vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 57, the nays are 35. the conference report is agreed to. without objection, so ordered. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president,

i think you're going to report the bill? regular order. mr. durbin: mr. president? mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the minority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, is it not the regular order to return to the health bill? the presiding officer: the clerk will report the pending business. the clerk: calendar number 175, h.r. 3590, an act to amending the internal revenue code of 1986 to modify the first-time home buyers' credit in the case of members of the armed forces and certain other federal employees, and for other purposes. mr. durbin: mr. president? mr. mcconnell: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, we have been trying for days to get an agreement to have votes on the health care measure, which our friends on the other side have said is so important to the american people and must be acted upon before christmas.

specifically, the pending crapo amendment has been there since last tuesday. and it now becomes clear to me that the majority simply does not want to have anymore votes presumably pending these discussions that are going on behind closed doors on a bill that almost nobody in the senate has seen. therefore, i send a cloture petition to the desk on the crapo amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. 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 the penning crapo motion to commit h.r. 3590, a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to modify the first-time home buyers' credit in the case of members of the armed forces and certain other federal employees, signed by 17 senators as

follows: mcconnell, grassley -- mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i ask consent that the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, now, i hope that we can bring to fruition a consent agreement to allow us to begin to vote. yesterday, against considerable opposition on my own side, i basically backed down and offered the subsequent agreement that the majority leader had offered a few days ago which would have allowed our democratic friends to have side-by sides of their own amendment on the issue of drug importation and a side-by-side to senator crapo's amendment on taxes, and the majority objected essentially to the consent that they had previously offered a few days before. so, mr. president, i hope that we can get back on track here.

the commitment was made by the majority at the beginning of this debate that we would have plenty of amendments. we had a process where we went from one side to the other, back and forth, smoothly. either side was able to offer side-by-sides if they chose to. and i think it is not fair to the american people -- not fair to the american people -- to deny them the opportunity to have votes on what has been called the most important issue of our era, so important that it has to be done before christmas. in the meantime, they're in some secret meeting trying to come up with a bill that not only have not all senators seen, not even democratic senators, but the american people certainly haven't seen it. we know what the core of the bill is. there are amendments that the american people would like to see us debate and vote on. and that is why i filed cloture on the crapo amendment and hopefully we won't have to have that cloture vote. we can get back on track here, as we were until things began to

bog down midweek. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the sphror illinois, the majority whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, the majority side offered a unanimous consent, i believe, three successive days to the republican side, which they did not accept and then yesterday the minority leader offered a variation on that, which is being considered at this moment by the majority leader. we are not prepared to -- i'm not prepared to make a statement until the majority leader has made a final decision, having talked over the new offer with our members, and so the time may come. i can't predict whether it will or not. i do believe that we have to work on it some more. in the meantime, i think the floor should be open for comments, and i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i object. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois.

mr. durbin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois had the floor. i senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. mcconnell: i object. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois is

recognized. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspend. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. kyl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona is recognized. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. well, given the season, maybe we should spend a little time at least talking about what americans are wishing for christmas. i don't think very many people in the chamber here have had much chance to go out and do their christmas shopping but at least maybe we could consider what folks are telling us they'd like to have. and we've certainly heard it. they want jobs. they want the economy to impro improve. they want meaningful health care reform that will drive down costs and increase their access and avoid harming a full economic recovery. what they don't want is to be burdened with a litany of new taxes. unfortunately, the health care bill that we've been debating is layered with new tax after new tax. and what i hope is, that the majority here will eventually

agree to considering more amendments, including, for example, amendments like the hutchison-thune amendment which will limit the taxes in this bill, taxes that will hit families, seniors, the chronically ill, small businesses, those who use flexible spending accounts and those, for example, who use medical devices. in total, there are 12 new taxes in this bill, many of which will take effect right away if the bill passes, though the other components of the bill will not go into effect until 2014. in fact, the internal revenue service estimates that it would need between $5 billion and $10 billion over the next ten years to oversee collection of these new taxes. americans know their taxes are going up if this bill passes. in fact, 85% believe that will happen according to a new cnn poll, and they're right. surely that helps to account for the fact that a full 61% disapprove of the bill, according to that same poll,

with just 36% supporting it. think of it. cnn poll, brand-new, 61% of the american people oppose the bill. only 36% support it. every week the numbers get worse. i spoke recently about the adverse impact of a new payroll tax on job creation, especially for small businesses. well, today i want to talk for a couple minutes about how three additional taxes would hurt americans. one, the new tax on the chronically ill. two, a new tax on flexible spending accounts. and, three, a new tax on medical devices. first, let's talk about the chronically ill. these -- these are the sickest americans, the chronically ill and seniors who tend to have more medical problems. these folks would be hurt by a change in the tax code that actually raises the amount of money that they owe the federal government every year. here's how it works. currently taxpayers can deduct the costs of their catastrophic

medical expenses if those expenses exceed 7.5% of their income. the bill, unfortunately, would raise that threshold to 10%, so people, especially seniors and the chronically ill would have to spend a lot more of their own money on these catastrophic kinds of expenses before they could begin to take advantage of a tax deduction. the joint committee on taxation says that this change would cost taxpayers more than $15 billion over the next 10 years. so we're talking about a lot of money. it would raise taxes on 5.8 million taxpayers, 87% of whom earn under $100,000 a year. so we're not talking about, for the most part, we're not talking about the wealthy. in fact, i would note that because of this problem, the nelson amendment was adopted in the finance committee that wouldal least exempt seniors until the year 2016. well, obviously it isn't just

seniors who pay the tax. and, secondly, we don't want to impose it on them after 2016 either. according to the congressional research service -- and i quote -- "the deduction can ease the financial burden imposed by costly medical expenses. for the most part, the federal tax code regards these expenses as involuntary expenses that reduce a taxpayers' ability to pay taxes by absorbing a substantial part of income. and that, of course, is certainly true. mr. president, many people rely on this deduction to offset expenses that are beyond their control. under the democrats' bill, 5.8% -- excuse me, 5.8 mill miln of the sickest americans would get a bigger tax bill from uncle sam. that's not reform. the second new tax on flexible spending accounts. many americans with these flexible spending accounts would see a tax increase under the bill. how does that work? under current law, employees can make a tax-free contribution to

a flexible spending account in order to pay out-of-pocket expenses for medically necessary goods of and services, things like diabetes testing supplies, orthodontia bills for braces and tooth repair. but right now there's no limit on these contributions to the f.s.a., but most employers that offer the f.s.a. peg it at about $5,000. the bill would cut that in half and limit by law the amount that the employers could contribute to 2,500. why? that means that families would pay taxes on medical expenses if n excess that have amount. ah, that's the reason. they need more revenue under the bill, and this is a very clever backdoor way to get it. limit the amount that the employer can contribute to your f.s.a. to you end up having to pay more taxes on things that are important to your health care and that of your family. the joint committee on taxation estimates this provision would cost taxpayers $15 billion over

ten years, or to put it another way, it's one of the ways they raise revenues in the bill to pay for the high cost of the bill. another $15 billion worth. and who would be affected by this increase, well, the employers cowns i wil council oe compensation estimate that the median income of americans holding an f.s.a. is $50,000. that's the median income. so half are above, half are below. think about that. half of the people that would be impacted by this make less than $5 5,00 5,000 -- $55,000 a year. so many, many middle-income families are going to lose money on medical expenses because of this provision. finally, the medical device tax. the democrats bill imposes an annual tax on medical device makers that would cost $20 billion over ten years. again, the reason for this is to generate revenues to pay for the high costs of the bill. otherwise, why would you tax something that can be a life

saver for people. i've said before, you know, i could see, i suppose, taxing liquor or tobacco, but why would you tax this? this helps save lives. thousands of products. wheelchairs, surgical equipment, contact lenses, stethoscopes, hospital beds, artificial heart valves, di diabetes testing equipment. all of these are the kinds of medical devices that would be targeted by this tax. it will even hit cutting-edge technologies like c.t. scanners. why would we do this? well, the american taxpayers are the ones that will put tooth the bill for the tax because, according to the congressional budget office, the medical device tax -- and i'm quoting now -- would increase the costs for the affected firms which could be passed on to purchasers and would ultimately raise insurance premiums by a corresponding a. so congress taxes -- by a corresponding amount. so congress taxes a manufacturer, they pass on the

tax in the cost of the item to the individual who takes it, the insurance companies usually have to pay for that, their premiums go up to reflect the cost. another reason why under this bill, insurance premiums don't go down, they go up. so this tax means increased costs for health insurers who, in turn, pass it on to patients in the form of higher premiums. and by the way, this would go into effect immediately, even though subsidies for government-mandated insurance are not available until the year 2014. so the net impact would be an $8 billion increase in patient premiums in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 before any of the subsidies in the bill take effect. is this really what we want, to drive up patients' premiums with new taxes? we know that's not the kind of reform that americans are asking for. so to reiterate, the taxes i've discussed include a tax increase on the chronically ill and seniors, a tax increase on holders of flexible spending

account, namely middle-in families. and a tax on medical devices that would drive up insurance premiums. many of the 12 total taxes would take effect immediately observe though the rest of the bill wouldn't take effect until the year of 2014. that's part of the gug gimmickry used to play for this federal leviathan. your taxes go up in 2010 but nothing to show for it until 2014. that's why the democrats claim to have a budget-neutral bill that comes in at less than a trillion dollars. washington will be sitting on a pile of money four years in advance of full implementation of the bill. when you take a look at the true ten-year costs beginning in 2014, the price tag is an astounding $2.5 trillion, a figure, by the way, confirmed by the chairman of the finance committee. so, mr. president, because i approve of this budget gimmicks and the imposition of these taxes, i support the hutchison thune amendment, an amendment which that says new taxes will not be enacted until the rest of the bill is. and i urge my democratic

colleagues not to op to voting on the pending amendment -- not to object to voting on the pending amendments and to take up additional amendments, such as the snowe amendment, which will come later, and the hutchison-thune amendment, which would at least address the problem they've discussed today. the american people -- problem that i've discussed today. the american people don't want a slew of new taxes for christmas. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois, the acting majority leader, is recognized. mr. durbin: mr. president, this would be a perfect moment for me to say to those who are following this debate, well, that's the senator from arizona's critique of the democratic bill, so i'd like to offer a critique of the republican plan for health care reform. but i can't do that. it's impossible to do thatment t because it doesn't exist. this bill, 2, 075 pages, has been worked on for a year. it's oon not easy. it's complex. we've prepared a bill and brought it before the senate. the republican side of the aisle has had the same year, has produced nothing. they produced -- i'm sorry,

that's not true. they have produced press releases and speeches and charts and a handful of bills which attack sections of this bill. but they have not produced a bill that's been cleared by the congressional budget office, as this one has, that will address the refuse dit -- reduce the deficit, will, in fact, reduce health care premiums for the vast majority of americans -- at least the growth in premiums. they haven't produced a bill which will mean that 30 million more americans will have health insurance. they haven't produced a bill that is going to finally give consumers a fighting chance against health insurance companies. they haven't done it. they've produced speeches and press releases, and that's where we are today, after one full year. obviously, on the other side of the aisle, they are happy with the current system of health care in america and don't to want change it. if they did, they'd offer a comprehensive health care reform bill. they failed to do that. they've come before us and said, we've got a lot of our own bills.