>> you can see our full three-hour interview and call-in with author joy hakim live starting now on c-span. >> as just mentioned, the senate at 12:30 eastern will begin day seven of its health care debate. senators are continuing work on an $848 billion version of the bill that would create marketplaces for purchasing health insurance, create a public health insurance option from which states could opt out and require most americans to obtain insurance as well as impose requirements on insurance companies regarding coverage that they offer. a live shot of the capitol here this noon hour in washington d.c. again, 12:30 the senate is in, and this morning we talked to a reporter who's following the story and what's happening

today. >> hunter is joining us from congressional quarterly, we are partnering with them as cq, continues to track the health care debate. kate, thanks for being with us. >> guest: thanks for having me. >> host: a republican, olympia snowe of maine, how significant was that? >> guest: well, that's an interesting development because olympia snowe is the only republican so far that's voted for any aspect of these health care overhauls that have been proposed by democrats in congress. and coming out of the finance committee which is where snowe voted for the plan that came out of the finance committee a few months ago, senator snowe said that she would not be onboard with the bill that harry reid unveiled earlier, or i guess last month. so it's interesting that it seems now senator snowe and perhaps even senator collins or a couple of other moderates might be back at the table.

>> host: will that meeting continue today? will president obama meet with at least one of the two main senate republicans? >> guest: well, president obama is heading to the hill. there's a 2 p.m. democratic caucus that the president is hoping to attend, is planning to attend. and at that meeting he's going to be trying to bring unity to the democratic caucus, trying to rally the troops. there are 60 democrats, 60 senators who caucus with the democrats in the senate, and the sort of operating mentality at least for the last several weeks is that it's likely to -- if the democrats are able to pass a bill out of the senate, it's likely going to be with support of all members of their caucus, potentially not many republicans. it looks as though because the problem with that is that the democratic caucus is deeply divided over certain aspects of the plan, things like the public option, things like the abortion language, and senator ben nelson of nebraska said last week that he wouldn't support the bill

unless there was language that mimics the house-passed abortion language which is very strict. and so given those developments, it looks like there are renewed efforts to bring republicans over to try to get to the 60 votes the democrats are going to need. >> host: as we saw yesterday whether it was the lincoln amendment which would reduce compensation for hospitals and doctors and, also, the dorgan amendment which would allow drugs from canada to come into this country to save money for consumers, will we see more of this in the coming days, the amendment votes? >> guest: yes. the amendment that you referenced is going to have a vote at around 3:15 today. the ensign amendment which likely won't with adopted, but it would reprise an issue that republicans have been hammering on which is the issue of medical malpractice lawsuits. the ensign amendment would issue

amounts for attorneys for claimants in medical malpractice lawsuits could receive. those two votes are going -- amendments are going to get a vote today at 3:15. and tomorrow, senator dorgan said yesterday that he expects his amendment, his drug implication amendment, to get a vote -- or, i'm sorry, to begin debate on that tomorrow afternoon. >> host: and finally, kate hunter, when we checked in with you on friday we were talking about the possibility of a full vote in the senate late this week. how likely is that before the christmas holiday? >> guest: well, there's still this week and then next week and then potentially part of the week after that before the christmas holiday. senate democrats have been very adamant that they want to pass a bill out of the senate before the end of the year, and they said last week they'd be willing to work the week between christmas and new year's to do that, however, there seems to be signs of movement behind the

scenes even though the floor debate might be on smaller-change amendments, it does seem like the bigger pieces are beginning to come together behind the scenes which could be an early sign that we could be getting a vote sooner than we might have expected. >> host: and finally for you personally as you track this story and follow the movements of the senators, what one story are you following closely today? what will you be looking for? >> guest: i think it'll be interesting to see what kind of movement we see on the public option issue. there's a group of ten senators, ten democrats, moderates and liberals, that are meeting, started meeting on friday privately. and i think any signs that we get that they have come to some kind of an agreement will be really telling because that's one of the main outstanding issues, that this debate can't go forward until that's resofted. >> this is how the washington times characterized it saying that disagreements could threaten the overall health care bill, and they point to a

delaware democrat who proposed putting government-run plans in states only where insurance competition is low similar to a compromise plan floated by senator snowe. how realistic are these ideas? >> guest: well, senator carper has been talking about his plan, he floated elements of his plan late last week, and they are similar to what senator snowe has proposed. and from democratic leadership's perspective, it would stand to reason that those are, those are appealing because they could, as you mentioned, potentially bring a republican senator snowe on board with the proposal. however, this group it did look yesterday like this group of ten senator that are meeting behind closes doored, like what they're discussing is somewhere more along the line of a series of plans that would be run by nonprofits, it'd be national in scope, but they'd be administered by the office of personnel management. and that would seem to have some appeal to both sides in the sense that moderates would

potentially like the fact that it's not -- the public plan isn't being administered bear the department of health and human services and liberals might like the fact that it's still being administered by a government entity. so that seems like it could potentially provide a pass forward, but we'll have to wait and see what they coalesce around. >> host: kate hunter who writes for congressional quarterly, and our viewers can check out her work at congress.org. we'll continue to get updates from cq, kate hunter, thanks for being with us. >> guest: thank you. >> and, again, we'll have live coverage when the senate gavels in at 12:30 ian -- eastern here on c-span.

>> now, in depth, normally seen at this time here on c-span too is live, now, on c-span, and we are talking today with author joy health care akdhakim. she is the author of the three-volume history, the story of science. other books include history of the u.s. she's a former teacher, a newspaper editorial writer for the virginian pilot, and again, in depth today on our companion network, c-span. back on capitol hill, senators getting ready to continue debate on health care with a number of amendments being offered. two are scheduled for votes in the 3:00 hour this afternoon, right now scheduled for 3:15 eastern. one by nevada republican john ensign to limit the fees plaintiffs' attorneys can collect in medical malpractice lawsuits. and another amendment offered by

arkansas democrat blanche lincoln would limit the amount insurance companies can collect. here's a look. >> mr. president? >> senator from arkansas. >> well, thank you, mr. president, and i am very proud to come and join in this debate on an issue i do think is absolutely critical to all our kansans and all americans. i'd like to compliment chairman baucus because as we talk about this issue in term thes of health care reform, clearly our delivery system in health care is broken. we've got the best hospitals and doctors, research and technologies in the world, and yet our delivery system is broken. and for the last 24 months the senate finance committee has held hearings and round tables, summits, all kinds of different deliberative efforts working in partnership with the associations that represent our providers, advocacy groups on behalf of patients, anybody that would come to the table to talk about how is it that we reform this system and make it better

for the constituents that we serve, the patients that are the ultimate recipient of the health care system in this country? and i just applaud him and the work that we've done there. so to anyone that says we're just jumping in here and moving too fast or, you know, i have tremendous respect for the minority leader from kentucky. my husband trained at kentucky, did his subspecialty there, and one of his admiration for one of those he trained with, the good friend of senator mcconnell. but the minority leader's comment that we're just simply saying to our constituents, shut down and shut up, again, like the comment from the senator from tennessee that we're throwing seniors under the bus, we're in a body that is here to be respectful of one another, respectful of our differences, our different approaches, how we

come to the ideas that we have of how we solve these questions. and the senator from massachusetts brings up a great point, where are the suggestions from the other side of how we solve this? coming to the table, are they going to come to the table with ideas of how we do something other than just going with the status quo? because clearly americans understand that we're not throwing them under the bus, we're trying to figure out how is it that we preserve medicare that's going to go bankrupt in 2017? how do we make the difference in the delivery system so we bring down those long-term costs in health care so that we can actually preserve the programs that work and that are so meaningful to people in their lives? i would just say that as we come to this debate i hope we will continue the age-old attitude in the united states senate of being respectful for one another's views and one another's efforts.

in trying to really bring about something that is going to make sense and that's going to be helpful. not throwing people under the bus, not telling constituents to sit down and shut up, but actually working hard to come up with some solutions. i notice that my mother actually senator mccain was trying to call an awful lot of people in arkansas. my mother was one of those that he tried to get in touch with to really tell them that something's wrong up here, and we're not doing what we need to do. i certainly visit with my mom an awful lot and hear about her experiences and the concerns she has about medicare which is a system that is great for her, and i'm proud that i live in a country that provides her with that kind of care. and she does believe, very strongly, in some of the things that she's seen in her medicare bill, things that could -- inefficiencies that could be changed, ways that we could make it a better program. so i hope that we will all come to the table here with good ideas and ways that we really can make a difference. and i notice that there was an

effort or certainly a concern about wanting to add people to my amendment. i would welcome the republicans, if they would like to offer their own amendment, to include other entities. and if they would like to do that, i've worked on my amendment, and i like my amendment the way it is, i think it really focuses on industries whose sole purpose is to o provide health insurance. their sole purpose is to provide health insurance. so if they want to add other people, no, i'm sorry, i'm going to continue visiting for just a moment, then i'll let you all take time on your part. but i'm just directing solely on those businesses whose only purpose is to provide health insurance for the people of this country. and i'll just use an example of an article that came out yesterday. it represents, basically, one of our larger national insurance companies that are working hard, i think -- at least i hope they are -- to do what's right, and yet i look that they are going

to be dumping 600,000-plus customers because they don't think their profits are big enough. and yet i look at the record, and i believe that their ceo actually in 2008 made over $24 million. now, if they can pay their top executive $24 million last year, but they're going to complain that their profits are not big enough, then they've got to dump patients. i would just ask my colleagues where do we go to correct this imbalance? if it is not to -- a very plausible amendment, it certainly doesn't restrict the pending amendment which is mine, it doesn't restrict what industries, corporations can provide or give their executives in pay. what it does do is it says that we are not going to subsidize that with tax dollars. the very american taxpayers that they're dumping are the ones

that are subsidizing those incredible executive pay amendments. -- amounts. so i would just say to my friends over there, and i have to say those over there that are defending the status quo on behalf of health insurance companies and their executives that are receiving these multimillion dollar compensation packages, you know, it took nine of 'em at one time. so it's a tough lift to be able to defend these executive compensations for insurance company executives or otherwise nine of 'em wouldn't have been down here trying to shift the conversation to something else. but i just think, mr. president, that the american people do understand that that is out of balance and that here we are at an opportunity to provide these insurance companies even more customers. we just simply want to be reassured that we are not through taxpayers' dollars subsidizing these enormous executive amounts, compensation

amounts, and more importantly, that the savings that come from that are going to go into the medicare trust fund to shore it up. so i just, i appreciate everyone's debate and their efforts to come to the floor today and really talk about a critical issue to folks. you know, i just would remind, again, mr. president, all of my colleagues current law allows all businesses, all businesses to deduct up to $1 million annually per executive as a business expense. that's a million dollar tax break per executive, per company that is sub si ciezed -- subsidized by the taxpayers. and there's multiple more ways that they can, obviously, provide greater compensation, and there's lots of loopholes in there that allows them to, again, get tax subsidies for more compensation for their executives. but my proposal would limit this amount to $400,000. the very amount that the highest public official in this land

gets paid, the president. $400,000 salary for those health insurance companies that will profit -- they will profit, mr. president, as a result of the health insurance reform. because our objective is to get more people insured. and so working diligently through all of these technicalities trying to get more people insured, we are creating a new marketplace for them with more consumers, a tremendous amount. but this is only in regard to health insurance companies. it doesn't dictate, again, what a business can pay an employee, but it does limit the taxpayer subsidies for the compensation. this is a fair policy, mr. president, it's aimed at encouraging our health insurance companies to put premium dollars towards lower rates and more affordable coverage, not into their pocketbook. they're complaining about profits, and yet they're still paying these executives a tremendous amount of money. to be sure, there is evidence

these companies need the encouragement to do the right thing for consumers. health insurers spent more than 90 cents per every dollar on patient care in the early 1990s, that number has decreased to just over 80 cents per dollar for every dollar. now, for every dollar they spend only 80 cents of it goes back into their efforts to provide coverage for their consumers. and that is in 2007. those are the numbers that we have. according to the testimony delivered to the senate commerce committee earlier this year, this trend has translated into a difference of several billion dollars. in favor of insurance company shareholders and executives at the expense of health care providers and their patients. so it is imperative that we do what we can to reverse that trend, particularly now when

millions more americans will be purchasing their health insurance coverage as a result of this health reform package. taxpayers are footing the bill for this subsidy, and we must take steps to deter the health insurance companies from further enhancing their profit margins at the expense of the american people. those defending the status quo, again, i just want to point out that we've had a lot of senators that came to the floor this morning on the republican side to defend the status quo on behalf of the health insurance companies and their executives that are receiving these multimillion dollar compensation packages. i would just say that maybe they don't understand that under that current law right now the american people are already footing the bill for this tax windfall for health insurance executive pay. so as we move forward, it's just going to be a greater benefit to those executive thes and the ability for these insurance companies to be able to do that. we want to keep those insurance companies in business.

we want to make sure that they're there as providers. but it's just a disconnect when they say they've got to cut 600,000 of their, of their insured under the current system because their profits aren't high enough, and yet they're paying their top executive a $24 billion compensation package. it is subsidized by the taxpayers. so i just hope that we will work together to figure out what is the right place to be here, if what we want to do is to really make sure that we're reforming health care, and we're asking everybody to come to the table and make an effort in putting ourselves back on track. because ultimately, you know, we want that quality of life that a new reformed health insurance and health care-providing delivery system can provide, but we also want to make sure that we strengthen our economy. and making sure that we make use, good use, good use of every medical dollar. that we're getting the biggest bang for that buck.

it's a critical part of putting our economy back on track. the assumption that's been based on the other side, i think, has basically been based, also, prime mr. president, on the current and broken marketplace where insurance companies really do bully their customers and monopolize their choices. i don't know about their phones, but i hear a lot from my constituents, you know, that they can't get insurance. i've got a neighbor, a hard working woman who's a single mom, can't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition. you know, i've got others who have had insurance, and then when they did become ill, they got dropped. so, you know, our hope is that we look at this in the context not of the broken marketplace that exists today, but of what we're trying to create. and that is a more robust marketplace and one that make sense both for insurance companies, but for consumers as well. with the insurance market reforms we plan to implement along with the more consumer

choices through the exchange, these insurance companies are going to have to work to keep up with the business they have and be able to be there for future customers. and that's a healthy marketplace. i don't think i'll get any disagreement from my colleagues on the other side that competition and choice is the way to go in the marketplace. that's who we are as americans. it's to let those who have that entrepreneurial spirit who want to get in the marketplace and really provide a product at a reasonable cost to be an active part of the marketplace. that's what we're trying to encourage in this. so, mr. president, the amendment i'm offering here today would set the deduction cap at the same level as the highest-paid government official, that's the president, it is estimated to save approximately $650 million over ten years and will place these savings in the medicare trust fund to further strengthen the solvency of that fund and protect our seniors. we want desperately to make sure that we protect our seniors.

we know that in many instances there are medicare programs out there, unfortunately, that are oversubsidized which means that those that are in regular medicare program are having to pay for the outrageous subsidies in these other medicare programs. we want to make sure that we bring them to balance, mr. president, and create a better system for everybody that's out there. and that means bringing down long-term costs, it means making sure that we are protecting medicare for all seniors, it means that we do it in a deficit-neutral way which we've done in this bill and the other bills that we worked on in the finance committee, and it means that we really work to put our best foot forward in bringing about partnerships between state and federal government as well as with providers who understand that this delivery system is broken as well. so in closing, mr. president, the choice on this vote is very simple, either you support these revenues being placed in the medicare trust fund, or you

support having the irs write a check and sending it to health insurance companies to subsidize the million, multimillion dollar salaries that they're paying in their taxes. and i urge my colleagues to support this effort on behalf of the american taxpayer and on behalf of our seniors and to vote in favor of this amendment that i feel like has been structured in a very fair way. >> that was arkansas senator blanche lincoln from yesterday. >> a look, now, at what senator roger wicker had to say about the bill this morning on "washington journal." >> host: our guest is senator roger wicker. jim is joining us from michigan. good morning, jim. >> caller: good morning.

senator, first, just a comment. in my opinion, medicare advantage is just, well, they're trying to privatize medicare. all of this could have been prevented if we had allowed medicaid, medicare to negotiate with the drug companies. but the question i wanted to ask you, are you familiar with the study done by the kaiser foundation? it shows that 21% of the population accounts for 63% of the health care costs and 1% accounts for 21%. now, i've discussed this with some of my doctor friends, and they say that a lot of it is due to families wanting, you know, their 92 or 87-year-old mother to have everything done to keep them alive when they know that

there's nothing that can be done, and it would be a lot less expensive to put them into, say, a hospice. >> guest: well, i'm not particular with that particular -- familiar with that particular study, but i think we can all see that this is very much of an issue. but it's also a very private and personal issue with the family and when do you make a decision that, indeed, grandma is not able to recover? i remember in my own situation there was, there was an evening when we were all sitting around the kitchen table, and we thought my grandmother would be dying in a matter of moments. it turns out she recovered and spent another five years of quality life, and we were mighty glad that she had had the health care to recover. i do not think the rebuild or --

reid bill or the pelosi bill in the house of representatives would be the answer to that, but let me get back to your point about medicare advantage. medicare advantage is not a way to privatize medicare, but it does involve injecting some competition, and i believe in competition between insurance companies. as a matter of fact, that's what i'd like to do as one solution to the health care problems we have. there are millions and millions of elderly americans who like their medicare advantage, they like being able to have hearing testing periodically, to have their eye glasses paid for under a medicare program and to receive dental care, things that would not be for them under traditional medicare. let me, also, make this point on medicare, not only is it about

to go bankrupt within a few short years, but also increasingly -- and i think this was mentioned earlier on this program in another segment -- there are physicians who say because of the reimbursement rate they're just going to quit taking medicare patients. and that's happening over and over and over, and the same thing is certainly true even more so with regard to medicaid in my state of mississippi. there's some 60% of the physicians who will not take new medicaid patients because the reimbursement is so low. now, this pelosi bill in the house, the reid bill in the senate puts new mandates on the states with regard to medicaid, and i think it's going to make it even harder to get physicians, you know? if we get to the point where the government comes in with enforcers and tells a doctor, you must take medicare patient,

you must take medicaid patients, i think we've gone several bridges too far. >> host: but along those lines, sasha is e-mailing or twittering in that mississippi ranks number 50 in terms of access to health care. why is that? >> guest: well, it's because of our demographics because we have had trouble moving people into the education system. we have a high dropout rate, and clearly, we need to make steps in terms of the poverty rate in many parts of the state of mississippi, and it's a great challenge. and we ought to address that. but we ought to address it in a step-by-step way that doesn't in one fell swoop turn over one-sixth of the economy to the control of federal bureaucrats. flrve -- and a federal system. i don't think moving to a

single-payer system would be the answer to our problem in southern states like mississippi where we do have problems with health access. i think in countries where they've gone to the government-run single-payer system which this would inevitably lead to such as britain, such as canada, you have more rationing, you have less access, and you have longer waiting lines. >> host: you are in for what is being called a rare sunday session. what is your typical sunday routine if you were not here in business in the senate? >> guest: well, if i weren't here in the senate, about right now i would be in sunday school at the first baptist church in tupelo, and then later on for the 11:00 service i would be in the choir loft trying to sing a little baritone. >> host: senator wicker, thanks for joining us on this sunday. please come back again.

>> guest: thank you very much for having me. >> and the senate just gaveling in to begin day seven of its health care debate, continuing to work on their version of an $848 billion bill to insure that most americans buy health insurance. we're also following the president's visit to capitol hill this afternoon to attend a democratic caucus meeting. senators gathering off the floor to discuss strategy and amendments that could bring the bill to a final vote. and one programming note, in depth, normally seen at this time here is now live on c-span talking today with author joy hakim. to the floor of the u.s. senate, now, the chaplain is reciting a prayer for this sunday session as the senators begin day seven of health care debate. labors. help them also to take solace in

the fact that they are ultimately accountable to you, we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, december 6, 2009. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby piept the honorable mark begich,

a senator from the state of alaska, to perform the duties of the chair. signed richard c. byrd, president pro tempore. mr. durbin: the time until 3:15 p.m. will be equally divided. the majority will control the first hour. the republicans will control the next hour. the remaining time will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. at 3:15 p.m., the senate will proceed to vote in relation to the lincoln amendment number 2905 relate to go executive compensation, to be followed by a vote in relation totten sin amendment number 2927, relate to go attorneys' fees. we are working on the next amendments in order, hope to have them ready for votes this afternoon. senators will be notified if additional votes are scheduled after the votes at 3:15 p.m. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

republican leader. mr. mcconnell: first, i want to extend a welcome to the president who is coming up to the capitol today to meet with democrats on the suggest of the health care bill. so far, they have voted to cut medicare three times, cuts they previously described as immoral and irresponsible. cuts that made it impossible for the president to keep his pledge that people who like our plans can keep them, cuts that will reduce the quality of home health care, cuts that will reduce benefits for nearly 11 million american seniors on medicare advantage, cuts that raid medicare instead of fixing it, cuts the american people vehemently, vehemently oppose. democrats are in a tough situation on this bill, mr. president. they want to expand the government's reach into health care, but they don't have the money. and they don't have the support more importantly of the american people. so what did they do?

they decided to take the money they need out of medicare, and that's only made their health care plan even less popular with the american people. now, the gregg amendment which we'll vote on later this afternoon would help reverse the damage of last week's votes. the gregg amendment says that democrats can't raid medicare, which is already in serious trouble, in order to pay for their $2.5 trillion bill. the money going out of medicare is hospital insurance trust fund already exceeds its annual income. it's already drying up. by 2017, the hospital insurance trust fund won't be able to pay full benefits, and that's before our colleagues get their hands on it. this program needs to be fixed, not pillaged, to create another one. so the gregg amendment prohibits using money from medicare to pay for any new government programs, for expanding existing programs, or for subsidies. instead, it directs that any money from medicare be put back

into medicare to strengthen and preserve it for future generations so that we can keep our promises. frankly, this is just common sense. americans don't want this bill to pass, and they certainly don't want it to pass at the expense of the roughly 40 million american seniors who depend on medicare. the gregg amendment would keep that from happening. a vote for the gregg amendment is a vote to keep our promise to seniors. we're also going to have another vote today on the ensign amendment. the amendment is simple. it is designed to ensure that injured patients, not their lawyers, receive the vast majority of any settlement in a medical malpractice suit. it says that since lawsuits should benefit patients, not lawyers, lawyers can't take more than one-third of the recovery their clients receive. in other words, the lawyers can't take more than one-third of what the client gets. these are responsible limits. moreover, they were written by a

democrat and supported in the past by 21 of our current democratic colleagues as well as the vice president. and they would drive down costs, the original purpose of reform. the independent congressional budget office has said that comprehensive liability reforms would save the taxpayers more than $50 billion. the ensign amendment is a step in that direction, and we will offer a better step-by-step reform to end junk lawsuits against doctors and hospitals later in the consideration of this bill. i'm hopeful my democratic colleagues will support it again since so many of them have supported it in the past. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in leader time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i would -- senator reid contacted me earlier today and was unable to be here for the opening of the session, and i told him that i would be here to open, and i would just like to say briefly

in response that the comments that have been made by the minority leader, senator mcconnell, continue to raise question about the future of medicare. i hope that senator mcconnell is sensitive to the fact that this last week on december 3, we voted 100-0 for the amendment offered by senator bennet of colorado, which said that nothing in the amendments to this act shall result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits under the social security act provisions related to medicare. and he went on to say that any savings would be used to extend the solvency of the medicare trust fund, reduce medicare premiums, and other cost sharing for beneficiaries, and approve or expand guaranteed medicare benefits and protect access to medicare providers. we voted 100-0 on a bipartisan fashion to make sure that we protect the medicare program. that's the way it should be and that's the way the senate voted.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 3590 which the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3590, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to modify the first-time home buyers credit in cases of the members of the armed forces and certain other federal employees and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 3:15 p.m. will be for debate with respect to amendment numbered 2905 offered by the senator from arkansas, mrs. lincoln, and the amendment offered by the senator from nevada, mr. ensign, with the time divided with 10 minutes each, with the majority controlling the first 60 minutes and the republicans controlling the next 60 minutes. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i want to speak on the bill and in part respond to the minority

leader. at the end of the day, why are we staying around the clock discussing this bill with the intent that we are going to pass the bill? it is simply that we cannot continue as we are. we are in a system whereby insurance is not solving the nation's health needs. all you have to do is talk to a doctor, and if they haven't already pulled their hair out, they are about to, in that when they want to give a certain treatment to a patient, they feel like they have to negotiate with the insurance company and, in fact, the insurance company often is dictating to them what treatment and what drugs they can or cannot do.

or, look at the simple little cases that we hear about that are just absolutely simple cases but catastrophic because someone is in the middle of treatment of something and they get a notice that their insurance company is going to cancel them, or they have lost their job and they are desperately trying to get health insurance again and an insurance company uses as an excuse that they had a pre-existing condition, and it may be a flimsy excuse. i gave the example yesterday of it may be something like a skin rash. that's a pre-existing condition that they can't get health insurance now on their own. so we have a system that's out

of control. now, when it comes to -- you hear a lot about costs out here. we hear a lot about costs, and indeed if we don't do something about the costs of health care, none of our people are going to be able to afford it. talk to corporate america and the c.e.o.'s and listen to them what the insurance companies are saying to them, how they are jacking up their rates on their employer-sponsored group policies, and oh, please pray that you are not an individual who can't get a group policy and you're having to go out there and try to find an individual policy because the likelihood is that you're not going to be able to afford it. so cost is critically a factor here, and it's a factor also to

the united states government, because we cannot -- the u.s. government cannot afford the cost of medicare as it keeps exploding into the future. we have to bring these costs under control. and when you mix that in with the horror stories that you hear of 46 million people don't have health insurance, but when they get sick, where do they end up? the emergency room. they get that care at the most expensive place, and the rest of us pay, and that is a hidden tax on average in this nation. that hidden tax is $1,000 per family health insurance policy, and i can tell you in my state of florida, it's even higher. it's $1,400. so in florida, a family that has

a group insurance policy, they're paying $1,400 more per year to take care of those folks that do not have insurance but end up getting sick, and the bill is paid by everybody else. now, what i have just described is a system that is in tilt. it's not working. and the whole purpose of this bill is to try to make it work so that, number one, it's affordable, and number two, that health insurance is available. so at the end of the day, we're going to pass it, and at the end of the day, poor old harry reid, our majority leader, is going to figure out a way to get 60 of us to come down here to shut off

the filibuster so that we can go to final passage and get it down into a conference committee in the house. and at the end of the day, after that conference committee comes back, we're going to get those 60 votes again because this is so desperately needed, despite all of the supposed arguments that you hear on the other side. now, can this product be improved? of course it can. and i certainly want to share -- as i did in the finance committee -- an amendment that would cause the pharmaceutical industry to come up with some more money. they have pledged -- and to their credit -- and let me just say that billy tauzin, the head

of the pharmaceutical association, he is smart, he knows what he's doing, and he's trying to play ball with the leadership and the white house, and i want the pharmaceutical industry to know that this senator appreciates that because, with everybody else, like the insurance industry, trying to kill it deader than a doornail, at least they're helping. but, the pharmaceutical industry said that they were coming forth with $80 billion over ten years they were going to contribute. the hospital industry said they were going to contribute about $150 billion over ten years. and so forth. but, in fact, mr. president, the pharmaceutical industry is not contributing $80 billion. here is a morgan stanley analysis for investors of stockr

analysis of what's going to happen to the pharmaceutical industry in the future. and morgan stanley has said these guys are so smart, they're not contributing $80 billion. they're contributing only $22 billion. why? because when they say this -- we're going to contribute discounts to allow half of this so-called doughnut hole to be filled, that means there's going to be a lot more drugs sold. and, oh, by the way, the bill takes medicaid from 100% to 133%. that's going to be a lot more drugs sold as a result of this bill. so the real loss -- or contribution, if you will -- of the pharmaceutical industry is $22 billion over ten years, not

$80 billion. and that doesn't even include -- remember, they just raised their prices 9%, three times the rate of inflation. so they're going to make up a lot of that, anyway. well, what i want to plead with the leadership in the white house and the leadership of the pharmaceutical industry, come back to your $80 billion real figure over ten years. and one way to get there is the amendment that i offered in the finance committee that was rejected on a nature revote of 13--- on a narrow vote of 13-10. out here on the floor, it is my intention to offer that amendment. i filed it. it would produce, according to c.b.o., $106 billion of taxpayer fund savings over ten years

because the discounts would have to be there for the medicaid recipients that are entitled to discounts but now since they buy their drugs through medicare, they can't get those discounts because we changed the law six years ago in the prescription drug benefit. and that's just simply not right. now, i'm not out here to try to punish anybody. i am out here to try to make this work and to get 60 votes, so we can go to final passage. but everybody has got to do their part, and everybody has got to contribute their part. and i look forward to the future discussions, as we close in on what probably is going to end up being -- the presiding officer: senator's time has expired. mr. nelson: -- the final passage of this, probably a week or eight days down the road. and i thank you, mr. president.

mr. specter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. specter: mr. president, the schedulers have allocated 15 minutes to me, so i would ask unanimous consent at this time that i may speak for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: i thank the chair. i have sought recognition to speak in opposition to the ensign amendment. the authoritative statement on attorneys' fees has come from the national association of insurance commissioners in a document -- a 2008 document entitled "countrywide summary of medical malpractice insurance." and these are authoritative figures on how much the defense lawyers have taken and how much the plaintiffs' lawyers have taken, and it shows that the plaintiffs' lawyers on the state of the record are underpaid,

paid less than defense lawyers; hardly the cause for an amendment to lower attorneys' fees even more for plaintiffs' lawyers. these are the statistics by the national association of insurance commissioners, as to the attorneys' fees. the attorneys' fees for defendants were $2,110,000,000. the total recovery by plaintiffs was $4,090,000,000. calculated attorneys' fees at one-third would mean that the attorneys' fees were for the plaintiffs' attorneys $1,340,000,000, substantially under the $2,110,000,000 for

defense attorneys. the attorneys who take on cases on a contingent fee do so because, unlike insurance companies which have the funds to retain lawyers on an hourly basis, most plaintiffs are unable to pay attorneys' fees, do not have the capital to do so, and the arrangement is worked out that the fee will be paid by a share of the recovery. now, if there is no recovery, there is no fee. and beyond the absence of a fee, the plaintiffs characteristically cannot afford the costs of litigation. when depositions are taken or filings are made or various other costs arise, it is up to the plaintiff's lawyer to pay

those fees and those are not reimbursed. an effort is being made now to have those deductions on an annual basis. the plaintiff's attorney can't even take them in thier when they are paid. so that if you see a situation where in absolute dollars plaintiffs' lawyers on contingent fees are paid less than defense lawyers, and you have added to that the risk factor that the plaintiff's lawyer may get nothing, there should even be a greater compensation for plaintiffs' lawyers and defense lawyers, and as these statistics show, it is lesser. i have had experience -- most of my experience in the courtroom has been as a prosecuting attorney. but some experience working for a big law firm, represented the pennsylvania railroads,

defendants; represented insurance companies. and in the firm practice on that kind of representation, there is frequently a senior lawyer or junior lawyer, an associate and a paralegal at multiple tiers running up the costs. most plaintiffs' lawyers do not have large firms. many single practitionering pra. and postulate a situation where the fees would be cut even further is just not reasonable or not realistic. when the contention has been made -- just made by the republican leader, repeated earlier contentions -- that there are senators who voted in favor of the kennedy bill on liability reform, it is not so as represented. first of all, senator kennedy's bill in 1995 was a much different, much different bill.

secondly, it was a tabling motion. and those who voted against tabling were willing to consider the issue, not that they agreed with what was in the bill. procedurally when there is a motion to table, if it's passed, the bill is off the floor. if a motion to table is defeated, then the bill remains on the floor for consideration. but it does not mean to people who want to consider the -- that people who want to consider the bill are in agreement that the bill ought to be enacted. the issue of attorneys' fees and the issue of malpractice litigation have really -- really ought to be left to the states in our federal system. and pennsylvania, my state, is illustrative of the way state governments can handle the issue and deal with it to avoid

excesses. in pennsylvania, there was a rule change made to require that before a malpractice suit could be brought, there had to be a certification from a doctor that the case fell below applicable standards of care. a second major change was made which required that the medical malpractice action be brought only in the county where the cause of action took place. and that was a move aimed at eliminatineliminating so-callede shopping, to go a have e venue e there is likely to be a better result. and as a consequence of these two rule changes, the number of filings in pennsylvania dropped dramatically. with a comparison of the years 2000 to 2002, it was noted that

the rates dropped by more than 37% in 2003, continued to decline in every succeeding year, and in 2008 had dropped 41.4%. the improvement in the picture was further illustrated by the fact that the reforms resulted in the reduction of premiums on malpractice insurance. these reductions are in sharp contrast to 2002, when one leading carrier increased its rates an average of 40% and a second leading carrier increased its rates by 45%, and then the

rates had been decreased consistently in ensuing years. other indications of the success of pennsylvania was the renewed interest by companies that want to sell medical malpractice insurance in pennsylvania. 57 newly licensed entities are now writing medical malpractice coverage since april of 2002. now, this is illustrative of the way the states can deal with this issue. and it ought to be left to the states. interestingly, the senator from nevada, who has proposed this amendment, has filed legislation this year -- senate bill 45. and in senate bill 45, he has a different approach. he allocates for some recoveries

up to 40%. and why there is a difference now -- kind of gets back to 33% and then down to 25% is unexplained. so, mr. president, when an amendment of this sort is offered on a bill for comprehensive health care reform, it is not germane to the issues before the senate. the standard of being germane means whether there's any provision in the bill now which relates to this matter. had this really been a serious effort to get legislation, the process and the course to be followed would have bin considerably different. -- would have been considerably different. the way to get legislation enact enacted is not merely to come before some bill and offer it without hearings before the

committee of jurisdiction, without the consideration of witnesses. there have been no hearings on the amendment offered by the senator from nevada. had there been hearings, we would have been in the position to make a determination as to what are the real facts. are the fees collected by plaintiffs' attorneys on a contingent basis excessive? what is the reality for the justification in terms of the time it takes? and the expenses involved? but no request was made, to my knowledge, for a hearing before the judiciary committee which has jurisdiction. i do know that no hearing was held so that we do not have a factual basis for really making an evaluation of this amendment at this time. it is my hope, mr. president,

that we will move from this amendment and take up the issues which are in dispute. we need to eliminate and reject the false rumors which have been advanced. the contention has been made that there would be death panels as a result of this bill. i think that has been thoroughly debunked. there has been a contention that there would be cuts in medicare. we argued an amendment a few days ago on the contention that there would be very substantial cuts in medicare. aarp opposed that amendment because it was fallacious, it was untrue. aarp is an outstanding guardian of the interest and rights of senior citizens and aarp opposed that amendment.

the contention has been made that there will be a government takeover of medical care, which has also been disputed and pretty well disapproved. when the government option is offered, it is just that, and i believe america would be well served by having a robust public option. but the option is nothing more or less than what it says. it is one alternative. and private insurers would still be in the picture. there have been repeated contentions that there will be an increase in the deficit. president obama has pledged not to sign a bill which will add to the deficit, and i am pledged not to -- and i have pledged not to vote for a bill which will add to the deficit. when you take a look at what this bill will accomplish, there are very, very substantial

savings in the -- in the current costs of medical care which is is $2,400,000,000,000. and i'll be specific in what they are. with annual examinations available and incentives for people to take annual examinations, there will be catching what could turn out to be chronic ailments. very disabling, very, very expensive. catching a problem with a cardiac issue, with a heart problem, or catching breast cancer at an early stage or catching a hodgkin's at an early stage. and i speak with some experience about this issue. it will cut down medical expenses tremendously. when there are advance directives, there will also be additional savings. this bill provides for counseling for people who want to know about advance

directives. no one should tell anyone else what they ought to do about end of life medical care, but i think it is fair to say consider it, make a decision, have a living will, do not leave it to the last minute when someone is rushed to the hospital and the burden then falls on family members. estimates range as high as 27% of medicare costs in the last few days, few weeks of a person's life. there are also very substantial savings available for changes in lifestyle. safeway has demonstrated lower insurance premiums for people who stop smoking, lower insurance premiums for people who have lower cholesterol, so that is another major area of savings. an additional area of savings would be to change the current approach of having fines imposed

for medicare -- i ask for 30 additional seconds, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: currently the criminal justice system results most of the time in fines, and that is totally ineffective, but if there were jail sentences imposed, that would be a deterrent to others, something that i learned years ago as a prosecuting attorney. and i think we can also come to terms on the abortion issue, allowing women to pay for abortion coverage in their medical care. no reason they should decide in maintaining the principles of the hyde amendment with no government payment for abortion services. i thank the chair and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois is recognized. mr. durbin: mr. president, i want to thank the gentleman from the commonwealth of pennsylvania for his opening remarks because

he has addressed an issue relative to a spending amendment offered by the senator from nevada, and he makes no -- note of a very critical flaw in this amendment. the senator from nevada is restricting the ability of the victims of medical malpractice to go to court to recover by restricting the attorneys' fees that can be paid, contingency fees, because people usually don't have enough money to buy an attorney, an attorney takes the case and says if i win -- if you win, rather, then i get paid. if you lose, i don't get paid. contingent fee basis. so the senator from nevada is restricting the ability of these attorneys to represent plaintiffs, victims, on a contingency fee basis but doesn't restrict the defense attorneys and the amount that they're paid. as the senator from pennsylvania just noted, the record is clear. the amount of money being paid to defense attorneys in medical

malpractice cases is 50% higher on an annualized basis than that that is paid to those representing victims. the motive -- i won't question the motive of the senator from nevada, but the effect of his amendment is to reduce the likelihood that an injured victim will be able to go to court and be represented by an attorney to make their claim. now, i think our system of justice has a courtroom and jury and judge there to make that final decision, and what the senator from nevada does is preclude and reduce the possibility that victims can recover. how many people die each year in america from medical malpractice? the institute of medicine told us ten years ago the number was 98,000 people a year die from medical malpractice. many more are injured because of medical malpractice. how many lawsuits claims are successfully filed each year in

america for medical malpractice? for injuries and deaths? about 11,000. a very small percentage of the actual victims of malpractice go to court. it just doesn't happen. those who try to go to court are usually not rich people, and so they do it on a contingency fee. so what the senator from nevada is trying to do, unfortunately, is close the courthouse door to favor the defense of a malpractice case over the victim, and that, to me, is unfortunate, and i hope that we are successful in defeating it. for those who were following the proceedings of the senate today, either in person or through c-span, it is unusual -- not unprecedented, but unusual meeting on sunday that we would come together, but it is appropriate that we would do something extraordinary when you consider the matter at hand. this twowp -- this 2,000-page

bill is the health bill that has been in the works now for a year. it has been considered by three committees in the house, two in the senate. the presiding officer from new mexico has the dubious distinction of having been privy to all of the senate committee proceedings and some extraneous proceedings, so he has probably been subjected to more debate on this issue than any other member of the senate. i will tell you that a lot of hard work has gone into this bill. some of the critics of the bill say well, it's just too long. there are too many pages in the bill. when you consider that we are tackling our health care system in america, which comprises 1/6 of our gross domestic product, one out of every six dollars spent in america, it's understandable that we would need to work carefully and try in a comprehensive way to address all the issues. so what does this bill do? first, it's historic in that it moves us toward 94% of american

people having health insurance. today about 50 million people don't have health insurance in america. that's not counting the people with bad health insurance. these are people who have no health insurance. some have lost their jobs. some work for businesses that can't afford insurance. and some just can't afford to buy it themselves, 50 million of them. 30 million of those are going to move toward coverage in this bill. it will be the largest percentage of americans with the security of health insurance protection in our nation's history. that's what this bill does. secondly, this bill makes health insurance premiums more affordable. for over 80% -- some say over 90% of the people in america, they will see either a reduction in premium or a slowdown in the rate of growth in health insurance premiums. that's something that is absolutely essential, because health insurance premiums are breaking the bank. ten years ago, the average health insurance plan for a family of four costs $6,000 a

year. $6,000 is a lot of money. $500 a month. that was ten years ago. now it has doubled. the average is $12,000 a year. $1,000 a month for a family of four for health insurance coverage. that's the average. to work and earn a thousand dollars a month strictly for health insurance. what's the projection in eight years? that it will double again to to $24,000. that you will be working and earning $2,000 a month just to pay for health insurance. that's unaffordable for so many people. that's why that's one of the highest priorities in this bill. the third thing this bill does is to give people across america a fighting chance against the health insurance companies. these private insurance companies are some of the wealthiest companies in america and pay the highest amounts to their c.e.o.'s each and every year. what we are trying to do is to make sure that they don't turn down people when they need help

the most. too many of these insurance companies, as has been noted on the floor many times, raise the issue of pre-existing conditions and say well, we're not going to cover that particular surgery or that particular drug because you had a pre-existing condition you didn't disclose. they gaimed the system against the person who is sick. that's going to change. this bill will provide for coverage despite pre-existing conditions, and we won't allow the insurance companies to assert a limit, a lifetime limit on what they can pay. you know what happens? you get seriously ill and they cut you off. what's happening today is that two out of three people who file for bankruptcy in america today do so because of medical bills, bills that he can't pay. that tells you that the number of people facing this threat is huge, but even worse is the fact that some 70% or 74% of those filing bankruptcy already have

health insurance. it turns out the health insurance wasn't worth much when they really needed it. the last thing this bill does, and one of the most important things, is it doesn't add to the deficit. president obama told us to do this job but don't make the deficit worse. so the congressional budget office, which is the referee and umpire when it comes to the cost of bills, came back and said our bill will actually reduce the federal deficit by $130 billion over the first ten years and and $650 billion over the next ten, bringing down the costs of health care brings down the cost of government health programs, and so it saves us money. saving families and businesses money, saving the government money. it is the largest deficit reduction bill ever considered by congress, and it's before us now. now, it's no surprise we heard this morning from the republican senate leader and we have heard before that there are those who are arguing that this is a dangerous bill, and this bill

should not be passed. i asked my staff to do a little bit of work on previous debates right here on the floor of the united states senate and what was said. in 1934, when congress was considering the social security program which gave everybody a basic retirement plan, an insurance plan for retirement, even after the social security bill came to the senate floor, not including health insurance, a republican senator from delaware, daniel hastings, said on this floor about social security i fear it may end the progress of a great country. a congressman from the state of new york, james wadsworth, in the same debate over social security said that the package of social security opens the door and invites the entrants into the political field of a power so vast, so powerful as to threaten the integrity of our institutions and to pull the pillars of the temple down upon the heads of our descendants,

end of quote. we know that when former senator from ohio robert taft was addressing the effort by president harry truman to have universal health care in america, he said, and i quiet -- "i consider it socialism." it was used against lyndon johnson, that same charge was used against bill clinton. it's virtually being used today. when we hear the republicans who are opposing this bill come to the floor, i have a basic question to ask them -- we have been at this debate for a year. where's your bill? what do you want to do? oh, they tell us we have some bills and you're going to see them any day now. well, i'd like to. i'd like to see the comprehensive health care reform bill from the republican side of the aisle. this is ours and it has been on the internet for two weeks for everybody in this nation to read word by word, line by line. sadly, there is no republican

bill. i know there are two possible reasons for that. this was hard work. this wasn't easy, politically or otherwise, and they have not engaged in that hard work. what we've seen are press releases and speeches, graphs and pictures, but no bill. no comprehensive health care reform bill from the republican side. secondly, there are many on that side of the aisle who like this system of health care. they agree with the health insurance companies. let's keep it the way it is. but americans know better. we're going to go to work today in the senate on this bill, as we should. while we're working today, 14,000 americans are going to lose their health insurance. 14,000 lost their health insurance yesterday and 14,000 will lose it again tomorrow and every single day of the year. that's how many people, despite their best efforts, lose the coverage. we've got to stop that. it's time for us to provide the kind of peace of mind that every single family deserves in america when it comes to quality and affordable health care. and i yield the floor.

mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise this afternoon now to speak about the amendment that we're going to be voting on later today -- or one of the amendments we're going to be voting on later today. as we stand here today, we're debating the bill before the floor -- on the floor, the health care bill that -- where we're trying to do a couple of things at one time, and i think we can and i think this bill does it, even though we'll make some changes to it. we're trying to improve the quality of care for americans, whether they get their care heah care through a public program or a private insurance company or private plan. we're trying to finally use preventive measures to make people healthier and have better health outcomes. we're also working to reduce costs. and if you wanted to talk about it in terms of a doctor and a patient or a health care system

and an america who should benefit from a health care system, we basically want to have the people get the care they need from the doctor they choose. and what what we are engaged in now is a debate about an amendment which the other side says is about the fees going to trial lawyers. that's the way they like to talk about it, and i know that's popular. it's always good to have a -- when the other side makes an amendment like this, they like to have a target so their target is a trial lawyer or trial lawyers. but unfortunately for this debate, i think it's misleading because this amendment that i would urge people to vote against is not about lawyers, it's about victims and whether or not we're going to ensure that victims have a shot, a fair chance when they have a claim

for medical negligence when they've been injured as a result of negligent conduct. i said before we're debating the health care bill and we're talking about costs. this amendment will do nothing to lower costs. what it will do is not really lower anyone's costs. what it will do is increase th the -- the cost or the -- the burden that a claimant has to -- has to bear when they have a claim against any kind of health insurer -- hospital or doctor in the case of a medical negligence case. so the question is: are we going to enable people who don't have the means to bring cases versus very powerful interests or not? that's one of the basic questions we'll answer with regard to this amendment.

now, i would hope that if a member of my family or any family -- and i think this is true of everyone in this chamber -- if a member of your family was the result of medical negligence and had to bring a claim, you would hope that that individual could walk into a courtroom or -- or file a claim with someone who has the skill and the ability to be their advocate. because i'll tell you one thing, they are going to be up against a very powerful interest, insurance companies, who write medical liability policies. an incredibly powerful interest. and a lot of us come at this question through our own personal experience, through the only -- the experience of our families. i had a -- a grandfather that i never met, my father's father, alphonses casey. he was like a lot of people in northeastern pennsylvania, as young kids, went into the coal

mines at a very young age, worked as a mule boy. and one of the days he was tending to the mules in that mine, just as a kid -- 11, 12 years old at the time -- he was kicked by the mule and he got a scar that started above his head -- above his eye browrks et across his face, split his lip and went down one side of his chin. so he understood injury as a child, injury in the course of working. and so i think he also understood that when he became a lawyer many, many years later, well into his adulthood, he understood what it's like to suffer an injury and to -- to make a claim for an injury but but what he did was represent injured workers. that was his law practice. i wonder what he would say if he were here talking about what happens to victims when they're the -- when they have a -- an injury that they want redress for.

now, on -- just like on so many other things here in this deba debate, i think the other side of the aisle's carrying water for the insurance companies. just my opinion but i think that's the case. and yet in the case of medical negligence and what happens in the real world, we know that 98,000 deaths a year are from preventable medical errors. let me say that again. 98,000 deaths in america, according to the institute of medicine, 98,000 deaths a year are from preventable medical errors. so what this amendment does is deny patients the attorney of their choice. it further restricts access to the courts. it drives up costs for victims. and we talk about bringing a case and the barriers to doing that, that isn't some future result of this amendment only. i think that will -- this amendment will make that problem a lot worse.

but right now, no matter what happens in this debate, no matter what happens in this -- on the vote on this amendment, there are barriers right now for people to bring a lawsuit. it costs in many cases thousands, if not tens of thousands, to bring a case and then to see a case all the way through costs a whole lot more than that. what are we talking about here? we're talking about allowing someone who has a claim for a serious injury to go to see a lawyer and to sit down with that lawyer and enter into an agreement for the fee, whatever that fee will be, whatever that will be. and if -- if that lawyer and that person, that patient or victim, goes forward with the case, they bear a risk. they -- the victim bears a risk that they won't be successful and that at the end of that, they will have no recovery at all. but because of the way the contingent fee works, the lawyer bears the risk as well.

he or she will not be paid and has -- stands a risk also of having to -- to pay for costs that the victim can't pay and the lawyer will bear the costs -- bear those costs throughout the pursuit of that case. so here's what we're talking about. it is basically about -- a debate about victims and whether or not they're going to have the kind of representation they ne need. now, if you were going in to have surgery in a hospital, i would hope that the surgeon would be someone of the best -- of the highest skill possible. i would want the best surgeon as i take on that battle. anyone would. and i would hope that we would not do something in this debate to injure or to reduce the chances that a -- a victim of medical negligence can't go into a courtroom or can't file a claim without the best, most highly-skilled person, lawyer

that they can find. i would hope we would not want to do anything that would injure that basic right. and it's -- it's interesting. this amendment applies only to patients. it doesn't apply to anyone else. patients who become victims of medical negligence. and i would say in conclusion, just in terms of what happens in our states, states regulate the conduct of lawyers. they do it all the time. but they also -- we also have evidence to the state -- from the states about what happens in these kinds of cases. in pennsylvania, for example, in most counties in our state, cases going to trial in medical malpractice claims, those kinds of lawsuits in most counties in pennsylvania, 90% -- 90% of those cases are won by the defense, won by the insurance company. that's their -- that's the evidence in pennsylvania. so i know we have others who are

ready to speak on this amendment and others, but i think we should make it very clear, this is a debate on this amendment about two parties: victims of medical negligence versus insurance companies. and it's time to choose up which side you stand on. unfortunately, this amendment is very clearly drafted and intended to help insurance companies, not victims of medical negligence. and i would yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum -- i'll withhold. the presiding officer: the senator from montana is recognized. mr. baucus: mr. president accident for the benefit of all senators, i want to take a moment to review today's program. this is the seventh day of debate on the health care reform bill. it's been nearly 2 1/2 weeks since the majority leader moved to proceed to this bill. we have now considered 14 amendments and we have conducted 10 roll calls. between now and 3:15 this afternoon, the senate will continue to debate the amendment

by the senator from arkansas, senator lincoln, on insurance company executive compensation. at the same time, we'll debate the amendment by senator ensign limiting attorneys' fees. the majority controls the first 60 minutes and the republicans will control the next 60 minutes. at 3:15 p.m., the senate will conduct back-to-back votes on or in relation to the lincoln amendment and the ensign amendment. thereafter, we expect to turn to another democratic first-degree amendment and another republican first-degree amendment. we're working on lining those up at this time. it's possible the senate may vote on those next two amendments today. as a result, additional votes are possible following the two votes at 3:15. once again, i thank all senators for their cooperation and courtesy on this extraordinary weekend session. mr. president, i suggest that senator harkin next be recognized. seven minutes. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa is recognized.

mr. harkin: mr. president, thank you very much. mr. president, i'll have more to say about this later, bus, you know, there's been addition -- but, you know, there's been so much talk about fear here. everybody's got fear, fear. fear. let's get away from that. it's time to quit talking about fear. let's talk about hope. let's talk about the realities of what's affecting people out there and what we're trying to do to make people's lives better. why do we always want to inject fear into people? let's talk about hope. let's talk about real people and what this bill does. mr. president, this is sarah posekany of cedar falls, iowa. and here let me tell you her story. it's incredible. she was diagnosed with chron's disease when she was 15 years old. during her first year of college, she ran into complications, had to drop classes. because she was no longer a full-time student, her parent's health insurance company, her private health insurance company, terminated her coverage. then the medical bills piled up. four years later, she found herself $180,000 in debt, was

forced to file for bankruptcy. sarah has undergone seven surgeries -- seven -- and here's what's disturbing. two of those came about as a direct result of her not being able to afford medication. so again, an incredible story but it's a true story. so many people have to go through this. and what our bill does is our bill says, look, you can stay on your parent's until you're age 26. and guess what, no preexisting conditions will apply to you from here on out. think about sarah when we're talking about this bill and the hope that she needs and so many like her that we're going to change this system to make her life better. second, tasha hudson of des moines, single mother, three kids. she had a job which provided health insurance but she took a new job that paid her more, 50% more. you'd think isn't that the american way? you lerntion you get better, you get a -- you learn, you get better, you get a better-paying job.

the problem is, the private-sector job did not come with health insurance. and despite the higher form of pay, she couldn't afford coverage. ironically, that led to cuts in medicaid benefits and loss of child care services. as a result,tasha is now in the process of returning to a lower-paying job despite its limited opportunities for one reason: because it will provide health insurance for her family. these are real people. these are the people that we need to give hope to. here is one last one. eleanor pierce, cedar falls, iowa. she lost her job when her company was eliminated. she had the option of purchasing cobra but couldn't afford t so she searched for coverage but because of high blood pressure, preexisting condition, she was denied access. so age 62, suffering from high blood pressure, no choice but to go without insurance. mr. president, that's why we need this bill. not for fear -- let's quit

talking about fear. let's talk about hope for the people i've just talked about. the hope that their lives will be better, that they'll get the insurance coverage they'll need, that they'll be able to get on with their lives and not have to go so far in debt that they have to -- have to go into bankruptcy. mr. president, if you are a 62-year-old woman with a serious heart condition like eleanor has, high blood pressure, you just don't have a prayer, you're on your own and the odds of premature death are disturbingly high. we can and must do better. and that's what we ought to be talking b hope for the future, not fear. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, i yield the senator from connecticut all the remaining time. and if he wants to speak longer,

i think we can work some ampghts with the other side. mr. dodd: how much time remains? the presiding officer: eight minutes respecminutes remain. mr. dodd: mr. president, i'm going to -- some of these numbers get thrown around and it is almost dizzying. i wonder how the average person, someone even intently listening to these debated, can sort it all out. 31 million to 47 million who have no coverage. 14,000 people in our country every day who lose health care either because they're thrown in personal bankruptcy or medical costs, job loss -- around the country, 14,000 a day, every day, seven days a week. just seven or eight days we have been debating this legislation, just run the numbers yourself over that period of time how many of our fellow citizens across the country have found themselves now in that freefall, that dreaded fear that a child of yours or a spouse may end up

needing care. this is not like you can postpone the decision till some later time, whether or not to take the vacation, or to buy that new car, or to spend more than you thought you would over the holidays now coming up. you've now got an emergency, what do you do? sometimes the sheer magnitude of the numbers can cause us to lose sight of the individual stories that go on, anecdotes that are not exclusive or isolated but commonplace stories that are happening as we speak here on this sunday on a rare sunday session of the united states senate, because of the importance of this issue. so i rise today to share a few stories of my own state that i think put a face on these issues, and why we're here. let me start by asking some questions because i think too often when we debate these issues, sometimes we're so removed, as members of this body, as federal employees, so removed from what goes on in the daily lives of the people we

represent that we fail to appreciate what's happening right outside these doors from this very chamber on a daily, on an hourly occasion. of the 535 of us who have the privilege of serving in the united states congress -- these are members of the other body or of this body or of the federal employees. none ever us are worried about losing other health care. not a single member here ever spends a nanosecond worrying about whether or not they'll be dropped from their health care coverage. not one. is there anybody among the 535 of us that ever worries about whether or not we'll be able to afford that care, that health care insurance? i don't know if anyone ever worries about that, of the 535 who are here. has anyone ever been up late with a child or loved one and wondered whether or not they'll be able to athe treatment, the child may need or that spouse in i would go so far to say that i don't think that happens here. i think all of us -- god forbid we're confronted with a child or

loved one that needs that care, we may worry about that. but we're not going to worry about whether or not the insurance will be there or we'll have the ability to pay it. not a one of us worries about that. has anyone ever spent hours going from voice mail to voice veil to voice mail trying to figure out why the insurance company slid refuses to pay your spouse's cancer treatments? has that ever happened to anyone here? i doubt it. i sincerely doubt it. is there anyone stuck in a job that pays very little because you can't afford to change jobs because you got a preexisting condition and you know if you go it to that new job that may pay more, you're going it find yourself without the insurance coverage to take care of that preexisting condition? no one here worries about being in that particular -- that particular predicament. has anyone been drive noon bankruptcy here, any members of congress, here because they had a medical crisis? we now know that 62% of

bankruptcy this year alone with medically related. and 70% of that 62% have medical insurance. as a small business owner, we had to choose between cutting coverage or putting your employees out of work. well, the answer to all of these questions obviously is a resounding "no," mr. president. none of us have ever had to grapple with what 14,000 people do in this country every day who lose their coverage or the underinsured who discover all of a sudden that coverage they thought they had doesn't quite cover the problems or the out-of-pocket expenses you have to pay before getting to insurance are so high that you can't possibly meet them. that goes on every minute of every day all across our nation. and it's why we're here on this sunday in december, to try and finally see if we cannot come to terms and start moving on a coverage program, a health care coverage, health insurance program that makes it possible forual of our fellow citizens to

be in that same position we are. none of us are immune from health care crises. all of us have grappled with that from one time or another. we don't worry about losing our coverage, having to go through what every other citizen does every single day. these are real people that go through this. we need to step back. we get so lost in the weeds on this debate. we're losing sight of the whole. that is, for 80 years every single congress whether it's been controlled by republicans or democrats, whether a democrat or republican has been in the white house, we have been unable to even come close to solving this problem. we are now that close, closer than we have ever been in our history, to coming up with a health care system that can begin to take care with that basic right every american ought to have, and it is a right, that if you're a citizen of the united states and you get sick, you ought not to be shoved into

bankruptcy, lose your job or your family suffer because of your economic circumstances. the privilege of getting good health care ought not to be based on wealth. it ought to be based on the fact that we live in the united states of america and we are able to take care of our fellow citizens when they reach those difficult, difficult times that every one of us will at one point or another. so, mr. president, there are stories again -- and i know my colleagues have them as well -- a young woman in connecticut, maria, diagnosed with nonhodgkin's lymphoma. found out that maria had once gone to a doctor for what she thought was a pinched never. the insurance company decided that that doctor visit meant maria's condition was preexisting condition, denied her claim. how many times have we heard those stories in she passed away, by the way, from that illness. a young man named frank from my state disclosed that he sometimes got headaches. several months after, he got his policy and the went in for a routine eye cham.

doctors saw something he didn't like. sent frank to a neurologist who told him he had multiple sclerosis. frank's insurance company decided that frank should have known that his occasional headaches were a sign of m.s. and took away his coverage. retroactively, mr. president. frank's doctor wrote them a letter saying there was no way anyone could have success specked that problem. an ordinary headache was related to multiple sclerosis. the insurance company left frank high and dry, sticking him with a $30,000 medical bill he couldn't afford. frank's conditions got worse, left his job, went on public assistance. kevin galvin, a small business owner in my state. a number of times -- and we've talk the over the laflt year or so -- his company -- kevin owns a small business, a maintenance company, employees seven people, some only older, some younger. can't afford to insure them. his younger employees use the emergency proem as their regular

doctor. one of them has a child with an ear infection -- the presiding officer: the majority time has expired. mr. dodd: i thank you. could i just have one additional minute, i ask my colleagues? a senator: i ask unanimous consent for an additional minute. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. dodd: i thank my colleague. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dodd: i thank my colleague. mr. dodd: kevin has three employees in their 20's and 30's. this is kevin here in this maintenance shop in hartford, connecticut. never had a dental cleaning. one with two children to support. out of work, nearly died from a staph infection he got from an untreated calf tivment kevin has been work hard to provide for these people. he's recently lost people who have worked for him because they could have health care coverage. here san employee taking a drop in income in order to get a job where he can have some health

insurance. and again these small business operators exist all across our country. my simple point being is this: anyone who suggests that this bill is the end-all obviously hasn't been through this process over the last number of weeks. there will be a lot more work that will need to be done in the years to come. but we need to do what no other congress has done before: we need to start. that's what we are attempting to do with this. that's the reason i feel so passionately about getting this bill passed and moving forward. i urge my colleagues to join in that effort. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the senator from wyoming is recognized. mr. enzi: i would yield five minutes to the senator from new hampshire and then ten minutes to the senator from texas. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mr. gregg: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that during the next hour which we control that we be allowed to enter into colloquies on our side of the aisle. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gregg: mr. president, we've certainly heard a lost talk about medicare over the last few days, and we've actually even voted one few

amendments, but they've all had no force of law and they've just been statements of purpose. they are called sense of the senates. and every one of these sense of the senates has had as its purpose to try to give political cover to members on the other side relative to the issue of the fact that this bill reduces medicare spending by close to half a trillion dollars in the first ten years, $1 trillion when it's fully implemented over a ten-year period, and $3 trillion over the first 20 years. and that those reductions in spending in medicare are going to translate immediately and unquestionably into a reduction in service and coverage for medicare recipient senior citizens. and the money from that, the half a trillion dollars in the first ten years, the $1 trillion in the ten years that we're --

full implementation, the $3 trillion over 20 years that's being taken out of the senior citizen program called comairks is going to be moved over into a brand-new entitlement program. and into the expansion of medicaid. it will -- those dollars will be used to create new federal programs for people who have never paid in for the most part to the medicare hospitalization fund, for people who are not seniosenior citizens, and theree do not arguably deserve to eve receive the benefit of the medicare hospitalization fund. and, as a result, seniors will see their benefits reduced and other people will get a new benefit from the federal government. ironically, the new benefit, this new entitlement, will not adequately be funded either, but large portions of what part of that is funded is going to come from the medicare trust fund. the problem here is that the

medicare trust fund is insolvent. it's $38 trillion of outstanding exposure to the medicare trust fund which we don't know how we're going to pay for as seniors retire over the next 20, 30, 40 years. and, thus, a reduction in the benefits to medicare, a reduction to medicare recipients, a redaks from the medicare -- a reduction from the medicare trust fund, $1 trillion when it's fully implemented, and $3 trillion over the next 20 years, that type of reduction shouldn't go to create new federal programs if it is going to be done at all. it should go to making the medicare trust fund more solvent. well, that's been essentially the tenure of some of the proposals from the other side of the aisle. we've heard a lot of people from the other side of the aisle say,

lrtd, we're not going to cut medicare. we're not going to cut medicare. we're just going to reduce it by half a trillion dollar. and then we're going to create a new program with it. we're not going to do this to the seniors. we're not going it take their money and start new programs. we heard that statement in different levels of imagination from the other side quite regularly. i do , however, for the record want to say because i have immense respect for him. he's been totally forthcoming on these issues and very accurate in his statement that the chairman of the committee, the finance committee, has not represented that that's what's happening with the medicare funds. he has represented here on the floor that those medicare funds that are being reduced, those reductions in medicare spending are going to go to create a new program. but there are a lot of folks on the other side of the aisle who said they don't agree with that, they don't want to do that and that's not what they're intending to do in some of of these sense of the senates around here have had that implication clearly in their

passage. so what does this amendment do that i'm going to be offering? it shoots with real bullets. no longer is it a political statement, a sense of the sena senate, a thought process, a virtually event that you want to protect the medicare trust fund. no. this amendment is real. it protects the medicare trust fund. real, hard language which says that if you vote for this amendment, you're voting not to move medicare trust fund dollars out of the medicare trust fund, away from medicare recipients over to start a new program. that any new programs started in this bill must be paid for by medicare -- by something other than medicare. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. gregg: i'd ask unanimous consent for an additional minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gregg: so this is -- this shoots with real bullets. essentially, this says that if you vote for this amendment,

you're voting to keep the medicare dollars with medicare, not to take those dollars that are being cut out of senior citizens programs and move them over to create a brand-new set of programs at the federal level. this is going to be the vote, folks. i believe this derpz whether ors whether or not we raid the medicare funds for the purposes of creating a new federal program or whether or not we maintain the integrity of the medicare system. thisystem. this is a serious amendment and it's a real amendment. it's no sense of the senate about this. this is language which is enforceable. so anybody voting against this amendment is formally voting, unquestionably and uny givally to take half a trillion dollars -- and unequivocally to take half a trillion dollars in the first ten years of medicare funds and move them over to fund new programs. to take a trillion dollars when this program is fully implemented of medicare funds and move them over to fund new

programs. to take $3 trillion over the next 20 years of medicare benefits, which should be going to seniors if they're going to be -- because they're medicare funds or should be at least benefiting the solvency of the medicare funds, and moves them over to create new programs. anybody who votes against this amendment is accomplishing that. they're cutting medicare for the purposes of creating a new program. if you vote for this amendment, to the extent medicare savings occur, they will not be used to fund new programs. very simple amendment but it's an enforceable amendment and it's a real amendment. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, the president of the united states is reportedly traveling to capitol hill to meet with senate democrats here in just a few moments. unfortunately, republicans are not invited, which is really a -- follows an established pattern here, where notwithstanding the -- the

public statements that republican ideas are welcome, they've been rejected at every stage of the development of this 2,074-page bill. party-line votes in the health, education, labor, and pensions committee, in the finance committee, every -- virtually every republican idea rejected. so the president's coming to rally our democratic friends to basically do it a may way or the highway sort of thing. they're going to, of course, tone 1,000%. and i think it's perhaps very timely to recall some of the president's promises, because, frankly, if the president follows the promises he's made to the american people, he won't be able to sign this bill or anything like it. first of all, talking about transparency, he said, "we're going to have negotiations around a big table." we're going to have it on c-span so people can see who's making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who's making arguments on behalf of the drug

companies or the insurance companies. but the reality is that this bill was merged between the -- the finance committee bill and the "help" committee bill merged behind closed doors with only three senators present, and they're -- presumably there's staff. another promise the president made, he said, "the plan i'm announcing tonight" -- this is i believe during the joint session of congress that we all attended. he said, "the plan i'm announcing tonight will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government." this is a pledge the president of the united states made to the american people. because that was his stated goal for these -- for this bill. we see something very different in this 2,074-page bill, a different reality. we see that premiums for those in the individual market, families, will be increased by

10% by 2016, according to the congressional budget office. you don't have to take my word for it. it's not some insurance company talking. this is the congressional budget office. businesses who fail to comply with this job-killing -- with the job-killing mandates in this bill will face additional taxes of $28 billion, yes, during a recession, when unemployment is at 10%. that's according to the congressional budget office. taxpayers will see federal outlays for health care coverage increase by about $160 billion over ten years. and here's from the dean of the harvard medical school, he said, "in discussions with dozens of health care leaders and economists, i find near unanimity of opinion that whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from congress will markedly accelerate health care spending." "markedly accelerate health care spending." so much for bending the

proverbial cost curve. and then there is this promise. another solemn promise. the president said, "i have made a solemn pledge that i will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every american" -- this bill obviously does not -- and it will cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year." as i mentioned, under the congressional budget office score, the average premium for families in the individual market will go up by $2,100, not go down by $2,500. another promise made that will not be kept if this bill is passed into law. and then the president talked about deficits, and there's been a lot made over this bill being so-called deficit-neutral, which, of course, means if you cut enough benefits for seniors and you raise taxes enough on everybody else, you can produce a deficit-neutral bill.

but this bill will spend $2.5 trillion over the next ten years after full implementation. well, president obama's own chief actuary at the center for medicare and medicaid services called the ability to sign a bill like this without raising the deficit unrealistic and doubtful. david broder, the dean of the washington press corps, said while the c.b.o. has said that both the house-passed bill and the one reid has drafted meet obama's tests for being budget-neutral, every expert i've talked to says that the public has it right. these bills as they stand now are budget busters. and then there's the promise of choice. the president said, the american people ought to have choice when it comes to health care, choice of their doctors and health plans. but the fact of the matter is, this bill would consign 60 million americans to a health care gulag called medicaid. i say that because although

medicaid provides what some people would say is coverage, it certainly doesn't provide access. in the met spro plex of texas, the dallas-fort worth area, only 15% of doctors will see new medicaid patients because of medicaid's low rates. and then there's this claim that it won't raise taxes. well, the joint committee on taxation caidz tha indicates thf the people earning less than $200,000 a year will see a tax increase under this bill. in other words, this is another promise the president made that will be sphrieltd this bill is passed into law -- that will be violated if this bill is passed into law because taxes will go up for 38% of the people. and it -- as a matter of fact, out of that 38%, 24% of them will experience a tax increase even after taking into account the premium tax credit that is

being paid under this bill. another promise made. another promise that cannot be kept if this bill becomes law. and then there's this one. the president said, "so don't pay attention to the scare stories about how your benefits might be cut that. will never happen on my watch." he said, i'll protect medicare. well, we've seen time and time again, dr. elmendorf, the head of the congressional budget office, who said that medicare's managed care plans would see reduced benefits. i'm sorry, that's -- that's th the -- according to cbs news. but here's the chief actuary who said, "providers might end their participation in the program possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries." dr. elmendorf was the one who said you would see the additional benefits that seniors get under medicare advantage cut by about half. another promise made. another promise broken.

if this bill becomes law. and then there's this one. this pe pertains to the ensign amendment that's pending on the floor. the president said, "i want to work with the american medical association so we can scale back the excessive defensive medicine that reinforces our current system and shift to a system where we are providing better care simply rather than simply more treatment. so this is going to be a priority for me." well, if this is a priority for the president of the united states, it's apparently not a priority of those who've authored this bill, because all that's contained in this bill is a nonbinding sense of the sena senate. we've heard that medical liability reform laws like those that have been passed and implemented in texas, if passed nationwide in this health care reform bill could bend the cost durvcostcurve by $54 billion ovn years. and yet all we get is a

watered-down sense of the senate that has no binding effect at all. mr. president, if the president was sincere about making those promises to the american people, then this congress ought to be sincere about helping him keep that promise. and the fact of the matter is, time after time after time after time again, this bill breaks the promises that president obama made to the american people. it's not too late to change that and i hope today when he meets with senate democrats behind closed doors, to the exclusion of republicans, that there will be some discussion of, mr. president, how can we help you keep those promises to the american people, because this bill does not. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming is recognized. mr. enzi: mr. president, i would yield such time as he needs to the senator from nevada, doing

the colloquy that we have the uniform -- had the unanimous consent for earlier. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada is recognized. a senator: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. gregg: i ask fourth proceedings under the quorum be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president, i am pleased to see my friends on the floor again today, very intelligent people like the senator from new hampshire and my friend, senator enzi, who is a expert on the issue, and the rest of us who just know that a fight that's not joined is a

fight not enjoyed. so i look forward again to another spirited discussion with my colleagues. but maybe if i could just take up -- start with -- if i could just take up a point about the debate and discussion we had yesterday on the floor. would the senator from montana, the chairman of the committee -- with the senator from montana, it is chairman of the committee, where he asked me why did i think that certain groups supported the -- this legislation that's pending before the senate. and i said i didn't know what kind of deals had been cut. and i referred to the deal that was made with pharma and others. and so i didn't know exactly why because i'm not taken into the discussions and negotiations off the floor in the office wa -- in the office of the majority leader. there seems to have been some blowback on that and somebody who said that maybe that wasn't appropriate to talk about deals that were cut. well, i note this morning on the

front page of the "washington post" that it says, "deals cut with health groups may be at peril." "deals cut with health groups may be at peril." now, perhaps "the washington post" is impugning the integrity or reputation of someone or staffers or others. they've certainly impugned mine from time to time, but the fact is that this is a news story: "deals cut with health groups may be at peril." so -- so again i go back very briefly, mr. president, because we have a lot to talk about, my colleagues and i do. the fact is there have been deals cut, just like is reported in "the washington post" this morning, just as has been reported all over america about the deals that have been cut with various interest groups that don't necessarily represent the people they claim to represent. i know that the american medical

association does not represent the majority of physicians and caregivers in the state of arizona. i know that because i know too many of them. so -- but i also know that they have a very large lobbying presence here in our nation's capitol as does the other interested groups that have -- quote -- cut deals with -- that may be at peril now, according to "the washington post." so with that, i would like to obviously mention again that the doctor is in, and would the doctor care to give us some enlightened information before we give our various opinions on this issue? mr. barrasso: thank you very much, because i agree with the senator from arizona. i took -- i looked at another one of his favorite newspapers, "the new york times" today, because we have on this floor -- we have on this floor said that the democrat proposal is cutting

medicare, cutting the medicare that the seniors of this country depend upon for their health care, and we pointed out that they have taken $120 billion away from medicare advantage. $11 million seniors use medicare advantage. one out of four seniors on medicare. the reason they sign up for medicare advantage is because there's an advantage to doing it for the seniors. preventative care, coordinated care, things that we know are important. yesterday on this floor, the democrats voted to cut cut $42 billion away from home health care. this is a life line for homebound patients. it helps keep them out of the hospital, out of the nursing homes, and yet in spite of all of the letters that we've read from patients as well as the home health care communities and all of our states, they have cut that. but yet the democratic -- the majority whip came to the floor at the opening of the session today and said oh, we have handled all of that.

we have handled all of that with a wonderful resolution. they said of the senate by senator michael bennet. "the new york times" about that resolution said democrats decided to respond, respond to the republicans saying hey, you're cutting medicare for our seniors. the democrats decided to respond with a meaningless amendment. "new york times" editorial today, a meaningless amendment. we knew it was meaningless, and we know they're cutting medicare. from the seniors who depend upon it, medicare advantage, from hospitals, from nursing homes, from hospice, from home health care. this is robbing the people who need this care, deserve the care. and if you said, you know, maybe we should take a look at medicare, then do it, mr. president, to save medicare, to save medicare that we know is going broke. and i see the senator from new hampshire is here who has been an expert on this topic of the budgets and ways we can save medicare. so i would say to my friend from

new hampshire is this not true? the democrats have proposed a meaningless amendment, but they are cutting the guts out of the medicare program that the seniors of this country are depending upon. mr. gregg: it's absolutely true. these sense of the senate amendments which we have had from the other side of the aisle on medicare are political amendments meant to make a bill statement, but they have no substantive effect. that's why i brought forward my amendment which hopefully will be voted on the next couple of days or so which says specifically what the senator from wyoming has asked for. reductions in medicare spending -- and there may need to be some -- that those reductions are reserved for the seniors to benefit their program and to make medicare more solvent, and that no new programs be created on the backs of seniors by cutting medicare and moving the money from medicare over to new programs. my amendment is not a sense of the senate. my amendment is a real amendment. it's the one chance people are going to have to either vote for protecting medicare and not creating new programs with

medicare money or not, and that's what it's going to be. mr. mccain: the senator from new hampshire, your amendment is exactly the same as the white house sense of the senate amendment, and the bennet amendment, only it has the actual force of law. mr. gregg: absolutely, it's not exactly the same in the sense that it's real. you know, theirs isn't real. mine's real. it says you're going to keep the medicare money to benefit medicare, and you're not going to use the medicare money for the purposes of creating new programs which have nothing to do with medicare for people who are not on medicare. a senator: another place in this bill that they have a sense of the senate that's not real -- medical liability reform. mr. ensign: mr. president back in september when he addressed the nation, he said that there is a problem with medical liability laws that we have, that there are defensive medicine -- there is defensive medicine being practiced in the country, there are unnecessary tests. well, let me show you the amount

of money that they're going to save with their medical liability reform in this bill. that's it. that's how much their sense of the senate on medical liability reform is going to save. now, medical liability reform that several of us have introduced is a real medical liability reform. several of us have been working on that. the savings from a real medical liability reform, $100 billion. so we have at least said we have an amendment we're going to vote on later today. let's at least do something maybe to get the ball rolling. the president suggested getting the ball rolling on medical liability reform. well, back in 1995, senator ted kennedy offered an amendment that would at least happen attorneys' fees. these are contingency fees. 21 democrats who were here back in 1995 who are here now, back in 1995 voted for those. those included senators akaka,

baucus, bingaman, boxer, byrd, conrad, dodd, dorgan, feingold, feinstein, harkin, inouye, kerry, kohl, lautenberg, leahy, levin, mikulski, murray, reid, and specter. all 21 of these senators voted for caps on attorneys' fees. that would at least do something. that would help get the ball rolling on medical liability reform, but the same thing that they've done with medicare, saying that they are going to keep medicare savings in medicare, that they haven't done, not real. nor gregg has a real amendment to fix that. i have a real amendment to fix the medical liability reform that hopefully will be voted on later as well, but at least let's go for a little bit of a compromise right now. mrs. hutchison: will the senator from nevada yield? mr. ensign: i will be happy to yield. mrs. hutchison: i have real statistics. we hear the other side saying we're going to lower the cost. that's what health care reform is about, lowering the cost of

health care reform so -- health care so more people will have access to affordable options, and yet the main one that is clearly available is medical malpractice reform, tort reform. and i know the senator from nevada has an amendment and i'm a cosponsor. let me just give you some statistics about how we could save money. mr. mccain: could i ask the senator from texas, isn't it true that it is the state of texas that's the demonstration project for medical malpractice reform? mrs. hutchison: exactly, and let me tell you what it has done in texas and something we could do and i think we would have bipartisan, hundred% support in this body because that would be reform that would help health care. since medical malpractice and tort reform has been passed in texas, over 7,000 new physicians have flooded into our state. 7,000 increase.

reason: tort reform. since passed just five -- six years ago, physicians in texas have saved $574 million in liability premiums and their liability rates have been cut an average of 27.6%. almost 30% cut in premiums. and what has this done? today, we have in rural counties now the number of obstetricians has increased by 27%. 12 counties did not have one obstetrician before this was passed and now they do. 24 points had no emergency room physicians and now they do. and 58 points in addition to that have added one more. rural counties are the ones that have suffered the most, and every state in this union has rural counties, every one. they're the ones who are hurt

the most, and yet the medicare cuts will take $135 billion out of rural hospitals' ability to serve medicare patients, and there is no medical malpractice reform, unless, of course, in a future bipartisan effort and gesture we can pass the ensign amendment which we are offering to try to make this a bipartisan bill that can really work. and we've seen from senator ensign's charts that democrats have supported limits on lawyer fees so that we would be able to cut back on the frivolous lawsuits that have been hampering our ability to cut the costs in medicare. so i appreciate so much that senator ensign is offering this amendment because texas can show us that this will work. it would be meaningful reform, it would cut the costs and make

health care more available, and most important, it will give patients the opportunity to have doctors in their rural communities that will not practice today because their liability premiums are so high, they cannot afford to stay in medicine and give this care to those rural patients. mr. mccain: may i just say in the immortal words of howard dean, the former chairman of the democratic national committee, he put it simply, and i quote: -- the reason why tort reform is not in the bill -- talking about this bill -- the reason why tort reform is not in the bill because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth." now, that's the truth. i totally agree with howard dean. i could not agree with him more. mrs. hutchison: if the senator will yield, in addition to that,

the house said we have medical malpractice reform. they put it in their bill. you know what it says? there will be a state grant program and states can come in if they can show that they have made a meaningful effort at curbing frivolous lawsuits. but the only two reasons that a state would not be eligible are if lawyer fees are capped or if we have any kind of limits on the lawsuits. lawyer fees capped, damages capped. that's off the table. so i'm thinking to myself maybe -- maybe the senator from nevada could tell me if you don't curb lawyer fees and you don't curb the caps, now, so what meaningful reform do you think we could get in medical malpractice? mr. ensign: no question, those are the two most important types

of reforms for medical liability laws that have been placed in the states, in my state of nevada, california, texas, colorado, the very states, the caps are the things that have shown the reductions in the medical liability premiums for doctors are the things that have shown the reduction in just the overall costs of our health care system. and this is interesting. this is from the washington university law quarterly. i'd like to submit this for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ensign: let me quote, because the other side is talking about these contingency fees, that they need these contingency fees to be able to take on these lawsuits, especially for those who are very, very poor, and they say that it's the only way for this to happen. well, when figure -- let me quote this -- "since 1960, the effective hourly rates of tort lawyers" -- these are the personal injury attorneys --

"have creased 1000% to 1400% during this period since 1960." so the lawyers, basically, have created all these laws that make it easier for them to sue so their contingency rates have gone up 1000% to 1400% since 1960, and yet there is no more increased risk, there is probably decreased risk, it's easier to sue nowadays. so this comes down to are you on the patient's side or are you on the lawyer's side, the personal injury attorneys? whose side are you on? we're on the side of the patients. the other side seems to be on the side of the trial bar. mr. sessions: well, i thank the senator from arizona for driving home this point. the reason that malpractice litigation reform is not in the bill is simple, plea, and known to every member of this body

because it's opposed by the plaintiff trial lawyers who are big supporters of democratic members of the body and the president. now, that's true. now, let me ask dr. barrasso, doctor, can you think of any other thing that we could do in reforming health care that could save $100 billion and not diminish the quality of care in america? is there anything else? and how do your fellow doctors feel about that? mr. barrasso: when i talk talk to other doctors, they practice defensive medicine. tests that don't necessarily help a patient get better, get well, but just in case they are covered in case something happens and they're named in a suit. it is not unusual, when you look at the numbers, we're talking about $100 billion a year in tests that are done that don't necessarily help swb get better but they're doing it because of the legal atmosphere in this country. but, you know, here we are on the senate floor on a sunday

afternoon, the president is less than 100 yards away, former member of this body, he ought to be involving all senators. he's meeting behind closed doors, possibly cutting deals, trying to come to arrangements, twisting arms, asking people to march -- follow his marching orders, right off a cliff i think is going to be coming for health care in america. i think he ought to be involving all americans. we're out here talking to the people of the country. we aren't hiding behind closed doors. people who aren't part of those discussions are completely cut out. i know my colleague from tennessee has been outstanding and outspoken on these very issues but we are here. we want to visit with people because we do have solutions that work that are not going to increase the cost of care, which we're seeing now, that is not going to cut comairks which is what the democrats are proposing, that are not going to increase taxes, and is not going to drive up the premiums. the whole idea behind this was

to get the costs under control. and senator ensign's amendment does that by taking a look at the lawsuit abuse that we look at in this country. but i turn to my colleague from tennessee, who i know has some more points he'd like to make on this. mr. corker: thank you, senator. and i know all of us benefit from your background as a physician and your knowledge of the industry. and i want to thank the senator from arizona for spending a lifetime focusing on how special interests affect this body. i was thinking about this meeting that's taking place in the capitol not far from us, from 2:00 to 3:00, with the president and 60 of our colleagues on the left, and i have this image of a -- you kn know, they're twisted up like pretzels because of the fact that there are some interest groups that they have to sort of kowtow to. and i have this image of a bunch of them up in the room with a yoga instructor just kind of

loosening up because they're so twisted in knots trying to basically undo all the pledges they've made to so many groups. i mean, i think about, for instance, senator ensign's amendment to deal with medical malpractice, but "no," the trial lawyers keep them from doing that. i think about the kind of things that senator mccain ran on as president, that judd gregg and i and many others have looked at, trying to make sure that people in this country ha have choice. we create a market system that allows people to have choice, but they cannot do that because the unions don't want them to do that. so the unions don't allow them to cap the exclusion, which many of us have talked about. the unions keep them from doing appropriate health care reform. and instead what happens is, in order to make this work -- again, they're so twisted up -- and remember that peter orszag, the major guru within this administration regarding health care, has say the say said thatg

that would help bend the cost curve down is these exclusions. i am so glad that senator gregg which has the integrity and long standing knowledge to deal with this is offering an amendment that absolutely makes sure -- and i know that yesterday i was challenged by senators on the other side of the aisle. but there's no doubt that bill throws seniors under the bus. we have an insolvent program that money is being taken from to create a whole new entitlement. it's leveraging. and if that's not throwing seniors under the bus, i don't know what is. okay? so we have a program that is throwing seniors under the bus because the unions cannot be offended, the trial lawyers cannot be offended, so many other groups -- aarp can't be offended. aarp cannot be offended. and then we also lock 15 of the 31 million americans -- 15 million of the 31 million americans receives henge health care into a -- americans

receiving health care into a program that they have nothing to do with. medical malpractice exclusions, those kinds things that we as republicans have put forward from day one. so the senator from arizona is doing is an outstanding job pointing out the conflicts of interest, the confliblghts of interest that exist in this bill. we have a group on the other side of the aisle that won't address health care in the appropriate way. and i believe are in another room twisted up in knots with themselves trying to figure out a way to get out of this box that they've put themselves into and a president who's basically giving them a pep talk to keep them from getting out of the box. mr. -- senator, thank you so much. mr. mccain: our republican leader is here on the floor of the senate. he can speak for himself. but i'm sure that he would appreciate the opportunity if

the president would come and sit down and meet with us. we're -- i think we are a all ready to have a meeting with him and perhaps be able to give us our input and recommendations as to what we need to do to get this bill unstuck. that was -- as i recall the campaign, and i'm really getting tired of going down memory lane here. but that was -- that was going to be the change -- that was going to be the change in washington. we're going to change the climate. we're all going to sit down together, republicans and democrats, and i think on this sunday afternoon we're available, aren't we, i would ask the senator from kentucky? mr. mcconnell: i would say to my friend from arizona, normally we'd be watching a redskins game today. but we're here and ready to sit down with the president and ready to discuss with the american people this issue. you know, it was said at the beginning of the debate that they wanted to come up with a bill that would pass with 80 votes. well, the way to do that is not to craft a tbhail no republican can support and to be in the position that they're in now

trying to get every single democrat in line so they can pass this bill, even though they know the american people are overwhelmingly opposed to it. all the surveys indicate the american people do not want us to pass this bill. they would like for us to stop, start over, and get it right with some of the suggestions that have been made here on the floor today and other days dhiewrg debate. mr. mccain: could we perhaps do that in the most effective fashion if we sat down with the president and made some of the points, some of them that he made in his state of the union message? i'd like to turn to the senator from south dakota. i'd like to mention a face on this issue of tort reform that i've never really quite gotten over. one of the most famous cases of the 1970's and i think it spilled over into the 1980's is agent orange, the defoaliant used during the vietnam war and caused so many problems to our physical -- physical problems to our vietnam veterans that were exposed to it.

a big class action suit, trial lawyers won. trial lawyers got paid off first. vietnam veterans died before the money was distributed to them. i'll never get over that. mr. thune: well, i think the reason we're here today, the ensign amendment, the gregg amendment strikes at the very crux and core and very heart of what this is all about. because the democrat majority was unwilling to take on the trial lawyers, unwilling to do things that actually bend the cost curve down, like capping contingency fees, we are faced with voting on the ensign amendment which would do that, but we're also voting on the gregg amendment, whic because ty weren't willing to put actual measures in this bill that would bend the cost curve down, what thethey've had to resort to is cutting medicare to pay for t a $2.5 trillion expansion of the federal government has to be financed somehow because there aren't any real cost-saving measures in here. and the i want to point out to my colleagues exactly in spite of all that where we are.

the congressional budget office says that even with all the medicare cuts and all the tax increases that are in here, we actually still increase spending in this country on health care. the cost curve goes up. the blue line represents the existing cost curve if nothing is done. if we did nothing today, that's what would happen. that's the blue line. the red line represents what happens under this bill. we actually raise the cost curve even more. cost for health care in this country under this legislation go up $160 billion. now, how does that affect the individual family? i want to show you exactly what this means in terms that i think most americans can understand. this is the example of a family of four who today, paying $13,000 -- a little over $13,000 for their health insurance. under this bill, their life doesn't get any better. in the year 2016, they're going to be paying over $20,000 a year

in health insurance. so what happens is they have locked in the status quo, and that status quo is year over year increases that are double the rate of inflation. all because they are unwilling to put measures in this bill that actually do control costs. now, if we did something along the lines of the ensign amendment that actually would get these contingency fees under control and if we all have statistics, the c.b.o. says that would bend the cost curve down. we've all talked to physicians in our own states -- i talked to a physician who unsolicited said that 50% of the tests that he does are to avoid being sued. 50% of the tests that he conducted are defensive medicine. that drives the cost of health care up for everybody. that's why the ensign amendment is so important. unfortunately, why we have to vote on the gregg amendment. the gregg amendment forces the democrats to put their money where their mouth is and to see if they really mean what they say, that they want all these savings in medicare to go into medicare. we all know that's not true. to pay for a $2.5 trillion

expansion of the federal government and create an entirely new entitlement, you've got to take the cuts in medicare and put them into this new entitlement program. and so we're voting on a couple of amendments today that will ensure that seniors in this country are not going to be faced with cuts to their benefits, health care agencies, insuring homes, hospitals, all those that receive the cuts under this bill and actually trying to substitute in there something that would get costs under control, would according to the c.b.o. drive the cost curve down, would do something about these year-over-year, double-the-rate of inflation increases that the average american family is seesmght that is when the c.b.o. says to the average american family if this bill passes. today they're paying $13,000 a year for health insurance, a family of four. in the year 2016, they'll be paying over $20,000 a year. tell me how is that reform? how does -- how can anybody go to an average american family with a straight face and say, we are reforming health care when all you're doing is locking in

permanently year-over-year increases that are double the rate of inflation and in some cases even going up beyond that, if you have to buy your insurance in the individual market? so i'm glad that the senator from nevada has offered this amendment. i'm anxious to see how the other side votes on the amendment that the senator from new hampshire has offered that would guarantee that these medicare savings would go back into medicare and not be used to pay for a new government entitlement program at a cost $2.5 trillion to the american taxpayer. mr. mccain: i would ask the senator from texas for more comment. mrs. hutchison: i do so appreciate to talk about the different areas of cuts and the increase in spending as well. everyone is concerned about the spending and debt and the ceiling we're about to reach. i just want to bring up one more point on hospitals because this affects every state in america. in texas 29% of our hospitals are in rural areas. the cuts in this bill will

especially affect hospitals in rural areas. in fact, out of the $135 billion in medicare cuts to hospitals, $20 billion are cuts in medicare payments for treating low-income seniors and another $23 billion in medicaid payments to hospitals. i just want to read an excerpt of a letter i received just this week from the texas organization of rural and community hospitals which represents 150 rural hospitals in the state. "we also fear the medicare cuts as proposed could disproportionately hurt rural hospitals which are the health care safety net for more than 2 million rural texans. because of lower financial margins and higher percentage of medicare patients, rural hospitals will be impacted more than urban hospitals by any reductions in reimbursement. these proposed medicare cuts

could have a devastating effect on many of the hospitals which leads to curtailing of certain services and the closure of some of these texas hospitals is a real possibility. it has happened every time previously when congress imposed so-called large-scale cost-saving measures." well, this is the granddaddy of large-scale cost cuts -- $500 billion, half a trillion dollars, taken out of the hide of the hospitals that are treating low-income patients and seniors. i would just ask the senator from nevada if he's experiencing that same thing and that hospitals all over our country are going to be hurt by this bill. mr. ensign: well, i thank the senator from texas for her comments. even the congressional budget office has said that when you

cut, for instance, reimbursement rates, those are going to come out of somebody's hide. and basically who's hide it's going to come out of is the seniors. that's what we're saying is that the senator from tennessee said, we're throwing seniors under the bus. when you cut $but i'm saying if you disgrail with me, challenge he, but challenge me on the merit of the idea. >> find out how kevin johnson, now sacramento's first african- american mayor is making the difference in in his own home town. and it's not just johnson making an impact, we'll profile several former athletes now making the political rounds. and you're the biggest hockey fan on the planet, right? but where do you draw the line between the casual fan and the hockey obsessed?

net impact starts right now. and hello, everyone, and welcome to this edition of net impact, i'm art finell. you know, there's a long list of former professional athletes who later segued into a life of politics, guys like bill bradry, j.c. watts, steve largent, just to name a few. they've all made valuable contributions in the political arena for sure, but you canned a kevin johnson's name to that list. he was called k.j. on the court, and he was a huck of a point bard for the phoenix suns, made the all stars several times, but now he's called his honor, as the first african-american mayor of his hometown sacramento. we look at a day in the life of kevin johnson. >> reporter: it's 5:00 a.m., the city sleeps, but kevin

johnson has traded in his comfortable bed for a pair of running shoes. moonlit pavement. and the biggest day of his young political career lies before him. >> for me, it's about staying in good shape, mental, physical, spiritual, and running allows that happen. when you get up at 4:30 to run, there's no distraction, it's quiet out. it allow use tow think and reflect, and a chance to certainly get the right perspective and early in the morning allows that really take place, because once the hustle and butle of the regular day starts, it's very, very difficult to have a private moment and get a peace of mind. >> reporter: with his workout behind him, the mayor begins what promises to be a very long day. even a quick car ride to a local television station is an opportunity to conduct business. >> this is kevin johnson

calling, the mayor of sacramento, is the congresswoman ready? yes, ma'am, how are you doing this morning? i'm doing very well. yes, ma'am, i just finished a run and a workout. yes, indeed. >> on my desk, there's a gavel that my brother gave me on christmas day of december of 2007. i announced my canadacy on march of 2008, so my brother was the first one to kind of somehow have this vision that i should run for mayor of the city of sacramento. the next thing i know, i'm throwing my hat in the ring. >> reporter: the ride to sacramento's state of the city address is a familiar one. >> when i was growing up, everything that impacted me was in this two-mile radius.

i do remember this growing up, that in my neighborhood, which was a poor are in city community, didn't have sidewalks. now as mayor, i know how to make sure to there's no equality across neighborhoods, not just the nice neighborhoods get things that others don't. >> reporter: he may have the home court advantage, but johnson is no longer in his comfort zone. in a matter of hours, the eyes of his hometown will be on him. the clock is ticking. >> good morning. >> how are you? first and foremost, i would like to report on the state of our city the economic crisis comes opportunity. can you go back? isn't this letter size here different than what we just had? >> yeah, that's the way it came to me. >> this will also help us in

our goal to decrease crime and improve public safety. in terms of education, it's the first time we've brought together superintendents of the city to discuss the challenges that we are facing in our city. people's livelihoods hang in the balance. i can't read and talk. i'm not good at both. that's my weakness when i try to read and do that. >> ladies and gentlemen, join me in giving a rock and roll welcome for the 55th mayor of the city of sacramento, mr. kevin johnson. >> i'm not asking you to always follow everything i say. as i said earlier, sometimes i'm gonna be wrong, sometimes i'm gonna miss a shot, but what i am asking you is, if you disagree with me, challenge me, but challenge me on the merit

of the idea, not because it flies in the face of the way things have been done in the past. our attitude and our perspective is going to to be the difference on how we navigate through all of these challenges. it is our ability to give back, to serve, especially for those who are less fortunate than ourselves. thank you very much for your time, and god bless each and every one of you. (applause) >> really a great job. >> thank you. >> at some point did your heart take over that speech? >> yeah, you know, early on, i was trying to just get my thank yous and my formalities out of the way, but i started off by saying i'm living a dream. i love this. there is nothing else i would rather do, and somewhere through the speech, you know, it just became the kid from sacramento talking to people in his city and saying, look, i want to do all i can, and i need your help and we can collectively get through this, but we're going to need everybody to be on the same

page. and you did great. >> hey, thanks. we also wants to actage the special guests who are with us this evening. mayor kevin johnson, the mayor of the city of sacramento. >> i want you to put your hands together for mr. jim brown. (applause) >> governor arnold schwarzenegger! >> (applause) >> thank you very much karen for the wonderful introduction. also thank you for inviting me to be part of this great operation here. tonight it's about honoring those who break down the barriers and to promote social justice. tonight's heros have excelled in all walks of life. i think that each and every one

of those honorees are also, at the same time, a great inspiration to millions and millions of people. and i will say especially for the young people, because that's the important thing. they need this extra push to know that the american dream is also there for them,. that they can reach whatever dream that they have, and so this is why we have inspired them to show them that there's more out there than just gangs and violence and drugs and alcohol and those things. there are positive alternatives. >> i have felt very strongly that athletes have a responsibility, whether they like it or not, or whether we like it or not, to be role models. those who had the biggest impact on us as kids growing up are the people we came in contact with every day. >> i would like to thank the governor for his remarks, and speaker bass for hernandez, and

the legislative black caucus for being here today. i do want to poke fun at a couple of people really quickly. one of our honorees joe morgan. joe, raise your hand. and i saw joe morgan few minutes ago and said how are you doing? and he said i want you to know that even though i don't live in sacramento, i voted for you, so thanks joe. (laughter) >> i get a chance to spend a little time with our governor here, and i don't know if you know this, the governor has a little rhythm, got some dance moves. i think we might have to think about inducting him next year as an honor airy african- american. thank you very much. (laster and applause). >> reporter: a day of accomplishment here is concluded. but there is still time to reflect on the magnitude of what has happen, and what is

still to come. >> even in a day among days, that has to be a big highlight. >> like i said, i'm living a dream. effect i get to do is somehow beyond my wildest expectations. jim brown. i couldn't even mess with him, that's too emotional. >> at some point, you realize there's not enough people that are doing good work in elected office, and i shouldn't stand on the sidelines and complain. if not now than when the? all of those things led me to saying i need to get in the ring and do my part to not just make sure the neighborhood i grew up in, but the city i'm so proud of, reaches its potential. >> thanks, matt for that report. by the way, you saw govern toker schwarzenegger featured in that piece, as well. but this generation may not even realize that in 1970, at the age of 23, schwarzenegger became the youngest person to be named mr. olympia. he would go on to win that

competition six straight years. of course schwarzenegger was elected governor of california in 2003. you may also remember former nfl quarterback heath schuller who is now making his rounds in the u.s. capital. he was the third overall pack in the 1994 draft by the washington redskins. he played just three short seasons before finally retiring in 1997 because of a foot injury. well, he is now congressman schuller, and he represents north carolina's 11th district. still to come on net impact, one athlete recall as vivid memories of war as a youngster in war-torn bosnia. >> they kidnapped us and took to us where my dad was staying, which, and we just kind of hid there for a couple of months. >> now that same athlete is living his dreams out on the soccer field right here in the united states. and the husband saving his

wife's life, but they say the philadelphia phillies played a major role in her recovery. we'll tell you how that happened, and you'll hear her amazing story. you're watching net impact on you're watching net impact on girl: my name is emily, and in 7 years... i'll be an alcoholic. all: hi, emily. announcer: kids who drink before age 15 are 5 times more likely to have alcohol problems when they're adults. so start talking before they start drinking.

here is another tidbit for you. former president dwight eisenhower, gerald ford, and ron at reagan all reached the highest office in our land, but before they were president, they were each standout athletes in college. wow. now this. what a year it's been for this next athlete. his name is bofgio. the chicago fire welcomed the rookie mid-fielder to her roster, and being all to play in front of his own hometown has been. a a dream come true, especially when you consider that his journey began in another

country where his memories of death and destruction still remain a big part of him. josh mora has gee or geo's story. >> i spent a lot of time playing with my family, so that's really basically it, that i remember, is just playing around with my cousins, running in the wood, and that sort of thing. >> reporter: peaceful life. >> yeah, very nice, very peaceful. >> reporter: until he was 7 years old, he lived an idealic life in bosnia with his parents and older brother. his family owned land and had money, but wars a all around them. >> it's war, you see people dead. i lost my brother to, you know, yes, i lost my brother. yes, a lot of people dead, you can see it right there, bombed everything, you know, it's war. >> there are stores like they held up father, you know,

rained the mom and just kind of left the kids. >> reporter: they left behind their family, their money, their home, their lives. >> had worked in the office 17 and a half years, she worked in the office, too, and war come, and we lost everything. and how she say, we left august 20, '94. just take a couple of bags in car and we stop at the border. >> my dad paid off a soldier, or i think he gave him our car to let my dad come across, and he stayed with his niece, who was located in croatia. so my mom told me and my brother to fake that i had a ear ache, and my brother had an

eye problem. so when they let us come across, because, i mean, there was no way we could get across, you know. i remember they would read off names for like nurses to come take and you bring you in, and wire kind of in the middle of the line, they & they read our names off, and they wouldn't allow us -- you know, other people were in line, had been waiting there for days, you know, just like everyone else, and i remember the guards shooting, like, guns in the air, and they kind of ran away, and the guards came and grabbed me and my mom and my brother and took us across, and while we were there, a soldier who my dad paid off to, like -- he kidnapped us, and, like, took us to where my dad was staying, and we just kind of hid there for a couple of months, you know, and it was like we were, like, we had nothing. >> reporter: for a short time, germany accepted bosnian

refugees. >> it was pretty hard. there was a lot of racism going on. we were an easy target for a lot of the kids. we were all put together with nothing, you know. you know, you could tell the way we dressed and everything, we had nothing. and we were made fun of so much, i mean i was fighting every day after school. three years later, the german government ended its program for families who didn't have visas, so the husidics had a choice, go back to boss the kneia, or end up in the united states. they went to chicago. >> that's when i finally felt like you can enjoy life now, we've made it. you can relax now. you know, it's yours, so, you know, i always, like, wanted to have a house i could have friends over and stuff, and every day, like, since we had the house, i always have people over, there's not like one day where my mom is not cooking for everyone. but in bosnia, it's just like

that. you always have family over, friends over, you're grilling. >> reporter: and from there, life was good. boggio starred in soccer, and now he's getting plenty of playing time for the fire. >> i can't really describe like how you feel, like -- because you, like, you remember, when you go back, it all comes back to you like everything happened yesterday, and its just like, you know, it's -- you try to make it happy where you get to see your family again, but as soon as like that goes away, like, wow, like i left all of this behind. what if i didn't have this sort of future? >> reporter: and so you can understand when the practices get long and the guys get sweaty and the work seems difficult that boggio doesn't seem to find site hard. he is living a life that years ago simply didn't eve exist for him, not even in his dreams.

>> when we played columbus, it was like a pretty packed house, and starting in that game, i it was like the best feeling work like such a big feeling of accomplishment, like everything my family and i have been through. >> you watch him after 15 years behind, i will show you he was involved, unbelievable. not just one, almost two guys, you know, oh, feel good. >> it has been a pretty good year for the chicago fire, they may have had in the playoffs, and the team is hoping for bigger things in their future. now let's talk baseball. what a season it was for the philadelphia phillies. one of the things that always feeds the philadelphia phillies is their fan support, which is always off the chart. by the way, they had more than 50 sellouts at sipsens bank park this past season, but this next story takes fan support you might say to a whole new

level. as sportsnet philadelphia reports, one couple's love of the phillies truly became a matter of life and death. >> reporter: don has seen hundreds of phillies games, but it's the one he didn't see that he'll always remember. don and his wife sandy had tickets to see the phillies play the angels last june in what turned out to be a forgettable 7-1 loss. the events that drains spired that night, however, they will never forget. >> i went upstairs to get ready, and i got a splitting headache like i've never had before. i mean, this was the most intense pain i've ever had. he came upstairs and found me rolled into a fetal position on our bed, and all he could decipher from what i was saying was bad pain, hurts bad. >> i was just totally -- you know, company can see your life just flash in front of you. i took her into the hospital, they took her in for a cat scan, the doctor came out and said we have a helicopter dispatched from the university of pennsylvania coming down to

pick her up, and this was, like, three hours after this first when i came home that this happened. it's, like, what is going on here? the skull is full of blood, it's a bleed, we have to get her up there immediately. she came in between annal and a 9 and 10 is fatal, and usually they don't make the flight, but they said we have her stabilized, next morning they twenty in and operated on her, and long, long road to recovery, and 50% of then people don't make this, they told me. >> reporter: if he was not at home to find his wife, it she likely would have not survived what turned out for a brain aneurysm. with that, they believe the phillies saved her life. >> don came home from work three hours early. the only time don comes home from work is when he's going to a phillies game. otherwiseny stays the rig rather time >> if it wasn't for me going to watch the phillies game that night, she would. >> reporter: be here for this interview. >> reporter: a speech and language therapist by trade,

she's had to deal with the harsh irony of struggling with basic communication. under normal circumstances, degrees may have completely ravaged their lives, but a phillies title drive proved to have therapeutic powers. >> she followed the phillies games through the playoffs, light late in the year, and he was able in the hospital bed to to watch that, the world series. her sister came down and watched her for game four, which i winter up to see, and she weighed in the hospital bed in our house, and she watched the whole game there, and it just played out that the phillies won that world series that year, and it was almost like, you know, somebody was watching up above there. >> one of the things that they would do is every day they would come in asking what day it was, you know, what's the next holiday, things like that, to see if my brain was functioning. so when the phillies were there in the playoffs, they would come in every day and ask me, okay, who won last night? so i would have to remember who won, what the score of the game

was, because they knew i was watching the phillies. so it was a big part of my recovery watching the games during the playoffs. >> and you can't blame them for believing that the greatest save in fills hist -- phillies history didn't take part of the field. >> they were just a major part of her recovery, and for sure part of my recovery. >> my neurosurgical team knows what they did to save my life. the phillies have no idea what what they did to save my life, but i consider them my heros now inspect >> and we certainly wish her the best on her recovery and for the philly, be a speedy return to the world series. coming up next, there are hockey fans who take obsession to a whole new level. we'll explain. south africa, an 8-year-old boy picked up the game of golf from his father.

by the age of 9, he was already outplaying him. the odds of this gentle lad winning the junior world golf championships at the age of 14? 1 in 16 million. the odds of that same boy then making it to the u.s. and european pro-golf tours? 1 in 7 million. the odds of the "big easy" winning the open championship once and the u.s. open championship twice? 1 in 780 million. the odds of this professional golfer having a child diagnosed with autism? 1 in 150. ernie els encourages you to learn the signs of autism at autismspeaks.org. early diagnosis can make a lifetime of difference.

finally, you know their names, crews by, ovechkin, preair. they are among the les of the top selling jerseys in the national hockey lead, but as chuck found out, blackhawk fans take their passion for hockey jerseys to a whole new obsession. >> reporter: blackhawk fans love their jerseys. how many blackhawk jerseys do you have? >> i have about probably 20. >> reporter: 20 jerseys? >> at least. >> reporter: from pure hockey passion to borderline addiction. you have your own separate closet for them? >> i actually do. >> reporter: that's sick. >> it's very sick, and i'm horribly embarrassed right now. >> reporter: so if you can't actually be them, you might as well ware them, even if you can't spell them. put you on the spot, how do you

spell -- >> how do i spell it the american way or the right way? >> reporter: the way it's on the back of your jersey. >> byful -- let's see here, byfug -- >> oh, okay. du. >> reporter: no, no,llu. ien. but hawks fans really remember those special ones from the past. >> this is signed by bobby hull, 1983, the year got in as a hall of famer. >> reporter: and who on the back? >> stan mckeithia, number 21. >> that's awesome. >> if i could get him to sign it, that would pretty much take the cake. >> dennis hull, you're the only person i've ever seen besides dennis hull to wear a dale

earnhardt this hull jersey. why dennis hull jersey, why is that? >> to be different. >> reporter: i'm looking here, there's a kane number 14. i hate to say this, but past 88 what happened here? >> no, i'm 14, i'm pat kane, the real pat kane. >> reporter: you were born on the 14th? >> exactly. >> reporter: you were born april 14th, 1960? >> yeah, exactly. >> reporter: do you have your driver's license? let me see this. i need more on that within sense of license. your plummer's license. that says pat kane. okay -- think i'm gonna believe him. but then you might not believe this. you show up showing whose jersey? >> eric, my favorite. >> reporter: and he happens to be here. >> he happens to be here, i came here with my three

nephews, they government me the jersey, and he hannans to be here. it's awesome. >> reporter: have you ever seen a fan wear one of your jerseys? >> no, it's the first one, i'm serious. >> i figured what better way to honor him than to get his jersey. that's the way to go. >> reporter: why were you named after hem? >> my dad's favorite player on the blackhawks. he said he was the best on the pk, swooping up and down the ice. >> reporter: ask and here you are today, and he's right over there, the guy you were named after is signing autographs right over there. >> what better way to come in here and get an autograph, and i added some research to do. i asked him if he tipped in bobby's 50th. so i heard it from the horse's mouth. >> reporter: what did he say? >> absolutely. >> reporter: so at your next

hawks game, remember, everybody can be somebody, and we mean anybody. >> i don't normally ask people this, but can i have of have your autograph? >> sure. >> reporter: i really appreciate this. >> where do you watch me to sign? >> caller: just sign my sweater. thank you, i appreciate pit. >> and that will do it for another edition of net impact. i'm art fennell, thanks for joining us. coming up next months on net impact as the year comes to an end, we'll take a look back at some of our top sports stories that shaped 2009. and to find net impact in your area and for the law enforcementest breaking local