quorum call:

the presiding officer: are there yenats wiing to vote or wishing to change their vote? hearing none, the yeas are 26, the nays are 70. the amendment is not agreed to. the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask permission to speak as if in morning business for 20 minutes. thpresidinofficer: without objection. mr. grassley: there's finally some sunshine on capitol dome, and it's a welcomed change from all the snow that we've this winter, so it's appropriate that this is sunshine week. but that's not a reference to the weather. sunshine week is a nonpartisan, open government initiative led

by the american society of news editors. it's a good time, then, to talk about congressional oversight and the need for congress to keep a watchful eye on the executive branch. that's what oversight is all about, checks and balances in government. i'd like to refer to the president's inaugural address and use it as a benchmark for measuring sunshine in government. president obama promised in the inaugural address to bring more sunshine to the federal government. and i want to quote him -- "those of us who manage the public's dollar will be held to account to spend wisely, reform bad habits and do our business in light of day. because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government."

so let's just see how what's taking place in the last 15 months measures against this very good standard that the president set in the inaugural address. i couldn't agree more with the president on what he said. the government should do its business in the light of day. unfortunately in my work, i have noticed no improvement in the openness of the federal government. one vital step that the president could have taken to ensure greater transparency would be to order agencies to be more forthcoming in responding to requests from congress. not just from this senator, but from any senator. he could have instructed them to review and revise some of the secretive policies that have developed over these many -- these years. these policies are not required

by law and simply serve to frustrate the ability of congress to gather information that we need in order to act as a check on the power and responsibilities of the executive branch. however, the president has apparently not taken that step because the agencies have been as aggressive as ever in withholding information from congress. throughout my career here in the senate, i have actively conducted oversight at the executive branch regardless of who controls congress or the white house. so that means for me, as a republican, i feel i have been just as aggressive, or more so, with the republican president as with a democrat president. because it is our constitutional duty as legislators to do this.

these issues are typically about basic good government and accountability. they are not about party politics and they surely aren't about ideology. the resistance is often fierce. resistance from the bureaucracy, that is. protecting itself in what the bureaucracy does best. it loves to protect itself from scrutiny. and it works overtime to keep embarrassing facts from congress and in turn from public scrutiny. when the agencies i'm reviewing get defensive and refuse to respond to my requests, you know what? it makes me just simply wonder what they're trying to hide. they act like documents in government files belong to them. these unelected officials seem to think that they alone have

the right to decide who gets access to that information collected by the -- collected, by the way, at taxpayers' expense. well, i have news for them. these documents in the government files belong to the people and the elected representatives of the people have a right to see them. that right is essential to carry out our oversight functions under the constitution. now, i had hoped that president obama's commitment to a more open government would mean major changes that would enable more effective congressional oversight. as he said in his inaugural address, those who manage public dollars ought to be held to account and do business in the light of day. but, you know, actions always speak louder than words.

given my experience in trying to pry information out of the executive branch, i'm disappointed to report that the principles that the president articulated so well are not being put into practice. the administration seems to act as if government officials ought to be held to account and do business in the light of day except when they don't want to. and there are too many exceptions to count. and i'm going to list a few. let's contrast the president's words with the agency's actions. the president's words say that government should do business in the light of day. the agency's actions say except when it comes to improper payment of medicare. as a part of my oversight function of medicare, congress reviews annual reports that the administration is required to produce. one of these reports is on

improper medicare payments. that was due last november. now congress is still waiting to see the numbers for improper payments made to specific types of health care providers and for specific services. improper payment rates vary widely among different types of providers, and, of course, services. so this information would help us to determine where to focus our efforts. we have not received such breakdowns of improper payments since the year 2007. we need these numbers to evaluate how the federal government is addressing fraud, waste, and abuse and to inform our discussions on legislation about health care financing. let's go to another example because i want to repeat the

president's words. government should do business in the light of day. their actions say, except when it comes to potential medicaid fraud. overutilization of health services and health care fraud play a significant role in the rising costs of our health care system. i wrote to the department of health and human services and the centers for medicare and medicaid services three months ago about what they're doing about overutilization of health care services, and i specifically asked about a medicaid prescribeer in south florida who -- now hear this -- who wrote over 96,000 prescriptions for mental health drugs, nearly twice the number written by the second-highest prescriber. just a simple question about one medicaid prescriber, and i'm

still waiting for a response. his words would say, on another example, government should do business in the light of day. the actions of the administration say, except when it comes to protecting the privacy of an al qaeda terrorist. now listen to this: in preparation for a hearing on christmas day bombing attempts, my republican colleagues and i on the judiciary committee requested a copy of something very simple, a copy of the bomber's visa application. we wanted to learn more about why he was given permission to enter the united states in the first place and why his visa wasn't revoked after his father warned the u.s. officials that he might be planning something. the state department first tried to withhold the document on grounds that it might be

evidence in a criminal proceeding. but after the justice department said that that was not an issue, you know what? the state department comes along and tries to not cooperate. the state department changes position and claimed that a provision in the immigration law required them to protect the al qaeda -l terrorist's privacy by withholding documents about how he was given permission to enter the country. so after going through all that, all i can say is transparency on a little seufrp visa application -- on a little seufrp -- on a little simple visa application and it can't be given to us? on another example, the president says government should do business in the light of day. their actions say except when it comes to information about how treasury officials allowed a.i.g. executives to make off

with millions of taxpayer dollars. since last december, i've exchanged a series of letters with treasury secretary geithner and his staff. i have some detailed questions about exactly which executives received which kind of payments under which contracts and then why the treasury department didn't do more to stop those payments. and i even addressed the issue directly with secretary geithner at a finance committee hearing. he promised that i would get the information i was seeking. yet, treasury department lawyers are still withholding the documents on the grounds that they have to protect the privacy of a.i.g. executives. so, is government doing its business in the light of day? no, they're still refusing to

answer questions about why treasury regulators allowed a.i.g. to make large severance payments even though the statute provided the authority to stop those payments. on another example, and to repeat the president's words, government should do business in the light of day, now what do the actions show? except when it comes to allegations of misconduct in the department of justice. when attorney general eric holder and i met during his confirmation process, i provided him with a binder that thick full of unanswered letters that i'd written regarding the f.b.i. and just department oversight issues in the bush administration. so i was trying to give the attorney general an opportunity to clear the deck so somehow it wasn't mixed up with the new administration. and i had promises of renewed

efforts to accommodate my information requests. the department has not altered its policies of withholding documents relating to personnel matters and any other matter that might be the subject of internal review in the justice department. for years i've been seeking internal justice department e-mails related to the f.b.i.'s use of so-called exigent letters to gather telephone records of americans without a subpoena. and even when there is no legitimate emergency. at first the excuse was that the congress had to wait for the inspector general to finish a review. but that review is complete at long last, and yet the documents that were supposed to be provided are still being withheld. congress is not the only one that the executive branch is withholding information from. i asked the government

accountability office in september about its difficulties in obtaining access to records and other information from the federal agencies over the last year. and as an investigative arm of congress, the government accountability office investigates how the federal government spends taxpayers' dollars. and in order to do that work, the g.a.o. requires access to agency documents. so what has been the record of the government accountability office? they have told me that it generally receives good cooperation, but it has and continues to have access issues at certain agencies such as the department of homeland security. according to the government accountability office, homeland security has -- quote -- "posed continual access challenge for

g.a.o. since the department began operations in 2003." end of quote. government accountability office also indicated that access to information at the justice department and the f.b.i. is also particularly problematic. despite a bipartisan request. now get this, a bipartisan request from both the house and senate judiciary committee to audit the f.b.i.'s human capital management of its counterterrorism division, the government accountability office has been stonewalled by the justice department with new and unprecedented claims that the f.b.i.'s intelligence-related functions are off limits for g.a.o. review. now, understand this, this is the top republican, top democrat

on the house judiciary committee and counterparts on the senate judiciary committee. so it's bipartisan, it's bicameral, and even the government accountability office has trouble getting the information. the public has also been stonewalled when making requests for records under the freedom of information act. when he first took office, president obama issued a memo on the freedom of information act to the heads of executive agencies. and listen as i quote -- who's going to agree with this -- the president is doing what a president that campaigned on openness and transparency in government and accountability is doing what he said he was going to do in the campaign. you know, having it come out the other end of the pipeline doesn't seem to work that way.

quote -- "the government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because evidence of failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears." end of quote. and so then he goes on to instruct the executive agencies to -- quote -- "adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in the freedom of information act and to usher in a new era of open government." end of quote. i compliment the president of the united states. such a good statement. and just what government ought to be standing for, because the public's business ought to be public. well, the president may have issued a pledge of openness and

transparent government, but this week we had the national security archive release findings of its freedom of information act audit and found that the administration -- quote -- "has not conquered the challenge of communicating and enforcing that message throughout the executive branch." end of quote. in particularly, the organization found that requests as old as 18 years still exist in the freedom of information file system. you know, somebody asked for a request 18 years ago, and it hasn't been granted. probably the guy that asked for it or whoever asked for it may be dead and buried now. but why can't something like that be done? it just doesn't meet the

commonsense test that we're interested in here bringing to washington. washington, an island surrounded by reality. and only in the unreal world could there be a freedom of information request 18 years old that hasn't been granted yet. this organization also found that five agencies appear to be releasing less and withholding more information, even since this president's executive order has been in place. how can people thumb their nose at the president of the united states if they're working under his direction? the white house has said it's committed to more open and transparent government. in his memo to the heads of the executive agencies, the president said that -- quote -- "openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in government,

and that transparency promotes accountability." again, extreme compliment to the president of the united states for setting a standard. that is absolutely in the spirit of representative government. but somehow the message has clearly not gotten through. so it, comes back to us in our constitutional responsibility of checks and balances. it's our job in congress to ensure that agencies are more transparent and responsive to the people we represent. congress is not doing its job if we don't hold agencies accountable and ensure that executive policies reflect the interests of our constituents. in other words, the public's business ought to be public. i will continue doing what i can

to hold feet to the fire. it would be helpful if the president would use his authority to require agencies to change their actions to be consistent with his words. so, you know, i don't get a chance to compliment this president very much, but he surely has set the standard here that we ought to have in our government. and it just proves that if he really wants it to happen, that even if you're president of the united states, it's difficult to get people down in the bowels of the bureaucracy to carry out what you want. and you wonder why people in this country are cynical? that's one reason. but the president can do it. he ought to call all of these birds in that are frustrating that's principles and look them in the eye and either tell them,

do what i want or get out of government. i yield the floor. mr. lemieux: madam president, i ask to peek in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lemieux: i come to the floor again today to speak on the health bill that's being worked over in the house and that will potentially be voted on we're told this weekend and to talk about the myths around this bill, what's being told to the american people, and what the facts are, so that the american people can really know what this congress is trying to get them into. and this past week i came to the floor and spoke about ten myths

about this health care bill. i don't want to go through in detail all of those myths here today, but we have some new information about a couple of them that i want to focus on. to go over the list of those myths, myth one was you get to keep your health insurance if you like what you have now. the president has been saying this all around the country. we know that that's not true because according to the congressional budget office, between 9 million and 17 million people are going to lose their health insurance from their employer when their employer is going to drop that insurance and make their employees go into the new public system. so you're not going to get to keep t we know that folks on medicare advantage are not necessarily going to get to keep their medicare advantage because we're going to cut medicare advantage by $120 billion. the more than one million people in florida who have medicare advantage, medicare part-c, which offers them eyesight

benefits, hearing benefits, programs they like, we know that they're nolt going to get to keep that in the way they like it now. we know that health insurance premiums are not going to go down. that's myth number two. the very reason why this country wanted health care reform, the number-one reason -- to lower the cost of health insurance. we know that health insurance has gone up more than 130% in the last ten years, yet this bill does little or nothing to lower the cost of health insurance for the 159 million americans who have health insurance. some may see their rates go down 3%. that's the best it gets. while those in the individual market may see their rates go up 10% to 12% in the next ten years. we're supposed to be about the business of health care reform, and we're not going to lower the cost of health insurance. we talked about whether or not

this would just lower the overall cost of health care itself. that was the third myth that we discussed. but we know that federal outlays for health care are going to increase by more than $2 billion i-- by more than $200 billion in the next ten years. this idea that the health care plan is going to reduce the deficit -- that's just funny math. we know that this bill has six years of spending -- six years of benefits, if you will -- and ten years of taxes. only in washington could someone try to say you were going to spend $1 trillion and save $100 billion. and we know it doesn't even take into account, madam president, the fact that we've got to give doctors more money in the medicare system. the democrats put that in a separate bill so that we don't score that $300 billion cost, because if you did, there would be no deficit reduction. we also know that emergency rooms are not going to be less

burdened. if we look at the example of massachusetts that instituted health care reform, they're seeing just as many people crowd their emergency rooms because the folks there tell them it's more convenient than to wait in line to see their doctor. see, when you push more people into the system and don't provide adequate funding for more health care providers, you don't change and make the system more user friendly. so the folks still show up at the emergency room. another myth we busted is that this plan takes on the insurance companies, when in fact it's going to put millions of more people into an insurance program. that's why the insurance companies like it. we also busted the myth that this health care reform is going to improve the doctor-patient relationship. it's not. there's still going to be a third-party payer. we still fundamentally miss the opportunity of getting you, the patient, back involved in the consumer decision.

if we would have taken a page from when we proposed on our side of the aisle and given you a tax credit to let you go in the market and buy insurance yourself, we know that that would have driven cost down because you would have been a consumer. right now my wife and i, we're about to have our fourth child now any day now, and i remember getting these bills from the hospital on our previous base be when they were born. like most folks, you don't read t you just look at the bottom and see what you owe. you don't look at the line by line and you have to hire someone to help make sense of it. we have to put consumers back in the health care game. we've got to know what they are we're buying -- we've got to know what we're buying and what we're paying for because we know as consumers we'll make good decisions. we do it in the car insurance market. and, guess what? the companies that compete nationally, unlike health care companies that compete only within certain states, they're advertisings tadvertising to us.

so easy, a cave man can do it. if you have 15 minutes, you can save on your car insurance. the market doesn't work in health care and this legislation does nothing to fix it. and we know that eventually under this program the taxes will go up, not down. because every government program that we put together -- certainly entitlement programs -- they always cost more than we think and they always cost our children and our grandchildren more as we have this ever-increasing national debt. now $12 trillion, a debt that our kids are going to have to pay and our grandchildren, a debt that could make this country not the same place of opportunity that we all have experienced and we all enjoy. but i want to specifically talk about a couple of the myths that there's been some recent information about. one thing that i talked about earlier this week is this idea

about premiums, and the president of the united states this week when he was campaigning said that health care overall, lower premiums will be achieved by this legislation and that those premiums will go down double digits. and the fact is, that's not true. as we talked about before, the fact is, the best it is -- airchedz put thiand iput this ce congressional budget office into the record this week -- the best it is is 3% down. madam president, i'd like to to ask unanimous consent that this article from the associated press called "fact check: premiums would rise under obama plan" by mr. ricardo alonzo zardevoe be entered into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lemieux: the president of the united states campaigning this week says that -- and i am

going to croa quote him -- you'e able to buy him or a small business will be able to tbhie this pool. its a a stimentsed up to 14% to 20% over what you're currently gelgt. that's money out of pocket." and then he said, "your imloirks it's estimated, would see premiums fall as much as 3,000%, which means they could give you a raise." now, they later corrected the record to mean $3,000. "your premiums could fall $3,000." well, with all due respect, there is no evidence of this. an analysis of this bill. and that's what the associated press says in their fact check. in fact, for those in the individual marketplace -- and this isn't the senator from florida speaking; this is the congressional budget office -- increases of up to 10% to 13%, and for everybody else, either it stays the same, goes up a little, or maybe goes down 3%.

and that's if they got it right. so, it's important to bust this myth. your insurance is not going down under this plan. if you thought that we were going to enact health care reform and you were going to have a lower cost of health insurance, you, unfortunately, like many millions of americans, were given the wrong impression, because this bill does nothing of the sort. now, let me talk a minute, if i may, madam president, about what this is going to mean and what is sort of the future of health care. the system doesn't work now because we as consumers are not involved in the equation. i can't think of anything else in our life where we have so little knowledge of what we're buying. we have so little knowledge of what the cost s d is. do we really know what the cost of these procedures are that we

undertake, if we have to get an m.r.i., a c.a.t. scan, or a extent put istint put in our he? no. the process has become so complex. either your insurance company pays that we as consumers don't pavement and because of that, we've broken what we know works in the marketplace. we want to control costs. you have to put the consumer back in the drive seat. that's why our proposal to give consumers who can't afford health insurance now a tax credit to let them go in the marketplace and to shop around and to get involved in their health care decisions, we know that that would lower costs. this plan isn't going to lower costs. nrvetion it's going to raise costs. let me tell you where we're going with this new government plan. and i'll an optimist about this

country. so i hate to haw talk about something that's pessimistic but it's my responsibility to tell you the facts. we've got three major health care programs in this country -- veterans, medicare, and medicaid. medicare is health for seniors, medicaid is health care for the poor. i want to talk about the latter two. we are not -- those as man syste not working and they're increasingly not working for more and more americans. and the reason why is they're not properly funded, and there's no way to control costs. so what are we finding? we're finding that doctors are not taking medicare and medicaid anymore. and if you want to know what the future of medicaid is, which is health care for seniors, just take a look at medicaid. which is in worse shape than medicare. both of these rams are huge entitlement programs that under their current form we can't afford. we know that there's going to be this huge debt that our children

are going to have to pay. meamaybe in the next few years. but right now today the present problem -- and madam president, i'd ask that i could enter in article in the record as well. it's from yevmentd it's march 17, 2010, the seattle times, an article by janet tew entitled "walgreens: no new medicaid patients aves april 17." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lemieux: so here we are a national pharmacy in seattle not going to take medicaid anymore. why aren't they going to take medicaid? they're not going to take medicaid because the federal government isn't reimbursing enough for them to make any money. now, medicaid is a federal-state match. but more and more, we're seeing that health care providers won't take medicaid. we know that in major metropolitan areas, if you are a

new medicaid patient and you're looking for a specialist, that 50% of the doctors won't see you. there's another article here that came out this week from "the new york times," march 15, 2010, it's an article by kevin sach, "with medicaid cuts, doctors and patients drop out." i'd also ask unanimous consent that this be put in the record. the presiding officer: roux without objection. mr. lemieux: it is a story from flint, michigan. a lady by the name of carol vliet, about her cancer. she has tumors metastasizing to her brain, liver, kidney and throat. the president of the united states and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to give individual examples about people who are suffering without health insurance. sheer a lady who has medicaid, a government-run program. the 0 only solace that she says she has is she found a doctor

she likes, dr. sahouri, because he's given her a regimen of chemo and radiation for the past years and it's given her some relief. she was devastated when she found out from her doctor a couple of months ago that he could no longer see her because, like a growing number of doctors, he had stopped take patients with medicaid. and it's not just medicaid. it's also now medicare. we know that if you are trying to get into medicare, only about 78% of the providers are taking medicare. so here we are, we're about to create a huge new government entitle program -- entitlement program to put 31 million more americans into a health care system funded by the government, and the programs that we have now, doctors and health care providers are dropping the patients. these programs are broken, and we're going to create a new one,

and we're still -- we're going to create a new one by taking money out of medicare. a program right now where the health care providers are increasingly more and more not seeing patients. we're going to take more than than $500 billion out of medicare. in fact, we have found out from this new bill that came out from the house today that the number has gone up, that it's now more than $500 billion that's going to be taken out of medicare. we're going to take money out of a program already having problems to start a new program. it makes no sense. madam president, this is why the american people are extremely upset with this health care proposal. there isn't a senator in this body who doesn't want health care reform. there isn't a member of congress in washington today who doesn't want to provide more access and

lower the cost of health care insurance for those who have it. but this plan does nothing to lower the cost of health insurance, and it's creating a huge new entitlement program by robbing peter to pay paul, and we are going to jeopardize health care for seniors and turn medicare into medicaid, a program where pharmacies and doctors are dropping patients. now, madam president, i am new to the united states senate. my experience is in state government and in business. there are men and women of goodwill in this body. i believe that if we could get together and work in a good faith fashion could figure out how to do this in a step-by-step approach to lower costs and increase access without breaking the bank and putting a huge burden on our children in a world where we already have a a $12 trillion debt.

i believe it. but the people of this chamber and the one down the hall have got to get about the business of doing the people's work and remember that they are the boss and that we work for them and the time for partisanship is over. the time for getting things done and being problem solvers is here. madam president, i am one senator and i know there are many that's willing to work with anyone on the other side of the aisle on any of these important issues facing our country that's willing to work with me. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. burris: thank you, madam esiden i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burris: thank you, madam president. i would like also unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burris: thank you, madam president. in washington, there is a great deal to talk about what health care reform will mean for various segments of the population. in particular, many of us spend our time talking about 47 million americans who do not currently have health insurance and how they stand to benefit from our reform bill. this debate has centered on these folks, especially the 31 million people who will gain access to coverage under our proposal. madam president, in my opinion, this alone should be reason enough to pass health care reform. expanding access to coverage will provide -- it will improve relative health outcomes and save money across the board. it will shift our focus from

sick care to preventative care and will reduce wait time in our emergency rooms. this will have a profound effect on the lives of millions, madam president, and speaks to the need for comprehensive health care reform. but that's only a part of the story. many of my friends in this chamber, many people across the country recognize the need to expand health coverage. but they are also worried about the effects that health reform will have on their insurance. middle-class americans hear all this talk about helping people with no insurance at all, and they say well, that's great, but i need help, too. my premiums are going up, benefits are disappearing. i'm worried that i don't have stable coverage or that i won't have access to care when i need it. how will reform help me? madam president, i think it's time to take a deeper look at these folk. it's time to provide some

answers to their questions. it's time to explain how our proposal would affect their lives. so i'd like to talk about what our reform bill will mean for the middle class and especially the minority community that have left the -- that have felt the worst effect of our economic crisis. as i address this chamber today, there are 88 million people in this country who lack stable health coverage. that's almost a third of the total population who live in fear that their coverage would vanish at any time. unfortunately, those fears reflect a harsh reality that is impossible for middle-class families to ignore. in illinois alone, there are some 612,000 people who have none group insurance. these folk will see their premiums go up by as much as 60% just this year. as i'm sure my colleagues can all agree, that is outrageous, but it doesn't have to be this way, madam president.

if we pass a final health care bill and send it to president obama, middle-class america will start to see the benefits almost immediately. our legislation would bring unprecedented stability to the market. no one would have to fear that their insurance providers would drop their coverage. no one could be denied care because of a pre-existing condition. our bill would give the american people more power and more choices. it will bring real competition to the insurance market. it will create significant cost savings, and it will restore accountability in the insurance industry. for the average american, this means saving hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year. it means more time with family doctors and less paperwork and red tape. it means free preventative care and discounted premiums for those who stay in shape, quit smoking and control their weight, and it means no one can be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition and no one can be forced to pay higher premiums because they get sick. if we pass a final health care

bill, 1.8 million people in illinois would be able to get coverage for the very first time, and the 612,000 people in the nongroup market would have the option to buy affordable coverage on the insurance exchange. this will reduce their premiums and improve the quality of their coverage almost overnight, madam president, but it doesn't stop here, madam president. for one million additional illinoisans would qualify for tax credits that can make it easier to afford insurance. perhaps most importantly, 144,000 small businesses would benefit from a tax credit designed to make coverage more affordable. this strikes at the heart of the debate we have been having in recent weeks, especially as it relates to the middle class. my friends across the aisle are trying to stop us from passing health care reform. they want us to focus on job creation instead, but what they fail to realize is that these two problems go hand in hand. we can't solve one problem without addressing the other.

if we make health insurance more affordable, american companies and especially small businesses will be able to hire more workers. they will be able to afford full coverage for their employees. there will be no longer any incentives to lay off all their workers to save on premiums. this will make a profound difference in the lives of ordinary folk. back in my home state and across the country. about 75% of illinois businesses are small businesses. under the current system, only 41% of them have been able to offer health benefits. but if we pass comprehensive reform, we will extend a tax credit to 144,000 illinois small businesses and millions of businesses nationwide. it will red -- reduce the burden of families nationwide, and even help the economy to start to expand again. and it will create jobs, madam president. that's what our health care reform bill will mean to middle-class americans: security, stability, better

coverage. freedom to shop around and find a better price. accountability in the market. that's what it will do for millions of ordinary folk across the country. and for minority communities, these effects will be even more profound. in illinois, nearly 29% of the minorities do not have health insurance compared with 20% of the whites. this places them with more problems down the road and increases in chronic diseases later in life. combine this with higher poverty rates and you have a recipe for disaster. but our bill will help to change that. it will change that. it invests in preventive care and helps spur job creation. it will have a dramatic effect on the hard-hitting -- hard-hit communities and minority areas that need the help the most. so madam president, on behalf of the middle-class american and minority individuals and small businesses, on behalf of millions of ordinary folk in illinois and across the country, i call upon my colleagues to pass this bill without further delay. our reform proposals will ensure that everyone is part of the

solution to the american health care crisis. so let us seize this opportunity. let us move forward together. let us extend the benefits of health reform to the middle class and in their way, madam president, america can move forward in this 21st century. and i yield the floor, madam president. thank you. mr. franken: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business and to be followed by senators casey and kaufman. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. frank h franken: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise today to speak about arms control and the president's negotiations with russia over a replacement to the strategic arms reduction treaty, or start. this new treaty will be an important enhancement to american national security and i look forward to considering it on the floor once it's been signed. as you may recall, the original

start treaty was ratified by the senate in 1992 by a bipartisan vote of 93-6 it went into force in late 1994 with a predetermined life of 15 years. causing it to expire this past december. soon after taking office, the obama administration began careful and diligent work to negotiate a successor treaty with russia. as start was expiring in early december, president obama and memedveded, issued a joint statement making clear that our two countries would effectively abide by the expiring treaty until the new one comes into force. i think we can all agree that the original start was a landmark achievement.

it brought about historic reductions in nuclear weapons. its verification measures and the communication between the u.s. and russia that they fostered served to build confidence between the two countries at an uncertain moment. it helped our nations to move towards a post-cold war mentality providing a strategic stability between the world's two greatest nuclear powers. i'm confident that the stusser to start will be equally -- i'm confident that the successor to start will be equally as important. the world has changed and this will be a new treaty for a new world with a new set of nuclear challenges. but the bottom line for the new treaty remains the same as it was for the original start. the treaty must and it will advance our national security interests. when the new treaty is signed

and presented to the senate, there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss and to debate in detail the specific numerical limitations on strategic offensive arms. president obama and president medvedev determined these would be in the range of 500 to 1,100 for strategic delivery vehicles and in the range of 1,500 to 1,675 for their associated warheads. likewise, we will carefully examine the account rules for those limitations, the monitoring - and the measures fr implementing the agreement and all its other provisions. i look forward to discussing all these specific matters when the senate fulfills our responsibility to offer our advice and, as appropriate, our consent. but the koreans why this treaty will make us safer are already

clear. the verifiable reduction of nuclear weapons by the u.s. and russia will provide us with strategic stability and mutual confidence. in other words, it ensures transparency and predictability between the two countries that possess 95% of the world's nuclear weapons. the new treaty will do this while streamlining the elaborate and in some cases outdated and unnecessarily burdensome verification measures from the original treaty. the new treaty will also reduce the risk of nuclear theft or loss from our countries. and we know just how important this last point is in a world where terrorist groups would give anything to obtain a nuclear weapon. this new treaty will also allow us to lead by example in arms

reduction, and this will, in turn, greatly aid our vital nonproliferation efforts. indeed, while the arms reductions in the treaty will be relatively modest, entering into the treaty will be a significant step in the renewal of our arms control and nonproliferation agenda for the 21st century. it will put us on firmer ground as we confront the dangers of nuclear weapons in this new world. i want to dwell briefly on this last point. the centerpiece of the global nonproliferation framework is apt the named the nonproliferation treaty. this treaty requires that states without nuclear weapons pledge tonight acquire them. but it also imposes a responsibility on nuclear states which must pursue reduction in

weapons. when we fulfill that responsibility, it strengthens the global nonproliferation framework that centers on the nonproliferation treaty. it strengthens our hand in dealing with nonnuclear states, whether they ar allies pursuing civilian nuclear power or adversaries with unclear nuclear intentions. the point is not that untrustworthy adversaries will suddenly be transparent about their intentions or fulfill their obligations under the nonproliferation treaty. rather, we can negotiate with and pressure adversaries more effectively when we are meeting our own responsibilities. and likewise, we can work more effectively with our friends and rely on them for multilateral support when we ourselves lead by example. in other words, arms control

agreements, like the new start follow-on treaty, are themselves powerful tools in our nonproliferation efforts. the start follow-on treaty is only one element of president obama's ambitious nonproliferation and arms control agenda to reduce and ultimately eliminate the threat from nuclear weapons. but until we're able to realize this end goal, it remains important to maintain an effective deterrent, and this treaty will in no way -- in no way -- take away that deterrent. likewise, it's critical for us to support the add managements's increased budget request for ensuring the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile and the complex and experts that maintain it. such a commitment to a safe and reliable nuclear arsenal goes hand-in-hand with minimizing the

danger from nuclear weapons through arms control and nonproliferation. we must pursue the limitation of nuclear weapons while maintaining an effective deterrent. and that is just what the start follow-on treaty will do. it will make us safer without jeopardizing our effective deterrent. i look forward to a robust discussion and ultimately i hope to bipartisan consent to the resolution of ratification. i yield the floor. mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. first of all, i want to thank our colleague, senator franken, for his remarks on this issue and i'm going to be speaking just for a few moments as if in morning business. i ask consent to do that. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. casey: thank you. and i'm grateful to be joined by senator kaufman after me. but, mr. president, almost two decades after the end of the cold war, the united states and

russia maintain more than 90% -- 90% -- of the world's total stockpile of 23,000 nuclear weapons. each of these weapons has the capacity to destroy a city and a large-scale nuclear exchange could extinguish most life on this planet. as you're aware, massive numbers of nuclear weapons increase the risk of catastrophic accidents, errors, or unauthorized use. this is a serious imperative in the u.s. to address this issue. the united states and especially this administration has rightly focused on nuclear nonproliferation as a top priority. in his prague speech, the president of the unite united s, president obama, said -- quote -- "as long as these weapons exist, the united states will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to

deter any adversary and guarantee that defense to our allies. but we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal." so i think it's important to note that the president used a number of important words there: safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any add assess. but he also -- safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary. but he also said we have responsibilities. the first test of that agreement is the new start agreement. in october, the new secretary of state, hillary clinton said -- quote -- "the united states is interested in a new agreement because it will bolster our national security. we and russia deploy far more nuclear weapons than we need or could ever potentially use without destroying our ways of life. we can reduce our stockpiles of nuclear weapons without posing any risk to our homeland, our deployed troops or our allies.

clinging to nuclear weapons in excess of our security needs does not make the united states safe. and the nuclear status quo is neither desirable nor sustainable. it gives other countries the motivation or the excuse to pursue their own nuclear optio options." so said the secretary of state. as we know, secretary clinton is in moscow now and we all hope that we will be able to make progress on the start treaty during her visit. and we want to thank and commend her for the work that she's doing not only as secretary of state every day but at this time, especially in moscow. the start treaty would reduce deployed nuclear weapons in the united states and russia and would provide crucial verification measures that would allow a window into the russian nuclear program. while this treaty has taken a little longer than expected to complete, i applaud the

leadership of assistant secretary for verification, compliance, and implementation, rose gottmauler, and her efforts to pursue a strong agreement as opposed to an immediate agreement. a new start agreement is in our national security interest, especially in terms of maintaining verification and transparency measures. once complete, this agreement could help to strengthen the u.s.-russia relationship and potentially increases the possibility of russian cooperation on an array of thorny and grave international issues, including north korea and iran. the start follow-on treaty is a clear demonstration that the united states is upholding our nonproliferation obligations under the n.p.t. start is a necessary step in reaffirming u.s. leadership on nonproliferation issues. without a clear commitment to

our nonproliferation responsibilities through a new start agreement, it will be increasingly difficult for the united states to secure international support in address being the urgent security threats posed by the spread of nuclear weapons. international agreements to limit nuclear weapons draw upon a deep well of bipartisan support over the years. there's no reason, no reason at all, why this start agreement should be different. we may have our differences on elements of the treaty when it is presented before the senate for ratification. but i hope, and i believe this will happen, that we'll be able to come together in common cause in recognition that these agreements are in our national security interest because they ultimately decrease the likelihood -- decrease the likelihood of accidental launch and decrease the likelihood of

terrorist access to nuclear materials. there will be deliberation and there will be debate. but i am confident that at the end of the process, we will have a strong agreement, that and the proud tradition of the united states senate, will garner bipartisan support. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware is recognized. mr. kaufman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. mr. kaufman: mr. president, i am truly pleased to join with my friends senators casey and franken to underscore reducing nuclear arms. i spoke about signing a -- in order to maintain important verification and other confidence building measures. i've also spoken in support of the president's fiscal 2011 spending priorities which includes a program to modernize and secure our nuclear arsenal.

today i'd like to go back to the basic when talking about arms reduction because it's easy to get lost in the details an misconceptions and forget the big picture. first, we must remember what is at stake when it comes to our nuclear arms reduction policy. we cannot afford to lose sight of why it is so important to get a successor to start. why it must be the right successor and why the senate should take action on the treaty in the very near future. this treaty was signed by the soviet union at a time when we still had fallout shelters to prepare for nuclear war. almost two decades later, a nuclear attack is more likely to originate from rogue regimes or nonstate actors, but it is critical not to take our eye off the ball when it comes to nuclear stockpiles. american and russian nuclear weapons alone account for almost 96% of the world's nuclear arsenal.

and stockpile reductions remain a significant challenge in easing residual tensions of the cold war. the accumulation of nuclear serves as a reminder of the animosity that existed between our countries, much of which has now been relegated, thankfully, to the pages of history. our nuclear stockpiles reflect the futures of the past not the economic and security consideration of the present and future. start is also symbolically significant because it serves as a cornerstone of the world's nonproliferation efforts an sets tough international standards. with no arms reduction treaty between the united states an russia, we hand cynics and opportunists a pretext for derailing nonproliferation efforts. now that start has expired, we need a follow-on treaty because security needs have changed since the cold war. this is why we must ensure that

we end up with the right treaty, not just one that renews outdated provisions of start it is important that a new treaty adapts to the needs of the world today and presents a clear vision of a more secure future. it is expected the americans and russians have different ideas of this vision and how we can get there. both countries have domestic political considerations which must also complicate matters. throughout this process, i have been thoroughly impressed with ambassador rose and her negotiating team which have maintained their focus an core principles. the obama administration wants the right treaty, not just any treaty and future generations will likely benefit from its steadfast dedication and resolve. finally, we must consider the parameters of the treaty we hope to achieve. by definition a lasting treaty cannot be drawn unilaterally so it must be something mutually

acceptable to both the united states and russia. at the same time there is some important red lines which must be reflected in the final treaty from the perspective of the united states. first, it must have an intrusive verification system in order to maintain confidence and avoid catastrophic misunderstandings between the two sides. second, it must reduce ready-to-go strategic a arsenals which means addressing upload capabiliticy. third, it must allow modernization of our existing nuclear capabilities to enhance national and international security. and, fourth, it must remain a strategic offensive treaty with an intentionally narrow scope. we should not include any other weapon systems including antiballistic missile systems under its regulatory umbrella. mr. president, the senate should take action on the start follow-on treaty as soon as possible in order to keep americans safe and protect global security.

and for anyone who has doubts rest assured that the president and his negotiating team are working hard to finalize a treaty that first and foremost must advance u.s. security interests. i look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue because the responsible reduction of nuclear stockpile is one of the most important measures we can take to improve global security for future generations. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island is recognized. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, are we presently in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call, senator. mr. whitehouse: may i ask that the quorum call be terminated? the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. i am very honored to have the chance to join my distinguished senior senator jack reed on the floor of the senate today to pay our respects to a friend of both of ours who has departed us. i will say a few words about our friend george peneches myself,

and then my senior senator will say a few words in conclusion. tass great honor -- it is a great honor for me to be here with senator reed. one of the bonds that we have together is our tpreupb with -- friendship with the honorable george peneches. on march 2, the day of george peneches' funeral, the flags in the state were at half-mast in his honor. while george's family and friends are still in mourning, we would like to take this opportunity to share some of our memories in celebration of the life of a man who was really one of rhode island's legends. representative george peneches was many things: a husband, a father, a grandfather, a veteran, a public servant, an advocate, a loyal and active

member of rhode island's greek community, a successful businessman, and to so many of us, a trusted friend. though george was small in physical stature, he will always be remembered as big, big, big in personality, heart, influence and accomplishments. born in the city of pawtucket, representative peneches was a life long resident of the state of rhode island. a decorated veteran of world wor ii, george served as a tail gunner completing 50 missions over europe at a time when not many men survived 50 missions. he received the air medal with

four oak leaf clusters, three battle stars for service in the european theater, the presidential union citation with oak leaf cluster and a personal citation from the commanding general of the 15th air force. representative peneec h*es represented a district in pawtucket in 197o. he served until he retired in 1974. he was the first greek american to hold state office in our state. throughout representative peneeches he was known for speaking up with a powerful voice and for his influence for getting the job done. this chamber still remembers john o. passtore, small in stat taourbgs large in voice and

influence. george was very much in his mold. thanks to george today, we have a beautiful rhode island veterans memorial cemetery. thousands of people visit the cemetery every year and witness firsthand george's work. he was responsible for its expansion and many of the improvements that happened on its grounds. the brave rhode islanders and their families who served our country so honorably will always have a special beautiful place to be remembered due in large part to the work of this man. perhaps above anything else, representative peneeches was widely known to his dedication to his beloved greek heritage. many, many years i have attended the pawtucket greek festival with him held at the greek orthodox church of the assumption. i was amazed at how he knew virtually everybody in attendance and the respect the entire community showed for him. at his funeral, i returned to

the church of the assumption for his wake, and i heard so many stories there from his family, friends, and colleagues of his unique character, his kindness and his bold leadership. mr. president, it is with heavy hearts that we remember one of rhode island's legends today. but representative peneeches' spirit will live on through his accomplishments and through his beloved family. i extend my deepest condolences to his loving wife, angela, to his two daughters of whom he was so proud: denise and joan; to his loving and beloved son george jr., and the apple of his eye his grandson george iii and the rest of the peneeches

family. george was truly one of a kind and he will be missed. george peneeches once quoted aristotle in saying you will never do anything in this world without courage. it is the greatest quality of the mind next to honor. well, mr. president, today we recall with respect and affection a man whose courage will long live in our hearts. i yield the floor to my distinguished senior colleague. mr. dorgan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota is coized. mr. dorgan: mr. president, to my colleague, thank you for your forebearance. senator reid has asked that i announce to senators that there will be no further votes this evening and there will be no votes tomorrow. we expect the next vote to be monday at 5:30. and i will explain in a few moments the circumstances. we do expect finally that we are near an agreement by which we would be able to finish this f.a.a. reauthorization bill with

a final vote monday evening. and that's our expectation. as i indicated, i'll explain more about that following the remarks of senator reed. mr. reed: mr. president? e esidg ofcer: the senator from rhode island is recognized. mr. reed: mr. president, i would ask, if it's appropriate, unanimous consent to have my remarks immediately following senator whitehouse's. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i want to join my colleague and friend, senator whitehouse, in paying tribute to an extraordinary american, an extraordinary rhode islander, george peneeches. senator whitehouse with eloquence and obviously great feeling that i share with him recognized this extraordinary individual. he has been a friend and a mentor to both of us. he has been a force throughout his life for not only what we believe is central to america: opportunity to all, a sense of fairness and justice and decency. but he also has been intimately

involved in his native land, greece and cypress. he is someone who represents the ideal of what an american should be. as a young man, he was a member of at that time the united states army air corps, and he flew 50 missions. he was a gunner on the aircraft. and i think all of recognize, although we didn't participate in such challenging assignments, the kind of courage, mental toughness that it takes to get in that aircraft and risk your life 50 times at least, and to do so in an atmosphere of tension and danger. and george did it. and like so many of his generation, when he came home, he didn't boast about it. he decided, though, that his service was not going to end with his discharge from the u.s.

army air corps. he was going to continue to serve this nation because he had participated with his colleagues, his contemporaries in a noble effort. he understood the decency of america. he was part of it. and he understood the great challenges ahead, challenges to build a fairer, just, and more equal society. and he took it upon himself to do that in many ways. he was a successful businessman. but that was just one aspect of his contribution to the community. he was, as my colleague said, a state representative in our house of representatives. he was the first greek american elected to the statehouse in rhode island. he was a staunch advocate for veterans. he was the leader of an effort that started many years ago in the 1960's a