S10636 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 19, 2008 

a dozen years, and then he sold it to the employees and created the company he continues to run—with 12-hour days during the 

week and seven hours on Saturdays. 

‘‘One of my philosophies is, you’ve got to 

make money or you’re not going to be in 

business,’’ he said. ‘‘I love the business. I 

love the challenge of negotiating. I’m fiercely competitive. I may not look that way, but 

I’m a highly competitive guy. But I’m not a 

sore loser, either.’’ 

Miller is especially happy to see businesses 

‘‘grow with us,’’ starting out small and expanding as their success increases. R.E.M 

Development, which Miller runs with his 

son, Tim, is devoted to helping its tenants, 

but expects serious effort in return, Miller 

said. 

‘‘We try to help people get started. I’m a 

great advocate of the underdog, because 

that’s where I came from,’’ he said. ‘‘We 

want people to make a profit, but they’ve 

got to work for it, as we do.’’ 

Businesses first must craft a solid, well-researched, thorough, realistic business plan, 

Miller suggested. Then they must forge relationships with customers and with vendors, 

and develop and maintain a positive reputation. That’s helped Miller thrive. 

‘‘When we really need a product, we can 

get that product,’’ he said, referring to critical building components. ‘‘People know 

they will get paid. We don’t cry wolf every 

day, but we do cry wolf from time to time.’’ 

Last, and sometimes of special importance, 

is for an owner to be able to abandon an unsuccessful venture, as he did with a portablestorage project he launched just before 9/11, 

even though a stigma can be attached, Miller 

said. 

‘‘If you’re successful, everyone thinks 

you’re a genius. If you fail they think you’re 

a schmuck,’’ he said. ‘‘Don’t fall in love with 

’em. Drop ’em if it doesn’t work. You have to 

be a realist.’’ 

Regardless of the situation, Miller encourages other business owners to give back. He 

likes to quote fellow Vermont philanthropist 

J. Warren McClure, who died in 2004: ‘‘If you 

can’t give a dollar, you’ll never give a hundred.’’ 

‘‘Give what you can,’’ Miller said. ‘‘We 

have an obligation. There are many, many, 

many needs. And you can have a lot of fun 

doing it.’’ 

f 

HEALTH CARE REFORM 

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wanted 

to take this opportunity to share with 

my colleagues an especially poignant 

and meaningful column that appeared 

in the Boston Herald last week by 

Wayne Woodlief honoring the efforts 

Senator EDWARD M. KENNEDY has made 

to enact legislation to provide health 

care for all Americans—and looking 

forward to his leadership on this issue. 

As Senator KENNEDY recently said ‘‘It 

is painfully obvious that our health 

care system costs Americans too much, 

costs employers too much, denies too 

much needed care and leaves out too 

many Americans.’’ He is right. We need 

to take immediate action next year to 

reform our health care system. I look 

forward to working with Senator KENNEDY to enact broad reform of our 

health care system to help every American gain access to high-quality, affordable health care. 

I ask unanimous consent to have the 

column to which I referred, printed in 

the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

BARACK OBAMA, LISTEN TO DR. TED

(By Wayne Woodlief) 

Now’s the time for President-elect Obama 

and Congress to seize the moment and enact 

health care for all Americans. ASAP. 

Sen. is pressing a new strategy—shaped in 

bipartisan meetings—for one consensus bill 

that can be moved swiftly through the Senate and the House, perhaps even in Obama’s 

first 100 days. 

Kennedy has courted and listened to allies 

on both sides of the aisle. Sen. Mike Enzi (R– 

Wyo.), ranking Republican on the Health 

Care Committee that Kennedy chairs, is 

working with Teddy. And Senate Finance 

Chairman Max Baucus (D–Mont.) weighed in 

this week with his own ideas on health care; 

ideas that look a lot like Kennedy’s and like 

the Massachusetts universal coverage law 

that Teddy touts as a national model. 

Kennedy said Baucus’ White Paper ‘‘brings 

us closer to our goal.’’ Especially since the 

finance committee has to find a way to pay 

for a law that would cost billions, yet help 

tens of millions of struggling citizens, many 

without jobs now, pay their health care bills. 

That is different from the early 1990s when 

then-Chairman Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s 

opposition doomed health care reform championed by Kennedy and the Clintons. 

And Obama—though treading carefully— 

said recently that health reform is ‘‘priority 

number three,’’ right after the economy and 

energy independence, adding, ‘‘I think the 

time is right to do it.’’ 

Amen. Passage of universal health care 

would be the capstone on Kennedy’s legacy. 

And Obama owes him. The passing of the 

Kennedy torch to Obama by Teddy and niece 

Caroline just before Super Tuesday was a 

turning point in Obama’s path to the presidency. He also owes it even more to all those 

people to whom he promised relief. 

In last Sunday’s Washington Post, Kennedy wrote, ‘‘it is no longer just patients demanding change. Businesses, doctors and 

even many insurance companies are demanding it ... The cost will be substantial, but the 

need for reform is too great to be deflected 

or delayed.’’ 

For those who would say, ‘‘That’s just a 

liberal talking,’’ hear this: 

David Blumenthal, director of the Institute for Health Policy for the Partners 

Health Care System and an Obama adviser, 

said, ‘‘Some of the largest corporations in 

America are struggling to compete in the 

world marketplace because of high health 

care costs.’’ 

Rick Umbdenstock, president and CEO of 

the American Hospital Association, said the 

economic turmoil, coupled with health care’s 

high costs, ‘‘will likely mean the loss of jobs 

and employer-related health coverage ... and 

possibly even diminishing access to health 

care services.’’ 

Nancy Nielsen, president of the American 

Medical Association, said, ‘‘The cost of doing 

nothing is much higher than the alternative’’—the scuffling to pay for good care, 

including preventive care, and dooming millions to ‘‘live sick and die younger.’’ 

These aren’t socialists. These are people 

who work with health care daily and know 

the crisis it is in. 

Kennedy has worked behind the scenes to 

craft health reform since Memorial Day, by 

phone, by e-mail and even by face-to-face 

meetings despite his illness. He’s back in 

Washington, and he’s not slowing down. 

As soon as Obama takes that oath that 

Kennedy’s slain brother took 48 years ago, he 

should start preaching and working for 

health care for all. And Congress, which Kennedy has served for so long, should do it for 

Teddy—and for the American people. It’s 

time to strike while those stars are aligned. 

f 

SPACE 

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I wish 

to address the report to Congress of the 

Independent Assessment Panel on the 

Organization and Management of National Security Space, which was released on Tuesday, September 16. The 

Institute for Defense Analyses, led by 

Mr. A. Thomas Young and a team of six 

qualified and experienced experts, undertook this project to provide the 

Congress with a comprehensive assessment of the state of our national space 

policy, especially as it relates to our 

national security and our position as 

the global leader in space. 

I raised concerns in 2006 when thenSecretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 

suggested that the commander of Air 

Force Space Command, based in Colorado Springs, should be downgraded 

from the four-star level to three stars. 

I reminded the Secretary that space is 

critical to our Armed Forces; that 

nearly every military operation we 

carry out makes use of assets in space 

in one way or another, be it using our 

satellites to locate the position of the 

enemy, providing instant communications, or gathering dependable intelligence. I was pleased the Pentagon 

opted not to institute this troublesome 

proposal. 

Following this episode, I authored 

legislation in the 2007 Defense authorization bill to establish a new space 

commission, similar to the 2001 Commission to Assess U.S. National Security Space Management and Organization. I wanted an independent panel of 

space, intelligence, and military experts to study, analyze, and make recommendations to the Congress on the 

current state and future vision of 

America’s national space agenda. This 

review began last fall, and I am pleased 

that it was completed in a timely manner. 

The panel began their report articulating what I have always understood 

to be true, that U.S. leadership in 

space is paramount to the preservation 

of our national security. It is key to 

our lasting ability to ward off modern 

and unexpected threats against our 

homeland or our allies and essential to 

maintaining our economic superiority 

in the ever-changing information age. 

Most importantly, the report reinforced that space-based technology is 

essential to our intelligence gathering 

and warfighting capabilities. As such, 

according to the panel, and I agree, updating and modernizing our national 

space policy and its related personnel 

structure must be a top priority. America’s willingness and capacity to continue to lead in space provides our Nation with a priceless strategic advantage that will pay dividends for generations to come. 

As a result of their extensive research and thorough investigations, 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
November 19, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10637 

the panel uncovered what they believed 

were fundamental structural and organizational flaws with the Federal Government’s space sector. Such flaws include major management problems, 

poor communication among and between involved agencies, a lack of 

proper oversight and direction, a lack 

of expert professional personnel, and a 

host of others. The panel also recognized a scary reality—space technology 

is rapidly proliferating to all corners of 

the Earth, and America is not keeping 

up with its space competitors. This 

proliferation, combined with our space 

industry bogged down by aging legacy 

space projects that take vital resources 

away from newer, more modern 

projects, has taken its toll on our competitive edge with China and other 

emerging nations. 

Although some of these and other deficiencies were recognized and exposed 

by the 2001 Space Commission, drastic 

measures to adequately deal with the 

problems uncovered were not proposed 

and undertaken. This panel, however, 

took an alternate route and recommended bold proposals to redirect 

and radically improve our national 

space agenda. The panel recommends, 

and again I agree, that America needs 

a top-to-bottom overhaul to restore the 

vitality of our space programs and regain and sustain the competitive advantages afforded the United States by 

our preeminence in space. In no uncertain terms, the panel outlined a bold 

new vision for the future of America’s 

role in space. It laid out four suggestions of significant substance to restructure our approach to space and realign our defense, intelligence, and 

commercial priorities as they relate to 

space. 

First, it calls for the President to 

create and implement a truly national 

space strategy. The President should 

announce to the American people that 

he is updating and modernizing America’s space program immediately and 

elevating its priority status to the top 

tier of the national agenda. 

The panel recommends the President 

reestablish the National Space Council 

in the Executive Office of the President, under the leadership of the National Security Advisor, to implement 

the new strategy and coordinate its activities with the Department of Defense, the intelligence community, 

NASA, and other responsible agencies. 

This will provide one of the President’s 

top advisers with the power to assign 

responsibilities, set priorities, and 

break through the barriers to cooperation that have stymied progress on key 

space programs in the past. 

Second, the panel believes that no 

one is really in charge of the national 

space agenda. They discovered that in 

the midst of so much bureaucracy and 

competing authorities, regrettably 

there has been no one at the helm. This 

needs to change. 

The authorities and responsibilities 

for all Government space programs are 

spread widely throughout the Pentagon 

and within various intelligence agencies. Therefore, the panel recommends 

the creation of a National Security 

Space Authority that will be responsible to the Secretary of Defense and 

the Director of National Intelligence. 

The proposed arrangement is needed to 

remedy the ruinous deficiencies in the 

current system, including the frequent 

inability to reconcile budget priorities 

and the common failure to ensure that 

innovative acquisition program requirements are affordable and integrated across military and intelligence 

space domains. 

Third, the panel recommends to strip 

the National Reconnaissance Office and 

the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center of their status as traditional, independent entities and incorporate their personnel and functions, 

as well as the functions of other parts 

of the Air Force Space Command, into 

a single National Security Space Organization. Under unified leadership, this 

organization could allow all the space 

experts to work more effectively together. The panel recommends this 

path because it most effectively utilizes the scarce talent available to 

achieve our Nation’s goals in space. 

Under this type of organizational 

structure, the Government’s space 

management team can focus on installing best engineering and acquisition 

practices, including early systems engineering and cost estimating. I am not 

sure I agree yet with this recommendation, but I think it does warrant serious consideration by the Congress. 

It is true that the continual problem 

of space acquisition program delays, 

cost overruns, and cancellations has 

drained resources and caused America 

to rely heavily on satellite constellations that have matured beyond their 

original design lives. This is simply unacceptable, and I think the panel is 

correct when they say that small modifications to the status quo, which have 

been proposed time and again in the 

past, are not enough. A new and innovative organizational structure is a 

good idea, but the details of the panel’s 

third recommendation need to be vetted before I can lend my full support. 

Finally, the panel suggests that the 

intelligence community and each of 

the military branches adopt and execute strategies for identifying, selecting, educating, training, and managing 

a sufficient number of Government experts and professionals to support the 

country’s space acquisition obligations. The careers of these space acquisition and technical professionals 

should be designed and administered so 

that they can provide continuity for 

the execution of long-term projects, 

while remaining eligible and competitive for career advancement. 

It is unrealistic to expect that we can 

modernize our space strategy and succeed in developing complex space systems without enough technically capable and sufficiently experienced Government scientists, engineers, and acquisition experts that are immersed in 

the space arena and assigned to see 

projects through to completion. These 

types of professionals are critical to 

the success of our future endeavors in 

space. 

Throughout my time in the Congress 

I have fully supported science-related 

education. This support includes space, 

defense, and national security studies 

as well. For example, I have supported 

funding requests for the Center for 

Space and Defense Studies at the U.S. 

Air Force Academy. The mission of 

this center is to build and define space 

policy studies curriculum for the undergraduate cadets. I have long supported the Center for Geosciences and 

Atmospheric Research at my alma 

mater, Colorado State University. This 

center is a national resource for the 

Department of Defense in the areas of 

atmospheric and hydrologic research, 

which are both critical to our national 

security. 

America needs more engineers, physicists, rocket scientists, mathematicians, and the like. We need them now 

and in the coming decades more than 

we ever have in the past. The future of 

our national security and defense capabilities rests with our ability to recruit, train, and equip more and more 

Americans with the critical knowledge 

and know-how of the hard sciences. 

The first step is making this type of 

education a top national priority, and 

it is my hope that America’s future 

leaders will do so. 

Mr. President, I appreciate all four 

and fully support three of the panel’s 

suggestions for the improvement of our 

national space strategy. In my opinion, 

if we fail to act on these recommendations, we face the possibility that our 

preeminence in space will erode to the 

point at which we will no longer enjoy 

a significant competitive national security advantage in an all-important 

global arena. 

Along with the American people, I 

am indebted to the panel for their hard 

and thoughtful work on this study. 

Their discoveries and suggestions for 

improvement are invaluable. It is my 

hope that the next Congress and the 

next administration will take a serious 

look at this study and craft an aggressive and coherent strategy for America’s future presence in space. 

f 

COLORADO DRUG INVESTIGATORS 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. ALLARD. Mr, President, 

throughout the past 3 years the Colorado Drug Investigators Association, 

DIA, has united peace officers and 

other professionals who share a common interest in illegal and illicit drug 

enforcement. Through the leadership of 

State president Ernest Martinez, State 

vice president, Jerry Peters, regional 

vice presidents David Arcady, Rick 

Needham, Brian Roman, Rob Pride, 

Kevin Hathaway, at-large members 

Janelle Crain, Mechele Berge, Sandra 

Evans, Rick Millwright, Gary Graham, 

Kelly Horton, Jim Welton, Francis 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE