Paul Kirk

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the desk, No. 4922.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KIRK. Roger that.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, am I allowed to be heard on the point of order?

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. If the Senator will yield, I understand the S-300 has not been delivered, even though the Russians signed a contract to deliver this to the Islamic Republic of Iran. But most of the missile threat to Israel is against Russian-built and designed missiles. The Russians have delivered hundreds of Scud missiles to Syria, which represent the vast bulk of the threat to the people of Israel.

Mr. KIRK. Madam President, this has been an important week for me, the most junior Senator. We passed bipartisan legislation to prevent a huge scheduled tax increase from hitting our Illinois economy in the teeth of a great recession, and we did this with the support of our President, Barack Obama, whose name is on this very Senate desk. We stopped a 1,924-page, $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill with 6,600 earmarks, which was a big victory for restraint on spending. We stopped a House effort this morning to permit Guantanamo Bay terrorists to be transferred to the heartland--likely to Thomson, IL. The revised House bill that just passed now prohibits such a transfer. Now to the issue at hand. Madam President, I rise in support of this amendment. In my view, the underlying assumptions of the 20th century's Cold War are breaking down. Under the old doctrine of mutual assured destruction, we assumed the Soviet leadership did not want to commit suicide, and neither did we. In the balance of terror, defenses against attack were ignored--banned even, under an outdated treaty--because the assumptions were relatively sound. These assumptions are breaking down in the 21st century. We face a future in which nations will have nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. Recall that nuclear technology is 1930s-era engineering and missile technology is 1960s-era engineering. Since the laws of physics cannot be classified, it is only a matter of time before other countries, including enemies of the United States, will develop such weapons. The difference between the 20th and 21st centuries can be described as a difference between capability and intent. In the 20th century, the United States was fairly assured that the Soviet Union lacked the intent to attack America or her friends. In the 21st century, Iran and possibly other countries now regularly demonstrate the intent to carry out an attack. Of the roughly 150 members of the United Nations, only one--Iran--regularly talks with its head of state about wiping another member of the United Nations off the planet. In such an environment, the assumptions of our security in the 20th century become dangerously out of date. If the United States and our allies face a future in which America faces countries or institutions which have the capability and intent to attack, then the old doctrine of mutual assured destruction and agreements that depend on this doctrine grant us no safety. In the 21st century, we need actual defenses to secure America and our allies. Against the growing danger of Iran, the safety of America and Israeli families depends on missile defenses. We know Iran has shorter range scud missiles, used liberally against Iraq in a previous war. We know Iran has North Korean No Dong missiles--called Shahab III missiles in Farsi--that have a much longer range to reach Israel. We know Iran has launched a satellite into orbit using a very long range missile called the Safir. Remember, if Iran can orbit a satellite over anywhere on the Earth, it can deorbit a warhead anywhere too. We know Iran has thousands of uranium cascades operating to refine uranium. We know the Bushehr reactor has now been fueled and will soon begin the production of plutonium in Iran. The greatest emerging threat to the United States and Israel is Iran and its missile and fissile material production. Linked with the other speeches of Iran's own head of state, the future security of American and Israeli families depends on missile defense. I worry about the administration's missile defense intentions. Early in the administration's term, it slowed down the planned upgrade for the missile defenses of the United States itself. It made plans to cut funding for the U.S.-Israel Arrow 3 missile defense system. When I heard about those cuts, I approached the late Jack Murtha, the chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, to stop that move, and I understand Chairman Murtha did exactly that. The administration canceled plans to put an X-band radar in the Czech Republic and ground-based interceptors in Poland. It even continued to offer to include Russians inside the missile defenses of NATO. Russia is a country that recently attacked Georgia with missiles. Russia fueled the Bushehr reactor in Iran. It may have also delivered air defense radars to Iran--a nation that Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all certified as a state sponsor of terror. The actions of the administration on missile defense appear uncertain. Under this treaty, we appear to be confirming that a Russian wish be preserved--that they continue to have the capability to effectively attack the United States. I would regard this sentiment as part of the last century and not this, and I worry about the new threat from Iran much more than the old threat from Russia. It should be the policy of the United States to blunt or defeat any attack from Iran against the United States or Israel, no matter what. The statement in the preamble of this treaty should be deleted so that we give strong Senate direction to our policy of providing the strongest defenses possible against the growing danger of Iran. I am currently confused as to which Cabinet department is preeminent on this issue. The State Department largely negotiated the preamble, generating pressure for the United States to recognize ``undermining the viability and effectiveness of strategic offensive arms of the Parties.'' In plain English, we would run our defense programs to preserve the ability of Russia to attack. This outdated, 20th-century thinking is enshrined in the preamble. Such a policy also preserves the future ability of Iran to deliver an attack against the United States. We are assured that a missile--which does not now exist and has not been deployed--will defend us. The Standard Missile 3 Block 2 Bravo is rumored to be considered for development and deployment. But we cannot be defended by a missile that does not yet exist and has not yet been deployed. What has happened is that the administration has canceled plans to deploy the GBI system to Poland, which would have defended us and would have been deployed. Much to the embarrassment of our Czech and Polish political allies, we withdrew a real defense system for a planned one-- a real deployment for a hoped-for one. It should be the policy of the United States to defend us against attack. It should be our policy to defend allies against attack. Therefore, we should sign no treaty which acknowledges a need to preserve Russia's ability to attack the United States and that also has the effect of opening a way for Iranian missiles to find their mark against American or Israeli families. I am struck by this debate. If the treaty does not affect the ability of the United States to defend us or Israel against missile attack, then the amendment should go forward without affect on the treaty. If the treaty does limit the ability of the United States or Israel to defend themselves, then the amendment is absolutely necessary to fulfill the assertions of proponents that the treaty has no relation to defense. Passage of this amendment improves this treaty for this very new Senator. It focuses the treaty on its key objective and makes this treaty much more likely to pass. Defeat of this amendment weakens this treaty. It focuses the debate on ancillary subjects and makes it much less likely to pass. The 21st century should be a world in which fewer and fewer ways are available for nations to attack the United States or our allies and greater and greater means for the democracies--especially the United States---to defeat an attack, should war come. Therefore, I urge adoption of the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. I congratulate the Senator.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KIRK. As the most junior people, for those who don't understand what just happened, did we just win?

Mr. KIRK. So for economic conservatives, a 1,924-page bill just died?

Mr. KIRK. And 6,000 earmarks will not now move forward?

Mr. KIRK. All of the GOP Senators just signed a letter to the leadership this morning saying we should not move forward with this as representatives of the new mandate. It seems that change has come to the Senate tonight with the death of this $1.1 trillion bill.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for the time I may consume.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I rise for the honor of speaking on the floor of this Senate Chamber for the last time. With the swearing-in of Senator-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts scheduled for later this afternoon, my time as a Senator is nearing its close. I repeat for the record, my most sincere congratulations to Scott Brown on his impressive victory. We have worked together to assure that he and the people of Massachusetts were well served during the transition, and I wish him all the very best in his service to the Senate. Under the saddest of circumstances--the loss of our colleague and our close friend Senator Ted Kennedy--my appointment to this office has allowed me to serve my Commonwealth and country in ways I could not have imagined a few months ago. It has enabled me to work closely with many old and new Senate friends--women and men who have been sent by their constituents to work together to make our Nation a better place. These months have helped me to understand even more personally why Senator Ted Kennedy devoted his public life to the work of the Senate, why he took such pride in its history and its accomplishments, why he reached across the aisle to find common cause with allies who shared his hopes, and why, from time to time, he called upon this body to reach beyond the politics of the moment to achieve a greater good for the country's future. The lessons of his legacy will live on in this Chamber and in the institute devoted to the study of the Senate that will bear Ted Kennedy's name. I discovered when just a boy how emotionally difficult it was to say goodbye. So I learned to use two other words that come much easier at times such as this. Those two words are ``thank you.'' I was not elected to this post, but I am deeply grateful to the people of Massachusetts who, through their elected representatives, gave me the opportunity to serve them. Particular thanks are owed to senate president Therese Murray and house speaker Bob DeLeo for their leadership in enabling Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint an interim Senator. I will always be grateful to Governor Patrick for his confidence in me. It was my special gift to have had Senator Kennedy's trust and friendship since signing on as a member of his Senate staff some 40 years ago. But following his death, to be encouraged by his family--his devoted wife Vicki, his daughter Kara, his son Ted, Jr., and his son Patrick--to consider an appointment to succeed the man whom they so loved and who achieved so much in this body is an honor for which no words of thanks are adequate. I will forever be grateful to my friends and colleagues John Kerry, Chris Dodd, and so many others, for their warm and generous welcome to the Senate. We shared a bond of sorrow with every other Senator at the realization that, after 47 years of legendary service, Ted Kennedy would no longer be occupying this desk. It was a time of emotional stirring, to be sure. But I found resolve in the certainty that Senator Kennedy himself would be the first to urge us to persevere, and that attention to Senate duties was the most obvious way I could honor his memory. In undertaking those duties, I thank the majority leader Harry Reid and his entire leadership team for their encouragement, support, and wise counsel. I thank the assistant majority leader, Dick Durbin of Illinois, for his very generous remarks about me on the floor earlier today. I thank my Senate freshman colleagues who have been a source of strength to me and I predict will be a source of strength and leadership in this great body in the years to come; to all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle; to the officials of the Senate, the Secretary, the Parliamentarians, the clerks and reporters; to the Sergeant at Arms, the doorkeepers; to the secretaries for the majority and minority and their able staffs; to the Chaplain; and, of course, to the pages. Each and all of you have been extraordinarily thoughtful to me, patient with your tutelage and generous with your kindness and courtesies, and I will remember each of you with affection and appreciation. Finally, I wish to thank the Kennedy-Kirk staff. The Kennedy staff has enjoyed a reputation of professional excellence through the years. Why? Because they strove to match their boss's unmatchable work ethic and his tireless quest for excellence in the Senate. They shared Senator Kennedy's commitment to do all within one's ability to make America a better and more just society and to make a positive difference in the lives of its people. I am grateful that many Kennedy staffers were willing to stay on as Kirk staffers. It has been my pleasure to share a special bond with them and with the capable young recruits who joined our ranks to begin their public service with this short-term freshman Senator. My special thanks go to Senator Kennedy's and my chief of staff, Eric Mogilnicki, who managed our collective efforts with calm and competence during months of distraction and heartache; to Barbara Souliotis, director of our Massachusetts office who served Senator Kennedy and the constituents of Massachusetts with devotion and distinction from his very first campaign in 1962 until this very day; and to Carey Parker, with whom I began my own Senate service over 40 years ago. Carey was the loyal and wise legislative assistant constantly at Senator Kennedy's side helping to craft and guide a legislative legacy that shall remain a standard of excellence for the ages. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record at the conclusion of my remarks a list of my staff.

Mr. KIRK. Madam President, these are outstanding public servants who have my heartfelt appreciation and every best wish for the future. Over 3 months ago, in my maiden speech from this desk, I chose to speak about Senator Kennedy's top legislative priority--to make quality health care affordable and accessible to all Americans. Since then, much has been accomplished in both Houses of Congress to bring us closer to that long awaited goal. Following the election results in Massachusetts over 2 weeks ago, it was suggested that we let the dust settle before deciding what our next steps should be on health care reform. But we must not let so much dust settle that it buries all the sensible and necessary ideas that have been suggested. Comprehensive health care reform must remain an urgent priority of the 111th Congress. But before we move forward on the path to health care reform and the many other critical issues that demand our attention, I respectfully submit that the Senate--and by that I mean each individual Senator-- must pause to answer this question: Will the majority and minority walk that path together and work together on the business of the people we represent or will the people we represent watch the Senate that belongs to them revert to the calculated, politically polarizing standoff that has alienated the country during these past few months? With the results from Massachusetts, much has been made of the fact that the numbers have changed in the Senate, and that is true. The numbers have changed. But the American people are asking a more important question: Will anything else change? Will the Democratic majority, despite its still solid numerical advantage, be forced to cling to a 60-vote strategy as the only path to forward progress on matters small and large, procedural as well as substantive? Will the Republican minority misread the Massachusetts results as vindication of a strategy to just say no to any measure proposed by a Democratic President of the United States or by their colleagues on this side of the aisle? In my first speech from this desk as the 100th Member and the most junior Member and the 60th Democratic vote, I said I was hopeful that a newcomer's perspective would be received as a constructive contribution to the debate and that the debate should not be about one party reaching 60 votes; it should be about 100 Senators reaching out to each other to reform a system that better reflects the true values and character of our Nation. Now some 4 months later, I feel obliged to repeat this observation to my colleagues, Democrats as well as Republicans. Bipartisan comity and collaboration must replace the polarization that threatens to poison the atmosphere and impede the work of this body. The Senate is in need of its own form of climate change, and only Senators of good will and of good faith and of both parties can bring that about. The American people are filled with anxiety, anger, and impatience. They are facing issues of job security, health security, retirement security, home security, tuition security, and the list goes on. Their crises should not be dividing their Senate; it should be uniting it. When the American families we are honored to represent are imperiled by economic hardship and uncertainty, they expect Democrats, Republicans, and Independents to work together in their common interest. And they deserve no less. Lest anyone be misled by the message of the Massachusetts election, they should examine the exit polls. Voters were asked if the Senator- elect should join his Republican colleagues and try to block the President and congressional Democrats or should he work with them in a bipartisan manner. Among all voters, cooperation won by more than 3 to 1, 76 percent to 21 percent. And among those voters who supported the Senator-elect, bipartisan cooperation was preferred to obstruction by almost 2 to 1--61 percent to 36 percent. I spent a part of my career as national chairman of one of our two major political parties. It was my job to be partisan. It was my job to weigh each decision, asking whether or how it might give us a political advantage in the short run or in the next election. That is what party chairmen are expected to do. That is not what Senators are expected to do. There is always the possibility that my closing remarks will be dismissed by some as idealistic or unrealistic or partisan or as just a perspective of a short termer who doesn't understand how the process works. To them, I respectfully suggest that they listen as well to the words of the last Republican Senator elected from Massachusetts. This is what Senator Edward W. Brooke, an elder statesman of the Republican Party, said when he received Congress's highest civilian honor, the Congressional Gold Medal, less than 3 months ago: I'm here to tell you that politics is not an evil thing. It's a good thing. And when used properly, it does good things. I think of the awesome responsibilities of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate in these years of crisis. . . . Not only this country, but this world looks to you. Then, turning away from his audience to directly address the majority and minority leadership of both Houses of Congress, Senator Brooke said this: When Republicans and Democrats get together, they can do anything. And the country is waiting for you to do anything. They just want relief. You have the responsibility, you have the authority, you are the people on Earth that are going to save this country and save the world. Think about that. We've got to get together. We have no alternative. There's nothing left. It's time for politics to be put aside on the back burner. Madam President, I submit Senator Brooke is correct. We have no alternative. The Republican and Democratic Members of the Senate have no alternative but to work together in a bipartisan spirit with a level of civility and cooperation that is equal to the dignity of this institution and to the magnitude of what is at stake for American families. The Senate is at its best and is rewarded fairly by the electorate when it reflects a spirit of teamwork and collaboration that brings results for the people it is meant to serve. We have seen it throughout history. We have seen it in statesmen such as Ted Kennedy and Ed Brooke. We have seen it in so many others who have served in this Chamber with distinction. I know--I know--there are Senators of good will of both parties who long for that spirit today. We are among the very few who are privileged to serve in this historic body. As I complete my own duties here, I could not leave with a clear conscience without urging all my colleagues to seize this opportunity and this mutual obligation to take the long view, to put partisan politics aside, to come together in good faith and good will to better serve the institution we revere, the people we represent, and the Nation we love. Madam President, with gratitude for the privilege of serving the people of Massachusetts in the Senate, for the last time, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Staff of U.S. Senator Paul G. Kirk, Jr. (Jan. 25, 2010) Larry E. Bageant, Bethany Bassett, Eileen M. Brogan, Ronny A. Carlton, Aubre Marie Carreon Aguilar, Thomas D. Crohan, Shawn M. Daugherty, Daniel G. Doherty, John E. Dutton, Jorie Feldman, Michael George, Stephen Gregory, Lauren P. Janes, Royal F. Kastens, Kathleen C. Kruse, Ashley Lerner, Keith Maley, Sean M. Malone, Meagen L. Manning, James M. McCarthy, Eric J. Mogilnicki, Terrence J. Mullan, Carey W. Parker, Patrick N. Rodenbush, Alejandro R. Rodriguez, Julie M. Ryder, Graham D. Shalgian, Donna Smerlas, Barbara A. Souliotis, Tristan D. Takos, Ella M. Tibbs, Thomas B. Walsh, Collenne Wider, Emily A. Winterson.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business, the time to be counted postcloture.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I know all my colleagues share an indebtedness to the many staff members who work so (skillfully and) tirelessly behind the scenes each day. They assist us in serving the public and responding to the needs of our constituents. Today, I am honored to pay particular tribute to the contributions of one truly outstanding member of the Senate staff. She will retire at the end of this session of Congress after 47 years of impressive service to the citizens of Massachusetts. Barbara Souliotis worked on Senator Edward M. Kennedy's first campaign for the Senate in 1962. She was the first employee in Senator Kennedy s office in November of that year And from the moment he joined this body until the end of his life, Barbara served as a member of his staff and for the last 23 years, she was the State director of his Boston office. ``Barbs'' recalls that on her first day at work here in Washington, she spilled a glass of Coca Cola on Senator Kennedy. When she started to apologize, he smiled his iconic smile and said ``Barbara, you and I are going to get along just fine.'' And they did. She served him brilliantly throughout his entire Senate career--the only member to run the full race as a ``staffer'', though many of us have reported back in whenever Barbara sent out the call. Senator Kennedy considered ``Barbs'' to be his most indispensable assistant. If anyone ever had a question relating to the Massachusetts people whom he loved, he would inevitably ask; ``Have you checked with Barbs?'' I know how proud Ted would be that this tribute honoring Barbara's extraordinary example of public service to our Senate, our Commonwealth and our country is taking place this day. I first met Barbara Souliotis when I joined Senator Kennedy's staff in 1969-40 years ago. I could see right away that behind Barbara's modest demeanor was a remarkable woman who would never let Senator Kennedy down. Why? Because she had learned that his values and his commitment to making a positive difference in peoples lives was the very reason she wanted to work for him in the first place. As I have thought about public service through the years, it has become clear that the best of our Nation was built on the labors of loyalty and love of unsung public heroines like Barbara Souliotis. It was once said that ``Loyalty means nothing unless it has at its heart--the absolute principle of self sacrifice''. If that is the standard of loyalty, I can tell you this,--there is no more loyal United States Senate staffer than Senator Kennedy's own ``Barbara Souliotis''. She embodies the admirable quality of loyalty no matter the circumstances. Barbs planned to retire years ago, but her loyalty to Senator Kennedy and her leadership position on his staff kept her with him to the end. Just as she had throughout his storied career, she worked unfailingly for Senator Kennedy through the difficult months of his illness and during his final days. After Senator Kennedy passed away in August, Barbara continued her remarkable life's work of service as the director of my Boston office. This woman I had known as a colleague came, once again, to the aid of a friend. As one who was appointed to, among other things, continue constituent services for the people of Massachusetts, I knew I could keep that pledge--because Barbara Souliotis volunteered to stay on to lead the Kennedy team during these last few months. Barb's loyalty, integrity and commitment are legendary. She is the true noble public servant, the tireless and compassionate friend, the unassuming aid to all around her. If public service is Barb's vocation, sports is her avocation. There is no more avid fan of the Boston Red Sox, the Boston Bruins, the Boston Celtics, and the New England Patriots than Barbara Souliotis. And she's also an outstanding golfer who plays without a handicap and who has at least one hole-in-one on her score card. In Massachusetts, sports and politics are our passion. And Barbs has scored literally thousands of holes-in-one for the constituents of Massachusetts. A lifelong resident of Haverhill, she has travelled tens of thousands of miles through the years serving the people of our Commonwealth. In acknowledging Barbara's years of All-Star service to Senator Kennedy for 47 years and to me for these few important and historic months, I add my own personal heartfelt thanks to her, especially for the blessings of her friendship, support, and counsel over the many decades, and I wish her a well-deserved happy and healthy retirement in the many years to come. Thank you, Barbs. We love you. Hit 'em long and hit 'em straight!

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I rise to, first, commend my distinguished colleagues, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Barbara Boxer of California, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, and Chuck Schumer of New York for the principled and practical compromise they reached on the difficult issue of abortion. Their work allows the U.S. Senate to now march with our House colleagues toward the forward edge of history and the enactment of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and I congratulate them for that important contribution. I would also like to commend my colleague, the assistant majority leader, Dick Durbin of Illinois, for bringing to the Senate's attention during yesterday's debate an op-ed that appeared in the Washington Post this morning written by our dear friend Victoria Reggie Kennedy entitled ``The Moment Ted Kennedy Would Not Want to Lose.'' Vicki Kennedy was Senator Kennedy's partner in all things, including his final efforts to move health reform forward even as he valiantly fought his own battle with cancer. In more than 17 years of marriage, Ted and Vicki were inseparable, bonded by the love of friends, family and most obviously by their love for one another. Vicki displayed inspirational grace in leading us all in our grief and in the memorable celebration of his life on the occasion of Senator Kennedy's death. And today, she continues as his partner paying tribute to Ted's legacy by respectfully urging his colleagues to move forward on the health reform he would have wanted. I feel certain that Vicki's voice and his will make us more determined than ever to complete Ted's work for the American people. We thank you, Vicki. Mr. President, I would now like to respond to an argument made in another op-ed in Thursday's Washington Post and in an interview on ``Meet the Press'' this morning by my friend, and a former Democratic Party chairman, Howard Dean. Chairman Dean said in his opinion piece: ``If I were a Senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill,'' because it does not bring ``real reform.'' With all due respect, before anyone swallows Howard's faulty prescription, as they say in the field of health care, ``It's time for a second opinion!'' As a former national chairman of the Democratic Party myself, I'll take my equal time to offer my opinion and say I am a U.S. Senator, and I will vote for the current health care bill precisely because it does bring ``real reform.'' Is it all the reform for which our friend and colleague Ted Kennedy, ``the Father of Modern Health Care Reform'', fought so valiantly and tirelessly throughout his legislative career? No. Is it all the reform for which I and many of my distinguished colleagues advocated so passionately here on the floor of this Chamber throughout this intense debate? No. But, is it a quantum leap forward that will bring ``real reform'' to a broken, discriminatory, bankrupting, deficit-busting health care system that will only get worse without immediate action and passage of this legislation? The answer is clearly: Yes. One of the reasons history will record that Ted Kennedy was the greatest legislator of our time was that he respected the need and the art of compromise. And he would argue that a choice between a solid, sound, significant and long overdue start at ``real reform'' of our health care system and the choice of leaving American families to continue to fall behind because we refused to seize the historic moment before us--is the easiest choice and, perhaps, the most historic vote we may ever cast as U.S. Senators. Does anyone in this Chamber--or in Massachusetts--or anywhere else for that matter, doubt Ted Kennedy's commitment to legitimate, credible, real reform of our system in order to make affordable, quality health care accessible to the greatest number of Americans? The answer is clearly: No. Is this a bill of ``real reform'' that Ted Kennedy would champion and vote for? Absolutely, yes! Ted Kennedy knew real reform when he saw it, and so do I. Here are the real health care reform measures of this Senate bill, many of which Senator Kennedy helped to craft. Think about this. It will save money and save lives; expand coverage and bring over 30 million uninsured Americans into the community of the insured; It will control costs and lower premiums; stimulate competitive choices so consumers can choose the best policy at the most affordable price; relieve the costly health care burden on the small businesses of America through tax credits; provide a discount to countless seniors like my own sister Maud, who are squeezed by the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare D's so-called doughnut hole. The real reforms in this bill will strengthen Medicare and Medicaid; reduce the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars; attack waste, fraud and abuses; eliminate lifetime limits on needed care; reward wellness and preventive practices; increase transparency and insurance company accountability; promote flexibility, innovation and best business practices; reward the quality and value of care instead of the quantity and volume of procedures. This bill will eliminate unjust discrimination against women or those afflicted with preexisting conditions; it will provide the elderly and disabled a voluntary choice to self-fund a plan that will provide financial security to purchase long-term services when they are needed most; it will require insurance companies to cover children and dependents up to age 26; and prohibit insurance companies from dropping coverage for Americans who get sick--the very reason they buy health insurance in the first place! In these and many other ways, this Senate bill is real reform--for a senior citizen who cannot afford the drugs she needs; for the 31 million people who will now have the health insurance they deserve; for families who worry that hospital bills will wipe out their life savings; and for a system that presently fails to serve the needs of the American people, this is real reform. For those well-meaning progressives who say they oppose this bill because it does not go far enough and to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who want to defeat this bill and start over, I say they are both mistaken. We need to win this fight now and we need to win this fight together! Will there be more to do after its enactment? Mark my words. There will always be more to do. But this historic piece of legislation will be a giant step forward toward a health care system that truly begins to serve the needs of the American people. President Kennedy offered two profound observations that have helped me keep things in perspective throughout my life, and they have particular application at this moment in our time. He once said: Wisdom requires the long view. And on another occasion, he said: Democracy is never a final achievement; it is a call to an untiring effort. John Kennedy's words apply so well to the work of health care reform before us this evening and to the legislation that will pass this Senate within the next several days. We are all called upon to exercise our wisdom and to take the long view of history. We must understand that passage of this legislation will not be a final achievement. It will be a compelling first call to an untiring effort to continue with our responsibility to do what the American people deserve--provide affordable, accessible, quality health care for them as a matter of right. I am old enough to recall the Civil Rights Act of 1960, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968. With the passage of each of those laws, there was always more to do. But each began the march of progress toward equality under our laws. And each created a responsibility to assure that our country's laws more aptly reflected our national character and our principle of equal justice. The same is true of this moment in our national history. The bill before this Senate is not perfect, nor will it be the final product. But make no mistake, it is real reform, and it will provide enormous benefits to America's workers, America's seniors, and America's families. I urge my Republican colleagues not to be held hostage by the raw and divisive politics of the moment, not to be the captives of those who may threaten with some meaningless political litmus-test score cards, but to step back and to think about the positive difference these reforms will make in the lives of the millions of American families you represent--and, finally, to reflect wisely upon the long view of history and decide that this is the moment to join the majority of this U.S. Senate in moving toward history's enlightened edge by voting for this landmark legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, ``The need for comprehensive national health insurance and concomitant changes in the organization and delivery of health care in the United States is the single most important issue of health policy today.'' Those are not my words. Those are the words of Senator Edward M. Kennedy. The ``today'' of which he spoke was December 16, 1969, exactly 40 years ago today. It was his first major speech on health care reform, and I was privileged to be a young member of his staff. He delivered that speech to a group of physicians at Boston University Medical Center. Senator Kennedy went on to say: If we are to reach our goal of bringing adequate health care to all our citizens, we must have full cooperation between Congress, the administration, and the health professionals. We already possess the knowledge and the technology to achieve our goal. All we need is the will. The challenge is enormous, but I am confident that we are all equal to the task. The world has progressed in many ways since he spoke those words four decades ago, but our health care system has not. In 1969, the United States spent $18 billion on health care. Today we spend over $2 trillion a year. Senator Kennedy pointed out, in 1969, that the Nation faced a shortage of primary care doctors. The reimbursement rates for physicians treating Medicare and Medicaid patients were too low. There was a need to support greater innovation in delivering care, and neighborhood health centers were underfunded. He said we needed to develop an effective means of providing quality, affordable care to all Americans, regardless of their standing in life. Does all this sound familiar? Yes. But that was then and this is now. In recent weeks, Senators on both sides of the aisle have come to this floor to debate the merits of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We have had our differences of opinion, to be sure. But on one issue there is no dispute. When it comes to our health care system, there is no such thing as a status quo. We will move forward or we will continue to fall behind. Here is what we will face, if we do not pass this reform. Premiums will skyrocket and could consume as much as 45 percent of a median family's income by 2016. Bankruptcies will increase due to families not being able to afford their medical costs. More Americans will be uninsured. Small and large businesses will suffer financially due to health cost increases. Health care could constitute as much as 28 percent of our Nation's GDP by 2030. Fifteen percent of the Federal budget could be dedicated to Medicare and Medicaid by 2040. Ted Kennedy had a keen sense of history. He knew Germany adopted the idea of national health insurance in the 1880s, that Britain, France, and a number of other European nations embraced the concept after the First World War, that Canada has had a publicly funded system since the 1950s. He would ask, as he did in 1969 and again in 2009: If all these nations understood long ago that their economic health was ultimately tied to the health of their people, why does the United States stand alone as the only major industrial nation in the world that fails to guarantee health care for all its citizens? It is not that we have never sought this goal in the past. Presidents, Republicans and Democrats, over many decades, have proposed national health insurance in America. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton all made health reform a part of their agenda. Now we stand on the threshold of history. Never has this country been so close to bringing affordable, quality health care to millions of America's families. Today, under President Obama's leadership, the goal is within our reach. Failure is not an option. All interested parties have been brought to the table. Physicians, hospitals, insurance companies, small businesses, pharmaceutical companies, and many others have had an opportunity to present their suggestions and offer their input. Dozens of hearings were held on all topics related to this issue. The House of Representatives has acted. The Senate HELP Committee, through the diligence of Senators Kennedy, Dodd, and Harkin and the Finance Committee, under the leadership of Senator Baucus, held lengthy executive sessions that discussed all areas of reform and delivered and developed their respective bills. Due to the hard work and tireless patience of the majority leader, we have one merged bill before us, a single piece of legislation which will improve the lives of millions of Americans in the following ways. It expands coverage to an additional 31 million Americans, bringing health insurance to almost 94 percent of our citizens. It saves money by rewarding the quality and value of care, not the quantity and volume of care. It controls the cost of skyrocketing premiums and limits out-of-pocket expenses. It reduces the Federal deficit by an estimated $130 billion in the first 10 years and an estimated $650 billion in the second 10 years. It stimulates competition in the health insurance marketplace through establishment of exchanges. It strengthens Medicare by reducing unnecessary spending, lowering prescription costs, and closing the so-called doughnut hole. It attacks fraudulent and wasteful spending and helps to correct abuses in the system. It rewards wellness and prevention by expanding access to advice on how to live a healthy lifestyle by practicing good nutrition, increasing physical activity, and quitting smoking. It eliminates unfair discrimination against patients by preventing insurance firms from denying certain coverage to women or to individuals with preexisting conditions. It promotes flexibility and innovation in new health care technologies. It introduces a self-funded, voluntary choice for long- term services and support for the elderly and disabled. Most of all, it saves lives by providing affordable, quality care for individuals, families, and small businesses. In my State of Massachusetts, because of our successful reform, the rate of the uninsured has been reduced to 2.7 percent of the population, and the lives of thousands of citizens of our Commonwealth have been immeasurably improved. Carol's case is one example. Carol did not realize the importance of having quality, affordable health insurance until she was confronted with the gravity of her own health problems. She is a 24-year-old woman suffering from seizures and desperately in need of help. She remembers having occasional seizures as a child. They occurred mostly when she was overtired. As Carol grew older, the seizures became more frequent. One day, she had an episode when driving her car. Fortunately, her passenger was able to assist her. But that frightening incident convinced Carol to seek professional help. She learned about the assistance of Health Care For All, the Massachusetts organization dedicated to making quality, affordable health care accessible to everyone. She applied and was declared eligible for Commonwealth Care. She immediately went to see a specialist and was given the health care she needed. Carol expressed her gratitude in these words: I definitely feel blessed to be a Massachusetts resident. I can't thank Health Care For All and MassHealth enough for all the support given to me. The Helpline counselors literally held my hands and brought me to live a healthy life, where there is no fear or embarrassment, but there is knowledge and a total control of my seizures. So, thank you so much all of you who make this happen in people's lives. We should all think about Carol and the millions of working families across the country when we vote for this legislation. It is our responsibility to enact laws that make a positive difference in people's lives, and that is what this bill is all about. Senator Ted Kennedy envisioned a better America where, as he said: [E]very American--north, south, east, west, young, old-- will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege. This is a historic moment in our national life. We have the chance to finally complete the work that a respected Republican President called for over a century ago. Quality health care for all has always been needed in America but never more than now. The finish line is clearly in sight. The momentum and the energy are with us, and it is our obligation to seize this historic moment. Every Member of this body is aware of the valiant fight Senator Kennedy waged for his own health during the last 15 months of his life. Many of you saw him, after receiving radiation and chemotherapy in the morning in Boston, walk into this Chamber that he loved to cast a deciding vote in the afternoon on the issue he proudly called the cause of his life. While being treated at Massachusetts General Hospital, Senator Kennedy met a woman named Karen List. Her daughter Emily was one of many patients receiving a similar regimen of exhausting cancer treatments. They came from different walks of life, and cancer had touched them all. In September 2008, after Emily's long summer of treatments, Karen wrote about Senator Kennedy and other patients he had met during his treatment. She wrote: Now, it is almost fall, and little Caroline is starting kindergarten. Senator Kennedy, who came from a hospital bed to speak at the convention, is planning his return to the Senate in January. Alex, an Apache helicopter pilot, is back at Fort Campbell and expects to be deployed to Afghanistan in the New Year. And Emily hopes to be well enough by spring to return to her life in London. The dream, as Senator Kennedy promised, does live on. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article by Karen List in the Daily Hampshire Gazette be printed in the Record.

Mr. KIRK. Karen's was a statement of hope--hope and promise for each of these patients in the face of daunting odds. Their age did not matter; their economic status did not matter; each received the highest quality of health care available. And so it should be for all our people. Senator Kennedy understood that we are all connected to one another. He often referred to President Lincoln's words about our common humanity and the good that can come to us all when touched ``by the better angels of our nature.'' And he knew that on no issue are our futures more connected than on health care. Ted Kennedy's voice still echoes in this Chamber. His spirit of hope and strength, of determination and perseverance is still felt here. He said: For all my years in public life, I have believed that America must sail toward the shores of liberty and justice for all. There is no end to that journey, only the next great voyage. We know the future will outlast all of us, but I believe that all of us will live on in the future we make. Let each of us in this Senate be moved by the better angels of our nature and make that future a better one for our generation and for generations to come. As Ted Kennedy said 40 years ago: ``All we need is the will.'' This is our time, Mr. President. Let us pass this legislation now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the speech delivered by Senator Edward M. Kennedy on December 16, 1969, be printed in the Record.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time in the quorum call be divided equally between the majority and minority.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, before I say anything else, I wish to, once again, commend the Senator from Montana for his leadership on this historic piece of legislation. It is going to have an impact on people more widely and broadly than our Social Security system, and this will be as important a domestic piece of legislation as that. Every American who looks forward to their golden years knows what Social Security means. The Senator from Montana has quite correctly mentioned how this legislation will have an impact on people's lives. I have only been in the Senate a short period of time, but I cannot tell you the numbers of constituents who have communicated with me about their situation in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; whereas, in 2006, Massachusetts enacted health care reform, many of the aspects of that legislation are contained in the bill we are debating. For the record, today the Boston Globe published a story indicating that more than 96 percent of the State's adult taxpayers had health insurance in 2008. This is close to universal coverage, and I am sure, before too long, we will be able to say we hit the 100-percent mark. This is providing affordable insurance to people who otherwise would never have had it. When the Senator from Montana talked about how this bill would impact people's lives, I am going to tell you a story that was told to me by a family who had a situation. I will call them Daniel and Brenda. Those are their names. They had been living without health insurance for years. In fact, Brenda said she could barely remember when they had last gone to the doctor because they did not have health insurance. But she learned about our Health Care for All on the Helpline that is in existence in Massachusetts from a close friend. Soon after she contacted it, her husband was diagnosed with a serious heart condition. With the indispensable assistance of the Helpline, her family was able to enroll in coverage they could afford. Brenda's husband Daniel had started to feel constant fatigue. He never imagined that someday he would need to have a strong supporting device inserted in his heart. Brenda said they truly appreciated all the assistance given to them through the Helpline. But there is more. Brenda and Daniel recently welcomed a new addition to their family. Unfortunately, their son was born with respiratory problems and had to stay in the intensive care unit for 7 days immediately after his birth. Brenda told us she had a hard time leaving the hospital without her newborn son in her arms. But she could also take comfort in being surrounded by top medical professionals who were dedicated to caring for her son. Here is what she wrote: Health Care for All has been such a gift to our lives. First, my husband had no idea of the seriousness of his health issue. If it wasn't for our eligibility with the [State's new health care reform] programs, we would probably have found out about his heart disease too late. And right after came the unexpected surprise of having my son in neonatal care for a week. Both of these situations were hard to go through just emotionally. We just couldn't imagine how it could have been hard financially speaking. That's why, and for many other reasons, we are just so amazed to be Massachusetts residents and count on the tremendous support we have been receiving from the Helpline counselors. This is just one example of countless families I have heard from in Massachusetts. It clearly shows how important it is to pass national health care reform and enable all Americans to have the quality, affordable health care that Brenda, Daniel, and their son were able to have. So I wanted to bring to the attention of our colleagues in the Senate a real life story of what health care reform can mean and what will be great relief for the financial and health security to American families when we enact this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the Boston Globe article I mentioned be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Thank you, Mr. President. With great joy and enthusiasm, I can say that today we are closer than ever to guaranteeing that all Americans, at long last, will have full access to quality, affordable health care. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which our colleague and fellow freshman Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon suggests, as Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts would have subscribed to, that this is the health care bill of rights. It will help fix a health care system that is failing to meet the needs of the American people. I am extremely proud to join with Majority Leader Reid, with Senator Baucus, with my good friend, Senator Dodd of Connecticut, and with my fellow freshman Senators. I wish to single out, if I may, the Senator from Virginia, Mark Warner, one of the more enlightened business leaders of our time, who brought his wisdom and innovation and skills and practices of the private sector to help improve the important challenge we have in the public sector. I thank the Senator for his leadership on this effort, in contributing to legislation that will mark a historic stride forward for the American people. I wish to say a word as well, a particular word, about the chairman of the Finance Committee who has enormous responsibilities in the Senate chairing the effort to reform our financial regulations and our financial systems so the American people will understand we are one country, with one important financial system and not somehow second tier, unrelated and unconnected to the decisions made on Wall Street and elsewhere. When Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts was stricken, Senator Dodd of Connecticut stepped forward, not only because Senator Kennedy was his very close friend but because the Senator from Connecticut understood the enormity of the challenge and important effort that is being made in the Senate. I wish to salute him for sharing his wisdom and his strength and his leadership, not only in the areas of financial reform but in this important area as well. As I said, this is nothing less than a bill of rights for the American people on the issues of health care. With this legislation, all Americans, finally, will be guaranteed access to the affordable health care coverage they deserve. Families who need a helping hand to care for an aging relative will be protected. Insurance companies will be prohibited from arbitrarily refusing coverage and from stopping benefits when they are needed the most. Doctors will be given the support they need to practice the best medicine possible. That is why they took their oath. With the help of the measures in this total legislation and some of the particular reforms suggested by our freshman colleagues, that best medicine will be practiced. The American economy will be protected from the skyrocketing costs of health care, with which every American family is now inflicted. Over the past month, I have had the privilege of working with my fellow freshman colleagues on a series of amendments that we are discussing this morning to make this health care bill of rights even stronger. These amendments plant the seed for an innovative 21st- century health care system that offers what American families want most: better results for lower costs. It is as simple as that. These amendments focus on the root causes of our skyrocketing health care costs to provide Medicare the support it needs to become a leader in moving away from the reimbursement models that increase costs without improving care. Public-private arrangements will be established to smooth reform and prevent private insurance from shifting costs onto public plans. The redtape, with which we are all familiar, which weighs down the current health care system in both the public and private sectors will be reduced. All of this will contribute to lower costs and higher quality in our health care system. One focus that is particularly of interest and important to me is the delivery system reform. We must move toward a system of paying hospitals and doctors for the quality of care they provide rather than the quantity of tests and procedures they perform. Our amendment rewards providers of Medicare who give high-quality care rather than high-volume procedures. We will also allow Medicare to test promising new models to reduce costs, increase quality, and improve patient health. We must make these changes for the sake of our patients and for the sake of our economy. In short, our amendments strengthen the reforms of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I urge all my colleagues to support these amendments and take these important steps with us to bring America's health care system into the 21st century. I thank the leadership once again, and I thank the Senator from Virginia and my other freshman colleagues for their good work on this historic health care bill of rights. I yield the floor.