Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to declare and explain my support for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. First, I commend Senator Reid and all those who worked so long and hard, including my friend and colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, for all they have achieved in this legislation. The truth is, no piece of legislation, as significant and complicated as this is, could possibly be totally satisfying to every one of us. In the end, each one of us has to ask ourselves: Do the positives in this legislation substantially outweigh the negatives? Are the things we like in the bill greater than the things that worry us? For me, the answer to both these questions is yes, because this bill makes real progress on the three important goals I have had, and I think most people have had, for health care reform. First, most of us have wanted to stop the continuous increases in the cost of health care that burden every individual, family, business, our Government, and our economy. Second, we have wanted to regulate insurance companies to provide better protections for consumers and patients. Third, we have wanted to find a way to make it easier for millions of Americans who cannot afford health insurance today to be able to buy it tomorrow. I believe this bill makes real progress in achieving each of these three goals. Most importantly, it does so in a fiscally responsible way. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act not only does not add to our national debt, through new health care delivery reforms it will help reduce the debt by $130 billion over the first 10 years, according to the independent Congressional Budget Office. That figure could multiply many times over during the second 10 years, thanks, in part, to the managers' amendment that incorporated stronger cost-containment proposals that several of us, across party lines, made to Senator Reid. In addition, it is very significant that, according to the Actuary at the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, this bill will extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund for an additional 9 years. This act will also take substantial steps toward creating a health care delivery system that pays for the quality of the care patients receive rather than the quantity of care. I am proud to have worked with Members of both sides of the aisle to include amendments that would do that. For instance, Senator Collins and I introduced an amendment, parts of which were included in the managers' package, that will enhance transparency for consumers so they can make more informed decisions in choosing their health care providers and insurers. In fact, our amendment will create Physician Compare, a new Web site where physician quality measures that exist now but are not known by the rest of us will be posted for everyone to see and to use in the choice of physicians. This will also create incentives, we believe, for doctors to provide high-quality, more efficient care. I also cosponsored an amendment introduced by Senator Warner and some other freshman Senators that will contain costs even more. This amendment creates prevention programs to help us understand how to effectively manage chronic diseases such as diabetes, and it requires prescription drug plans under Medicare Part D to offer medication therapy management services to beneficiaries so they can better adhere to their prescription treatments. All that is progress on the first goal that I and most others had, which is to reduce the cost of health care without compromising--in fact, improving--its quality. The second goal. If this bill passes, insurance companies, as Senator Kerry said, will not only not be able to deny coverage if an individual has a preexisting condition, they will not be allowed to rescind coverage if you become sick, which is the outrageous reality today. Thanks to changes made by the managers' amendment, insurance companies will also be required to spend more of the premiums they collect on medical expenses for patients rather than on administrative costs and profits. That is real progress on the second goal I mentioned. As for the third goal, the fact is attested to by the CMS Actuary and CBO, 31 million more Americans will be able to have health insurance as a result of this legislation. We say that so often I think we forget the power of it--31 million people who do not have health insurance today will have it after this bill passes. That is a giant step forward for our society. It is not only the right thing to do, but it will also eliminate the so-called hidden tax that each of us who has health insurance today pays in higher premiums when someone who has no health insurance gets sick and goes to the hospital to be treated. That is real progress on the third fundamental goal of health care reform that I mentioned. Is there anything in the bill that worries me? Of course, there is. I would say, most of all, I worry that we, and future Congresses, will not have the discipline to keep many of the promises we have made in this bill to control costs by transforming the way health care is delivered because some of these reforms are controversial and they are going to be opposed by some health care providers and health care beneficiaries. Without the kind of discipline I have just mentioned, this bill will add to our national debt or increase taxes. Neither of those results is acceptable. If we stick to the contents of the bill, this bill will cut health care costs and it will reduce our national debt. In my opinion, our exploding national debt is the biggest domestic threat to our country's future. That is why I have said this bill must reduce that debt, not increase it. Accumulated debt is currently over $12 trillion, with our budget office estimating an additional $9 trillion added in the next 10 years. That is unprecedented in our history. We are running up to the time when we can see a moment possible that we never thought would be possible, when our capacity as a nation to borrow will be imperiled, when we will have to raise interest rates so high it will constrict our economy and send us back into a recession, worse than the one we are coming out of now. We cannot bring the fiscal books of our Government back into balance by only making the health care system more cost efficient, but we will never control our national debt without doing so. Medicare is in a particularly perilous condition today. Without reform, the Medicare trust fund will be broke in 8 years--broke. With tens of millions of baby boomers reaching the age of eligibility, we simply must protect Medicare so it remains a viable program for both current and future generations. This leads me to my firm opposition to the creation of a new government-run insurance program and to lowering the age of eligibility for Medicare to 55 years. That opposition was rooted in my very serious concerns about our long-term national debt and the fragile fiscal condition of Medicare. For any new government-run insurance program, including the Medicare extension-expansion idea, the moment premiums do not cover costs the Federal Government--that is Federal taxpayers, the American people--would have to pay the difference. That could easily put our Federal Government and the taxpayers on the hook for billions and billions of dollars in future liabilities and further jeopardize the solvency of Medicare. Because of the insurance market reforms in this bill and other measures--the creation of a new system of tax credits and subsidies for people making up to 400 percent of poverty--the creation of a new government-run health care, the so-called public option or the expansion of Medicare to people under 65 is not necessary. Neither proposal would extend coverage to one person who will not be benefited by the new provisions of this bill, neither the public option nor the expansion of Medicare. Yet both proposals would, in my opinion, lead to higher premiums for the 180 million people who have insurance today and are struggling to afford the health insurance they have now because of cost shifting. According to studies by the CBO, a new government-run insurance program, a public option, would actually likely charge higher premiums than competing private plans on the exchange, and expanding Medicare to cover people 55 years or older would lead to additional cost shifting. I know the removal of the public option from the bill in the Senate disappointed and angered many Members of the Senate and the House, while I know it pleased and reassured others. I wish to say to those who were not happy about the removal of the public option from this bill that I believe President Obama never said a public option was essential to the reform goals he set out to achieve and that most of us have. When the President spoke earlier this year to the Joint Session of Congress, he said a public option is ``an additional step we can take.'' An additional step, he said, but not an essential one. Then, he added, ``The public option is only a means to that end.'' He concluded that we should remain ``open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.'' I am confident this bill accomplishes the goal the President and most of us set out to achieve without the creation of a brand-new government-run insurance company or the further weakening of Medicare. This bill, as it appears it will emerge from the Senate, is delicately balanced. I understand the normal inclination in a conference committee with our colleagues in the House is to split the difference. But splitting the difference on this bill runs a real risk of breaking the fragile 60-vote Senate consensus we have now and preventing us from adopting health care reform in this Congress. That would be a very sad ending. Rather than splitting our differences, I hope the conferees will adopt our agreements so we can enact health care reform this year. The rules of the Senate require 60 votes to end debate on a conference report.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional moment, maybe 2 moments, to complete my remarks.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Each Member of the Senate will have to decide once again when this bill emerges from the conference whether he or she wants to be one of the 60 votes necessary to take up and pass the conference report. In this case my own sense of the Senate is the same as that expressed in the last few days by Senators Conrad, Nelson, and others. If significant changes are made to the Senate bill in conference, it will be difficult to hold the 60 votes we now have. I have two priorities that will matter a lot to me. The first is to continue and maintain the health care reforms that will improve the cost-effectiveness of our health care system and help reduce the national debt. Second, I hope there will be no attempt to reinsert a so-called public option in any form in the conference report. That would mean I will not be able to support the report. I want to support it. I believe I am not alone in that opinion among the 60 who supported the bill last night. Our exploding national debt is the biggest threat to our Nation's future. That means we must begin to make politically difficult decisions to reduce our debt. That means saying no to some groups and some ideas, including some we would otherwise support, because we simply cannot afford them. A final hope about the conference report. Perhaps some will say it is naive. I hope the conferees will find a way to produce a report that can be supported by some Republican Members of the Senate and House. It is a sad commentary on this moment in our political history that so major a reform will be adopted with no bipartisan support. Hopefully the conference will find a way, difficult as I know it might be, to conclude this long legislative journey with a bill that is not only worth supporting, as I believe the Senate bill now surely is, but also engages the support of Members of both parties. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I regret that I was unable to be present to vote for the final passage of H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010, but had I been present, I would have supported it. This Act will provide $636.3 billion in funding for the Department of Defense, including nearly $125 billion in funds that will directly support the men and women fighting at the frontlines of this Nation's wars. I am honored to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which drafted the law authorizing these funds, and thank my colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee, led by Chairman Daniel Inouye, for their hard work guiding this bill to its final approval. This bill will do much to both protect our service members overseas and improve their lives at home. It will provide $6.3 billion to procure additional mine resistant ambush protected, MRAP, vehicles and more than 6,600 MRAP all-terrain vehicles, MRAP-ATVs, which will save countless lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. For our service members and their families, it will also provide a 3.4-percent pay raise, additional funding for the Defense Health Program, and $120 million to support research for traumatic brain injury and psychological health research. I am particularly proud of the critical role that Connecticut plays in supporting our Nation's defense, a role that this act reaffirms. Connecticut workers are essential to building critical equipment and systems that account for nearly 15 percent of the $104.4 billion in procurement funds provided in this bill. These include the Virginia class submarine, the Blackhawk family of utility helicopters, the engines that power the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the powerful radar on the Joint STARS aircraft, and even the Colt carbine that our soldiers carry at the frontlines of battle. There truly is a Connecticut worker supporting every member of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am honored to stand and speak on behalf of this amendment which I have filed with Senator Rockefeller and Senator Whitehouse, and I thank them for their leadership. I wish to speak for a few moments about it. It is not a noncontroversial amendment, but I think it redeems one of the two central promises or goals of this bill. The fact is that a lot of the current health care reform debate in fact is focused on issues that are not central to two big goals that I think most of us share, which are, first, to expand the number of people who have health insurance coverage in our country; secondly, to lower the costs, because the costs continue to go up way beyond the rate of general inflation in our country, and that has a very burdensome effect on millions of individuals, families, businesses, our government--indeed, our entire economy. This amendment focuses on the second of those two big shared goals, which is containing the increases in health care costs. It has become a mantra around here--but it is never bad to repeat a mantra--which is that national health expenditures in our country are now well over $2 trillion. It is hard to imagine that amount of money, but let me try to get inside it. We spend twice as much per person on health care as the average developed country in the world, but I am afraid we are not receiving as a country the best value for our health care spending. The fact is that the United States provides some of the best health care in the world, but we don't provide it to all of our people and we don't provide it efficiently. Medicare and Medicaid account for over 20 percent of the Federal budget and over 27 percent of national health expenditures. These two programs are expected to rise to equal 20 percent or one- fifth of our gross domestic product by 2050. Here is the animating, motivating fact that brings Senator Rockefeller, Senator Whitehouse, and me together to file this amendment: The Medicare trust fund, which provides Medicare benefits to approximately 37 million senior Americans that they depend on, that they have depended on in a way that has helped to extend their lives as average life expectancy goes up, the Medicare trust fund is expected to be insolvent, out of money, bankrupt, by 2017--unable to pay the bills by 2017. That is 8 years from now. It is to prevent that unacceptable result that my colleagues and I come forth to file this amendment to make sure that by then--we have done a lot of things, but one of them is to make the delivery of health care more efficient, the delivery of health care to seniors through Medicare more efficient, so they can look forward with confidence to having Medicare coverage throughout the rest of their lives. As we all know, it is not just the ones on Medicare now; the baby boomers are coming of age to get on Medicare, and that will add enormously to its responsibilities. I would say that Senators Reid, Baucus, Dodd, and Harkin did a superb job, a very good job, with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the underlying bill, to reduce health care spending and particularly to do so while expanding coverage for 30 million more Americans, which is the second great goal that I believe we all share. While these numbers are encouraging, Senators Rockefeller, Whitehouse, and I think we can and should do more, and that is the cost containment numbers. My colleagues introduced earlier this year the MedPAC Reform Act, which created an independent authority, a separate nonpartisan body, to make critical health care cost decisions or make recommendations about them. In the current Senate health care reform bill, their idea appears centrally as the independent Medicare advisory board. It will bring together a panel of experts whose mission it will be to extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund by seeking out new efficiencies, new cost containments, and improving the quality of care delivered by Medicare in the private sector. The board will have the authority to make recommendations to the President and Congress to reduce Medicare spending in particular ways. Those recommendations will be fast tracked through Congress with strict requirements for the committees of jurisdiction to review them, report the recommendations to the full Congress, and then be subject, those recommendations, to limited floor debate, limited by the underlying legislation. If Congress does not pass the advisory board's recommendations or adopt other proposals that produce an equivalent amount of savings, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will be required to implement the board's original recommendations. As Senator Rockefeller said--this is the second time today I have said this--earlier today the Homeland Security Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on efforts to establish a commission to begin to turn around the exploding national debt we have. Part of the reason we do that and part of the reason this independent board outside of Congress is being created is that we haven't proven ourselves capable of controlling costs because we find it a lot easier to say yes to people, for good reasons, for humane reasons, but don't find it so easy to pay for the resulting costs of our affirmative answers to their requests. The CBO has estimated that the advisory board in the current bill will save $23 billion in the next 10 years. The Obama administration and dozens of respected economists have said that the creation of this board is instrumental in lowering costs and literally saving Medicare from bankruptcy. The amendment I have filed with Senators Rockefeller and Whitehouse, I am convinced--certainly our intention is to make this independent board stronger so it will result in larger savings and contain more costs over the long run. There are six provisions in the amendment that I want to denote, describe briefly. First, this amendment will extend the board's authority to cover hospitals and hospices; sensitive, I know, but the board must have the authority to consider the entire breadth of Medicare expenditures in making its recommendations to Congress to maximize savings for the government, for taxpayers and, most of all, for the beneficiaries of Medicare so the program is still there to help them. Second, our amendment makes it easier for the board to make recommendations in the years beyond 2019 than the underlying bill does so that it can continue to monitor Medicare over the longer term and ensure its long-term solvency. We want those on Medicare now, and those coming on Medicare, to be able to depend on it over the course of their lives. Third, this amendment will raise the amount of savings the board must meet in years where Medicare growth exceeds the target growth rate set in the law, in the proposal. Fourth, we move up the time of implementation of the board's recommendations by 2 months to minimize, frankly, the influence of interest groups who will be in the normal course of the process fighting to stop these cost-effective recommendations. Fifth, the amendment allows the board to offer recommendations in years where the Medicare growth rate does not outpace the target growth rate. The goal of this provision is to be clear that the purpose of the board is not just to contain costs beyond a certain standard but also to search out constantly for inefficiencies, for waste, for the expenditure of Medicare dollars that is not actually benefiting Medicare recipients. Finally, our amendment clarifies that the purpose of the board is not just to contain costs within Medicare but to look more broadly at health care spending outside of these publicly supported programs. That is very significant. It will provide an opportunity for broad savings in health care and health insurance for pretty much everybody in our country. I am proud to join today with my friends, Senators Rockefeller and Whitehouse, to announce the filing of our amendment. These six provisions will make this advisory board stronger and reduce costs. While we disagree on some aspects of health care reform, I hope we can agree across party lines that health care spending is out of control, and that we can contain it in a way that doesn't threaten access or benefits. We must preserve and extend Medicare for future generations, and we must ensure that the new private market we are creating in health care reform is one where health care quality and efficiency justifies the cost.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I wonder if I could ask unanimous consent for an additional moment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Really. OK. I won't take it personally. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I was not present for the votes on Senator Coburn's motion to commit H.R. 3082 to the Senate Committee on Appropriations and amendment No. 2757, which was also introduced by Senator Coburn. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on the motion to commit and voted yea in favor of amendment No. 2757.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I wish to commemorate the sixth anniversary of what is known today as the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. Six years ago, on November 6, 2003, President Bush signed Public Law 108-106, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. The reconstruction effort at the time was under the direction of the Coalition Provisional Authority, CPA, and Congress, appropriately, provided for an Inspector General of the Authority to oversee the CPA's expenditures. As the administration moved toward ending the CPA and transferring sovereignty back to the Iraqi people through its interim government, it became clear that it was important to maintain oversight of the multiagency reconstruction effort underway in Iraq. In Public Law 108- 375, the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005, Congress decided to redesignate the CPA IG as the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, or SIGIR, with responsibility for reviewing programs funded with amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund. The law provided, uniquely at the time, that the SIGIR report directly to both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, and that its quarterly reports be sent directly to the Congress. As the reconstruction effort for Iraq grew in complexity Congress asked SIGIR to review additional funding streams; it is now responsible for reviewing ``all funds appropriated or otherwise made available for the reconstruction of Iraq.'' Since SIGIR reviews reconstruction funds expended by all agencies, it can compare the effectiveness of different agencies' practices and approaches to related problems. In addition, the frequent reorganizations of the reconstruction effort and the widespread pattern of having some agencies carry out work on behalf of others has made cross-agency reviews critical to providing accountability for expenditures. SIGIR has been able to provide precisely that type of cross-agency scrutiny. SIGIR's productivity is notable. It has submitted 23 quarterly reports to Congress and published 4 ``lessoned learned'' reports, including the comprehensive account entitled ``Hard Lessons: The Iraq Reconstruction Experience.'' It has issued 155 audit reports, 159 project assessments, inspections, and 96 limited onsite assessments. SIGIR's staff in Baghdad and Arlington, VA, produces timely, useful reporting to program managers, senior Department leadership, and Congress. Its quarterly reports present a comprehensive, closely documented, snapshot of the reconstruction effort and conditions on the ground to provide context for understanding progress, or lack of progress, in Iraq's reconstruction. In recent quarters, reports have included province-by-province descriptions of the status of reconstruction and the pace of political change. The audit and inspections groups work in ``real time,'' so that managers can improve processes quickly, often before reports are formally published. SIGIR's reviews have been extremely useful to both the administration and Congress in assessing the many challenges of the reconstruction. The performance by the SIGIR office has also been recognized by the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, formerly the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, PCIE, for demonstrating integrity, determination and courage in providing independent oversight and unbiased review of U.S. reconstruction efforts in Iraq, and for exemplifying the highest ideals of government services as envisioned by the tenets of the Inspector General Act. SIGIR's auditors and investigators carry out their work under dangerous and difficult circumstances. Its employees in Baghdad, in addition to being separated from their families and living under difficult conditions, are subject to considerable physical danger. Five have been wounded by indirect fire. Today I would especially like to pay tribute to SIGIR auditor Paul Converse, who died of wounds sustained in the Easter 2008 rocket attack on Baghdad's International Zone. Mr. Converse made the ultimate sacrifice in service to his country. As my colleagues know, the reconstruction effort in Iraq suffered initially from uncoordinated and insufficient planning and has been characterized too often by poor contract oversight. The security situation in Iraq also increased the complexity of executing reconstruction projects. From its audits of specific projects such as the Basrah Children's Hospital and the Mosul Dam, to its broad reviews of thematic issues such as human capital management and contract administration, the SIGIR reports have provided a frank look at, and a better understanding of, the shortcomings, the successes, and the challenges of reconstruction. So today I salute all the hard-working current and former staff of SIGIR, SIGIR's long-serving Deputy Inspector General, Ginger Cruz, and, of course, Stuart Bowen, who has ably served as the Special Inspector General for 6 years. Their work has been extremely influential on the evolution of reconstruction efforts in Iraq, and undoubtedly will help inform future U.S. relief and reconstruction efforts. Their efforts are greatly appreciated by this Senator.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of amendment No. 2669 that has been offered by Senator Graham, with Senators Webb, McCain, and myself as cosponsors. It is a pending amendment. The purpose of this amendment is quite straightforward. It would prevent the use of any funds made available to the Department of Justice by this appropriations bill from being used to prosecute any individual suspected of involvement in the 9/11/01 attacks against the United States in an article III court--that means essentially a regular Federal court created pursuant to article III of our Constitution. Why would we feel we need to do such a thing? It is because the current protocol governing the disposition of cases referred for possible prosecution of detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the current protocol of the U.S. Department of Justice governing the referral of these detainees from Guantanamo Bay, says as follows: No. 2, Factors for Determination of Prosecution. There is a presumption that, where feasible, referred cases will be prosecuted in an Article III court in keeping with traditional principles of federal prosecution. It is because we who are sponsoring this amendment think there is a fundamental error of judgment--in fact, in its way, an act of injustice--that these individuals, suspected terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, suspected in this case, according to our amendment, of having been involved in the attacks of 9/11 on the United States which resulted in the deaths of almost 3,000 people, that these individuals would be tried in a regular U.S. Federal court as if they were accused of violating our criminal laws. They are not common criminals or uncommon criminals; they are suspected of being war criminals. As such, they should not be brought to prosecution in a traditional Federal court along with other accused criminals. Citizens of the United States have all the right to the protections of our Constitution in the Federal courts, article III courts of the United States. These are suspected terrorist war criminals who are not entitled to all the protections of our Constitution and whose prosecution should not be confused with a normal criminal law prosecution. They are war criminals. They ought to be tried according to all the rules that prevail for war criminals, including, of course, the Geneva Conventions. This Congress has established a tradition and improved in recent times a system of military commissions, a system adopted by both Houses of Congress, signed into law by the President, which provides standards of due process and fairness in the trial of suspected war criminals, not just in compliance with the Geneva Conventions and the Supreme Court of the United States but well above the standards that have been required by both the Supreme Court and the Geneva Conventions. Those who are accused of committing the heinous, cowardly acts of intentionally targeting unsuspecting, defenseless civilians in an act of war as part of a larger declared war of Islamic extremists against, frankly, anybody who is not like them--the most numerous victims of these Islamic terrorists around the world are fellow Muslims who don't agree with their extremism. They have killed many people of other religions. When they struck us in the United States on 9/11, they killed an extraordinary classically American diverse group of people. The only reason they were targeted was that they were in the United States. The terrorists, these people who are suspected of being terrorists participating in and aiding the attacks of 9/11, are war criminals, not common criminals. They should, therefore, be tried by a military commission system, which goes back as long as the Revolutionary War in the United States. There is a proud and fair tradition. We have upgraded and strengthened all the due process and legal protections of them after 9/11. So why would we take these war criminals, suspected war criminals, and bring them into the criminal courts of the United States and give them the rights of the Constitution. I don't understand. Every Member of the Senate received a letter today from quite a large number of families of the victims of 9/11, 140-plus at last writing. I want to read briefly from the letter. The letter is in support of the amendment Senators Graham, Webb, McCain, and I have offered. The American people were rightly outraged by this act of war. Whether the cause was retribution or simple recognition of our common humanity, the words ``Never Forget'' were invoked in tearful or angry rectitude, defiantly written in the dust of Ground Zero or humbly penned on makeshift memorials all across this land. The country was united in its determination that these acts should not go unmarked and unpunished. Eight long years have passed since that dark and terrible day. Remember, Mr. President, this is written by people who lost dear ones on 9/11. They continue: Sadly, some have forgotten the promises we made to those whose lives were taken in such a cruel and vicious manner. We have not forgotten. We are the husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, sons, daughters, sisters, brothers and other family members of the victims of these depraved and barbaric attacks, and we feel a profound obligation to ensure that justice is done on their behalf. They continue: It is incomprehensible to us that Members of the United States Congress would propose that the same men who today refer to the murder of our loved ones as a ``blessed day'' and who targeted the United States Capitol for the same kind of destruction that was wrought in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania, should be the beneficiaries of a social compact of which they are not a part, do not recognize, and which they seek to destroy: the United States Constitution. So they say: We adamantly oppose prosecuting the 9/11 conspirators in Article III courts, which would provide them with the very rights that may make it possible for them to escape the justice which they so richly deserve. We believe that military commissions . . . are the appropriate legal forum for the individuals who declared war on America. Mr. President, I know there will be further debate on this amendment, but I ask my colleagues to join in this. We are doing it not just because of the protocol I cited at the beginning but because of stories that are emanating that perhaps as early as next week, the Department of Justice will announce they are going to bring Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who planned the 9/11 attacks, who is in our custody, to trial in a Federal court. This man is, from all that I know, one of the devils of history, an evil man who wrought terrible destruction and suffering on our country, and he ought to be given due process, but he ought to be given due process in a forum reserved for suspected war criminals, and that is the military commissions. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to take up and approve the nomination of Dr. Tara O'Toole to be Under Secretary of Science and Technology at the Department of Homeland Security. When the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held its confirmation hearing on Dr. O'Toole's nomination I said I believed it was an ``inspired choice.'' My judgment remains unchanged and I would note that her nomination was reported out of committee favorably on a bipartisan basis with just one dissenting Democratic vote. I would also note that DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano has been pleading with the Senate to confirm Dr. O'Toole. Secretary Napolitano has said that Dr. O'Toole's biosecurity and epidemiology expertise are critical to DHS and to her, personally. The Secretary's urgency is heightened because of the critical roles Dr. O'Toole will play in both defending our Nation against bioterrorism and in the continuing preparations for the H1N1 flu pandemic. Let's consider the tough job Dr. O'Toole has been asked to take on and then consider the qualifications she brings to it. The Science and Technology Directorate is charged with managing our Nation's investments in homeland security research and development projects with the goal of providing its customers within and without the DHS the kinds of state-of-the-art technologies they need to achieve their missions. The S&T Directorate got off to a rocky start and struggled in its early years to clarify and execute its primary mission. Former Under Secretary Jay M. Cohen resolved to build a leaner and more tightly managed organization that focused on better serving its customers and being transparent with Congress. He implemented internal controls to monitor S&T finances and track the progress of S&T investments. He established a structured strategic planning process that is designed to produce specific objectives and annual performance measures. But despite this progress, big challenges await the new undersecretary, including expanding investments in innovative R&D for homeland security--like the advanced spectroscopic portal, ASP, and the secure border initiative--and insuring the reliability of the a testing and evaluation that DHS relies on for large acquisition programs. Programs like these can be force multipliers for DHS's customers within and without the department. Now let's consider the resume Dr. O'Toole brings to the job--both as a medical professional and as a manager. Let's start with Dr. O'Toole's solid and impressive educational background: a bachelor's degree from Vassar College, a medical degree from George Washington University, and a master of public health degree from Johns Hopkins University. Now let's consider her management skills: From 1989 to 1993 she served as a senior analyst and project director with the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment; from 1993 to 1997, she served as the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health at the Department of Energy. From 1999 to 2003, she managed the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies. For the last 6 years, she has served as the Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh. On top of all this, Dr. O'Toole is also an accomplished author. She has published her research on anthrax, smallpox, the plague, biological attacks, containment of contagious disease epidemics, biodefense, and hospital preparedness. She is coeditor in chief of the Journal of Biosecurity and Bioterrorism. And she took all this knowledge she has gained over these many years and used it to help create the 2001 bio-terror attack simulation known as ``Operation Dark Winter'' that helped open our eyes to our many vulnerabilities. Dr. O'Toole is also a former chair of the board of the Federation of American Scientists and she has participated in major studies or advisory panels at the request of the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security. Besides these many qualifications, another important measure of her fitness for this post is the bipartisan respect she has earned across the government and scientific communities that monitor homeland security and bioterrorism challenges. Among her many supporters are: Former Senators Bob Graham and Jim Talent, Chairman and Cochairman of the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism; former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge; former Senator and defense expert Sam Nunn; former National Security Adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft, as well as Dr. Robert P. Kadlec, former Special Assistant for Biodefense Policy at the Homeland Security Council under President Bush; Dr. D.A. Henderson, who led the World Health Organization's efforts to rid the world of smallpox, and the Federation of American Scientists. Dr. O'Toole brings a remarkable breadth of experience to this job that is so crucial to our nation's security and I say again she is an inspired choice and I urge my 3 colleagues to take up her nomination and confirm her to this position where our nation so desperately needs her talents.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, first, let me take this opportunity to commend the chairman and the other members of the Finance Committee on their collective efforts to extend benefits to those unemployed Americans who still face a tough job market in this difficult recession. Second, I would like to engage my good friend and colleague, the Senator from Montana and the chairman of the Committee on Finance, in a colloquy on a subject of utmost importance to the men and women who are currently unemployed. Specifically, I am concerned that under the current unemployment insurance, UI, extensions there may be disincentives for unemployed Americans to seek reemployment. Mr. Chairman, I believe we can agree that unemployed adults who want to return to work should be given every incentive to return to work even if they accept part-time jobs or lower wages. This benefits not only those individuals and their families but also strengthens our national economy. However, it has come to my attention that many Americans who knew they were doing the right thing by accepting a job, even at greatly reduced wages from their previous employment, would have been better off turning down meaningful work.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I became aware earlier this year that some of my constituents in Connecticut are being penalized for working either part time or temporarily after first receiving emergency benefits. Further investigation shows that this problem is becoming more prevalent to varying degrees in many States and possibly all 50 States. Under current EUC extensions, if one receives emergency compensation and a year passes with no recorded work history, those benefits can continue uninterrupted while that person seeks employment. The problem often occurs, however, when a person takes a job, either part-time or short-term work, at much reduced wages compared to their previous employment. Because this lower wage work automatically qualifies them for reduced State benefits, Federal law now requires that they can no longer receive the much needed emergency extended compensation. In a particular case, one of my constituents, a woman who worked on behalf of Connecticut children for 28 years before losing her job, was receiving the Federal benefits she was entitled to. But when this woman, who is the sole caregiver of her 88-year-old father, took a minimum-wage job 2 days a week, her benefits dropped from $483 per week to $38 per week. She would have been better off financially had she not returned to work and instead stayed home to care for her ailing father. I am also advised by my State's labor department that many other constituents are becoming aware that taking employment at this time may disadvantage them, and some are therefore less inclined to accept employment. I also am told that more and more States are facing this problem and that the problem will grow as this recession continues. I hope the Finance Committee will look into this issue and consider legislative language which I have suggested to address this problem.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. vote explanation

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 331, submitted earlier today.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 332, submitted earlier today.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the President of the Senate be authorized to appoint a committee on the part of the Senate to join with a like committee on the part of the House of Representatives to escort Her Excellency Angela Merkel, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, into the House Chamber for the joint meeting at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, November 3, 2009.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I am very proud to rise today to join with Senator Sessions, my friend from Alabama, in introducing this legislation to reauthorize provisions of the PATRIOT Act that will expire at the end of the year if we do not act. These are critically important provisions. I was about to say something that may sound odd to say, which is that the PATRIOT Act got a bad name, which it did not deserve. It is hard to imagine that anything with the name ``patriot'' in it could have gotten a bad name. There may have been a lot of reasons for it-- misunderstandings, maybe, frankly, suspicions of the previous administration. But on the merits, this legislation was critically necessary in the time after September 11. And as Senator Sessions has made clear, because of what seems to be an escalating series of threats to our homeland security from Islamist extremists using terrorism to attack us, these provisions are actually probably more critically necessary today than they have been in years past. But they have been critically important. I say the PATRIOT Act got a bad name because of the three provisions that our legislation--Senators Sessions, Bond and I--will continue to authorize, including the roving wiretap, business records provisions, and the so-called lone wolf provision. When Senator Sessions goes into these in some detail in a few moments, I think anybody coming to the discussion with an open mind will see that these are very commonsense provisions. In fact, they are provisions that law enforcers in our country have today with regard to traditional crimes. And we are taking them and applying them to these kinds of investigations regarding terrorist threats against the United States of America. The Judiciary Committee labored with very good intentions, brought a bill out that was a compromise and did get some bipartisan support, I gather, which I was pleased about. But it does, as Senator Sessions says, make some changes and it puts some pressure on the enforcement of these critical provisions of the PATRIOT Act that will weaken them, will undermine their effectiveness. And I think we should go for everything we can get here which has worked so well for the past years. The fact is, we have seen a series--I want to come to this. I want to go back because there was mention--I said the PATRIOT Act got a bad name. There was a particular focus and concern in the library community and advocates for libraries--we all love libraries, and I myself have such memories of the role the public library in my hometown of Stamford, CT, played in my education--that somehow the government could break into libraries through the PATRIOT Act and check on what books people were taking out and compromise peoples' freedom of, I guess, intellectual pursuit, freedom of interests, if you will. There was a lot of concern, a lot of debate back and forth. Finally, after some period of time in which the Attorney General refused to answer questions about how often that provision of the PATRIOT Act had been utilized, the Attorney General actually came forth--I forgot the circumstances--and said it had never been utilized, and it was cleaned up, and that is not in effect anymore. Now a new administration--President Obama, Attorney General Holder-- changed, different parties, in some sense different perspectives, but yet the President and the Attorney General took a sensible and I would say unbiased look at the challenge they faced from terrorism in this country and then looked at the provisions of the PATRIOT Act and said: We need it. It is fair. It is constitutional. It does not deprive people of rights. And more to the point, it will be critically useful in stopping the extremists and the terrorists from depriving people not only of their rights here in America but of their lives. The PATRIOT Act provisions in question here have been a critical part of, I would say, a remarkable, impressive improvement in the capacity of the U.S. Government to stop terrorism, this unconventional enemy we face which aims to attack and kill Americans and, indeed, to undermine if not to defeat our fundamental way of life, our freedom, our values, our diversity, our tolerance. We have seen, since 9/11, I am proud to say facilitated or encouraged by some legislation we passed, the Department of Homeland Security created, the 9/11 Commission Report, reforming the intelligence community, the Department of National Intelligence. Probably one of the great unsung national assets we have, something called the National Counterterrorism Center, exists outside of Washington. It is a facility in which all of the relevant agencies of the Federal Government are there side by side 24/7, 365 days a year sharing information, connecting the dots. What did we all say after 9/ 11 and after the Commission Report? We had a lot of information in different places in the Federal Government; that if it had been brought together in one place, I personally think we would have stopped 9/11, the murder of 3,000 people on American soil. We did not have it together. But now those places exist--NCTC, the National Counterterrorism Center; the tremendous work by our intelligence community, by our military community, by our law enforcement community, working together cooperatively and cooperating with foreign intelligence, law enforcement and military communities. The FBI has created and beefed up a counterterrorism division that I think has become the best in the world. And it is what makes the arrests that have occurred, a series of events, the ones Senator Sessions mentioned, the Zazi case--Najibullah Zazi, Afghan from birth, came here, permanent legal resident--this is the nightmare case-- becomes radicalized, commits himself to Islamist extremism, goes over to Pakistan and connects with the highest levels, allegedly, of al- Qaida, receives training. One presumes--we do not know--he was directed or encouraged to do the things he came back here to do and started to work to put together, to acquire, according to the indictment, the material to explode several bombs in New York City, which would have done devastating damage. The slightest bit of evidence--I am not compromising anything, but you might say metaphorically, Zazi appeared on one screen, a shred of evidence about him, and it alarmed some of our law enforcement people, and all of the resources of our government--foreign intelligence, American intelligence, CIA, DNI, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, local law enforcement--came together with that little piece to build a picture that helped us to follow him and find him and stop him before he was able to do terrible damage in New York City. Do you know what else helped with that? The PATRIOT Act. It has helped in so many of these cases we stopped. There has been a ring of them this year. Earlier, about a month ago in our Homeland Security Committee, Senator Collins and I convened a hearing on the state of homegrown terrorism and our efforts to stop it. We had the Secretary of Homeland Security, the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, and the head of the FBI. As my last question, I kind of said it wide open to each of them: Tell me the one thing Congress could do to help you do the extraordinary, critically important, life-and-death work you are doing to prevent terrorist attacks against the United States. You might say I was giving them a blank check. Frankly, I thought they would say: We need more money for this program or that program. When we came to Bob Mueller, the Director of the FBI, he gave a simple answer to the question: What is the one thing Congress could do to help you continue to do the extraordinary work you and the rest of our American team are doing to stop terrorist attacks. Director Mueller said: Reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. Without it, without those three simple provisions--lone wolf, roving wiretaps, and the business record provisions--we will not be able to do the job you want us to do. This is so critical to our security that we should settle for nothing less than exactly the best. The Department of Justice recently submitted a letter urging renewal of the expiring PATRIOT Act provisions and emphasized the importance of us not doing anything ``to undermine the effectiveness of these important authorities.'' Despite the clear admonition--you might say plea--from the Obama administration and the Department of Justice, those who use these tools to keep us safe, I am concerned that proposals to impose some new requirements and restrictions on the FBI's ability to use these tested, existing PATRIOT Act authorities and national security letters will diminish the ability of the law enforcement community to protect us from these terrorist attacks. As an individual Senator from Connecticut, as a Senator privileged to serve as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, I am proud to join with Senators Sessions and Bond in introducing this clean, total reauthorization of the expiring PATRIOT Act provisions and urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this simple, proven, and vitally important legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I am very proud to rise today to join with Senator Sessions, my friend from Alabama, in introducing this legislation to reauthorize provisions of the PATRIOT Act that will expire at the end of the year if we do not act. These are critically important provisions. I was about to say something that may sound odd to say, which is that the PATRIOT Act got a bad name, which it did not deserve. It is hard to imagine that anything with the name ``patriot'' in it could have gotten a bad name. There may have been a lot of reasons for it-- misunderstandings, maybe, frankly, suspicions of the previous administration. But on the merits, this legislation was critically necessary in the time after September 11. And as Senator Sessions has made clear, because of what seems to be an escalating series of threats to our homeland security from Islamist extremists using terrorism to attack us, these provisions are actually probably more critically necessary today than they have been in years past. But they have been critically important. I say the PATRIOT Act got a bad name because of the three provisions that our legislation--Senators Sessions, Bond and I--will continue to authorize, including the roving wiretap, business records provisions, and the so-called lone wolf provision. When Senator Sessions goes into these in some detail in a few moments, I think anybody coming to the discussion with an open mind will see that these are very commonsense provisions. In fact, they are provisions that law enforcers in our country have today with regard to traditional crimes. And we are taking them and applying them to these kinds of investigations regarding terrorist threats against the United States of America. The Judiciary Committee labored with very good intentions, brought a bill out that was a compromise and did get some bipartisan support, I gather, which I was pleased about. But it does, as Senator Sessions says, make some changes and it puts some pressure on the enforcement of these critical provisions of the PATRIOT Act that will weaken them, will undermine their effectiveness. And I think we should go for everything we can get here which has worked so well for the past years. The fact is, we have seen a series--I want to come to this. I want to go back because there was mention--I said the PATRIOT Act got a bad name. There was a particular focus and concern in the library community and advocates for libraries--we all love libraries, and I myself have such memories of the role the public library in my hometown of Stamford, CT, played in my education--that somehow the government could break into libraries through the PATRIOT Act and check on what books people were taking out and compromise peoples' freedom of, I guess, intellectual pursuit, freedom of interests, if you will. There was a lot of concern, a lot of debate back and forth. Finally, after some period of time in which the Attorney General refused to answer questions about how often that provision of the PATRIOT Act had been utilized, the Attorney General actually came forth--I forgot the circumstances--and said it had never been utilized, and it was cleaned up, and that is not in effect anymore. Now a new administration--President Obama, Attorney General Holder-- changed, different parties, in some sense different perspectives, but yet the President and the Attorney General took a sensible and I would say unbiased look at the challenge they faced from terrorism in this country and then looked at the provisions of the PATRIOT Act and said: We need it. It is fair. It is constitutional. It does not deprive people of rights. And more to the point, it will be critically useful in stopping the extremists and the terrorists from depriving people not only of their rights here in America but of their lives. The PATRIOT Act provisions in question here have been a critical part of, I would say, a remarkable, impressive improvement in the capacity of the U.S. Government to stop terrorism, this unconventional enemy we face which aims to attack and kill Americans and, indeed, to undermine if not to defeat our fundamental way of life, our freedom, our values, our diversity, our tolerance. We have seen, since 9/11, I am proud to say facilitated or encouraged by some legislation we passed, the Department of Homeland Security created, the 9/11 Commission Report, reforming the intelligence community, the Department of National Intelligence. Probably one of the great unsung national assets we have, something called the National Counterterrorism Center, exists outside of Washington. It is a facility in which all of the relevant agencies of the Federal Government are there side by side 24/7, 365 days a year sharing information, connecting the dots. What did we all say after 9/ 11 and after the Commission Report? We had a lot of information in different places in the Federal Government; that if it had been brought together in one place, I personally think we would have stopped 9/11, the murder of 3,000 people on American soil. We did not have it together. But now those places exist--NCTC, the National Counterterrorism Center; the tremendous work by our intelligence community, by our military community, by our law enforcement community, working together cooperatively and cooperating with foreign intelligence, law enforcement and military communities. The FBI has created and beefed up a counterterrorism division that I think has become the best in the world. And it is what makes the arrests that have occurred, a series of events, the ones Senator Sessions mentioned, the Zazi case--Najibullah Zazi, Afghan from birth, came here, permanent legal resident--this is the nightmare case-- becomes radicalized, commits himself to Islamist extremism, goes over to Pakistan and connects with the highest levels, allegedly, of al- Qaida, receives training. One presumes--we do not know--he was directed or encouraged to do the things he came back here to do and started to work to put together, to acquire, according to the indictment, the material to explode several bombs in New York City, which would have done devastating damage. The slightest bit of evidence--I am not compromising anything, but you might say metaphorically, Zazi appeared on one screen, a shred of evidence about him, and it alarmed some of our law enforcement people, and all of the resources of our government--foreign intelligence, American intelligence, CIA, DNI, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, local law enforcement--came together with that little piece to build a picture that helped us to follow him and find him and stop him before he was able to do terrible damage in New York City. Do you know what else helped with that? The PATRIOT Act. It has helped in so many of these cases we stopped. There has been a ring of them this year. Earlier, about a month ago in our Homeland Security Committee, Senator Collins and I convened a hearing on the state of homegrown terrorism and our efforts to stop it. We had the Secretary of Homeland Security, the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, and the head of the FBI. As my last question, I kind of said it wide open to each of them: Tell me the one thing Congress could do to help you do the extraordinary, critically important, life-and-death work you are doing to prevent terrorist attacks against the United States. You might say I was giving them a blank check. Frankly, I thought they would say: We need more money for this program or that program. When we came to Bob Mueller, the Director of the FBI, he gave a simple answer to the question: What is the one thing Congress could do to help you continue to do the extraordinary work you and the rest of our American team are doing to stop terrorist attacks. Director Mueller said: Reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. Without it, without those three simple provisions--lone wolf, roving wiretaps, and the business record provisions--we will not be able to do the job you want us to do. This is so critical to our security that we should settle for nothing less than exactly the best. The Department of Justice recently submitted a letter urging renewal of the expiring PATRIOT Act provisions and emphasized the importance of us not doing anything ``to undermine the effectiveness of these important authorities.'' Despite the clear admonition--you might say plea--from the Obama administration and the Department of Justice, those who use these tools to keep us safe, I am concerned that proposals to impose some new requirements and restrictions on the FBI's ability to use these tested, existing PATRIOT Act authorities and national security letters will diminish the ability of the law enforcement community to protect us from these terrorist attacks. As an individual Senator from Connecticut, as a Senator privileged to serve as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, I am proud to join with Senators Sessions and Bond in introducing this clean, total reauthorization of the expiring PATRIOT Act provisions and urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this simple, proven, and vitally important legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the chairman of its Subcommittee on Airland, I had the honor and pleasure again this year of working with Chairman Levin and Senator McCain on this bill. I congratulate them for working with their House counterparts, Chairman Skelton and Representative McKeon, to deliver a bill that will help keep our Nation safe and provide our troops with the support they deserve. I also wish to thank Senator Thune, who is my ranking member on the Airland Subcommittee, and Chairman Abercrombie and Representative Bartlett of the House's Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, for the close cooperation we achieved this year on the areas that fall under our shared jurisdiction. There are several accomplishments in this bill of which I am especially proud. This bill will increase the authorized size, known as end strength, of our active duty Army from 532,400 to 562,400 for fiscal year 2010, and further authorized the Secretary of Defense to increase the Army by an additional 30,000 soldiers in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. This growth in the Army is essential--our soldiers are under incredible strain from multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, oftentimes with little more than a year at home to rest and train for every year that they spend in theater. I applaud the President's decision this July to add 22,000 soldiers to the Army, and call upon him to use the authority provided in this bill to do more. We must ensure that our Army is large enough for all the missions we ask of it, and also give our soldiers the time they need at home to rest, train, and be with their friends and families. With regard to missile defense, this bill includes an amendment that Senator Sessions and I, along with a bipartisan group of cosponsors, introduced to ensure that the administration's new architecture for missile defenses in Europe will be as capable as the previous plan that was set aside. I believe that this section of the final bill, paired with section 8121 of the Senate version of the Defense Appropriations Act, which protects funding for the continued development of the two- stage ground based interceptor, will help to keep our Nation safe against Iran's aggressive missile programs. This bill also makes critical investments in our Nation's sea power. It authorizes $4.2 billion for Virginia-class submarines, which will be procured at the rate of two per year from 2011, and $495 million for the research and development of a replacement to our aging Ohio-class strategic deterrence submarines. I am very proud of the skilled workers of my home State of Connecticut who build these essential submarines. Turning to the Army's modernization programs, the final version of this bill supports the decision by the Secretary of Defense and the Army's leadership to restructure the FCS program. This bill will provide full funding for the ``Spin Out'' portions of that program and the continued development of the network. I look forward to working with Senator Thune in the coming year to evaluate the Army's revamped strategy for developing and procuring ground combat vehicles for our soldiers. There is one element of this bill with which I must express my deep disappointment--the inclusion of $560 million in funds for the continued development and procurement of an alternate engine for the F- 35 Joint Strike Fighter. When the President introduced his plans for reducing spending in the budget this May, he specifically pointed out the alternate engine as the singular example of programs that ``do nothing to keep us safe--but rather prevent us from spending money on what does keep us safe.'' He continued to say ``the pentagon does not want--and does not plan to use--the alternative version'' to the engine that it already has for the Joint Strike Fighter. Since the President's initial comments on this unnecessary and wasteful program, the Secretary of Defense and the uniformed military leadership have explained exactly why they do not want this unnecessary, alternate engine. It is because they know the danger this earmark poses to the Joint Strike Fighter, which is planned to be the cornerstone of American air power for decades to come. If Congress forced the Defense Department to continue paying for an alternate engine, it would cost an additional $4 to $6 billion over just the next 5 years--billions of dollars that the Department has not planned for, and that would either have to come from the Joint Strike Fighter or other critical programs to keep our country safe. If Congress forced the Defense Department to procure the alternate engine that it does not want, it would prevent the Joint Strike Fighter program from achieving economies of scale for years to come, as it split its procurement to maintain two manufacturing lines. The costs of the program would rise, along with the risk that it will never deliver the aircraft that our Nation requires. When he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in June, Air Force LTG Mark Shackelford explained that these added costs would mean that the Air Force would be able to afford some 53 fewer of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft that it needs to support our airmen. In response to the President's strong arguments and the concerns of our military leadership, the Senate put this question to a vote in on July 23, deciding by a vote of 59-38 to end the unnecessary, alternate engine. Although the House never took similar action on this topic, the Senate receded to its position in conference. I call upon President Obama to send a clear message to our colleagues on the Appropriations committee--that he will veto an appropriations bill that includes funds for this unnecessary program. Fifty-nine Members of this body stood by the President when he first called upon us to end this program, and I am sure that we will stand by him again. Despite this strong reservation, I call upon my colleagues to vote for the adoption this conference report and again thank my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for their hard work on behalf of our service men and women.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I recognize the distinguished service of LTG Stephen M. Speakes as he prepares to retire after 35 years of exceptional service to this Nation as an officer of the U.S. Army. I have had the pleasure to work with General Speakes over the last several years as he served as the Army deputy chief of staff, G-8, a position in which he was responsible for matching the service's resources to the needs of our soldiers. His compassionate leadership, unwavering commitment and selfless dedication are exemplified in his enumerable contributions throughout his distinguished career. General Speakes was commissioned as an armor officer in 1974. He began his career with troop-leading assignments in the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment at Fort Bliss, TX, and the Third Brigade, Third Infantry Division in Aschaffenburg, Germany. He commanded the 2d Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment at Bad Kissingen, and the 2d ``Blackjack'' Brigade in the First Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX. General Speakes' service also includes assignments on the Joint Staff with the srategic arms reduction talks nuclear negotiations team in the Joint Staff's J5 Directorate for Strategic Plans and Policy, as a war planner in the Joint Staff's J7 Directorate for Operational Plans and Joint Force Development, and on the Army Staff's Force Development Directorate. A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, General Speakes received a master's degree in government from Georgetown University and was a fellow at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. At Harvard, he coauthored a study of U.N. peace enforcement, ``A Blue Helmet Combat Force.'' His senior assignments include a tour in Europe beginning in 1997 as the V Corps G3 and chief of staff. He then served as the deputy G3 at U.S. Army Forces Command before assignment as the chief of staff of the III Corps in August 2001. From August 2002 thru June 2003, General Speakes served as the assistant division commander of the 4th Infantry Division, Mechanized, and deployed in that capacity for Operation Iraqi Freedom. In June 2003, he departed Tikrit, Iraq, and reported to Kuwait as the deputy commanding general, Third U.S. Army and Coalition Forces Land Component Command. While there, he oversaw the redeployment of 250,000 soldiers and marines as the United States executed the first Iraq force rotation. Returning to the United States, General Speakes served as the director, force development on the G-8 staff from August 2004 to December 2006 before assuming his current responsibilities. His lovely wife, Mrs. Gigi Speakes, has supported General Speakes and all the members of his commands in every assignment for the past 30 years. She has been integral to all the contributions that this Army team has been able to make to soldiers, the Army and the Nation. She is an outstanding volunteer in all aspects of her service to the Army. The Speakes are the epitome of an Army family. Clearly, General and Mrs. Speakes' greatest achievement was the raising of two incredible sons, Grant and Brennan. Both are Army officers who have served on multiple deployments in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Their continued success in the military is the fruit of their parents' enduring love and dedication to them and other junior soldiers. On behalf of the Senate and the United States of America, I thank General Speakes, his wife Gigi, and his entire family for the commitment, sacrifice, and contribution that they have made throughout his honorable military service. I congratulate them on completing an exceptional and successful career, and wish them the greatest happiness as they move on to the next phase of their life together.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to declare to my colleagues that I intend to vote against cloture to proceed on the motion to proceed to this measure regarding the sustainable growth rate. I want to explain why. I thank Senator Stabenow for her leadership, and to say this is one of those moments where substantially I agree with just about everything she had to say about the inadequacies of the sustainable growth rate formula which was put in in the late 1970s as part of what turned out to be a very effective attempt to bring fiscal responsibility, budget balancing, even a surplus. Believe it or not, at the end of the Clinton administration, historians may note, perhaps people will forget, we actually had a Federal Government surplus. But it turned out that this sustainable growth rate formula for the reimbursement of doctors was not workable and unfair and has resulted in the refusal of a lot of doctors to treat patients under Medicare. So why would I not vote for cloture to proceed to take up this matter, and then vote for it? It is because there are larger questions involved. In some sense, I think this is a precautionary tale, the vote on this matter. It is a precautionary tale of what we will face in succeeding votes in the Senate and most immediately in the health care reform debate we will soon take up on the Senate floor. We did not get into this terrible situation with our Federal deficit and debt because there were people in the House or in the White House over the last several years who had bad motives or bad values. In fact, in most of the cases, such as this, when money has been allocated, appropriated for programs, it has been done with the best of intentions. But the ultimate effect has been bad for our country and our future because it has put us into a position of national debt that is unsustainable, that threatens to cripple our economic recovery and burden our children and grandchildren and beyond so that they do not live in a country with the kind of economic dynamism and opportunity in which we were blessed to be raised. In some sense, if I would be allowed to paraphrase, I would say the road to an unsustainable, damaging, American national debt is paved with good intentions, with votes for good programs. It just is time for us together, across party lines, to sound the alarm, blow the whistle, and make choices regarding priorities. We cannot have, no matter how good or worthwhile, programs for which we are not prepared to pay. The numbers are stunning. I am privileged to be serving my 21st year in the Senate. The numbers of our Federal indebtedness today are so shockingly high that if you told me that 21 years ago or 10 years ago or even 5 years ago, I simply would not have believed it. The fiscal year that ended on September 30, fiscal year 2009, we now know, learned about a week ago, America ran a deficit of $1.4-plus trillion. We know America now has an accumulated long-term debt of $12 trillion. We know the Congressional Budget Office has projected that over the next 10 years, we will run deficits that will add $9 trillion to the long-term debt. So $12 trillion now, add $9 trillion, and that is $21 trillion of debt. It is unbelievable. We say it is unsustainable. That is a big word. What does ``unsustainable'' mean? It means that at some point this size debt is going to cripple the economic recovery that is just beginning. It is going to create hyperinflation because at some point people are going to stop buying our debt and we will have to raise interest to get more people to do so. At some point, if we don't fix this, the government is going to be left with no alternative but to print more money. That is the road to inflation, to lost jobs, and to a lower quality of life. All these things we have done, which seemed necessary at the time, which are good, we have to pay for them or else this will not be the country we want it to be for succeeding generations. We are going to reach a point where we will not have the money to do the first thing the Federal Government is supposed to do, which is to defend the security of the country, to provide for the common defense in what is, obviously, a dangerous world. This is a precautionary tale, a precautionary vote. We are coming to a big debate on health care reform. I am for health care reform, but it is not the only thing I am for. In fact, at this moment in our history, it seems there are two things that matter more to our country than health care reform, although I wish we could do them all. One is to sustain the recovery from the deepest recession this country has had since the Great Depression of the 1930s. We are just beginning to crawl our way out of it. Gains in gross domestic product look as though they are coming, but it is fragile. It is not robust. Of course, almost 10 percent of the American people are out of work. In fact, it is higher than 10 percent. To me, the top priority we all should have--and I speak for myself--is to sustain the economic recovery to get people back to work, to keep our economy strong. The second--and it is related to the first--is to begin to deal with the terrible imbalances in our Federal books that will compromise the economic recovery and cripple our economic future and the opportunity our children and grandchildren will have in the future. It means we have to make choices. In the coming health care debate, we have to make sure, as the President said, that there is not one dime added to the deficit as a result. We have to make sure that what we do within the context of health care reform not only doesn't increase the deficit and the long-term debt but doesn't add cost and increase premiums, for instance, on working people, middle-class families to pay for their health insurance and on businesses for which we need to provide every incentive to add workers, to grow, to sustain the recovery as it exists now. Those are the standards I will apply to my own action on the health care reform proposal. I want to be for health care reform. I am for health care reform. I know the system needs to be changed. But this is a precautionary vote coming up because while the Medicare Physicians Fairness Act, which would repeal the sustainable growth rate formula, is substantively just, it is not paid for. It adds almost $250 billion to the debt for the coming years. I don't think we can do that anymore. I am relieved to know, in terms of the immediate impact of my vote against cloture on this matter, that if cloture is not obtained, the health care reform bill that came out of the Senate Finance Committee does take care of the problem with the sustainable growth rate for another year. That gives everybody--doctors and, most important, Medicare recipients--breathing room. We can't go on spending without paying for what we are spending, no matter how good or right it is, because there is a greater harm being done to our country. The speed with which this Medicare Physician Fairness Act has come to the floor and taking it out of health care reform where it certainly belongs is also a precautionary tale. I have said I am against the public option for health care insurance, essentially a government-owned health insurance plan, one, because we believe in a market economy and a regulatory government. We believe a market economy is the best way to create economic growth and wealth. It serves the American people very well. We also know that a market economy of itself doesn't, as somebody long ago said, have a conscience. So the government sets rules. We have oversight. We have regulatory rules. We have antitrust laws, for instance. That is the way we maintain fairness in the economy, in the marketplace. I don't remember another case where our answer to a concern about fairness in the marketplace--in this case, whether there is real competition in the health insurance business, whether the health insurance companies are being fair in their rates, et cetera, which are all reasonable questions--I don't remember another case where the answer was to create a government-owned corporation to compete with the private sector. I spent 6 great years serving as attorney general of Connecticut. We sued a lot of businesses for unfair trade practices, for bid rigging, for price fixing. We appeared before regulatory commissions on behalf of the people of the United States, all sorts of businesses. But nobody ever had the idea that instead of us doing that, we should create a government oil company, a government car company, a government company to sell automobiles, a government company to take care of roof contracting. I could go on and on. One of the reasons is, particularly now, I don't have confidence that we can discipline ourselves from making it into another cause of the skyrocketing Federal deficit. This bill is evidence of that. Here is a good cause, a group we all respect, the doctors, saying: We need this 10-year fix to the problem. And we just did it. This really ought to be done as part of overall Medicare reform. We have to have a commission. We have to have some system to deal with the great threats to our economic future. Medicare is going to run out of money in 2017, 8 years from now. Social Security is already dipping into the trust funds, taking more out than we are getting in. It may change in a year or two, but that is the way it is. With respect to the sponsors of this proposal, the Medicare Physician Fairness Act, the doctors' associations that I know would like us to vote for it, I think 1 year is enough; 1 year paid for is enough. To do more than that now is wrong and irresponsible, and therefore I will vote against the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the Medicare Physician Fairness Act. I yield the floor.