congressional response. this would even deprive us of that in a sense. this would be giving a nominated, unelected official the ability to terminate something without any check or balance except ultimately coming around to an appropriation process here. i just -- i just -- i find it somewhat ironic in a sense that at a time when we're talking about the states and the communities having the ability to have a greater influence in the outcome of some of these issues that we would include a provision that would basically supercede anyone else's ability to impact this. i think this is one where, again, i think there is a difference between our responsibility of recommending ideas and certainly the secretaries of all the agencies, but i can't imagine us, and i think a good example was in the defense area. i can't think of anyone who would support a provision that would allow a secretary of defense the unilateral ability

to terminate a program because they didn't think it was worthwhile without there being some sort of check on that power, and if we'd be unwilling to do it in that area or others, it seems we ought to be sensitive about empowering someone to unilaterally shift resources without a check or balance on this. >> mr. chairman? >> about twice a year around here there's this time when i get this really strange feeling, and i'm thinking, you know, i really ought to be making your argument and you ought to be making my argument. >> that's one of these moments. >> this is one of the things that you usually -- your side, and we're usually defending it the way you're defending it. >> occasionally. >> i would just like to make no comment. senator murray and senator reed have put metrics in here, and those metrix are going to be used by hrsa. hrsa is under control of the secretary. so we're going to give her the information. we're going to give her the data

and then when it's not working she's going to run the thing for 11 months while you all wait to ignore the data so the point -- the point, is as i understand your reserve on changing the method, there's no secret that you all have a lot of problem with our appropriations methods around here anyway and i've not made that. i guess i've made that point several times, especially with senator murray but always in a cordial way. i can just imagine one of these programs not working, and we still send the money out there because i know our -- i know our practice. we don't do the hard work of oversight, so, you know, and whether you like -- whether it's the park program or any other program, the fact is when you go look at what the park program says and then you read what the gao says on all these programs, we don't get rid of them anyway, and all i'm trying to do is to say, you know, the american

people want us to be a whole lot more efficient. they want us to not spend money that we don't have, that we're borrowing against their kids, and they don't really want us spending a whole bunch of money so we can say we're going to lower the spending of money. it doesn't fit with them. so i'll end. mr. chairman, i also will note i have to be somewhere at 7:00 which we're past, that and i don't know how much longer you're going to run. i'll be finished at about 8:30. >> well, i wanted to keep going to finish this section and to get to the fraud and abuse section, if we could as well, to finish those this evening with a goal in mind tomorrow to be able to deal with long-term care so we can sort of wrap up our work and then be leaving obviously for the independence day break and then based on the conversation earlier about keeping everyone informed as to any numbers we get on scoring out of the matters but the idea this eke was to continue working. >> mr. chairman, if i could ask

the senator from oklahoma, he said he had four amendments is this your last amendment? >> i have one more but i'll defer it, and it was just -- the reason i asked the question earlier about the authorization levels and how we came up with it is we have about a 400% increase in authorization levels in this bill over the existing authorizations that are out there, and it was to limit the amount of that, pull it back down some, but i'll defer that other amendment so this would in essence be my last amendment. >> this would be your last amendment on the title. >> mr. chairman, i suggest we vote on the amendment and if the senator wants to leave we can move to the waste and fraud abuse title. >> do you want to offer the amendment? >> he said he's not going to offer it. >> he's not going to offer the fourth amendment. >> he's not. >> there's a pending amendment. >> we do have to finish this amendment that's pending. >> oh, the pending amendment, oh, yeah, right. >> tom, do you want a roll call vote on this? >> well, we can't. we don't have eight people.

>> we do have eight. >> we just have eight. >> all right. >> yes, sir. >> will the clerk call the roll? >> senator dodd? >> no. >> senator harkin? >> no. >> senator -- who is next? >> has she been called? >> harkin. >> i said no. >> senator mikulski. >> no by proxy. >> senator freedman? >> no by proxy. >> senator mury? >> no. >> senator reed? >> senator sandberg? >> no by proxy. >> senator casey? >> no. >> senator berkeley? >> no. >> senator whitehouse? >> no. >> senator enzi? >> aye. >> senator alexander? >> aye by proxy. >> senator byrd? >> aye by proxy. >> senator isaacson? >> aye by approximatey? >> senator mccain? >> aye by proxy. >> senator hatch? >> aye by proxy. >> senator coburn?

>> aye. >> senator roberts. >> aye. >> senator kennedy? >> no by proxy. >> ten ayes. it appears to be nay. the amendment is not agreed to. here's where we are and senator coburn is leaving. i was hoping to get done by tomorrow midday, but we're going to finish, so i -- i don't want to keep people in the evenings if we can't consider amendments, but i don't know -- we have the fraud and abuse section now to go to and about -- >> there are eight people here, mr. chairman? we have eight, i know, and i think we ought to keep working at the thing. >> do it. >> i don't have amendments. do we have amendments? >> mr. chairman, i just want to thank all of the senators as we finish our first title, many across the aisle working with us to get this done and i appreciate all the work. >> we thank you immensely and thank you staff as well and, first of all, for taking the number of amendments and getting agreements on as many.

i think roughly half of the amendments we found agreement on, and that was -- it doesn't take as much to hear about the agreements as it does to hear about the disagreements but it's worthwhile noting we're getting a lot of agreements and i appreciate the efforts to achieve those results as well. >> and i think our discussion earlier that there wasn't a cbo score on long-term. >> not yet. >> -- gave us the understanding that maybe the fraud and abuse would be the one we would do tomorrow and there aren't as many amendments on that to begin with so i -- that would take long to wrap up. >> just so people are aware. my goal is to -- to complete. if we have to stay around. i've got to complete these sections, even if it takes until friday to do so and i don't want to impose upon people but one way or another we have to complete this. i'm just hoping to do it in a way like this evening is easier than tomorrow evening. if there are votes on friday and people want to leave, i'm trying to accommodate people's schedules in a way so we got the job done and in a way that is helpful. if there are some amendments on fraud and abuse, would i like to -- because i'm anticipating

we're going to have the numbers on the long-term care, is that correct? within two hours we'll have the numbers on the long-term care. >> mr. chairman? >> we were under the impression earlier -- >> i didn't know. >> that's why i left it open. if i didn't get the numbers i wouldn't bring it up. >> we've been quitting about 6:30. i know we took an hour out earlier, but -- >> mr. chairman, we have five that we have agreement on. i don't know if we want to get those. >> let's do those right now, five that we've agreed on and if we have a few -- >> i can do it -- >> you can. >> if you tell me which ones they are. >> i would ask unanimous consent that enzi 103, enzi 104, burr 1, burr 2 and burr 7, is that correct, be accepted by unanimous consent? >> and as modified. >> and as modified. >> is there objection? without objection, the amendments are agreed, to and i thank the staff and senator case and senator enzi and senator

burr and others who have been able to reach agreement on those. >> so we've got dish mean, according to this we have a number of -- it looks like we have nine coburn amendments, is that -- >> nine coburn, four gregg and one hatch. is that correct? outstanding. and three by senator sanders, but he wouldn't be -- he'll be talking about them but he won't be offering them for a vote. ñ