the world and centered around our clients. >> congressman, we can certainly come up with a protocol to address that need. >> thank you. >> yeah, the first thing i want you all should be congratulated. you've all come a long time since we first started with this issue. ..

>> both had not a very good experience with the tour guide. and i want to try to address the issue of tour guide, because we spend all this money, we want to make this an extremely positive experience for families, all over the country. people from other countries. and we can do all the things that we talked about, but if we don't have a positive tour guide situation it can really make it not very positive, i guess. this is what my suggestion is. i'm not sure what the hiring standards are. i'm not sure what the training is. and it has to really, you need i think management to look at the people who are doing the training to see where we are.

but i have an idea, because i've had two complaints now, three really. but two that i am rather close to about how the guides are totally condescending especially to young children. a lot of people want to ask questions, and i don't know if we're getting our guide a time period to run them through, whatever it is, but -- and my sister had to go to the white house and a totally different experience. i think one of the issues to do with that might be that we might want to give everyone who goes on the tour, you know an evaluation sheet. you know, what did you think of the travelers centers center and then giving a valuation on the tour guides. so all the tour guides know they will be held accountable. and i think it's really an issue that all the good we do. it's the same thing as elected officials. if we have a staffer who was giving -- >> especially with a pink cast. i like that. >> would be happy to put the language in the report directing

the tranten to make the change. >> i think that's positive. and it has to be managed on a regular basis. and you could even to the point where you might want to maybe some people might be better with seniors. some people might be better with children. i don't know if you'd stand in line and pick out the next person i don't know what the issue is. i think this is what we need to discuss and you need to report back to us on a regular basis to make sure that it's a management issue in in. i don't know who we are hiring, what the standards are. the other issue i want to comment on, before my time runs out, is the issue of cell phones and really the ability for members to be able, when there is a vote call, if your cell phone doesn't work and the bells are going off, it's the same issue i talked to dan beard about in the lunchroom or whatever where you can't get a phone call and there's a vote there. so i'm not sure from the infrastructure point of view but it's something i think. when members are over there with

some visitors that they are taken from their district or whatever, i don't know what that system is not. could you respond to the first, the tour guide thing as major. >> and that's a major issue for me. if someone is having a bad experience that's not good. so i do think we will look into that and address that. that is an ongoing concern of ours. we do a lot of training. that under this gives us another point. as for evaluation, we are in the process of developing a mechanism to do full scale evaluation of our visitors. and our users, and hopefully we will have that launched probably not until the far undreamt fault so i'm pleased we will be able to have solid information for this committee. and a probably about nine months. >> who is doing the hiring? do you have standards? personality standards, it seems people skills are very relevant. >> we do have -- yes, we do have standards and we do it iua

people on the comments that we get from people who service they are using. so we'll go back and address that. >> again, one or two that individuals can hurt everybody so i'm not saying that when i hear two people and then i get another complaint, you have to raise it. thank you. >> thank you. >> what about the issue of the cell phone? >> on cell phone coverage in the tranten as part of our project we have covered the fully tranten areas in the senate side work as of a few months ago there was a problem on the house i. it was a funding issue with the cios office and as of at least a few months ago and have not installed a system in the house itself, in the house portion. up the tranten for cell phone coverage. the coverage that was being received at that point in time was from the rest of the tranten but i don't know the current status of that within the house. >> how about the bell system?

>> i know in certain, that i'm not aware of. >> to correct mister unger, exactly not a funding issue. the tranten is working on it. the expansion phase on the house side for some reason prior to, they made a decision not to cover, they weren't expecting to use the house extension as soon as we ended up using it. and there's a significant demand and a lot of members use it now and it wasn't designed with cell phone coverage. but we are in the process of doing no. the only concern and was taking a little bit longer is that our expansion state has to be next to guess and so they are dealing with. >> i'm on the intelligence committee and we have an issue there. we have to make sure it doesn't penetrate. >> exactly. that's what is being reviewed and evaluated right now. but it is a problem that is being addressed.

thank you being a parent of 10 year-old twins. [laughter] >> i'm chief of staff. >> it is actually very important to mature that the guides are sensitive to children. you know, just by way of example, not standing at full height and talking down to a child who is, you know, much lower to the ground. just training them on little things that really help in the direction with children getting down to their level, listening to their question, asking them patient answering their questions in a simple way but not in a patronizing way. some people are good at dealing with kids and other people are not. if your children don't have a good experience on the tour, it can really impact your trip. for the rest of the day.

[laughter] >> so anyway, just some fellow peer advice there. i want to shift to the paper, which is not you, ms. ross. obviously we can all see the replacement of the papers going on out on the plaza, that there are some that are heavily damaged, some that if not damage. where are we in terms of the replacement process and how are we dealing with the normal wear, the different between a normal wear and tear and a design flaw that clearly existed because we always had an expectation that these would be driven upon? >> we are making very good progress. we are about two to three weeks away from finishing the paper replacement effort on the house side. we have started to work on the senate side and we are a bit of schedule at this point and we hope to finish around

mid-september with the complete project. in terms of maintenance, once we finish the new paver's, they will not require a great deal of maintenance but they will have to be inspected periodically for oil stains, cleans and the joint will have to be inspected, but we don't anticipate anywhere near the type of shipping that we have experienced with the old system, at least in those portions of the plaza that we are replacing. >> so the chipping and discolor, there is some chipped and discolored ones, are those part of the replacement process? >> yes, the book of those are in the area that will be replaced. there are a few that are chipped and have some stains in the areas that we are not replacing but we are going to replace those that are chipped or stained individually. >> and just another suggestion. if as we go forward we can make

sure that the gaps that may develop in between the two, in between pavers, women who walk across them in heels. i mean, really there are reasons to elect people of different gender to congress. i can tell you on occasion, not these pavers but other pavers where i had a heel get the antigang top of it and it is dangerous. you can really hurt herself. so if we can just be mindful of the infield shoes, walking across the papers. i want to, actually mr. gorn, i'm not sure how much you can answer this at a public hearing. but do we have an issue with the company that originally designed the plaza papers and gave us all for, lay down all those damaged ones, a lawsuit or how are we

resolving the issue of paying for the replacement? >> there is no ongoing litigation at the moment. we are still not really in a good place to talk about it, but i do know they have been having correspondence with the designer. it at that stage. >> maybe you could get his information on where we are on that. >> i would be happy to. >> if this is not the appropriate setting, then the appropriate setting would be fine. chief morse, i had an opportunity to speak in my office to chief nichols last month about the length of the line in the canon tunnel during the part of the peak staff led to her season and it was really getting back to be an hour and a half, two hours and we would walk by them every day to vote. and you had a six minute wait time outside entrance to the cdc and a two-hour wait time or the

staff with tours. we're getting a lot of never complained about the length of time chief nichols was extremely helpful and we were able to i think achieve a balance between how many times at the staff had at the entrance versus making sure we could open at the canon tunnel. so i appreciate the adjustment being made for that or six minutes is a great time, but it doesn't have to be six minute. it can be 10 minutes, and we can produce, or reduce tours for the staff considerably. do you have a plan going forward to make sure that during peak times we can keep the tour open? >> yes, immediately following that meeting we instituted that plan and we continue to monitor the lines and make sure that we have supervisors on scene. the appropriate number of magnetometers open and the most expeditious, professional screen

that we can do at that location. this is an extension of that because we had a lot of lines outside office billing. what steps are being taken to address that? >> what we have done is assembled response teams that will go, because these lines come and go. and we can sort of guess when that's going to happen so what we do is we simply monitor the input at the doors, and whenever we have long lines at locations, we sent additional officers to that location to help alleviate the lines. and we sort of do that on a rotating fashion. it seems like as the tour season has wound down, the lines seem to have been getting a bit shorter recently. >> they have, and we have also noticed as you said, that the staff led tours have increased and people are still coming from different modes of transportation and visiting their members.

before they go to the cvc or the capital and we are screening significant numbers of people this year into our buildings. >> just let me follow-up. chief morse, let me mention this. we will not of course all of our constituents have a very positive experience when they come to the capital. of course, i tell people this is one of the probably come if there's ongoing to save one building in washington, d.c., maybe i'm partial, but i tell them to stay to see the capital of the united states should because of what it stands for in the symbolism and what, you know, when you see that capitol dome you can recognize it around the world. and people do wreck ignited around the world. but one of the things that is important, whether it be a tour guide or whether it be someone, whether it be a staffer or whether it be someone that is

working with capitol police, i think it's important you know, they show the respect for the visitors that are in the capital. and sometimes i walk by some of the capitol police, and parts of the capital, not just the visitors center, and sometimes it seems like not really their top priority -- and i understand safety is their top priority, but sometimes the way they communicate to some of the visitors and some of the staff is sometimes pretty condescending. and again, i know safety is the first and foremost for their job, but at the same time i do think it's important that whether you have a five year old or 10 year old, they have a positive expense to the nation's capital and i don't know if that's something that you all address on a constant on a consistent basis or whether that really ever comes up. but i do think, i would

appreciate if you would look into that and let your officers know that these people are here maybe for the only time they will ever be visiting the capitol in their entire life. and to be as positive extent as possible. you know, understand that they have never been in some of these buildings before so they are not sure exactly how they are supposed to put their purse on the conveyor belt exactly the way they need to be, or to have their purse open when they go through a certain mac, her or something like that. so i just bring that up. it's not anything that i ashlee plan to say. she was talking about that issue and i do think it's vitally important that the public sees a very positive face for all of us who worker, whether it be a member of congress, whether it be capitol police staff, someone in the touring as far as the redcoat or whatever the case may be. so i just mention that to you. i don't really necessarily want

you to respond to. i just want to put it on your radar screen and would appreciate, you know, just constantly being aware of that issue. >> actually, if you don't mind i would like to respond. >> i would welcome that. >> i concur. i have worked for the u.s. capitol police for 25 years. one of the things that i love the most is the interaction of the people that work here and come here. it's one of the reasons i go out and i stand in the lines. most recently the fourth of july concert, and some of these other lines that we have been seeing at the cvc and the buildings to read emulate one of our core values of our police department which is courteous. and, you know, to lead by example. and we as capitol police officers appreciate the fact

that people come here from around the world to visit. and it is my intention that they all, when they interact with capitol police officers, they see a professional police officer who is unclenching, courteous, sincere and principles. and it is their core bodies that stand for cvc. we will go back and a chore that we reiterate that and hopefully, you know, correct any issues with any individuals that do not follow those core values in our agency. >> yeah, let me just follow-up on that. let me say that i think, you know, that capitol police. let me just say you all do a great job. you have some of the finest officers i think anywhere in the country serving as capitol police. and they do a great job. but i mean, it as with any oppression or any job you even

have some numbers of congress who are actually probably would give a bad impression that make us look bad as well. so they certainly know, -- no occupation or profession is away from that but it is something that, you know, think it is important that people who come here to the capitol and sometimes people, officer may be having a bad day but i think it's important they do everything they can to show the courtesy and at the same time make sure safety is the number one concern. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. honda? >> thank you. >> i does have a couple more questions. chief morse, it was brought to my attention recently, and again, without asking you questions and making conclusions by antidote, forgive me for

sitting back but i'm having a little trouble with my extension of my footgear. >> i understand. >> on the gallery visitation process, it was described to me, a constituent, who had people bring -- wanted to go through the gallery. you know, wanted to sit in the gallery for a little while. they had a whole bunch of stuff with them. you know, just the bags and things like that. so they came upstairs. they were going to go do the gallery's first and then, you know, go back through the cvc later. but we're in the middle of a series of i think a six vote, and seeing that process versus just watching the debate is something that they wanted to see. and they were urged to go see a. so i guess the officer that they dealt with told them no, you can't even though there are cubbies right there that they can put their stuff up, they were told that they have to go back to the cvc and register,

and the term register was used. and leave their belongings there, and then, only then could they come back up and sit in the gallery. well, they went down into that process. they had one of my staff with them, but there was a little bit of back and forth, cordial back and forth, but they were told they had to go back to the cvc. when they did get back up to the gallery, the gallery was not nearly completely full and there was only a handful of people in line, yet still they were restricted to being in the gallery for 15 minutes. and then shuttled out and told to leave. so what's the process for gallery visitation? isn't made clear, both to staff, on staff led tours and also to the redcoat? isn't there any flexibility, when the gallery is empty or not that full and the line is not long, do we have to, rigidly adhere to the 15 minute rule?

>> i think you just hit it, that there will was no flexibility there as you described it. there is a process for gallery, there are gallery tickets. there's a line from the cvc from the capitol building itself that you can get there, but once a staff person had brought someone to the gallery, i don't understand why it couldn't have been facilitated. >> i just wanted to put their stuff in the country and go in the gallery for a little while and come back out. >> yeah, i'm sure it happens often where the process is not followed, for whatever reason. and perhaps that had some, you know, impact on the decision the officer made. in my view, you know, you were there. you were staff. you had a group. we should have been able to be flexible enough to facilitate that. >> and we just make sure that

it's communicated to the officers that staff that area, that you know, obviously we have rules and when there are long lines you want to get people through there. i realized the sergeant-at-arms runs that gallery, visitation process, not the cvc, but the officers are there that staff it. >> i think we should be able to facilitate those things, it is problematic. >> do they have to keep their -- >> things are taken there by the doorkeepers that are not allowed into the galleries. and there is space there, cards, cubbyholes, cabinets, etc., that as people come up the staircases that's the first thing they do. but we can facilitate that. if there is some problem with, you know, everybody does it, then we will communicate to staff and kind of go back through. but i think in that particular instance we could have probably

been a little more flexible in facilitated it. >> and my last question is actually unrelated to the cvc, and as you might imagine having a broken leg, i'm a little more sensitive now than i normally would be to accessibility issues in the capitol. >> don't slide into second base. >> i guess if i didn't slide into second base i would be as aware but it's actually been quite helpful given that we signed the expanded taxability efforts that you have been pursuing out of the subcommitt subcommittee. there are quite a lot of gaps in our accessibility, and the whole capitol complex. but one of those that is pretty glaring is in a cannon house office building. the interior court doors that are enclosed with the elevator, on all of the corners of all the floors. do you know what i'm talking

about, the elevator bank and then the doors that you have to push open to get out into the hallway? >> yes, i do a. >> none of those are wheelchair or a disability accessible. there are no buttons to open the. i mean, i have either been going around on crutches or on this scooter for the last 10 days. and if i absolutely -- and a disabled individual cannot be by themselves and get through those doors coming off the elevator. do you have a timetable for when those doors in kanin, all throughout canon -- i'm going to be done with this in 12 weeks. but it is a real issue that i was not aware of and it never even occurred to me until i was dealing with it myself no, madam chair, we do not have a timetable. i was not aware that issue but we will look at it right away and get corrected. >> a button needs to be put on although so that someone in a wheelchair can get it open themselves if they are allowed which often people are not that

there are nice people that are willing to open the doors, but i've also found there are people who are not so nice to walk right by you. [laughter] >> and let the door go in your face. so anyway if you could look into that that would be great. >> we will do that. >> the other place is on the door on the south, on the south front of the capitol, you know where the rapids. >> yes. >> you come into the main doors, but then there is a door right there for the left, that it's the door you're supposed to go through if you are a member, that door -- there is no button on the door either and no button coming out. and that's the way you are supposed to come out. so it's, in other words, heavy. it's really an issue. anyway, that was one of the issues i wanted to raise.

and with that, if no other members -- >> i have one other. >> please. >> we talk about the cell coverage. the tunnel goes where the subway is. a lot of time members are rushing to vote and they lose a call. >> cal. >> all the way through? and the lunchroom, the same thing? >> any of those issues are with the cao. >> we are all, present, there are too many places in the capitol complex that are inaccessible to the disabled, but i am more clearly aware of it now and agree that we can step up our efforts and it's great if you need help from the subcommittee please let me know. we wouldn't be the committee without some homework, so now that the cvc has been open for eight months, it's really a good

time for us to take stock and assess how well systems development before we opened our working out at the center is operating in the real world. as we talked about at this hearing, whenever you open up a facility of this magnitude somethings are going to go well. other things not so well, and we will need adjustments. they key is being able to identify where problems exist and adapt accordingly. at the base on our discussions today, i think one of the main areas worth taking a second look at is the current transportation plan. we had said we would revisit it at this point in the year after we saw how it was going with the six shuttles. it's clearly a problem that i think needs evaluation. it sounds like the over all existing system is going well, but there is definitely some adjustments that need to be looked at. in order for us to get particularly senior citizens and the elderly up to the cvc. so in line without i would like the cvc staff in court nation with the capitol police to review the existing plans for

getting visitors from their tour buses to the cvc and access how well it's working and whether additional adjustments might be worth considering to better facilitate the amusement of, particularly senior citizens. pleaded when the pros and cons of each adjustment, identify whether it's viable and to provide a general estimate of its cost to implement those initially, and then on an annual basis as well. the report will be due back one month from now on august 24. with that, thank you all for your participation. the subcommittee is adjourned. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]

>> the u.s. senate is about to dabble in. they finished legislative debate for the week. senators will spend much of the day on general speeches. legislation may be filed and bills may be accepted by unanimous consent. the house is also in session this morning. members gavel in at nine. they are debating more than $737 billion under the departments of health, labor and education. you can see live coverage on c-span2. the senate live. the chaplain: let us pray. our father in heaven, because of the abundance of your mercies we receive this gift of another day. we don't pray for tomorrow and its needs, but we do intercede

for this day which now bathes us in its returning light. give wisdom and courage to our senators as you set your seal upon their lips. lord, restrain them from speaking words that needlessly hurt or discourage some april grim by their side. as lovers and servants of this land of freedom, make them worthy of the past and equal to the present. mold them to your purposes; fashion them with your powerful hands; shape them on the anvil

of these days of destiny into instruments fit for your use. lord, we also pause and pray for the families of capitol police officer jacob joe southeast chestnucap -- jacob joesoutheasl gibson who bravely gave their last full measure of devotion defending the capitol 11 years ago today. we pray in roar great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands,

one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, july 24, 2009. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable mark warner, a senator from the commonwealth of virginia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order the senate will observe a moment of silence in honors of officer chestnut and gibson who fell in the line of duty defending this capitol on this day in 1998.

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: very select few men and women who come to work with one primary job: to protect those of us who are fortunate enough to call this the united states capitol building our office. all who come here from all corners of our country to see for themselves the heart of our democracy. special agent john gibson and officer check u.n. were twoffic, protecting us and gave their lives. on this day in 1998 a madman came through an entrance, the east side of the building, in

mid-afternoon, and shot officer chestnut at pointblank range and he died instantly. agent gibson confronted the man, shooting him and stopping him, gibson was himself hit and he died later to day. i can clearly remember both these brave men each of whom was in his 18th year of service as a capitol policemen when they were killed. mr. president, i can remember when my wife became ill at a congressional retreat we had in virginia. agent gibson ran to her side. i can remember how he was so focused and was -- ran so far from the capitol police headquarter from our room, and was sweating profusely and how he treated her with kindness and care. agent gibson, who was from massachusetts, would really every morning, go to the back of the sports section during myself

baseball season to find the boston red sox score. a loving father. and officer chestnut, j.j., a father of five who loved his job and country and served in the air force for 20 years and fought in vietnam. the time of the shooting he was just weeks away if retiring. gibson and chestnut lay in honor in the capitol rotunda. the distinction congress conferred upon only a handful of americans including abraham lincoln, john kennedy, and our unnopunnoarn soldiers. jacob chestnut was the first to be remembered in the capitol retown da. we pause to remember theory of two men but each and every police officer who does his or her job every sing will day of the year so on behalf of the entire united states senate and everyone who works and visits

here i extend my appreciation. the presiding officer: the leadership time is reserved. there will now be a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. mr. reid: during the period of morning business i ask senators be allowed to speak for ten minutes each with no roll call votes during today's session of the senate. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. wyden: mr. president, i come to the floor to take a few minutes to reflect on the developments in the health care issue. for me the week began with an inspiring essay by the man who has led the crusade for fixing

american health care for more than 40 years. the man who continues to lead this body in our efforts to fix health care. i'm referring, mr. president, to the wonderful essay by senator kennedy who i encourage all senators to read this article because, as usual, senator kennedy lays out the challenge for us ahead. he says on the front page of the magazine, "we are almost there." now, that might be a little much for some folks, given the developments of the week but, as usual, there's a lot of validity in what senator kennedy has just written in "newsweek" magazine. there is widespread agreement on some very, very significant

areas of health care policy. for example, we have bipartisan support here in the united states senate for fundamentally changing the inhumane model of private health insurance in our country. today, private health insurance is essentially about cherrypicking. it's about going out and finding just the healthy people and sending the sick people over to government programs more fragile than they are. there is widespread agreement, mr. president, that needs to be changed. for example, 15 united states senators are on legislation that would make it illegal to discriminate against those with preexisting illnesses. that is a fundamental change, mr. president, a dramatic change

in the way insurance and the insurance business is done in our country. democrats, republicans, both major committees -- the committee senator kennedy chairs, the committee led by my chairman, max balk baucus, demos and republicans support fundamental changes in the way private health insurance is done. if you told me, mr. president, three years ago, that this would be such strong bipartisan support for fundamentally altering the model of how private health insurance is being sold in our country, i probably would have asked you what substance are you smoking. but it is an indication, as senator kennedy writes in his article, that we have made a lot of progress. now, suffice it to say, as

senator kennedy notes again, that there's a lot of heavy lifting to do. in particular, if you go to the president's website the three areas that he is focused on is lowering costs, increasing choices, and maintaining quality. those of the three areas that the president has focused on very correctly. those are the three areas that our president has made it clear he's going to spend his political capital on. this is what he's going do use his bully pulpit for. this is what he's going to put in the killer hours for. and having met with him recently i can trillion you, mr. president, that our president barack obama obama is making that kinis -- is using ht

to put in those hours to get the job done. now, with respect to lowering people's premiums and lowering costs the one area that the budget office has said they will indicate generates real savings in the next few years is increasing individual choice, giving all our people the opportunity like we have here in the united states congress, to choose great a variety of plans -- big plans -- where you spread cost and risk, where they can't discriminate, and when an individual makes a wise selection from one of those plans, the individual puts that money in their pocket. that's what the budget office folks have said they will score as real savings for the system,

for people's individual premiums in the next few years. the challenge, mr. president, for our committees, is that in many respects, these bills don't give all americans free choice. they don't give all americans the choice the senator from virginia has. i note the presence of the distinguished leader from kentucky here. these bills don't give all americans the kind of choices that we have as united states senators. and chos and the requirement that couples compete for people's business is what competition is all about and it's what holding premiums down is all about. so i have developed legislation called the free choice proposal. i think it protects the

employer-based system which we know well over 150 million americans rely on. it also gives us a chance to improve on it. it creates more options for employers. and for employees. to hold costs down. for employers, our free choice proposal gives them more leverage with their insurance company so they can tell them, i've done business with you a lot of years, you better give me a better deal or i'm going to take my business somewhere else. it also says to an employer, hypothetically in virginia or oregon, if you want to take all of your employees to what's called the insurance exchange -- kind of a farmers market arrangement -- the employer would have the ability to take their workers to the exchange

and the employer could get a discount for doing that, again, strengthening the employer's role in the effort to hold down costs. for the worker, what it means is, for example, in virginia or oregon, if your employer's share of your health care coverage is, say, $13,000 and you can find a plan on the insurance exchange for $12,000, the $1,000 goes into your pocket. again, you get a financial reward for shopping. members of congress get to shop. i'd like to see everybody get to shop, everybody have those individual choices, and it's also good for the system, because right now, really since the 1940's, since the middle of the last century, the individual

has been disconnected from the health care system. the individual doesn't get many choices. 85% of the employers who offer health care coverage don't offer choice, not because they're evil. they'd love to do it; they can't afford it. the administrative costs are too crushing. so, again, if we get employers and employees into these larger systems where they'll have clout in the marketplace, there will be ability for everybody to choose, mr. president, not just folks who are unemployed or uninsured or in small business, but give everybody over the next few years the ability to have these choices and be in a position to help drive more competition and more accountability and hold down their premiums in the private sector. we can do that on a bipartisan

basis. we've got 15 united states senators of both political parties on legislation that does it now. it could fit with the structure of several of the bills that are being considered. we can do this, as senator kennedy suggests in his wonderful essay, on a bipartisan basis. both democrats and republicans, mr. president, have a good point here. i believe my party is right on the issue that you can not fix this system unless you cover everybody. the reason that's the case is you can't build a market unless you cover everybody. unless you cover everybody, there's too much cost shifting. people who are uninsured shift their bills to the insured. but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle -- the distinguished senator from kentucky and i have had this discussion on a number of occasions -- they have valid

points, too. the congress ought to be very careful about freezing innovation, about restricting private choice, about setting up price controls. there's the sweet spot for a bipartisan bill, mr. president. democrats with good ideas, as senator kennedy lays out in his wonderful essay about expanding coverage. republicans bringing creative ideas to the table about innovation and about choice. both sides have some valid points. that's what senator kennedy is saying in his wonderful essay. mr. president, i see the leader on the floor, and he is looking for time. i hope colleagues will go to our web site. that's where we lay out this free-choice proposal. i think it is consistent with the idea of not blowing up the employer-based system but not saying we can't improve on it. it gives new tools to both employers and employees to hold down costs. it ensures that all americans

will have choices, not just some. and i'd submit to colleagues, if folks in virginia and kentucky and oregon come away from this and say that only some people got choices, that's not going to go down very well. let's do what the president says on his web site and give all americans choices, choices like we have in congress from these big insurance pools where you can't discriminate and you have some leverage in terms of holding costs down. so it has certainly been a tumultuous week, mr. president, on this health care issue. but i hope colleagues this weekend will pick up a copy of "newsweek," read the inspiring essay of senator kennedy, who's led our body for more than 40 year, led the country in this issue, continues to lead us because there is a lot for us to build on now, to finally end

this injustice that we have not been able to fix our system so that we hold costs down and all americans get good-quality, affordable coverage. we can do it. we can do it this year, mr. president, on the president's timetable by working together. and, mr. president, with that, i would yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i just want to take a moment to congratulate the senior senator from oregon for his extraordinary contribution to this most important topic. he has been open. he's been convinced of the need for bipartisanship and been entirely constructive throughout this process, and we look forward to continuing our conversations in the weeks and months to come. mr. president, i ask consent that the following remarks i'm going to make about the loss of

officer chestnut and detective gibson appear following the majority leader's similar comments earlier this morning. mr. president, we stand in the capitol dedicated to freedom. we must remember freedom's cost. so today i rise to speak about jacob joseph chestnut and john michael gibson. officer chestnut and detective gibson, both of the capitol police, gave their lives 11 years ago today in defense of the men and women who work in and visit the capitol. a plaque in this building commemorates their bravery. their names have been etched upon the national law enforcement officers officers' l which stands one mile from here. and the headquarters of the united states capitol police bears their names.

officer chestnut -- or j.j., to his friends -- was a 20-year veteran of the air force and had 18 years of service to the capitol police. john gibson also had 18 years of capitol police service and until that day had never had to draw his weapon. both men left behind their wives, children, beloved family members, and friends. both men were part of an elite team, capitol police officers with their unique mission are charged with protecting not only our lives but our very system of government. my friend, the majority leader, a former capitol police officer himself, knows both the honor and danger at that comes with the job. so as we honor officer chestnut and detective gibson today, we also honor every man and woman of the capitol police who have

bravely scroll teared for this hazardous -- who have bravely volunteered for this hazardous but important duty. so today the senate honors j.j. chestnut and john gibson. we are grateful for their heroic sacrifice and we remember their families, who we brace, as we would our own. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thaou, mr. president. i guess we're not in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. casey: mr. president, thank you very much. i rise this morning to speak of an issue that so many of us not only here in washington in the senate and in the congress generally but across the country have been concerned about, talking about, debating this

issue, and it's the issue, of course, of health care. we have a long way to go over the next couple of weeks and months, and i know there's a lot of coverage in the debate about timing and what's going to happen this week or next week or by the august break, but i believe we're going to get this done, and i think i a important that we have a good debate about it -- and i think it's moron that we have a good debate about it. i think too often we've focused on conflict and the controversy as opposed to looking at some substantive parts of this legislation. i start this morning's a, as i have so many times when i've been discussing this issue the last couple of months, i start with a constituent, one person but i think a person who speaks for many people across pennsylvania and across the country. her name is trisha urban. she sent me a letter back in

february that i've noted before. and this letter, i think, tells us an awful lot about all we need to know about what's wrong with our health care system right now. despite all of the positive features of it -- great hospitals and medical personnel and people we can be justifiably proud of and boast of -- there are problems with our health care system. trisha urban, when she sent this letter in february, was recounting what had happened in her life just a few weeks before. she talked about her husband who had not -- who had to change -- had to change positions in life, change jobs, because he was completing an internship. and she said -- and i quote -- "because of preexisting conditions, neither my husband's health issues nor my pregnancy," she referred earlier to the fact

that she was pregnant at the time of the letter -- "neither my husband's health issues nor my pregnancy would be covered under private snuns." she said "i work four part-time jobs and am not eligible for any health benefits." she says later in the letter that they lost their health insurance coverage and they had close to $100,000 worth of medical bills. then see says, "concern with the upcoming financial responsibility of the birth of our daughter and the burden of current medical expenses, my husband missed his last doctor's appointment less than a month ago." and this is how the story ends for this family. she talks about just a few weeks before this letter -- about what happened to her. she said, "my water broke the night before we were anxiously

awaiting the birth of our first child. a half-hour later two ambulances were in the driveway. as the paramedics were assessing the health of my baby and me, the paramedics from the other ambulance told me that my husband could not be revived." unquote. that's her story, a story of not having the kind of health care coverage that she and her husband and her new baby should have, the story of her husband missing his last doctor's appointment because of financial burdens, and, of course, the tragic part of that story, which is the loss of her husband the same day that her daughter was born. i don't think that every story that we have told about our constituents ends the same way, but the blessing here of this -- of this story, of this letter,

is this: trisha urban could have just said, you know what? i have a terrible burden, and i can't handle this. and i'm not going to try to talk to anyone about it. i'm just going to carry this burden myself, and she could go off and not be heard from again. but she took the time to write to me -- and this is how -- this is how she ends the letter. she doesn't just tell her tragic story and just say, can you help me, and i'm in trouble. she thinks beyond herself. she things of an issue that is -- she thinks of an issue that is affecting so many americans and she says this: "i am a working-class american and do not have the money or the insight to legally fight the health insurance company. we have no life insurance. i will probably lose my home and my car and everything we worked so hard to accumulate in our life will be gone in an instant.

if my story is heard, if legislation can be changed to help other uninsured americans in a similar situation, i am willing to pay the price of losing everything." that's what trisha urban says to us, and i would note that in this senate chamber, you go to every single desk -- 100 senators, including myself -- every single desk, and if you were to ask a member of the united states senate, do you have health care coverage, they'd say, of course. i am a federal employee and i get to choose a lot of options. and you could say the same of people who work in the house and in the white house and executive branch agencies. so, individual united states senators are taken care of pretty well, so that when trisha urban says to us in a letter, "i

am willing to pay the price of losing everything" -- when she says that i believe she's not just saying it to tell us what's on her mind, what's in her heart in the aftermath of a tragedy; i believe that line in her letter, in her whole story, emblematic of the stories of americans across the country, i believe that all of those sentiments and all of those details of her life present a challenge to us. i am willing to pay the price of losing everything, she says to us. one of the important questions is, over the next couple of weeks and months as we debate this issue, what are we willing to lose? what are individual members of the united states senate willing to do and willing to lose to get this done? i believe part of that is having

a constructive and thorough and far-reaching debate about not just the issues but what's in the legislation. i'll spend some time on that this morning and i will for the next couple of weeks. as a member of the health, education, labor pensions committee, we have a bill. sometimes the fact there is a bill, and there are a lot of positive features gets lost in washington. there is talk of conflict between democrats and republicans and talk about controversy or issues that are, sometimes, easy to debate or cover. but what has been lost in a lot of the debate the last couple of weeks is what's in the bill and we're going to get do that. we won't get to all of it today. i believe the bill does a couple of things. first of all, it ensures over a period of time we will have stable costs, one thing american

families are looking for, some kind of stability or peace of mind with regard to cost and with regard to other issues, as well. so stable costs. i also believe this legislation and the bill that we're going to send to president obama this fall, will also have secure choices. if you like what you have, you like the plan that you have, you can keep it. it will not change. if you want to make a change, you are going to have options. and, thirdly, it's about quality care. i believe the american people have a right to expect that we're going to control costs, that we're going to provide them with secure choices but that we're also going to provide quality care. any old health care in my judgment, isn't good enough. so i believe that the bill does all three things: stable costs, secure choices, and quality care. one of the threshhold questions we have to answer in this debate

is, because it's going to be a choice. we're not going do have a choice between ten options on health care or five options, we're going to have a bak basic fundamental choice like on a lot of issues: one or the other. (a) or (b) or (a) versus (b), maybe. here's the choice, the first question we have to answer: do we want to keep the status quo? do we want to keep perpetuating a system which has costs out-of-control for families and for businesses, for government, which doesn't offer the kind of quality care across the board? some get it, we know that -- and it's good care -- but is there enough quality care across the board? i argue it doesn't. are we going to offer that and just say it got too tough, we weren't willing to take some

risks with an important bill, we just decided not to do anything. that's the status quo. that's what we have now. the other choice is, change and reform. president obama, fortunately, as the new president of the united states has chosen to be about business of reform and change. he has said to us and i believe the american people have said to us, we cannot stay where we are. we cannot allow a system to perpetuate the problems we have right new. so that's a fundamental choice: status quo, do nothing; or change and reform, working with president obama and listening -- listening -- to the voices of the american people like tricia irvin and like so many others. so when we debate this, status quo, ste stay where we are, vers

change and reform, we have to examine the questions the american people are worried about. they're worried about cost, worried about change in legislation not leading to a control of costs, the kind of stability we want. one of the cost questions that we're not spending much time in washington debating, what is the cost of doing nothing? what's the cost of doing nothing? what's the cost of the status quo? fontslyfortunately, some peoplee begun to. examine that. one of the xg examinations of tt is a report by families u.s.a. entitled "the clock is tick." it says "more americans losing health coverage." one of the points they make and i will in the read the whole report, one of the points in the report is this, here is what the status quo means, what no change

means: 44,230 more people losing health insurance coverage, losing health coverage every week -- 44,230. the report also goes on to talk about what it means in individual states. a state like pennsylvania where they're projected just over the next couple of years, tens and tens and continues of thousands of people losing their coverage. but one estimate in this report, 178 thousand more people just in pennsylvania -- just in pennsylvania -- losing their coverage. mr. president, i ask this report "the clock is ticking" be made part of the report. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: the cost of doing nothing also has been examined using those words by the new

america foundation written by, this particular report, dated november, 2008, written by sarah axien and elizabeth carpenter and the name of the report is "the cost of doing nothing." the subtitle of the report is "why the cost of failing to fix our health care system is greater than the cost of reform." "the cost of failing to fix is" greater than any other cost. i note for the record and i'll submit for the roar just two pages of this. it's a long page. i'll submit the cover page and then a page on pennsylvania which i'll just briefly refer to and then i want to talk about how the report implicates and examines the information in the chart i have on my live. here is what the report says on page 86 for pennsylvania -- and

this is true of a lot of folks but unfortunately for pennsylvania it is a higher number. and i am quoting from part of page 86: "by 2016," just less than -- seven years ago "pennsylvania residents will have to spend $27,000 or close to 52% of median household income to buy health insurance for themselves and their families and this represents a 93% over 2008 levels and the sixth highest premium cost in the country." so, just in pennsylvania, if we do nothing, if we stay on that road of the status quo, which i believe is the road to ruin when it comes to the budgets of our families and our businesses, if we stay on that road for pennsylvania it means that by

2016 the people of pennsylvania median household income, they will be paying 52% of their median household income to buy health insurance for themselves and their family. that is what the status quo is, and where we are headed if we say, well, we couldn't get the job done here in washington. the chart on my left is also a chart that reflects the work of the new america foundation, the cost of doing nothing. these are u.s. numbers. between 2008 and 2016, the cost of premiums, now, as of 2008, $13,244, going up to $24,291. just eight years an 83.4%

increase. that's the status quo. that's where we're headed, where we're going, if we listen to the voices to washington that say it's too tough to do this. people are just not ready for this yet. there are too many powerful special interests telling us not to do it. it might be insurance interests. it might be business interests. or they might just be very partisan politicians telling us we shouldn't do this. so that's the cost of doing nothing. that's the status quo. i'll go to the next chart which, again, is if this report "the cost of doing nothing," and this is a u.s. number, as well: share of household income spent on premiums climbing. like i said, pennsylvania, the chair of median household income in pennsylvania would go up a little less than 52% or get to

52%, i should say, in those seven or eight years, the u.s. number, fortunately for the rest of the country is a little less but it's still very high. so if we do nothing, if we just stay where we are, do the same old thing, runaway costs, lower quality, no revenges, all the things that we're in the doing g now we go from median family income paying 26% of their income to health care which is high, to paying over 45% of their income for health care. again, this chart depicts the status quo, cost of doing nothing so when we talk about costs here we've get to talk about the cost of doing nothing, what people are paying now. that, in my judgment, is too high. we ought to try to bring that number down but we should

certainly avoid at all costs that number going up for the american people. i don't know too many families out there -- maybe there are a few -- but i don't know too many families in in america and i dt know any in pennsylvania saying don't worry about getting health care done because in seven or eight years i can afford 52% of my income going to health care i have not heard that from anyone in my state and i doubt anyone in america would stay, let's stay on the road we're on. i can afford -- my family can afford to pay 45% of our income to health care in a couple of years, don't worry about it; we will be just fine. that is what the status quo is. and that's where we're headed. finally, i quorum cal, i conclu: when we listen to the voices of

the american people, people like tricia irvin, tricia in her letter to me of february in the middle of the letter said this, talking about her husband having to change a change, that he had to look his job for one year, one year, to complete an internship, to complete his doctorate in psychology. so he is trying to advance his education and he pays a health care price. that's a whole oh part of this story before he died. but she says the internship was unpaid and we cannot afford cobra. why should a change in someone's life to improve their education, to complete a doctorate, why should that affect their health care? that's the system we have. that's the status quo. but then she says -- and i quote -- "because of preexisting conditions neither my husband's

health issues or my pregnancy would be covered under private insurance." because of "preexisting" conditions. so because her husband had a heart problem and because she was pregnant that works against them. that's the system we have for too many families. so when people talk about the senate passing a bill, the affordable house choices act which i believe does stabilize costs and ensure quality and ensures choices, it is more than that, and more than the headlines and descriptions, we can go right to the bill language and show how this legislation in a very specific way in a number of instances, responds to what tricia irvin has told us in her letter. what she has challenged us with -- she didn't just write to say, this preexisting condition,

thing, is kind of a nuisance. it was a bar, an impediment to her and her family getting health care, basic health care. why should this even be something we have to legislate about? you would think in mechanic today with all of the welts we have and all of the bane power, we would have figured this out years ago. but we have failed in not getting health care because the insurance company says you have a preexisting condition, sorry, you have to wait; or, sorry, you have get no treatment at all. that's the status quo. and that's one of the costs of doing nothing. how how do you calculate a preexisting condition being a bar to you getting coverage? i don't know how you calculate that. but i know one thing. despite all the talk in washington about what's -- what this might mean and who's arguing with whom, what the debate is about between democrats and republicans, i

know one thing -- and there are a lot of other things we could point to -- but in this bill we answer trisha urban's question on preexisting conditions. and here it is. this is bill language. this isn't some talkingpoint or some general description. this is in the bill. this is in the bill that sometimes people in washington don't want to examine because the language is reform. the language is against the status quo. the language on this provision especially is a dramatic change in policy, something the insurance companies have not wanted to do on their own, so the american people are finally saying, through their elected representatives, through this bill, we're going to make sure that preexisting conditions don't bar treatment, that preexisting conditions don't allow -- or don't prohibit trisha urban and her family from getting the kind of health care they deserve. so here's what it is.

section 2705, prohibition of preexisting condition exclusions or other discrimination based on health status. just read the language of the bill. the american people are very smart about this. they don't want just simple summaries. they want to know what's in the bill. so let's tell them what's in the bill. "a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not impose -- may not impose -- any preexisting condition exclusion with respect to such plan or coverage." right in the bill. there are some people here who won't talk about that because they'd rather debate no bill. they'd rather debate, well, we have a suspicion that it's going to cost too much. but they don't show any evidence. and they don't have a bill. they don't have a competing

argument here. but this is right in the bill. "may not impose any preexisting condition or coverage." that is a dramatic change in health care policy in the united states of america in 2009. it's not part of the debate. so we're going to do -- so what we're going to do for the next couple of weeks and months is tell people a lot about what we've been working on here in washington. day by day we'll tell them exactly what's in this bill. and we're going to keep talking about it until more and more people understand this. unfortunately, they won't understand it because special interests here in washington would rather talk about the perceived controversy. i would suggest that people go to this web site -- the web site for the committee that worked on this bill. the "help" committee web site, which is at help.senate.gov.

go to that web site and review the language on preexisting condition or anything else. i believe at the end of the day it'sing about to be very clear who stands for the status quo and doing the same thing and no change, versus what president obama is trying to do and what a lot of us are trying to do, which is to change, to reform, and to give people like trisha urban some -- some -- piece o pf mind, some stability to know that she and her family, which is now that her husband is gone, she and her daughter won't have to worry about this ever again. isn't that what we should be doing here? i think we should be doing it together, in a bipartisan way. and i believe we have no choice but to turn away from the statistic under the circumstance-- turnaway from tho down the path of change and reform. mr. president, with that, i'd yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

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

the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: what is the parliamentary situation? the presiding officer: tbheer morning business. the senator from delaware -- mr. mccain: is the senator from delaware waiting to speak? the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call.

mr. kaufman: yes, i am. is that okay? mr. mccain: i would be glad to follow the senator from delaware. mr. kaufman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. kaufman: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: mr. president, i rise today in support of the nomination of judge sotomayor to be an associate justice of the united states supreme court. last week the judiciary committee held four days of hearings on judge sotomayor's nomination, including two and a half days of testimony from the judge herself. i came away from these hearings deeply impressed with judge sotomayor's intellect, thoughtfulness, demeanor and integrity. these characteristics already plainly evident in her judicial record and lif lifetime of accomplishment shone even brighter last week in the hearings. i respect her. she will help ensure that the supreme court is a place wherever party can get a fair hearing. in short, the hearings confirmed

that judge sotomayor has all the essential qualities that will enable her to serve well all americans and the rule of law on our nation's highest court. my support for judge sotomayor is even stronger given our current economic circumstances. you might ask, what's the connection between our national economy and the supreme court nomination? the answer lies in the fact that today, while we have a real need for significant -- while we have a real need for significant financial regulatory reform, we also face a supreme court too prone to disregard policy choices. i raise the economic crisis because i am concerned that the current supreme court is overly protective of corporate interests at the expense of everyday americans. as i watch this court, i'm reminded of the recent observation by legal commentator jeffrey tuben that the record of the current chief justice "reflects a view that the court

should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in the society." as tuben reports in every major case the chief justices sided with the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. in business cases today before the supreme court, i'm worried that it's possible to predict the outcome simply by knowing the parties and the nature of the dispute. the facts in the law sometimes seem secondary. for example, the court has overturned 96 years of precedent and legalized agreements between manufacturers and retailers to fix prices. in exxon vs. baker the court sided with a company that destroyed the livelihoods of tens of thousands of alaskans dramatically reducing punitive damages award that represented just a small percentage of the company's earnings. in gross vs. fdl financial services the court made it more difficult to prove age

discrimination. and in ledbetter v. goodyear the court made it impossible for many plaintiffs to recover for unequal pay based on intentional sex you'll script nation. intention -- intentional sex you'll discrimination. congress has made sure to overturn the ledbetter decision as the first bill and legislation is pending to overturn more. congress should not have to pass every bill twice. it is essential for economic recovery that congress respects the intent of congress when it acts to regulates the markets. make no mistake, we must reform our financial markets. mr. president, the last two years have given the final grade on an economic theory that is deeply suspicious of regulation and trusts the markets to police themselves. the grade was an "f." america can no longer stand to

permit financial institutions to gain from risky bets that go bad. decades of deregulation have gone few far with the greedy getting rich at the expense of the taxpayer must be stopped. congress can and will enact dramatically improved regulatory system. the president can and will make sure the relevant enforcement agencies are populated with smart, motivated and effective agents. my concern is that a supreme court resistant to federal government involvement in and regulation of markets could undermind the efforts. i am not suggesting we face a return to the new deal era court determined to strike down regulatory reform as beyond the authority of congress but a court predisposed of government regulation could chip away at reform. that's why my questioning of judge sotomayor focused on her

experience with business and business cases. she worked as a commercial litigate r and business lawyer for eight years. for the past 17 years she has served on the most active federal courts for business disputes, six years on the southern district of new york, and 11 on the second district circuit court of appeals. based on that extensive record and her answers to questions last week, we now know not only she possessed enormous expertise in business litigation but also she calls the cases right down the middle: without any bias or agenda. for subject sonia sotomayor, the facts and the law, not the identity of the parties drive the result. when judge south are announced his retirement in may i suggested the court would benefit from a broad range, much broader range of experience among its members. my concern at the time was not the lack of women or racial or ethnic minorities in the court but that deficit is glaring.

i was pointed to the fact that most of the country justices, whether black or white, women or men, share roughly the same life experiences. judge sotomayor will bring a much needed breadth of experience. unlike the other justices who lack experience in industry and experience in trial, judge sotomayor understands most vations an --motivation and nee. and judging from her thoughts and ideas during the committee hearing i am confident other justices and, by extension, the entire court, will benefit by the addition of judge sonia sotomayor's voice to its deliberations in business cases. as we undertake financial regulatory reform and other fixes for the damaged economy, having judges who leave lawmaking to lawmakers is absolutely essential.

judge sotomayor said she understands -- quote -- "policy making is up to congress," and "judges can't substitute their own judgment," for that of the congress regardless of their view of the wisdom, of the policies or regulation. throughout her career she has taken each case and giving full consideration to arguments of both sides before reaching a decision. that is precisely the approach to judging we need on today's supreme court. mr. president, judge sotomayor has a superior intellect, broad experience, unquestioning integrity that would make her an outstanding nominee at any time. but given our current economic crisis and the likely role of the court in reviewing legislative responses to that crisis, i submit that she is the ideal nominee at this time. her extensive experience as a commercial litigator, business lawyer, and judge in business

cases and the passion for the law that she has demonstrated throughout her career suggests she will be a leader on the court at a time when such leadership is essential. i urge my colleagues to confirm judge sotomayor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i come to the floor today to talk about the violence this continues to plague our southern border region by mexico's well armed, well financed and determined drug cartels. last weekend i went to yuma, arizona and met with border patrol and customs and other laws enforcement agents who do such outstanding job for our country. by the way, the temperature was approximately 115 degrees and our men and women who are serving so well are out there trying to secure our border and

keep our country safe. despite the increased efforts of the mexican president to stamp out the vicious drug cartels violence has increased dramatically claiming over 6,000 lives in mexico this last year alone. the murderers carry owe the crimes as violent and as dangerous as any in the world. many have extensive military training and carry out their illegal activities with sophisticatessed tacticasophist. last week "washington post" said 12 agents were murdered in retaliation for the arrest of the leader of the country's most violent drug cartel. according to the article this act represents "the highest one-day death toll for forces in the 3-year-old drug war." the article provides the deadly

details of the violent attack reporting "the attacks began at dawn on saturday shortly after the arrest of the right-hand man of the drug cartel founder and after the gunmen were repelled in the attempt to free the leader they went on what was described as a shooting rampage and the attacks in which convoys of gunmen mounted surprise assaults on government positions in eight cities went on for ten hours on saturday and continued sunday. the bodies of the officers were accompanied by a note promising future violence from the group if the federal government continues the law enforcement efforts." i remind my colleagues that this is the same drug cartel that according to the "washington post" announced its presence two years ago by rolling five

decapitated heaeads into a dance hall. earlier this month, two american citizens with dual citizenship were dragged out of their homes and shot several times in the head in the members can state of credit www. inthemexicanstateforleading2,0 inthemexicanstateforleading2,000 inthemexicanstateforleading2,000 u.s.governmen inthemexicanstateforleading2,000 ug--.com and after the kidnapd victim was released unharmed a week later, the town people continued to lead marches demanding more law enforcement in the rural isolated corner of this mexican state and set up a committee to report any suspicious activities in town to police becoming an example for other communities in the area.

yesterday's "washington post" front page story said that state is part of a failed state run by incompetent authorities who have little ability to protect the citizens. the violence terrorizing mexican citizens continued to seep across the border devastating families and crippling communities. in my hometown of phoenix there have been over 700 reported kidnappings in the past year. this has led to phoenix being declared the kidnapping capital of the united states. second only to mexico city in the world. in many cases kidnapped victims are intertwined with criminal elements of society involved with illegal cross border smuggling operations. the police chief of phoenix testified in april before the senate's homeland security subcommittee that phoenix is a point for illegal drugs and smuggled humans, both coming to

phoenix before being shipped to other points throughout the united states. immigrants illegally crossing the border with paid coyotes are treated like spendable cargo to be bought, sold, traded, and stolen. in many cases, the immigrant families are ransomed for additional funds by take down crews to guarantee safe delivery of their loved ones. as detailed in a newsweek article from earlier this year, kidnap victimmed hav victims had bound and gag and when they abduct the illegal immigrants hoping to extort more money from relatives, they sometimes kill someone off immediately to scare the others. there was a case last year where they duct taped the mouth and nose of one individual and had the others watch while he

asphyxiated and defecated on himself. not pleasant things to scriewb but thethings to scriewbthings . the cartel tax the resources of law enforcement agencies of border communities. the police chief of phoenix testified that the phoenix police receive a kidnapping report almost every night which can require the efforts of up to 60 officers to find, rescue, and protect kidnap victims. if you believe the activities are limited to border communities, last year, the bodies of five mexican men were discovered bound, gagged and electrocuted in birmingham, alabama, in a hit by a mexican cartel. in recent years, arrests of members can cartel members have

occurred across the south including tennessee, north carolina, and georgia. there is no sign that the number of these drug-related arrests will abate in the near future which is why i support efforts to complete the proposed 700 miles of double layer fence but as we have seen, fencing alone fails to take into account the realities of the southern border and should not be treated as a panacea. the criminal smuggling enterprises are very sophisticated and not easily deterred which is why we must work to truly secure our border and not merely fence it. this past weekend, as i mentioned, i visited the border in yuma, arizona and witnessed the extraordinary lengths the cartels go to smuggle goods across the border. one cartel spent upwards of $1 million using sophisticated g.p.s. directed drilling equipment to develop their tunnel far below the surface to

move goods under fencing and out of sight of law enforcement agencies. in one city, the drug traffickers used the sewer system to channel drugs across the border. every other month tunnels are discovered under the border the since 1990, 110 cross border tunnels have been discovered, and 24 tunnels were discovered in 2008 alone. not to be deterred, our outstanding law enforcement officials have developed investigative strategiestrategies with tunneln equipment. the latest by the way on the part of the drug cartels is the use of trawl lights. trawl lights now are being flown at exstrombly low altitude, loaded with drugs across the mexico-arizona border and all across the border. we must also increase personnel 0 on the border to put an end to

illegal immigration and protect our citizens from the drug cartel violence occurring in mexico. for this reason, i was disappointed that the administration rejected arizona governor brewer's request and also the governors of california and texas also requested national guard troops to bolster the joint counternarcotics terrorism task force. as we know, coyotes are aggressive and creative despite oifortses to secure the border with more personnel, more fencing and more surveillance technology. the united states must keep its focus on securing our southern border and do all it can to assist president calderon in his efforts against these violent drug cartels. the process sprairt and success of mexico is essential to the process spirit and success of our own country. we share a border. our economies are intertwined

and we are major trading partners with each other. the u.s. must show support for our neighbors to the south and must support the calderon administration in this fight against corruption. so, mr. president, we've got a big problem. we've got a big problem with these drug cartels, and the mexican government now has a problem. they just lost an election because the people of mexico, many of them believe that these drugs are just going through mexico intended for the united states of america. violence is at an incredibly high level, not only on the border but throughout the country of mexico and, tragically, corruption reaches to very high levels in the government. we have an initiative. we are working with the mexican government but there's no time like the present, in my view, that we need not only enforce

and increase our efforts on our side of the border but also work as closely as possible with the mexican government and people. it is horrific what is taking place, beheadings of people, bodies hung from overpasses. this is among the most terrible and cruel people that inhabit this earth. it is a lot about drugs, mr. president. it is all about a $16 billion-a-year business of drugs coming into the united states of america. that's how they can afford to spend easily $1 million to build a tunnel underneath the border between yuma, arizona, and mexico. so, i know that we have a lot of issues that are affecting the future of our country, including two wars, including relations with countries, including the iranian situation, but i 0 hope we can focus a lot of our attention on the problems that

are bred on our border by the drug cartels an the human smuggling and the terrible mistreatment of people on both sides of the border as a result of that. mr. president, i yield the floor. could i ask unanimous consent that articles in "the washington post" and "newsweek" be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: thank you. i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i would like to address the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to be associate justice of the united states supreme court. the power of the constitution confers upon the united states senate to provide advice and consent on judicial nominations as one of the most solemn responsibilities that we have.

the supreme court justices have always had tremendous power within our constitutional syst system, separated and enumerated powers. in recent decades, growing concern has arisen 0 over judicial activism on the court, which has the necessary consequence of taking power away from the elected representatives and, thus, the people themselves and conferring those in life tenure, unelected judges, 0 who have occasionally used this power conferred upon them under the constitution and imposed their own views and their own agenda on the american people and substituting that for the views of their elected representatives. we now see that five votes on the united states supreme court can invent new rights that aren't found in the constitution or narrow the scope of rights that generations of americans

have come to view as fundamental. each justice serves for life, so every time a nominee comes before us, i think it's entirely appropriate -- indeed, required -- that we exercise due care in exercising this power of advice and consent. yes, senators must exercise the power and also the responsibility we have under the constitution with great care, and i believe with great respect for every nominee. sadly, over the recent years, we've seen judicial nominees treated with the opposite of respect and fairness. some nominations have become quickly politicized, before the nominees even had a chance to speak for themselves or to answer important questions or to put perhaps their record in context. we've seen outrageous

accusations used to score political points and to damage a nominee and the court of public opinion before they've had a chance to even answer those concerns themselves. it's no secret that i remain deeply frustrated by the treatment of nominees like miguel estrada, who was nominated by president george w. bush to the district of columbia court of appeals, sometimes acknowledged as the second-highest court in the land. mr. estrada was filibustered seven times by the democratic minority and refused an up-or-down vote on the senate floor, something that was literally unheard of in previous times, and many senators shared my view that, had he been confirmed to the district of columbia court of appeals, that he could have been the first hispanic nominated to the united states supreme court.

instead, that honor goes to the nominee we have before us, judge sonia sotomayor. mr. president, from the beginning, i was determined to make sure that judge sotomayor's nomination, hearing, and process would be different from that given to miguel estrada and others. when i first met with her in june, i pledged to her that i would do everything in my four see that she was treated with -- in my power to see that she was treated with fairness and respect. when individuals and some organizations said or did things that cheapened the process, i said so. when supporters and opponents of judge sotomayor made accusations of racism, i repudiated them because i believe that all such accusations are incompatible with a respectful and dignified consideration of her nomination. in the end, i was pleased that judge sotomayor said that she couldn't have received a fairer

hearing and fairer treatment during the confirmation process. i believe that a fair process and a fair hearing means neither prejudging nor preconfirming a judicial nominee. fair treatment means looking at the judge's record, including her public statements about the role of a judge in our separated powers of government. fair treatment means giving the judge, the nominee, an opportunity to explain her record and her comments and to put those in the appropriate context. so going into the hearings, i found much to admire about judge sotomayor's record. she is an experienced judge with an excellent academic background. she appears to be a tough judge, which is may be to her credit, and demand a lot of the lawyers who appear in oral argument

before her corlgt complete and fo-- before her court.and for tr decisions were within the mainstream of american jurisprudence. yet going into the hearings, i also had some very serious questions that i thought it was appropriate to ask her and that she needed to answer. while, as i said, her judicial record is generally in the mainstream, several of her decisions demonstrated cause for concern about the kind of liberal judicial activism that has steered the courts in the wrong direction over the past few years. and many of her public statements reflected a surprisingly radical view of the law. now, some have said we just have to ignore her public statements and speeches and just focus on her decisions as a lower court judge. i disagree with that position. judges on the lower courts -- that the district court andhe

court of appeals -- has less room to maneuver than a supreme court justice who is not subject to any kind of appellate review. supreme court justices can, thus, more easily ignore precedence or reinterpret them. this is why judge sotomayor's speeches and writings on judicial philosophy should matter and concern me a great deal. these speeches and writings contain very radical ideas on the role of a judge. in her speeches she said things like, there is no objectivity, no neutrality in the law. just a matter of perspective. she said, courts do in fact make policy and seem to say that that was an appropriate role for the courts of appeals. and she even suggested that ethnicity and gender can and should impact on a judge's decision-making process.

mr. president, for 13 years of my life, i served as a state court judge, as a trial court judge, and as a member of the texas supreme court. and i strongly disagree with the view. -- with the view of the law that says there is no impartiality, no objectivity, no law with a capital "l" that a judge can interpret. it is, to the contrary, according to judge sotomayor's statements, merely a matter of perspective, and there is no impartial rule of law. i don't know how you reconcile her statement that there is no objectivity, no neutrality in the law with the motto inscribed above the united states supreme court building which says "equal justice under the law." if there is no such thing as objectivity and neutrality, only a matter of perspective, how in the world can we ever hope to attain that ideal of equal justice under the law? i just don't know how you can

reconcile those. despite my concerns about some of judge sotomayor's decisions, as well as her statements -- some of her statements about judging, i went into the hearing with an open mind. i felt she deserved at opportunity to -- deserved the opportunity to explain how she approached some of the most controversial cases on which she's ruled and to put her public statements in context. i hoped she would use the hearings to clear up the confusion that many of us had trying to reconcile the judge sotomayor who served for 17 years on the bench with the judge sotomayor who made some of these statements and speeches. the hearings were ultimately an opportunity for judge sotomayor to clear these things up and ultimately, in my view, resulted in a missed opportunity to do so. regarding her public statements about judging, i was surprised to hear her say that she meant exactly the oop si the oppositee

said, that she had been misunderstood every single time, and that she really doesn't believe any of these radical statements after all, and that her views are really aligned with chief justice john roberts. regarding some of her most controversial decisions, she refused to explain them on the merits. she did not explain her legal reasoning or constitutional arguments she found persuasive. instead, choosing to explain those in terms of process and procedure whenever she could. she assured us her decisions were guided by precedent, even when many of her colleagues, both on the court of appeals and the majority of the supreme court of the united states, disagreed. so at the end of the hearing, i found myself still wondering, who is the real judge sonia sotomayor? and what kind of judge will she be when she's confirmed to the united states supreme court? mr. president, some have argued

that if i am uncertain o or another senator is uncertain, then we should just go ahead and vote to confirm judge sotomayor. i disagree with that. voting to confirm a judge, this judge or any judge, despite doubts would certainly be a politily expedient thing to do. but i don't believe it would be the right thing to do, nor do i believe it would honor the duty we have under the constitution in providing our advice and consent on a judicial nominee. we all know the future decisions of the supreme court of the united states will have a tremendous impact on all americans. the court, for example, could weaken the second amendment right of americans to keep and bear arms. judge sotomayor's decisions on that subject reflect, i believe, a restrictive view inconsistent with an individual right to keep and bear arms for all americans. the koirt coul court to fail toe

private property rights of people by cities and state whose want to condemn property for nonprivate uses. the judge sotomayor has rendered decisions that tend to support the views she takes, has an opinion of the rights of the government to take private property for private uses, not for public uses. and that concerns me a great deal. the court could, in fact, invent new rights that appear nowhere in the constitution as they have done in the past based on foreign law, a subject that judge sotomayor has spoken and written on but she really didn't settle any concerns many of us had about what role that would play in her decisionmaking process when she's confirmed. i believe the stakes are too high for me to vote for a nominee who can address all of

these issues from a liberal, activist perspective. so i say, mr. president, it is with regret and some sadness that i will vote against the confirmation of judge sotomayor. i will vote with the certain knowledge, however, she will be confirmed, despite my vote. and i want to say i wish her well. i congratulate her on her historic achievement. i know she will be an inspiration to many young people within the hispanic community and beyond and i hope -- i hope, mr. president -- she proves me wrong in my doubts. the justice she is replacing, after all, has proved to have a different impact than the president who nominated that judge believed that judge would have. so perhaps, judge sotomayor will surprise all of us. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. dodd: mr. president, i want to spend a few minutes -- what's the business before the senate? the presiding officer: the senate is in morning business. mr. dodd: i thank the presiding officer. i will take a few minutes to talk about health care, again, if i may. i addressed this body on wednesday evening and intended to speak yesterday but there was an objection raised to have any morning business yesterday while we were considering the defense

authorization bill so as a result of that i was unable to come to the floor and talk about the health care issues in our country and the pending legislation in this body and in the other body. as some may know, and i know my colleagues are aware of this, i have been put in the position of being the active chairman of the senate health, education, labor and pension committee which is chaired by our dear colleague, senator kennedy, wrestling with his own health care crisis at this hour and has been unable to be with us as we have begun the process of making up, that is, considering the legislation dealing with health care. as the person sitting next to him i was asked to consider the responsibility of chairing the committee as we considered the health care legislation. we have finished our work, finished it a week ago on wednesday, after numerous hours,

i point this out to our colleagues. many of them may be aware of this already, mr. president. we spent, on the "help" committee consideration of our bill, close to 60 hours. i am told that is the longest time in memory of memorial my of many that we have spent on any single bill with 23 sessions over 13 days with 800 amendments before the committee and we considered just shy of 300 and we accepted 161 amendments from our republican friends on the committee. many of these amendments were technical amendments, they were not all substantive but worthwhile and positive but a number of very important amendments offered by our republican colleagues that i think strengthened and made the bill better bill, making it a bipartisan bill, substantively bipartisan.

at the end of the day after all of the hours and work, we didn't have the votes of our republica friends on the committee but their contribution to the product was significant. as i mentioned, senator gregg and a number of our republican colleagues on the committee were concerned of the long-term fiscal impact on the insurance program for long-term care and we agreed with that amendment. and senator isakson of georgia raised the issue of end-of-life care drawing on his own family experiences and we accommodated his ideas in that area. and senators enzi, gregg and alexander sought workplace wellness programs with incentives for employees, a very sound proposal that was recommended to us by others. it was added to the bill. and senator harkin did a very good job in reaching that accommodation. and senator hatch's amendment dealing with follow on biologics, the full hatch proposal was adopted by the

committee. our friend, tom coburn, of oklahoma proposed an amendment to. pour individuals to make healthy decisions by having the c.d.c. establish a web-based prevention tool for personalized prevention plans for individuals which was accepted, as well. we accepted senator hatch's proposal to establish a coordinated environment health tracking net at the centers for disease control. and senator murkowski offered an amendment allowing insurers to rate base on tobacco use specifically, allowing insurers to vary premiums by one to five for use of tobacco. several amendments offered by senator burr and accepted by unanimous consent to ensure the community health insurance option operates on a level playing field with all the insurers and provided a clarification that federal and state laws relating to rating

preexisting conditions and fraud and abuse and quality improvement and other provisions providing to these openings, as well. several hatch and senator coburn offered amendments allowing independent insurance agents and brokers be eligible to enough gate within the american health benefit gateways. my point, mr. president, is that in addition to these technical amendments there were many substantive amendments that were adopted at part of the committee effort and i invite our colleagues' attention. we have offered to brief any single member or others interested in this. this bill has now been on the web site where the public can read it, make comments and get ideas and respond to questions regarding provisions of the bill. while we are waiting, obviously, to see the outcome in the finance committee, the second half of the equation, it is worthwhile to note in the united states senate of the two committees with jurisdiction over health care the health, education, labor and pensions committee has completed its committee work and we invite our

colleagues' attention, ideas and thoughts on how we might improve or add to provisions dealing with quality, prevention, dealing with workforce issues and with the fraud and abuse issues critically important as well as coverage questions which are essential, as well. so, mr. president, obviously i hoped we might stay here in august to deal with this issue and we will continue the process but the decision has been made to delay consideration of the health care issues until the fall and i understand how this works and things haven't moved as quickly as we would like and some say we would need to slow down a little bit and we're going too fast on this issue. i remind my colleagues it has been seven decades and as many administrations that is served our country in that time as well as the numbers of congresses that have convened have grandparendealtwith this issue. every single congress, every

single administration has failed in reaching the kind of concepts us necessarconsensus necessary t national measures. we have been challenged by the american people to defy the odds, to do what no other congress and no other administration has ever been able to achieve. i understand that we're going a little too fast for some but those out there beyond the halls of congress, an issue of how fast we're going may seem rather perplexing. i'm stating the obvious here and i know my colleagues know this, and i presume many citizens do: every one of us who serve in this chamber, every congressman who serves down the 458, every employee you see here have a very good comprehensive health care program of insurance coverage. we are blessed as part of the fell employees benefit health package. we never have to worry, lord forbid something happens to one

of us tonight, tomorrow, or our children or spouses, we are well covered with insurance. so taking a break-in august and rolling along poses no real threat to any of us or the fell employees who have this health care program. but for millions of other americans who do not have the privilege of the coverage we do, had is unsettling time, very unsettling time, mr. president. this country of ours, millions of our fellow citizens don't get to sleep with that sense of security and assurance that lord forbid something happens to their family and they will wake up with the inability to take care of the health care problem or, maybe at the same time, go through the physical crisi the s that destroys their future. of all the bankruptcies that occur in the united states, 62% of them occur because of a health care cruise in that -- he crisis in that family and of the

62%, 75% of those people have a health insurance program. they are not the uninsured. these are people with health insurance. so if you are out there today saying you have health insurance and you could not end up in financial ruin, the fact of the matter is the overwhelming majority of people who is gone into bankruptcy because of health care crisis have been covered with insurance. 50% of all foreclosures are occurring as a result of health care crisis in that family. today, mr. president, before the sunsets, in the united states of america, 14,000 of our fellow citizens will lose their health care coverage; 14,000 people today and every single day in america that many people lose their health care coverage. so while we sit here and say, we're just going too fast, slow down, slow down, that's easy for us to say because none of us have to ever worry about what most americans have to worry about. and that is, god forbid, they

have a health care crisis and end up being destroyed economically or sitting there with the anger and frustration that i can't provide for my child, i can't provide for my spouse, and they need the kind of medical care they deserve. this is the united states of america and we rank 37th in the world in medical outcomes and we spend more money than any other nation, way beyond any other country in the world on health care. we pay the most and we rank like a third world country for outcomes. i don't think most americans like to think of our country as being incapable of taking care of our nation in such a way. so it occurred to me that some people in this town seem to think that this process of health care is about them. did i get appropriately consulted or invited to enough meetings? did i get a headlines? what do the consultants think i should say? what are the right wores to uset

words to use or hear. let me ask my colleagues, is anyone here worried they will lose their health care insurance over the august break? is anyone here unable to afford the care they thing they may need for them or their families? is any member of this body or the other body that is staying up late at night recently with a sick child for whom they cannot afford treatment? has anyone i served here spending three hours bouncing from voice mail to voice mail to voice mail finding out why the insurance company refuses to pay for your spouse's cancer treatment? does any member of congress as they get through the august break in their states and districts, are they stuck in a job that pays too little because they have a preexisting condition and cannot get coverage anywhere else? has anyone here lost a home as

10,000 will today when they get a notice on foreclosure because of a medical bill the insurance company would not cover? does anyone in this chamber or anyone in the other chamber, a small business owner, had to choose between cutting coverage or putting your employees you car about who have been loyal to you and helped you sell your products, talk about laying them off because of the health care coverage? i suspect, no, mr. president. why are so many in washington asking about whether or not you are a blue dog or red dog or republican or conservative, moderate, a liberal, as if somehow that was the most important issue in the country, rather than the people out there who send us here to grapple with an issue they wrestle with every single hour of every day? and we're in danger of losing this once again, falling, as has

every other congress and every other administration for 70 years, because this was always about us and not about the people who sent us here asking us to try and come up with some answers that would relieve them of the fear and the frustration that confronts thep an confronts a result of our unwillingness to confront national health care reform. this is not bus. it is about the 47 million people who are uninsured, the 14,000 who lose their insurance and the millions who will lose it if we don't act. about the people who pay our salaries and our great health insurance companies as well, the people who sent us here to fight on their behalf, and will we pretend that this is about us when we treat health care reform like it's some kind of a game, a political contest, who's going to face their waterloo, who's

going to lose? who can defeat someone, put them into trouble, maybe they'll lose an election over this. if that becomes the game -- as it appears to be in the minds of some -- then you wonder why some people get so angry when they hear us talk about ourselves. you better believe thth if any of us had to go through some of the things that i suspect everyone of us have heard from our constituents, every one of us -- you can go to any state in our country at any hour and you can repeat some of these stories that i'll share with you this morning, as i've heard from my own state of connecticut. there wouldn't be anybody calling if you listened to some of these people. we mentioned 47 million and it sort of glazes over the eyes in a way. it seems to be sort of, is there anybody involved in these numbers? any stories in these? this legislation would be done

by now if we paid more attention to some of these individual stories. in 2005, mr. president, a young woman in connecticut canadian mari oovment was dyin diagnosedh nonhodgkin's lymphoma. the insurance company found out that maria had once gone to a doctor for what she thought was a pinched nerve o. the insurance company decided that the denied her claim. maria died from that illness. a young man in connecticut disclosed on his insurance application that he sometimes got headaches. several months after he got his policy, he went in for a routine eye exam. his eye doctor saw something he didn't like, sent frank to a neurologist who told him that he had multiple sclerosis. frank's insurance company decided that frank should have known that his occasional headaches were a sign of m.s. and they took away his coverage.

frank's doctor wrote them a letter saying there was no way anyone could have suspected that an ordinary headache was related to m.s. frank was stuck with a $30,000 medical bill he couldn't afford. frank's condition got worse, he left his job and went on public assistance. people like kevin galvin -- i have held a series of town hall meetings in my state, four our five of them over the last couple of months to invite people to come and share their stories about health care. the first one i held i held outside of hartford, connecticut, 8:30 on a monday morning. what in the world are we having a town hall meeting at 8:30 monday morning? 750 people showed up at that small community college on the banks of the connecticut river in hartford to come out and be

heard and listen and talk about what was going on in their lives. kevin has shown up at a lot of my hearings to talk about these issues. i met kevin at a number of these gatherings that we've held around the state. kevin owns a small business, mr. presiden in connecticut, a maintenance company. he employees 17 people in that firm of his, some older, some younger and can't afford insurance. his older employees use the emergency room as their home doctor. if one has a child with an infection, they'll spend all day in the e.r. waiting for them to get basic treatment, costing the employees a day's work and kevin a day's work from the employee. by the way, we can't afford any additional costs. think of this. if you have an insurance policy, on average, your family is paying $1,100 a year on your insurance policy to cover people like kevin's employees, the

uninsured. that's how much the average cost is per family. that's a tax on every insurance policy to pick up the cost of kevin's employees, the one who shows up in that emergency room. you don't get free medical care there. they're charging for it. how do they charge for it? the premium costs go up for everyone else, on average $1,100 per family in the united states. kevin has three employees in their 20's and 30's. they've never had a physical, dental, cleaning by a high jeanist. one is 28, was out of work for three weeks from a staph infection. kevin stepped in and paid that mans salary and also all of his medical bills. that's the kind of person that individual is even though he doesn't have the kind of business that allows him to pick up that insurance tab for all of his employees. but kevin stepped in to make a difference in that family, and i

know many do that. he is newt loan in that regard. that's awfully difficult to make a business work when you've got to turn around and pick up the lost wages or pick up the wages, rather, for someone not at work, not to mention their medical bills and expenses. another one of kevin's employees recently left for a job with health insurance, even though the new job gives him far few hours. it pays him one-third less than he got from kevin. another employee that's been with kevin for 24 years, relying on his wife's -- the employee's wife's job for their health insurance. she got laid off recently, mr. president. they'll be able to get cobra insurance for a short period of time. kevin's employee has a preexisting condition and his wife is a breast cancer survivor. you tell me whether or not you think they're going to get health care coverage. under press conditions being a breast cancer survivor and kevin's employee has his own

preexisting cfnlt don't need to be a ph.d. to know what's going to happen. under the present circumstances, if we do nothing around here, that guy and his wife get nothing. they'll be looking for any kind of help they can get. they, like many of our fell lee citizens, are looking to us, those of us gathered here. i don't know what kevin's politics are. i don't know whether he is a d-cialtioa"d," an "r." i think all he thinks about is he is trying to take care of his family. i don't think any american -- all they know is that we're sitting around here deciding we are going to drift off for a few more weeks or months because we can't seem to come together or we'll attack each other politically and here this country and problem grows by the hour. and because all of us don't have to worry about that. i say it respectfully, but

nonetheless it does impact the decision-making process. when you don't have an ounce of concern about your insurance and your ability to take care of yourself or your family, you lose some of that motivation. it seems to me that we ought to be having here when it comes to addressing these issues. so, mr. president, i am going to be talking about this every day, every day that we're in session, and every day until we get to the point of coming together and addressing this issue. it's what i tried to do for 60 hours replacing my dear friend, senator kennedy, in that committee. and i want to thank my 22 other colleagues who stayed there day after day to work on this. i particularly want to thank tom harkin of iowa, who spent hours working on the prevention side of this bill, doing everything he could to come up with ideas to encourage behaviors that reduce costs and improve the quality of health. barbara mikulski, who herself right now is going through her own medical issues, having broken her angle in four different places, i'm told, and is being treated but did a

magnificent job, is working on quality issues that are critically important. and jeff bingaman did the work on coverage issues as well, an important issue of how do we pay for this and come up with ideas that will reduce costs to make health coverage more affordable. and then of course there was patty murray as well who did a great job in working on workforce issues. i see my good friend, jack reed of rhode island who is on the floor, a member of our committee, and did a great job on a number of issues a. effecting the bill. and on down the line. kay hagan, jeff merkley, sheldon whitehouse, bob casey, shared brown of -- sherrod brown as well. i mentioned the ideas that they brought to our bill and made it a better bill. mike enzi, lamar alexander, john mccain, lisa murkowski, pat roberts, orrin hatch, many a going to miss somebody when you start that list.

but the idea is we came together and worked and we have a product now and we need one out of the finance committee. but we need to get on the business of working at this in my view. you cannot sustain the present situation, and the american people deserve a lot better. they need the same kind of security, in my view, that we provided for ourselves as members of the united states congress. i don't think the american people are going to accept the notion that they should have to live with the kind of fear and frustration that is associated with having the kind of health care system in our nation, knowing we could do better. and so, mr. president, i thank my colleagues for the work we've done already and urge us over this break, if we're not going to be back hear working, to listen to our constituents, here their voices and nen come back to the chamber in september with a determination to do what no other counsel and administration has been able to acheervetion approaching one century -- and that is to come up with a national health care plan for our nation. and i yield the floor.

mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to speak up to 30 minutes in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. first, let me begin by thanking and commending senator dodd, who really was the catalyst for the deliberations on health care in the "help" committee. his patience, his understanding, and his determination were probably the three critical factors that got this bill through the committee and to the floor, and he has made a singular contribution to the progress of this debate on health care, which he eloquently described as so central to every family in this country. and i know he's performing these duties with the notion that the real champion of health care, senator ted kennedy, is in the wings urging him on and helping him and guiding him. but senator kennedy's presence

was palpable, and i think our efforts today and in the days ahead will culminate, i hope -- as senator dodd does -- in legislation that can be signed by the president with senator kennedy there and senator dodd, and i can't think of two people who would deserve such a place of honor. thank you, senator, for your work. mr. president, we hear often from the opponents of health insurance reform that the vast majority of americans are happy with their insurance, and that's true. but it's only one side of the coin. americans are glad they have insurance, but they're worried they might lose it, and they are very worried that the cost of health insurance just keeps going up and up and up. and all americans understand -- and, frankly, unsettled -- when they see family members who don't have insurance, when they

see friend whose lose their insurance, when they see people who lose their jobs and their health insurance. they're not happy when they face piles of paperwork they have to do for private insurance companies. they're not happy about the runaround in terms of voice mail messages after voice mail messages, holding for mince and mince and mince and mince, many of the things that senator doddd has -- for minutes and minutes and minutes, many of the things that senator dodd has explained. and they're not particularly happy when they are either denied coverage or denied payment on a claim, when preexisting conditions are invoked, either du to deny a poy or deny a claim. so there are significant areas where we must improve health care for the nation. the opponents of health care are talking about a government takeover and bureaucrats, et cetera. but the reality today is -- and everyone knows it -- is that

there are americans who are uninsured, who are costing all of us more in insurance. there are americans who are being denied insurance, even though they can pay the premiums, because after preexisting condition. and all of that has to be addressed. today we face a choice between a broken status quo or a better and less expensive health insurance system, between being denied health insurance or a marketplace where competition and choices are vibrant, between one where health insurance will double in costs or one that will control costs. between a system where families lose coverage every year or a system that covers more of our relatives and neighbors. between a health insurance system that will keep adding and adding to the deficit or a system that helps reduce government costs over the long run. that's the choice facing the senate and the american people.

and in the face of a stark reality of a broken health care system or a status quo that is untenable, the "help" committee and the president made the right choice to fix it. and as i said, much of it was done as a result of the leadership of senator dodd. in contrast, the republicans have chosen by and large just simply to protect the existing health care system, the one that is denying care to millions of americans, the one that can't be sustained financially going forward by families or by government. and they'd rather talk about waterloo and a host of other hobgoblins than do the hard work of health reform that we must do. we succomb to fear as twa in 1993 -- as it was in 1993 and 1994 by proponents of reform and

the status quo or we can roll up our sleeves and work on health care reform. that is what is ongoing at this moment. senator baucus is reaching out as senator dodd reached out to try to develop a plan that cannot only pass this congress, but also benefit the american people in the long run. there are many specific elements in the "help" committee bill and the bill that chairman baucus will bring from the finance committee, but there were five key principles by which we were guided. one, we will pay for the cost of reforming the health insurance system. two, we'll start controlling costs today and in the future. three, we'll preserve and expand insurance choices for the american people. four, we'll cover as many americans as we can through commonsense steps that increase health security and stability for families. and, five, we will reward

efficiency and quality care. everything we do in health care reform should be guided by these principles. now let me take a moment to talk more about our health care system and how we got here. we saw, looking back many, many years at the turn of the 20th century, significant technology in medical advances, yielded super kwror treatments, more effective training of physicians, higher quality care. more americans demanded access to care. but for many, the cost was too expensive. the problem intensified during the great depression, and doctors were ill equipped. and because of the financial crisis, unprepared to help many who needed help. we have made progress. in the 1960's, this congress, our predecessor congress, adopted the medicare program and the medicaid program. we have seen investments in the

construction of hospitals under federal legislation. we have seen a system grow up somewhat unwittingly through the tax system to subsidize employer-based health care. all of this has led to the present situation. but constantly throughout those years, the presidents and congresses have recognized the need for comprehensive reform to make health care affordable and accessible for all americans and affordable for the nation as a whole. harry truman, jimmy carter, bill clinton, all endeavored to change the health care system. we are still at that great task, and this time we must succeed. we have seen in the past few years efforts to attempt to change the health care system. in 2003, under president bush's

urging, medicare part-d was passed. that was done without paying for it. it was done with deficit spending, and it was done supposedly with a $400 billion price tag that later turned into $1.2 trillion over ten years. that was an initiative supported by president bush and by the republicans. so we're in a situation now that's different. as i said, we're determined to pay for this. we're determined to make it work. and we're determined to make it over the long run contain the costs that are running out of control at this moment. now, we've also seen the need, because of the current economic crisis, to accelerate our reform efforts. in my state of around 12.4% of the population is unemployed. that is adding to the rolls of

those who are uninsured. they're losing their coverage if they're being dismissed from their work, or their employer is scrapping coverage just to save the company and keep some people working. we've seen in premiums, for those that still have access to coverage, just increase dramatically. in rhode island, family premiums have increased 97% since 2000. over 20% of middle-income rhode island families spend more than 10% of their income on health care. and we know that these numbers are going to get worse, not better, if we do nothing. they're going to get to the point where families cannot afford it, where state governments cannot afford it, where the federal government cannot afford it. and we have to recognize that, that standing pat, doing nothing, coming up with some of the old remedies -- get everyone

a tax credit that's less than the cost of an insurance policy, don't reform the insurance system by eliminating preexisting conditions, require insurance companies to give insurance to those people who are actually may be sick -- all of these things if we don't do are going to lead to a social and economic crisis of the first order. so, we must act, and we have acted. president obama is determined to make this effort succeed. i think he is entirely right about insisting on action now. i recall the debate in 1993 and 1994. and, frankly, we're much farther ahead than we were in 1993 and 1994, because we all talked about health care reform in 1993. this was a major issue in the election. by the time we got down to

passing legislation, it was really the summer of 1994, and we ran out of time. we can't run out of time now. the president's right to insist we keep moving as fast as we can until we reach the objective. now, the president said it very well wednesday evening. if somebody told you that there's a plan out there that is guaranteed to double your health care costs over the next ten years, that's guaranteed to result in more americans losing their health care, and that is by far the biggest contributor to our federal deficit, i think most people would be opposed to that. that's what we have right now. if we don't change, we can't expect a different result. if we don't change, we can't expect a different result. and so, we must move forward with health care reform. we must do it deliberately, and we must do it in a timely way. as one who sat on the "help"

committee under the leadership of chairman dodd -- chairman kennedy and acting chairman dodd, there was a great effort to work through these issues. we spent hours and hours and hours. we had 13 committee hearings. we had 14 bipartisan round table discussions. as we should, we spent hours -- 20 hours, i believe -- with our republican colleagues in an informal walk through the bill, getting their impression. we entertained hundreds of amendments, and major contributions were made, as senator dodd indicated, by our republican colleagues, along with my democratic colleagues. and then we passed this legislation. this work must continue with that same intensity, and i know senator baucus in the finance committee is doing that. and i hope that we return in september now fully engaged and ready to move on this issue.

i want to make a couple of points about the legislation that is emerging from both the "help" committee and i anticipate from the finance committee. first of all, we have included in our bill items -- and the finance committee will do the same -- that will ensure that this is fully paid for, unlike the medicare part-d proposal of the bush administration. c.b.o. has informed us in their hearing before the budget committee that they are not convinced that we are going to be able to dramatically reduce costs going forward. but i want to make a point about the c.b.o. projections. we're all bound by them. this is the yardstick we use. but they, by their rules, cannot consider some things that we feel will be instrumental in not only improving the health of americans, but bringing down the costs.

they can't and won't predict what's the effect of a healthy american, what's the effect of health care for children that treats adequately obesity rather than lets it spiral out of control. the trust for america's health, for example, found that by investing $10 per person, improving community-based programs to increase physical activity, improve nutrition, prevent smoking tobacco use would save the nation at least $16 billion annually within five years. out of the $16 billion in savings, it is estimated medicare could save more than $5 billion, medicaid save more than $1.9 billion and the private insurance companies could save more than $9 billion. those savings are not factored into the c.b.o.'s projections because they -- several reasons. one, they're hard to predict and they don't want to take that risk. but, second, they will only

record savings that accrue directly back to the federal government. the millions that are being saved by private insurance companies through prevention, that's a saving that they will enjoy, the country will enjoy, families will enjoy, but it will not be scored by c.b.o. we've also taken some significant steps to ensure that we crack down on fraud and abuse in the public and private insurance sectors. the national health care association estimates that 3% of all health spending each year -- more than $70 billion -- is lost to fraud perpetrated against public and private health plans. antifraud efforts in the medicare program have been demonstrated to return $17 for every $1 invested in these activities, and we've expanded these activities in this legislation. we also expect cost savings through the use of information technology. already the american recovery

and reinvestment act, we provide $19.2 billion to hospitals, doctors and clinics for this purpose. and according to rand corporation, we could save up to $77 billion each year in medical costs through health information technology. once again, this type of saving is not included in the c.b.o. calculation. but in addition to the savings that we anticipate, we're still going to pay for the costs that the c.b.o. calculated. the finance committee is committed to do that. and it should be noted significantly that president obama has already received commitments from health care industries to ensure the cost of payment can contribute to this plan. the american hospital association has pledged $155 billion of anticipated cost reductions. the drug companies have promised $80 billion. these costs, concessions or cost

range will not cover the whole cost, but that is where the finance committee will augment with their proposals. these groups, along with insurance companies and doctors, have also pledged to slow the rise in health care costs over the next ten years by 1.5%. this is much different than 1993 and 1994. the president has engaged not only the congress, but also the major stakeholders in the health care system. indeed, one of the things that i find remarkable is some people running around talking about this is a nationalization of health care. it is the socialization of health care. it is going to be government bureaucrats. well, if that is the case, why is the private insurance industry not only cooperating, but pledging to participate in cost reductions? they must feel that their security and safety financially and economically is not being jeopardized. so we are going to pay for this. we're also going to expand coverage in a way that not only

you can get it, but you can keep the coverage. and the same thing goes with respect to keeping your doctor. one of the guiding principles that the president announced initially was if you like your health care, you can keep it. and we have stayed true to that principle in terms of the construct that has emerged from the "help" committee. we've also tried to provide assistance to those people who need help to buy insurance so that it's affordable. they will have the choice. again, many of the proposals that my colleagues on the other side have made throughout the years, tax credits or some kind of arrangements to the tax code is nice, but if it's not sufficient to pay the premium, then it is ineffectual. we are going to make sure not only you have the choice, but you also can afford that chase. -- that choice. so we have listened to a whole

range of proposals. we have listened to those who are proponents of the single-payer system and those who stress a strong community option. we have clearly staked our reform on a competitive market that will have a public option to spur competition, but will not in any way displace the primacy of private health care insurance. now, we are moving forward with this legislation. we have created a system of gateways where citizens can come, select a choice of private insurance or of community option, of public -- a publicly-organized option. and we also insisted upon insurance reform. so that preexisting conditions, limits on policy payments, all of those things would be a thing

of the past. we believe that the -- this legislation will provide greater stability for americans. not only financial, but that peace of mind. the notion that when i go to the doctor, i won't have to worry, well, will they accept this claim? when i go to the doctor and i make the claim, will i then be told that what happened to me 20 years ago was a preexisting cap-and-trade therefore they're not pay -- a preexisting condition and therefore they're not paying. the peace of mind if i have employer-based health care and lose it, i will be able to go into the gateway and if i need assistance, will be able to purchase health care for my family. these, i think are important aspects of this legislation. as important as some of the financial aspects. and we also want to make sure that we increase the efficiency, the efficacy of the health care

system. and we have adopted quality measures. we have learned from experience that we can make changes. some that are very simple that will increase the efficiency, the effectiveness and the beneficial outcomes of health care. one simple approach is a checklist of safety measures in an i.c.u. it's been adopted in my state of rhode island, and studies have found that it cuts infection rates by 66% in three months and saved about $75 million and 1,500 lives. those types of innovations. those types of reforms are designed now to be disbursed throughout the system. we also have to prevent preadmission to hospital and we adopted for clearly planning for

the discharge of a patient. we are building up the workforce, which is necessary. we've emphasize significantly the issue of wellness and prevention. our bill will provide coverage for all recommended preventive services, remove barriers to access to co-payments or deductibles and encourage employers to offer wellness programs. as it's been said before, you know, we want to transform this system not only organizationally and financially, but we want to transform it from treating sick necessary to promoting wellness in this -- sickness to promoting wellness and this legislation will go a long way to doing that and it will also affect the cost for all of us. we have, i think, also recognized that everyone has to be part of this effort. if we were to require insurers

to take everyone, but not require everyone to purchase insurance, we would have the classic problem where the healthy would be the free riders who would not buy insurance, the sickest would need insurance and would buy it and the system wouldn't work. so our legislation requires the responsibility of every american to participate. we will help those who are of modest income to meet this obligation. we also are still working through many significant issues. you know, i -- i think the time that we now have will be used wise and well. there are many, many different aspects of this legislation that we recognize can be improved and we hope it will be by the finance committee deliberations and by our floor deliberations. my colleagues are proposing ideas, for example, senator rockefeller has suggested that

we use the procedure for the medicare patient advisory commission. these are experts on health care to provide not simply recommendations but binding policies subject to a vote by congress on the types of treatments that would be offered, the medical issues that have to be addressed. this would give us, i think, an interesting way to deal with the issue of effectiveness of treatment as well as cost of treatment. and this is something i think we muss consider as we go forward, again, dealing with this issue of cost which is so central. i raised this issue with the chairman of the federal reserve, and he he was in -- and he was in his way certainly recognized the need for reform. but he also stressed that that

reform from an economic standpoint has to emphasize cost containment, cost controls, and this idea senator rockefeller proposed is something that has to be seriously looked at. others have proposed ways to fire the system in addition to the session that's the president has received from the major industry players, the hospitals, the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry. we have to pursue all of those. we have reached a point now that we need -- we need reform. we can't afford to wait. this is the second time in my relatively brief career in the congress that we have faced the issue of national health care reform. in 1993 and 1994 we fawltd. it's got -- faulted. it's gotten worse since then, not better. and it will get much worse if we

don't succeed this time. now, i would encourage all of my colleagues to work together. what i sense is that americans want, need, and deserve access to comprehensive, affordable, quality, efficient health care. that's what my constituents are asking for. we have a plan for overall reform and also to bring down spending. the current path is unsustainable. and those who advocate less cost by better health insurance have an obligation to offer something more than a tax credit proposal here or there or, you know, make it a private responsibility. we need a real plan. we cannot afford another missed opportunity. and i would urge all of my colleagues to come together on this most vital of issue and pass health care reform this year.

and i would yield the floor. mr. bond: mr. president? the presiding officer: senator from missouri. mr. bond: i come to the floor toinintroduce a resolution with senator inouye to talk about indonesia. this past week secretary of state clinton, our former colleague, journeyed to meeting of the southeast asian nations in thailand and increased american involvement an support for the region. i applaud her. she is on the right track. many americans are not aware of the fact, but indonesia is the third largest democracy in the world after india and the united states. earlier -- early this month i came to the senate floor to

recognize and celebrate yet another democratic milestone in indonesia, the reelection of the president, known for obvious reasons as s.b.y. his victory will quicken the pace of democratic reform that has been keeping indonesia in the right direction. s.b.y.'s first tenure as president was a success, and his running mate has raised expectations of accelerated reform in a second term of office. he was campaigned on a campaign of clean governance and reform to promote economic growth. in addition to the democratic politics, indonesians religious leanings trend positive. by and large indonesians reject violent brands of islam. the nays was founded on the principles of what is known as a respect for religious and

cultural diversity and the desire to create a pluralistic society. as a country with the largest muslim population in the world, indonesians are proud to showcase that islam and democracy are compatible and can work together. despite the peaceful-loving nation of indonesia, there are groups still seeking to spread islamist terror and their extremist i'dologies -- ideologies across indonesia and southeast asia often resulting in death. the world was shocked over the recent terrorist violence just this past week. early in the morning on july 17, suicide bombers attacked two hotels in jakarta, killing innocent people and injuring scores more. this should be a wakeup call.

the twin suicide attacks in jakarta last friday underscore the perils of our nation continuing to ignore this nation and this region. the dangers of continuing down our current path are very real. by overlooking this region, southeast asia could become a breeding ground of terrorist activity for generations, for future americans to deal. with -- deal with. if left ignored southeast asia and indonesia will be the next front on the war on terror. mr. president, it doesn't have to be this way. it's critical that the united states act now before violent extremists gain traction in their quest to spread their fundamentalist ideologies, enforced by violent terrorist acts across indonesia and other countries in southeast asia this effort requires, first, that the united states do more than give lip service to southeast asian countries about our strong partnership.

yes, counterterrorism cooperation is very important. but for many nations in southeast asia, they see this partnership as once again the united states only asking for self help, coming when we see a danger to our country, but not coming to find out what their needs and what their desires are. if we want nations in southeast asia to be strong partners of the war on terror, we must be willing to extend the hand of friendship in other ways. assuring that they are strong, stable democracies with economic strength and good jobs and progress for their people. the first thing that we must do is increase trade among our nations. southeast asia, including nations like indonesia, thailand, singapore, malaysia, philippines and many smaller countries represents our fifth largest trading partner. while this will help create

economic opportunities to export to them, it will help many poverty stricken people in southeast asia as we buy from them, as we invest there, as we create businesses that will generate small and medium enterprises to fill the needs of those businesses and create locally owned and controlled entrepreneurships that can benefit their country in many ways. people who are hungry, without a job or maybe even a roof over their head are particularly vulnerable to i'dologies that promise a better way of life whether or not those ideologies deliver. the united states must realize it before a person can choose his politics, he has to have enough to eat and a stable, secure community in which to live. that's the simple truth behind smart power, a term i use to describe the combination of military might where necessary with diplomatic efforts, educio