crime issues. and, for example, for the first time we're seeing mexico actually create basically its own vetted border patrol so that, you know, we have an agencies to work with along the border. they basically removed 1500 of their customs officials last year and replaced them with the vetted officers. so our ability to work at the law enforcement level has greatly improved and then lastly i think that progress is being made against the cartels. there have been several significant arrests and seizures -- some have been kept on the on the mexican side. others have been contemplated for extradition to the united states and at the federal level the coordination between president obama and president calderon is very, very close. close. >> very good. thank you. one other thing i don't think we

have talked about before is the creation of the import ct commercial targeting and analysis center that you have helped spearhead. at the university of minnesota we've national center for fruit dee dee covered protection and defense that has been certified as a homeland security center for excellence. so we have long recognized the importance of securing the safety of the food chain. and i am just concerned about this being from an agricultural state and starting to see some of the products we have the last few years coming from other countries. food concerns. i'm one of the original sponsors on the bill to bring us more food safety. but i continue to be concerned about what's coming in from outside our borders and the effect that could have on our homeland security. could you talk about that? >> senator, i can. we continue, as you know we have opened up a center in that regard. we are also really working with

all kind of food supply change the date could change and will be happy to provide you with a more in-depth briefing. senator feinstein, and her questions to me, related the fact that some agriculture keeping the united we really have got to look at that. >> that is why we call it the food security act. it is important for us to produce our own food. last question is about the recovery act which included a billion dollars to procure and install explosive detection systems and detection equipment for checked baggage at airports and an additional $680 million to improve infrastructure at our nation's borders. can you give an update on how much of the security funding has been spent and how you plan to utilize the funding over the next year?

>> i can give you a spreadsheet in detail. but the contracts are out. the obligations have been made. a number of jobs related to those contracts. the airline baggage systems across the country. the northern ports, construction contract have been led and that work is underway. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. >> we stand in recess. thank you, secretary. appreciate you being here and there will be follow-up questions from several members of the panel. thank you.

>> political commentator teaches civil-rights policy at george mason university. most recently published republicans and the black vote which looks at the historical relationship between african-americans and the gop. he is our guest sunday night on c-span's q&a. on friday a group of senate democrats held this news conference to discuss negotiations over a health care bill. we will hear from senator schumer of new york, menendez of new jersey and new jersey senator sheldon whitehouse. this is half an hour. >> you want to hear what we have to say and have no question, right? i am delighted to be here with my colleagues, senator menendez and senator white blue but --

senator whitehouse. thank you for moving this bill forward and many other things they have done. as all of you know one of the main selling points of the senate health care reform bill is we will protect medicare by protecting solvency for five years, fear that medicare would run out of money and cause enormous problems for our senior citizens both now because they are worried and when we actually run out of money. how do we do this? simple. we get rid of fraud, waste and abuse in the system. these are dollars that don't go toward improving seniors benefits one bitch but instead go to assurance companies or otherwise flip through the cracks and jeopardize the fiscal future. i ask anyone to read their bill

and they will find all kinds of costs, doctors they never met, this and that. everyone knows the waste and fraud and abuse in the system. if we don't get rid of this waste we do nothing, this system will go broke in seven years. to fix the system we have to reform it. that is why the aarp has hailed the senate bill for, quote, shoring up the solvency of the medicare trust for five years without cutting guaranteed benefits. republicans lately have styled themselves as defenders of medicare. their claims would be hilarious if they weren't so dangerous. but in defending the status quo, republicans are risking letting medicare go bankrupt. that shouldn't come as any surprise considering they oppose the program's creation and tried to kill every since. they have government programs. they say is that. we also know they really don't like medicare, one of the most

successful government programs that we have had in terms of making people better. back in the 1960s ronald reagan, one of the most revered politicians in the republican party likened medicare to socialized medicine. the first president bush called it that out right in 1964. former senate majority leader bob dole when he was running for president in 1996 but about voted against medicare. the republicans have no credibility on this issue. in fact congressional republicans have tried to present themselves as defenders of medicare even as they railed against the public option. guess what? medicare is a public option. if you are against the government are against medicare. and they are. they have twist themselves into a pretzel on this issue. during the senate finance committee hearing, senator grassley and the questioning from me said medicare's part of

the social fabric of america and at the same time said he hates government programs. if it is part of the social fabric of america, they should join us in protecting and preserving and extending medicare. if it is possible to bring more americans into medicare or something similar to what we believe it is worth exploring. once again our republican friends disagree. on monday senate republican leaders called the idea of expanding medicare a plan for financial ruin. this was just one day after sunday we were defending medicare. they can't have it both ways. maybe it is hypocrisy, maybe it

is just an identity crisis, maybe it is just rotten politics. you just can't call republican defenders of the medicare system. it is we who created medicare and we are the ones most committed to defending and strengthening it for years to come. in the 1980s republican slogan was just say no. that worked. it doesn't work anymore. people actually defending medicare, it doesn't go broke. it means there are too many americans without an affordable insurance option. on medicare the american people don't want to just say no. they like it and want to keep it. when you ask the american people who you trust to protect

medicare, it isn't the republicans. >> let me thank senator schumer for his leadership. the negotiations he has led to be able to leap over the most difficult hurdles we have. i would like to talk about this a little broader. i think america needs to hear the truth. the truth is to republican this debate isn't about health care. this is an ideological battle driven by the right wing of the republican party. republican colleagues said recently on fox news, quote, this is a battle for the heart and soul of america. it is a struggle between freedom and socialism. between free markets and a centrally planned economy and between we the people and an entrenched class of elite politicians. that is the end of his quote.

we are the people. all of us. democrats and republicans alike. the implication that we are not is as offensive as it is ridiculous. and ideological motivated. i fear when i hear such language that this debate is being hyperpolitical scientist to satisfy the fringe element of the right. they want americans to care government. they presided over it for eight years with the republican president. when we had skyrocketing increases in premiums and health insurance when you needed it the most. when we held by listening session and said time and time

again. even though i i got a note as it relates to my coverage. republicans talk about death panel and taxes and raising people's first to put a few hot buttons and bring out abortion and come to the senate floor and way of the flag and talk about liberty and free market and proclaiming themselves the protectors of american values and then denounced government as the problem. they call any attempt at health care reform government intervention. they call it socialism. they rise to object and delay and call it patriotism. they huddled with health insurers against hard-working americans who pay higher and higher premiums and get denied coverage and called it defending enterprise. the republicans simply don't want health care reform. they want it their way and no way. our friends on the other side of the aisle think that the

business of government is business. we think the business of government is people and we will not stand down from that fight. the fight for people's jobs, their lives, their health and well-being of their families in the face of insurers who are minimizing their risks by denying coverage when people need it the most. what insurers are doing is not what i think of when i think of american values or free-market values. it is greed, in my humble view. it is that simple. this is historic legislation just as social security, medicare, the civil rights act and the clean air and clean water act were historic and republicans them were on the wrong side of history. once again pursue the republicans are on the wrong side of history. however many times they object, delay and obfuscate will not change that fact. they will be on the wrong side

of history as they have been so many times before. with that my colleague from rhode island. >> thank you. republican party has been an exceptional institution in american life. it was the party of abraham lincoln, it was the party of the roosevelt, and now this grand old party is out there doing the limbaugh limbo and causing mystified americans to look at their antics and wonder to the old limbo question, how low can you go? i have my opinions but let me share some opinions of others. the editor of the manchester journal inquirer editorial page

wrote of the gop which he called this once great and not mostly shameful party that it has gone crazy, that is more and more dominated by the lunatic fringe and poisoned itself with heat. he concluded they no longer wanted to govern. they want to aquino's. a very well-regarded philadelphia columnist wrote of the republican right, if they can get some mileage nothing else matters and you went on to decry paranoia and lunacy. and maureen dowd of the new york times and her column eulogizing her friend william safire lamented the, quote, vial and vitriol of today and while pack of conservative pundits. the takeover of the republican party by the irrational right is no laughing matter.

something unprecedented is happening here and it is very bad for america. specifically with respect for health care, a well-regarded washington post writer with a quarter century of experience, married to dirksen senate office building should ministry official, noted about the house health-care bill the appalling amount of misinformation being peddled by its opponents. she called it a flood of sheer fact one is statements about the health care bill and noted that the falsehood peddling began at the top. her ultimate question was this -- are the republican arguments against the bill so weak that they have to resort to these misrepresentations and distortions? that helps answer the question of how low you can go went a great party defend the limb of limbo and i appreciate join my colleagues to lament this particular episode in our

national life. questions? >> i wanted to ask you. people shouldn't face bankruptcy if they get very sick and democrats promised to not allow it to happen. today we learn that the bill being proposed put annual caps on coverage. can you explain how that changed and why and what will it be to people who get very sick? >> i believe you would have to go to the details on this but the caps are very high and there is no cap which has really hurt people. >> the emphasis on the public concerns optional wherever it is, basically be asked -- >> the two major problems we have faced are the public option, which the group of 10 of

us tried to resolve and so far so good, we are all waiting to see the score and the abortion issue. are there other little problems? yes. the number one thing that has impressed me sitting around a table for long hours with nine of my colleagues, watching people like senator menendez and senator whitehouse, there is not a single person in that caucus who strongly and genuinely does not want to pass the bill. our own individual needs, ideology and stakes are a centrifugal force and the desire to pass the bill and stay together as a centrifugal force and that will overcome the centrifugal force. >> the public option and medicare -- >> we are all waiting this war

but there was very positive reaction the day after we came out after the plan with positive reaction from bernie sanders and joe lieberman. that says it is alive. >> in the last -- [talking over each other] >> mrs. roberts, seventh grade. >> impressive. >> in the last 48 hours there have been a lot of concerns about the medicare from senator lieberman and other moderates, hospitals, doctors. is there a hostility among have to drop that idea? >> we are going to wait. when people see the details they are going to be pretty happy with it. and i think many of the concerns that have been voiced which are legitimate, i believe when we get a score and people see the details -- >> a question about those little

problems. the amendment fell on the floor all week and i want to ask is that stuff on the floor because it breaks up the field and there is a worry that there are enough votes? >> it has been championed for a very long time. there are concerns, people have always had legitimate concerns on that issue about making sure senator menendez has consistently -- that the drugs that come into this country are safe and healthy and that is something we are trying to work out. >> senator schumer said the concern -- >> centrifugal force at work. >> big disagreements not from democrats and republicans but internal to democrats and one of them wondering if you are making

big changes to this legislation at this late point. just getting those 60 -- do you have reason to believe of medicare by in would be better than the other one given that people over 65 that this is actually the best policy? >> why do you have a legislative process? what do you go to the floor or both through committees? the product always gets refined and new ideas come in. our goal is to pass the best possible bill. both parts of this sentence are operative. pass and the best possible bill. we certainly did urge want to just pass any bill but we certainly realize that every one of us, if we wrote the bill by ourselves and we read the entire senate would write a different bill. if you think you have the monopoly of wisdom and only your way is the right way you

probably won't get anything done here. i think the product gets better and better and better. in other words i would say this is my own personal view, that the house bill started off at a place, it got better as its works its way through the senate. i thought the finance bill was the best product at that point. senator reid improved on it with his merge bill. we will see what cbo scores so we don't see the changes that are suggested. my hope and belief is it will improve more. >> let me just add the first part of your question. your premise of your question which was the biggest challenge -- not sure how you can find it. struggles are in our caucus. first of all, the republicans

have chosen to be off the plane. they could have been on the playing field but chose not to be. when they walk away after months of max baucus meeting with several of their members and the leadership came down very hard on several of them and said we don't want a bill. bottom-line is of course when you are left to do all of the 60 votes, when you have a filibuster process which they have led which requires 60 votes and all 60 votes are likely to come from democrats, of course the debate is going to be how do you make the best bill within a certain universe. they have taken themselves out of it. that is a point that is important to make. the second part is in the medicare provision if it is sustained, that has been something the democrats for a long time have been advocating. being able to buy into medicare

is something many democrats along a wide spectrum have been an advocate for. i don't look at that as something that is that really better or are you just using that to get votes? that has had a lot of support for a long time. >> coming from rhode island where we have a very big senior population and we are not like florida or arizona senior destination states, these are people who were often struggling to get by. for many rhode island seniors, coming of age to qualify for medicare is safe harbor after a lifetime of storms and worries. to move that forward is not an issue that creates a lot of tanks in our caucus between the lower administrative costs, lower provider payments and lower rates that that enables but more than anything else the feeling of comfort and security that you know you have got medicare. it is going to be a big

difference for people. i don't see that as a point of great division. >> to regard a medicare by in as something we are saying we don't really want that. that is what we have to settle for. would be a total misinterpretation of the feelings of among most of us as shelton and bob mentioned. the democratic party has long sought it and look, here's another reaction. look at people who very much look forward to the public option. not all but any say at this is a step up especially given that the public option that we ended up with was not as strong as some would like. any idea that this was a fall back, i think it is a big step forward and that is how most of us feel. we can only take one or two more because senator mcconnell -- the other thing i want to say,

compare the gentleman from the new york times, it is -- all the fight is among democrats. lookt the difference. we are struggling to come together on the most difficult issue america has ever faced and we had getting close to the finish line. we have had our disagreements but it hasn't been poisonous in any way. look at the difference. it is pure politics. this is nice when it says identity crisis. is basically coming up as one of the things sheldon read. the political argument of the day. one day they like government and medicare and one day they don't like government and medicare. there is no consistency, no feeling of here is how to make things better. it is tactical. here is our best argument today and let's see if it resonates even if it has nothing to do with the argument of yesterday or their true feelings. end just say it is going to be

one of our saving graces because it will save us a lot of trouble. the american people see that. they see we are trying to do the right thing for them and they see a cynical politics is in, just say no of the republicans and i predict in 2010 that will serve us very well despite the bumps in the road. >> just look at the statement which basically talks about not health-care but health care as it relates to the 2010 senate races. they look at this through the prism of an election. we look at this through the prism of how do we provide health care for families who don't have it and how do we reduce the cost and denials for families that do have it. that is the fundamental difference. that tells you everything. >> banking a lot on the number

is coming out, and even those who ceos are working on. those numbers don't come out the way you are expecting. >> the model that leader reid put forward was indicative. they have to make certain changes. i don't think the numbers will be so out of the ball park that we have to start all over again. we have to adjust things to keep the deficit number down. it is very possible. numbers tell you what to do and do the right thing.

last question. >> of the democratic leadership concern that passage of the amendment would fall apart? >> we always try to come together in our caucus and we are trying to balance the need people have for cheaper drugs with safety needs and concerns. you saw what happened in the last year with imports from various places in terms of health care, in terms of food, we want to have lower prices. >> look at the european union. in the last week or two they talked about the huge challenge they have with counterfeit drugs in the european union which is a reason we should have it. the real goal is creating coverage. i would hope that when we finish this process that we end up covering the doughnut hole. that to me is too important at the end of the day then

questioning about importation. >> i will agree with that. it is good that the amendment has greengage pharma and i hope what it leads to is improvements in part d that are sound and lasting. our stockings are hung by the cloakroom with care in hopes that health care soon will be there. >> ho ho ho. >> the senate will resume their debate on health care when they gavel in this morning at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. diskette yitzhak rabin:3402 announce the fiscal 2010

spending bill. booktv won't be seen so we can bring you live coverage of the senate on c-span2 but will return at the conclusion of the day's senate session. now senate minority leader mcconnell discusses the cost of the democrats' health care proposal in this 25 minute news briefing. >> the managers on the bill, i think a good place to start is how do the american people feel about this health-care bill. the poll last night indicated that americans were opposed to

this bill -- 61-36 in a cnn poll. no question the american people are asking us not to pass this health care bill. now we have the government, the administration's own scorekeeper, the actuary telling us that it won't save money. and we thought the whole exercise from the beginning was about bending the cost curve. with that let me turn to senator grassley and we will hear from everyone else as well. >> let me start where senator mcconnell left off, let me broaden that a little bit to two million points.

there were goals going back to january when senator baucus and i sat down, the same goals when the group of 6 was meeting. we wanted to reduce -- we wanted to the revenue neutral and make sure that long-term we were going to bring down the cost of health care, reduce health-care inflation or bend the curve down. though the words used around here. we are about to spend on a partisan bill $2.5 trillion that doesn't either. i don't think any of them are as destructive of what senator mcconnell -- the actuarial report that is out today. we are going to spend $2 trillion, there is going to be less people insured by their lawyer, costs are going to go up

and premiums are going up and taxes are going up. anybody in my state that hurt me call that health care reform would figure that i read the bill wrong. the people back home are reading this bill and they are calling in overwhelmingly opposed to our passing it. >> the american people have figured it out. the democrats haven't. they keep citing cbo selectively, they go with net numbers rather than the gross numbers. the cbo, in nonpartisan group that we rely on, says that the prices are going to go up. senator yoda and said see if somebody from their side could make an evaluation of it.

he addressed the letter we signed on to to the chief actuary who is rick foster of the center for medicare and medicaid services. which is part of h h s and we ask for an evaluation of this bill. that is somebody from the administration doing the evaluation. that person said that this bill -- this doesn't include whatever they are doing on some kind of option because they are not letting anybody see that even people from their own party. this actuary based on the bill we have been working on, says it will increase by 7 tenths of 1% more than if we did nothing. more than if we did nothing. that is the admission of -- administration saying it. the report describes how fees for drugs, devices and insurance plans will increase health insurance premiums, increasing national health expenditures by

$11 billion per year. on medicare which is his real area of expertise he talks about what the $464 billion in medicare cuts in the bill will do and says that it isn't sustainable, that it will cost benefits, that it is cuts that we will not be able to use, we will not be able to do even in part a. it says the cuts will result in 20% of all part a providers including nursing homes being unprofitable within the next ten years as a result of these cuts. i always said if you can see a doctor or go to a hospital or get a nursing home you don't have any kind of health insurance at all. that is where this bill is headed. time to stop and do it right. >> as many of you know. before i came to the senate i was secretary of agriculture and one of the things that i came to

appreciate about government is the federal government, there are many career people who just come in every day and do a great job. as secretary they would come to me and tell me this is a way they saw it. they didn't care if i was a republican or a democrat. they just called it the way they saw it. as we were debating this health care bill it occurred to me that maybe we should ask a government actuaries who does this kind of work every day to just call it the way he or she sees it. we organized this letter. 24 of my colleagues signed on and today we have gotten the response. my goodness, does it call it like he sees it. we increase national health expenditures. remember all the promises about

the health care curve is going to come down on. it does not under this bill. it does bend the health care cost curve not down but up. new fees for drugs, devices and insurance plans will increase health care -- health insurance premiums and therefore increase medical costs for consumers. the long term insurance program which is often referred to as the class act, faces a serious risk of becoming unsustainable. savings are unlikely. the promise extended insolvency of the medicare trust fund caused by medicare payment cuts, very unlikely. it breaks the promise war illustrates that the promise is broken that if you like your plane you get to keep it. let me share this with you.

30% of medicare advantage recipients will lose their coverage. 33%. study that program, ladies and gentlemen. that program is for the neediest seniors. this report concludes that very quickly about 20% of medicare providers of hospitals, nursing homes, home health had an amendment that last weekend will be under water. that is absolutely devastating. doctors and hospitals will become unprofitable to the tune of 20% under this legislation. they point out that fewer and fewer will accept medicare and medicaid. i went -- i want to conclude my

remarks with something that are heard just before i came up here today. i understand the white house has tried to attach some language to say the long-term impact is less. let me read the act will paragraph. interestingly enough it is the last paragraph of this actuary's report. it says the proposed reductions in medicare payment of dates for providers the actions of the independent medical advisor report and the excise tax on high-cost employer sponsored health insurance would have a significant downward impact on future health care cost growth rates. the white house has grab that and tried to convince you there is good news here. read the whole piece of that paragraph because it goes on to say during 2010-2019, however, these affect would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansion of health insurance coverage.

also the long-term viability of the medicare update reduction reductions is doubtful. other provisions such as comparative effective research are estimated to have relatively small effect on expenditure growth rates. to summarize that, what they are saying is today the fog lifted on the read bill. all of the things that were said about bending cost curve and this is good for medicare and on and on are not proven out by this report. it is a remarkable report. it is a round house blow to the plan. >> more bad news for harry reid and the democrats. my colleagues have pointed out the difficulty they're going to have trying to explain away the features of their legislation has analyzed by c m s.

senator mccain has taken the lead and mention this as well. we have been talking about the fact that a lot of arizonans are participants in the medicare advantage program, 337,000 as a matter of fact. we are talking about the fact that so many of them will be dropped -- will drop their medicare advantage coverage. that is an exaggeration, what are the actual facts, what does cms say about that? they talk about the result of less generous benefit package is, enrollment plan would decrease by 33%. decrease by 33%. the other group of people who would suffer as a result of this bill with fewer benefits, the idea that if you like your plan you will get to keep it is not really true and it is not just medicare. for others as well. the taxes will, according to c m

s, be passed on in the form of higher premiums or higher costs for the medical devices in the event of a medical device. as a result of the taxes on plans, employers will reduce employees, health care benefits. our point is you cannot any longer argue that benefits are going to be the same that if you like your insurance you get to keep it. benefits will be reduced under this legislation. what we have been saying all these weeks is verified by the c m s report. >> i want to thank you for asking the government's actuary to give us this information because it is very important. this is the latest red flag or yellow flag about the read bill and it suggests what we should do is slow this train down and start over and do this right. there is a lot of talk about

making history with the health care bill. there are a lot of ways to make history. the bill as presented would be a historic state. sometimes we get asked what the republicans would do and we try to say that every day on the floor. we would do what most americans would do about this. we would take a specific goal, reducing health-care costs, cost to individuals or small business or the government and identified the first five or six steps toward that goal. we have been very specific with legislation about what those are starting with the small business health plan which has been shown by the congressional budget office to reduce costs and expand coverage. going next, legislation that would put limits on job junk lawsuits against doctors to reduce cost. going next to competition across state lines so people can buy more in insurance at lower rates. that reduces cost. that is the way most americans

would approach a problem. we are scaring the daylights out of them with the possibility that we will make a historic mistake with this $2.5 trillion increase in federal expenditures. the chief actuary says is a risky -- says has very serious risk of raising costs. >> in the words of the late morris k. udall of arizona everything that can be possibly said on this issue has been said. only not everyone has said it. so i will try to be brief. it seems to me from being on the floor every day with my friends and colleagues in watching our friend on the other side of the aisle that there is an increasing sense of desperation about trying to corral 60 votes in order to pass this

legislation. and a new proposal has strong up the flagpole and we see how it works, the latest being expansion of medicare down to people age 55. everyone i talk to has said expansion of medicare, perhaps may increase revenue in the short term but obviously will increase costs over time and immediately will be the subject of adverse selection. in other words the people who are the sickest will sign up first and who pays the well people do. we will see the results of the last one. but the one before was the, quote, class act. the actuary does not have time to estimate. i will lay odds as to what the estimate of increased costs of increasing participation in medicare but the class act, the class act was going to be the answer and way to get the 60

vote. the read bill says -- by participants, the actuary founded such programs and faced a significant risk of failure and expects the program will result in a, quote, net federal cost and long term. so i urge all of our friends and colleagues and americans to have a look at the cms report. it is one of the most serious indictments of the entire philosophy behind the democrat and president's effort to reform health care in america. let's sit down for a change across the table from one another and maybe have the

c-span cameras in, no other cameras, low, and sid down and seriously negotiate. the c m s report should put a dagger in the heart of the read bill. and then let's sit down and have some serious negotiations and make sure we preserve medicare and medicaid not only for present generations of americans but future generations of americans which is clearly at risk according to the view of the center for medicare and medicaid services. >> any questions? >> the democrats and republicans never really supported medicare but now you are trying to style yourself as the saviors of medicare. >> i am reminded in 2005 when there was a republican house speaker and the republican senate and republican

presidents, we tried in an effort to begin to make medicare more sustainable for the long term, to reduce the rate of increase in medicare spending by $10 billion over five years. not a single democrat was willing to support that. the majority leader called it is immoral. now they are presenting half a trillion dollars in cuts to medicare, which no one in america believes is not a dagger in the heart of a program that is already going broke in seven years. as senator mccain pointed out there want to expand the coverage downward. it is nonsense. republicans support medicare. we wanted to make it sustainable. we don't believe it ought to be a piggyback as is in the read bill to finance a whole new

entitlement program which cms says is not going to cut costs and is not sustainable for a whole different set of americans. anybody else? >> the negotiations behind closed doors, you all considered a medicare by in. is that true? what dissuaded you? >> it was discussed for an hour or two but there was no more outcome. also let me suggest in not answering your first question but also why don't you look back the number of republicans that voted for medicare and ask the democrats why they keep saying republicans were against medicare? because obviously a lot of the republicans voted for medicare in 1966. >> you are talking about the potential model for improving medicare.

are you impressed by what they are talking about? >> i am not sure what you are referring to. we don't know what they're doing. i try to get details and the democratic folks said we can't give you any details. we don't know either. there is some discussion about the fact that there is a trigger which would take us to public plan very soon after re-enactment of the bill. one report was unknown and there is an article in the newspaper quoting harry reid as saying that is not true. we are not for something like that. i have no idea what the proposed action will do. i will take a look at it. >> this is reminiscent of the health education labor and

pension committee. republicans had no input whatsoever to go over a period of two weeks thrust on us to do amendment. they wrote it so fast we had to do technical corrections. we proof read the bill. there were some amendments that were good. until we had finished voting on it and they went to print the bill and talking to a single senator and the ones that agreed with it. during the entire course of the amendment, any time we offered an amendment they offered an amendment and if you write the bill why would you do that many amendments? but their amendments passed. we had two during the entire time and yet they want to call that a bipartisan bill. another important part of it is they withheld the government

option. i don't think they have quite written it. they thrust that on us when we had a couple days to do amendments as well. this is very reminiscent of that. they probably learned from that process and had this in mind all along and they will change it and trust it on us and expect us to vote on it and they are selling it to the immediate and the media is selling it to america and nobody has seen it. i don't know where the transparency is. >> we were on the floor, everyone recorded it for prosperity and will view it over the holidays. senator dorgan said no one knows. only one person knows. he said it in all honesty as to what the health care bill and reform bill is going to be.

>> what was your reaction to the proposal? >> the number 2 ranking democrat said he didn't know what was on the bill so who should expect us to know? in the fairness, and i want to be fair, he meant that he didn't know all the provisions in the bill but he knew most of the provisions in the bill. i don't want to be too critical of him. but it seems to me that all senators should know at this late date after nearly a year of working on this legislation we should at least know what the latest proposal -- go ahead. >> on the floor right now, the decoy bill, substantially different. would you go that far. >> smarter people than me -- we

know that they are seeking to get 60 votes. if they have 60 votes we would all be out of here by now. there are things that they are trying to include in the bill that would get those 60 votes and it is not there the yet. we have also heard from my friends on the other side of the aisle that it will be a manager's package. that will be what we finally vote on. whether that is a decoy or not or part of the process i will leave to others to judge. but i want to emphasize i have been part of many bipartisan agreements and legislation which passed through this body. the substantial agreement of large numbers on both sides. there has never been a reform passed through the senate of the united states that did not have significant bipartisan participation and this one

doesn't. >> that is all for everybody. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the u.s. senate meets to continue work on remaining federal spending. senators set aside health care debate to take care of the spending package passed by the house earlier this week. washington journal talked to a congressional quarterly reporter who is following the senate.

>> we have been talking about debate in the senate. emily pierce from roll-call, senior staff writer, joins us to give us the latest on the web site. you had a story about ten senators sending a letter to capitol hill. >> guest: they sent a letter to senate majority leader harry reid to ask him to reconsider expanding medicare. unless he deals with the reimbursement issues that are plaguing their states. this was led by senator jeff mark wiebe brendel a freshman from oregon. >> host: what were their arguments? >> guest: they had efficient states in terms of medicare and better outcome -- this is their argument. their argument is states that

have better outcomes that have fewer tests and better medical outcomes do not get paid as much as states that order a bunch of tests because currently, this is part of the reason they are going through this debate on capitol hill on health care, you get more money as a doctor at the hospital or what not, the more procedures you perform not based on whether you actually made the patient healthier. until you deal with medicare doesn't pay our states enough money, maybe you shouldn't expanded to this other population. you can understand this medicare by in, 55 to 64, would be allowed to buy in. it is not clear how many people will choose to do that. this proposal is still a tentative idea. it is not yet in the bill and it is unclear whether it will be in the bill but these will draw a line in the sand and say before you go too far with this idea we

want you to know that we have serious concerns. >> host: talk about the report that came from health and human services regarding the costs. has there been a ripple effect on capitol hill? >> republicans say it proves that the bill is not sustainable. democrats are seizing on it saying it means they need to do health care. there's a little bit for every one. >> host: can you encapsulate for us? >> guest: one of the big things going back to this letter is the center for medicare and medicaid services has basically evaluated the bill in general. one of the thing they did say that goes back to this letter from these ten senators, the cuts to medicare may affect payments to hospitals and providers, basically continue the current problem.

that many states have. >> we expect work behind the scenes on health care today. the house will be working on an omnibus spending bill. the senate is meeting for a second weekend in a row. last weekend it was health care, this weekend it is federal spending. a measure combining budget work leaving only defense spending bill remaining. the house passed the bill earlier this week by a vote of 221 to 202 without any republican votes. the senate voted to begin debate for the final vote likely this weekend. the measure provides funding increases including 10%. programs under immediate control of congress on top of infusion of cash to domestic agencies in the economic stimulus bill and a $410 billion measure in march. now live senate coverage on c-span2. >> let us pray.

that we can face perplexing challenges with strong spirits and quiet minds. help our lawmakers to recognize truth and to welcome revelation from whatever quarter they arise. keep them ethically fit as inwardly they become more adequate and wise. -- wise, depend and strong. may they guard the treasures of our freedom, bought with a great cost. remind them that they will be judged by their fruits, and that you require them to be faithful.

empower them to trust you more fully, live for you more completely, and serve you more willingly. lord, bless also the support staffs who labor this weekend. reward them for their faithfulness. we pray in your wonderful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. 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 12, 2009, to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable roland burris, a senator from the state of illinois, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, following leader remarks the senate will resume consideration of the conference report to aaccompany h.r. 8288, with the time until 9:30 a.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. at 9:30 a.m. the senate will proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the conference report under an agreement last night the vote on adoption of

the conference report will occur tomorrow, sunday, december 13. mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, does the clerk need to report the bill? the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of the conference report to accompany 3288, which the clerk will report. the clerk: conference report to accompany h.r. 3288, an act making appropriations for the departments of transportation and housing and urban development and so forth and for other purposes. mr. durbin: prior to -- the presiding officer: under the previous order the time until 9:30 will be equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees. mr. durbin: mr. president, before making my remarks, i'd like to yield to the senator from oklahoma. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. inhofe: mr. president, this morning i will vote no on the

cloture motion to h.r. 3288. i oppose 3288, but will not be present to vote no on final passage. the reason i will not be here is tommy wife and i will be -- tomorrow my wife and i will be celebrating our anniversary with our 20 kids an grandkids. i ask unanimous consent that the comments i just made be placed in the record following the vote on h.r. 3288. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i thank the majority whip. mr. durbin: i congratulate my colleague on 50 years of marriage. your wife must be a saint. mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip is recognize the. mr. durbin: h.r. 3288 is a consolidated appropriations bill which contains almost all of the remaining spending bills for fiscal year 2010 and this is a process which we had not

anticipated. we had hoped that we could take each bill individually and consider them on the floor and bring them to conclusion. unfortunately, we ran out of time. we had over 90 different efforts made to stop debate on the senate floor on a variety of measures. mr. president, it took us literally four weeks to extend unemployment benefits. this is something that was usually done routinely on a bipartisan basis, but, unfortunately, because of delays and threats of filibusters, it took us four weeks to finally come to a vote to extend unemployment benefits in the midst of the worst recession the united states has experienced in over 75 years. it is unthinkable. at the time people were sending us e-mails an letters saying -- and letters saying, i can't believe the senate won't do this, won't provide a helping hand. when it finally came to a vote

it passed 97-0. the controversy was manufactured on the floor of the senate to delay consideration of such a very basic bill for four weeks. those four weeks could have been spent calling these appropriation bills. so we could have had what was needed, heaty, open debate on the bills. instead we're forced to wait until the end of the session and consolidate the bills in one measure, bring it to the floor of the united states senate today. i will tell those members of the senate who wonder niece bills have been carefully re -- wonder if these bills have been carefully reviewed, that it passed overwhelmingly in the committee. there was dissent on one or two measures, but by and large they were passed unanimously. little controversy on either side of the aisle. the appropriations committee, which i'm honored to work on, has been working spring and

summer to pass all appropriations bill. danny inouye is a great chairman. as the senate appropriations committee chairman, this man has taken up a responsibility that few would shoulder and done it with talent and dedication. at his side has been senator cochran, republican of mississippi, who works just as hard to try to make sure that what we are produce is a great credit to this institution and meets the needs of this great country. there is one bill remaining after these six pass. it may be one of the most important, the defense appropriation bill. it was passed by the committee in september an represents the only remaining bill -- and represents the only remaining bill left for us to pass this year and which we want to do before we adjourn at end of this period before christmas. these bills, as i said, were reported out of committee with overwhelming bipartisan votes. nine of the bills were -- nine of the 12 were reported unanimously. however, when we move these bills to the floor, we run --

ran into these obstacles. at one point when we were considering, for example, the question of extending unemployment benefits to millions of americans who have lost their jobs, exhausted their savings, lost their health insurance and stand to lose their homes, there was an argument made by one senator on the other side of the aisle that he didn't want us to call this bill until he had a chance to offer another amendment -- another amendment on the acorn organization. we have had a series of these amendments. we have flogged this group mercilessly for month after weary month, and, yet, they were going to hold up unemployment benefits for this senator to have one more chance at one more swing that the organization. that, to me, is not responsible. the responsible thing to do is to recognize all of these families that were counting on us. time was lost that could have been used not only to provide unemployment benefits in a more expeditious manner, but also to

consider these appropriation bills. appropriation bills in the past and not too distant past used to take one or two days before the united states senate. the members would come to the floor, readies would be offered, debated, -- amendment would be offered, debated, now even routine bills with no controversy take weeks because of amendments which are to be offered, which, frankly have little or no relevance to the nature of the bill before us. we brought up the commerce, justice, science appropriation bill on october 6. we didn't finish that bill until november 5. this is a critically important bill, and one that most members on both sides of the aisle would gladly endorse its mission much these appropriation bills have taken longer and longer because, unfortunately, the minority will not agree to reasonable time limits to consider amendments and finish debate. instead we find ourselves consistently sidetracked. so here we are, we have 21 days

before the end of the calendar year and we need to finish the business of the congress. to do so we engage republican hems members of the appropriations committee and worked on reasonable compromises to the bills from the house and senate. i'm troubled that some of the very republican members of the senate appropriations committee, not awful them, three of them stood up -- all of them, three of them stood up to vote this process forward. some members of the appropriations committee who sat through the committee deliberations, have made valuable contributions to the bill themselves now want to stop the process. it makes no sense. if we are going to do in an orderly fashion, we should do in a bipartisan fashion. i hope that's what will happen today. this package of appropriations bill is actual triewly a bicam rel and bipartisan -- bikal ral -- just to name a few. it makes college education more

affordable for students by increasing pell grants to $5,500 a year, is there a better time for us to do that. to say to children in families that don't have a lot of money, now's the time to hone your skills, create new challenges, this package of bills increases the amount of money available for those children in those families. i hope that members on both sides of the aisle will support. it the conference support helps local governments fight crime and put more police on the street. take a look at the budgets of cities, towns, of counties, of states, and you'll realize they're in a death struggle to provide basic services. we've increased grants for local law enforcement by $480 million over last year. many of the critics of our efforts say, oh, you're spending more money. yes, we're spending more money to keep cops on the street, to keep neighborhoods safe so that

families feel secure in america. i think it is money well spent. money spent to help our first responders, firefighters, policemen, it's a critical investment. this bill makes that investment. that grant program will be cut by $2 million under the previous president, we're trying to restore that money so we can put more people on the street protecting our citizenry. this conference report sets the right priorities by helping states an local police departments fight crime. we also include $298 million to put more cops on the beat and this funding will help hire, retain approximately 1,400 police officers. the cop program has helped to train nearly 500,000 law enforcement personnel. the conference report helps our veterans. it's not enough to give speeches on the floor about how much we love our men and women. and honor our veterans. it's not enough to wear lapel pins and then come to the floor

and vote against the bills that provide the money for the veterans administration. what we providedded is an increased funding to the veterans' affairs department t to $5.3 billion over last year's level. those who criticize the level of spending in this package of bills are criticizing the additional investment to help our veterans when we need to more than ever. returning from iraq and afganistan with post-traumatic stress disorder, amputations. they need our help. this package of bills provides that help. we will provide increased access to quality care for all of our veterans. the conference report increases discretionary spending at the v.a. by $5 billion to help them care for 6.1 million veterans they expect to see in 2010. we were equally dividing the time between now and 930:67:89 i would like to ask how much time i have remaining on the majority

side. the presiding officer: 3 1/2 minutes. mr. durbin: i reserve the balance of my time. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i would like to proceed under my leader time. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: yesterday may have been a seminal moment in this debate. we heard from c.m.s., the centers for medicare and medicaid services. they did an analysis of the reid health care bill. a rather detailed analysis. the important part i would just summarize. it says -- "we estimate that total national health expenditures under this bill would increase by an estimated estimated $234 billion during the calendar years 2010-2009. in other words, it will increase the deficit. now, we know it was a letter to chairman baucus from six democrats on september 17, 2009, saying -- "there are many

wide-ranging options to address the broad and complicated issue of runaway health care costs, and we pledge our support to you in making the necessary and stuff decisions. this is our number one priority. if we pass health care reform legislation without addressing the issue of health care spending, we will have failed." now, that letter was signed by senator kohl of wisconsin, senator mccaskill of missouri, senator pryor, senator begich, bayh of indiana and klobuchar of minnesota to the chairman of the finance committee, saying if we pass health care reform without addressing the issue of health care spending, we will have failed. we know from c.m.s., the actuary at the department of health and human services, that the reid bill fails the test of senators kohl, mccaskill, pryor, begich, bayh, and klobuchar. so we know what c.m.s. thinks. we also know what cnn thinks.

we know where the american people are. we have watched the public opinion polls dramatically shift against the reid proposal. the well-respected quinnipiac poll a week or so ago had the proposal disapproved by 14%. the week before that gallup had it disapproved by 9%. now cnn just yesterday, the latest poll, people opposed the senate bill 61-36. so, mr. president, we have heard from both c.m.s. and cnn, and when will our colleagues on the other side of the aisle respond to either the cold, hard facts or the american people? they argued to make history. it is clear that this would be a historical mistake of gargantuan proportions, a historical mistake of gargantuan proportions.

the only history we're making here is a historical mistake. we know from the experts it won't achieve the goal. we know from the american people they don't want us to pass it. it's time to stop this effort and to start over and go step by step to fix the problems the american people sent us here to fix regarding the american health care system. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: who yields time? time will be charged equally. mr. kyl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona is recognized. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i wanted to speak for a moment about the vote that we're about to take here to

proceed with the so-called omnibus appropriations act, h.r. 3288. this is the bill which, for those who haven't been following closely, cleans up a little bit of a mess that the congress has created because we didn't do our work earlier in the year. we're supposed to pass appropriations bills to run the government, to run the various departments, and we didn't get around to doing that. so right here at the very end, we have to combine all kinds of these bills together in what's called an omnibus bill, six bills in total. and i find it ironic that we're talking about a bill which is nearly $500 billion, to be exact. it's $446.8 billion in new spending, at a time when our national deficit is is $1.4 trillion. the health care bill that we're debating is in its first ten years of implementation, implementation, $2.5 trillion. we're going to be next week asked to raise the debt ceiling in this country by something

like $1.8 trillion. i saw a bumper sticker that said "don't tell them what comes after a trillion. "we used to think in billions. when i first came to congress, millions were a big deal. now we're talking trillions. it's just being tossed around as if it's nothing. now another half a trillion dollar spending bill. now, obviously, we need to run the government, but do you suppose the government could be a little bit like families and be just a little bit prudent in how much it spends or how much it increases its spending over the previous year? let me just give you some examples. the bill for transportation and h.u.d. receives a 23% increase over last year. 23%. the state foreign operations bill receives a 33% increase over last year. included in that bill is 24% increase for the state department's salaries and operations. a lot of americans would like to see their salaries and operations increase by 24%.

commerce, state, and justice receives 12% increase over last year. now, you might say well, the government is really in tough shape. we really need for some reason to increase our spending by 33%. no, not with what's in this bill. my colleagues have done a little bit of a check to see if there are any earmarks in this bill, for example, and guess what, mr. president? 5,224 earmarks. and just those earmarks alone are over $3.8 billion. now, i gave some examples of these earmarks, and i don't want to embarrass any of my colleagues by citing them today, but i think it would be appropriate for us to at least have the opportunity to strike some of these earmarks and save a little bit of money, because the argument is always made well, we can't save money. we have to keep spending what we're spending. there is nothing in there to cut. well, there is a lot in there to

cut. and so the point that i just want to make to my colleagues here today, before we vote to proceed with this legislation is we could do better. there's no argument that we have to spend 33% more on the state foreign operations bill or 23% more on what we call effectually around here the h.u.d. -- affectionately around here the h.u.d. bill. when we have this deficit of of $1.4 trillion, when we have to increase the national debt by by $1.8 trillion, when we're talking about spending another .5 trillion -- that's just for the first ten years of operation on the health care bill, and i haven't even mentioned the bills passed earlier this year to bail out all of the -- a.i.g., the insurance companies, general motors, chrysler, the stimulus package, well over a trillion dollars when you add in the interest. and by the way, mr. president, i didn't mention interest in here. part of the problem is we don't have this money. we're borrowing it. we have to borrow this money in order to pay it to these folks. that means that you have got to pay interest, and i haven't even

included the interest costs in here which for all of these bills amounts to several hundreds of billions of dollars. there is a point at which if you're talking about your own family and your own credit card, instead of asking the credit card company to expand the limit so you could put even more debt on your credit card, which is what we're doing here, you start paying that credit card down and you would be a little bit more careful about your spending. all i'm asking is can't we be a little bit more careful about our spending so we don't have to increase departments of government by 23%, 33% just over last year's spending? i don't think that's too much to ask on behalf of our taxpayers. the presiding officer: the majority whip is recognized. mr. durbin: mr. president, i wanted to make a point of pulling out the calendar here and read the membership on the senate appropriations committee. i thought for sure there were republicans serving on that committee, and it turns out there are 12 of them. they served on the committee. they were on the subcommittees.

they sat on the full committee of deliberations, and they include the minority leader, the republican minority leader. and of the six appropriation bills which have come before us today for a vote, they were voted out of the appropriations committee by overwhelming votes. in fact, three of the bills were unanimous, meaning that at least the minority leader was counted as voting for the bills, which the senator from arizona has just criticized, and three of them are a 29-1 vote, so i won't suppose what the minority leader's vote was. but to come before us today and argue that the majority is cramming these votes and bills down the throats of members without giving them opportunity is to ignore what came before it. the fact that there were subcommittee hearings, the fact that there was a vote in the appropriations committee on each of the bills, and they pass overwhelmingly. so at least at an early stage,

an important stage in this process, 11 or 12 republican senators signed on and approved these bills. so to argue that we're bringing something before the senate, pushing it through quickly without deliberation on a partisan basis just doesn't stand up. and to listen to the senator from arizona, i would just tell you bluntly the increases in spending in this bill, some of them i hope that the senator from arizona would not characterize as unwise. i know that he feels as i do about veterans in this country. and there is a substantial increase in money for veterans for their care. we want to do that. i'll be honest with you. we need to pay the real costs of war, and that includes the commitment we have made to men and women who serve our country. the same thing, i'm sure, is true when it comes to law enforcement. i am sure the senator from arizona feels as i do -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. durbin: i urge my colleagues when this comes to a vote in just a few moments to support

the cloture motion. let's move this forward. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona has five minutes. mr. kyl: thank you. mr. president, let me just respond to my friend's comments just now. two main points. first of all, that republicans also serve on the appropriations committee. that's true. if the majority whip, however, wants to defend this bill, that's his prerogative. he can do that. i have the right to vote against it. i don't serve on the appropriations committee, and i don't think it's a good bill. there may be some republicans who do, but i did not contend that this was strictly a partisan activity, but i said it was wrong when our constituents, who pay the taxes in this country, asking us to be more frugal, we could be more frugal than this. secondly, undoubtedly in a bill of almost $500 billion, there are good things. in fact, i know there are some good things in this bill, and i certainly suspect that the increase in veterans spending

that the majority whip referred to are probably supported by everybody in this body. that's the problem, however. when you don't do these appropriations bills one at a time, so that you can vote on each one on its own merits, you're relegated to combining them into one giant bill -- that's why it's called an omnibus bill -- and you can't differentiate between the things you support and the things you oppose, so what you have to end up doing is accepting all of the bad stuff in order to be able to support the good things. that's a -- that's a time-honored tradition around here. if you can't get it all passed on its own merits, then bundle it up with a whole bunch of other stuff and we'll have to accept a lot of bad policy and bad spending because we don't want to be accused of not supporting our nation's veterans. well, mr. president, some of us are willing to say -- and i, in fact, had this conversation with veterans before -- would you

rather have us vote against a bill which includes veterans spending but is way more than we should be spending or vote for that bill simply because it has veterans spending in it? i used to have this conversation with veterans when i was in the house of representatives because that's -- they always combine the veterans spending with h.u.d., and it was hard to pass the h.u.d. bill but easy to pass the veterans bill. that's why they did it that way. my veterans were very understanding when i voted against that bill. we have to be a little bit more courageous around here and a little bit more honest with our constituents in the way that we set these bills up so that we don't argue to them, oh, you don't want to vote against veterans, do you? no, nobody wants to vote against veterans, but if you get to the point in the year where you hadn't done your work and you have to combine all of these bills together and you've got some good spending, for example, for veterans but you're also raising the -- the state department by 33%, i think a lot of folks would say that's too

much, and we could actually save money by being more discrete in supporting some things and opposing others. that's why it would be better -- would have been better if the majority could have gotten these bills to us one at a time rather than combined into one omnibus bill. so, mr. president, i do think that at a certain point in time, our constituents can demand of us more fiscal prudence, more responsibility in the way that we vote, and the only way that republicans have to oppose a process by which all of these things came together at once and the only way that other democrats who wish to demonstrate their prudence and spending to their constituents can do that is to vote no so that we don't proceed to this bill so that we could try to break it apart and vote on veterans if you want to vote for veterans but not a 33% increase in the state department bill. so i urge my colleagues to vote no and to do this in a more

responsible way so that we don't have to go home and say to our constituents well, we voted for a 33% increase in the state department over last year. i know it's tough for you, but the state department really needed that money so i hope you'll forgive us for doing that. mr. president, i don't think we ought to do that. i hope my colleagues will vote no. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on to accompany h.r. 3288, the transportation h.u.d. related agencies appropriations act for fiscal year 2010 signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call is waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that the debate on the conference tort accompany h.r. -- report to accompany 4r

3288, the transportation, urban development and related act for 2010. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: anyone wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 06, the nays -- 06, the nays are 34, three-fifths of the senators have voted and duly sworn, the motion is agreed to. a senator: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: madam president, i rise today to speak in support of amendment number 3795 -- 2795, which would repeal the antitrust exemption for health insurance, medical malpractice insurance. i want to thank my colleague, senator leahy, for championing this legislation, which is crucial to health reform and working families around the country who pay too much for health insurance premiums. we are on the verge of expanding health insurance to 31 million more americans, an accomplishment that would be truly historic. but as hardened as i am about the relief this will bring to families, i'm deeply concerned that this expansion could be a windfall for insurance companies if we don't include additional checks and balances. we should be putting significant

federal funds towards health insurance, but that money should go towards people afford health insurance, not towards lining the pockets of insurance companies and their c.e.o.'s. as a country we have long understood pot found importance of economic -- understood the profound importance of economic competition. it leads to entrepreneurship, creativity and productivity to business. it leads to lower prices an higher quality for consumers. competition is why america has created so many of the most innovative businesses in the world. it's also why we enacted antitrust laws. because we need to protect this value that we hold so dear. and we know the competition won't happen on its own. because i understood and the value of competition, i am

extremely concerned about the antitrust exemption and current law for health insurance and malpractice insurance. it is indisputable that health insurance premiums have gone through the roof in recent years from 1999 to 2008, median income has risen by about 24%, but insurance premiums grew by 131%. it's no wonder that so many american families are struggling to afford health insurance. these high premiums are directly connected to the lack of competition in statewide health insurance markets. 94% of state health insurance markets are considered highly concentrated, according to the u.s. department of justice. in 16 states the two biggest health insurance companies

controlled 75% or more of the market in 2007. in hawaii that figure was 9%. in -- 98%. in rhode island and alaska it was 95%. but while american families suffer, insurance companies' profits continue to rise. from 2000 to 2008, the major insurance companies made ove over $59.5 billion. their profits rose by 428%. from 2000 to 2007. let me say that again. their profits rose by 428% from 2000 to 2007. and their c.e.o.'s are making big bucks themselves. in 2007, the c. o. of aetna took hom home $23 million, while the c.e.o. of cigna took hom home $25.8 million.

the antitrust exemption for health insurance malpractice insurance may have had a purpose at one point in time. it gave the health insurance companies time to respond to a major change in the law when congress passed the mcfairen-ferguson act in 1945, it was responding to a 1944 supreme court days that upended the insurance industry as they knew it. the bill passed with -- without any hearings in the senate and very little debate in the house. most indications suggest that both the house and senate expected the antitrust exemption to be temporary. but, through the conference report, this temporary fix became permanent and health insurance markets have become more and more concentrated as a result. this cannot continue. senator leahy's amendment gives us the opportunity to further

the american ideal of competition. and help working people in the process. i urge my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to bring this amendment up for a vote and a vote to repeal antitrust exemption. this issue is just too important for us to wait any longer. thank you, madam president, and i yield back the remainder of my time. thank you. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: madam president, i -- i rise to speak on the bill -- the pending bill before us. one of the great pork barrel earmark-billed pieces of legislation that i seen come before this body. i'd like to quote from abc news by jonathan carl and def inn -- devin pryor, this is the season

of pork, i quote -- "before returning to their -- excuse me. "just weeks before returning to their districts for christmas, congress is poised to give the gift of pork, roughly $4 billion of it. more than 5,000 earmarks were included in the $447 billion omnibus bill, funding pet projects of key members of congress from both parties in all regions of the country. senate will vote on the bill this weekend. independent analysis of the bill reveal a whopping 12% increase in government spending for 2010 while the inflation rate in the country remains near zer zero." a 12% increase in spending when people are out of jobs, out of their homes. they cannot afford to -- the --

basically what they need to sustain their lives and we have increased spending by 12% and 4,500 earmarks. $4 million -- said brian -- quote the spending spree is continuing even as the deficit escalates to $2 trillion. the earmarks are all explicitly listed in the bill, right next to the members of congress to inserted them. $800,000 for jazz at new york lincoln's center for gerald -- representative gerald naler, democrat new york, senator tom harkin, and representative leonard boswell got $750,000 for exhibits at the world food prize hall in iowa.

the world food prize hall in iowa. hawaii democratic senators dan inouye and daniel akaka helped to get dz 3-dz .4 million for a -- $3.4 million for a rural bus program in hawaii. the country needs to tighten it's belt. republicans have criticized the spending package, but many democrats say it funds key priorities. two of the biggest earmarks are from republican senators thad cochran and roger wicker of mississippi, at a cost of $8 million for improvements to four rural state airports. one airport serves fewer than 100 passengers a day. and another the mid delta regional airport sees even less. by the way, i've seen the pork extended to both of those airports over the years. the new funds would come on top

of $4.4 million the airports just received from the stimulus package. i am not making this up. we obviously have huge aviation and transportation needs this country and stuffing most millions of dollars in small, little used airports in mississippi is not a wise use of funds, said ellis. president obama had promised to curb the inclusion of earmarks in government spending bills but has yet to issue the threat of a veto. my friends, do not wait for threat of a veto. in march obama signed a $410 billion spending package that contained nearly 8,000 pet projects. quote, "i am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government." obama said at the time.

witbut i view it for more mar-reaching -- far-reaching change. what has changed? what has changed? nothing has changed. senate majority leader harry reid said about the last omnibus, we have a lot of issues that we need to after to fund government, something that we should have done last year, but could not because of the difficulty we had working with president bush. difficulty working with president bush. who did harry -- did the majority leader have trouble working with this time? so, again, i would repeat to my colleagues, 1,350-page omnibus appropriations conference report, six bills, spends $460 billion, $4,052 earmarks totaling $3.7 billion, a full 409 pages of this conference report are dedicated to listening to congressional pork barrel spending, spending

on domestic programs in this bill increased 14% over the last fiscal year while spending on military construction an care for our veterans has increased bill only 9%. so let's look at a little bit of it? okay. housing, transportation, urban development are has over 4,000 earmarks. commerce, science, justice, 1,511 earmarks totalin totaling $17.15 million. the list goes on and on. we have a debt of $12 trillion, unemployment at 10%, nearly 900,000 families lost their homes in 2008. and it -- and it is every indication that the aggregate numbers for 2009 will be worse. with all this, we continue to spend and spend and spend, and every time we pass an appropriations bill with increased spending and load it up with earmarks, we are robbing future generations of americans of their ability to attain the

american dream. 43 cents out of every dollar that's spent in this bill is borrowed, and it's borrowed from our children and our grandchildren, and unfortunately generations after this. this is the greatest act of generational theft that's been committed in the history of this country. now let me just go through a few of these, if i might, and remind people really the context that this is in. my home state of arizona, 48% of the homes, quote -- under water "meaning they are worth less than the mortgage payments people are having to pay on them. we have small business people losing credit everywhere. and instead of trying to fix their problems and help them out, it's business as usual here in the senate of the united states of america and the congress. $200,000 for the washington national opera in washington, d.c., for set design,

installation, and performing arts at libraries and school. $13.9 million on fisheries in hawaii. it's always, always hawaii. nine projects throughout the islands, ranging from funding big eye tuna quotas, marine education and training, and coral research. $2.7 million -- this may be my favorite. up there, a certain one of them. $2.7 million to support surgical operations in outer space. $2.7 million to support surgical operations in outer space, guess where? at the university of nebraska. as i have said many times, a common theme, you will always have a location designated for these projects. that's why some of them may be worthwhile, but we'll never know because they don't compete them. they always earmark them for the particular place that they want

to help. unfortunately, that shuts out other people. there may be other places besides the university of nebraska that can support surgical operations in outer space. i -- i suggest bones and get dr. spock here and bones and get them out there and help them at the university. i don't know if they live in omaha or not, but i'm sure that to them and all the others on "star trek" that surgical operations in outer space may be one of their priorities. it certainly isn't a priority of the citizens of my state. now, one of the great cultural events that took place in the 20th century was the woodstock festival, so in order to really do a lot more research on that great cultural moment, we're going to spend $30,000 for the woodstock film festival outinitiative.

$200,000 to renovate and construct the laredo little theater in texas. people from all over america are flocking to the laredo little theater, and they want to invest $200,000 of their tax dollars into the laredo little theater. and the money would be used to replace worn auditorium seating and soundproofing materials. and so yeah, anybody got a little theater that they want -- worn auditorium seating and soundproofing, maybe they ought to apply to the senator from texas. $665,000 for -- i'm not making this one up -- for the cedars-sinai medical center in los angeles, california, for equipment and supplies for the institute for irritable bowel syndrome research. now, i have a lot of comments on them but i -- on that issue, but

i think i will just pass those so as to not violate the rules of the senate. $500,000 for the botanical research institute in fort worth. i'm sure the botanical research institute in fort worth is a good one. i would like to see other botanical research institutes able to compete. $600,000 for a water storage tower construction in ado, oklahoma. -- in ada, oklahoma. population 208. $200,000 for a visitors' center in a town in texas with a population of 5,240. money for elimination of slum and blight in scranton, pennsylvania. now, that may have been put in by the cast of "the office." $292,000 for elimination of slum and blight in scranton, pennsylvania. $200,000 for design and construction of the garapan public market in the northern

marianas islands. $500,000 for the development of a community center -- now, this is half a million dollars for a community center in custer county, idaho. the population is 4,342. $100,000 for the cleveland municipal school district. $100,000 for a school district. they just picked one and gave them $100,000. $800,000 for jazz at the lincoln center. $300,000 -- if you don't like jazz at the lincoln center, then go to carnegie hall. there is $300,000 for music programs there. i mentioned the rural bus program. $400,000 for orchestra iowa music education, cedar rapids, iowa, to support a music education program. $2,500,000 for the fayette county schools in lexington, kentucky, for a foreign language program. $100,000 to the cleveland municipal school district in cleveland, ohio, to improve math

and language skills through music education. $700,000 for the national marine fisheries service for the project, quote -- "shrimp fishing industry effort research continuation. "$1.6 million to build a tram between the huntsville botanical garden and the marshall flight center in alabama. how many places need need $1.6 million to build a tram? $250,000 -- it's probably going to go out to the statue of vulcan also. $250,000 for the monroe county fiscal court for the monroe county farmers market in kentucky. $750,000 for the design and fabrication of exhibits to be placed in the world food prize hall of laureates in iowa. $500,000 to support the creation of a center to honor the contribution of senator culver, an iowa state senator at the simpson college in iowa. $400,000 to recruit and train

closed-captioners and court reporters at the a.i.b. college of business in iowa. $250,000 for renovating the murphy theater community center in ohio. now, my friends, there is a lot more, and i will just go through them briefly, but the point is -- the point is you'll notice two things. one, that the preponderance of these pork-barrel and earmark projects are -- are allocated to members of the appropriations committee, which, first of all, is fundamentally unfair. second of all, you will find that each are designated to a certain place to make sure that none of that money isn't spent somewhere else in america where the need may be greater. and third of all, it breeds corruption. it breeds corruption. it is a gateway drug. what we're talking about is a gateway drug, and it's especially egregious now.

$300,000 to monitor and research herring in maine. $200,000 to study maine lobster. $250,000 for a father's day rally parade in philadelphia, pennsylvania. i mean, you know, i -- i scoff and make fun of a lot of these, but really? $250,000 for a father's day rally parade in philadelphia. $100,000 for the kentler international drawing space and art education program in brooklyn. here's a deprived area. $75,000 for art projects in hollywood, los angeles park. $100,000 for performing arts training program at the new freedom theater in philadelphia. $100,000 to teach tennis at the new york junior tennis league in woodside, new york. $2.8 million to study the health effects of space radiation on

humans at the loma linda university, loma linda, california. $200,000 for the aquatic adventurers science education foundation in san diego. $100,000 to archive newspaper and digital media at the mississippi gulf coast community college in perkinston, mississippi. $3.9 million on researching weaving and knitting at the following places -- clemson university, raleigh, north carolina, philadelphia university, and california. u.c.-davis in davis, california. $90,000 for a commercial kitchen business incubator at the el pejera community development corporation in watsonville, california. a commercial kitchen business incubator? $500,000 to study vapor mercury in the atmosphere at florida

state. $1 million to examine sea scallop fisheries in massachusetts marine fisheries in bedford, massachusetts. $500,000 -- $500,000 to -- to -- $300,000 for seal and stellar sea lion biological research. dollars 300,000 for bering sea crab management. $500,000 to upgrade the baldwin county courthouse security in fair hope, alabama. $900,000 for the operational costs and capital supporting the alien species action plan cargo inspection facility in maui. $2 million to streetscape the city of tuscaloosa, alabama. $100,000 for an engineering feasibility study of a bike connector in hiram, ohio. $400,000 for a pedestrian overpass in des moines, iowa.

$300,000 for a bike path in cellular, texas. $900,000 for a river freight development study in missouri. $800,000 for a scenic trail in monterey bay, california, another deprived area of america. $750,000 for the philadelphia museum of art transportation improvement program in brady, pennsylvania. $500,000 for park and ride lots at broward county, florida. $487,000 to restore walkways in new port cliff, rhode island, another low-income area up there in new port, rhode island. $974,000 for regional east-west trail and bikeway in albuquerque. the list goes on and on and on and on. up to nearly $4 billion. and, you know, the problem is, mr. president, among other problems, is that in the last campaign, the president of the

united states campaigned for change, change you can believe in. there's no change here. it's worse. it's worse because the conditions that americans find themselves in, out of their homes, out of jobs, high unemployment, tough economic conditions, and it's business as usual. spending money like a drunken sailor, and the bar is still open. so, again, i tell my colleagues again what i keep saying over and over and over again. there's a peaceful revolution going on out there, and they are sick and tired of the way that we do business here in washington. they don't think their tax dollars should be spent on these pork-barrel and earmark projects, and they're mad about it. and we're not getting the message here. we're not hearing them. we're not -- we're not responding to the problems and the enormousha