vote:

the presiding officer: order, please. all the senators wishing to vote or change their vote -- if not, the ayes are 47, the nays are 51. the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president? mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, the senate just voted against the president of the united states -- the presiding officer: the senate will please be in order. mr. mccain: the senate just voted against the president of the united states. i think we should know that, and his recommend daichtion the president, on may 7 of this year, as part of its budget submission, recommended reducing 121 federal programs which was estimated to save the taxpayers $41 billion over the next decade. one of the programs the president hopes to see terminated is the inner city bus

security program. so what the senate just did was they told the president of the united states, no, we're sorry; this is a vital program, the inner-city bus security grant program. and i'm sure the folks at -- in maryland at the cavalier coach trailways that got $8,000 and the crystal transport incorporated that got $108,000, there's one in here that's a limousine service that got several how dollars, the rimrock stage got only $8,000. but the busco idas aerostage lines got $139,000 in nebraska. maybe people will take -- maybe they'll take people to visit the library that just got $200

thowr, those from outside of ohm havment so really what we're talking about here, what we're really talking about is that we can't even eliminate a program with a decent number of democrat votes to eliminate a program that the president told the american people, we'll reduce spending, we'll cut spending; don't worry. and here are the 121 federal programs. there's two more that are coming, my friends, that you'll be able to vote against the president on, because there's two more on his list that are included in this appropriations bill. so anybody in the united states that thinks that we've got the message that it's time to tighten our belts, including, especially members of the appropriations committee on both sides of the aisle, they are sadly mistaken. they're sadly mistaken. we're going to vote on all 27, mr. president, and we're going to be record, and the american people are going to hear about it. and they're going to figure it out. it's business as usual, it's

pork-barrel spending continues on, even to the point where we can't even eliminate a program thatly the president of the united states said that we wou would -- that the president of the united states that said we would eliminate. 60 votes over there. we couldn't get 51. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. feingold: mr. president, i ask that the pending amendment be laid aside. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. feingold: mr. president, i rise to call up amendment number 1402 to the homeland security appropriations bill. the presiding officer: the clerk had report. the clerk: the senator from wisconsin, mr. feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 1402 to amendment numbered 1317. the presiding officermr. feingoi ask further wreaked dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. feingold: mr. president, this amendment would prevent the

earmarking of the emergency operations center and predisaster mitigation programs. the emergency operations center, or e.o.c. program, is intended to improve emergency management and preparedness capabilities and did funds, among other things -- and it funds, among other things, instructions of e.o.c.'s. these centers are a vital part of the emergency management plan and the predisaster mitigation program is intended to implement hazard reduction measures before disasters strike. so eligible projects can include, for example, preparing mitigation plans or retrofitting public buildings against hurricane-force winds and constructing so-called safe rooms in tornado-prone areas. now, while we may not all agree on the appropriateness of earmarking in general, i certainly hope that we can agree that certain things just shouldn't be earmarked, including fema grant programs such as those that protect americans from terrorist attacks

and natural disasters. obviously, these funds should be awarded by an impartial entity that is expert in matters of emergency operations and disaster mitigation. now, it's fema that actually possesses these qualities. congress -- members of congress do not. indeed, peopl, fema has informee that many past earmarks would not even qualify for the predisaster program under the established guide line. the result is that low-prior -- low-priority programs get funded and that high-risk projects do not have the adequate resources they need so that people in those areas can truly be protected from natural disasters. these funds i think are too important to be passed out based on political dealing. and the association of state flood plain managers support this amendments and notes that a key element of the predisaster program is the encouragement of hazard mitigation planning.

according to the association, congressional earmarks -- quote -- "congressional earmarks unfortunately undercut the local planning process when it became theaft thevident that the proced be short circuited by getting a congressional earmark." mr. president, this year the senate has earmarked all of its funds. the senate has earmarked nearly half of its funds. the earmarks are directed to ten states. that means, mr. president, that 40 states will have to compete for the remaining half of these fundsthesefunds the amendment f. ten states get half and the other 40 states get half combined. many of these earmarks have shift clhistorically gone to smr cities. so my amendment, mr. president, would strike the earmarks in the text of the senate bill so that fema can decide which projects

are homeland security priorities and federal responsibility. with regard to the predisaster mitigation funds, the house report has earmarked a fourth of the funds and the senate has so far not earmarked any of them. however, last year, both the house and the senate earmarked roughly 27% of the funds in conference. so my amendment directs fema to disregard any such earmarks in the explanatory statement of managers. as the majority of us won't be members of the conference committee, i urge my colleagues to consider whether it is in the best interest of your state to permit the earmarking of these critical homeland security funds outside of the regular legislative process. the chairman and ranking member of the homeland security and governmental faregovernmental ae issued legislation last year to mandate that predisaster mitigation funds be awarded competitively, and i, of course,

commend both of them for their leadership on this issue. given that a percentage of these fund are guaranteed for every state, in light of the fact that all states are at risk of natural disasters, there's even less reason, mr. president, for these funds to be earmarked. president obama has stated that he would like these funds to be awarded on the basis of risk. federal law lays out the criteria for the competitive award aring of these grants -- awarding of these grants and focuses on the need to fund those projects that will mitigate the most high-risk areas. therefore, i think this amendment is consistent with the president's request that we focus those communities that are in most need of assistance. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i'm pleased to announce that senator mccain -- i'd ask unanimous consent that senator mccain be added as a cosponsor. mr. president? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nine gold: not only would the -- mr. feingold: not only would the amendment restore objectivity to two homeland security programs but it would help ensure that important decisions about federal spend ring actually made on the merits, not on the basis

of political backroom deals. mr. president, i yield the flo floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to sak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i thank my colleague from ohio, senator voinovich, for allowing me to go first also. appreciate his public service as he concludes his senate career in the next year and a half. mr. president, this week congress is debating whether to broaden access to affordable again eric drugs for millions of americans. let me explain how access to generic drugs -- generic drugs for pharmaceutical, also called chemical drugs, are called generics, just to make this clear.

for live what are called by logics, they're called follow-on biologics, but certain the same concept of a substitute to compete with the high-priced name-brand to save money for consumers. let me explain how access to generic drugs or follow-on biologics would benefit millions of americans who cannot afford the crushing drug costs they face, whether prescription drugs or whether biologics. surgery josergio wrote to me abe and his family lost their health insurance last year and is heavily buried with debt. his young -- his young son has diabetes, a terrible disease that an increasing number of young people have. his wife has severe asthma and sergio had quadruple bypass surgery and surgery for treatment of a hernia and knee and back injury. he has to cut back on the medications they were taking and

stop going to the doctor because they can't afford the $35,000 in outstanding medical bills, much of it in prescription drug costs. sergio writes that his family walks on egg shells each day hoping that they don't get sick and slide further into debt. for far too long families like sergio's have struggled with prescription drugs. it has forced seniors to choose between eating and taking medicine. i've heard these stories for more than a decade starting when i traveled or most acutely when i traveled with seniors from ohio to canada to buy affordable prescription drugs. i was a member of the house of representatives down the hall in those days in the late 1990's, curious an elected official in one country would rent a bus, take 30, 40 seniors three hours from lorain, ohio, west up to

toledo towards detroit in windsor, ontario, would take seniors from one country to another to buy prescription drugs much of course i did that because, one, these people were hurting, second, they didn't have an ability, they didn't have disease enter health care, couldn't get low-cost prescription drugs and so they went to canada where the price of drugs was -- the prices were much, much cheaper, one half, one-third the cost. the same drug, the same manfacturer, the same packaging, the same dosage, but cost one half or one-third as much. we now, mr. president, as we -- as we move forward on health care reform, we have the opportunity to make affordable generic drugs more accessible to our seniors and the nation's middle class. health care reform must broaden access to generic alternatives to the most expensive kinds of prescription drugs known as biologics. biologics, as i said, is different from the chemical pharmaceuticals that we're most

used to that are -- that -- that sell in much larger numbers than the biologics based on living -- living ingredients, if you will, that are more expensive and much -- more expensive to -- to produce originally with the research, but also much -- of course much more expensive for the -- for the -- for the person taking the biologics. failing to come up with generic alternatives to these most expensive kinds of prescription drugs known as biologics is not just bad policy, it's irresponsible on our part. countless americans simply can't afford the expensive brand name drugs known as biologics. these drugs provide promise and hope to those suffering from devastating diseases and chronic illnesses, cancer, parkinson's, diabetes, alzheimer's, m.s. annual treatment for breast cancer used to be the drug in the 1990's people took was taxil

which cost an exorbitant amount of money, $4,000 a year, some treatment for breast cancer is with the biologic drug herceptin costs $48,000, $4,000 a month. the treatment for arthritis costs approximately $20,000. almost $2,000 a month. these drugs are simply too expensive for many people to afford. liz from ohio is a director of a breast cancer advocacy group in northern ohio and wrote to me many of her members an clients face impossible financial barriers after being diagnosed with breast cancer and they're being treated. she has patients who face excessive he could payments for prescription drugs often with 10-year preexisting condition pretrickses. that's why we must provide

broader access to generic drugs to lower prescription drug costs for millions of americans. this isn't a debate between biologics an prescription drugs and generics and interesting for the textbooks and interesting for economists. this is about people's lives that simply can't afford $4,000 for a cancer drug. can't afford $1,500 a month for a drug if they're dealing with rheumatoid arthritis. ensuring a pathway for generic drugs, by setting a reasonable period of exclusivity for many brand name drugs will speed up generic approval process, speed up cost savings for families in toledo and lima and canton and youngstown and cincinnati, ohio. it's estimated that biologic drugs, again, those drugs that increasingly are used to help treat cancer an parkinson's and

diabetes and alzheimer's and m.s. will make up 50% of the pharmaceutical market by 2020. these are becoming more and more common, yet there is not even a process to establish generic drug alternatives. therefore there's no price competition and the price for these biologics go up and up and up and up, the price go up and up and up and up, yet -- yet there is no competition for them and they can keep charging these outrageous prices. these prescriptions, as said, cost anywhere frdz dz 10,000 a year, -- from $10,000 a year, that's the minimum, some cost as much as $200,000 a year, which is $16,000 or $17,000 a month much we're not saying that the prescription drug companies don't deserve a chance to escape -- a chance to recoup th the $1.2 billion they spend on research and development. this chart, mr. president, this is one year of sales with no competition from generics.

it often means multiple millions of dollars in revenue. for instance, this was compiled by the aarp, the retirees group, drug embrol for rheumatoid arthritis, these are industry numbers, $1.2 billion average cost to develop this product. annual u.s. sales for top selling biologic drug drugs $14.8 billion. another popular drug, remekaid, rheumatoid arthritis treatment, this case -- this company spends a little more than $1.2 billion to develop this product. $13 billion in sales. you can go down this list, epigen for anemia, humera for rurheumatoid arthritis.

on drug after -- biologic after biologic after biologic, the average cost for -- for this company, not just to develop this -- this biologic, the average cost to the company as a whole for its successful biologics and it's unsuccessful biologics, the amounts of research they are putting forward, are averagin averaging $1.2 billion, look at the sales, $14.08, almost 15, almost 12, $8 billion 12, $8 billion, $5.5 billion. almost $12 billion. yet, these are costs that consumers paying $2,000 a month, $3,000 a month, simply can barely afford in many cases and can't afford in other cases. these are costs that employers have to pay. these are costs that taxpayers have to pay if they're on medicaid. so, mr. president, it's pretty clear that -- that these huge profits that these companies are making, and you bet i want more

innovation and you bet i want to see the companies succeed, but they don't need to make these kinds of profits at the expense of taxpayers, small businesses that are paying the freight, larger business that's are less competitive because we've got to pay such high costs for health care in this country and it makes it harder for g.m. to compete with toyota and compete with other overseas auto manufacturers. one after another after another. sales in 2001 for the average biologic, not just the blockbusters, totaled ove over $666,000, that means it takes less than two years for the average brand name biologic to recoup r&d costs. why do some of my colleagues advocate for a 12-year monopoly period? they want to give these companies who are recovering this kind of money this quickly -- you can see each year the kind of money -- the kind of sales they've had. they want -- they want to give them 12 years to recoup thi this $1.5 billion. many of them recouped in the

first year, let alone the second, third, fourth and fifth. i don't want to see this kind of price gouging aimed at the small businesses, aimed at the large companies less competitive as a result. aimed at seniors an others who suffer from these diseases. so why a 12-year monopoly period? 12 years sounds good. the industry gets 12 years, they will laugh all the way to the bank. the president says 12 years is too long. the president thinks it should be seven years. the federal trade commission says it is too long. the federal trade commission said that giving them 12 years will reduce the innovation they do because the drug companies won't even try to compete with themselves and come up with new drugs. nearly everyone, insurance companies, patient groups, consumer groups, aarp has said this is too long. all kinds of organized labor unions because they're representing their members, they say it's too long. most insurance companies say

it's too long. patient groups, groups who advocate for diabetes, groups who advocate for people with heart disease and arthritis an m.s. and other deadly and crippling diseases all say 12 years is too long. everyone says 12 years is too long except for two groups, the drug companies and some house members and senators. these are companies trying to make lucrative profits for patients in need of prescription drugs. i read in "the washington post" how the form suit kal industry is spending well over $1 million every single day trying to influence the outcome of health care reform legislation. over $1 million a day to prevent generic drugs, affordable medicine from making its way to seniors in zanesville, ohio; and youngstown, and vanwert and all over my state to make its way to

people in middle-class families and people who can't afford brand name drugs wsm we can't allow political maneuvering delay making prescription drugs more available to americans. we're in the cusp of a meaningful reform of the health care system. let's not blow it. let's not pass the giveaway f billions of dollars, -- of billions of dollars, dollars out of people's pockets, dollars raided from small businesses and corporations alike. mr. president, we're in the cusp of meaningful reform, we must ensure access to generic drugs that will reduce costs, improve quality of care for millions of americans that will mean more innovation and more miracle drugs, this is part of our -- of our historical moment. we need to do it right. thank you, mr. president, i yield the floor. i, again, thank senator voinovich for yielding to me and i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. voinovich: i ask to be given permission to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. voinovich: mr. president, i think it's time for congress to join forces and unite in a bipartisan way to help the president deal with the unbelievable challenges he has, domestically and internationally. one easy way to help our nation is by passing our appropriation bills by september 30th. our getting it done this year is urgent because of the state of our economy and the impact federal spending has on that economy. our reliance on continuing resolutions to fund the federal government continues to plague congress and has a cascading effect on government agencies and the citizens they serve. in recent decades it has become

common for appropriation bills to be enacted after the start of the fiscal year during the last quarter of the calendar year or even in the next session of congress, as was the case this year. repeatedly managing by continuous resolution is inefficient. it results in wasteful spending, disruption and chaos in the operations of federal programs and dramatic productivey slowdowns. this is not a good record for either party and irresponsible approach to managing our limited resources and it's got to stop. last year because the senate did not do its job, agencies were rushed to spend their budgets before the end of the fiscal year and used overtime to ensure requests for process before midnight on september 30, making it ripe for overspending for agency stockpile. this means fewer dollars returned to the treasury to reduce the budget deficit. we need to get back to basics to

solve it. this is one problem the congress can solve and we need to do it this year. congress may hold the power of the purse but we undermine credibility by star -fg managers of agencies of necessary resources and by turning a blind eye to failing programs. this is about more than allocating funds. it's about good management and good public policy. and i can assure you that as a county commissioner, mayor and governor, if the appropriations were not done on time, we would have been run out of town for not doing our job. inaction causes chaos in the operations of our federal government. continuing resolutions do exactly what their name implies. they continue funding at prior-year levels without regard to whether changes in funding are necessary or appropriate. as a result, agency program managers are now in the untenable position of having to manage on the prior year's budget which often results in a loss of productivity and waste

of taxpayer dollars. imagine if these same program managers could spend their time instead on our current economic situation ensuring that the stimulus funds are being spent wisely and appropriately. programs which cannot justify the level of funding they used to have and ought to be cut will continue to get the level of funding they were getting. likewise, programs for which increased need has been demonstrated and which, therefore, should get increased funding will continue to be funded at the prior year's level leaving the increased need under duress. since 19 # 0, the government accountability office has issued its biannual high-risk report which examines challenges faced by federal programs and operations and recommends ways to improve their peformance and accountability. many of the programs on the g.a.o. high-risk list are dysfunctional and fail to deliver intended services to the taxpayer. in other instances the federal government is wasting taxpayer dollars that could be better

used for higher-priority programs or cutting the deficit. imagine if we were able to litigate one week or -- dedicate one week or one day per month as a body to debating solutions as challenges confronted by g.a.o. instead of stating when or where to proceed on appropriations bills or a resolution to avoid the embarrassment of a government shutdown. mr. president, this is not the case of benign neglect. we have become overly reliant on past practice and refuse to make the end-to-end budget process a priority. continuing appropriations acts have become commonplace and unfortunately fully integrated into the process. the end result is funding uncertainty not because the money isn't there, but because congress cannot join together in a bipartisan manner and hammer out an agreement on how money should be spent. no business would manage its

affairs in this manner, and need should the federal government. as i said, the federal government is the only level of government that gets away with it. i think few of the senate recognize the adverse impact continuing resolutions have on agencies whose budgets rely heavily on personnel, hiring freezes, cuts in training budgets have lasting effects. it's irresponsible not to provide appropriations on time to those we have asked to provide services to the american people and give them gigantic excuses to not perform. our inaction has also an impact on program management. federal public servants spend countless hours preparing detailed budgets. we reward hair hard work by asking them -- their hard work by asking them to figure out how to manage under last year's budget. imagine if these people could spend their time managing programs instead of figuring out how to operate under a

continuing resolution including completion of reprogramming requests. managing by continuing resolution has the effect of delaying construction, reducing overall efficiency, wasting time and paper resources and disallowing any new starts in procurement. fortune 100 companies don't walk away from difficult budget choices by taking a path to the next fiscal year. neither does main street u.s.a. regardless of whether you subscribe to the belief that c.r.'s save money, this is no way to run an organization. it is part of our obligation to the american people to ensure our scarce resources are given to projects that produce results. i want to share a few examples of the true impact of continuing resolutions taken from a memo prepared by the congressional research service in hearings before the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs. let's just take the department of education. the impact aid program is an elementary and secondary education program that does not

receive forward funding or advance appropriation. and, therefore, is more easily affected by an interim continuing resolution. payments for children with disabilities are delayed when the department of education is operating under a continuing resolution. usaid, the delay of funding the president's malaria initiative, which was enacted in order to reduce deaths due to malaria by 50%, lasted until february 15, 2007. five months, or 138 days into the fiscal year 2007. doing the math, this delay in funding relates to the loss of people, 198,000 lives unnecessarily. in other words, by delaying it, the money wasn't there. we didn't get the job done. and this resulted in the deaths of individuals. nasa, on june 8, 2008, the federal times reported the following from nasa administrator michael griffin -- quote -- "any time congress

passes a continuing resolution that hauls agencies to that i were current spending levels at a time when the economy is experiencing inflation translates into a budget cut. and so we will be cutting the budget at nasa, and the only question is: how much? and then the second question after how much is decided is will the continuing resolution be broadly applied and left to the discretion of agency heads to implement or will special programs be targeted to be either favored or disfavored?" end of quote. fema, in fiscal year 2008 the emergency food and shelter program which provides emergency food and shelter to needy individuals did not receive funds under the c.r. thus, the program did not have funds available for communities and their respective homeless provider agencies during what many view as critical winter months until february 26, 2008, or 149 days into 2008. the judiciary, the judiciary has had to resort to hiring freezes

or furloughing employees under continuing resolutions. in fiscal year 2004, the judiciary reduced 1,350 positions with probation and pretrial services receiving significant cuts. h.u.d. -- during fiscal year -- i'm giving you examples that have been pointed out by c.r.s. during fiscal year 2004, the department of housing and urban development had to temporarily suspend the general insurance and special risk insurance fund of the federal housing administration because the continuing resolution did not provide sufficient credit subsidy to continue with the program. during the suspension, h.u.d. was unable to meet the need of the borrowers who would ordinarily be served by the programs which created uncertainty among the lenders and potential borrowers. mr. president, i think most of us have seen what happens when we have uncertainty in our mortgage system. the treasury department -- continuing resolutions in fiscal

year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 limited and delayed the i.r.s.'s ability to improvements in the taxpayer service. also these continuing resolutions prevented the agency from making job offers to highly qualified candidates until enactment of a full-year appropriations. just jerk them around. research and development -- most research and development programs continue to receive funding at the prior year's level when operating under a continuing resolution. however, this funding mechanism can only support existing r&d priorities. new and emerging technologies must be funded in realtime. the social security administration -- operating under a continuing resolution for 2010 will hamper efforts to reduce backlog in the agency's disability program which would result in decreased efficiency.

also in previous years, continuing resolutions cause the agency to implement a hiring freeze that contributed to service delivery problems. while commissioner aster has gone to great lengths to send additional resources to my home state, ohio still has people waiting more than 500 days for a decision on their social security disability plan. i was very critical of this. i started looking back at the continuing resolutions that were passed. a chaotic situation. they weren't able to keep the people they had. they weren't able to hire more people. they've got 500 days wait now. i'm sure the president gets the same complaints from his people about they can't get their disability case appeals heard. d.h.s. -- in testimony before the house homeland security subcommittee on management, the department of homeland security's deputy procurement officer richard gunnderson spoke on the key programs. he testified -- quote -- "a c.r.

would stop those programs in their tracks, and we would not be able to grow the way that everybody is saying that we need to grow." mr. president, there's a lot more examples of what i'm talking about, and i think -- this has got to be the year that we do our job. the senator from nevada, our leader, the senator from kentucky, our minority leader, have both publicly stated that we need to do our job on time. and as i mentioned earlier, the need for it is more urgent than ever before. if i were the president of the united states today, i'd probably look at what congress is doing, and i think that i would say one of the greatest gifts that you can give me, one of the greatest gifts that you can give our country is do your work on time so that we don't have this chaotic situation that we've had for so many years.

none of our hands are clean. none of our hands are clean. i've been here when we've deliberately not passed appropriations with the idea that maybe our guys are going to get elected president or we're going to get the majority in the senate or the congress, and so then we can tweak it the way we want to because a majority will -- no longer the majority. this game's been played for too long around here, and it's about time we recognized it and did something about it. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed. .the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent the senate go into a period of morning business with senators allowed to speak for a period of five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent i be permitted to speak a if in morning business for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i have spoken many times on the floor of the united states senate about the desperate need for reform of our broken health care system. today the united states congress stands at a moment of historic opportunity. the attention, hopes and anxieties of the american people are focused on us like never before. we've seen over the course of the last 60 years constant lament over the system's flaws and failure -- failure when true opportunities for reform arise. well, president obama has now challenged this congress to

reform our nation's health care system to expand access to insurance, to improve below average results, and to bring down its costs. it is about this last challenge, the challenge of our unmanageable and grotesque health care costs, that i speak today. in his recent speech to the a.m.a. the president call escalating health care costs -- and i quote -- "a threat to our economy" and "escalating burden on our families and businesses," and a ticking time bomb for the federal budget," and "unsustainable for the united states of america." i hope we all share his sense of urgency. our country's economic future may depend on it. over the past few weeks i've been privileged to work with my "help" committee colleagues to make long awaited reforms and

investments, to control costs, and ring savings from -- wring savings from the system. in that process much attention has been paid to the congressional budget office's cost and savings estimates. estimates that in many cases have significant limitations. c.b.o., as we know, plays a vital role in our legislative branch by ensuring we have objective, nonpartisan estimates of the likely costs and savings to the federal budget of legislation. these estimates can help us maybe responsible an efficient use of the taxpayers money but we must recognize that in the particular context of health care reform they are fundamentally limited by c.b.o.'s professional restrictions. c.b.o. can only estimate health care costs and savings that have

historic precedent. for example, since we have the experience of medicaid and the children's health insurance program, c.b.o. can estimate how much expanding coverage to all needy families will cost. these subsidies account for the vast majority of c.b.o.'s $600 billion estimate of the ten-year cost of the "help" committee bill. on the cost savings side, however, c.b.o.'s capability is limited. we know our health care system is on an unsustainable course. there's broad agreement on which of the broken pieces need fixing. but it is impossible to estimate cost savings with the degree of certainty that c.b.o. requires to provide what we call "a score." c.b.o.'s director has been

refreshingly can difficulty about this. in a recent letter to our budget chair, senator conrad, he writes the following, and this is a quote: "changes in government policy have the potential to yield large reductions in both national health expenditures and federal health care spending without harming health." he continues "many experts agree on some general directions in which the government's health policies should move tip china involving changes in the information and incentives that doctors and patients have when making decisions about health care, yet," he says," many of the significant changes that could be most important cannot be for seen today and can be developed only over time through

experimentation and learning." c.b.o.'s professional discipline requires it to score legislation through a rear-view mirror. looking back and basing its calculations on what it can chronicle has happened in the past. but when we propose to take the country in a new direction, when there's a turn in the road, when we seek to fulfill president obama's promise of true change in america, the rear-view mirror doesn't help much. we have not been where we need to go. in addition, getting there will require leadership, creativity, and perseverance. it will require executive administration with constant adjustments and improvements as we work towards our goal. those factors areon the

capability of c.b.o. to predict. madam president, i speak today not to criticize the hard-working public servants of the congressional budget office. they do an exemplary job with the tools at their disposal. americans owe them a particular debt of gratitude now for how incredibly hard they have worked over these past weeks. but their tools come with their own limitations. the point of this reform is to turn around a system that is spiraling out-of-control. we spent 18% of our gross domestic product on health care, the next highest spending nation in the world -- the next worse -- is swit land at 11% -- is switzerland at 11%. even if our success is limited to shaving a few percentage

points, that change will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year. yes, there will need to be an initial investment in health care reform but the potential savings are multiples larger. c.b.o.'s inability to score those savings does not mean those savings are not both real and substantial. one measure of the potential savings is the recent report of the president's council of economic advisors. june 2009. i ask unanimous consent the document be made part of the record of this speech. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, madam president. this report compares the share of america's gross domestic product spent on health care to the share spent by our

international industrialized competitors. it also looks to the wide variation in health care expense and quality, region to region, within the united states of america. from each of these measures the report comes to the same conclusion: they estimate excess health care expenditures of about 5% of g.d.p. which translates to $700 billion per year. former treasury secretary o'neal has just written recently that the target is $1 trillion per year; $700 billion or $1 trillion -- that is a savings target that is worth an enormous expenditure of executive and legislative effort to achieve particularly when all the evidence suggests achieving it

will actually improve health care outcomes for the american people. perfect examples of the savings that await us are in quality of care. i've spoken before about the keystone project up in michigan which reformed care in a significant number of michigan's intensive care units. it reduces infections, respiratory complications and other medical errors. between march 2004 and june 2005 -- just a little over a year -- the project is documented to have saved 1,578 lives, 81,020 days patients otherwise would have spent in the hospital, and over $165 million health care dollars. just in a little over a year.

just in intensive care units. just in one state. and not even all the intensive care units in that state. in my home state, the rhode island quality institute has taken this model statewide with every hospital participating. and we are already seeing hospital acquired infections and costs declining. request aren't these quality reforms happening spontaneously all over the country? because government and private insurers haven't set up the right rules for the game. when welfare began our re -- when we began our reform, the hospital association recommended $400,000 cost for potential $8 millionization from the i.k.u. reform program. that's a 20-1 return on

investment. super deal, right? who wouldn't take that? well, the hospitals pointed out that all of the savings, the $8 million, went to the payers -- to medicare, to the insurance companies -- and all the costs and all the trouble and all the risk came out of their own pockets. the savings actually cut hospital revenues. so with a lot of business experience around this chamber, do we know a lot of businesses that would spend $400,000 in cash in order to lose $8 million in revenues? it's not a good economic proposition. we have made the rules such that it is not a good economic proposition for hospitals to invest that way. that is why the "help" committee bill changes payment incentives

and invests in grant programs so it begins to make economic sense for doctors and hospitals to invest in lifesaving and cost saving quality improvements. if we can make it an economic win for providers to improve quality this way, think of the torrent of american ingenuity that will unleash. now, we are stuck, stuck in a bgbog of market failure with the connection between risk and reward, the fundamental connection between risk and reward that is the basic engine of american capitalism, interrupted and disabled. but c.b.o. can't score that innovation because we haven't been down this road before. and there's nothing in the rear-view mirror for c.b.o. professionals to work with to determine what those siftion will be.

there's a similar problem in disease prevention. a study by the trust for america's health found investing $10 per person per year in improveen community-based programs to increase physical activity, improve nutrition, and prevent tobacco use, could save the country more than $16 billion annually within five years. out of the $16 billion in savings, medicare could save $5 billion, medicaid could save $1.9 billion and private payers could save more than $9 billion. but those program providers don't get funded. that's why the "help" committee bill establishes a prevention and public health investment fund to provide expanded and sustained nationwide investment in preventing illness. well run the savings could be

enormous but c.b.o. can't score it because we haven't been down this road before. and there's nothing in the rear-view mirror for c.b.o. professionals to work with. a third area for significant efficiencies in savings is the contentious inefficient billing and approval process. right now, doctors and insurance companies are locked in an arms race. private insurers delay claims and deny claims for reimbursement and throw up barriers to payment. the providers, in turn, staff up, hire consultants, and add people to fight back. this battle creates a colossal burden on the system, consuming, perhaps, 10% to 15% of all private insurance expenditure. and then creating a probably actually greater cost shadow out in the provider community from having to fight back against that 10% to 15% expenditure.

and it all adds no overall health care value. none. it's just pure administrative cost-shifting. even the insurance industry estimated that $30 billion a year could be saved through simplification of that process. that's why the "help" committee bill has strong administrative simplification requirements. but, again, c.b.o. can't score it because this is another new road, and, again, there's nothing in the rear-view mirror for c.b.o. to work with. finally, multiple studies show that the private insurance market is plagued by inefficiency and waste. while administrative costs for medicare run about 3% to 5%, overhead for private insurers is an astounding 20% to 27%, charges that consumers pay through higher premiums. a commonwealth fund report indicates that private insurer

administrative costs increased 109%, they more than doubled -- private insurer administrative costs more than doubled from 2000-2006, just in six years. and the mckenzie global institute and a leading health economist estimate that americans spend roughly $128 billion annually on -- quote -- "excess administrative overhead." $128 billion on "excess administrative overhead" in the private health insurance market. that's why the "help" committee bill establishes a strong nonprofit public health insurance option that would compete on even terms with private insurance companies, bringing down premiums, negotiating more efficient provider payments, and increasing consumer access, all

through the power of free market competition. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired mr. whitehouse: may i ask unanimous consent for two more minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i appreciate it, madam president. all of this is done through the power of free market competition, but again, c.b.o. can't score it because we have not been down that road before, and, again, there's nothing in the rear-view mirror for those c.b.o. professionals to work with. madam president, in the 1930's, franklin delano roosevelt's program for an innovative program called the tennessee valley authority faced this occuthis dourailroad productiona member of the house of representatives. "mr. speaker, i think i can accurately predict no one in this generation will see materialize the industrial empire dream of the ten valley." another member marked that the development of power in that particular lot of the nation

can -- that particular locality of the nation can be of no general good." had f.d.r. been cowed and discouraged by such pessimism, by the difficulty and uncertainty and novelty of that task, the t.v.a. would never have brought electricity and jobs and prosperity to millions of americans. likewise, today it is precisely because our reforms are innovative and because they will take energy and commitment and leadership to achieve that they are unscorable. that should be an inspiration to us, not a discouragement. through this reform bill, we must challenge ourselves and the obama administration to do that which economists and commentators cannot specifically score and analyze. with strong leadership and with dedication, we cannot only bend the cost curve, we can break it.

let's set a hard target, save $500 billion in annual savings and see how fast we can get there. let's make it the apollo project of our generation. the stakes are high enough to justify that effort. i thank the president and i yield the floor. i thank senator sessions, who i see waiting for a turn to speak, and senator barrasso waiting for his turn to speak, for their courtesy in allowing me the extra time. gentlemen, thank you. i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. many barrasso: thanmr. barrasso, madam president. madam president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to ten minutes in morning business and then recognize senator sessions when i finish. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, most everyone knows i'm an orthopedic surgeon. in wyoming, many people refer to me as wyoming's doctor. that's because for over two decades, folks have invited me into their homes with television

health reports, radio health reports, where i give people information that they can use to stay healthy and to keep down the costs of their medical care. and i end each of these television and radio reports by saying, here in wyoming, i'm dr. john barrasso, helping you care for yourself." this is also my philosophy for government: helping people help themselves. as medical director of the wyoming health fairs, i worked to give people all around the cowboy state access to lifesaving preventive blood tests and low-cost medical screenings.my goal is always to encourage families to eat right, to exercise, to manage chronic diseases, and to stop smoking. because prevention is one of the keys to a long and a happy and a healthy life. as i travel home every weekend, i hear the concerns people have about health care and the cost of care. they're concerned about the specific costs of their medical care and thousand affects them

and their family -- and how it affects them and their family budget. many families -- many families -- across wyoming and this country worry that they will lose the health care concludcoverage that they currey have. others can't afford insurance today. that's what's wrong with our health care system. that is what we need to fix. now, i know from firsthand experience that doing nothing is simply not an option. we must be careful, we must be thoughtful, and we must be deliberate about the changes that we make. health care is a very complex and it's an intensely personal issue. it deserves a national debate, a serious, open and transparent national debate. i welcome the opportunity to talk about the concerns of people living longer and needing more care and more advanced ca care. the concerns to care are affordable care, access to care and high-quality care.

well, in the midst of this debate, we cannot stand for rural americans to be left behind. they need access to high-quality care, affordable health care just like everybody else. when i first came to the senate, i promised the people of wyoming that i would fight each and every day to protect and to modernize our rural health care delivery system. i committed to do my part to strengthen our rural hospitals, our rural health clinics and our community health centers. i committed to do my part to increase rural america's access to primary health care services and to aid in the successful recruitment and retention of nurses, nurse practitioners, doctors, physician assistants all across rural and frontier america. madam president, there are obstacles, obstacles faced by our hospitals, our clinics and our providers, obstacles that they have to overcome to deliver quality care to all of the families in rural america.

and, you know, they end up having to do it in an environment of markedly limited resources. now, the federal government needs to recognize these important differences and then respond with appropriate policy. the people of wyoming know that i am here not just as their senator but also as a rural doctor who has practiced medicine fighting on their behalf. now, recently i joined three of my colleagues to introduce s. 1157, the craig thomas rural hospital and provider equity a act. well, today, madam president, i rise to talk about a different bill, a bill i've introduced alongside my colleague from oregon, senator ron wyden. it is called "the rural health clinic patient access and improvement act." now, this legislation is a great example of what bipartisanship can produce. now, senator wyden, i want to thank you, i want to thank your staff for working so hard to collaborate with me on this very important bill.

i commend your dedication to helping rural americans have equal access to the high-quality medical care that they deserve. madam president, this legislation strengthens america's 3,500 rural health clinics that serve rural and frontier communities. rural health clinics are a highly valued medical provider in communities all across this country. in wyoming, we have rural health clinics located in communities that many people have never heard of, bags, wyoming, glennrock, hewitt, lovell, hughland bow, and themopolis. these clinics make sure that patients have access to primary care as close to home as humanly possible. now, that's not always a chance in wyoming. to give a snap shop of the landscape, we have only 20 hospitals and 18 rural health clinics spread over 100,000 square miles, remarkably large distances, vast distances, complex medical cases and

increased demand for technology, for advanced medical care. the rural health care system, madam president, is certainly not one-size-fits-all. well, let me explain what this rural health clinic patient access and improvement act actually does. first, the rural health clinics currently receive an all-inclusive payment rate which is capped at $76. that payment has not been adjusted except for inflation since 1988, and we all know that medical inflation has gone up at a much greater rate than the regular inflation. so this bill addresses this problem by raising the rural health clinic cap from $76 to $92. rural health clinics are a examinee component of the rural health dliferry system and we need to -- delivery system and we need to make sure that there is fair pay for patients who are taken care inform those of in te facilities.

we also need to give them enough flexibility to meet their community's health care needs. now, additionally, this measure would establish a new quality reporting program for rural health clinics. three years ago, congress required the centers for medicare and medicaid to create a physician quality reporting system. this program offers bonus payments to doctors that report quality measures on medicare services. the quality incentive program is linked to the medicare physician fee schedule. rural health clinics, though, are not paid using the physician fee schedule. so if congress really wants to pay doctors based not on volume but on the quality of care, then it is important to remember that the one-size-fits-all approach will not work here. that's why this bill ensures that a comparable quality incentive is available to rural health care providers. now, third, the rural health clinic patient access and

improvement act will create a provider retention demonstration project. it's a five-state project that's going to study the extent to which a medical professional can be encouraged, enticed to practice in an underserved rural and frontier area. the states would be given grants to help physicians and physician assistants and nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives to help them pay a small portion of their medical liability costs. now, i believe these incentives will help draw more providers, especially those who deliver babies to work in an underserved area because their malpractice insurance is the same whether they deliver one baby or a hundred. but in these small areas, there aren't that marriage penalty babiemany babies beingborn this. so the cost, while it's the same for their malpractice insurance, has to be distributed over a fewer number of patients. so this is an incentive to help encourage them to practice in these underserved areas. madam president, wyoming has too few primary care providers for theithe population that we must

serve, and i know my state is not alone. this bill that senator wyden and i have introduced reflects our commitment to ensure rural americans have access to high-quality health care services. i strongly encourage all of my colleagues with an interest in rural health to cosponsor this bipartisan piece of legislation. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: madam president, i've offered an amendment to the homeland security legislation that's before us that would call for the utilization of the e-verify system that is working well now and to make that system permanent and call for it to be utilized by contractors who do

business with the united states government. essentially, the -- essentially, employers all over america are accessing the e-verify computer technology-based system that allows them to have an instant check to determine whether or not the person that has applied for employment with them is legally in the country. they just simply check their social security number and other data and frequently, not very frequently but periodically they find people that are not here and they identify that and don't hire them. 96% of the people are cleared promptly that are -- when their business is checked, but a certain number, 3% or so are

found to be here illegally and they shouldn't get a job for taxpayers' money in the part of the stimulus package when that money was set aside to try to help us reduce our unemployment rate in this country and to hire american workers. it should not be a magnet to draw more illegal workers into the country. the first thing you do if you've got an immigration problem is you stoch rewarding it. -- stop rewarding it. and one of the things you don't reward is jobs for people who come here illegally. you don't have to arrest them or abuse them or do anything unkind to them but you just don't hire them, especially with taxpayers' money that's designed to create american jobs. okay. so this has been a matter that we've talked about for sometime. and it's very important now in this time of economic slowdown because the bureau of labor statistics reported that the unemployment rate for june, just a week or so ago, had jumped to

9.5%, 467,000 jobs lost, the highest unemployment rate in 25 years. we've got job losses, a lot of good people are out of work, and they need work and are willing to work. now, e-verify is not a perfect system. people can beat it, no doubt. but it actually works. one study by the heritage foundation concluded that as much as 13% of the jobs created under the stimulus plan would go to people illegally in the country under the way we were operating. and we -- by ute lighting the e-verify -- eye utilizing the e-verify system, we could drop that dramatically. i am very earn cd about it and -- i am very concerned about it

and a bit baffled about the way we're moving forward with this legislation. i'll say two bits of progress have occurred mple the house homeland security security appropriations bill has come over here to the senate for fiscal year 2010 and includes a two-year extension of e-verify, and while that's better than letting it expire. in addition, the senate version includes a generous three-year extension of this proven system. well, i have to say that's okay, but it doesn't have any language to make this system to be permanent. it leaves it on a very shaky ground, making businesses who might voluntarily want to utilize it wonder if it really is the policy of our country to use this. 1,000 businesses a week are now signing up to use the system voluntarily. and it also raises questions

about the sincerity of our commitment. but, more significantly, neither one of the bills have any legislation that says that government contractors, people who are doing work for the united states government paid for by us, the taxpayers, must use this system. and i would ask, why not? what possible justifiable, rational reason can we give to pass legislation designed to help deal with this recession to try to create american jobs? what basis could we utilize to say that those contractors wouldn't at least take about two minutes -- that's about all it takes to punch in the social security number into the computer system -- to see if the person before them applying for a job is legally here? well, there's a long history on this. and for some reason, interest

groups have been lobbying against this legislation, certain business groups are opposed to this legislation. it scarce them. why? -- it scares them. why? well, i would suggest there's only one logical conclusion: they like the idea of hiring illegal workers. but how can we as members of the united states senate representing the american taxpayer, how can we possibly justify using their money that's designed to create jobs for american citizens to hire people here illegally, creating even a greater magnet to attract further -- more people to come into our country illegally? so you've offered this amendment -- so i've offered this amendment to the bill, the appropriations bill, to ensure that this successful program would be made permanent and, of course, anytime in the future if it ceases to be practical, we could end it.

doesn't mean we can never stop it in the future. but we make it permanent, sending a signal. that's part of what we want to do. and it would also be mandatory for government contractors. so if federal contractor gets a contract to do work, at least he ought to punch in the number of their workers to see if they're legally in the country before they hire them. i don't think that's too much to ask, and i can't imagine why anyone would oppose it. but i understand, once again, we're going to have objections. now, it is working, and the department of homeland security secretary, janet napolitano, recently said this: this, in ree to a question asked: quote -- "the administration" -- she's talk about the obama administration -- "strangly supports e-verify foos a

cornerstone of work site enforcement and will work continually to improve the program to assure it is the best tool available to prevent and deter the hiring of persons who are not authorized to work in the united states." close quote. so i think that's a pretty good affirmation of it. that's a known reality for years. we've known this system has worked for years but we've had people say, oh, it is a bureaucratic nightmare. well, why do people voluntarily sign up to use it then, businesses? they say that some people might be held up in employment. well, under the bill, if you have -- if something in the computer report raises questions about your employability, the bill allows the person to be hired while the problem is worked out. but what we've found is that 96% of the people are cleared immediately and only a very

small number have turned out to have some sort of mistake in their situation. so it's just not a practical objection, in my view. i understand that some are saying -- my colleagues on the other side cht aisle - side of l it looks like the secretary, napolitano, will announce something do this soon, maybe even tomorrow. that would be good. there would be a presidential directive that could in the short run solve this problem, but we've heard that talk before. president bush finally, after being subjected to some criticism about this, issued an executive order 12989 before he left office and that order

mandated the use of the e-verify system for federal contractors and subcontractors in february of this year. early this year. january or february. and president obama came in, as he had the power to do, and he put it off. indeed, we've had four delays to date in making this a requirement. the first was when president obama said that the january 28 date was not appropriate. he put it off until february 20 and said on february 20, businesses who get government contracts have to use the system. then a few weeks later, the implementation was pushed back to may 21. and then before may 21 got here, they pushed it back to june 30. and now we're hearing that it

will not be implemented until sometime in september, and now we're hearing, well, they may implement it. well, e-verify is certainly one of the most effective tools we have as the secretary herself has stated. why aren't we moving forward with it and making it permanent, i would ask. and i would ask my members of congress and in the senate, why don't we play a role in this? why leave it totally up to the president, who's subjected to all kind of political and corporate lobbying, to not do this thing? why don't we as a senate just make it a law? like we do about so many other things and just pass it. and if the secretary, napolitano, planned to do this in the future, it wouldn't conflict with anything that she

planned to do. if they weren't going to do it, it would mandate it and it would become in effect. so i think we've got to be aware that we've had a lot of problems before about the implementation of this system and it has not gone forward in an effective way. i don't think we should wait any longer. jobs are being lost every single day. they're being lost in significant numbers to people illegally in our country. and t.j. bonner, the head of the border patrol union, told us most passionately at a judiciary committee hearing a number of years ago that the jobs are the magnet. if you can stop the magnet, the number of people that they have to deal with at the border can be reduced. and it sends a signal that the days of open borders and the ability to get a job even if you're illegally here are past.

that's the way you do things and make it work. it's all part of a plan and steps to send a message to the world that we're not open for illegality. it's not -- it has, as i said, nobody is arrested. nobody is captured and taken to be deported. we just simply are taking a reasonable step to reduce the magnet of jobs from taxpayers' money -- not private businesses but just government businesses, government contractors -- to use this system. the federal government used it today. -- used it today in our hiring process. i was surprised to hear one of my democratic colleagues opposing -- asking that we not support this amendment, saying that we should have a biometric employment identification

database and that he can't support e-verify because it's not strong enough. well, that was a remarkable thing. anyone who studied the history of this program has good reason to wonder about the sincerity of people who object because e-verify isn't tough enough. the reason people are objecting is because it works. that's why the immigrant advocacy groups and the business crowd objects to it. that's why -- well, there may be better systems. i think indeed there are. well, it was contended that i.d. thieves can defeat the system. i spicts that's so. -- i suspect that's so. but does that mean the system has to be perfect before we introduce it? and it ignores the fact that

this bill appropriates a significant amount of extra funds to assist the department of homeland security's continuing effort to reinforce the spls antifraud protection -- the system's antifraud protection. we've got money in this legislation to try eliminate the ability of people to defeat it by fraud. so if -- i don't think the argument can rationally be made that extending it will be -- quote -- "a waste of taxpayers' money." we already have the system up and running. it's not going to cost anymore money to have more people use it in reality. the system is up and working. and i guess if people want to use that as an excuse to vote against the bill, they can. but it makes little sense to me. i would like to see an enhanced biometric system. it is absolutely something that can work. we need to do that. there are a lot of thing that we

can do this very day. but you have to admit, if we can't get the votes to just maintain the e-verify system, it looks like we may have even more difficulties with an advanced system. so, madam president, i won't go on at length about this anymore. we've debate ised i debatewe ha. earlier this year on the stimulus bill, i offered an amendment to make the e-verify ally to the stimulus bill and the people who got government contracts would str have to use. the house had tut that in their bill. i kept getting objection from the democratic leadership to my amendment. and i couldn't understand why.

then i began to think about it and it dawned on me what was happening. if my amendment were to pass and the language were in the house bill unless real skulduggery were to occur that language should be in the final bill but if they could keep the language out of the senate bill even though the house had put the language in their bill by an overwhelming vote, they could take it out in conference when they meet in secret and deal with the conflicts between the house bill and the senate bill. so i brought it up three or four times. and every time i tried to get a vote it was blocked. and then finally the bill passed without my amendment having passed. and do you know what happened when they met in secret in conference? the house leadership, the speaker and her team, receded to

the senate bill, agreed to eliminate their language and therefore the language wasn't in the bill. and what happened politically? all the house members, republicans and democrats, can say "i voted for e-verify," and the senate members when complaining, say "i would is voted for it if it came up but it just never cape up." this was the plan all along. i'm just out to tell you what the truth is how this happened. and what's at work out there. so i hope secretary napolitano will do what she can do and the president will do what he can do in order that this system they utilize for government contracts and to extend it. but i don't see any reason in the world why we should wait on that. what we should do as a congress, if we believe in what we say about our gel to eliminate the

surge illegal immigration and try to protect american jobs at this time of economic recession, we ought to vote for the bill. what harm can it be? so i urge my colleagues to do the right thing on this vote and vote for it. i just am baffled as to why there would be hesitation about it. i think if people look at it, it's very simple: e-verify system is up and running. the government employment officers use it before they hire anybody for the government. thousands of businesses are using it every day. they say about 1,000 businesses a week are signing up to use it. it protects them, in a way. if somebody said you knowingly hired illegal workers, they can say i checked and they had a good idea and a good name and i did my best. that will protect them from complaints against them.

and most employers want to do the right thing. they don't want to hire people not lawfly in the country. we are not hearing complaints and it is not violating people's civil rights and it is working in a healthy way. all we need to do now is say, let's make this system permanent and quit leaving it in limbo. and second, make sure it applies not only to people who work directly for the u.s. government but for people who are working for contractors who do work for the government, people who are getting money under the stimulus bill which was designed to create jobs for american citizens. i thank the yield. i would yield the floor. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quowp call. the presiding officer: -- quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. brown: i spoke to this chamber about expanding access to generic drugs and expanding generic access for drugs that treat cancer and diabetes and

arthritis, alzheimer's disease, and parkinson's and a whole host of disabling and often fatal diseases. i talked about how much money could be saved with a pathway to what are called biologics or generics, how much access that would be for those that cannot afford the thousands per month that often these biologics, very expensive treatments cost, how it saves money for small business which so often pays for the health care, for health insurance for employees and how it saves money for large companies that simply aren't, aren't able to be as competitive because of the high costs of biologics. this is part of a lamber debate about health care reform. a few short days after celebrating our necessary's birthday, we're fighting for what should be a right for every

american: that; access to affordable health coverage. this isn't about republicans. it's not about democrats. it's not about my part of the country, the midwest, or the presiding officer's country, new england. it is not about ohio, new hampshire, california, or nebraska. it's about americans, every american. it's about fighting for the next great progressive chapter in our nation's history. in our nation's 233-year history. think of the progress as a nation we've made in the last 100 years. i wear a pin depicting a canary in a bird cage where the mine workers took a canary in the mines and if the canary died for lack of oxygen or toxic acid the mine worker knee he had to get out of the mine immediately. he had no union to protect him or no government to protect him. think of the progress this country has made 100 years ago when the canary went down into the mine with the miner, an american baby born in america at

the turn of the last century, say, of 1900, had a life expectancy of only 46 years and today we live three decades longer because of progressive government, because of a ban on child labor, because of civil rights, and women's rights, because of safe drinking water and clean air, because of seat bells and airbags, because of medicare and social security and minimum wage and workers' compensation and so many great things that this institution has done. now, over the 4th of july weekend, madam president, i was honored to have spent time with the skulllies from australia. senately and gregg lived in the united states just upsurvivors from my wife when my wife then was a single, struggling single paper. he was an intern, i believe an intern at the cleveland clinic, making very little money. they had two children then. now they came back to see us on this july 4th weekend and they now have four children. they now have four children.

will and izzie were there, a dozen years ago in the united states, in the 1990's, joining the family since, being born into the family since, remain richie and rosy. they came to cleveland over the july 4th week. they did what americans do: went to a cleveland indians game, unfortunately, typically, saw the indians lose, a pattern all too common this year. they went to july 4th parade. and in the southwest part of cleveland, and they went to picnics, they had family time. as i talked with dr. skalia and we talked of the kept debate over health care reform it occurred this debate in the hours and hours spent by staff and members that work in the united states senate in crafting the public plan we announced last thursday, the issue of generic drugs we engaged in today, all the work they have done on prevention and on

quality of care, and on workforce training, and on stopping fraud in the medicare system -- all the kinds of health care system over all, all the kind of things we have discussed are part of the american experience. but we know it's not about terms like "public options," or "biologics," or "concepts of preventive care," and "quality control," and the "discharge plan," when people leave hospitals, this is, really, all about american families. that's that's why when we celebrated the 4th over the weekend, it's important to think about what we do this month in the health, education, labor, peption committee on which i sit and on the finance committee, the two committees in the senate, joined in the house with the ways and means committee, the education and labor committee, and the energy and commerce committee,

as we work on this. our first pledge is to protect what's right in our health care system. and our second pledge is to fix what's wrong. protecting what's right means if you have health insurance and you're pleased with your health insurance, you keep it. no government is going to tell you to change that. you keep what you have. if you're unhappy with your insurance or dissatisfied or simply have no health insurance or have very inadequate health insurance, then we can offer you private insurance or offer you the public health option, the public plan option, so to speak, that will give the choices as an american citizen. madam president, i would close by saying that this is an historic moment for our country. this is the first time since franklin roosevelt tried -- thought about trying to add health care, a medicare-like system, to social security in the 1930's. he backed off under pressure from the american medical

association. in the 1940's, president truman offered medicare. he was not able to pass it for all kinds of reasons. in 1965 president johnson and the huge democratic majority -- the biggest majorities we've had in the last 70 years -- were able to pass a medicare and medicaid and look what that brought us. now, madam president, as you join news your first term from new hampshire and many other freshmen that have moved on this side. aisle and sort of scweesed these desks together, as we see, will be facing an historic moment where we have chance to provide health insurance and help all these families that i saw on july 4 reach the american dream. it is an opportunity where people that haven't had health insurance, people that have inadequate health insurance insurance want to be able to provide for their families. they work as hard as any united states senator. they are the comforts of their job aren't nearly as much as we have and they're deserving of

the same kind of health insurance that people in this chamber have, senators, staff people, all of us. so, madam president, i just say this is a great moment, an historic moment as we move forward in the history of our great country. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed to the considers of s. res. 209 submitted earlier today. excuse me, mr. president -- the presiding officer: yes. mr. brown: this one the senior senator from new york. the presiding officer: complort. the clerk: recognizing the 40th anniversary of the national eye institute and

expressing support for designation of the years 2011 through 2020 as the decade of vision. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate proceeds to the measure. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 tomorrow, a.m., july 8, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and thereby period of morning business for one hour with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first half, the majority controlling the final half, with senators permitted to speak for up 120 minutes each. further, following morning business, the senate resume consideration of h.r. 2892, the homeland security appropriations bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: tomorrow we will resume consideration of the homeland security appropriations bill. under the previous order, there

will be two votes tomorrow morning after 10:40 a.m. in relation to two amendments, sessions number 1371, and demint number 1399. as we continue to work on the homeland security appropriations bill, additional votes are possible throughout the day. mr. president, if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that the senate adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate will stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m. mr. reid: mr. president? officer the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection.

the chair lays before the senate the certificate of election for the certificate of election for >> the charily is before the senate a certificate of election for secure term. beginning january 3rd, 20 online for the representation of the state of minnesota. the certificate the chair is advised is in the form suggested by the senate. if there is no objection, the reading of the certificate will be waived and it will be printed in full in the record. if the senator e. let will present himself at the desk the chair will administer the oath of office as required by the constitution and prescribed by law.

>> please raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that you support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic? that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of of asian, and that he will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which you are about to enter so help you god? >> i do. >> congratulations, senator. >> thank you. [applause] [applause]

[applause] [applause] [applause] [applause]

[applause] [applause] [applause] after the swearing-in ceremony for senator franken members broke for their weekly party lunches. they spoke to reporters in the capitol following their luncheons. here were those remarks. >> nothing going on apparently.

>> okay. good afternoon everyone welcome back to town. let me begin by talking about what is clearly the biggest domestic issue, and that is health care. you know, we have seen the themes of this administration, running banks, insurance companies, automobile companies, student loans, and now if you look what the administration would like to get on health care, you're inevitably lead to the conclusion they also want to be running the nation's health care. it is overwhelming opposition in the country, to the government being in charge of our health care. everybody is concerned about cost, but republicans uniformly feel the cost issue can be addressed without having the government take over health care. we already have two examples of government health care now, medicare and medicaid, both of

them we know are on an unsustainable path with enormous unfunded liabilities, and yet the administration is trying to find at least part of their health care effort by additional medicare and medicaid cuts not to sustain those programs, which are already on sustainable, but to try to pay for a program that expands government cared even further. we think this is very wrongheaded. if you're looking for a pattern look at the stimulus package. the goal was rosh and spend and russia and spend. don't read the fine print, just get it done yesterday. and we saw what happened with the stimulus package. the prediction was it would hold employment to 8%, to ten. clearly that has failed, and now they are anxious to rush and spend on health care, frankly nobody has even had a chance to read the details yet. i think this is a significant

move in the wrong direction. with that, let me call on senator kyl. >> thank you, leader. continuing on with this discussion of health care, all of us having gone home this last weekend talking to our constituents came back with stories about what our folks were saying to us. they are scared to death that what they have -- and remember about 85% of the folks have insurance -- they are scared to death is going to be taken away from them. that they are going to lose coverage. that somebody is going to get between them and their doctor. and using the medical analogy here, doctors of course our first admonish to do no harm in treating a patient. we think we should do the same thing with health care reform. let's take the time to give it right, and especially for all of americans who are already covered by either a government program or private insurance, don't do any harm to their coverage. if they like what they have, let

them keep it, and don't cut programs like medicare in order to fund this program. that's what seniors back in arizona are really afraid of. we just got the word that the health committee has a new version of its bill now. it's actually gotten the score down to about $600 billion, but part of the reason is they took out a title that's going to cost about the same amount of money, and that is to add to medicaid. so part of this is going a show game to show it doesn't cost as much as it really does is simply deferring to leaders of the additional spending that will have to occur. it's another reason we want to take our time to do this right for the sake of the american people. >> republicans want health care reform this year, and we want to start -- we want to begin with a 250 americans who already have health insurance, and make sure those americans can afford their health care insurance. but we also want to look at

low-income americans and make sure that we are fair to them. and one of our greatest concerns, my greatest concerns is about the proposals to dump millions more americans a failed health care program called medicaid. two problems with medicaid, the first is a massive new cost to state governments. i've suggested to my senate colleagues any of them vote to increase medicaid coverage in the way it's recommended by the democratic bills all to be sentenced to go home and serve as governor for eight years to manage the program and pay for it because the costs would literally bankrupt the states. in tennessee the preliminary estimates are it would add the amount of money that equals a new 10% state income tax. the second problem is the medicaid program doesn't surf to low-income americans who deserve to be served. 40% of doctors won't serve medicaid patients come and if we dump millions more into that

government run program it will only be worse. it would be like giving someone a bus ticket without any buses on which to ride. so the medicaid proposals that are coming up in the democratic proposals or simply an attempt to shift costs from washington because we've already spent all anyone can back to the states and it will put them in the same kind of shape we are finding ourselves and to the coming in. >> of the one of the messages that came across loud and clear at least during my travels during last week's break was what i think our kind of common sense arguments that the american people are picking up on. one is you can't spend money that you don't have and secondly, when you borrow money you have to pay it back. there is this realization across america we are continuing to spend and borrow here in washington, d.c. and that bares on the debate we are having about health care, because health care is going to be a trillion dollar new entitlement.

one of the things i heard repeatedly over the break and most of the unsolicited people came up and talked about the hundreds of billions of dollars in energy taxes that are going to be imposed upon the american people if the democrats have their way in congress. i think the american people are realizing these things have to be paid for, that there are huge costs associated with it and it is going to entail massive amounts of borrowing from future generations. if they're going to start delivering to the politicians in washington, d.c., and i hope we can successfully defeated the cap and trade legislation passed in a hurry way through the house last week and we could at least slow the healthcare debate down where we could get at the fundamental issue most americans are struggling with and that is the cost negative you and do it in a way that doesn't add trillions of dollars of debt we pass on to future generations or tax increases on the american economy at a time we can least afford it. >> the folks in texas don't want another government run health

care program because they've seen the foils of the ones we have already. one called medicare. where we already know it is fiscally on sustainable, tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities, and so to our space times really propose to create another fiscally on sustainable government run health care program on top of the ones we have now? and we know medicare also is riddled with fraud, some $60 billion a year lost not in providing care to seniors, but rather to people cheating and stealing the american tax payer. and finally, because we know medicare like medicaid pays below market rates to physicians. in my state, 42% of physicians will not see a new medicare patient in travis county, austin texas only 17% of physicians will see a new medicare patient. some medicare is currently constituted as not a model for another broken government health

care plan on top of two other leaders of broken government run health care plans. we need real reform which means addressing cost and covering people who don't have insurance now. >> we will take a couple of questions if there are any. >> -- hearing the finance committee markup goes through next week? >> if you couldn't hear the question, the hearings for judge so the maya -- sotomayor take precipice. i expect senators will be there for this hearing as democratic senators will be regardless of what other assignments they must have and they may have. i think that clearly comes first for next week just as no small matter the hearings over supreme court nominee to the most important court in the land for a lifetime tenure. >> senator kyl, you said

stimulus [inaudible] >> did you hear the question? about a second stimulus. down-home we used to say there's no education in the second kick of a mule. why in the world there would be any conclusion reached looking at the results of the first stimulus that the way with that is to pass yet another one is mind-boggling. i think a second stimulus is an even worse idea than the first stimulus, which has been demonstrably proven to have failed, and we are spending $100 million a day on interest on the first stimulus. rush and spend is what this administration is about. rush and spend. this needs to stop for the future of the country and for our children and grandchildren. thanks. >> senator franken said -- does this change the way that you approach conflicts with the other side of the all?

>> i would say over democratic friends have their long-sought 60 votes. the american people will fully understand that they owned the government, the executive branch, the house and the senate and they are waiting to see the results of their programs. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

senator franken gave me a few jokes he felt i should share with you. [laughter] but i didn't like them so i'm not going to do it. [laughter] here is a list, short list, of those who no we need to lower the rising health care costs especially for the middle class. doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical industry, a bipartisan group of governors, president obama, who has made fixing health care his top priority, democrats in congress who are committed to doing it this year, and at the top of the list are the american people. nine out of ten believe

holocausts are hurting their families. here is a list of those who believe we should maintain the status quo. republican leaders in congress. that's it. it's pretty lonely i guess on that side. maybe that's why they basically refused to negotiate. maybe the that's why they don't want to have a debate on the issue. maybe that's why they are committed doing everything they can to stand in the way and maintain the status quo. it was just a couple of weeks ago republican leader in the house said the following, and i quote, i think we all understand that we've got the best health care system in the world, and of quote. so that's the difference in this debate. republican leaders think the present health care system is the best in the world. and those of us who believe that we should change, doctors,

hospitals, pharmaceuticals, governors, and on and on. the status quo simply is not where america is. they know that unless we act, rising costs will only continue to get worse. they know that the current pact is dead end and we need to head in a different direction. that's the choice. it's a clear choice and that is how we are going to get health care done. >> [inaudible] >> you're getting good, your lips don't even move any more. [laughter] >> can you hear me? >> you're about like bergen who a lot of people will remember. >> it's going to be a push to keep democrats together on procedural votes. i wonder how hard you're going to push democrats on that if you feel it's realistic to keep people together on health care and climate change and big items like that?

>> we want to work with republicans. this year we have had a tremendously productive year. democrats haven't done it alone. we've had republicans work with us. a handful. we've got three on the stimulus and we could go through the whole list where we got just a few votes. we really need more help from the republicans. we don't want to do this alone. we want to work with them and that is what we offer. but we can't allow the status quo to be this order of the day. so we are going to work as we have all year long, democrats to stay together. >> [inaudible] -- open to a second stimulus? >> who said that? >> steny hoyer. would you be open to a second stimulus -- >> first of all for those of you who couldn't hear the question as we understand he said steny

hoyer said we should be open for another stimulus, is that what you told me? >> [inaudible] >> okay. first of all, just slightly over 10% of the stimulus money has been given out for the places i goes. so, a little less than 90% still needs to be put out to the american people, and we are in the process of there is no showing to me that another stimulus is needed. things -- as bernanke said, the crops have been planted, the shoots are now appearing above the ground, and that certainly is evident based on the fact slightly over 10% of the dollars are out among the people. >> senator reid, i know that you've done some -- [inaudible]

can you talk about how to keep 60 democrats together for a final product? >> the question is this: how difficult will it be, i'm paraphrasing, to keep all 60 democratic senators together on health care. i8 repeat, we want to get some help from the republicans. on procedural votes, we will keep the democrats together. we've done that in the past and we will do it in the future. i would hope the republicans understand that they should be part of this game here, and i am having a meeting tomorrow with a number of republicans, strictly on the issue of healthcare, who i've been told they want to do business on health care. it's for republican senators. i look forward to that meeting. and so i think that we don't want to do it alone is a fine singing. we will just do what we have to

do. >> how confident are you you will be able to get the 60 votes and when are you scheduling? >> we are moving forward on the climate bill. i'm having a meeting tomorrow with all of my chairs, i have six of them. we have a timetable that we've laid out. they've all agreed on that and we hope to get to climate change some time in wheat or middle of september were at the latest the first part of october. >> how confident are you for 60 votes? >> well, we have to see with the product is first. but i feel with still importing 70% of the oil we use, that it's more important now than ever to do a good energy bill, which we already have one reported out of the energy committee. it's a good bill. boxer is moving forward -- i met with her last night. so i think we are doing quite

well. >> [inaudible] >> we have a number of steps. first of all, we have to get bailed out of the committees and then join that in a bill. then we have to get something off the floor. the house is going to move. they've already moved quickly on this so they have a bill so we have something to confer with them, so it is at least a three step or more process. yes? >> [inaudible] -- confirmation hearing and may be surprised to see him in that new role and i am just curious, what do you think he brings to the table? why did you put him on that committee? >> when i was a member of the state legislature i served on the judiciary committee. very, very good committee. i like a very much. we have a tremendous judiciary committee. some disagree with me.

i personally believe it's not necessary to have all lawyers on the committee. we have senator feinstein no one can ever question her involvement in that committee. she has been a stalwart. herb kohl is ranked right under senator leahy. he is in on a lawyer so we could go through others. that's not a requirement. al franken is extremely smart. just a little side note for some of you, we were in my office yesterday getting ready to come out here to introduce him to all of you. and he said is there going to be a poet immelt their? i said sure there will be a podium. he said i didn't know so i memorized was going to say. al franken is very smart and he didn't say that. he wasn't boasting, he was just making comment. he's extremely smart.

he's harvard educated. he has written volumes, books. in fact, for christmas this past year i gave my nevada counterpart john ensign all of his books. [laughter] and now that he's in the senate i am going to get him to sign them for senator in sen. >> de think there's any to go back and retool and redirect some of the money that has been earmarked that way? >> at this stage, no. we are doing fine. the money is coming out reading the nevada clips today douglas county, they just said they are going to spend $417,000 in that small county on stimulus money to do negative we work. that's going to put dozens of people to work. that's happening all over the country. the money is starting to come out. thanks everybody. [inaudible conversations]

.. >> good morning. today i am pleased to say i was with an impressive group

representing law-enforcement, agencies and organizations across the country. they are here to support president obama's historic nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to the supreme court. as many of the law enforcement leaders here can attest, judge sotomayor's criminal-justice record on and off the bench is exemplary. for years as a prosecutor in the district attorney's office there years as a trial judge on the federal bench and the ten years on the appellate courts, she has an extraordinary record of falling and defending and upholding the rule of law. i want to release the results of a comprehensive study conducted by the majority staff of the senate judiciary committee. it speak to judge sotomayor's record of being tough on crime. we reviewed more than 800 criminal cases.

eight can be said with confidence that judge sotomayor is a consensus judged on criminal justice issues. and that judge sotomayor's criminal-justice record prove she is a moderate judge whose decisions in criminal cases really differ from those of her colleagues on the federal bench. as a former prosecutor i looked at this specifically and in more than 400 provocations she decided the publicly appointed judges considering the same arguments and evidence of the same panel as judge sotomayor, agreed with her more than 97% of the time. i say this because she treats criminal matters as not a privacy matter but as a non-privacy matter. as the majority committee study reveals on the appellate court, judge sotomayor affirmed criminal convictions 92% of the time and reverse convictions only 2% of the time. she is particularly consistent in the polling convictions involving the most serious

offenses. and violent crimes chia from convictions 98% of the time including significant terrorism and organized crime cases. i think a lot of this is reflected in her experience as a prosecutor where she gain practical experience about the real world challenges and dangers police officers face every day. as a prosecutor she dealt with those police officers every day. she learned about the pain and frustration and sense of violation the crime victims experience. she worked with the police officers as a prosecutor and she worked side by side with crime victims in their quest for justice for these ordinary americans. it is no surprise to me she has a strong record of being fair to the police in criminal cases. when the country hears from her next week at her confirmation hearing i have no doubt with

these groups the fraternal order of the police, the national association of police organizations, the national sheriffs' association, the national district attorneys association where i had the honor to serve as vice president , the national organization of black law enforcement executives, the federal law enforcement association, the national latino peace officers association, the major city chiefs association and the police executive research forum are all represented here. they all say she is impressive qualified nominee to serve on the nation's highest court. one less thing i should mention, just this morning the american bar association announced they gave her a unanimous well qualified rating of judge sotomayor. that is the highest rating that the american bar association can give any judge.

they did it unanimously. it is a confidential peer review and evaluation of the professional qualification, ker integrity, professional confidence entered judicial temperament. it has resulted in the highest reading possible. now will give the national law enforcement to give a word and we will be hearing from david heller the national vice president of fraternal order of police and that some point i will slip out because we go into session at 12:00 where they have asked all senators to be there for good they are swearing in a new senator, which is something that happens every so often and i think all senators, republicans and democrats would like to be there. >> is their legal defense fund senator sessions has raised concerns about? >> they can raise concerns of the one. this is a mainstream civil-rights organization, just

like mayor bloomberg and others. i am proud of what they have done and there seems to be some people that worry if you have somebody that actually represents people may be in minorities as somehow that is suspicious. i don't feel that way at all. >> thank you senator. my name is david heller, the national vice president for the fraternal order of police. i am here today at the request of our national president who due to illness could not be here today. but we are here today to pleasure continued support of the fl peak, the nation's largest law enforcement labor organization for the nomination of judge tsongas sotomayor to the supreme court of the united states of america. speaking as a law-enforcement officer, it says i think it says a lot about her character, a

young french lawyer out of yale decides to begin her legal career as a prosecutor in the district of manhattan at a time when crime in our urban areas was running rampant. in the five years she was at that office, she put a lot of bad guys in jail and ford jr. when respect for the men and women working the beat in manhattan. in 1992 she was nominated by president george h.w. bush for the southern district of new york. six years later, she was named to the u.s. court of appeals for the second circuit by president bill clinton. over the course of her career, the judge has demonstrated herself to be a sharp, fact driven jurist analyzing each case by its merit in wing the facts before rendering a decision. having reviewed numerous rulings, i can say that this is a judge that any officer can and will support.

it is for that reason the executive board of the national fraternal order of police unanimously voted to endorse her for the united states supreme court. i am proud to be here this morning and we as an organization stand ready to assist in her confirmation. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is bill johnson. executive director for the national association of police organizations. we represent to one and 41,000 law enforcers primarily in the larger cities of the united states. thank you chairman leahy and on behalf of our association and would like to thank you for all you have done to support the law enforcement community. is a pleasure to stand with u.s. representatives as a leading criminal justice organizations in support of judge sonia sotomayor's nomination to the united states supreme court. throughout her distinguished career judge sotomayor has worked at every level of our

judicial system giving her a depth of experience and knowledge that will be invaluable on our nation's highest court. she is a prosecutor in a corporate litigator before nomination to the united states district court by president bush in 1991. a year later president clinton promoted her to the court of appeals for the second circuit russia she is sir for the past seven years ago after years of trial experience as an assistant district attorney judge sotomayor gindin understanding of what law enforcement's go through day in and day out. or support of police and cases dealing with criminal procedure is evident in the finding she has issued. judge sotomayor hisham as a jurist she is heck keene awareness of the real world the implications of judicial rulings an important aspect when it comes to evaluating the actions of law enforcement officers in keeping officers and the communities they serve safe. we believe judge sotomayor's experience in the judicial system and the knowledge she has gained as a prosecutor and judge will serve our nation well.

therefore we joyner colleagues and are urging the senate judiciary committee to approve the nomination of judge sotomayor to the united states supreme court. >> good morning. my name is joseph mcmillan. and the national president for the organization of black law enforcement sec is. like to begin by thanking chairman of leahy and allowing us to participate in this event. and express our support of judge sonia sotomayor as with the 111 supreme court justice. national press and i stand before you to state nova strongly supports president obama's selection of judge sotomayor as its first nominee for the supreme court. fret her remarkable career judge sotomayor has shown she has the tenacity and intelligence and legal prowess needed to serve as a supreme court justice. her record reflects as he thoroughly prepares and investigates all ingalls of a

matter and provides balance opinions that are consistent with the law. judge sotomayor's experience as a prosecutor, a litigator, professors and judges will be an asset to the supreme court. nopus certain judge sotomayor will bring the experiences and lessons learned as a prosecutor to the cases heard by the court. the law enforcement community appreciates when members of the highest court have experience with matters faced every day by officers across the nation. nobody is pleased to provide support of judge sotomayor's confirmation as the 111th justice on the supreme court of the united states. we stand ready to assist judge sotomayor in any way possible. >> it morning, i and the national-- association and chief of police of austin texas. mr. chairman thank you for having us here this morning. i stand here before my colleagues to strongly endorse the nomination and the

confirmation of the justice. we are not here because we are latinos. we are here and we are not supporting her because she is a latino. we are supporting her first and foremost because she is very qualified. she has the experience, the education and temperament to be an outstanding justice. as a police offer i'm excited and the members are excited that we are going to have a supreme court justice that is worked in the trenches in the front lines of american law-enforcement keeping our communities safe and we believe that perspective from the frontline will serve the american public well and serve the american law enforcement well. estes senators sessions comments regarding her participation that you brought up i believe in this nation they democracy all views have the right to aggress-- address the efficacy and i believe that to question somebody's qualifications based on her advocacy for whatever that you maybe is not part of this equation and should not be part of this equation. that would be like saying

someone that was the defense attorney that defended criminals, defended rapist or murders are somehow disqualified from the bench and i can tell you we in law enforcement support people not based on their advocacy in the past but based on their temperament and based on their qualifications and when you take a look at her record, her education and your experience it is clear as you can see from the unity of law enforcement that she is qualified and we look forward to seeing her confirmed. seeing her confirmed. thank you. get from bank of america. this offer's for a limited time so visit a banking center or log on soon. we'll give you a hand -- and $100. it all starts with a checking account at bank of america.

>> this nba off season, oh, gosh, big-name players have been on the move. ron artest one of them. he's a new member of the land list lakers. he hasn't signed that deal just yet, but he will be introduced to the media 2:30 eastern time. you can catch that press conference right here on espnews. >> all right. after people cloture motion to trevor ariza told sources that lebron james had said he was

going to stay in cleveland after he became a free agent, well, now lebron says, wait a second, i never said any such thing. this back and forth all happened when apparently lebron was trying to convince ariza the sign with the cleveland cavaliers. that's not happening either. and meanwhile, grant hill apparently according to the new york post has been offered a free agent contract by the knicks. according to the paper, the team offered hill the mid-level exception. that's approximately $5.8 million. no word yet on whether the former all-star will accept that offer. and point guard mike bibby has reached a verbal agreement to resign with the hawks. the 31-year-old bibby and the team have agreed to a three-year deal. >> investigators in tennessee are hesitant to rule the death of steve mcnair a murder-suicide because they have not yet determined a motive. mcnair was found dead last week with multiple gunshot wounds to the head. his girlfriend, sahel kazemi, was found with a single gunshot

wound to the head and lying on top of a gun she had purchased just two days earlier. mcnair's former coach brian billick spoke about him today. >> tough to hear the news about steve on saturday. it obviously changed the demeanor of the weekend. but it's just tragic loss. it obviousry brings everything into sharp focus when you experience something like this. i couldn't help but think of his four boys, you know, steve, particularly his oldest sonious was coming of a certain age where he was involved with all the things to do with a son that's approaching high school, and i remember steve talking about that experience and how much he was looking forward to all that with his boys. so actually being a parent, that's first thing that came to mind for me. steve was quick to smile, quick to laugh, always had that sense of priority. he was a fun guy to be around. he always worked hard. i don't want too intimate that he didn't work hard, but he was going to have fun doing it and everybody recognized that and the real benchmark for me, you

know, we all talk about what qualifies a player as a superstar or a really great player, and to me probably the biggest qualifier is that he raised the level of play around him. does he raise the level of the organization and everybody that comes into contact with him? and steve did just that. everybody wanted to perform at a certain level to match steve's professionalism. >> while there was no indication of any trouble between mcnair and his girlfriend, investigators say that a murder-suicide is still considered the most likely scenario. some hockey news now, a source tells the associated press that long-time colorado avalanche captain joe sakic will announce his retirement on thursday. the 40-year-old sakic led the avs to two stanley cup championships. >> some athletes can hit the ball for what seems like miles. others can take off, glide through the air and finish at the rim with such ease and fans just sit in awe. among athletes the common denominator is they're all

entertainers. today in los angeles, fans arrived at the staples center to pay homage to arguably the greatest entertainer of all time. even the biggest-name athletes were there. >> we all know that nobody ever gave on stage like michael jackson. but michael was also a true humanitarian who gave just as much off stage as he did on the stage. michael and his family came from humble roots, but michael always cared very deeply for those in need. and beyond all of his records that he broke as a recording artist, michael even made the guinness book of world records for most charities supported by a pop star. [cheers and applause] because he gave so much to so many of us for so long, michael jackson will be with us forever. >> this is a celebration of his life, of his legacy.

[cheers and applause] i want to thank michael for opening up so many doors for african americans to be on daytime shows, late-night shows. he allowed kobe and i to have our jerseys in people's homes across the world because he was already there, and he opened all those doors for us. >> it was an emotional day for the fans not only in l.a. but all over the world. michael jackson's memorial service saw not only athletes but some of the biggest names in hollywood pay their respects. the common theme among everyone that spoke today, they thought m.j. was the greatest of all time. >> still to come on espnews, the philadelphia phillies scored 22 runs yesterday in a winch we'll show you how likely it is they're going to rn

>> and keep in mind, top of the hour, michele lafountain, will selva, they will take over on espnews and continue to update you on manny ramirez. he's come up with a big hit. we'll get you details on that momentarily, not to mention nba ballers are going to be signing those free agent deals. ric bucher will have the latest, not to mention plenty of action in the a.l. east. red sox and yankees, full updates and highlights on espnews. >> here's a little note. the twitterization of sports

continues as chad ochocinco, who else, now says he will tweet during games this season. he says he's taking the whole twitter thing to the next level. no word yet from the bengals or the league as to whether this will even be allowed. look at the a.l. scoreboard. there you see it. the royals and tigers, royals up 3-1. bottom three. blue jays and rays scoreless and the red sox have gone ahead of oakland 2-1. hairston homered and bay answered with a home run there. let's get you updated on the national league. phillies put up 22 runs yesterday. not exactly on base for that again. ryan howard and jayson werth back-to-back home runs in the second inning. as for the dodgers and the mets, manny ramirez a two r.b.i. single with the bases loaded. that made it a 3-0 game. just the second hit since his suspension endedment keep in mind he did strike out in his>>: first a.b. >> as we take a look at some soccer news for you, michael bradley is going to be he suspended.to pon fifa is calling s what he did in

the confederations cup, they'res suspending him for misconduct. e he will be able to participate in the world cup qualifier in mexico city. >> and we keep you current on what's going on and shawn marion apparently is going to head to dallas. the mavericks interested in acquiring him from the raptors as part of a sign and trade deal. pedro martinez will throw a simulated game for the phillies, and oguchi onyewu signing with a.c. milan. >> top stories ahead, including manny ramirez. we'll get you the latest on what we'll get you the latest on what he's doing, more cash over here!

it's much easier to find money at esurance. great auto insurance rates and lots of discounts! got insurance already? save more with esurance's "switch & save (tm) discount"! it also pays to shop online. you get esurance's "fast 5 (tm) discount" just for getting an instant online quote. - thanks, professor. - don't forget the good student discount. and there's even more discounts! it's no "secret" that you can save hundreds with esurance. make it your "mission" to click or call esurance today.