about it, the more concerned that become. so it is good that the president plans to spend a lot of his time in the days ahead, discussing the administration's plan for reform because people need to know what the administration's plan is. phil: but don't care who is up or down politically in washington. they care about what is going on in their own lives. they don't care about the latest line of political attack. they care about whether their families will be crushed by raising premiums, with of the businesses that work for will

have to cut jobs or whether their children will be saddled with debt. as a white understand that some will try to delay action until the special interest in kanwit while others will focus on squaring political points. we have done that before and we can choose to follow that playbook again and then we will never get over the goal line and we will face an even greater crisis in the years to come. that is one path we can travel. or we can come together and insist at this time it will be different. >> is it possible for them to come together? >> well, it hadn't happened before. i think that the president-- . >> and you can follow the president's new conference tonight at 8:00 p.m. c-span-- c-span retial and c-span the word. the senate has returned from a brief recess will go back to life senate coverage now part of the senate is spending the weekend events program and policy for the new budget year and the bill includes military pay increase, troop levels,

weapons systems as well as opposition for troops in iraq and afghanistan. also this afternoon senators will deal with the help-- house request to drop the impeachment proceedings against a texas judge, the judge in this case has resigned his position. back to the floor of the senate for our live coverage on c-span2

live quorum:

the presiding officer: a quorum is present. under the previous order, the senate will convene as a court of impeachment in the trial of samuel b. kent, former united states district judge for the southern district of texas. the sergeant at arms will make the proclamation. sergeant at arms: hear ye! hear ye! hear ye! all persons are commanded to keep silent, on pain of imprisonment, while the house of representatives is exhibiting to the senate of the united states articles of impeachment against samuel b. kent, former judge of

the united states district court for the southern district of texas. the presiding officer: the secretary for the majority. the secretary for the majority: mr. president, i announce the presence of the managers on the part of the house of representatives to continue proceedings on behalf of the house concerning the impeachment of samuel b. kent, former judge of the united states district court for the southern district of texas. the presiding officer: the managers on the part of the house will be received and assigned their seats.

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader of the senate. mr. reid: mr. president, at this time the oath should be administered in confohmae with article i, section 3, clause 6, of the constitution and the senate's impeachment rules to those senators who were not in the chamber when the articles of impeachment were presented. the presiding officer: are the senators who were not present? will you raise your hand. do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of samuel b. kent, former judge of the united states district court for the southern district of texas, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws, so help you god? the senators: i do.

mr. reid: the secretary will note the names of the senators who have been sworn today and will present to them for signing the book which is the senate's permanent record of the administration of the oath. the presiding officer: the managers on the part of the house will proceed. mr. schiff: mr. president, following the resignation of judge samuel b. kent, effective june 30, 2009, the house adopted the following resolution directing the managers to request on the part of the house that the articles of impeachment be dismissed, which, with the permission of the president of the senate, i will read. h. res. 661, in the house of representatives, july 20, 2009. resolved, that the managers on the part of the house of representatives in the impeachment proceedings now pending in the senate against samuel b. kent, formerly judge of the united states district court for the southern district of texas, are instructed to appear before the senate, sitting as a court of impeachment for those proceedings, and advise the senate that, because samuel b. kent is no longer a civil

officer of the united states, the house of representatives does not desire further to urge the articles of impeachment hitherto filed in the senate against samuel b. kent. mr. president, pursuant to the terms of the said resolution, the managers on the part of the house, by direction of the house of representatives, respectfully request the senate to discontinue the proceedings now pending against samuel b. kent, former judge of the united states district court for the southern district of texas. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officerthe presid: mr. leader. mr. reid: mr. president, as the sergeant at arms advised the senate prior to the july 4 recess, following the service of the summons on judge kent by the sergeant at arms on june 24, 2009, judge kent tendered his resignation as a united states district judge, effective june 30, 2009. at the direction of the senate, the secretary delivered judge kent's original statement of resignation to the president. on june 29, 2009, the counsel to the president accepted judge

kent's resignation on behalf of the president. the house of representatives has now moved that the senate dismiss the articles of impeachment. mr. president, i have conferred with the distinguished republican leader, mr. mcconnell, and with the distinguished chairman and vice chairman of the impeachment trial committee on the articles against judge samuel b. kent appointed by the senate, the senator from missouri, mrs. mccaskill, and the senator from florida, mr. martinez. all are in agreement that, with the resignation of judge kent, the purposes of the house's prosecution of the articles of impeachment against judge kent have been achieved. judge kent is no longer serving on the federal bench and he has ceased drawing his judiciary salary. it is agreed that no useful purpose would now be accomplished by proceeding further with the impeachment proceedings against judge kent. accordingly, i now move that the senate order that the articles of impeachment against former judge samuel b. kent be dismissed and that the secretary be directed to notify the house of representatives of this order.

the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment. all those in favor respond by saying aye. all those opposed signify by saying no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president, i move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to lay that motion on the table. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, i want thank on behalf of the entire senate and the house of representatives, the chairman and vice chairman and all of the members of the impeachment trial committee for their willingness to undertake this task, and i ask unanimous consent that the impeachment trial committee on the articles against judge samuel b. kent be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: that concludes the proceedings on the trial of the impeachment of judge samuel b. kent. as such, i move that the court of impeachment stand adjourned sine die. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

a senator: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: could we have order. the presiding officer: could we have order in the senate. the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i ask consent to proceed as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the republican leader is advised that a quorum call is in progress. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: and i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to proceed as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

the presiding officer: the senate will please come to order. senators will take those conversations off the senate floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i rise to introduce legislation to honor a kentuckian who is a true american hero, robley henry rex. when robley passed away in april of this year, just a few days shy of his 108th birthday, he was recognized across the commonwealth as kentucky's last world war i era veteran and hailed as a champion of his fellow service members. 90 years ago, mr. president -- 90 years ago -- robley bravely pout his country's uniform and

left christian county, kentucky, where he was born and raised, to patrol the hills of france in the immediate aftermath of what was then called the great war. after leaving the army in 1922, he returned to kentucky. in the years following his army service, robley began volunteering at the louisville veterans affairs medical center. he would go on to devote over 14,000 hours of service right up until the last years of his long and productive life. my legislation would name the current v.a. hospital in louisville after robley rex. it also ensures that when a new hospital is built, that future facility will also bear his name. the idea to name this facility after the kentucky preeminent volunteer came from a constituent of mine, himself

also a veteran. moreover the department kentucky of veterans of foreign wars had the same idea and endorsed its proposal during the recent state convention. i'm pleased as a kentucky senator i'm in a position to make it happen. i can't think of a more appropriate person to name the facility after than robley rex. i can't think of a more appropriate source for the idea than the kentucky veterans community. the new veterans hospital will be vital to kentucky's veterans aas well as to louisville's economy. once complete the hospital will ensure that the men and women who served our country will receive the quality health care they deserve. that devotion to ensuring quality care to our veterans is exemplified in the life and service of robley rex. how fitting that his fellow veterans, so many of whom knew him personally, from his countless hours of volunteer

service will see his name above the door. finally, i would note this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. it enjoys the support of representative john yarmouth and representative ben chapbler in the other chamber. i would ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and, mr. president, i ask consent that a copy of the bill be placed in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: i yield the floor. mr. burris: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. burris: thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak on the defense -- national defense appropriation bill 1390 -- s. 1390. mr. president, as a member of the armed services and veterans' affairs committee, i have addressed this chamber about our

need to keep our commitment to the brave men and women who fight for this country. it is a commitment that begins on the day that the volunteers for military service and it extends to the day they retire and beyond. but, just as we work to uphold our obligation to service -- our obligation to service members who are in harm's way, we need to offer strong support for those who we leave at home. military families bear a burden that must not be forgotten. they too deserve our most up -- you the moss attitude, mr. president. mr. president -- utmost attitude, mr. president. we must include funding for impact aid, a program which, in part, provides assistance to school districts that serve military families.

throughout my career in public service, i've been a strong believer in education as a powerful force to shape lives, to give people the tools they need and the inspiration that will help them succeed. but even when we see an improvement in he coul in s schc performance, children continue to fall behind. military children personnel fall into these groups. military installations occupy land that might otherwise be zoned for commercial use. because of this, local school districts suffer from a reduced tax base to fund their expenses. this limits the amount that can can can be sent in the classrooms and lead the students in a serious -- leave the students in a serious disadvantage compared to children in neighboring towns.

for example, mr. president, in north chicago, illinois, the home of the great lakes naval training center only half of the 4,000 students meet or exceed state standards. even with some federal assistance north chicago school district number 187 is able to spend just under $7,000 per student per year. but a nearby district, district 125, has the resources to spend nearly twice as much per pupil and the school performs among -- among the best in our state. an increase in impact aid funding will help to level this playing field ensuring that the children of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, are not at a disadvantage because of their parents' service. impact aid funds are delivered

directly to the school district in need so they do not incur administrative costs at the state level. this makes one of the most efficient and effective federal education programs. scott air force base is located near moscoutah, illinois, a community whose district receives impact aid funding. the local school district spends $6,000 per year on each child. but 90% of the students meet or exceed state standards. if these are the results that some students can achieve with only $6,000 per year, imagine how well moscoutah school might perform with an increase in the available funds. it is impressive that the school district like north chicago and moscoutah are able to operate as efficiently as they do

especially when compared to the national pupil expenditure o of $9,700 per student. mr. president, it is vital that we target federal assistance to those who need it most. that is why i'm proud to be a member of the senate impact aid coalition, a group of 35 senators devoted to protecting this important program. and that is why i believe the $50 million we have set aside for schools that are heavily impacted by military students is a step in the right direction in our commitment to military families. it is time to make sure all children have access to quality education, mr. president. regardless to who they are or where they are from. i applaud chairman lieberman and ranking member mccain for their support of this funding in

the past and for including funding in the fy 2010 defense authorization bill. this funding will be significant to military children across the country. to the students in north chicago, moscoutah, ofallen and rock ford, and more than 260,000 students in 103 school districts across the united states, we thome the same support -- we owe them the same support we continue to show to their parents in uniform and it is time to step up our efforts to meet that commitment. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor and i suggest the -- i yield the floor, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina is recognized. a senator: mr. president, i ask to speak for 10 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

mr. demint: thank you, mr. president. i would like to return to the issue of health care in america and the reform of our health care system and how we help americans find health insurance that's affordable to every family. it's important as we talk about this that we get the facts out on the table and i'm glad to see that this has become an issue that is front and center. i know the president has called for a press conference tonight to talk about his vision of health care. and i would like to set record straight on a number of things that have been said here that i think are politically motivated, obviously, that don't represent the truth. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and including the president, have talked about republicans representing the status quo on behalf of big special interest. accused us of representing the

big insurance companies when, in fact, the voting record in this senate has proved the exact opposite. when the president was in the senate and when we, as republicans, proposed health reform, which we did many times while the president was a senator, the president and my democratic colleagues voted with the big insurance companies. we had one proposal that would allow small businesses to come together to buy health insurance for their employees at a lower price. the big insurance companies opposed that, but the democrats voted with the big insurance companies and against the reform proposals. i put forth a proposal that would have allowed individuals in this country to shop for their health insurance in any state in the country just like other products and services to have a competitive national market which so many on the other side have called for.

the big insurance companies that have state-by-state monopolies opposed that bill. but barak obama and the democrats voted with the big insurance companies and against americans to buy health insurance anywhere in the country. republicans are not standing with special interest. look at proposals that have been put on the table in the house and senate by the democrats which the president will be advocating in his speech tonight and let's see what party is representing special interests. first of all, the abortion industry, planned parent hood, other -- parenthood, other organizations that make their money performing abortions, their interests are clearly represented in this bill. this proposal that the president is advocating would require that health insurance plans cover elective abortions in this

country, which means the taxpayers who are morally opposed to abortion would be forced to subsidize insurance plans that pay for abortion. i ask my colleagues who is representing special interests? who is representing the abortion industry in this debate? what about who loses their health care coverage in these new plans that have been proposed? the independent lewin group has looked at these plans that have been proposed by my democratic colleagues in the house and senate and concluded that 80 million americans who have health insurance now that they like will lose their health insurance under this current proposal. but who's protected? who won't lose their health insurance? it's unio union members who are protected in this. does that have anything to do with politics, that the average american is going to lose their

health insurance, but the unions that support the democrat party are protected. who -- who is standing up for special interest in this health care debate? let's talk about the plaintiffs' attorneys. one of the biggest problems is what doctors call defensive medicine, running all kinds of unnecessary tests so that they avoid all of these expensive lawsuits. we've talked for years about reforming this -- the health care system to eliminate these wasteful lawsuits, these frivolous lawsuits that cost so much money and every doctor and hospital has to have these huge liability policies to -- because of the lawsuits that come every year. you would think a health care reform proposal would have some lawsuit abuse reform in it, but who is protected?

what special interests are protected in this health care proposal? the plaintiffs' attorneys. there is absolutely no tort reform. no form of abusive lawsuits in this plan. so i ask my colleagues who is representing the special interests here? the big insurance companies. the abortion industry. the unions, the plaintiff's attorney. all of those are represented and protected in this so-called health reform legislation that does nothing to help individuals access affordable, personnel policies for themselves. when the president was here in the senate i personally, every year, proposed major health care reform. i proposed that individuals who don't get their insurance at work at least get to deduct the cost of that insurance from their taxes like we let businesses do. president obama voted against that and so did my democrat

colleagues. i proposed that individuals be allowed to buy health insurance anywhere in the country so it would be more affordable, more competitive. barack obama voted against that and so did my democrat colleagues. republicans proposed small businesses come together and buy health care less expensively so they can provide more hence to their employees -- more hence th insurance to employees and president obama voted against that. which party is standing for the status quo? real health care reform has been proposed in this senate many times by republicans but the truth of the matter is this: the democrats do not want individual americans to have access to affordable health insurance. what they want is a government

takeover of health care. the president has made that clear by his own voting record. as he tolds the press conference tonight i'm sure the crowd will be loaded with dependly reporters but there a few questions i would like him to answer. if the major provisions in this health care bill he is promoting do not take effect until 2013, which they don't, why this mad rush to pass a bill that's over 1,000 pages that no one in this body has read, request the mad rush to pass it before we go home for the august break? i can answer it for him. because if americans find out what's really in it, they're not going to support it. i is a second question: you said your health care bill will cut costs and not increase the deficit but the independent analysis of the nonpartisan congressional budget office

contradicts those claims saying it will raise costs and increase the deficit by $240 billion. the policy does not support the promise. a third question: the president has repeatedly said the health care bill will allow americans who like their current plans to keep them but as i just said, an independent expert group, the lewin group analyzed this legislation and concluded that it will force over 80 million americans to lose the health insurance they have today. question number four: the president said the other day speaking at the children's hospital, opponents of the plan are content to perpetuate the status quo. how does that compare with your record, mr. president, when you were in the senate? what health reform did you

propose? why did you vote against every health reform proposal that could have increased access to affordable health insurance for all americans? and just a "yes" or "no" question, will you guarantee that pro-life americans under your plan will not be forced to subsidize elective abortions? i hope the president will answer some of these questions for the american people because i'm convinced if americans know the truth about this legislation they will conclude this is not about getting them affordable health insurance or access to quality health care. this is a continuation of this power grab going on in washington. this spending free, this proposal for more and more taxes. it's a power gab fo grab for the government to take over yet another industry, the health

care industry in america. health care is the most personal and private service we have for ourselves and our families. why would we want to turn that over to government to make the decisions for us? the presiding officer: the senator has used ten minutes. mr. demint: thank you, mr. president, for your indulgence. i encourage my colleagues to read any bill we vote on before the august bake. -- before the august break. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i would like to address the house as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: i ask unanimous consent after the republicans have a chance that the next democrat be senator kaufman. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: mr. president, we just heard the senator from south carolina urging members to vote against the health care bill.

he talks about the truth about the health care bill. mr. president, we don't have a health care bill before the united states senate because we have two committees who are working on this. one already reported out a bill, the "help" committee which stressed prevention because we all know if you look at the major costs to our families they all encompass, 70% of them, five major diseases. i think we know what they are: heart issues, pulmonary issues, cancer issues, stroke issues. we know what they are. putting prevention first which is not something we've ever done is going to save money, is going to make our people healthier, is going to work. and there are many other aspects

of the help bill that are very good for our people but i really have to say when the senator from south carolina gets here to the floor and starts attacking democrats i think people is to understand that senior senator was quoted in the press as saying that essentially we can break barack obama obama if we destroy his push for health care. he said it will be his waterloo. now i just have to say i support my colleagues right to say what they want. they willing judged by what they say, they will be judged by what's in their heart and they willing judged on how they act but we are here to take care of the american people not to bring down a president or raise up a president. our job is to represent the people who sent us here. it is not to break a president.

it is not to play politics with one of the most important issues facing our country. and good for this president for having the courage to step forward and point out that the current status quo on health care is disastrous. yes, we're going to address it. we're going to make sure the people in this country if they like their health care, can keep what they have, keep their insurance; if they don't they have a chance to buy into other options. that will be their choice. and we will stress prevention, now. we will have healthier families. i want to point out there's been a recent study that says if we do nothing, if we do nothing, if we by down this opportunity we

have to do something to better the health care in this country but if we turn away from that and do nothing, mr. president, in california, by 2016 californians will have to spend 41.2% of their income on health insurance. think about that -- and that's not the worst. pennsylvania, senator casey told me, would be over 50% of people's incomes. how are we going to sustain that? who can sustain spending 40% of your income on premiums? 50% -- it isn't going to happen. people will have to walk away. people will get sicker. we cannot afford the status quo. that's why i is this charthat'st

here that says "no" equals the status quo. "no" equals the status quo. it's no, no, no. no, let's not do this. no, let's not help our president. no, let's not address this issue. scare tactics, throwing around words "government-run health care." i want to say to my friend from south carolina and unfortunately he's not here, government-run health care, does he want to bring down the veterans health care system? just try that one with your veterans. that's a government-run health care system. veterans get free health care. does he want to bring down the health care our military gets every single day run by this government? of course not. they're getting the best care in the world on the battlefield and it's done because taxpayers pay

the fate. that's a government -- pay the freight. that's a government-run heck. does my friend want to bring down medicaid? i hope not that would be tens of thousands in his state including many children. how about schip -- that's a government-run health care that helps poor kids. does he want to bring it down? why don't he try to do that and see where the votes are. last but not least, medicare. medicare is a single payer system, government-run, very low overhead costs. our seniors love medicare. does my friend want to bring down that government health care system? this is ridiculous. there is no plan that is moving forward that is a government takeover.

yes, we keep veterans health care going, the military health care going, yes, we keep schip for the kids, yes, medicaid, yes, veterans. but we don't expand that but to say we want to make sure as we go out to the american people and tell them we're going to save them from enormous premium increases, that there will be an option, a choice, that they can make to buy into public plan or a public interest plan. some say it could be a co-op -- we don't know the details but to have my friend say "vote "no,"" but we have a plan, he is for the great big stop sign because "no" equals the status quo and, mr. president, no action is in itself a hostile act.

employer-sponsored health care premiums have more than doubled in the last nine years. two-thirds of all personnel bankruptcies are linked to medical expenses. let me say thatgain: two-thirds of all personal bankruptcies are linked to medical expenses. the u.s. spends more than twice as much on health care per person than most industrial nations and it ranks last in preventable mortality. it ranks last in preventable mortality and we spend twice as much as any other nation. status quo is "no." no change. is that what we want to see continued? increases in premiums for businesses, for individuals, getting to a point where it is

40% or 50% of a family's income? that's not sustainable. where will they get money for food, for clothing, for shelter? the other problem we have is 46 million americans have no health insurance including one in five working adults. what does that mean? it means that the people without health insurance are waiting for a crisis to occur. they don't take any preventive steps. they don't see a doctor until late in the process, in an emergency room. it means we are picking up the bills. when people go into an emergency room and they can't pay, who is picking up the tab -- those of us that have insurance. that's how it goes. so i am just hoping the american people weigh in on this debate as they have begun to do.

i was told since i was a young person that you need to try hard when there's a problem. try hard. be constructive. don't call other people names. you may disagree with them, respect them. don't try to bring them down. don't try to break them. make your arguments. put forward an alternative. but i've looked at the course of history, and history says to people who do nothing, they haven't contributed very much. and in this case because the status quo was unsustainable, they are really hurting our people. hurting our people. more than half of all americans live with one or more chronic conditions, and the cost of caring for an individual with a chronic disease accounts for 75% of the amount we spend on health

care. and now i have those five chronic diseases in front of me. they are: heart disease, cancers, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes. those five are responsible for more than two-thirds of the deaths in the u.s.a. now that's information that's important, because when you look at this, many of these can be prevented and treated in a way so that they don't wind up costing so much and hurting our families. so we have an extraordinary opportunity before us. and i think you're going to see the parties showing who they represent. do they represent the forces of the status quo that are going to scare people? or do they represent the forces of change, positive change?

and i think history will show that those who stepped up to the plate here and were constructive here are going to be the ones that people say she tried, he tried. he fixed a lot of problems. not all of them, but we started moving in the right direction. our families deserve change here. our families cannot sit back and absorb the kind of increases in health care premiums that they've seen in the past. we know how to fix it. if we work together, we'll be able to fix it. i want to take a minute to thank the republicans who are working so constructively with our democrats. you don't hear them speaking much on the floor as you did the senator from south carolina, who, as i say, was quoted as saying he wants to make health care president obama's waterloo.

he wants to break him on this. the ones -- the republicans that you don't see here on the floor talking like that are the ones who are sitting with the democrats, working day after day, night after night, working to solve this problem. so i hope that people will remember when you hear these scare tactics -- government-run health care. we don't even have a bill yet and they're saying it's bad government-run health care. not one bill that i've seen is government run. not one. but i challenge my friends if they don't like medicare, it's government-run. why don't you try to repeal it and see how many senior citizens come to your office. if my republican friends don't like government-run health care, take away the health care from the veterans because it's government run. take away health care from the military, privatize that. take away medicaid.

take away schip from our kids. they're not going to do that because they know that these programs work. are they perfect? of course they're not perfect. do we have to continue to make them better? yes, we do. but we need to come together on this. we need to find that, that sweet spot that we look for in legislation. and i want to again thank those republicans who are meeting with the democrats. you know, be courageous. stake with it. don't play politics. don't try to bring down this young president. try to work with him. don't threaten this is going to be a waterloo. don't talk about government-run systems when that's not in the bill. don't frighten people. because at the end of the day, this is our moment if we work together. i certainly reach out my hand and compliment those who are willing to work across party lines, because we cannot sustain

the health care system as it is. we can make it better. we can make it affordable. we can keep choice in there. we can turn to prevention. and that's what i hope we will do. we will work hard, but i think we can do it with the help of some courageous folks on the other side of the aisle. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. alexander: mr. president, i ask to speak as if in morning business. and will you please let me know when i finish nine minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. i was listening with respect to the senator from california. let me state the position of the republican senators on health care reform. our leader, mitch mcconnell, the senator from kentucky, stated yesterday. he said to the news media outside in the hall in answer to a question, "this isn't about winning or losing.

this is about getting it right." health care is very personal to every one of us, to every one of our families, and to all of the american people. and our goal on the republican side, and i'm sure for many democrats as well, is to start with cost and make sure that we can say to the american people that we want to make sure that you can afford your health care policy and that when we finish fixing health care, that you can afford your government. and so far that's not been the case. we have offered plans which we believe will reach that goal. my own example: last year i joined with senator wyden, a democrat; senator bennett, a republican, endorsing their plan. it's not perfect, but it is a very good plan and it has a completely different approach than the bill that came out of

the senate health committee or that's coming through the house. and i believe it's a better approach. but the point is there were 14 united states senators there on that plan today, eight democrats and six republicans. why isn't it being considered? it doesn't have a government-run program in it. why shouldn't we talk about that, when we've seen the failures of the largest government-run program which we have today, which is the medicaid program, into which we dump low-income americans and force them to take their health care that way in a system that 40% of america's doctors won't serve because in general they're paid about half as much for their services as they are if they serve the 177 million of us who have private health insurance. so the wyden-bennett bill is constructed along the idea, let's rearrange the subsidies that we already give to the american people for health care and give it to everyone in a way

that will permit them, all the american people, to afford a health insurance plan that's about the same plan that congressional employees is. and so instead of dumping 20 million more people into a failed government program called medicaid, which is not only disserving nose low-income people, but bankrupting states literally, we would say to low-income americans, here, take this money and buy a private insurance plan of your own just like the rest of us do. now what is wrong with that idea? if 14 of us think it ought to be considered. yet, it's not been given the time of day. senator coburn and senator burr have proposals. i've endorsed their proposals too. it's the same general idea. senator gregg has a approach, senator hatch has a proposal. not given the time of day. we've had very friendly

discussions, but they don't qualify as bipartisan discussions. i would give the senate finance committee members great credit for trying to work in a bipartisan way, but they're working in a bipartisan way to do a better job of going in the wrong direction, because they're working on expanding an existing government plan that's failed -- medicaid. they're working on creating a new government plan for people who lose their health care under the theories that have been proposed. and don't think they're not. i would hope that the president would see what is happening and say, whoa, let's slow down. i've stated what i want. i put my neck out. i said to the american people, if you've got a health care plan, you can keep it. but, mr. president, under the plans that we see today, you're going to lose your health care. you have a very good risk of losing your health care, and ending up if you're poor, your only option is a failed

government program that none of us would join if we could possibly avoid it. now, in wouldn't we stuff 20 million people into a program that we don't want to be in when we could give them the opportunity to be in a program like the one we are in? that's what we should be doing. that's what we should be doing. so we're saying on the republican side, to our democratic colleagues, we know you have the majority. we know you're the president. but we've got some ideas that we think the american people would benefit. we've only got one chance to pass this, to change this big system we've got, and we better make sure we do it right. and if you don't take our advice, we would say respectfully, why don't you listen to some others. you've got the mayo clinic. the mayo clinic, the senator from california just said, why are they talking about government programs? because the mayo clinic, often cited by the president and by

many of us as the kind of high-quality, goods results, low-cost health care that we'd like to have more of. the iowa clinic, marshfield clinics, other clinics say these health care plans are headed in the wrong direction, and one reason is they would create a new government plan which would eventually drive the mayo clinic and these other clinics out of the market which means they wouldn't be serving medicare patients. why would we do that, mr. president? i think we should take our time and get it right. if the mayo clinic is saying we're headed in the wrong direction, if the democratic governors are saying that, if the congressional budget office is saying we're adding to the cost and adding to the debt, wouldn't the wise thing to do be able to say, well, maybe they have a point. the governor of tennessee, a democrat of my state, who knows a lot about health care, medicaid, says congress is about

to bestow the mother of all unfunded mandates. medicaid is a poor vehicle for expanding coverage, says the democratic governor, a former health care executive. it is a 45-year-old system originally designed for poor women and children. it's not health care reform to dump more money into medicaid. here's the governor of washington, a democrat. as a governor, my concern is if we try to cost-shift to the states, we're not going to be in a position to pick up the tab. governor bill richardson of new mexico, a democratic governor, "i'm personally very concerned about the cost issue, particularly the $1 trillion figures being batted around." the governor of colorado, a democrat, "there is a concern about whether they figured out a revenue stream that would cover the cost, so said governor jim douglas of vermont. so said governor brian schwitzer of montana who said the

government is concerned about unfunded mandates. if they want to reform health care says the governor, another democratic governor, they should figure out what the rules are and how they're going to pay for it. instead of standing up on the other side and saying the republicans are saying no, the republicans are saying yes, we support the bipartisan wyden-bennett bill. we have offered the gregg bill. we have the hatch bill. take our proposals and consider the ideas because they don't involve government-run programs. they don't dump low-income people into a medicaid program where you won't be able to see a doctor. that's like giving someone a bus ticket to a route with no buses. and we already do it with 60 million people, so why should 2003 do it with 80 million people, which is the suggestion we have. so we want to work with the

president and with our friends on the democratic side to come up with health care reform this year. we want to be able to say to the american people, we want a plan that you can afford for you. and when we finish fixing it, we want a plan -- a government that you can afford. and if the mayo clinic and the democratic governors and the congressional budget office are saying we're all headed in the wrong direction, then why don't we start over and work together and try to get a result that we can live with for the next 30 or 40 years? we can only do this once, mr. president, and we need to do it right. mr. durbin: would the senator yield for a question? would the senator yield for a question? mr. alexander: on the senator's time, i'd be happy. mr. durbin: i don't know that we're in control of time. are we, mr. president? the presiding officer: we are

not in controlled time. mr. durbin: we're not? the presiding officer: no. could it be recognized under unanimous consent agreement, when the time of the senator from tennessee is expired? mr. alexander: i'll yield -- mr. kaufman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. kaufman: mr. president, i request to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. kaufman: mr. president, i've often spoken about the need to invest in technology and innovation. we cannot afford to fall behind in this area after leading the world in science, research, and discovery for half a century. since i began coming to the floor to talk about great federal employees, i've honored individuals who have made significant contributions in the area of engineering, medicine, defense, housing assistance, land conservation, and international aid.

the list of fields benefiting from the worveg our federal employees is lengthy. another area which i'm going to speak about today is physics. at a time when our planet faces resource scarcity and higher energy costs, the work of physical civilities at the federal research institution remains an important investment in our nation's future prosperity. dr. deborah jin is one of these outstanding federal employees. she serves as a research team leader at the national institute for standards and technology in boulder, colorado, jila. she created a new form of matter. superconductivity, while using extremely low temperatures to move electrons through a magnetic field can lead to breakthroughs in energy efficiency and computing. her work will likely improve the

lives of hundreds of millions of people. this achievement was far from easy. to create a new form of matter, deborah and her team needed to get the particles called permions to join together in pairs. unfortunately, they have a natural tendency to repel each other. she discovered that they would pair up when exposed to certain gases at more than 450 degrees below zero. this takes us one giant step closer to understanding supe superconductivity. potentially superconnectivity can account for the energy lost from power transfer from plants to businesses. deborah and her colleagues exemplify the spirit of ingenuity and determination that has always characterized americans. thethey had been racing againstx

other teams in laboratories around the world and they were the foyers reach this milestone. it is unlikely we will be able to appreciate this for many years. future generations may not remember those who worked so hard to achieve it. but like all those who work in public service, deborah knows that she and her team have smaid a difference. that the impact of their findings will be felt in every subsequent discovery on the path to make superconductivity a reality. i call on my fellow senators and all americans to join me in honoring the service of dr. deborah jin, her colleagues at the institute in boulder and all federal employees working on scientific research. they are truly the unsung heroes america's political leadership in science and technology. mr. president, on behalf of senatorially, i ask unanimous consent that -- on behalf of senator americaly, that amelia, an internist in his office, be granted floor privileges for today's session.

the presiding officer: without objection. cough cave ask unanimous consent that bill kerlin, an air force fellow be granted floor privileges on debate during the defense thorlings bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent by asking unanimous consent that major paul taylor be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. i want to speak briefly about a very important amendment, number 1725, which i think will help us restore the franchise, the vote to our deployed military overseas. this is a bipartisan amendment, the lead sponsor is senator chuck schumer, and senator bob bennett, both the chairman and the ranking member of the rules committee. but this i this builds on the wt

senator begich and i and chambliss have put into this effort to address what can only be described as a national disgrace. our military service members put their lives on the line to protect our rights and our freedoms, yet many of them still face substantial roadblocks when it comes to something as simple as casting their ballot and to participate in our national elections. sadly, this is not a new problem. president truman urged congress to address obstacles to voting faced by troops serving in korea. today, however, troops deployed in afghanistan and iraq face many of the same problems. in 2006, less than half -- less than half -- of the military voters who requested absentee ballots were successful in casting them ring according to the u.s. election -- in casting them, according to the u.s.

election assistance institution. more than a quarter of the ballots requested by uniformed and overseas voters in 2008 went either uncollected or uncounted, according to a recent survey of the seven states with high military votin voting populatio. in a soon-to-be-released study of the 2008 cycle, which looked at 20 states with large military populations, the heritage foundation has concluded that as many as three-quarters of our troops and their family members were disenfranchised by their inability to request an absentee ballot and that as many as one-third of the ballots that were requested never reached the appropriate election officials to be counted. voting has remained a challenge for our troops and their families for many reasons. first, our election laws are complex and multiple levels of government are involved. election challenges and other unforeseen events can delay the

finalization of ballots. the high tempo of military operations often requires frequent deployments for our troops and their families. let me describe what this amendment, which i hope we will adopt later today, does. our legislation addresses several of the biggest roadblocks our troops and their families face when attempting to vote. first, this legislation will provide voter assistance services to every service member and family member upon transfer to a new military installation. as part of each installation's end processing -- in processing, every service member will now be offered an opportunity to fill out a simple form that the department of defense will return to the appropriate election officials. that form will update the address on file with election officials and request absentee ballots for the next federal election cycle. these voter assistance services will give our military personnel some of the support that

civilians now enjoy through motor-voter laws. several, this election redews the reliance on snail small, or correspondence between troops and their election officials. under current election laws, many troops must mail a request for an absentee ballot, then wait for the election officials to mail them the blank ballot, and then to return the completed ballot in time to be counted. this legislation require elections officials to create electronic blanket ballots and to post them online. election officials must also accept faxes and e-mails to expedite correspondence with our troops. together these reforms will reduce dependence on snail mail until the service member is ready to return the completed ballot to be counted. third, this legislation will expedite the return of the completed ballot to election officials. under current larks each service member is responsible for making

sure that his or her ballot is post marked and returned on time. this legislation requires the department of defense to take possession of completed ballots and ensure that they get to election officials on time by using express mail, if necessary. this legislation also requires election officials to give our troops 45 days, at least, to return their ballots. this important amendment contains many other commonsense reforms suggested by other senators and will help end the effective disenfranchisement of our troops and their families. our goal has been to balance responsibilities between election officials and the department of defense, and i believe this amendment accomplishes that goal. as i said, this would not -- this amendment would not be in the current posture it's in without the leadership of senator schumer and senator bennett and for working to

include provisions of two pieces of legislation that i introduced earlier this year. something called the military voting protection act, which just this weekend was unanimously endorsed by the national association of secretaries of state, and a secretary piecsecond piece of ln called the military voters equal access for registration act. these two pieces of legislation have received broad, bipartisan support from the beginning, including senators begich, inhofe, wyden, vitter, and hutchison. and i would note, mr. president, we've also worked closely with leaders in the house of representatives, especially congressman kevin mccarthy and duncan hunter. but our work wasn't done all here in washington. we relied on technical assistance from the texas secretary of state's office, especially our director of elections ann mcgeehan, dozens of veterans service organizations, and many other citizens and patriots who want

our troops right to enjoy -- to enjoy their right to their vote that it be protected, particularly for those who defend all of us. mr. president, i would urge all of 0 our colleagues to support this amendment when it comes to the floor, i hope later on today, and to give this important amendment our unanimous consent. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, once every 20 years we take up critical issues like health care reform. many of us believe that this particular moment in history is perhaps the only opportunity in our public career to tackle an issue of this magnitude. we know that overwhelmingly the people of america want us to do this. many people like their health insurance policies particularly if they don't use them, but most people understand that the health care system that we have

in this country is broken. we've got to -- we have to fix what's broken, and we have to preserve those things that are good about the current s i have heard a lost speeches on the other side of the aisle about the situation we currently fairks the debate that's under way, and i think what recently happened in the senate "help" committee is a good indicator of a good-faith effort by the democratic majority and senator dodd to try to come up with a bipartisan republican-democratic approach. over the course of over 60 days of hearings, the senate "help" committee had filed over 800 amendments, considered over 400 amendments, adopted 160 republican amendments in the course of 61 hours of straight hearing, and at the end of the day when the roll call was taken, not a single republican senator would support the bill. i think senator dodd made a

good-faith effort, and i think we should continue to. now the finance committee staking up the same bill. it will be -- is taking up the same bill. it will be a lot better bill if it is a bipartisan effort, if we try to do in an expeditious way. but if it becomes a standoff where there are no republican votes in support of it or they won't negotiator or vote or they all vote against it it won't be what the american peement want to see. yesterday on the front page of "the washington post" it had headlines about some of the comments being made about some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. the headline read "g.o.p. focuses effort to kill health bill." not to modify or improve, but to kill health bills. from the perspective of republican leadership, that's what our health care debate is about. many of them just want to stop health care reform. it's been 15 years ago since we made our last effort to provide

quality, affordable health care coverage to every american. the republican national committee chairman, michael steele, today suggested that the president should take another eight to ten months to formulate a plan. it's already been eight months since barack obama won the 2008 election on a platform of reforming health care. it's been six months since he took office. yet on the other side of the aisle, their chairman says, let's wait eight to ten months more. well, it may fit in perfectly with a strategy to delay this debate as long as possible, but it doesn't fit in with the strategy of solving the problem. tonight president obama will be speaking to the american people, answering questions from the press on health care. tomorrow a trip to cleveland. he'll be visiting the cleveland clinic and some other facilities to talk about health care reform. we're just a couple weeksway from an august recess. we'll come back in september and by then i hope we can roll up our sleeves and get to work.

the american people want us to. they understand the problem. health care spending per person has increased rapidly over the past ten years, rising over 40%. the people of the united states spend over $2 trillion on health care each yeemplet that's more than twice as much per person than any other country on earth, and our health results don't show that that money is being well-spent. many countries spending a lot less get better results. we're f money. it is being taken out in fraud and profit taking. it is money that doesn't make us feel any healthier. it is money that we have to pay from paychecks that struggle with it. the average annual premium for family coverage in illinois during the george w. bush presidency and those eight years went up $5,000. the average annual premium enter up from $600 a month to over $1,000 a month. the employer share rose by 72%.

the workers' portion rose by 78%. at the same period of time workers' wages weren't going up, just the cost of health care. people know this. they sense that it is getting out of hand. nearly two-thirds of all of the personal bankruptcies filed in america, two-thirds of them are related to medical expenses. over 46 million americans have no health insurance and 14,000 americans lose their health insurance every single day. if you hear about the 47 million, 48 million americans without health insurance, you say that it is a darned same but the poor will always be with us and we can't solve any problem, senator, sadly some neighbors, maybe some family members may find themselves in that predicament soon if we don't address health care reform. those lucky enough to have health insurance, and for the record, members of congress have

the same health insurance as the government. members of the staff and the congress are in the same health insurance plan. it is a good plan, don't get me wrong much but it is the same one that federal employees are entitled to, and i think that's a fair way to approach it. even those of us paying for health insurance are paying a hidden tax. we pay up to $1,100 per year per family just to subsidize those who are uninsured who show up at the hospital and still get treated. they get treated, they can't pay for it. their expenses are shifted to others who do pay. that includes those of us under health insurance. about $1,100 a year. at this point we have 2.3 million more people losing health insurance every year across america. it's something that should concern us. but let's get down to specifics. because i think if my friends on the other side of the aisle would join us on this side of the aisle and talk to americans

families -- american families about what they're going through, we would get a better understanding of why this is so important and why we can't weight eight months, -- wait eight months 10 months or more. we have to do it and do it decisively. there is a fellow who lives in my district in liberty, illinois. he has been an insurance broker for 11 years. he sells all kinds of insurance. he will sell health insurance to family members. but he shies away from it when it comes to the general public because it is too complicated to explain. there are too many tricks and he doesn't want to get into the business of trying to defend these policies to his clients. if his clients are denied coverage for health care based on some fine print they don't understand, even though he had nothing to do with it, he feels bad about it. so he discourages the sale of

private health insurance to his clients. medicare, he said, is just the opposite. now, we've heard people come to the floor day after day on the other side of the aisle criticizing government health insurance. i have yet to hear the first republican senator call for eliminating medicare. medicare covers 45 million americans, seniors and disabled, with affordable health insurance. it is a government-administered program. i have yet to hear the first republican senator to say we should do away with it. it's a program which saves a lot of people. some of whom retire before they reach the age of 65 and run into medical problems an pray they can be eligible for medicare and not lose their life savings. it happened to a member of my family, my brother. luckily for him medicare kicked in at right moment and saved his life savings and might have saved his life. he's 77 now. for 12 years medicare is helping to pay his bills.

mr. apak said that my mom has medical insurance and never had a supplement medicare claim denied. his own health insurance has had a high deductible. $7,000 a year, his deductible on his health insurance for his family covering his wife, himself, and his 12-year-old son. last year his wife was told she needed a routine mammogram. basic preventive care. they didn't know how much it would cost. they did what consumers do, they knew they had to pay $7,000 for a deductible, they called and asked, give us a ballpark estimate for how much it will cost for a mammogram. is it $200 or $2,000? no one would tell them a price. mr. apak, an insurance broker said, it is like walking into a

restaurant and ordering a meal and hoping you can afford it. in the end mrs. apak dieded it was too risky to go into -- for this test and not know how much it is. that is not a good outcome. preventive health care can avoid more serious expensive care. while his premiums increased 32%, mr. apak applied with the same insurer and wanted to switch to a higher deductible. this man is an insurance broker. he got a letter from his insurer and the letter asked him, are you sure about all of the answer us that gave us? do you want to stand by all the answers? then he got a phone call from the insurer and the phone caller asked, are you sure there isn't something that you failed to tell us? and he named a date eight years earlier and the person from the insurance company said: isn't it true that you had a prescription in your name filled that day

eight years ago? well, finally, he remembered -- mr. apak remembered. he he had been in a car accident that day. he wasn't hurt badly, but he was a little sore and his doctor said, here's a prescription for pain medication. take it if you need it. he filled the prescription. eight years area that prescription -- later that prescription gave his insurer pause about keeping him as a customer. we talk about preexisting conditions, we talk about unknown cost in the current system. to think that they can go in your past an find a prescription that you filled eight years ago and call you back and say -- are you sure that you haven't failed to disclose something here? that's what the current system is. the health insurance system full of tricks and traps. those on the other side of the aisle who say we don't need to change it and one senator from south carolina said let the market work, which means basically hands off. mr. steele who heads the republican national committee said let's wait eight to 10

months before we get into it don't understand what real families are facing on an every day basis. mr. apak knows that he's luckier than some who live around him. one of his neighbors pays $15,000 a year for himself and his wife and child. he met with a real estate company, last year the 50 employees decided to switch to part time so no one would be laid off, their income is down 50% from a year ago and their health insurance premiums went up 5%. in the professional opinion of this illinois insurance broker, we need a better system, health care coverage that is affordable, simple and fair. that is the challenge we face in the senate and it's a challenge we can't ignore. the finance committee is trying to work out a reasonable way to deal with this challenge. we know that the providers have to be in on this conversation. if we are spending more than twice as much as any nation on earth per person in america for

health care, then we obviously need to ask if there can be savings. some of the companies -- the health insurance companies, united health care just reported their earnings, if you follow that in the business pages of the paper, another big record-breaking profit. far beyond expectations. health insurance companies are doing well. pharmaceutical companies have been some of the most profitable companies. there are providers in the health care system doing extremely well. we need to bring costs down within the system without compromising quality. that is, i think, the challenge that we face. i know that they tried in the "help" committee adopting 161 republican amendments and couldn't find a single republican senator to support the final bill. tonight the president is going to renew the challenge. the challenge to all of us to not this miss -- miss this once every two decades opportunity to deal with health care. i fear if we do we will find ourselves in an unsustainable position much the cost of health care is going to continue to go

up at expense and levels that we cannot handle as a nation. we have to make sure that we have some basic things and get them right when it comes to health care reform. we've got to reduce costs for families, businesses, and the government. we've got to protect people's choice of doctors, hospitals, and insurance plans. if you have an insurance plan that you like, you ought to be able to keep it. and assure affordable high-quality health care. we've got to make sure that health care insurance companies are not denying coverage for preexisting conditions, health status or medical conditions. we have to limit the caps on coverage so that a very expensive chronic disease doesn't blow the top off -- of the health insurance policy. we have to put a limit on out-of-pocket expenses. we have to guarantee equal treatment for men and women, black, white, brown, young and old in different geographical locations. the insurance companies have said that they will look into

this to make sure that they bill women a little more fairly than they have in the past. i wonder if it has anything to do with our debate. we have to make sure that the basic health insurance plan in america has the kind of coverage and protection that is quart for every family -- adequate for every family. we have to bring down the costs. we will provide tax incentives and help for low and middle-income families. we have to make sure that people are paying fair premiums and finally we've got to make sure that we support small businesses. of the 47 million uninsured, the vast majority of those working for small businesses and their families. senator snowe, senator lynnon and others have introduced the shop bill that would give small businesses across america the same benefit option as federal employees have in their program. it would pool small businesses into purchasing pools to lower their costs and to make sure that their employees and small businesses have the same benefits when it comes to health care coverage. i encourage my colleagues on the

other side of the aisle, you've got to get beyond no. you've got to get to the point where you work with us to try to change the status quo and bring real health care reform. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, it's my understanding that we may move ahead shortly with a debate and vote on an amendment by senator brownback in a side-by-side vote on a -- the same subject with senator kerry. i believe senator kerry's would be first and hopefully we can agree with that rather soon. i suggest the absence of a quorum. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, we are expecting that that unanimous consent agreement can be propounded within the next few minutes so if people can -- a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas.

mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i want to ask the distinguished chairman and ranking member if there is going to be a quorum call if i could speak until the agreement has been reached and i would certainly step back if it comes to the floor. mr. levin: no objection. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, please, i will ask the distinguished chairman to notify me if they're ready to go with a u.c. i'm happy to allow that to go for. i know that everyone wants to vote on amendments and get back to the defense bill and i agree with that goal. mr. president, i wish to speak as if in morning business on health care, which has been the topic of conversation while the defense bill has been negotiated

behind-the-scenes. and i want to talk about health care reform because it is the issue of the day. i think america is really focusing on this issue now, mr. president, and i am so glad that they are. because the more we learn about the proposals that are being made in the house and in the committees on the senate side, the -- the more concerns are being raised by the american people and by the experts who are studying the proposals. what i'm concerned about is the proposals that have been put forward from the senate committee and what is being put forward on the house side. -- side are proposals that are going to be the beginning of a government health care system that is modeled after canada and great britain. what we are looking at is more government, more taxes, more expensive health care. and what we see less of is

quality health care, less choice, less reimbursement to hospitals and medicare and medicaid, exactly the wrong direction. you know, we have hospitals all over my home state of texas that treat patients that cannot pay. every one of our hospitals, rural and urban, gets extra help from medicaid and medicare for doing these services. the problem is people go into the emergency rooms for primary care, care that they could get from a doctor in a doctor's office if they had health care coverage, but they don't, so they wait until their diseases are much more progressed and they go to an emergency room. what does that do? it makes the cost of health care higher for everyone. it makes the cost of health care continue to go up and it raises premiums for people who have

coverage and it costs taxpayers who have to pay for the emergency room care to also have tax increases. so what we're looking at now is a proposal that will take money out of the hospitals. every one of the hospitals in texas will have lower reimbursements from medicare and medicaid. every one. that is estimated to cost now more taxpayer dollars to cover the people who are going to the emergency rooms and in rural hospitals especially, they may have to close doors. i am hearing from rural hospital administrators that they don't have the money to absorb these cuts. so -- and there's -- so they have a choice. they can cut services or they can close hospitals. neither of which is a choice that any of us wants to see

made. in addition, there are medicaid requirements for states and every governor, every democratic governor, every republican governor in america is saying, what are you thinking? more federal mandates that are unfunded? that's why people are so frustrated with the federal government right now is more unfunded mandates. the estimate is that it would cost my home state of texas $3 billion a year to absorb just the medicaid unfunded mandate that is in the proposed bill that is making its way through congress. so, mr. president, there has been this urgency, and many of the people on the floor here and the president are saying we have a deadline, we have an august deadline and we must pass this bill by august. mr. president, we are talking about a complete overturning of

our health care system, not reform. reform is what we all want. we need reform in our health care system. we need lower costs. we need more people covering. that's not what the bills going through congress will do. it is a complete upheaval of our health care system. it will be a single-payer government system that will start encroaching on and displacing the private health care that people know in our country and that is the quality assurance that we have in our country. it is the private health care system that will start being displaced by the big government system that will be cheaper but will also give fewer choices and less service. that is the concern that so many people in this country are beginning to see as more and more comes out about this health care plan.

in addition, there is an effort being made to pay for this big government takeover of health care. and so what are the options on the table? this is what is being proposed, that we will find employers who do not offer private health care to their employees. well, this is like saying okay, if you hire more people and you don't offer health care, your fines are going to go up. so that is going to discourage the hiring of people at a time when unemployment is at a record high. we should be encouraging people, especially in small business, to hire people. we want to create jobs, not cut jobs. but instead, we are going to increase taxes on small business as much as 45% is what is being

proposed on small business. that will make small business taxes higher than corporate taxes. and corporate taxes in america are among the highest in the world. and yet you're going to add on top of the 45% that the small businesses will pay, 35% for corporate, and then you fine the businesses that don't offer health care. so it's almost like we are in a self-fulfilling death wish that in an unemployment atmosphere in which we find ourselves, all of a sudden we are going to pass new taxes and new fines on small business which are the economic engine of america. it is small business that creates jobs in our country. not big business. not government.

it is some. but mostly it is small business that creates the economic vitality in our country, and it's certainly not government. because when we get to bigger and bigger government, we are going to find ourselves in a spiral where half the people are working to support the other half of the population, and it will go down from there. you know, i think it is important to read what the mayo clinic said about the house bill that is being proposed. it says that "although there are some positive provisions in the bill, the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. in fact, it will do the opposite." this is the mayo clinic, one of the premier health care providers in our country. in general, it says the proposals under discussion are

not patient focused or results oriented. lawmakers have failed to use a fundamental lever, a change in medicare payment policy to help drive necessary improvements in american health care. mayo clinic goes on to say, "unless legislators create payment systems that pay for good patient results at reasonable costs, the promise of transformation in american health care will wither. the real losers will be the citizens of the united states." today, 40% of physicians turn away medicaid patients because the system is poorly administered and has a weak record of reimbursement. and we know that billions of taxpayer $ar $dollarstaxpayer dn medicare fraud and abuse every year. so, mr. president, are we going to emulate the program that

doctors are walking away from and that is costing billions of wasted dollars to the taxpayers of our country? mr. president, this is not responsible governing. we need to take our time. and republicans have come forward and will continue to come forward with alternatives, alternatives that don't break the backs of taxpayers, that don't break the backs of the small business people, that give the quality health care that americans have come to understand and should -- have come to expect and should. we have alternatives that are responsible. small business health plans are one and would be the best approach to this because more people being covered means lower costs for everyone. what does every family in this country really want? they want a job to support their families and they want health care coverage for their childr children.

we can give them that by giving affordable opportunities for small businesses to give health care coverage options to their employees. that's what americans want. they don't want a big government health care system that is going to rob them of quality and cost them more in the meantime. so, mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to talk today about this important issue and why we must take time to do this right. if we completely overturn our health care system, we may never be able to get it back. we may never be able to recover. we can do this right if we take the time. and if it is truly bipartisan, if republicans will have a seat at the table. they didn't have a seat at the table when the senate committee voted its bill out, take two republican amendments out of 45

offered. that's not bipartisanship. that is being polite and saying no. what we want are to have real options that will keep the quality, keep the choice, keep the private-sector employment in our system and give families a chance to have good jobs with health care coverage. mr. president, we can do this if we really will get together a bipartisan basis and go forward in a positive way. but the bills that are coming out of the house and senate right now with virtually no republican input are not right for america, and that's why we are saying let's go back to the drawing boards. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside so that we may call up amendments. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. levin: mr. president, on behalf of senator kerrey, senator -- senator kerry, senator lugar and myself, i call up amendment number 1761. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from michigan, mr. levin, for mr. kerry and others, proposes an amendment numbered 1761. mr. levin: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent that amendment number 1761 and 1597 now be debated concurrently for up to 30 minutes with the time equally divided and dwoald betwee --controlled between sens carry and brownback or their designees -- senators kerry and brownback or their de their des, that upon the use of or yielding back of time, the senate proceed to vote in relation to amendment number 1761, to be followed by a vote in relation to 1597 and no amendment be in order to either amendment, that prior to the second vote, there be two

minutes of debate divided as provided above. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: mr. president, in addition to senator lugar and senator levin, i believe senator webb is also an original cosponsor of this amendment. i believe that this amendment is a responsible alternative to the amendment that has been submitted by senator brownback. this amendment appropriately takes note of and condemns north

korea's recent behavior as a threat to the northeast asian region and to international peace and security. but in contrast to the brownback amendment, which expresses the sense of the senate that north korea should immediately be relisted as state sponsor of terrorism, the kerry-lugar-levin-webb amendment mandates, requires something to happen. not just sense of the senate that this would -- that there might be a relisting, but it mandates a report, a formal report, to be completed within 30 days examining north korea's conduct since it was removed from the terrorism list last june, including evaluation of any evidence that north korea has engaged in acts of terrorism or provided support for acts of terrorism or terrorist organizations. one of the reasons for requiring that is that in the brownback amendment, on page 3, section 9,

line 21, it says, "there have been recent criminal report that north korea has provided support to the terrorist group hezbollah, including providing ballistic missile components and personnel to train members of hezbollah," et cetera. let me state unequivocally to my colleagues in the united states senate here on the floor in this debate, there is no -- in the recent, most recent intelligence assessments of our intelligence community, they simply do not sustain this charge at this -- and, in fact, president bush specifically refuted that charge because it was an old one and he refuted it last year. it would be the height of irresponsibility of the united states senate to pass an amendment based on a finding that is false. and so i say to my colleagues, it is important to have a report to the senate that requires us

to evaluate and have the administration submit to us precisely what the situation is. the report will assess the effectiveness of relifting north korea as a state sponsor of terrorism for achieving national security objectives, namely, completely eliminating north korea's nuclear programs and ending weapons of mass proliferation, and then we express the sense of the senate that if the united states finds that north korea has, in fact, we would know this within the 30 days, provided supported for terrorism, then the secretary of state should immediately relist north korea as a state sponsor of terrorism. it expresses the sense of the senate that the united states should vigorously enforce unilateral and multilateral sanctions and consider the imposition of additional sanctions if necessary to

achieve the policy goals with respect to north korea. mr. president, i believe it pores more realistic amendment and tougher because it mandates something specific. and it rightly condemns north korea as we have. let me emphasize, the united states, this administration, has fully and rightly condemned north korea's launch of ballistic missiles and its test of a nuclear weapon may 25, 2009. we have led a strong international response to the provocations and we succeeded in winning unanimous support from the united nations for u.n. security council resolution 1874, imposing sweeping new sanctions against north korea. the sanctions mandated under the u.n. security council resolution 1874 include not only a comprehensive arms barring oh et sanctions on trading companies and visa restrictions on those engaged in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and

the sanctions have teeth. they are multilateral. and they are having an impact. north korean cargo ship suspected of carrying arms to burma turned around after it was denied services in singapore and the government of burma joined with us and the government itself warned the ship would have to be inspected in order to ensure it did not have munitions on board. the sanctions had a bite. they're working. as strong as the measures are additional measures may be necessary and this report will help us to evaluate that. additional steps including the relifting of north korea as a state sponsor of terrorism ought to be based on a careful examination of the facts. that's how we ought to do things in the senate and assess whether or not the sanctions are going to advance our interests or not. that is precisely what the kerry-lugar-webb mandates and

that is why it is better than the brownback amendment. let me add a last word: we are currently deeply concerned about the fate of two american journalists currently under deten in north korea. the administration hasen gamed igamed -- engaged with discussions teavmentin attemptin their release. for the senate to suggest something we know is factually incorrect but from emotion and otherwise to suggestion that north korea ought to be returned to the list of state sponsors of terrorism without regard to whether or not they have engaged in acts of terrorism or provided support to terrorist organizations would be irresponsible with respect to those particular efforts and otherwise at this time. we ought to proceed according to facts. we ought to proceed in ways that best sans th advance the interef our country. mr. president, i reserve the remainder of my time.

mr. brownback: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. brownback: thank you very much, mr. president. i appreciate the chance to debate this with my colleague, the distinguished senator from massachusetts. i ask before i get going that floor privileges for the reminder of the session for an intern in our office, lindy brownback. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. brownback: mr. president, i find it very interesting to hear a statement that the sanctions are working. and i'm trying to think of hour they're working -- how they're working at all -- from detonating another nuclear weapon? that did not work. working t to prevent them from launching more missiles? that didn't work. to prevent north korea from taking americans hostage? that deputy quite work. i'm trying to think how these sanctions are working.

and if they're so great on an international basis why not do it on a domestic basis for us? i'm having difficulty -- maybe they're working for us to prevent north korea from associating with the military junta in burma? that was in the news yesterday that north korea is working to provide the military junta in myammar with weapons and possibly nuclear weapons that the secretary of state, secretary clinton is talking about now happening. maybe it -- well, not quite prevent that. i'm trying to figure how the sanctions have worked at all? i thought it was a mistake when the bush administration delisted them from the terrorist list in a negotiation of a six-party talks and said we'll do this and they do that and they ended up doing nothing and, indeed, just stepped up what they're doing. more and more. and it just seems to me very strange to suggest that the sanctions are "working."

i respect my colleague from massachusetts. he's a strong chairman of the foreign affairs committee but i don't see where they have worked. at all. i ask my colleagues to examine, do they believe the sanctions to date have worked toward north korea from the united states? when you examine the factual setting you have to go, i don't think so. i don't think these have happened. plus, i'm very concerned that the administration, now, is taking the tact of discussing an additional set of incentives to the north korean regime to try to get them from proliferating further. this is a really interesting hot off the press from yesterday obama administration preparing incentive package for north korea and i skate b i ask it bed after my full statement. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. obama: the obama administration is consulting with allies on a new

comprehensive package of incentives -- not sanctions, incentives -- aimed at persuading north korea to abandon the nuclear programs senior u.s. officials confirmed on tuesday. officials traveling with hillary clinton in thailand said the package is only in the early stages and not offered to north korea unless and until the allies sign off and they would have to first take specific steps to detroit arsenal of nuclear weapons. well, this is the first round giving snentsives t incentives p nuclear weapons. it has not worked in the past, why on earth would we do something like this? the kerry amendment calls for a study. studies are fine. but it actually delays the study that the state department has all right promised to me that by the end of this month they will have a study out as to whether or not they're proliferating

further weapons. the kerry amendment says 30 days after enactment of this bill and this bill even if it gets through the floor has to go to conference, has to come back in front of this body and we're looking probably at october, maybe early september that this actually comes back -- this law. and then 30 daz 30 days after, e november or december for the report when the state department says they will have the report out by the end of july. that this would take place. this is actually slowing down the process if we pass this amendment. and it calls for a report. i'm sure pyongyang is very concerned about this report. but i don't think it will change anything of behavioral taking place. if we don't have a strong answer -- as a matter of fact, it will probably urge them to do something even fur. then my -- even further. then my colleagues say this is

irresponsible on whether they are doing anything with hezbollah. there is a bipartisan amendment i put forward with senator bayh who wanted that provision and a report talks about north korea supporting hezbollah, building bunkers, and supporting and helping that out. that is a current factual setting. for my colleague on the other side, senator bayh, has asked, and pushed this be in the overall bill. i just would ask my colleagues to look at this interesting definition of "international terrorism." this is a definition that is in u.s. statute on "international terrorism," and it appears to be written for north korea, north korea in mind. it says that "appear to be intended -- intimidate or coerce a civilian population." that is what north korea does in

kim chong-il's regime. "to influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion." that's the flying of missiles over japan -- that's the intimidation toward south korea or the united states. "to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping." they have done kidnappings of japanese citizens." "occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the united states." this is what north korea is doing. i would further point out to my colleagues that this is a sense of the senate. the kerry amendment with all due respect toward senator kerry, this is asking the administration to do a report and asking to direct the administration to some steps. ours is a sense of the senate of what the senate thinks and it is saying that the senate believes that north korea should be relisted as a state sponsor of

terrorism. i and my colleagues in a common science review of what north korea -- a commonsense review of what north crow ha north korea t you think they qualify? if not, who would qualify as state sponsor of terrorism if north korea doesn't, with what they have done personally and what they have conducted with syria, with myammar, with the other rogue groups. it is a sense of the senate to state we believe that north korea is a state sponsor of terrorism. it's bipartisan. with senator bayh and myself. it has a number of consponsors on it. it actually would be productive of us to say to north korea in a public way, we believe they're acting like state sponsors of terrorism. i believe it would be actually counterproductive if this body were to say we think it should be studied and a report issued on this. that's thought going to be the

sort of strong action that will be understood at all by the government in pyongyang at this point in type. with that, i urge my colleagues to look at the brown becomebecome --brownback-bayh ad with that, i reserve the floor and yield the back of my time. mr. kerry: i yield myself such time as i will use. the senator from kansas just cited the congressional research service report. in his statement about hezbollah. i am reading from the memorandum from the president of the united states sent with respect -- this is the presidential report certification when he lifted the designation of north korea and he wrote from the president, "our review of intelligence

community assessments indicates there is no credible or sustained reporting at this time that supports allegation including as cited in recent reports by the congressional research service, that the dprk has provided direct or support for hezbollah, a.t.m. il tamil d if we should obtain evidence of international terrorism in the future the secretary could again designate the dprk as a state sponsor of terrorism." we have in the received that evidence. we specifically requested and contrary to what the senator just said, this does not delay the report, it says "not later than 30 days after the passage." the report can come next week. the report can come in answer to the senator's request. we with ask for that. so let's be accurate in this designation.

the president of the united states said there is no credible evidence. and there is newspaper to this date. our report asks for whether or not any currently exists and that's the way the united states senate ought to behave with respect to serious matters like this. i yield the balance of the time to the distinguished chairman of the committee. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: the language in the kerry amendment does one other thing relative to this report. it says that the united states -- if the united states determines that the country of north korea, the government of north korea, has, indeed, engaged in terrorist activities, that this the secretary of state shall immediately list north korea as a state sponsor of terrorism. so it requires a report not more than 30 days. that could come at any time. but it also requires action if

the secretary of state makes the finding. now, the last administration, the george herbert walker bush, delisted north korea. they found there was no credible evidence of state-supported terrorism. we are a government of laws. our laws provide for a listing of countries that engage in terrorist activities or support terrorist activity. it does not provide for a listing of countries that no matter all of the other things that they do, which are so wrong, so bad, so objectionable to the international community, so justifiably producing sanctions and other kinds of diplomatic actions against them -- regardless of those activities, unless they are a supporter of terrorist acts, our

laws do not provide that they be put on the terrorist list. that's our law. that's what the bush administration was applying when they delisted north korea. now, north korea is a country which engages in horrendous activities. that's not the issue. i don't know of anybody in this senate that does not believe that north korea engages in repressive, authoritarian activity. i don't know of anybody in this senate that does not believe that the north korean leadership is reprehensible in the way it treats its citizens. there is a long list of actions on the part of north korea in terms of its pursuit of ballistic missiles, provocative actions it has taken with testing nuclear devices, firing a series of missiles. it has clearly solidified its status as a pariah of the region

and of the international community at large. and so the question isn't whether strong action should be taken. we should take strong action which will be effective against the government, no -- not the people, but the government of north korea. the kerry amendment lays out a course of action. exploring additional sanctions so we can put additional power and leverage gedges the government o -- leverage against the government of north korea. and also requiring our administration to consider whether or not the government of north korea should be listed again. and if so, if they find that under our law there is reason to put them back on the terrorist list, that then they must, under the kerry amendment, take that step. but what the kerry amendment avoids doing is what the brownback does in one part of the brownback amendment, which

is saying that the government of north korea should be on a list of terrorist states, when the last thing we've heard from an american administration was from the bush administration. taking the north korean government off the list, because they could not find credible evidence that that government took actions which would require them being placed on the list of terrorist states. so, again, it seems to me that clearly our goals here are similar. i had hoped that we might be able to reach a consensus on common language, but so long as this body expresses itself very, very stron strongly, as the kerd lugar amendment does, it seems to me that we will then have made an important statement to the government of north korea and, at the same time, avoiding taking a step which our laws do

not provide for. one of our arguments with north korea is that they are lawless, they are totalitarian government. our government is a government of laws. we have a law that provides for the listing of countries that support terrorist acts. the last administration, after a long assessment, concluded that there was no credible evidence that north korea engaged in the activities which required them appropriately -- or permitted them appropriately to be listed on the terrorist state list and, therefore, removed them from that list. that's the last action by this administration. and, by the way, being on that terrorist list did not change the actions or the activities of the government of the north korea in any event.

i very much support that terrorist list. i very much support it being kept up to date and being used appropriately. but i don't think we should in any way kid ourselves as to whether or not being on that list is going to change the activities of north korea. we need other countries to support us in putting maximum pressure on north korea. when we act lawfully, when we put sanctions on north korea, working with other countries, we are acting lawfully. if we do not abide by our own law, which defines when a country will go on a terrorist list, we are setting the wrong example for the world. it makes it more difficult for us to attain the kind of support from other countries which we deserve in going after the abominable activities of the government of north korea.

so, mr. president, i don't know if our side has any time left, but if we do, i reserve the balance of our time. the presiding officer: the time has expired. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i'd like to ask unanimous consent to ask several questions of the senator from kansas. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: a has the senator from kansas detected any change in north korean behavior since the imposition of sanctions? mr. brownback: yes, they have taken less provocative actions. mr. mccain: including launching missiles on the 4th of july. mr. brownback: it is a strange date they would pick. 4th of july, but they did. mr. mccain: isn't it true that there is evidence that north koreans were involved in the construction of a nuclear facility in syria, which the israelis felt was enough of a

threat to their national security that they destroyed it? mr. brownback: absolutely. abundant evidence and it was amazing how kauaiest the -- how quiet the world community was because they didn't want it known that the north koreans did build that facility or that it was in syria. mr. mccain: isn't it true that there is a published news report that north korea and iran have worked in together in the development of nuclear weapons and energy technology, and if iran acquires that capability, it certainly ratchets up the tensions in -- between iran and israel? mr. brownback: published reports saying the missile technology that the iranians used is built off of the no dunk system of the -- no dong system of the north koreans. mr. mccain: there's cooperation between north korea and mere an march, better known as burma?

mr. brownback: there is. mr. mccain: so if the north korean ship, which was shadowed for a period of time by the united states navy, had gone into port in myanmar, is there any likelihood that the government of myanmar would have complied with the u.n. resolution that required that slip to be inspected by -- quote -- "port authorities?" mr. brownback: myanmar has not cooperated with anything that the in my judgment u.n. has directed to date. i don't know why they would cooperate with anything like that. mr. mccain: well, you thank the senator and, of course, maybe north korea, when we may look at a very fine definition of "terrorism" -- but the recent "washington post" article about 200,000 people on the most horrible prng -- under the most hcial prison conditions in the world -- under the most horrible prison conditions in the world

would perhaps argue that we should do whatever we can, short obviously of any military action, to try to see that the north korean regime acts at least in some civilized fashion. mr. brownback: i think that they should. i would point out, if i could, to my colleagues as well -- the plfer, if i could have the floor? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. brownback: i am frustrated on this topic. i would presume the chairman -- i know the chairman of the foreign relations committee is frustrated and other chairmen of the military committee -- and i know the chairman of the military committee -- the armed services committee. i've worked too long with the refugees and the people in the gulag and people trying to get out of north korea for us to now back up and to say, okay, we want a report. these folks are dying. they're in a gulag like was in the soviet era. this has been published and is

all available to us, and we want a report. it just is -- i understand people don't want to go this far, but this is very frustrating. if you were in one of those situations and people track what comes out of the united states senate just like in the soviet gulag they track what came out of here then, you would -- it would be like saying to them, well, we're not that concerned about you. whereas if we take strong action, like what aim saying, it does give them hope. and that's what i'm asking us to do. and i think it is very responsible, and it is a sense of the senate what we're asking them to do. that's what's at the root of this. and the chairman of the armed services committee says, well, they were delisted by the last administration, and they certainly were. but they were not removed from that list because they stopped sponsoring terrorism. the regime was delisted in order to entice them to dismantle their weapons of mass destruction program. it was a six-party talk negotiation. and that didn't work.

just like the prior negotiations on weapons of mass destruction didn't work. and so why should we continue the problem and the wrong thing if that's the case? mr. kerry: will the senator yield for a question? mr. brownback: i would be happy to yield for a question. mr. kerry: is the senator suggesting that the president of the united states, in his letter of certification, misinformed the american people and the united states senate? mr. brownback: what i am suggesting by this is that this was part of a negotiation and that they have wide latitude. mr. kerry: but the president of the united states -- mr. brownback: if i could continue myance for my colleague, who has asked a very -- if i could continue my answer for my colleague, who has asked a very pertinent question on this issue, who is very familiar with the six-party talks, which i am somewhat familiar with the six- party talks. these are talks that have been going on for a long period of tiesm the north koreans hate being listed as state sponsor of terrorism. they are big push was to be delisted. the administration has broad

authority. it has broad abilities to be able to interpret this and they said, okay, we're going to be able to do this. and we will find some room in here to interpret this this way, in exchange for you guys stopping your weapons of mass destruction, which did not happen. and i am saying that what we should do now is not continue with that mistake. what i'm saying that we should do now is let's call a spade a sit aspade in this situation. that is terrorist nation. and you know that. you know what's taking place. and what they are doing. and they're one of the lead sponsors of terrorist activities in army, bad, rogue regimes around the world and you know that. what we should do is call that for what it is in this senate and not call for just a report. mr. kerry: mr. president, would the senator further yield? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: does the senator from kansas believe that this language, our review of intelligence community assessments, indicates there's no credible or sustained

reporting at this time, that supports allegations they provided direct support, et cetera, and should we have credible evidence of international terrorism at any time in the future? the president clearly -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. senators, the time has expired. all time has expired. mr. brownback: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. brownback: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the question is on amendment 1761. the yeas and nays are ordered. the yeas and nays have been ordered on amendment 1761. the clerk will call the roll. mr. brownback: parliamentary inquiry, if i could. yeas and nays on both eight amendments, is that, if i could inquire of the -- on both

amendments, is that -- if i could inquire of the chair? the presiding officer: the yeas and nays have been ordered on amendment 1761. the senator from michigan. leaf leaf [inaudible] the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. is there a sufficient second? mr. brownback: second. the presiding officer: there appears to be. there is. the yeas and nays are ordered on both amendments, 1761. the question is on amendment 1761. the clerk will call the roll. vote vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 66, the nays are 31, and the amendment is agreed to.

without objection, so ordered. under the previous order there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 1597 offered by the senator from kansas. the senate will be in order. who yields time? mr. brownback: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. brownback: mr. president, thank you very much. if i could -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. thank you. mr. brownback: i would ask for an eye vote on this amendment -- aye vote on this amendment even if they voted for the kerry amendment. i would ask people to think very

briefly -- if i could have your attention just for a moment. the presiding officer: senators, please take your conversations out of the well. the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the senator from kansas. mr. brownback: mr. president, it was critically important during the soviet gulag day that's the people in the gulags knew that we cared and were focused on them. if we vote to say we're going to issue a report, that's fine, but it doesn't say much to people in a gulag. if we vote to say it is the sense of the senate that north korea is a state sponsor of terrorism, it's a strong message. it gives hope to people that don't have hope today. and who in this body doubts that north korea's a state sponsor of terrorism? with nuclear weapons, mills being launched, connection with

myamar, who can doubt they are a terrorist count. i would urge my colleagues even those who support the kerry amendment to also vote for this one to send that message that north korea is a state sponsor of terrorism and to send a message of hope to those in the north korean gulags. yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. kerry: mr. president, it would be both inconsistent and inappropriate to vote aye on both amendments for a couple of reasons. first of all the amendment that we passed with 66 votes mandates that no longer than 30 days after this has passed. it could happen next week, three weeks. we are mandating a report from the administration with respect to whether he or not there is evidence at this time of north korea actually aiding or

abetting or being a terrorist state. the most recent finding of the intelligence community says, no, the president of the united states, george bush, certified to us when he dessert fried them as a -- dessert pied them as a terrorist state, that they were not engaged in aiding and abetting terrorism at that time. and there is no evidence within the intelligence community at this moment in time that says so. the brownback amendment states that there is. so it's wrong. it would be inappropriate for the senate to base a finding of designating north korea as a -- as a terrorist state based on findings that don't exist at the same time we're negotiating to get the release of two young journalists and this would be a completely inappropriate by the united states senate. the presiding officer: time expired. the question is on amendment 1597. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll.

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: parliamentary inquiry. mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. levin: after the conclusion of this vote, is there any pending amendment? the presiding officer: there will not be. mr. levin: just so folks know i intend to ask for a quorum call immediately following this vote to try to work out an orderly way to proceed on amendments. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: