by setting up stronger entities to promote international visitors this bill advances chicago's chances to be awarded the 2016 olympic games but the game offers an opportunity to showcase internationally all the other reasons to visit america, and there are many, even in my home state of illinois. a lot of foreign travelers come to walk the streets that abraham lincoln walked in springfield, illinois, highlighting states across the state with a series of stories of the president's life in 42 different counties of illinois where his journeys took him. the abraham lincoln museum is a project i thought about 18 years ago understand is today is a reality. this abraham presidential library and human draws over a half million tourists to springfield, many of them

families of children who leave with an enjoyable visit. southern illinois draws visitors to its garden of the gods. it is the gateway to the shawnee national forest. summer visits to quincy, illinois, feature historic architecture and a lot of enjoyment along the mighty mississippi river. we have our unusual tourist attractions in illinois. near my old hometown of east st. louis, you can see the world's largest ketchup bottle or the two-story outhouse in gaze, illinois, or the home of superman, including a 15-foot superman statue and a six-foot popeye statue in chester, illinois. a lot of photographs have been taken in front of them. every state has these historic, amazing places to visit and those curiosities that draw

people from all over the united states and all over the world. illinois offers the international visitor a truly american experience. in fact, in illinois, tourism adds $2.1 million. in 2008, there were about 1.4 million international visitors to my state. these traveler spent $2 billion in all sectors of the economy -- transportation, lodging, food service, entertainment. these intj international visitors generated extra wages for illinois residents. i encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill. i am sorry that it was delayed today. there was no reason for that. we sat here idly today making wonderful speeches when we should have been passing this bill. i hope we goat it soon and i hope in passing it, we are going to help this economy get back on its feet. i have one last short statement i'll make. i seat senator from ohio waiting. i ask that it -- dishact if be

placed in a separate place in the "congressional record." the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. i went to the twhows hear president obama announce a sweeping change on the regulation of financial services. it is the most important change since the great depression. at the heart of president obama's proposal is the creation of an independent new agency. it is called the consumer financial protection agency. it's going to put the interests of american families and consumers above the interests of a lot of businesses and banks. i introduced a bill last year and then again this year that would create that same agency. it's an honor for me that the president would pick up on this idea and make it a major part of what he's doing. before i take too much credit for it, the idea really originated with elizabeth warren. she is a professor at harvard law school who is one of the more creative and innovative people who advises us here on capitol hill. she realized, as most of us do,

that most consumers and customers and businesses are at the mercy of a lot of regulations and a lot of fine print that's almost impossible to follow. so she suggested the creation of this agency and the president followed through today. it's simple. an agency staffed by people who wake up in the morning thinking about how to make consumer financial transactions safer in america and more understandable. it'll mean that we're going to protect consumers from making mistakes, making decisions that could be very damaging to them economically. today there are no fewer than 10 federal agencies with responsibility for consumer protection, from predatory and deceptive financial products to a variety of other areas, but none of them -- thought one of them -- has oversight as its primary objective. that's going to change with president obama's bill. this agency will encourage innovation that benefits consumers, rather than innovation that benefits those who are going to make a profit off those same consumers.

there's a large coalition of consumer and advocacy groups supporting this concept. i am going to look forward to working with chairman dodd on the banking committee to see that this agency becomes a reality. it won't be an easy task. but it's a perfect follow-up to our credit card reform act. we need to be more sensitive to consumers in america struggling in this economy to make sure that they have protection. one illustration tells it all. there was a prepayment penalty that was folded into a lot of these subprime mortgages. if you've been to a real estate closing on your home, you know that they stack up the papers on a table in front of you and they turn the corners and they say, keep signing and eventually you'll get out of here. and you may slow them down and say, what am i signing and they'll say, it's standard. it's boiler placement it's a --- it--it's boilerplate. you get the check, hand it back to the bank and you go home with

the keys in hand. that's happened to me a few times with my wife and i'll a lawyer, did i reel read every page? no. well, it turned thiewt the mortgages that were -- well, it turned out that the mortgages that were sold for a long time in america had a premaiment penalty so if you got into a bad mortgage and decided, man, that interest rate is too hierks i can't keep making the payments, i'm going to the bank next door where i can get a lower interest rate, they'd sarks sorry to tell you this, but to pay off this old mortgage, there is a penalty that is pretty steep. and you say, well, i didn't know that. well, you missed it. you missed it in that stack of papers. and that prepayment penalty sentenced thousands of american homeowners to be stuck with subprime mortgages that were unfair and eventually led to foreclosure. well, why wasn't there someone to warn that customer, that person borrowing for their home? this agency can do that.

this agency can make that sort of thing clear to customers and consumers across america so that they have a fighting chance. they can avoid bad decisions that can be disastrous for the personal finances. as congress embarks on financial regulatory reform, our improved regulatory system must focus not just on the safety and soundness of the providers of financial products but also on the safety of the consumers' financial products. the consumer financial protection agency would do just that. i yield the floor. mr. brown: mr. president? mr. president? mr. sessions: mr. president? mr. burrismr. president?i see my colleague is here. i don't know whether we are in an alternating situation or not, i would like to speak about five minutes. as you -- would that be all right? mr. brown: yes. mr. sessions: i see my colleague, senator durbin -- the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: my colleague

from illinois is such a fine lawyer and excellent senator. i just would respectfully talk about some of the ideas he respected. one, he raised a question of brown v. board of education where the supreme court held that separate was not equal. and that somehow this is a justification for a judge setting policy. they thought it wasn't good policy. but i would see it differently, mr. president. i would see brown v. board of education as the supreme court saying that the constitution of the united states guarantees every american equal protection of the laws and they found that in segregated schools, some people were told they must go to this school solely because of their race, some people must goes to this school solely because of their race, and that in fact it wasn't equal.

there are several constitutional issues plainly there, and i don't think that was an activist policy-making decision. i think the supreme court correctly concluded that these veapt schools in which a person was mandated to go to one or the other based on their race violated the equal protection clause of the united states, and in effect they also found it wang equal, which they were correct -- it wasn't equal, which they were correct in doing. in regard to the lilly ledbetter cairks senator durbin and my democratic colleagues during the last campaign and during the last several years have talked about this case a lot. i would just say that everybody knows it's a universal rule that whenever a wrong is inflicted upon an individual, they have a certain time within which to file their claim. it's called the statute of limitations.

if you don't file it within the time allowed by law, then you are barred from filing that lawsuit t happens all over america in cases throughout the country. the u.s. supreme court heard the evidence and it was argued in the united states supreme court. this one whraid did i lilly ledbetter took her case all the way to the supreme court. they held it and they concluded that she had -- was aware of the unfair wage practices that she alleged long before the statute of limitations, long before. and that by the time she filed her complaint, it was way too late and in fact one of the key witnesses had already died. so it was years after. and so they concluded that, okay? the congress, fulfilling its proper role, was unhappy about it and has passed a law that i think unwisely muddles the

statute of limitations on these kinds of cases dramatically but would give her a chance to be successful or another person in their circumstance to be successful. so the supreme court -- this wasn't a conservative activist decision. it was a fact-based analysis by the supreme court by which they concluded that she waited too long to bring the lawsuit and it was barred. and congress, thinking that was not good, passed a law that changed the statute of limitations so more people would be able to prevail. it's not wrong for a -- for the court to strike down bad laws. we just had a little to do with the attorney general holder today in the judiciary committee in which the office of legal counsel of the department of justice had written an opinion that he kept down and is still -- has still kept it hid that declared that the legislation we

passed to give the district of columbia -- not a state, but a district -- a united states congressman was unconstitutional. he didn't want that out since he and the president supported giving a congressman to the district of columbia, but i think that case is going up to the supreme court, and i would expect it will come back, like a rubber ball off that wall, because i don't think that was constitutional. and i don't believe that that's activism 0 or an abuse of power. it's simply a plain reading of the constitution, and if the congress passes laws in violation of the constitution, they should be struck down. there's nothing wrong with that, if the court is doing it in an objective, fair way, not allowing a personal, emotional, political, cull tiewcialtion or other biases -- cultural, or other biases entering into the matter. so i think we're going to have a great discussion about the federal government and our federal courts. i look forward it. i really appreciate senator durbin.

he's superb lawyer and can certainly -- if i were in trouble, i'd like to have him defending me. i thank you, mr. chairman. i yield the floor. mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i -- across the street today in the so-called senate caucus room, in the room where perhaps -- next to this chairnlings perhaps the most famous room into the senate. it's the room where the mccarthy hearings, the car artur hearings, the watergate here, the hearings for the supreme court nominees have been -- the confirmation process have been held. it is the room where senator -- senator john f. kennedy announced his campaign for the prz sivment it is the room -- it is in 190, the room where senator robert f. kennedy, whose desk at which i sit, announced his candidacy for president in

march of 1968. down the hall -- it is the room where we're today marking up -- beginning the markup of the health care bill, legislation that will -- is the mostt important thing i've worked on in my, i guess, 17 years in washington. it's probably the most important bill this -- with the exception of war and peace issues -- that this congress has worked on in a long, long time. this congress has been trying for many years, as have been presidents, to pass legislation to reform our health care system. and in 1945, harry truman spoke before a joint session of congress down the hall hall in the house of representatives and said, millions of our citizens do not now have a full mayor of opportunity to achieve -- a full measure of opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health. millions donlts now have protection or security against the economic effects of sickness. the time has arrived for action to help them attain that

opportunity and that protection. that was 1945. that was president harry truman. a dozen years before, mr. president, president roosevelt made a momentous decision. president roosevelt decided in large part because of his fear of the power of the american medical association to not include health care in the social security legislation, in the bill to create social security, because president roosevelt actual fully believed that social security meant a pension and health care, but he thought the power of the doctors lobby would keep him from being successful, so he moved forward on social security, the creation of social security. who knows if that was the right decision then, but it certainly brought us a program that's mattered in the lives of all of our parents, our grandparents, our great-grandparents.

harry truman was not able to accomplish medicare or any other kind of health care reform, significant health care reform in his seven years or so as president. fast forward to july 1965, president johnson passed legislation creating medicare. but leading up to that legislation, again it was the american medical association. it was really the most conservative members. i know an awful lot of doctors that want to see us move forward, including my doctor who was a general practitioner for almost 50 years, died at the age of 89 in the year 2000. i know a whole lot of doctors who want us to move forward on health care reform. the american medical association in 1965 said those who supported the creation of medicare, they called it socialized medicine, said it was too expensive, said it would lead to runaway, rampant socialism, the same arguments they used in the 1930's and the same arguments some of them are using about what's called the public plan option in this health care

legislation today. people obviously know that medicare, since 1965, for coming up on 44 years since it was enacted, has worked for the american public. in fact, here's the best illustration why medicare works. when you -- there have been many studies over the years comparing the united states -- the outcomes of the united states, health outcomes, to the outcomes in other countries in the world. we rank, in terms of victim mortality, in terms of maternal mortality, in terms of life expectancy, in terms of diabetes, in terms of obesity, the united states of america, amazingly enough, even though we spend twice as much as everybody else, we rank almost at the bottom among the rich countries of the world on life expectancy, infant mortality, child obesity, all of those things. mr. president, there is one statistic where we rank near the top. that statistic is life

expectancy at 65. so these pages sitting in front of me, five decades from now or so when they turn 65 -- we're going to change the system way before then. but people who are 65 in this country have a longer, healthier life in front of them than almost all other countries in the world. that's because we have medicare, and medicare works. it's pure and simple. today, some 65 years after harry truman made the speech to the joint session i mentioned, we're still waiting. we're still waiting for a health care system that delivers on the promise of affordability, of quality health care coverage for all. we're still waiting for reforms that lower costs for businesses and families buckling under the weight of ever-climbing premiums. we're still waiting for reforms that foster competition in the insurance market and give americans better choices, including a public health insurance option. we're still waiting for reforms that bring accountability to the system, ensuring that our

patients in this country get the highest quality care in the world. mr. president, we're waiting -- we're still waiting for reforms that fix what's broken and keeps what's working. fixing what's broken and keeping what's working. today it's an historic time because that wait, since 1932 when f.d.r. decided not to include it in the social security law, to 1945 when president truman called for health insurance for all americans, to 1965 when president johnson was finally able to push through congress a heavily democratic house and senate, as the overwhelming number of republicans opposed the creation of medicare, today we're finally at that historical moment. the wait is nearly over where we're going to have real health insurance reform. it's not a moment too soon for so many ohioans who are one illness away from financial catastrophe. take ann from dayton. dayton is a community in southwest ohio. she wrote to me to share her story. for the past five and a half

years she paid almost $130,000 in health care bills. how can this be? was she uninsured? no. when her illness struck she was a partner at a law firm, had good insurance. once she became too sick to work, she lost her coverage. she was forced to fend for herself. she and her family went on cobra for as long as they could, then paid $27,000 a year for insurance on the individual market. the individual market is where the administrative costs run 30%, 45,% where medical underwriting runs rampant. she traded that plan, $27,000 a year plan, $2,500 a month almost, for a bare-bones policy that cost only $15,000 a year. only. but doesn't cover prescription drugs and has a $5,000 deductible. that means before she gets one dollar of care paid for by insurance companies she's paying

$15,000 for the premium and $5,000 for the deductible. she writes in her letter this is not what insurance is supposed to be about. the bill before us today will take a number of steps to ensure that americans do not meet the same fate as ann and her family. one, it provides for better regulation of the health insurance industry. this is an industry that, in some sense, it's an industry that's sort of a step ahead of the sheriff. it's an industry that always tries to figure out how to beat the system, always tries to figure out how to insure you because you're healthy and we can make money on you and exclude you because you're not so healthy and might lose money on you. no longer will we allow insurance companies to play that game. we'll ban preexisting conditions exclusions. we'll prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on medical history. we'll eliminate annual and lifetime benefit caps. no longer will insurance companies be able to selectively

cover only those who pose little or no risk, leaving everyone else in the lurch. health insurers are supposed to cover costs. that is what insurance is all about. second, mr. president, this reform will extend the reach of our health care system to protect those who have no health insurance today. let me tell you about jacqueline. jacqueline used to work at a child-care center but her employer tkw not offer health benefits -- did not offer health benefits. when she discovered a lump in her left breast she had nowhere to turn. she tried the state medicaid program. despite having an income in 2006 of only $4,500, she didn't qualify. her daughter was already grown. she had no dependentents. she started chemotherapy last year, doesn't know how she'll pay her bills. the bill we're developing in the senate, mr. president, would expand medicaid, offer premium subsidies to those in need of

help. third, this bill will increase competition in the market by establishing a federally backed health coverage option -- option -- for those who want it. there's nothing like good, old-fashioned competition to reduce premiums, to improve customer service, to keep the health insurance industry on its toes. not surprisingly the health insurance lobe launched a massive campaign to prevent inclusion of a public health insurance option. i guess competition is a good thing, the insurance companies think unless they are the ones who have to compete, because we know if you have a public option, insurance companies are going to behave. the president says repeatedly that the whole point of the public option, an option. but the fact that a public plan exists to complete with private plans will keep the private plans more honest. we've done that with student loans. 15 years ago the only game in town for students by and large if they wanted to borrow money

to go to college was to go to the local bank or some other service. all private, all pretty much unregulated. president clinton in the early 1990's decided maybe we should have a direct government program so students could borrow directly from the federal government. you you know what happened? banks brought their interest rates down, the banks started to provide better service, the banks just based better. that's exactly what we'll do with this public plan. the reason conservatives here, the reason that people in this body who are major recipients of insurance company money for their campaigns, the people whose philosophies are always business can do it better, the people who have aligned their political careers with the insurance company, they all oppose the public option. you know why? because it's pretty simple. insurance companies will have to

cut down their administration costs. maybe they'll have to change some of their marketing practices, maybe they will have to be less wasteful and behave better. that is the point. public option, public student direct loan. public health insurance option competing with the private insurance companies. everybody will get better. that's the point. private insurance competition when it's just the insurance companies competing with each other, funny things could happen. one, we see huge salaries. second, we see huge bureaucracy in these insurance companies. third, we see all kinds of marketing campaigns. fourth, we see just huge overhead in administrative costs, sometimes up to 35% and 40%. we also see the term private insurance competition is simply an oxymoron. in ohio the two largest insurance companies account for

58% of the market. i didn't take the antitrust because i didn't go to law school. when you've got two companies like the presiding officer did, obviously, because he's smiling. he knows this better than i do. when you've got two companies that have 58% of the market, that's not exactly competition. even worse than that, in some ohio cities, as i would assume in some communities' home state of illinois. it's the two largest insurance companies account for 89% of the market. that's not exactly healthy competition. bring in a public option, compete with these two companies. their rates would come down. their salaries would probably come down for top executives. no more multimillion-dollar salaries. costs would be cut. they would be leaner and meaner. they would be a better insurance company as a result. finally, mr. president, this bill gives providers new tools to improve the way health care is delivered in this country, improvements that help americans with chronic conditions manage those conditions, improves that

can overcome unjustifiable disparities. these reforms draw insight and inspiration from the work already done by dedicated individuals within our health care system. individuals like dr. derrick rago van. has devoted himself to reducing health disparities in cleveland. he has been instkraoupltal in combatting significant differences in cancer death rates between african-americans and caucasian americans. dr. peter prodovost from johns hopkins. his checklist saves 1,500 lives and over $100 million over an 18-month period in detroit area hospitals in michigan. in my hometown in mans field, the community health workers, high school grad wants, some only g.e.d. high school -- high school graduates, some only g.e.d. high school equivalent

studies, young girls making $11 or $12 an hour, these young women reduced, working with local health authorities and doctors and nurses, reduce the prevalence of low birthweight baby rates from 22% to 8% over three years. these are young women only five or six years older than the babies in front of me. these are young women without the opportunities in their lives that most babies have, young women who don't have parents who went to college, young women who weren't planning to go to college, young women making $11 or $1 an hour, this -- making $11 or $12 an hour, they have saved lives in makeing women get the nutrition they should, and see a doctor. i met with some of them. i'll bet you in five or ten years some of these young women

who didn't have much of a future because of their upbringing in some sense, some of these young women will become doctors and nurses because they have had the experience in making a difference. if we do it right we can take this program in mansfield, replicate it and see it all over the nation. the legislation before us would also address serious workforce shortages that exist across the spectrum. nurses to pediatric specialists, to dental care providers to primary care physicians. mr. president, we have a lot of work to do. i'm very optimistic that we can pass good health care reform in this country. we know that the first rule of thumb is to make sure that if people are happy with the coverage they have, if they're happy with the insurance plan they're in, they can keep that plan. second is we've got to do a better job of reining in the costs to so many people in this health care system: employers, individual businesses -- employers, individuals, and government. third, we need to make sure t