any other senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the nays are 43, the nays are 54 -- the ayes are 43, the nays are 54. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. levin: mr. president? a senator: move to reconsider. mr. levin: move to lay on the table. the presiding officer: without

objection, so ordered. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed. .the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: mr. president, first i ask unanimous consent juliette byler be given

privileges of the floor. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: and major jim delap in the office of senator begich be granted privileges of the floor for duration of senate consideration s. 1390. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. definite definite now, mr. president,t, i ask unanimous consent that first there be a period of morning business of five minutes so that senator brown can speak as though in morning business and then we proceed to consideration of senator cardin's amendment number 1763; after the disposition of that amendment, that senator kyl's amendment, 1760, be in order; that there-there may o -- there may are may not be a

second-degree amendment; after the disposition of senator kyl's amendment and any second-degree amendment there and to, we then proceed in the morning to an amendment a senator lieberman's, number 1744, with one pou one he agreement and a said by side amendment or a second-degree amendment of senator bayh relative to the-relevant to the lieberman amendment which also would have a one-hour time agreement. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. sessions: reserving the right to object -- mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: reserving the right to object and i will not object i say in the case of senator cardin's amendment there is no objection on this side so we would be glad to agree to 15-men tim-minute time agreement

is agreeable. mr. levin: it might be adopted without a roll call, as well. mr. president, let me revise my unanimous citize consent request senator cardin's amendment have a 15-minute time limit; that there not be a time agreement set yet on the lieberman amendment 1744; and the bayh second-degree amendment or side-by-side amendment because we could not for some reason i don't understand or know, i don't understand the reason or the objection, but there is one. one other correction, senator cardin's amendment is number 1475, not number 1763.

a senator: reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i am wondering, i know the bill managers have many, many challenges but i wonder if they contemplate i would have the opportunity to call up the session amendments 1657 and 1533 before we go too far in this process. mr. levin: a number of people have asked to be put if line at this point and we have been unable to go beyond where we are. that took enough time. we thought if we went any further it would be impossible to get this uc done because many people are in the same position as our friend from alabama is in. mr. sessions: i am not delaying, of course, and we want to see this bill move forward but i do have two amendments that i care about and will be -- maybe will talk to the chairman in a little bill i thank him for his courtesy. i will not object.

the presiding officer: is there -- mr. mccain: in response to the senator from alabama i will do everything i can to get his amendment in order. senator isakson and senator burr and senator bond and others have all come up and said they really want their amendments in line. i think we've got to have some kind of consultation on our side as to establish a priority. i also would like to point out, senator sessions' amendment i believe is on missile defense and is a senior important amendment so i also think that in full disclosure the majority leader, i'm told, will file cloture tonight which will then at some point will rule out nongermane amendments. but i'll do everything i can to get senator sessions' amendment up in order but we have been following a process as i am sure the senator from alabama knows.

if one side has an amendment then the other side has an amendment and going back and forth. mr. sessions: well, the missile defense amendment is one that senator -- is a sense of the senate that senator lieberman is offering. that was not the two i refer to. so senator mccain, i agree with you, that sense of the senate definitely needs a vote. it is an important issue. the other two amendments i have, i hope can be considered also. and i'm glad -- i'll be pleased to talk to you and your staff about it. the presiding officer: is there objection to the request? without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: i thank the presiding officer and i thank senator sexes. as i understand the amendment senator sessions was referring to were amendments regarding al qaeda is that correct? i thank the senator. mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: progress in this country does not and has not

come easily. passage of the civil rights right was not easy, passage of the voting rights act was not easy. passage of the social security act was not easy. and the fair housing act-that wasn't easy. passage of medicare and medicaid was not easy. this year, passage of health care reform will not be easy. time and time again, decade after decade after decade special interests -- drug companies, insurance companies, medical interests -- have delayed and denied and destroyed meaningful health care reform. in recent weeks and months opponents have ramped up efforts to derail health care reform saying we have to slow down, slow down. but with other historic legislative victories we must find a path forward. last week the senate "help" committee legislation found that, designed to lower cost, to provide more covered choices and ensure americans have insurance to count on. this legislation gives every

american access to quality, affordable, flexible health insurance. this legislation will reduce costs by decreasing fraud, abuse, and medical errors and provide insecurity for people who lose their jobs or lose their coverage or maybe lose their patience with an insurer who let them down. in this legislation, americans have more health care choices. the public option in our legislation, the community health insurance option is a national insurance program models after coverage offered to member of congress. a strong public option ensures americans in every state have insurance choices they can trust. it would increase price competition in the health insurance market to drive premiums down. in a strong public option, mr. president, would set a standard for quality coverage that gives private insurers a benchmark and gives americans new options. let's face it, that's nothing like good old-fashioned competition to keep insurers honest. under our bill, no longer would

insurers be able to hide behind preexisting conditions in health history, able, gender, and community rating, and race to deny coverage and delay care for patience. done right, health reform represents a real opportunity to people like robert and carol in bryan, ohio, in northwest, ohio. carol works for a mental health agency and her husband has his first bout with cancer six years ago. they wrote that they depleted their life savings to cover cancer treatments and maintain coverage to monitor cancer remission. carol wants members of this body to let her husband fight for his life not fight with insurance companies. consumer choice means people will finally have the opportunity to decide what's best for them and their families. joseph from summit county, has a land surveilling business struggling to pay health insurance premiums after being

diagnosed with m.s. in 2004 he wrote that it is impossible for his business to shop around for more affordable health care coverage because of his preexisting condition. no more of that. the "help" committee's bill represents a victory for the millions of american families in business owners like joseph, whose health care costs have soared out-of-control. it's a victory for 46 million uninsured americans and for tens of millions more underinsured, those whose financial security is at risk, day in and day out, because of unforeseen health care costs and a victory for taxpayers. if we get a grip on health spending we have to squeeze out waste, needless red tape, and costly medical errors. we have t -- we have to give private insurers not to charge inflated premiums. i'm proud that the president of united states is touring the cleveland clinic tomorrow. cutting-edge health systems like the cleveland clinic, university

hospitals, and the metro health system, all in cleveland, have helped to give ohio its reputation as a major leader in high-quality health caimplet but our work won't be done until ohioans, like 73-year-old burt from alan county, can afford the retirement he deserves. he wrote to me, he can't afford to real estate tire despite suffering a heart attack last yeemplet he described how exorbitant drug costs leave him the unacceptable choice between his medication or his wife's medication but not both. burt wrote, "god help us should anything happen to my wife medically. we'll no doubt lose everything we have worked all our lives for." our work can't be done until burt and robert and cairld and every american can live in a nation with affordable, effective and inclusive health care system. our work will not be done until crucial national priorities are no longer crowded out by health care spending. our work will not be done until exploding health care costs no

longer cut into family budgets, no longerway weigh down businesses, no longer drain tax dollars from local, state, and federal budgets. it will not be easy. as history demonstrates, but the important changes rarely are easy. thank you. i yield the floor back my tievmentime.the presiding office senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i in the unite unanimous consent reqt indicated there would be 15 minutes on the cardin amendment 1475. i'm wondering if my friend from arizona might thereon this as well. senator cardin -- we did not say e-equally divided because we're not sure whether there's opposition to t if there is we should now say "equally divided." if not, senator cardin only needs about five to 10 minutes. mr. mccain: i am not sure anyone wants to challenge senator cardin's eloquence. mr. levin: in that case, we will say "equally divided," in

case anyone changes their mind. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i have a feeling i should probably stop while i am ahead, but i do call up amendment 1475 and ask for its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator maryland, mr. cardin, proposes an amendment numbered 1475. at the end of the subtitle "c" -- mr. cardin: i move that be considered the reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. cardin: first of all, i want to thank senator levin and senator mccain for allowing me to bring forward this amendment. this amendment is an important amendment. it deals with the increasing numbers of suicides and attempted suicides by the young men and women serving in the united states military. we've not only seen each month an increased number of suicides and attempted sue ideas, but recently we -- suicides, but recently we saw the keu8ing of

five of our soldiers when a fellow soldiers opened fire at camp liberty in iraq. the pup of this amendment is for the -- the purpose of this amendment is for the department of defense to give us information on the type of medications that are being prescribed so that we can get a better handle on whether there is more that we can do in order to protect our young men and women who are serving our nation. mr. president, yesterday we did something to help in approving the lieberman amendment. the lieberman amendment increased our force levels, our authorized force levels. one of the suspected reasons why suicides and attempted suicides are increasing is the number of deployments, the length of deployments, the fact that we don't have enough personnel in order to dot normal military -- in order to do the normal military responsibilities that we have to continue to call up again our young people for renewed commitments. that will certainly help. this congress has passed

significant increases in fund for mental health services for our service personnel. that will clearly help. but one thing we should all be concerned about is that there are more and more of our soldiers that are using prescription antidepressant drugs -- ssri's -- and are not clear as to whether they are under appropriate medical supervision. i say that because these ssri's take several weeks before they reach their full potential as far as blocking depression, or dealing with the causes of depression. and during that period of time, particularly if they're in the age group of 18 to 24 -- and many are in that age group -- are susceptible to increased thoughts of suicide. now, many of our service people are change from location to location. they may very well be in the theater battle. and they may noit be able to get the proper type of supervision.

so we are concerned about whether the use of these drugs are being appropriately administered, but we don't have the facts. we don't have the information. and we need to get that information. there has been surveys that have shown that as many as 12% of those who are serving in iraq and 17% of those who are serving in afghanistan are using some form of prescribed antidepressants or sleep pills in order to deal with their needs. now, that would equal 20,000 of our service personnel using prescription medicines for antidepressants for sleep medications. we need to get the information. my amendment is simple. my amendment says that starting in june of 2010 and through 2015, the department of defense will make available to congress the information on the number of personnel receiving these antidepressant drugs.

mr. president, it's done in a generic sense. therefore, there's no individual information about any service person. we protect their individual privaciesprivacies, as we have r hipaa. there's no stigma attached at all to this survey. i think we have tried to deal with the legitimate concerns that have been raised. i hope my completion would gley this is an important -- i hope my colleagues would agree that this is an important matter that should be included in our d.o.d. thompletion i talked about it yesterday. i am glad that i had the opportunity to offer this amendment. with that, mr. president, if there's no one interested in speaking in opposition, i'm prepared to yield back my time. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate on the amendment, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

the clerk will call the roll. mr. sessions: mr. president? mr. president? i want to call up an amendment.

quorum call: the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. kyl: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. kyl: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: what i am going to do is seek to get an amendment which is filed pending.

the other side will want to offer a side-by-side amendment to that. i understand there may be an opportunity to debate some of this tonight. some of the other debate may have to be tomorrow, and that's fine. but at this point, i ask that -- is there an amendment pending, mr. president? the presiding officer: there is not an amendment pending. mr. kyl: then, mr. president, i call up amendment number 1760 and ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from arizona, mr. kyl, for himself and oh, proposes an amendment numbered 1760. mr. kyl: i ask further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. kyl:ty, mr. presiden mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. if there are others who would like to take the floor, i will be happy to accede to their wishes so i can come back tomorrow and discuss it further. this is identical to an amendment that was unanimously adopted by the house of representatives to their version of the defense authorization bill. so i would hope that on both sides of the aisle this should not be particularly controversial. it has to do with the start

negotiations, the negotiations the administration is engaged in with the russians right now on the number of warheads and delivery vehicles that both russia and the united states will field in the next many years. whatever those numbers are, whatever the agreement is, that treaty will be presented to the senate later this year and presumably we'll act on it either late in year or early next year. all this amendment does is to say that during the seven years when the start treaty is implemented, the united states needs to do certain things. we want to make sure that the amendment -- that the treaty, rather, is verifiable. that's something we all agree with. we need to ensure that our missile defenses with protected, that our conventional strike capability is protected -- that's our submarines and bombers that deliver conventional weapons, for

example; and very importantly, we want to make sure that the modernization program for our nuclear weapons complex and the weapons themselves -- the modernization program that was recommended by the bipartisan perry-is lesschlesinger commiss- begin to be implemented. this program doesn't say it has to be a particular amount of money or describe the details of t but it does say that we need to get a modernization program under way. the point of this is to simply acknowledge the obvious, which is that, as we begin to reduce the number of warheads and delivery vehicles in our strategic nuclear deterrent, we need to make more and more sure that what we have works and works well. it is an aging stockpile. the perry-schlesinger commission noted there is a lot of work that needs to be done to bring

these weapons up to modern condition, to maintain them properly, make sure they're safe and reliable. and the work that has to be done on that is going to take some time and cost some money. so it makes sense to put congress on record with the administration, as insisting that we begin this process right away. the amendment doesn't say this but my strong recommendation to the administration is, since they're going to begin putting the budget for fiscal year 2011 together here starting in another month or two, that they need to be working now on what their budget recommendations for 2011 are for the modernization of our nuclear complex and stockpile. and so what this amendment would do is to say, as the start treaty is implemented -- whatever that treaty is; it doesn't bind the administration in terms of what it negotiators -- but whatever that is, that money can't be spent on that until these other conditions are met as well. and, mr. president, i hope that since this received a unanimous endorsement of the house of

representatives that it would not be particularly controversial on this side, and i will just reiterate one final time, this doesn't bind our negotiators at all. it doesn't tell the negotiators what they can and cannot negotiator with the russians. what it says is, once they've negotiated whatever they've got, then we need to start a process of modernizing our nuclear weapons program and stockpile and i think that's something that since it was the unanimous recommendation of the perry-schlesinger commission, something we all ought to be able to imrea upon. -- to agree upon. mr. president, i'm not sure if anybody else would like the floor at the moment. let me yield to the chairman of the committee. mr. levin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, under the existing unanimous consent agreement, the lieberman amendment which would be in order after the disposition of the kyl amendment was listed as being 1744. the correct number is 1627. and i would ask unanimous consent that the consent agreement be so modified. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: i note the absence

of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: i'd like to make a few remarks on the kyl amendment in support of it. it deals with the possible follow-on agreement to the 1991 strategic arms reduction treaty, the so-called start treaty. a joint understanding issued at the recent moscow summit suggests the united states and russian federation are well on their way toward completing a new agreement, pererhaps even before the end of this year, rather than wait until the agreement is signed and submitted to the senate for the senate's consent, this amendment provides an opportunity for the senate to provide its advice

before the treaty's provisions are agreed to. it reflects this senator's desire to see a follow-on treaty that does not weaken our nuclear deterrent or place in doubt our nuclear guarantee to our allies and partners who depend on it. it also reflects my caveat that any future agreement should not limit u.s. missile defense capabilities or u.s. capabilities tpofr long-range cl strike. it makes clear any reductions in our stphaourbg stockpile should be submitted by long-range plans to modernize our aging nuclear deterrent and supporting infrastructure. this is really important. we've had testimony in the armed services committee on a number of occasions from our top military commanders who deal with this issue, and they say

the continued reductions of nuclear weapons must be accompanied by a modernization of the limited number we have left. when we do that, we can make them safer, far more difficult for anyone who were to nefariously get their hands on them to utilize and protect them and make them more reliable. most, if not all, would agree that it is important to assure -- to ensure that the verification and monitoring provisions of the start treaty of 1991 not be allowed to lapse come december 6. while there are a number of ways to handle this, either by extending the current agreement or drafting a new agreement dealing specifically with these matters, the united states and russia have chosen the more ambitious goal of a new treaty that would make further reductions in the current nuclear stockpiles which are today the lowest levels since the cold war. we have about 2,200 warheads

today. we had 6,000, as i recall, not too many years ago. so we really reduced those numbers, and i support that. but the rush to complete an agreement before start expires in december, in this senator's opinion, has led the united states to agree to provisions in a joint understanding that potentially may not be in our best interest. it's not a critical thing that we reach a firm agreement by the end of december. we should not allow our russians -- the russians to put us in a position where we're so desperate to reach an agreement by the end of the year that we reach a bad agreement. at the very least, it can be said that these matters have not sufficiently been analyzed to know whether they're in our interest or not. first, with respect to the central limits to be enshrined in a new agreement, the two sides have agreed to warhead limits of between 1,500 and

1,675 warheads and limits on the number of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles to somewhere between 500 and 1,100. quite a wide range. the final number to be arranged and negotiated by the parties. i would note that the senate has yet to see the analytical basis for the levels agreed to in the joint understanding, which means we're not off to a good start in the advice and consent process. today the united states deploys approximately 2,200 operational nuclear warheads on some 900 delivery vehicles. these are icbm missiles, our slbm's and bombers, submarine missiles and bombers. whether it is prudent to go below these numbers depends on some important considerations. i would note that to take that

into 500 would be a dramatic reduction of our delivery system. whether it is prudent to go below these numbers that we currently have depends on some important considerations, not the least of which is the impact on the size and shape of the u.s. nuclear triad. the icbm's, the submarine-launched missiles and our bomber fleet. our ability to extend credible nuclear guarantees to our allies and, three, whether lower levels provide an incentive to other nuclear powers to build up their forces so that they can be a peer competitor with the united states and russia. so i will have more to say on this in the future, but suffice it to say that i have yet to hear a convincing strategic rationale that we would justify

going this low. indeed, i believe the burden of proof would be on those who think it is necessary to reduce u.s. nuclear force levels that are but a fraction of what they used to be. my major concern, however, is language in the joint understanding which seems to suggest the two sides may establish limitations on u.s. missile defense and long-range conventional strategic strike capabilities. in other words, the agreement could well involve into -- evolve into a limitation, either part of the treatment or currently, to limit our national missile defense capabilities. that's a very dangerous and unwise linkage. for example, the joint understanding states there will be a provision -- quote -- "on the interrelationship of strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms." close quote.

i find this troubling because we have made it clear to the russians that our missile defense capabilities are not directed at nor are they capable of being an effective defense against a massive russian capabilities. we only have planned to put in 44 missile systems in the united states and 10 in europe, and that is a fraction of the capacity that the russians have today. so instead, we build missile defenses to address a threat to the united states and its allies posed by rogue nations such as north korea and iran. that's what 40 missiles in alaska and california can do and that's what 10 in europe could do. it can't defend against russian massive delivery systems. has no capability of doing that. and they know it. so why do they object?

and what do we mean as we carry out this discussion by the terms "strategic defensive arms"? how does one distinguish between strategic and nonstrategic missile defense system? is the ussm-3 missile, which has some capability against long-range north korean missiles considered a stpreupblg missile defense system? it is best not to get into negotiations that can conventionally constrain our ability to build missile defenses against countries such as iran and north korea. to be sure, any such limitations would make a stark follow-on agreement, i think dead on arrival in the senate. i don't believe the senate would

pass such a thing. the joint understanding also contains -- this is a joint understanding between the obama administration and russia -- contains a provision addressing the impact on strategic stability of strategic missiles in a nonnuclear configuration. this apparently is an attempt by russia to constrain the ability of the united states to field long-range strike systems armed with conventional warheads, nonnuclear warheads. conventionally armed long-range strike systems are also known as prompt global strike. are consistent with a move by both countries really to place less reliance on nuclear weapons or deterrents. prompt global strike would allow the united states to hraufrpbl a missile without a nuclear weapon that could take out a dangerous

threat somewhere around the world in a very prompt fashion. we've debated that over the years here in the senate. so finally, the amendment by senator kyl would send a strong message to the administration that a start follow-on agreement must be supported at the same time it is submitted to the senate for ratification by a long-term program to modernize the remaining nuclear forces of the united states, including warheads, delivery systems and infrastructure needed to support both. such a modernization is called for by the congressional commission on the strategic posture of the united states and by the secretary of defense -- secretary of state gates -- who last october said -- quote -- "there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without resorting to testing our

stockpile or pursuing modernization programs." well, our colleagues don't want us to test. they think this would be a bad example to iran and to north korea. and we did that, somehow they might be more likely to want to test. i don't think it will have any impact on those rogue nations. but if we don't do testing, what the secretary of defense is saying is we need to modernize the weapons system we have, and if we continue to draw down the number, these 40- 50-year-old weapons need to be modernized. they need to be reliable. lest the obama administration is unclear on this point, this senator will condition his support for a start follow-on agreement upon a serious

commitment by the administration to modernize our nuclear deterrent which remains necessary to protect the united states and our allies. in closing, i would like to note a similar version of this amendment was adopted unanimously by the house on their version of the national defense authorization bill. i commend senator kyl for offering it and again note the importance of sending a clear message to the administration and to our allies and to russia regarding our views on the ongoing start follow-up negotiations. and i would just say what's obvious to all of us who have been here for a long time. senator kyl is a real patriot who has maintained a deep interest in these issues throughout his career in the senate. these -- this amendment is a well-thought-out, well-conceived

amendment that's, i think, wise for our senate to pass. and i believe that we will. i just think that if anyone will find the time to review it and think it through, they'll be convinced that this is a wise step for us to take at this time so we don't end up were misunderstanding later on when a treaty plops down in the senate that has a lot of problems for a host of senators. i thank the chair, would yield the floor, and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: mr. president, i send a series of 30 amendments to the desk which have been cleared by myself and senator mccain. and ask for their immediate

consideration. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the amendments will be considered en bloc. mr. levin: the amendments, i understand, have been cleared by the republican side. the presiding officer: is there further debate? mr. levin: and the amendments -- i now ask consent that the en bloc amendments be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: now, mr. president, i would ask that senator udall be recognized as though in morning business for 10 minutes and then senator akaka will speak on an amendment that he intends to offer which we will do everything that we can to make an order tomorrow. and then that senator murray be

recognized -- that senator murray be recognized for 10 minutes as though in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: reserving the right to object. i will not object. it is also my understanding that at the beginning of business tomorrow we will be taking up the kyl amendment and the bayh either second degree or side by side with two hours equally divided -- mr. levin: the u.c., i believe, as it reads, is that we will take up the kyl amendment with a possible second degree or side by side. and then after their disposal, then we would go to the lieberman amendment or a second degree or side by side amendment of bayh on the alternate. mr. mccain: so we will take up the kyl amendment first and then -- mr. levin: and then a possible second degree or possible side-by-side to kyl. and then after the disposition

of kyl and any side by side or second degree, we would move to the lieberman amendment with a bayh second degree or side by side. mr. mccain: there is a time agreement on both amendments? mr. levin: we do not have a time agreement on -- any on of the -- on any of the amendments. i hope in the morning to have a time agreement. but there was not -- we didn't have the language available for any -- we didn't have either the second-degree amendment or side-by-side available so your side was unable, understandably to agree to a time agreement. mr. mccain: once they're aware of the side-by-side, it is our intention to have an hour or two equally divided and then move on to pending amendments. mr. levin: if it's not already agreed to, i think there was an understanding on the lieberman and the -- and the bayh

amendments that there would be an hour for each. we need the language before that can can be agreed to, but that is the understanding or intent. mr. mccain: i thank the chairman and i think that clears up what our plans are for a good part of tomorrow. mr. levin: and there be -- and there will be no more votes tonight. the presiding officer: is there any objection to the speaker's order? without objection, so ordered. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. 28 years ago my father, a former congressman from arizona, morris udall, took the long walk from the house of representatives to come to the united states senate. the divide that separates the two great chambers of congress sometimes struck my father's

deeper and wider than the grand canyon of arizona. but he crossed over that day because he had a mission. he came to testify before the senate judiciary committee on behalf of a fellow arizonan, sandra day o'connor. my father who was often at ideas with the idealogues of every stripe noted that she was conservative, but spoke of her disposition to always put justice ahead of partisanship. justice o'connor, mr. president, proved to be an outstanding member of the court and my father never regreted his decision to support her nomination. a generation later, i'm honored to stand here today to voice my strong support for the first hispanic woman nominated for the united states supreme court, sonia sotomayor. judge sotomayor's story is truly the quintessential example of the american dream. the daughter of puerto rican parents who moved to new york at

a time when racial prejudice was widespread. she lost her father at age fine her mother worked hard to show striving. and sonia sotomayor took that example to princeton, yale law school, the manhattan district attorney's office and as a federal judge. it is no wonder that the hispanic community is proud of this nomination and shown an outpouring of support for judge sotomayor. i was moved personally to learn the hispanic citizens from across the country traveled to washington, d.c., and stood in line for hours in order to be in the audience for her confirmation hearings. former colorado state senator paul bacca, was one of those who traveled. she said that the judge is just brilliant. some people viewed her as a bit of a nerd, senator baucus said,

because she worked so hard, studied so hard and she led her life that way. she is who she is, senator bacca concluded. this is not only a source of pride for hispanic americans, but for all of us. because we take experience in pride when we here of an -- hear of an american who overcomes obstacles. let me quote the "grelye tribune" from my home state of colorado. they wrote this is a celebration of the growth of our democracy, it is important to recognize her nomination for what it is, a signpost on the unending road toward a more perfect union. mr. president, the framers of the constitution specifically outlined the advice and consent role of the senate regarding nominations. this is one of our most solemn duties as senators, the importance of which cannot be overstated. i take this responsibility, mr. president, very seriously.

the supreme court is the highest court in our land. once it rules on a case, that holding and rule become the law of the land. the presiding officer as the attorney general of illinois knows that to be the case. the men and women we send there make decisions and render judgments that can chart our destiny as a people. so her inspiring story is not the only or even the most compelling reason to confirm judge sotomayor. what matters most, her qualifications for the job, her record and her approach to the constitution. last week my colleagues on the senate judiciary committee began the confirmation proceedings for senate -- for judge sotomayor and examined her record. during those he hearings, the judge handled herself with grace and poise. she answered tough questions and clearly demonstrated her commitment to the law and the constitution. out on the west slope of our great state of colorado, we have

the city of grand junction and "the daily sentinel" stated last week, sotomayor is unquestionably qualified. and i agree. there is no doubt that she is superiorably qualified to be our next supreme court justice. as a federal trial judge, in addition to her more recent experience ons court of appeals, judge sotomayor brings more experience as a judge to the job of serving on the supreme court than anyone currently serving on the court. in addition, the judge received a well-qualified rating from the american bar association. this is the highest rating from the a.b.a. notable because it is given by judge sotomayor's peers. judge sotomayor has received endorsements from a variety of organizations ranging from law enforcement and sportsmen and hunters to legal and higher education professionals. mr. president, the framers of the constitution anticipated the

importance of having an independent and duty-bound judiciary. alexander hamilton in the federalist papers noted that to avoid an arbitrary discretion in the court, it is indes spencible they should be bound down by strict rules and precedence which should point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them. from her record it is unmistakable that judge sotomayor has demonstrated a commitment to precedent and the rule of law as mr. hamilton described it. during her confirmation hearing she said "as a judge i do not make the law. judges must apply the law." some raised the question whether judge sotomayor is a liberal activist because of her involvement on the board of the puerto rican legal defense and education fund. but judge sotomayor's role and involvement has not been directing legal opinions from this organization but has been directed, instead, at

encouraging puerto rican youth to pursue careers in the legal profession. if you look at her record she's participated in 434 published panel decisions with at least one judge appointed by a republican president. and despite notions to the contrary she has agreed with the result favored by the republican appointmentee 95% of the time. what does that demonstrate? it demonstrates that judge sotomayor does not have an ideological boy across buideolo. and another controversy seized upon as a reason to oppose the confirmation and that is her so-called "wise latina" regards when she talked about hopes drawing special wisdom and insight from personal experience. judge sotomayor herself has acknowledged the clumsiness of

the language. if anything suggested a special bias or prejudice these words might be evidence of a larger problem but that's just not simply borne own when you review her record on the bench. mr. president, nor did her decision on the ricci case strike me more as a case of deference for judicial precedent. there is little evidence of activism in her record and also used ricci as an example people. frankly, mr. president, the judge's opinion show judicial restraint, respect for established legal precedent and deference to the policy-making role of the elected branches. when it lead to a result that may be unpopular or different from her personal opinion. after i had a chance to meet with judge sotomayor i was convinced she poe sets sets -- e

poe toes the temperament to perform at the highest level and i also appreciated she acknowledged the most important issue to the livelihood of westerners: water. she surprised me when she said that one of the questions surrounding water -- rather, all of the questions surrounding water may be among the most challenging legal controversies we face in the next 25 to 50 years. we do not have a conversation about the specific legal issues that could emerge around water, energy or public lands in the west. what i saw was a reassuring appreciation for the unique problems of our region and an intellectual curiosity to match it. as i conclude, mr. president, i have reviewed judge sonia sotomayor's impressive judicial record and watched and listened carefully to her answers during her confirmation hearing and met with her in person. like justice sandra day o'connor i believe she is poised to make

history and i am proud to support her nomination. i encourage my colleagues in the senate to do likewise. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent after the remarks of the senator from hawaii that the senator go into a period of morning business with senator murray to be recognized first for ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: and other members of the body could then speak for up to ten minutes after senator murray. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from hawaii. mr. akaka: i rise to speak to amendment to s. 1390. i am hopeful there will be a

time to speak on amendment 1522 which enhances the retirement security of federal employees and address inequities in the system. as chairman of the subcommittee oversight of government management, the federal workforce and the district of columbia, i am proud to join with senators collins, lieberman, voinovich, murkowski, begich, kohl, car cardin, inouyn this bipartisan amendment. each of these provisions is much needed. and has been thoroughly debated with the appropriate committees in the house and senate. many changes were requested by the administrators of the retirement plans and are strongly supported by many organizations. the list of supporters is too long to read here but it

includes every major federal employee union, postal unions, supervisors and postmasters, the federal law enforcement officers association and government managers groups and most important to my home state of hawaii provides retirement equity to federal employees in hawaii, alaska and the territories. more than 23,000 federal employees in hawaii, including more than 17,000 defense department employees, and another 30,000 federal employees in alaska, and the territories, currently receive a cost of living allowance which is not taxed and does not count for retirement. because of this, workers in a none territory retire with

significantly lower annuities than their counterparts in washington, d.c. with cola rates scheduled to go down along with the pay of nearly 50,000 federal employees if we did not provide this fix. in 2007, i introduced a nonforeign area retirement equity assurance act. the bill passed the senate by unanimous consent in october of 2008. unfortunately, the house did not have time to consider the bill before adjournment. i reintroduced s. 507, which is included in the amendment, with senators murkowski, inouye, and begich. it is nearly identical to the bill that passed the senate last year. it is a bipartisan effort to transition employees in hawaii, alaska, and the territories to

the same locality pay system used in the rest of the united states while protecting employees' take home pay. the measure passed unanimously to committee on april 1, 2009. the second provision i want to highlight corrects how employees' annuities are calculated for part-time service under the civil service retirement system. this provision removes the disincentive that now discourages federal employees near retirement from working on a part-time basis while phasing into retirement. it would treat federal employees under csrs the same way they are treated under the newer federal employer retirement system. the third provision i want to discuss would allow fers

participants to apply their own used sick leave to their length of service for computing retirement annuities as is done for csrs employees. the congressional research service found that fers employees within two years of retirement eligible use 25% more sick leave than similarly situated csrs employees. o.p.m. also found that the disparity in sick leave usage costs the federal government approximately $68 million in productivity each year. this solution was proposed by federal managers who wanted additional tools to build a more efficient and productive workplace and to provide employees with an isn't you have no -- anincentive not to use sie

unnecessarily near retirement. i finally add this makes good on the recruitment promise made to a small group of secret service agents. approximately 180 secret service agents and officers hired during 1984-1986 were promised access to the washington, d.c., police, and firefighters disability system, providing narrow and specific relief only to this small group of agents and officers by allowing them to access their retirement system they were promised at the time they were hired. mr. president, i strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, the federal retirement reform provisions, anprovisions in the. mr. president, i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, you look at the front cover of newspapers across the country this week -- or watch cable news each day -- it's pretty clear that the rhetoric on health care reform is really heating up. whether it's threats from the other side of the aisle to -- quote -- "break a president who's made health care reform a priority" or whether it's the million dollar ad buys from interest groups we are seeing or whether it is political pundits, health care relative rick i cary reaching a pitch. the voice of american families is being drowned out. these days those who need reform the most are the ones being heard from the least. that's why three weeks ago i sent an e-mail to many of my constituents asking them to share with me their personal stories of dealing with our health care system and asked them for their ideas for reform. so far i have received in just a

few short weeks over 5,000 e-mails into my office with deeply personal and often very painful stories from every corner of my state. yesterday i came to the floor to share several of those stories. they were the stories of women who had lost their insurance and due to an inability to get care when they needed it most, they lost their lives. many of the letters i've received, like those i spoke about yesterday, tug at the heartstrings. but today, this evening, i want to talk about what so many americans are concerned about right now -- their purse strings. mr. president, i understand that many americans are satisfied with the level of care that their insurance provides. these are the americans who can get in to see a doctor when they need one and they receive good, quality care. these are the americans who want to know what's in it for them, what will i get out of reform? and with all of their other

problems, why should we pay for it right now? these are good questions to which most american people deserve a good answer. mr. president, it's not just the uninsured who are impacted by not being able to access preventive medicine or having to seek costly care in the emergency room. these costs get passed on to those with insurance in the form of higher insurance premiums. in fact, it's estimated that a family of four today here in this country is paying an added $1,000 in premiums a year to help pay for those who don't have any coverage. essentially, families with health insurance today are paying a hidden tax. that tax is hurting our families who are insured, and it's hutting our businesses, and it's got to end. health care reform will do that by creating a competitive pool of insurance options, including

a public option, we can bring down the cost and the premiums to families in the long run. we're going to be moving to a system that rewards innovation and healthy outcomes and because americans will have a choice of americans plans, insurance providers will be forced to lower costs so they can be competitive. the existence of a pool of insurers to choose from means that if you lose your job, you don't lose your insurance. if you want to change jobs or maybe even start a business, there's a health care option for you. and we make it easier for small businesses to provide coverage for their employees by having them pay for up to half the cost of health insurance for businesses with 50 or fewer workers. importantly, we also prohibit insurance companies from charging higher premiums for women or for the elderly, and we end the practice of denying coverage to those people with

preexisting conditions. and for the first time, we put a priority on prevention and wellness. if we invest in community-based programs to improve nutrition or prevent smoking or increase fitness, we're going to save taxpayers nearly $16 billion a year within five years. so health care reform, when we talk about it here, will make health care coverage more affordable, more portable, and undeniable. mr. mr. president, let me just give a real-life example of exactly swhown has health insurance today but who will benefit greatly from health care reform that we're talking about. one of the letters that i recently received is from a woman named patricia jackson. she lives in woodenville, washington. and i suspect patricia's story will sound pretty familiar to most americans. patricia and her family had private health insurance that's paid for each month through premiums that come directly out

of patricia's paycheck. but, as in the case with many middle-class families, the burden of those premium payments is rapidly rising. to provide for her family of four, patricia paid $840 a month in 2007, just two years ago, $840 a month. last year, her payments jumped to $900 a month. today she is paying $1,186 in premiums just to provide for her family each and every month. unfortunately, for many families, patricia's story isn't the exception, it's the rule. it's exactly what they're seeing in their homes, with their premiums. health insurance premiums for working families in washington state have skyrocketed in recent years. in fact, according to a study by families u.s.a., from 2000-2007, premiums increased by 86.6%.

let me say that again. over an eight-year period, premiums in my home state of washington increased by 86.6%. but over that same period of time, wages in my state only grew by 16%. so health care premiums are taking a bigger and bigger chunk out of families' paychecks. health insurance premiums rose over five times faster than median earnings, and that problem is just not going away. for a lot of our just average middle-class families today who are struggling to make their mortgage payments or send their kids to college, this is a situation that cannot continue. they can't afford it. so if we don't have meaningful health care reform, it's a trend that is going to continue indefinitely. so, mr. president, i think this is reform that can't come a moment too soon. just two weeks ago, in fact,

patricia, who i just talked about, her insurance company, the largest private insurance company in my home state, announced another dramatic insurance increase in premiums, and they told patricia and a lot of families in my state that starting on august 1, two weeks from now, the company is going to raise premiums for 135,000 enrollees by an average of 17% more. 17% more from what i just told you. we had a front-page story in a main people, "the seattle times" the day after that hike was announced. it quoted a woman by the name of gale peterson, who lives in north seattle, who said that means her premiums are going to rise by $300. she said -- and i quote -- "would love to see the insurance companies have a little competition." well, mr. president, so would patricia jackson. in fact, patricia recently contacted my office again to let me know that starting on august

1, her new premiums will be over $1,400 a month. that is just unaffordable. it is unsustainable for patricia, for america's families, for our businesses, and for america's future economic strength. mr. president, health care reform isn't just for the uninsured. it's for people like patricia and gayle and the millions of others who have health insurance right now, played by the rules but whose paychecks and futures are being gouged by a system that lacks accountability, lacks accountability -- lacks competition, and lacks reason. unfortunately, now we are hearing some of our friends on the other side who want to prevent meaningful, comprehensive reform from ever moving forward. just as unfortunate are their motives. mr. president, we heard a member of our senate who said he wants -- who wants to protect the status quo and he said --

quote -- "if we're able to stop obama on this, it will be his waterloo, it will break him." mr. president, that type of posturing is playing games with real lives and real people in order just to score cheap political points. blocking health care reform won't break the president of the united states of america. it will break american families. it will break american businesses. it will break the bank. america deserves better. mr. president, congress knows that most americans like their doctors, they like their providers, they like their coverage. on the days they need to see a doctor, they're glad that they can provide their families with coverage for booster shots or checkups or preventive or even emergency care. but on payday, very different story. so, mr. president, for those of our colleagues who ask how we can afford to pay for this, i'd like to tell them to ask

patricia jackson or any of their constituents, because the real question is, how can we afford not to. especially at a time when the economy is struggling and the costs of this care is rising. we need to do everything we can to rein in these costs, prevent people from losing their coverage and having to seek more expensive care in our emergency rooms. tonight we're going to hear from the president of the united states. he knows, as so many of us do, doing nothing is not an option. the time is right. the time is now. patricia and her family and the millions of hard-working, tax-paying americans across the country can't wait any longer. so i urge our senate colleagues to set aside the rhetoric, begin to look at the issues and help us solve the problems so we can move this forward. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: mr. majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask that morning business be closed. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. mr. reid: mr. president, what is the pending business?

the presiding officer: 1390, the defense department authorization bill. mr. reid: thank you, mr. president. i have a cloture motion at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close debate on calendar number 89, s. 1390, the defense authorization act for fiscal year 2010 signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. reid: mr. president, i would consent that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without . mr. reid: i ask that the mandatory quorum be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clert wil clerk will call t. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask that the call of the foam be -- call of the quorum be jaishtd.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask that s. 348 be star printed. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 morning, that the morning hour be deemed expired, the senate resume consideration of calendar 89, s. 1390, which is the department of defense authorization bill. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: for the information of senators, the filing deadline for the defense bill is 1:00 p.m. tomorrow. senators should expect roll call votes throughout the day as we work with amendments to the bill. i ask unanimous consent following the remarks of senator dodd, the senate adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i now ask the senate proceed to a period of morning business. the senators allowed to speak therein for 10 minutes each.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: senator from connecticut. mr. dodd: i ask consent that the call of the quorum be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dodd: mr. president, i rise on this early evening in july to spend a few minutes to talk about health care. i know it's been obviously a subject of great interest over the last number of days and having been asked to fill in for my dear friend, senator ted kennedy, who, as we all know, is struggling with his own health issue, the chairman of the health, education, labor and pension, i was asked to fill in for him to mark up the "help"'s committee legislation on health care. i was fortunate to have as my allies in that effort some remarkable members of this body,

both democrats and republicans, who we are told spent as long a time -- maybe longer than any other markup in the history of that committee. one of the longest in the history of this body, some 23 sessions over 15 days covering somewhere around 300 to 500 amendments that were offered on behalf of the 22 other members of the united states senate, almost a quarter of this body serving on that committee. and after that lengthy period of time, we drafted a bipartisan bill, substantively a bipartisan bill. it did not end up being a bipartisan vote. it was a partisan vote coming out of committee, regetfully. it -- regretfully. it doesn't mean that it will end up that way. i have been involved with legislative actions where there is a partisan con can collusion only to find after further work those efforts can attract a broad based support and develop the kind of broad based backing

that i think is an important feature of good legislation. so while i regret i didn't have any republican votes, that joined us in that committee, i'm deeply grateful to my democratic colleagues, and also my republican colleagues. i intend over the coming days on a daily basis to talk about this issue through the process here in the remaining weeks we're in session. even possibly beyond that if we stay? session in august to work on this issue. this is not any ordinary issue or ordinary time. i've been around long enough now to witness the debates on this issue going back 30 years. and every single congress and every single administration predating my arrival here has grappled with this issue. republicans and democrats since the days of harry truman in the 1940's, literally every administration's tried to come up with an idea to reform our health care system. in years past, mr. president, those efforts were talked about

in terms of describing the present condition of health care as being an unacceptable situation. that it was wrong, it was not ethical, it was not moral. we weren't serving people who should be served. the debate has now changed. because it is no longer unacceptable, which it's always been. we're now in a situation where the present conditions are unsustainable. yesterday and again this morning the chairman of the federal reserve board, ben bernanke testifying on monetary policy, was -- monetary policy was asked the question with the other committee which i do chair, how important health care was as part of economic recovery. the chairman of the federal reserve while not getting into the details of the various plans pointed out once again if there is any doubt about this, unless we resolve the health care issue, the economic issues that we're grappling with today will

be unresolved and only grow in their complexity and in their depth. and so this issue of health care obviously -- is obviously one that affects people. real people every day. not to mention the 14,000 today as we conclude business here in the east coast and will in a few hours across america. today, remember this, and every day remember this as we grapple with this issue, 14,000 people of our fellow citizens will lose health care today. 14,000 will lose health care tomorrow and the next day and the next day and the next day and every day that we wait and delay on this issue that many more of our fellow citizens and their families can fall into that abyss, that freefall of wondering whether or not any accident, injury or diagnose will tell them and their

families that they're in deep frubl the health crisis perspective. and if they lack the kind of coverage or insurance or lack the kind of personal wealth resources, that family will not only face the hardship of confronting a health care crisis without the adequate quality of care to provide for them and their families, but t -- but they may very well find themselves in economic ruin as a result of the situation that persists today. and i'm not talking about the uninsured alone. i'm talking about the 25 or 30 million who are underinsured in this country. they today struggle every single day wondering whether or not those deductibles are going to be low enough to meet the crisis. and even if they have a policy, whether or not there are going to be adequate number of doctor visits, prescriptions and the like that will provide them with the necessary protection to recover from their health care situation and avoid the economic crisis that can befall them. to put it in perspective for you, mr. president, consider this. of all the bankruptcies that occur in the country -- and there are many in economic times

like this -- 62% of those bankruptcies are directly related to a health care crisis in that family. that they would not be in that situation except for the fact that they are suffering through a health care crisis that has forced them into financial bankruptcy. and consider this, if you will, mr. president. 50% of all home foreclosures -- and there were 10,000 of those today -- 10,000 families got a foreclosure notice -- 50%, one out of every two foreclosures that occurred in this country, occurred because of a health care crisis in that family. so on bankruptcy, on foreclosure, the 87 million of our fellow citizens who every day -- or every year, rather, find themselves in some period when they lack health insurance. and yet, as i say all of that and from this chamber, all 100 of us here have a great health care system, the federal employees health benefit

package. all of the federal employees in the capitol and across this country have a good health care program, the federal employees health benefit package. maybe if we were in the same situation as many of our fellow citizens, either being uninsured or underinsured, maybe there would be a heightened sense of urgency about this issue. but as long as you're okay and nothing to worry about because of the jobs we hold, the titles we have, because of the good health care and relatively low cost that we have, none of us have to worry about that. we hope nothing happens. we hope we don't get sick. we hope a child of ours or a grandchild doesn't face an mick crisis or health care crisis. but if they do, lord forbid, we have the resources to protect our family. that is not the case -- that is not the case for millions of our fellow citizens. and so this issue demands our attention. it is a issue that cries out for

solution. it's one that we must address. this is not one we can delay on. it's not one we can postpone for some future congress. in fact, the american president, barack obama, will address the country about 55 minutes from now on this subject, has made the case publicly there is no other issue that is more important to him than this one. he has announced that he's willing to expend whatever political capital he has in order to resolve the health care issue. he's made it the central issue of his presidency. and we in this body, regardless of what political label we wear, i think bear a similar responsibility and should be sharing a similar cause and that is to address this issue in a way that will increase access, will reduce costs, and create the kind of quality program that all americans ought to have. every american, every american ought to have at least as good a health care program as their member of congress. every american.

every american ought to be able to go to bed at night with the security that if their spouse or their children or a loved one in their family were to face a health care crisis, they would not be facing economic ruin, being wiped out because of it. every american ought to have that sense of security. that something this it great nation of ours ought not to be depending upon the wealth you have in your family or the job you hold. it ought to be a basic right to be able to have access to affordable, quality health care in america. that's the charge. that's the obligation. that's what stands before us as the issue of not only the day or the hour but i think of our time here in this congress. president obama has said that he's willing to expend every bit of his political capital. that is an extraordinary statement made by an extraordinary president at an extraordinary moment in our nation's history. in my 35 years in congress serving with seven presidents, i've never heard another

president on any issue make a similar statement of their willingness to expend their capital on a single issue. this president has made that statement. that ought to inspire all of us to join him in that effort. the president, as i hope my colleagues recognize, we've been given a mandate by the american people to deliver on health care reform. and i hope that my colleagues will join in this effort. already we've made significant progress towards legislation that both cuts costs, protects consumer choice and guarantees access to affordable, quality care for every one of our citizens. the american medical associati association, the american nurses association, the organizations representing america's hospitals and pharmaceutical companies have all come to the table, mr. president, and agreed to support strong health care reform. three of five congressional committees responsible for health care have already approved strong legislation.

and, mr. president, as an aside, let me tell you, i was here in 1994. those organizations which i just mentioned, believe me, were not at the table urging that this congress stay at the table and pass major health care reform. they are today. that's a fundamental change that's occurred in the last decade and a half. even the notorious harry and louise, those actors who once were used in commercials to kill health care reform, stood with me last week and a group of our colleagues when they announced the first piece of health care legislation to emerge from the united states senate. they stand strong for health care reform and change and intend to do everything they can to assist in that effort. this bill, the one that passed the "help" committee, the affordable health care choices act, is a strong and sensible piece of legislation, mr. president. it forbids insurance companies from cherry-picking applicants based on their gender, based on

their health care status, or any preexisting conditions. never, ever again under our legislation, if adopted, would an american citizen be denied coverage of health care because he or she is a cancer survivor or the victim of domestic violence. never, ever again, mr. president, under our bill would an american citizen who thought they had insurance find their coverage cut or taken away just at the moment they need it the most, because our bill, if it's passed, mr. president, not only eliminates caps on benefits, it bans insurance companies from cutting or taking away coverage after a policy has been signed. our bill, mr. president, if adopted into law, cracks down on waste and fraud, focuses on preventive care, reduces the crushing burden of administrative costs and has been scored by the congressional budget office at $6111 billion ove billionover ten years.

that's a saving of more than $400 billion from the original estimate by the congressional budget office. mr. president, i'm very proud that we came in on time and under budget in the "help" committee. we're not being talked about much these days because we got our job done a week ago today. but i'm even more proud that with real contributions from each of the 22 members of my colleagues who serve on that committee, a quarter of the united states senate, we were able to craft a uniquely american bill for the american people. in the united states of america, mr. president, we already find much we like in our health care system. we like our family doctors and compassionate nurses. we like our world-class hospitals and technology. and we should, they're remarkable. we like having the freedom of choice as americans of our own health care and the ability to get it fast if we can. and our bill won't touch these

things that work in our health care system in the united states today. in the united states of america, mr. president, we hold the relationship between a doctor and his or her patient to be sacrosanct, and our bill if it were signed into law guarantees that nothing can ever, ever, ever come between you and the doctor of your choice. not the federal government, not an insurance company, not a bureaucrat from the private or the public sector. in the united states of america, mr. president, we believe in shared risk and shared responsibility. our bill, if signed into law, lowers costs for everyone by ensuring that everyone is insured. the booinger the pool, obviously, the broader the risk and the lower the cost. in return, our bill asks individuals, employers, the federal government, all of us to share responsibility want just for treating people when they

get sick but hopefully for preventing them from getting sick in the first place. in the united states of america, mr. president, we know in our committee, as we drafted the bill, that good companies aren't afraid of competition. our bill includes a public insurance option that is just that, it's an option. purely voluntary for consumers and providers to decide whether or not they want to participate. nothing mandatory. just a voluntary option, a little healthy american competition to give consumers and providers some choices in the health care system of our nation. that's an outrageous and radical thought i know to some. in most communities, it's pretty basic, pretty commonsense, and pretty traditional. as red-blooded american ideas -- a little competition -- doesn't hurt anybody. in fact, we suspect it actually helps most. in the united states of america, mr. president, we have the best treatment and research facilities in the world, facilities that regularly

produce remarkable advances. and our bill, if signed into l law, ensures that those advances translate directly and efficiently into better outcomes and lower costs for our fellow citizens. most of all, mr. president, in our united states of america, we've learned the hard way that we need health care reform. for nearly 70 years now, democrats and republicans, presidents and congresses alike have all tried this, every one of them have made a herk lean issue to deal -- herculean issue to deal with this issue. and here we are close to a century later still in the same ditch, unable to dig ourselves out of it as it gets deeper and deeper and deeper. and so, mr. president, this is the moment. this is why we're here. this is our opportunity now to step up or to step back. and history will judge which of the two directions we took at this moment.

whether or not we have the intestinal fortitude and the determination to sit down for the long, hard hours and hammer out something to deliver it, not because it's good for us but because it's good for the people we seek to represent. that's why we're here. we talk about these debates as if no one else existed. who's work on this, who's bipartisan, who's not, what coalition and group, who's a blue dog or a red dog. it must drive the american people nuts watching us, acting as if we're the only people on the face of this planet wrestling with this issue. we never have to worry -- none of us. tonight when we go to sleep, you can sleep soundly as a united states congressman or a united states senator, because if you wake up in the morning with a health care crisis, there's nothing to worry about financially. we are well-protected and taken care of. unfortunately, for millions of our fellow citizens all across this country, they cannot sleep as soundly as we do and they're the ones that we ought to be thinking about in this debate.

not whether or not we've got some coalition that's going to produce some magical result. keep our eye on the ball. the american people are expecting nothing less from us. and for far too often, of course, we have failed in this efforts that have been defeated by nothing more than cheap politics in too muc too many in, the well-being of our citizens left to drown in today's political courage. all the while we have paid, of course, a deep, deep price for that ditch that we are in, a ditch that's growing. american families pay an average of $1,100 extra -- $1, 100 extra. if you're buying -- if you've bought insurance and you have an insurance policy, by and large you're paying $1,100 more every year in premium costs to cover the costs associated with health care for the 40 million -- 47 million of our fellow citizens who are uninsured. who get health care. it's not that they don't get health care. they show up. where do they show up?

they show up in emergency rooms, the most expensive health care in the country are in emergency rooms. so when you're paying tonight, as many americans will be, that quarterly or monthly or whatever the time frame is to the premiums you pay and look at a percentage of what you're paying, and on average you're paying $1,100 more every year to cover the uninsured. the cost of the health care is paid for. you're paying for it. so when people say we can't afford any more costs on all of this, you're already paying an exorbitant amount. one of the efforts in this bill is to see to it that the 47 million, a number that expands to 87 million at one point during the year -- again, a lot of people find coverage at various times during the year. but in many instances, at one point or another, that many of our fellow citizens are without insurance at all. but that's the price tag, $1,100 on average.

three out of every five bankruptcies, i mentioned already, in the united states of america are caused by high medical bills, and more than 75% of those forced into bankruptcy because of medical bills have insurance, by the way. that number are not the uninsured. 75% of people who fall into bankruptcy are insured. 62% of the bankruptcies that are created by a health care crisis, 75% of those people had a health insurance policy. don't just assume this only happens to those people who have no health insurance. if you're insured tonight and you run into a major crisis, health care crisis, you can very well find yourself in the same position as millions of our fellow citizens have who fall into bankruptcy. it's not the destitute. it's average american families in many cases. half of our nation's foreclosures are a direct result of our broken health care system as we now know. but it's not just families and businesses being bankrupt. health care costs have come to

consume a simply unsustainable portion of our budget. i know the other day when the congressional budget office answered this question in the budget committee about bending the curve up or down for these various health care plans -- and i have a lot of respect for the people who work in the congressional budget office. i know they work very hard. but i'll wager, mr. president that, no one on that committee, the budget committee, nor did the c.b.o. in their calculation of costs, ask the question of whether or not bankruptcies or foreclosures were calculated into the cost of whether bending the curves one way or another were part of their conclusions. why aren't they? if 62% of all bankruptcies occur in the country because 75% of the people insured couldn't afford the health care needs of their family, why is that not a cost to be calculated in bending curves? and what about those foreclosures, 50% of which occur because of a health care crisis in that family?

did the c.b.o. write that number in in its computer models to figure out costs? why not? is not that a cost to our country, if a family goes into bankruptcy or loses their home because of the health care crisis that's created by the present situation, living in this country? where are the calculations and computer models that will tell us the impact of those crises and families? so we talk about this issue. we're told now in these macroeconomic terms by actuaries and accountants and the crowd that 17% of our gross domestic product is spent on health care and that that number can quickly climb to 35%. what does that mean? it means we're told the next eight or ten years if we don't act -- if we don't act -- if we listen to those who don't think the last 70 years or the last number of congresses that we wrestled with these issues is somehow a waste of time and that we can end up with the average

family paying 50% of its gross income on health care premiums. that's not an channeling racial. that's not a phone -- that's not an exaggeration, not a phony prediction. there are ones that predict 35% of our g.d.p. can be consumed by health care costs. you might be curious to know, the next nation that's closest to us as a percentage of its gross domestic product is switzerland. and switzerland spends a little over 10% of its gross domestic product on health care. then the next country is us, around 17% and growing. to give you some idea around the world how we rate and compare on a per capita basis, pretty staggering numbers. by the way, you might say, look, i'm sorry, senator, i know it's a lot of money. but, you know what? we have great outcomes.

we have remarkable outcomes. so we're paying more than switzerland, but by golly our people here get great outcomes. i wish i could tell you that were the case. the fact of the matter is we rank 37th in the world in outcomes. the united states of america, the greatest country on the face of this earth, we spend more, $2 trillion, a largest percentage by more than double, and we rank 37th in the world in medical outcomes. there is something staggeringly wrong with that picture with that amount of money being spent and that outcome coming in. if you're wondering why people are frustrated by the subject matter, they may not know these numbers. all they know is what they're going through with them and their family. if we continue on this path it gets worth. by the way, we rank at the bottom of all industrialized nations when it comes to infant mortality. the bottom of industrialized nations when it comes to infant mortality in the united states of america.

i find that shameful, those numbers. i believe every american, i don't care what your politics are, we like to think of ourselves as doing so many things so well as a country, and that because of who we are and how we govern ourselves and the opportunities we create, that in the united states of america -- this is not some third- or fourth-world country that we would take good care of our newborns. and to rank at the bottom of the list among industrialized nations in infant mortality is shameful. to come in 37th in medical outcomes is shameful. and to spend almost double of the gross domestic product than our nearest competitor is also shameful. we've reached a point, mr. president, when no senator can with a straight face stand on the floor of this body and argue for the status quo. that status quo is not only unacceptable, as i said, it's unsustainable. instead, of course, some will stand on this floor and argue that the best thing we can do

when confronted with a house on fire is to walk around it a few times and talk about how high the flames have grown. mr. president, when we began writing this legislation out of the "help" committee we didn't forget each of us was born with one mouth and two ears. we started with a blank page. long before i was asked to pinch-hit for ted kennedy, senator den did i and his staff and others invited -- senator kennedy and his staff and others invited the minority early on to share their ideas. we got drawn into this and were not informed is what we hear. that's not the case. they had no idea what they wanted to offer, only they got nervous about this plan going forward. that started at the end of last year, not after the president was inaugurated, january 20. we began by listening. we listened to stakeholders, providers, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, anyone we could gather who had an interest in the subject matter was invited to come and talk

about what they thought a health care, national health care reform package ought to look like. and the culmination of that effort was to draft a bill. why do we draft a bill? because the rules of the senate require it. you can't begin a markup in the "help" committee unless you've got a product on the table. it's got to be legislation, written. the rules require it. so we wrote a bill and put it on the table and invited our colleagues on the committee to come and comment on it, talk about it, amend it, change it, do whatever they thought might improve it. and that's what took the 60 hours, over 15 days and 23 sessions and somewhere between 300 and 500 amendments. a rather long, elaborate process. and it was good work. frankly, the bill got a lot better because of the effort. it got better because my republican colleagues offered terrific ideas. contrary to what some may think, they didn't come and just shove their hands in their pockets and their heels in the sand and refuse to participate or walk

away and not show up. mike enzi, judd gregg, lamar alexander, i go down the long list, the republican members who were there came day after day, sat in that committee room and contributed mightily to our effort. i was blessed to have tom harkin and barbara mikulski and jeff bingaman and patty murray who were asked by senator ted kennedy back months ago that they would each take on a separate idea. tom harkin grappled with prevention issues, developed a staff with expertise and knowledge. barbara mikulski worked on quality issue. did the same as tom harkin. patty murray did it on workforce. jeff bingaman did it on coverage. they had 11 or 12 hearings themselves on the subject matter even before a word was written on the bill, to bring people together to listen to ideas and how we could strengthen those ideas as part of the structure of reform for the health care system. and then that culminated with us

sitting down beginning back five or six weeks ago now to actually mark up this bill, as we are expected to do. true, my republican friends in our committee did not vote for the bill. i've said that, regretfully. it was pretty clear to me that was probably going to happen no matter what we did. but they contributed and they made significant contributions. of the 161 amendments, mr. president, that we accepted offered by the republican side of the 300-plus amendment that we considered, 161 amendments offered by the minority are very much a part of the bill that i've been talking about this evening. some were technical amendments. but many were very, very substantive. and i will include in the record chapter and verse of republican substantive amendments which improve the quality of this bill. they don't want to admit it maybe because they voted against it in the end. and you can define bipartisanship any way you want. but i define it by contributions

made to the product. and they made a bipartisan contribution to the product and a better bill. it's not a perfect bill. obviously needs more work. but we can a -- we think a good, sensible bill that ought to enjoy the support of our colleagues. senator gregg and a number of his fellow republicans were concerned about the long-term fiscal impact of our provisions on long-term care. judd gregg offered an amendment that would require the health and human services to set and adjust premiums based on a 75-year outlook of the program solvency. we had a robust debate, went on for an hour or two on this issue, and the committee recognized the tremendous value, frankly, of what judge gregg was proposing. and so his amendment was accepted unanimously and the bill is a better bill for it. johnny isakson, my very good friend from georgia, brought to the table the issue to, of end-of-life care, drawing on his own family's experiences.

very moving remarks he gave in our committee about the importance of end-of-life care issues. and he was able to talk about the importance of planning for the last days of one's life, how difficult that can be. i just went through that with my sister who was diagnosed on may 22 with lung cancer, and she was gone in six weeks. died on july 6. the first of my siblings to be lost. 68 years of age, 5 children, 17 grandchildren. she knew in the last nine days of her life what the outcome was going to be and so she insisted on each of us spending an hour with her alone. every one of the 17 grandchildren, every one of her siblings and spouses. one woman was nancy pelosi. she was there for the funeral. joe biden came up. joe and my sister were great friends. and he came up for the wake the night before.

so i know what she was thinking about, my sister, in planning what she wanted to have happen those last nine days of her life. a lot of families go through that. johnny isakson made a very substantial contribution. nothing nickel -- nothing technical about what he was talking about. our bill is a better bill because johnny isakson's ideas were incorporated in it. mike enzi and judd gregg, lamar alexander want to increase employer's flexibility to offer wellness programs with incentives for employees. some of my fellow democrats had reservations about their proposal. but senator tom harkin of iowa and myself and several others worked with republicans to craft a compromise, a version we were able to pass on a bipartisan basis unanimously. and as a result today, employers at some point can offer as much as a 50% reduction in premiums to employees who engage in lifestyle behaviors that will

reduce their threat of illness and thus bring down the cost to those people. it was a great idea. we attribute a lot of it to stephen burr, the c.e.o. of safeway who brought the ideas to the table. our fellow democrats working again with mike enzi, lamar alexander and judd gregg came up with the ideas and compromise. that's not technical, and the bill is a better bill because of their efforts. i could go on, and i won't this evening on the rest of the members who made contributions, every one of them, to this bill. let me be clear. if we deem bipartisanship more important than timely and effective health care reform, the only thing that will be bipartisan will be our collective failure as an institution. i've introduced a lot of bills over the years, mr. president. i've passed a lot of legislation. on every major bill i've written in this place, i've had a republican partner, going back to the earliest days when i arrived here and authored the first child care legislation since world war ii. my ally on that was a guy named

orrin hatch from utah. i offered the family and medical leave act. that took seven years, two vetoes. today there's some 60 million or 70 million americans who take leave without pay without losing their jobs. my partner in that was dan coates of indiana and along with people involved in the issue. senate bond played an born role in developing the family medical leave act. i could go on with all of the bills, every one of them i had bipartisan support. i understand the value of it. it is an important means by which we get a job done. let me suggest at this hour, while bipartisanship is a means to get to an end, what really is missing right now is leadership in all of this. each one of us being a leader. the president is leading as strong as he can, deeply involved in this issue. members of various committees are also leading.

but in this institution everybody's a leader if they want to be. and right now i think with the -- what the country is looking for is leadership on this issue. yes, bipartisanship is a nice quality, an important element to pass bills. but leadership is what's most missing in awful this. the willingness to understand the moment, the unique opportunity to address a crippling issue that faces our country. every single one of our citizens will be adversely affected if we fail to act. there are very few bills that can ever make that claim. and, yet, health care issues affect 100% of the nation. most bills we deal with deal with percentages, family and medical leave, 60 million benefited by it. far short of the 300-plus until in our country. health care affects every single one of our citizens. and why again it demands our attention and our resolution. and so to those who are not ready to join in this effort, we invite your suggestions, your

improvements, your thoughts to come to that table. listening to some of our colleagues say this is all about defeating the president or making sure that no one has a political victory. what planet are they living on to believe this debate ought to be about who wins and who loses a political contest on this issue? again, it's not about us. it's about people across this country who expect a lot more from us. that don't wake up and wonder what political party they belong to or what section of the country they live in. if their child gets sick, if their spouse is sick and struggling and needing help, the last thing they want to hear about is whether or not they're a democrat or republican or an independent or live in a green state a blue state a red state or whatever other color you want to attribute to them. they want to know if we have the sense and sensibility to deal with this issue. the truth is we've waited too long. we've waited far so long, mr.

president. we waited decades now and the american people are waiting even longer. and their waiting is much more painful than ours. there's no cause for delay. yes, you've got to examine the bill, we have to look at it, consider suggestions. but that only happens when you sit down and work together. we spent those 60 hours in the "help" committee and it wasn't easy and it wasn't comfortable and people got tired and frustrated at various moments and there were times i thought it was going to fall apart. but i knew if we ever stopped and walked away, then those who wanted no result, no answer to this would win. and so day after day i asked my colleagues to come back and sit at that table and work. and what i said earlier, i mean deeply. there were those who, frankly, might have decided not to show up and that might have had a political conclusion, but they did. my republican colleagues as well as my democratic colleagues showed up every single day and worked to make that a better bill even though there were those who voted against it.

so there's no cause for delay. there's no cause for obstruction and there's no execution for in-- excuse for inaction in my view. in a few weeks we'll return to our various states for our so-called august break, although, frankly, i will stay -- i would stay here and work. that may not be a popular idea, including this issue, including taking time off in august to go to the beach, lakes or mountains or wherever we go and visit our constituents. every day of that august break we'll be without health care at the end of the day. 14,000 a day while we're drifting off instead of doing what we ought to do and come to terms with this issue. some will be among the ranks of the uninsured. some arer scare bearing the emotional and physical scars going with delaying needed care.

worrying that one digs is could mean bankruptcy, foreclosure. some will have insurance, but they'll share the same worries because their insurance costs are much too high and cover far too little. they'll be thinking about the jobs that they wish they could leave and maybe start a small business but can't because they would lose their insurance lifeline. they'll be wondering whether their plan will decide to cover cancer, screening their doctor, told them -- told by their doctor they actually need it. how many visits to the hospital? how many visits to the doctor will be adequate. some will be worried about their insurance today, but they'll be among the millions who will lose their insurance if they don't step up to the plate and take some action. everyone we see when we go home will be watching us over the next three weeks. you better believe they're going to ask us about health care. they're going to ask us whether we're up to the job of passing a

bill this year. they're going to ask us why we haven't made more progress and they're going to ask us fundamental questions, ones that we'll have to answer for ourselves based on what we do in these coming days and weeks. at this very moment, mr. president, we stand at the cusp of history, one of those unique moments. it doesn't happen very often around here. every now and then it happens and we're in one. it's not going to last long. it is only going to last a few more weeks, maybe a can couple of months as to whether or not in this moment we have the ability to rise up and do what we should be doing even though it doesn't meet our ideals, not the bill each one of us would write on our own. but that moment when we recognize our failure to act at all is a moment missed and not likely to be recaptured during our 10 ewe. i know for -- tenure. i know for newer members here, that may seem like an exaggeration. but for those who have been here

a while, will tell you these moments don't come very often. mostly we deal with momentary issues of floods, hurricanes or devastation of one kind and go through the routine of reauthorizing bills and that consumes about 95% of our time. not unimportant business, but fairly routine. and every now and then -- every now and then in our nation's history there have been moments of critical importance. early 1960's the civil rights act, the voting rights act, medicare. going back to the depression years, the eisenhower years and the federal highway system in our country. you can point at various times of the 20th century when contrary to what everyone else thought, this institution decided to take on an issue that made a difference in our country. i suspect barak obama in part had a chance to be elected president of the united states because the people he never knew and never knew him sat here day after day, week after week and engaged in the debate on civil

rights. back long before any of us were ever here, except for one, bob byrd was here, ted kennedy was here, those two members were actually in this chamber in knows days in the early 1960's. today we're a lot better country because of it. and that was one heck of a fight. let me tell you. i was a young page sitting on the floor here in the summer of 1961 and 1962 when lyndon johnson was sitting where the presiding officer is watching the all-night debates on civil rights and they were raucous, wild, and they were tough. and there was no bipartisanship on that i can tell you. it was down right tough and nasty. those memories fade. what retains and recalls is the fact that this institution had leaders. it stood up and said we're going to get this done and they achieved those results. and today we celebrate those moments. we've forgotten about the bitterness that occurred in the debate. nobody is asking if they were bipartisan or not or whether or not coalitions got what they

wanted or not. the response was the united states got closer to that more perfect union that our founders described more than two centuries ago. well, we're in that kind of a moment again. in many ways this is a civil rights debate about health care because too many of our fellow citizens are denied that right of health care based on economic circumstances beyond their control. and the issue is very simply this -- will we come together and decide at a -- in a moment like this to get a job done or will we take the easier path and step back because it's a little too tough? others have staled at it. it means -- failed at it. it means i might lose some votes or even an election over there. there are some issues to lose an election over. that is not the worst thing to happen to someone. watching a family go bankrupt, losing your home, watching a spouse or child suffer because they don't have health carings, that's a problem. that's a real problem. having your constituency send you back home at the end of an election is not a real problem,

believe me. that's an easy problem to solve. so the issues here are complicated, i know that. i know they're difficult. i know that if it were easy, it would have been solved a long time ago. i have a lot of confidence. i listened to 22 of my colleagues over five weeks in a markup, become educated an tbraple with these issues. we didn't resolve all of them, but we educated ourselves and made a difference and produced a bill. a bill that is now the only one in this chamber that is before us, and we hope our colleagues would examine it, take a look at it, make whatever recommendations they could as we move forward. i know the finance committee has wrestled with this. max baucus and i arrived on the same day in congress in 1975. we've been friends for 35 years. i know he's struggling to get the right kind of bill to come out of that committee. i wish him the best an offered him whatever help we can to help him in that system. i hope that we will have a product that we can embrace an be proud of and make a

difference. in the coming days, i will not take as much as i have this evening. but i want to talk about this bill in detail. i want to get away from the cheap poll -- politics, the bumper sticker slogans about things than don't exist, the fear that's so easy to arouse in people, the easiest emotion to appeal to is people's fears and hate and talk constructively and positively about what we can do together to overcome this issue that is a scourge in our society an worthy of this chamber's -- and worthy of this chamber's efforts. i thank the patience of my colleagues for listening to this and i thank the chair and i look forward to the hour when we will come together as a body here. not as democrats or republicans, but as united states senates at this moment and pass a major health care reform bill that moves our country to accessibility, to affordability and the quality of health care. and i yield the floor. on a separate matter, i want to

note that some 20 minutes ago the junior senator from alaska, the presiding officer, is the first member of this new class to come in to end the golden gavel for presiding over 100 hours of senate business. i'm the only one here in the chamber, but i give you a round of applause. the presiding officer: thank you very much. thank you, senator. mr. dodd: and i'm proud to have been here engaged in this discussion to have you presiding over this discussion. so i thank you very much, senator begich, and congratulations on serving the senate as well as you have over these 100 hours. the presiding officer: thank you for that, senator. the senate stands adjourned until 9:3

in the meantime, finance committee chairman max baucus

spoke with reporters about negotiations on health care legislation. this is about ten minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> yeah, i will say something, sure making some more progress. today our group talked quite a bit about coverage within the exchange as who is qualified for the subsidies and the exchange and who isn't and also want to make sure the exchange is affordable, totally affordable. that it's not, you know, an

empty promise, and the requirement because the insurance mandate required here. we made a lot of headway. this is an extremely complicated part of the plan so we did not reach closure on it this morning but we are coming back this afternoon. i think all members came back this afternoon, only one or two can't come back this afternoon until 5:30. talked to the president today. just checking in to see how we were doing. said falling, mr. president. this is what we have accomplished. and i gave him some other information which he found very encouraging and he appreciated very much and indicated that we are moving ahead and actually will have an agreement. he asked about a timetable as we are all interested in, and i told him by my best estimate,

which is not very definite because of the we made a lot headway we still have a long ways to go. he deeply appreciated the approach we are taking. that is, we tried to answer the questions and they are all legitimate the senators are asking. the republican senators are asking more questions, that's not true. everybody is asking a lot of questions because it is complicated and we all want to get it right. i'm very encouraged. we have no choice but to keep going down this road where we keep allowing senators to keep asking questions because everyone there really wants a bill. everyone is connected to reach an agreement and we just want to make sure given all that has happened to the various health reform bills and action by washington on both sides of capitol hill, we want to make sure we get this as right as we

can get it and we don't want to be criticized. we are very concerned about the costs. we do want to make sure we are bending the cost curve in the right direction and make sure it's all paid for, no-smoking bills, it's all paid for. sometimes when you want to do it right it takes a little time especially something that's complicated over and over again. wimax role, just one portion of this is a big bill in and of itself. the trouble is we have a bunch of bills altogether. it's true but we will get there. it will take time but we will get there. >> senator durbin told to help a vote by august is no longer a possibility of the senate floor. do you agree with that assessment? >> the leader sets the schedule, that would be up to senator durbin, senator reid. i talked to senator read about half an hour ago --

>> [inaudible] >> i would love to get this conclude fairly quickly but i can't guarantee it will be. obviously with each passing day things get more difficult that is a leadership call. i am not going to prejudge that one. >> what about best estimate, you gave the president your best estimate. can you share that with us? >> i'd rather not. >> can you talk about the communication with democrats that are not in these associations and just democrats in the senate generally what are these conversations communications been like? >> i have a lot of conversations with senator small on the committee or not in this group. very interested in what is going on and they ask greater question and when we do reach an agreement i sit down with them, and by insurer senator grassley

will all the other side as well and there could well be. that's what it will be. they will have markup and i am quite confident that after the markup we will probably have a big caucus. all the democrats and republicans will meet because we have to merge the bills. whether there will be an opportunity for the senators to weigh in as they should. >> have you heard any grumbling so for people are not in the room and don't know where you're going or how long it is going to take. >> i haven't heard grumbling and have had a little concerned what about this, what about that, can you add this, can you add that? i'm sure there is a little angst because when you're not in the room you kind of wonder what's going on but i have done my best to reassure, and in fact a member of the committee just during this last vote side when are we going to find out? and i said well, as soon as we have something that's right and ready to meet with everybody because i don't want to meet

prematurely. >> what do you take away from the decision by orrin hatch to drop out of these talks? >> i don't make anything out of that really. because he was only tentatively there in the first place. the three senators here now are the ones that clearly want a bill and clearly want to vote for a bill that are clearly part of the team and i'm very happy and i take my hat off to those three because they are under incredible pressure by some republicans who just don't want health care reform to pass for political reasons. they just are very upset with any effort to get a bill passed and i've got to tell you i am very proud of senators grassley, enzi and snow. they deserve a congressional medal of honor. they are wonderful senators. >> you've worked a lot with doug

elmendorf in the midst of these negotiations, and the white house sort of brought him into a meeting and some people have questioned his object to the beach. should the white house have even asked him to go to that? >> man, oh, man, if anybody calls it like it is it is dog elmendorf, nobody is straight if he will ask doug elmendorf. you cannot push him one way or another. i've met with him countless times and i think the president's concern is gee, we need a bill here, can you get your people to get the numbers out, whenever they are -- >> [inaudible] >> i see no problem whatsoever but i think the white house is just the want to do it right and they don't want to put pressure on him to bend it one way or another. that is not an issue. i talked to elmendorf. you cannot persuade him to bend this way or that way.

he's going to call it as he sees it. >> i have dinner scheduled. >> you have dinner plans? >> not mine, others. senators -- [inaudible conversations] >> i'm watching the president, yeah, he's on at 8:00? i want to watched the president. i don't think it's going to be late. talk to you later. [inaudible conversations] president obama is scheduled to begin a press conference eight minutes from now. the white house built this as a six month report card the president to talk about the economy, the recession and legislative agenda and particular, health care. president obama has been pressing house and senate lawmakers to vote on health care

at the end of next week but politico writing the senate majority whip durbin said for the first time today that it is no longer possible for the senate to pass a health reform bill before leaving for the august recess. we are going to watch the scene at the white house. you see reporters waiting for the president to speak and we will get your reaction and take your phone calls after his remarks here on c-span2. you're watching live coverage. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] ..

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the ladies and gentlemen, may i have your attention please? the program will begin in two minutes. please ensure all blackberries and cell phones are in the silent position. thank you.