i now know our illness was really the beginning of carbon monoxide poisoning. but at that time we had decided to wait to celebrate once we all got better and that day never came. he's my reason number one. cu7keú sleep. cu7keú it was zack who had trouble breathing and the carbon monoxide just made me too weak to lift him up or to soothe him. instead, i hung onto his crib i was trying to keep myself standing, trying to keep from passing out.

and i prayed he would just go back to sleep. i wanted to go to bed myself. i listened to his labored breathing and i was unable to comprehend the danger that my baby was in. i was unable to realize that he was dying. and now i listen to zach's labored breathing every night in my sleep and i would give anything to have that night back. to have been able to think clearly and save my baby. reason number three is ryan. ryan was 5 1/2 when we were poisoned. he barely survived. he's lived the past 14 years with the knowledge that while he lived his two brothers died right next to him. and that weighs on a 19-year-old's mind, believe me. what haunts me is that i could have prevented their deaths. as a mother i felt i should have prevented it. i knew a little about carbon monoxide poisoning. i knew about alarms.

but i didn't realize their lifesaving value. in fact, just a few weeks before this incident happened, i was shopping for the holidays like we are now. with a friend. and we talked about buying alarms. and i opted to buy my son nick another toy truck instead for his birthday. and now i have that truck but i do not have my son. in the years since my children died, i have made it my mission to tell anyone who will listen about the need for c0 alarms in their home. i've heard from families who have bought an alarm because of my story and who later had that alarm sound saving their lives or lives of their loved ones. these stories are why i continue to do my part to raise awareness. knowledge is power. we warn about all sorts of health and safety issues, the

flu, h1n1, proper seatbelt usage, other dangers. but there is no national awareness about c0 poisoning. and i won't rest until every family has a c0 alarm in their home. this bill would help provide funding to educate people about carbon monoxide dangers and the need for those alarms. thank you. this december 28th would have nick's 18th birthday. he would be graduating from high school. zach would be 15, probably just getting his driver's permit. and i often think of how different my wife leban-- life have been different. i wish my state would have had a law in 1996 like the one we have now requiring all homes to have a c0 alarm. i know without a doubt that i would have one in my home. had there been more public

education at that time i would have bought that alarm that day instead of that toy truck and i would not be speaking before you today. there would be no need. instead of extreme sadness during this holiday time of year, i would be home baking, enjoying the holiday season and probably stressing about what to get my three active children for christmas. i couldn't save my sons. but you have an opportunity to save someone else's family. i urge you to consider the safety of the citizens of your state and help protect them by supporting s.1216. again, thanks for allowing me to speak before you and thanks for all you do to protect the citizens of the united states. >> well, thank you very much, cheryl. we're just glad that you're here and i can't imagine -- i don't think any of us can what you went through and having the memories of that night. but you have the courage to share them with us to make sure it doesn't happen to other children. so thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> yeah, thank you for being here and your courage and dedication. mr. andres? >> good afternoon, my name is john andres. i'm located in north carolina. thank you chairman pryor and members of the committee for the opportunity to contribute to the discussion on the prevention of carbon monoxide poisoning in the united states. kid kidde residential and commercial is a subsidiary of united technologies corporation. we are a residential carbon monoxide alarms and other life safety devices. we're committed to leading the industry in product safety and strict compliance to industry standards. kidde supports enactment of s.1216 the carbon monoxide safety act, the centers for disease control and prevention reports each year unintentional

c0 poisoning kills americans and more to seek emergency medical attention and causes more than 4,000 hospitalizations. s.1216 is a strong first step toward preventing these tragedies. i commend senators klobuchar and nelson for their continued leadership in alleviating this critical public health and safety issue. s.1216 would focus much-needed federal attention and resources toward ending accidental carbon monoxide poisoning. the bill's provisions to create a grant program supporting residential c0 alarm laws are especially important. however, for the purposes of today's meetings, my comments will focus on describing the carbon monoxide hazard in how c0 alarms operate to provide warning and explaining why it is knows establish mandatory federal product safety standards as laid out in s.1216. known as the silent killer, carbon monoxide is a byproduct

of gas burning appliances such disaster furnace water heater, stove or grills. as well as other fuel-burning devices like fireplaces and engines. if such devices are improperly installed or malfunctioned carbon monoxide can quickly build up inside a home. it easily mixes the air and reaches dangerous levels. because one cannot see, taste or smell carbon monoxide, the only safe way to detect the gas is to install working carbon monoxide alarms. kidde and fire safety experts such as the national fire protection agency recommend placing c0 alarms outside each bedroom and on every level of an occupied dwelling. when inhaled carbon monoxide bonds with the blood's hemoglobin to form substances which deprives the cells of oxygen that. a c0 alarm works by measuring concentrations over time to ensure that an alarm will sound before a person's blood level

reaches 10%. below this level, a normally healthy adult will not experience symptoms of c0 poisoning. consumers must have confidence that a properly installed and maintained c0 alarm will warn them about the presence of dangerous c0 levels and avoid nuisance alarms. this need for accuracy and reliability is the cornerstone of underwriters laboratories standard 2034. the ul2034 is a americans standards institute that callous approval bodies like ul, government agencies such as the cpse, the national fire protection association users and manufacturers in order to create a robust standard of performance. first published in 1992, ul2034 has gone through several revisions. each of which has based on years of field test data intended to progressively strengthen the standard.

kidde support the standard because it specifically tests the product design for electrical safety, and the accuracy of c0 detection over time and in different environmental conditions. ul2034 is continually reviewed by a standards technical and past lessons learned. this revision process has led to the sensing technology that is more advanced, stable, and reliable than past generations. to date 23 states have enacted laws requiring c0 alarms in residential dwellings and while most mandate that c0 alarms meet ul2034 there's no uniform requirement. more states will likely adopt similar legislation. in order to avoid confusion, state lawmakers need a consistent standard to define what constitutes an approved alarm.

without such a reference, conflicting regulations arise one that counters one of the major objectives is to develop uniformed safety standards for consumer products and to minimize conflicting state and local regulations. again, i thank committee members of their consideration and to raise awareness of c0 dangers. senator klobuchar and senator pryor we look forward to working with you and thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the discussion. i'll be glad to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. mr. cochran? >> mr. chairman, senator klobuchar, other members of the committee, again, i'm kelvin cochran, associate administrator for the federal emergency management agency united states fire administrator of the department of homeland security.

i appreciate the opportunity to participate today in this discussion. and since this is my first hearing following my confirmation, it's a great opportunity to participate in this important issue and i look forward to working with you on many other life, safety and prior prevention initiatives over the next three years. each year carbon monoxide poisoning kills or sickens thousands of americans. this colorless, odorless gas adheres to red blood cells considerably faster than oxygen which interrupts the exchange of oxygen. consequently the loss of oxygen in the body leads to tissue damage and in some cases death. from 1999 to 2004, approximately 450 americans died from unintentional carbon monoxide poisoning. on an annual basis approximately 20,000 people visit emergency rooms and more than 4,000 are

hospitalized due to carbon monoxide poisoning. approximately 73% of those exposures occur in homes. 41% occurred during the winter months between december and february. carbon monoxide poisoning is most fatal for citizens above the age of 65. common causes or sources of carbon monoxide poisoning house fires, wood burning stoves, heaters, internal combustion exhaust, electrical generators, propane-fueled equipment such as portable stoves and gasoline powers, too, such as lawnmowers. the fire and emergency services of the united states of america have been aware of this silent killer for many, many years and have been trained on how to

respond to and -- to respond to and mitigate suspected cases of carbon monoxide poisoning. municipal fire departments across the country respond to an estimated 60,000 nonfire carbon monoxide incidents on an annual basis. individuals and families can take proactive steps to reduce the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning by installing home carbon monoxide detectors. carbon monoxide detectors provide a crucial early warning of elevated levels of carbon monoxide. the united states fire administration believes citizens will be best prepared for an emergency in their home if they install both spoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors during this critical period of the year. we have produced fact sheets and other information in conjunction with the department of housing and urban development and the

national institute of standards and technology entitled smoke and carbon monoxide alarms for manufactured homes. this fact sheet and other materials referenced here today can be accessed on the united states fire administration's website at www.usfa.dhs.gov. homeowners should regularly check and vent their homes heating systems, regularly clean their chimneys and never leave vehicles running in a closed garage. these are other simple steps that can assure that carbon monoxide levels do not rise to dangerous levels within our homes. in recent years, emergency management community has experienced or expressed concerns regarding post-disaster deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning. of data has shown that on

average, 170 people die every year as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning associated with portable gas generators. such post-disaster deaths are also caused by charcoal grills used inside of homes or in closed garages during power outages. research from the center from hype barric center shows the number of carbon monoxide poisoning deaths or -- in emergency rooms spiked two to three days following power outages as survivors begin to recover. the united states fire administration has developed many brochures with guidance on the proper use of generators following disasters so survivors who operate these machines can do so safely. the federal emergency management agency's administrator has directed the united states fire administration to look at how we can better prepare and respond

to power outages in order to educate survivors and prevent these tragedies from occurring. finally, the united states fire administration will be working closely with the centers for disease control and prevention to distribute multilanguage brochures and develop public service announcements to better prepare citizens prior to disasters. we're also highlighting carbon monoxide poisoning in our monthly public education series for 2010, january, the focus will be alternative heating sources which focuses on the dangers of carbon monoxide. i appreciate the opportunity to present before you today and look forward to working with you on this and other critical life, safety and fire prevention initiatives. >> thank you, mr. cochran. i want to thank the entire panel for your testimony today. it's very helpful to the subcommittee. mr. korn, let me start with you, if i may.

and that is you have a stack of carbon monoxide alarms there, detectors there, how can we do a better job, whether it's the cpsc or some other outlet -- how can we do a better job of getting the word out to people like ms. burt and her family on the importance of having carbon monoxide testing in every home? >> well, there's lots of different ways. two of which i'll mention. i think the incentive grant program contained in senator klobuchar's bill will go a long way. one of the best motivators we see it in boost seat, pools, primary seatbelt laws is to pass the state law that requires them in the homes. and i would suggest, senator, all homes that have combustible fuel. saying, hey, i need to have this done so there's a compliance on

the other side. and as to the consumer product safety commission, maybe it's time that they address this issue the same way they do fireworks or the same way they do toy safety. where there is one time a year, every year, maybe the start of home heating season, where they do the same type of education in partnership with safe kids and other groups about the importance of getting these detectors up in the homes. kind of address it with the same magnitude they do those couple of other areas. i would suggest they also do that for pool safety and i think they're on their way on that. and then finally there's nothing at least more motivating to hear a story. and let me say this i deal a lot with parents that lose children. and it is in my view the most

selfless act for a parent like cheryl to share their story. there may be 15 minutes in a day where she doesn't think about her two children. but when she volunteers herself to express and educate others, she's allowing all of us to intrude on that 15 minutes including this hearing and i think that's a pretty special gift and very selfless. as long as parents are willing to tell their stories, that's the best motivator. i have a child and it's an thinkable home and i'm going home to check my smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors because of this story. >> i agree. thank you very much. plaintiff andr -- mr. andres ask you a question about kidde. what makes a good carbon monoxide alarm and, you know, what makes one better than others? >> well, to start with what

makes a good alarm. i mean, what you really want with an alarm you want selectivity to carbon monoxide gas only. you don't want this a alarm that's going to react or sense other gases that are commonly found in a home. and you don't want that to be viewed by the alarm as carbon monoxide. so selectivity just to carbon monoxide is an important attribute. also, long-term stability. if we think about what we're doing with a carbon monoxide alarm and the technology, we're trying to detect parts per million of the molecule that cannot be seen, smelled, or tasted. so, you know, long-term accuracy of technology so that over time it's just as good as day one as it is, you know -- in year 7. is an important attribute. those are two aspects that i would look for a carbon monoxide alarm. there's a standard out there the

ul standard which really looks at these attributes in addition to a whole bunch more to make certain that those products who carry the ul mark meet these requirements. >> yeah, thank youv3s for mentioning the ul2034 because in your opening statement you mentioned it get updated from time to time. is the current status of ul2034 current with the technology today and basically -- i mean, is it -- is it ready to be followed for a long time? does it need some improvement as well? >> yeah, it has. i mean, since it was first published in '92, it's gone through a number of revisions. a lot of those revisions made good sense. revisions, for example, to incorporate tests to avoid nuisance alarms, revisions to the standard to prove long-term reliability and stability. basically any problems that the standards technical panel came across of which cpsc is a member

of, those were addressed. and the standard was modified to ensure future designs didn't have similar issues. so progressively getting better and better over time and it's a very good standard at this point. >> and so you think the standard as it exists today is right where it needs to be? >> yes, yes, i do. >> senator klobuchar? >> i go home by myself a lot on weekends and i came in once and i think -- there was something wrong. it was just going off all the time. and i unplugged it. so maybe i'll buy one of these from you. i can take it, mr. andres. you'll have to put a price on it otherwise we'll have a ethics violation of the laws. just to follow up on a few of senator pryor's questions about the standard and how it's improved over time, is it difficult for manufacturers to meet the standard? and why do you think it's important to have a mandatory one?

instead of a voluntary one? >> well, to chance the question, it is difficult to meet the standard. i mean, the ul standard incorporates over 50 different performance tests. it takes time. it's not inexpensive. but at the end of the day, what we end up as an industry is a product that's to comply with the performance standard. if we think about not doing that for a moment what we open ourselves up to is the risk of putting products into the marketplace ultimately exposing ourselves and the entire carbon monoxide alarm category to consumers not having a belief in the way they would work or should work. we don't want to do that. and we have an opportunity now with s.1216 to prevent that from happening, reduce the risk, build the consumers confidence and maintain the reputation of carbon monoxide alarms in total. >> and then did the smoke alarms have a mandatory standard that

this bill would ask for, for carbon monoxide? >> smoke alarms, there's a ul standard for smoke alarms. it's ul217. i don't believe it's mandatory but i believe most states do require smoke alarms be listed to the ul217 standard. it's a little bit different. smoke alarms have been around for a long time. there were businesses that had put smoke alarms into the marketplace without a ul mark. those businesses aren't around anymore and i think what we have here is the opportunity to prevent that from recurring. >> and how much does one of these typically cost, a carbon monoxide alarm? >> i'd say the range is anywhere from $18 to $40 depending upon, you know, the features set. >> and then you install it by plugging it in? is that right? >> well, you see some of the examples that mr. korn has. >> oh, that's who i can buy it from?

and just directly it plugging it into the wall outlet and that's how simple it is. >> mr. korn, we talked about the fact that we think it's 23 states including minnesota have laws on the book that require carbon monoxide alarms in the home. can you talk about the effectiveness of these state laws? evidence of them reducing the carbon monoxide -- or the number of times that they've effectively warned people of this silent killer? >> yeah, there are 23 states that have carbon monoxide detector laws, but, you know, frankly, there's a patchwork of some require likep minnesota, rhode island, a few others very good carbon monoxide laws that cover all dwellings. others -- i believe it's maine. i'm doing it off the top of my head. but i have the information. just hotels, some just require a carbon monoxide alarm only when there's a transfer of a home.

during a sale or otherwise a changing hands. in our view, a more comprehensive laws are important. i think the laws of chemistry exist the same in a rental unit with a combustible source of fuel as they do in a home that's been around for 30 years. carbon monoxide is?5q less poisonous because it's in an existing home or because it's in a new home or just because it's in a rental property.rq so we would hope that your incentive grant and also the state legislatures would pick up on this. i think it's a fairly new risk area.v8n people don't know about it and pass the laws to require them in the homes. and i'll just mention casually that arkansas does not have a carbon monoxide detection law. so maybe we can move towards that end. >> you know, ms. burt's tragic story brings home that kids are more vulnerable to this as

adults and adults are obviously as well but can you talk about that with the body weight and the reasons that children are more vulnerable. >> there's three or four different reasons. one first children are smaller so it's something that's particularly toxic getting into their bodies affects them negatively faster than it does for an adult rest assured at enough or higher levels it's going to affect even a large adult also. and second, children don't have the ability to react like a parent would or an adult would. it is at least possible that an adult would recognize that something's wrong and maybe, maybe make a connection to carbon monoxide. a child won't. a child will fall asleep or go unconscious and that's the end of it. i think children are a particularly vulnerable population requiringxñwá early detection just as much as or if not more than others.

i think seniors also are also the same case. in fact, many carbon monoxide poisoning and deaths happen to seniors because they can't react to it as a healthy adult would. >> i think it was your testimony, mr. cochran, talking about when this -- who's vulnerable. you noticed that the number of emergency room admissions associated with carbon monoxide spike around two tow!three days after a power outage meaning people are using the portable gas generators and charcoal grills in their homes after a hurricane or a storm. what's the best way if you could just use your expertise here to prevent the injury and death associated with these generators? >> well, assuring that proper venting is taking place in homes and when garages are used to store heat from appliances that generate carbon monoxide and making sure that venting is

appropriate in those areas as well and just monitoring, having c0 detectors available so that even if the venting is not adequate enough, that the carbon alarm to let them know the dangerous levels are present. >> i noticed also you talked about how many of these are -- okay, this may be a selfish question but everyone should know the answer. some of the state laws differ as mr. korn discussed. what is recommended. i think our law in minnesota says the alarms should be installed within 10 feet of every bedroom and then some just say every floor. i would assume it's recommended is that correct or not? >> one on every floor is pretty consistent. beyond that, it usually boils down to different standards or family preferences. but one on every floor is a consistent standard that we stand by. >> okay. ms. burt, i know that you have spent a lot of time reaching out

to families about the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning. have you seen some change of people's knowledge with the state laws passing over the last 15 years since the tragedy? >> i have, actually. when i first started doing this and i was telling my story or just telling friends and family or people i meet, a lot of people were just like carbon monoxide, boy, you know, don't really know anything about that. údndúdndnúdnútrgtúol we know all about that. my mom and dad got us one for christmas. they knew a lot more. it's been over the years, it's prevalent that people know about it, but even after hearing my story they still don't actually go out and purchase one and put it in and use it. and that's the part that gets me

is that, you know, it's great to know about it, but not everybody's taking the steps needed to protect themselves. that's the part where this can come in >> and another part of your story that was just so upsetting as a mother thinking about this is you kept going back to the doctors, trying to figure out why you are all sick at the same time. has there been some increase in that kind of training or education for doctors, emts, firefighters, emergency workers, people that would be asking the right questions to identify how this happened? >> there has been. i know at mayo clinic, i've talked to people on it, and it is more prevalent. it's something that doctors to think about, but that's in my state, in one place. i don't know that all doctors would think carbon monoxide poisoning at this point, when someone would present the way we

were. certainly, more public awareness on it would address that and get it further promoted. i would like to see doctors think faster when someone's coming in, constantly with the same type of symptoms and they are just saying, she's a kook. hypochondriac. you know, i'm not letting the medical community by any means, but i would want more knowledge out there so that that is more in our thoughts. >> would you like to add to that? >> yes, ma'am. i can speak to the issue of training and preparedness for firefighters. especially those who are emergency medical technicians, are extremely well aware in trying to this particular time of year to focus on signs and symptoms that may be presented by patients that could result in carbon monoxide poisoning.

in addition, to that, this time of year, municipal fire department and volunteer agencies, commonly partner with businesses and the media in the area to increase awareness of the potential for carbon monoxide poisoning this time of year. there are departments currently entering into campaigns across the nation where carbon monoxide detectors are being purchased and donated by faith-based groups and businesses, and deliver to fire departments who actually receive calls from citizens for request for carbon monoxide detectors. and the firefighters themselves install these, the carbon monoxide detectors in homes of citizens. that is a historical trend. that's been occurring for approximately 10 to 15 years. and it is gaining momentum in communities all across the country. >> thank you.

i guess my last question, ms. burt, i would assume you'd suggest he will put a carbon monoxide alarm in their stockings this holiday season, and that this would be a good gift for people to give their family members speak what you are absolutely correct. >> thank you very much. and thank you for encouraging me here. thank you all of you. it was very informative. >> thank you all for being here. i have some written questions that we may submit. i think senator klobuchar and i, we get it, and we're going to try to do something about this as quickly as we can. i didn't mention this before, ms. burt, but i had a circumstance in my house a few years ago that didn't end in tragedy like yours did, but it could have. because i was just out of law school, and i had two roommates, and we live in an older house, as mr. korn said could be a problem. and one of my roommates, his

bedroom was right just a few feet down the hall from a bathroom, and it had a hot water heater in the bathroom. and the carbon monoxide was just leaking out of that hot water heater. we had no idea, you know. it had come with a house and we didn't think to check it or anything. but sure enough he is getting these flulike symptoms, headaches, the whole thing. he figured it out. i'm not quite sure how he figured it out, but he knew something was wrong and he figured it out. you know, we replace the water heater and installed it properly with the right venting and everything. so this can sneak up on you without anybody knowing. and it was a near miss in our case. we need to do more in terms of law, but also to bring awareness to this. i really thank you all for being here. we are working with all due to try to get something passed in the next year, and we are out of time this year, as amy knows to try to get --

>> they're still another week left. [laughter] >> so realistically, we're not going to be able to get it done in the next week. but anyway, thank you all for being here. i really appreciate all of you and your contributions that you are making with this. and we will do our best and we look forward to working with all of you. thank you. >> thank you. >> with that, the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> i am absolutely confident if the american people know what's in this bill, and if the senate knows what's in this bill, that this is going to pass. >> work on the senate health

care bill continues. follow every minute of the debate from the senate floor with late nights and possibly another weekend session. live on c-span2, the only network to cover the senate gavel to gavel, with no commercial or commentary. it updates from reporters and editors of the congressional quarterly rollcall crew. for iphone users, here's the debate with the new c-span radio iphone app. for more including archived video and to read the bill, go to c-span's health care hub. >> he was not a giant of his time. and yet he emerged as the nominee at a time when the party was populated by big figures. >> his mark on history includes manifest destiny and in his new biography of james k. polk, a country of vast divine, he looks at the life and times of our 11th president. sunday on c-span's q&a. >> now available, c-span's book abraham lincoln

>> and u.s. officials as talks between president barack obama and chinese premier have moved to step forward towards a possible climate deal. both leaders directed or negotiate to work on a possible deal after me for nearly an hour this morning at the un climate conference in copenhagen. the move came after president obama's speech to the conference. we're going to show that to you, plus we begin with speeches by other world leaders. it's about 50 minutes.

>> please accept my apologies for this delay. i also like to take this opportunity to inform everybody that this is as i emphasize, an informal high level event hosted by the danish government, and we will later today have a formal setting. i would like to use this opportunity to welcome the many heads of state and government who have joined us in copenhagen for this historic conference. i am indeed gratified that so many of you have accepted our invitation. your presence is a major factor in ensuring success, and a clear expression of global commitments. the purpose of this in formal event is to look beyond copenhagen. we will listen to interventions presented global perspectives on the crucial climate challenges

we all face. and we will hear suggestions on how to address these challenges. ladies and gentlemen, outside this hall, copenhagen is covered in snow. the cold weather makes for a beautiful, almost fairytale like setting. but we are gathered here today to confront a very, very different reality. our planets is warming. we are here because only determined global action can spin this global challenge. the impressive group of distinguished leaders present here since a very clear signal, the level of political commitment has never been higher. we must seize this opportunity today, the time to act is now. no nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can

escape the impact of climate change. global warming knows no border. it does not discriminate. it simply affects us all. the solution is, however, complex. but we know what needs to be done. we know that the future of our planet depends on global commitment to permanently reduce greenhouse gas emissions. you have decided to come to copenhagen. this sends a clear signal. this shows the world that climate change is no longer just an issue for environmental ministers and others. climate change is real. it is a serious. it is spirited. and it is growing. it affects our economy. it affects our security. it is an issue of the highest national and international priority. for too many years, mankind has

been slow to recognize the magnitude of the climate threat. and our response has been insufficient. today, will hopefully marks a new beginning. the process over the last three years that has brought us here today has already generated concrete political action all over the world. almost all major economists have developed targets and regulations for greenhouse gas emissions. science on climate change has evolves. common understanding of the problem has spread to all corners of society. for young people, climate change is now the prime imperative for national cooperation. business is embracing and developing green safe at an

unprecedented pace, the world is indeed changing. we are changing because we have to change, because our populations demand it. because it is in our fundamental national interest. because we have a moral obligation to all future generations. i remain deeply convinced that this is what the world expects, and what science demands. and i hope that we can maintain this mission, not just today, but also for the years to come. today, does not mark the end of our word, but rather the beginning. it is not very often we as leaders to get a chance to chart out a new course for our planet. we stand before one of these rare and defining moments in history.

future generations will judge us on our ability to translate the momentum and commitment and make this conference a decisive moment of change. now we must chart the course of the future of our planet. i sincerely hope that you have come here with the clear measures that they simmer 18, 2009, marks the beginning of a bright and green future. thank you very much. i would now like to invite the secretary-general of the united nations, mr. ban ki-moon, to make a statement. please, mr. secretary-general. [applause] >> distinguished heads of state and government, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen,

prime minister rasmussen, it is a great pleasure and honor for me to welcome you to this very important level meeting conference on climate change. thank you for your taking time as part of your very busy state affairs. this means you are coming as national and global leaders to address together this climate change issues, which is a defining challenge of our era. excellencies, the finishing line is in sight. our discussions are bearing fruit. never has the world united on such a scale. the leaders are all your. every sector of society

mobilized, faith groups, ceos, and individual citizens. the world is watching. we are closer than ever to the worlds first truly global agreement to limit and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. just hours remain too close to spinal tap. you have achieved much already. if we are to meet the climate change challenge, we must act as united nations. now is your moment, we are united. now it is time for us to be united in action. common action. i import you to seize this opportunity. now is the time again for common

sense, compromise, and courage. common sense, compromise, and courage, political courage, political wisdom and political leadership shall prevail. and let me add, conscience. it will be your legacy for all time. it will be legacy all for leadership, national leadership, national leaders and global leaders. today, in copenhagen on climate change for common good. let us walk together to deliver this to our succeeding generations. and let's walk together for a better and prosperous future for humanity, and more

environmentally sustainable world. and i count on your leadership and your commitment. and thank you very much again for your leadership. [applause] >> thank you, general. now gives me great pleasure to invite the premier of the peoples republic of china, his excellency to take the floor and make a statement. your excellency, the floor is yours. [applause]

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: prime minister rasmussen, dear colleagues, at this very moment millions of people across the world are following closely what is happening here in copenhagen. the will that we express and the commitment that we make here should help push forward mankind's historical process of climate change. standing at this podium, i am deeply aware of the heavy responsibility. china takes climate change very seriously. we have made and will continue to make unremitting efforts to tackle this challenge. qaeda was the first developing country to adopt and implement

national climate change program. in recent years, we have formulated a series of policies and regulations which serve as an important means for us to address climate change. china has made the most intensive efforts in energy conservation and pollution reduction in recent years. by the end of the first half of this year, china's injured g. consumption has dropped by 13 percent from the 2005 level, equivalent to reducing 800 million tons of carbon dioxide in nation. china has enjoyed the fastest growth of new energy and renewable energy. between 2005 and 2008. renewable energy increased by 51%. and china ranked first in the world in terms of installed hydropower capacity, nuclear power capacity under

construction, the coverage of solar, water heating panels and photo power capacity. and 2008, the use of renewal energies reached an equivalent of 250 million tons of standard coal, a total of 30.5 million rural households gain access to biogas, equivalent to a reduction of 49 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions. china has the largest area of man-made forest in the world. we have continued with large-scale effort to return farmland to force, and expand forestation in order to increase forest carbon sink. in the pass i.d., china's first register at a net increase of 20.5 million, and for stock volume rose by one point for 3 billion cubic meters. the total area of man made forest in china has reached 54 million hectares, the large and were.

china has a 1.3 billion population and it has projected gdp is only exceeded 3000 u.s. dollars. according to the un standards we still have 150 million people living below the poverty line. and we therefore face the arduous task of developing the economy and improving people's livelihood. china is now at an important stage of accelerated industrialization and urbanization, and given the predominant role of cole and our energy mix we are confronted with special difficulty in a mission reduction. however, we have always regarded addressing climate change as an important strategic task. between 1992, 2005, china's carbon dioxide in nation's four unit gdp were reduced by 46%. building on that we have set the new target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gdp by 40, to 45 percent by 20

to one in from the 2005 level. to reduce carbon dioxide emissions on such large-scale and such over and instead appeared a time where require tremendous effort on our part. our target will be incorporated into china's mid- and long-term plan for national economic and social development, as a mandatory one, to ensure that its implementation is subject to the supervision by the law and public opinion. we will further enhance the domestic statistical monitoring and evaluation methods, improve the way for releasing information information, increase transportation actively engaged in international exchange dialogue and cooperation. dear colleagues, to meet the climate change challenge, the international community must strengthen confidence, build consensus, make a vigorous effort and enhance cooperation.

and we must always adhere to the following things. first, maintain the consistency of outcomes. framer, convention of climate change at the kyoto protocol has outcomes of large and long and hard work of all countries. to serve as a legal basis and guide for international cooperation on climate change. and as such, they must be highly valued. the outcome of this conference must stick to rather than obscure the basic principles ensuring the convention and protocol. it must follow rather than deviate from the mandate of the roadmap. it should lockup rather than deny the progress already achieved in the negotiation. second, i pulled the fairness of rules. the principle of common to responsibility represents the core and bedrock of international cooperation on climate change, and it must never become covered by.

in addressing climate change, it is inadmissible to turn a blind eye to historical responsibilities, and different levels of development or undermine the efforts of developing countries to get rid of poverty and backwardness to action in this regard can only be taken within the framework of existing with the government. third, pay attention to the practicality of the target. we need to take long-term perspective, but more important we should focus on the present. it is necessary to set a direction for our long-term assets, but it is even more important to focus on achieving near-term and midterm reduction targets. honoring the commitments already made in taking real action. one action is more useful than a dozen programs. we should give people hope i taken steady actions. forth, and should effectiveness

of institutions and mechanisms. we should make concrete and effective institutional arrangements under the convention, and urged developed countries to on other commitments, provide sustained and sufficient financial support to developing countries. speed up the transfer of climate friendly technologies, and effectively help developing countries, especially small island states least developed countries, landlocked countries and african countries. i wish to conclude the underlying that is with a sense of responsibility to the chinese people and the whole mankind that the chinese government has set a target for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. this is a voluntary action china has taken in the light of its national circumstances, who have not attach any condition to the

target here nor have we linked it to the target of any other country. we will honor our word with real action. whatever outcome of this conference may produce, we will be fully committed to achieving and even exceeding the target. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, your excellency. i would now like to invite the prime minister from -- i would now like to invite the brazilian president to the floor, mr. president. the floor is yours.

>> a very warm welcome to the president from brazil. [applausebrazil.. .

>> we see that the problem is even more severe than we could ever imagine. and thinking to give a contribution to this this discussion and this conference brazil has taken a position that i should say was a very bold

one. we have presented targets to the year 2020, and we have assumed a commitment and we have passed and our national congress transforming in an act or bill that brazil will reduce its greenhouse gas effect emissions in the 38 -- 36.1% up to 38.9%. and based in some things that we consider that are truly important. changes in the brazilian agricultural system, we will have to make changes in the the brazil industry. we will have to make changes and

improve our energy matrix that is already one of the cleanest energy matrixes of the world. we also have taken the commitment to reduce the deforestation of the amazon rain forest by 80% till the year 2020. we did that building the economic engineering that would oblige a developing country that faces many economic difficulties like ours that we will span the tell 2020, $166 billion, which is the equivalent of $16 billion $16 billion per year. it is not an easy task.

it was necessary to take these measures to show to the rest of the world that with only words and bargaining we would not find a solution in the copenhagen conference. i had the pleasure to participate last night until 2:00 in the morning in a meeting where sincerely i should say i did not expect that type would be participating in it. it was a meeting where many heads of state were there. many predominant figures of the political world where, but, once again, frankly sincerely to submit to heads the state to

certain kinds of discussions as the one we had last night for a long time i have not seen such a meeting. yesterday i was in a meeting, and i remember that as a trade union leader what i will say at the bargaining table with the business representatives. why did we face all these difficulties? because we did not take care before in advance to work with the responsibility that was necessary for us. the issue is not only the money. some people think that only funds or money would solve the problems. it did not solve the problems in the past. it will not solve the problems in the present. even less it will solve the problems for the future. money is important, and the poor

countries, the less developed countries need the money to keep their development going, to preserve their environment, to take care of their forests. that's true. but it is also important that we, the developing countries and the rich countries, when we think in the money we should not think that someone is paying us a favor. let's not think the they are giving something to us that we are begging for because the money that will be put on the table is the payment of greenhouse gases that return during emissions that happened

during two centuries because they have the privilege of those countries that industrialized themselves first. [applauding] so, it is not a bargain between those that have the money and those that do not have the money. it is a much more serious commitment that we are discussing. it is a commitment to see if it is truly true or not what the scientists are saying, that global warming is not reversible and that so those that have more resources and better possibilities should guarantee to give a contribution to protect those that are more in what. everybody was in agreed upon that we needed to guarantee the

2 degrees of global warming until 2020. everybody agrees with the 2 degrees celsius. everybody also has the consciousness that it is only possible to build this agreement if the countries take with responsibility the targets. and even those targets that should be something that would be a similar issue to decide on, there are a lot of people that want to even bargain with these targets. we could offer a little bit more if we had assumed through it could will in this recent times, all of us, we all knew that it

was necessary to keep the targets commitment to and to keep the commitments with financing that in the in the paper that would be passed here in this conference we would have to keep the principles that were adopted by the kyoto protocol and to keep those principles by the framework convention. the truth of the matter is that we do have common responsibilities, shared responsibilities. i never forget that when i took office in the year 2003 my commitment was to try to guarantee that each brazilian could have breakfast in the morning : lunch, and have dinne. for the developed world three

meals is something of the past, something they issued a long time ago. for africa, for latin america, and for many asian countries this is something still for the future. this is linked to the discussions that we are having here because it is not all in discussing the coming change issue that we are discussing. we have to discuss development and opportunities for all countries. [applauding] and i had conversations moving fourth to world leaders, and i reached the conclusion that it was possible to build a political base that could explain to the rest of the world that we had the government. we are highly responsible people and we wanted to find a solution. i still believe in that. i am excessively optimistic, but

it is necessary for us to play a game not thinking about who is going to be the winner into is going to be the loser. it is true that those countries have the right to demand transparency. they do have the right even to demand compliance of that policy that was financed, but it is also true that we need to be very careful with this intrusion or intervention into the developing countries unless developed countries. the experience that we have from the past either from the international monetary fund, either from the world bank in our countries is not recommend a bull that that we should continh

those old policies from the 21st century. what we need, and i will say this frankly in public something that i have not said yet in my own country. i have not said even to my team here, i have not addressed to my congress. it is necessary for us to make more sacrifices. brazil is willing to put money to help other countries. we will do it. [applauding] we are willing to participate in the financing mechanisms if we reach an agreement on final proposal from this conference. now, what we do not agree is that the most important figures of the planet earth sign any

kind of document or paper just to say that we signed a document or paper. i would love to leave copenhagen with the most perfect document signed in the world, but if we did not have commissions to build such a document until now i don't know, my dear friends rasmussen and ban-ki moon, if we did not manage the document i am not sure if some angel or a some wiseman will come down to this and will put in our minds the intelligence that we lacked up to now. i don't know if that is born to be possible. i believe as i believe in god, i believe in miracles.

and a miracle can happen. i want to be part of that miracle. but so that this miracle could happen we need to take into account that we have two working groups working on these two papers that we cannot forget all their work. so the two working papers are extremely important. second, that we should draft a political statement that would serve as a numberless statement. we can also do that if we understand at least three issues. first, kyoto. second, the framework convention. mrv, third. they could not threaten the national sovereignty of each country. each country has to have the competence to do its own oversight. at the same time that the money

is being put for the effectively less-developed countries, poor countries, brazil did not come here to bargain. our targets, we don't need foreign money for our targets. we will do it with our own resources. we are willing to take one step further if we manage to solve the problem that will, first, maintaining the developing countries. we stayed one century without growth while others were growing a lot. now we started to grow. it is not fair for the developing countries now we go back and make more sacrifices. we still have a lot of poor people. in brazil we still have lot of poor people. in africa there are still a lot of poor people. india and china there is a lot

of poor people still. we also understand the role of the more richer countries. they also cannot be those that will save us. what we want is only that we can work together, rich and poor and to establish a common ground that will allow us to leave this conference with great pride and to say to the four corners of the world that we are concerned to preserve the future of the planet earth without the sacrifice of its main species which are men and women and children that live in this world. thank you very much. [applauding] [applauding]

>> thank you very much, mr. president, for your statement and for, i must say, you're very wise remarks. which proves, which proves that you are one of the wise men required for agreeing and reaching a powerful outcome of this conference. now i would like to invite the president of the united states to take the floor. please, mr. president, the floor is yours. [applauding] >> good morning. it is an honor for me to join

this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. we come here in copenhagen because climate change poses a great and growing danger to our people. all of you would not be here unless you, like me, were convinced that this danger is real. this is not fiction. it is science. unchecked climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. this much we know. the question then before us is no longer the nature of the challenge. the question is our capacity to meet it. for while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, i have

to be honest that the world watches us today. i think our ability to take collective action is in doubt right now, and it hangs in the balance. i believe we can act boldly and decisively in the face of a common threat. that is why i come here today, not to talk, but to act. [applauding] now, as the world's largest economy and as the world's second-largest emitter america bears our responsibility to address climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility. that is why we renewed our

within international climate onal climate change negotiations. that is why we worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. that is why we have taken bold action at home by making a historic investments in the renewable energy by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings by pursuing a comprehensive plan to station to transform to a clean energy economy. these mitigation actions are ambitious, and we are taking them not simply to meet global responsibilities. we are convinced, as some of you may be convinced, that changing the way we produce and use energy is essential to america's economic future. it will create millions of new jobs, power new industries, keep up competitors and sparked new innovation. we are convinced for our own

self-interest, that the way we use energy changing it to a more efficient fashion is essential to our national security because it helps to reduce our dependence on for normal and helps us deal with some of the dangers posed by climate change. so i want this plenary session to understand, america is going to continue on this course of action to mitigate our emissions and to move toward a clean energy economy no matter what happens here in copenhagen. we think it is good for us as well as good for the world. but we also believe that we will all be stronger, all be safer, all be more secure if we act together. that is why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to certain steps and hold each

other accountable to a certain commitments. after months of talks, after two weeks of negotiations, after innumerable side meetings, bilateral meetings, endless hours of discussion among negotiators, i believe that the pieces of that record should now now be clear. first, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions and begin to turn the corner on climate change. i am pleased that many of us have already done so. almost all the major economies have put forward legitimate targets, a significant targets, ambitious targets. i am confident that america will

fill the commission is that we have made cutting our emissions in the rates of 17% by 2020 and by more than 80% by 2015 in line with legislation. second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments and exchange misinformation in a transparent manner. these measures need not be interested or infringe upon the sovereignty. they must, however, insure that an accord is credible and that we are living up to our mutual obligations. without such accountability any agreement would be empty words on the page. i don't know how you have an international agreement where we all are not sharing information and ensuring that we are meeting our commitments. that doesn't make sense. it would be a hollow victory.

number three, we must have financing that helps developing countries to adapt, particularly the least developed and most vulnerable countries. america will be part of a fast start funding that will wrap up to $10 billion by by 2012. and yesterday secretary hillary clinton, secretary of state, made it clear that we will engage in global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020 if and only if it is part of a broader accord that i have just described. mitigation, transparency, financing. it is a clear formula, one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and

respective capabilities. it adds up to a significant accord, one that takes us farther than we have never gone before as an international community. i just want to say to this plan recession that we are running short on time. at this point the question is whether we will move forward together were split apart. whether we prefer posturing to action. i am sure that many consider this an imperfect remark that i that i just described. no country will get everything that it wants. there are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached and no obligations with respect to transparency. they think that the most

advanced nations should pay a higher price. i understand that. there are those advanced nations to think that developing countries either cannot of toward this assistance or that will not be held accountable effectively and that the world's fastest-growing emitters should bear a greater share of the burden. we know the fault lines because we have been imprisoned by them for years. these international discussions have essentially taken place now for almost two decades. we have very little to show for it other than an increase in acceleration of the climate change phenomenon. the time for talk is over. this is the bottom line. we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward,

continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. we can do that command everyone who is in this room will be part of an historic endeavor, one that makes life better for our children and our grandchildren, or we can choose to delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month year after year, perhaps a decade after decade, all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible. ladies and gentlemen, there is no time to waste. america has made our choice. we have chartered our course. we have made our commitment. we will do what we say.

now i believe it is the time for the nations and the people of the world to come together behind a common purpose. we are ready to get this done today, but there has to be movement on all sides to recognize that it is better for us to act than to talk. it is better for us to choose action over inaction, future over the past, and with courage and faith and believe that we can meet our responsibilities to our people and the future of our planet. thank you very much. [applauding]

>> after the speech he just saw president obama met privately with chinese premier wen jiabao for nearly an hour to discuss the emissions targets financing and transparency. a senior obama administration official said the two took a step forward which led them to correct it is to work on a possible agreement. the official spoke on a condition of anonymity to describe the leader's private talk. >> i am absolutely confident that if the american people know what is in this bill and if the senate knows what is in this bill that this is going to pass. >> work on the senate health care bill continues. follow every minute of the debate from the senate floor with late nights and possibly another weekend session live on

c-span2, the only network to cover the senate gavel-to-gavel with no commercials or commentary. also, get updates from the reporters and editors of the congressional quarterly roll call group. for iphone users, hear the debate with the new c-span radio iphone app. >> he was not an imposing figure. he was not a giant of his time. yet he emerged as a nominee at a time when the party was populated by big figures. >> his mark on history includes manifest destiny and in his new biography of james k. polk, a country of fast design, robert merry looks at the life and times of our 11th president sunday . >> still in time for the holidays american icons on dvd.

this special three-disc collection is only $24.95. for this and other gift-giving ideas from c-span visit c-span.org/store. .. well, as you probably well know the senate is still involved with their health care debate. and we want to get up to date on it with the managing editor of congressional quarterly. where is the senate when it

comes to health care? guest: well, day turns to night turns to day >> well, day turns to night, turns to day again. it seems like they don't move very forward. but the action is clearly off the floor. harry reid the majority leader are trying to cut people who are withholding their votes. not so much the bill itself few procedure bill to let it come up for a vote. he's trying to get the magical number of 60. sort of the same situation the democratic leadership has faced. until then, we don't know. it looks like there will be the -- sort of throttle will come to a close close to christmas eve after they overcome what will be a republican procedural hurdles. >> host: mr. bettleheim what's

doing to happen today? they voted on the fiscal 2010 spending bill. it's not just money for the pentagon in this bill, but a bunch of expiring programs that would continue for example, unemployment and health care benefits that were part of the economic stimulus package that was enacted in february. so under senate rules now that they agree to limit debate, they debate more. they expect to vote maybe 7:30 in the morning on saturday if the republicans decide to use all of the 30 hours of post cloture time they are allotted. once they are done, they can try to turn back to health care which is the elephant in the room. if senator reid feels he has the votes to try to limit debate on,

he will dos oo. he will file a serious of motions that will make some major changes to the original bill that he offered in early december. we'll see what happens? >> do you expect the senate to be in session this weekend? >> that's almost for sure, they have the pentagon spending bill because the funding kind of expires midnight of saturday. they could, of course, they can't agree on this particular bill with all of the add ons they could pass continuing resolutions. but they have to do something, otherwise the pentagon kind of goes in shutdown mode. i don't think either party wants that to happen. they will go early next week. this will be the third consecutive weekend they are going to be in session. this debate goes on drip by drip by drip. the action is not so much on the floor as off the floor as reid tries to delegating negotiate some sort of compromise and get the number one legislative

priority of the democrats. >> host: mr. bettleheim, two issues in the papers this morning. number one, they are calling a lot of -- a lot of articles are calling the liberal mutiny by the senate majority leader. and number two, the republicans may call the bluff of the majority leader about a christmas vote. >> guest: right. in a lot of debates we've covered, there's always the bluff at end. what it has done, because senate rules require that you need 60 votes just to get past the filibusters, in effect what it's done is it's made every senator in the democratic caucus vital.

if one of them decide to hold their support, they have incredible leverage. reid finds himself in a wind. they know that. they are trying to run the clock and force the support for the health care bill to a vote. snowe feels they aren't giving it enough time to read the managers amendment that reid tends to propose. you have the standoff. at the same time, the clock is running. reid had set a christmas deadline. it's really into crunchline. it comes down to about three or four days. >> adriel bettleheim, we always appreciate you giving us an update on what's going on in congress, particularly the senate and health care. >> the senate meets at 11 eastern to continue debate on defense spending this budget year. the defense is the only

department without full spending authority for the year. it's operating under temporary authority which runs out saturday at midnight. if senators use all of the debate time, the final vote will be saturday morning, sending the measure to the president before his signature before midnight. for more on the health care, a portion of this morning's "washington journal." >> host: and on your screen now is senator tom coburn, republican of oklahoma. senator, this is "washington post." senator maybe home for christmas only in their dreams. are you planning on being here? >> i'm not. but it's up to the majority leader. this bill isn't going to pass the house until late january. we're in a little bit of a charade right now.

>> host: senator stabenow was on the floor. here's what she had to say. >> out of 40 weeks that we've been in session, 36 of those weeks v -- we have had filibusters, objections to amendments, objections to bills. that means only four weeks out of the entire year we've been in this situation where the republicans have not been saying no. had not been stalling on things that are incredibly important. >> i don't know for numbers are right. they are probably right. the characterization is certainly wrong. most of the bills come up without offering the amendment. we've had the health care, we've had 10 of the amendments considered in two weeks on a 2,000 page bill that is going to

affect effect our economy. there's nothing wrong with the word no. the american people want to hear us say no. no, when we are stealing 43 cents out of every dollar that we spent from our grand kids. no, when we are ignoring the constitution. no, we when we going to pass the bill that says you have to say something even though that goes against the constitution. no, socialism at every term, more government, bigger government, and less effective government. there's nothing wrong with that word. that's a healthy word, especially given the fact that a child born today and their parents 20 years which each owe $1,013,000,000. spending it up 12% this year

over last year in a year where the country had entree wrote inflation. and we've increased it 12% plus increased it 356% directly to the agencies from the stimulus bill. so we're now 40% increase in year over year. no is a wonderful word. i don't mind being called somebody that with the bills that have been put up and the things they are trying to pass, the vast majority of americans don't want. because they recognize, we don't afford the government that we have today. >> what was your purpose in calling for the reading of the health care bill yesterday? >> actually, it was the day before? >> host: day before. sorry. >> first of all, bernie sanders is honest. he has the courage of his convictions. he wanted us and the rest of the american people to see what it was going to be like when you get this health care bill that nobody has seen yet, expect the leader, when it's finally passed, their ultimate goal is bernie sanders. they won't say that publicly.

it's dead last year. everybody is denying that now. the american people don't want the government standing between them and their doctor. we have that already in the terms of rationalling of the medicare. the purpose was to make sure that people get to see the contrast. the other purpose was is to delay as long as possible this bill so that we don't saddle the americans with another $2.5 trillion worth of government. >> senator, are you still a practicing physician? >> i am. >> host: are you delivering babies? >> i am not this is the first year. >> host: why? >> increased malpractice? >> host: can we ask how much? >> if i had practiced and delivered 100, it would have been $80,000. >> host: $80,000.

republican line you are first up. >> caller: well, thank you. thank you. this morning senator i just enjoy every minute of your debate on the senate floor. let me explain why i say that. >> well, you are up awful early for c-span. >> caller: i know. i'm retired. to avoid yak work -- yard work, i try to get a little time. the point that i want to make to our liberal friends is to have the opportunity to watch you bring amendments to the floor. more time than not, it's saying to the senate these -- first of all these bills are out of priority. there are certain things we need to do and there are certain things we'd like to do. that's number one that you present. and then number two, explain how you are going to pay for it.

i heard a figure the other day, yesterday, i believe. that if you took our kept and unfunded mandates which you might have to explain to some of our liberal friends. the family debt per family in the united states is $400,000. >> well, $400,000, it's $380,000 per person. that's now. that's not including where it will be 20 years from now. we pass add bill out of judiciary committee and i voted against it. because it increasing spending on something that's not federal government's role. we keep passing bills and spending money that we don't have that the constitution says it's states right and state's obligations. >> host: senate procedure.

we had a good discussion with our viewers yesterday about whether or not the 60-vote threshold is vital whether one senator should be able to in essence hold up something. do you foresee any change in senate procedure? or do you think it's built correctly? >> no, i think first of all, the assumption you say very casually, hold. what is a hold? i use holds all of the time. a hold is saying if you want to pass this bill, let's have some amendments on it. let's let me be able to vote publicly. what happens is before i got to the senate, 95% of everything they did, they did late at night through unanimous consent. they didn't get to see the debate. there were no amendments offered. you had no chance to put your two scents in. hold is something saying i disagree to pass the bill

without having the debate of and amendments. that has nothing to do with trying to stop the bill. that has to do with educating the american people. one the biggest docks today is they don't get to hear the debate. because we pass thing by unanimous consent, saying we all 100% agree. you know, i just find if you read the constitution, it's hard to come to agreement with 80% of the bills that go through the senate if this thing is right. and either this is the rule book or it's not. and so a hold is nothing more than saying put it in the light of day. let's have debate. let's allow amendments. quite often, they don't want to do that. >> next call for senate coburn, concord, new hampshire democrat. >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my good. >> good morning. >> caller: i'm a small business owner. i can tell you the cost of the health insurance is straggling my business. it's eating up our profits, we

can't give increases in salaries or anything. my real concern that i'd like to point out to the all of the listeners as well as you and your constituents is we pay you folks. our senators and congress approximately three times what the average american makes. then we pick up 75% of the cost of your health care. and you have the option of maybe nine plans. i really think that you should be obligated to only buy what your constituents at home have, just like my new hampshire reps only have access to new hampshire option. if you had to pay for it, and if you had limited options, you'd realize there's a crisis. but we have american royalty, our congress and senators are royalty. i just think it's terrible. >> well, i think she has a valid point. in the mark up on the health bill, it said whatever plan we have to put in the senate. we actually have the choice of

285 plans, i pay $800 a month. >> who's covered under that? >> my wife and i. >> host: would you consider it cadillac plan? >> it will be by 2011, 2012 as the cost goes up. we just discovered the opm or the people that run fehpb as the rates increase late year were higher than the rate increases outside. this is the fiscal issue for the federal employees and the cost associated within. i want to go back to her point. she's right. we ought to lead by sample. that's why we -- senators really compared to private care, we ought to be in medicaid. the guarantee the outcomes would improve. but it goes back to this point, peter, the government now controls 60% of all health care. and if you look at when the

hyperinflation started, it started with government programs. and if you look at where we are going, based on the curve, and what the joint tax committee as well as the cms, our premiums are going to rise faster, not slower if we pass the present bill. that's not fair to senator reid. we don't know what the present bill is yet. we haven't seen it. we know the bill that he has on the floor. she's right. the problem with health care in america is cost. it's cost. that's why denies people access. but in the name of cost we shouldn't destroy what is good. we ought to go after and destroy what is bad. and the proposals that we have seen is hurt what is good. as a practicing physician and knowing the impact of government programs on my practice, when you put a bill up that has 70 new government programs that's going to require 20,000 new

federal employees that's 1690 times the secretary is going to write the regulation, that's the last thing we need is more rules, more guidelines, more compliance issues. because doctors can't afford the cost of the overhead now. >> well, as a ob/gyn -- >> actually i'm a family practice ob. >> host: you probably don't deal with a lot of medicare. >> i did. only about 40% of my practice was obstetrics. 60% was kids to grandmas. >> host: okay. so would you charge different rates than the medicare and private? >> it's against the law. here's what the federal law says, anybody, you cannot give your services away free to medicare. because if you do, you have to give every other medicare patient free care. you can bill whatever you want

to medicare, but they are only going to pay you a fixed price. what happens is we get this billing differential. if you go to the hospital er, you get to pay the highest dollar they got if you haven't got insurance, you got negotiated rate. we're not going to fix health care until we do payment reform as well. >> host: so as a doctor, would you provide somebody with a price list as much as somebody were buying a car? >> it's starting to happen. you're starting to see it. there's one that i know of that's an acquaintance of mine that stopped taking all insurance and medicaid. he has three prices. he says i am practicing the best medicine that i have practiced. now i have time to listen to the patients and truly give them the attention. he used to have four nurses, four office staff, he has one now. so he's cut that overhead. and his prices aren't that real.

comprehensive physical with the test is about $600. and the office visit is like $120. and if it's a long office visit, it's $200. but long office visit is like an hour you get to spend with the doctor. the average, when they study this, and by the time you go in and sit down and talk to your doctor, the average time before they interpret you because they want to get to the next patient is seven seconds. that's taken away from what we know as the best practice of medicine. every medical student is taught this, if you will listen to your patient, they will tell you what is wrong with them. and it's absolutely true. expect no doctors are listening anymore. because they have to get to see the next patient. we listen a little bit. cover it with test. order test people don't need. and walk out of the room and come back when we have the test. we're moving from that of a true clinician and physician to a practicing doctor that relied on technology rather than the skill

of practicing of the medicine. and it's going to cause us great harm. it's causing united us great harm. >> host: next william. thanks. >> caller: good morning. i'd like to make a short statement to ask the senator a question. i'm trying to get a profile of myself. i'm a 72-year-old disabled veteran. i had 28 appointments this year. yesterday i had my second colon colonoscomy. now in the tea bag movement you heard you made a blanket statement criticizing government insurance included medicare, medicaid, military, everything. believe me, you really got me

when you started criticizing the da. will you write down publyically apologize for criticizing a system that we think is the best in the world? >> no, i won't apologize. what i said is what i believe. talk to any doctor going through medicare training and you ask them compared to the care that's given as a va, compared to everybody else. where do you want to put your family? where do you think the best care is? i'm all for va care, in certain area, va is superior to anything else. what we should is give them a card and let them go wherefore you want. if it's good, great. if it's bad one, no. you don't get that choice. what needs to happen is you need to have the commit, if you want

to go to one, great. if you want to get it down the road at your general hospital or anybody you want, if you served our country and we committed health care, we ought to give you a choice. freedom. there's many fine doctors in the va system. government-run programs, the outcomes are not as good. look at the literature anywhere you want. the outcome is not as good. >> host: republican. you are on with senator tom coburn. >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. >> good morning. >> caller: there was a question that was asked earlier by the representative -- of the representative. she didn't answer it, and then there was banter about the lieberman act. the question is what is the constitutional authority to mandate buying a product health insurance and putting criminal

penalties on that product if you don't purchase it? what is the constitutional authority that allows congress to pass that kind of law? i haven't heard an answer for anyone on how our legal staff handles that. >> i can give her an answer. there is absolutely no constitutional authority for us to do that. as a matter of fact, there's not even a constitutional authority for a lot of what we do in washington. we have expand the numerated powers far beyond what we can afford. we've gotten almost to the point where the government is doing everything at the federal level and taking away the rights and privileges at the state level because we preempted. i heard the previous guest say the goal is for everybody in america to be insured. the goal is to make sure that everybody is have access to health care and have the capability so they can access health care in is way that is

detrimental. in other words, finances shouldn't keep you from being able to get there. we should, at the same time, a lot of people in the country, most young people won't buy it. because we're going to see the rates double on them. they are healthy. they are going to say i don't want health insurance. that's going to drive the rates up for 40 to 64-year-old group. if you can get it any time you are sick why wouldn't you get pay the $750 a year and save the other $4,000 or $5,000. >> host: when's the last time you had a conversation with harry reid about health care? >> probably yesterday or the day before. it was not in depth. they are not interested. we offered lots of ideas. look the president has a mandate from the american people to leave. there's no question. there's a strong majority in both houses. but the difference is what are the american people want on health care. and they do want us to solve the

problems. i want us to solve the problems. look. insurance companies i think hurt people too. by their decisions. their limitations. but the way to fix it is to not put the government in charge. the way to fix is to create incentives for outcomes and availability of care. but the question is do you have a government-centered program or patient-centered program. that's my big problem with most of these plans. the country is based on freedom as our caller asked. we're going to mandate that you have to buy something in that country. it'll never stand. that mandate will never stand the test of the constitutional challenge. if you are going to build the health care, and that causes that to fail, fall. what happens? we ought to go back.

thomas put out a wonderful study on looking at the access and waste in health care. and we spent $2.4 trillion. they say anywhere from 6 to $850 billion is waste. as a practicing physician, i believe that. that goes all the way from treating things we shouldn't be treating. i'm talking about doctors. tests that we're orders or because there's a connection of interest. fraud, which they say is anywhere from $150 to $250 billion a year. i know it's at least $100 billion to the lack of coordination of care which is $450 billion. we have more than enough money in health care today to give everybody triple a health care if in effect we can create and allow forces to create an efficiency and effectiveness. and you had mentioned earlier about talking about liability.

they say defensive medicine $4 or $5 billion. that's the source that i've seen in the quantity of cost. i guarantee i order test that you don't need. but i need. and it's a lot every day. >> have you ever been sued? >> yes, once. >> host: for? >> it got thrown out of court. that goes back. is 90% of the suits never yet to court. they are not settled. they are based on the fact that we're going to extort somebody because they think it'll be cheaper to settle the extortion, you spend it with lawyers or pay the fine. the remaining 10%, 89% are decided in favor of the provider. so what that means 1% of all of

the cases on average are legitimate. we actually, i think we're not point in this country, the lawyers defending, i think a lot of people who should be getting compensation aren't. and remember when they do, they only get about 40%. the rest of it gets consumed in fees for trial lawyers and the expenses of doing it. there's ways we can figure that out. we can do that a lot cheaper. but there's nothing. we haven't addressed that question at all on the health bills. >> senator coburn from this morning. you can watch all of that segment online at c-span.org. we're leaveing this because the senate is coming in. as senator voted 63-33 to clear the measure for final vote form morning at 7 eastern. senators will spend today debating the pentagon spenting bill. the measure also carries short-term extensions of

unemployment benefits, highway and transit funding, key pieces of the anti-terror, patriot act. and measure to save in medicare payments. the defense spending bill must go to obama no later than midnight on saturday. the house passed the bill on wednesday by a vote of 395-34. president has to request funds funds -- has yet to request funds for the iraq surge. we're taking you live to the senate floor here on c-span 2. the the senate will resume consideration of the house message with respect to h.r. 3226. the clerk: house message to accompany h.r. an act making appropriations for the department of defense ending

fiscal year, december 30, 2010, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 12:00 noon shall be equally divided and controlled with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, following leader remarks, the senate will resume the house message with respect to h.r. 3326, the department of defense appropriations act. the time until 12:00 is, as the chair mentioned, will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, and i've been designated by the majority leader. the time from 12:00 until 4:00 p.m. will be devoided and -- divided with the republicans controlling the first block and the majority controlling the next pwhrofpblgt if required to use all 30 hours of postcloture debate time the vote on the motion to concur with respect to the defense bill will occur around 7:30 a.m.

tomorrow morning. senators are advised to plan accordingly in light of a winter storm expected to hit the d.c. area and virginia tonight and tomorrow morning. mr. president, i understand h.r. 4314 is at the desk and due for second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4314, an act to permit continued financing of government operations. mr. durbin: mr. president, i now to be any further proceedings at this time. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, we now have time equally divided for the next 60 minutes between the republican side and the democratic side. i see a senator from indiana is on the floor. if he is prepared to speak and can give me an indication of the time he will use to speak, i

would appreciate it. mr. lugar: in response to the distinguished senator, i would like to speak for ten minutes and perhaps 12. mr. durbin: i would say in response to my friend from indiana that 30 minutes of the one hour between now and noon, but for leader time, which i see the leader has taken the floor, is given to the minority. i will yield to the senator from indiana unless the minority leader is prepared to speak at this moment. mr. lugar: i thank the distinguished senator. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. lugar: mr. president, as we debate the defense appropriations bill, i want to take the opportunity to update my colleagues on the activities of the nunn-lugar cooperative threat reduction program that is funded in this bill. i'm very pleased the defense appropriations bill contains

$424.1 million for the nunn-lugar program this year. this amount of funding will ensure the continuation of the current nunn-lugar projects and will permit the nunn-lugar act to take on new tasks in new countries, principally in the areas of biological threat reduction. 18 years ago senator sam nunn of georgia and i along with a bipartisan group of legislators in the last hours of that 1991 session determined that our government had to address the proliferation threats posed by dissolution of the soviet union. in the waning days of the 1991 congressional year, we passed legislation establishing the nunn-lugar cooperative threat reduction program which devotes american technical expertise and money for joint efforts to safeguard and destroy materials and weapons of mass destruction.

since that time the program has amassed an impressive list of accomplish in the in the form you are soviet union and has been expanded to address weapons of mass destruction contingencies around the globe. i've devoted much time and effort to overseeing and accelerating the nunn-lugar program. i've encountered individuals of great dedication serving on the ground, in the former soviet union and our government have made this program work. we've shared many productive adventures in locations and circumstances that few americans have ever experienced. from snowy runways, former soviet bomber bases to biological weapons labs in georgia, from the chemical weapon destruction facility in siberia to submarine bases on the cola peninsula, from the former nuclear weapons test

sites in kazakhstan to albania, it's been my privilege to support the professionals of the defense department and other agencies in reducing threats facing our country. i continue to be impressed by their commitment to the mission and their ingenuity in finding creative solutions to seemingly impossible tasks. much of this work has been done outside the public eye. this is not to say nonproliferation activities lacked public support. congressional votes consistently backed funding for the nunn-lugar and other proliferation projects. but few members of congress or american citizens fully understand the contributions that threat-reduction programs have made to the united states and global security. during my conversations with hoosiers and others around the country, i do my best to explain what is happening on the ground in russia and many other

locations. i put out monthly press releases describing exactly how many weapons were destroyed in the previous month. my office displays a large representation of the nunn-lugar score card and numerous photos and artifacts from visits to weapons illumination sites. understandably threat-reduction programs rarely make head hraoeufpblts we are engaged in an endeavor in which notoriety is likely to come if something goes wrong. if materiels of weapons of mass destruction are not contained in some instances. and this makes for an exceptionally painstaking standard that must be met day in and day out. as of this month, the nunn-lugar program has dismantled 7,514 nuclear warheads, destroyed 768 intercontinental ballistic missiles, eliminated 48 icbm

sites, eliminated 155 bombers, destroyed 651 submarine-launched ballistic missiles, dismantled 32 nuclear submarines and destroyed 960 metric tons of chemical weapons. together the united states and russia have eliminated more nuclear weapons than the combined arsenals of the united kingdom, france and china combined. in addition, american and russian experts have worked together to remove nuclear material from vulnerable locations around the world and to secure it in russia. in 2008, the last of the nuclear warhead storage facilities identified under the bradislava agreement received safety and security upgrades. in may 2009, the chemical weapons destruction facility

asucha began the work of destroying 2 million chemical munitions. i would point out in the case of each one of these shells, a hole is drilled in the bottom of the shell. the nerve gas is carefully extracted and placed in the ground we hope forever. despite these successes, some question why we should continue our work in russia. given recent strains in the united states-russia relationship. i believe the united states and russia must accept the fact we need each other. kremlin rhetoric will swing from one end of the strategic spectrum to the other, and projects will be on and then off. our frustration level sometimes will be high. but we must not lose patience or miss the possibility of

cooperations on cooperative threat reduction. we should recall the nunn-lugar program has created a safeguard u.s. national security interest, and those interests exist regardless of the state of our relationship with russia. it's also vital that we understand the verification utility of the nunn-lugar program which provides for american technicians on the ground in russia, systematically destroying russian weaponry. the cooperative links established by such activity and the confidence-building value inherent in our on-site presence, are assets of incal -- incal hraoubl value. i never considered the nunn-lugar act to be nearly a program or a funding source or a set of agreements. rather it is an engine of nonproliferation cooperation and

expertise that can be applied around the world. and it's a concept through which we as leaders are responsible for the welfare of our children and grandchildren as we attempt to take control of the global threat. the united states must send the clear message that we are willing to go anywhere to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. new opportunities for partnership must be pursued creatively and relentlessly. some may say that we cannot force cooperative nonproliferation programs for the most troublesome nations but the nunn-lugar program has demonstrated the threat of weapons of mass destruction can lead to extraordinary outcomes based on mutual interests. no one would have predicted in the 1980's that americans and russians be working together to destroy weapons in the former soviet union. taking the long view, a satisfactory level of accountability, transparency and

safety must be established in every nation with the weapons of mass destruction program. this year congress enhanced our government's ability to pursue this goal by including language from the nunn-lugar cooperative threat reduction improvement act in the 2010 defense authorization bill. these provisions give the nunn-lugar program additional flexibility to meet unexpected threats in locations around the world in which certain laws would bar the use of such funds. they provide the defense department with the authority to spend up to 10% of annual nunn-lugar program funds not withstanding any other law to meet urgent proliferation threats. the defense authorization bill also included important authority that allows the secretary of defense to accept contributions from foreign governments, international organizations, multinational

entities and other entities for activities carried out under the nunn-lugar program. the program has made tremendous progress on the destruction and dismantlement of weapons systems. in the future the program will be asked to address much more complex and diverse security threats in a large number of countries. i believe the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains the number-one national security threat facing the united states and the international community. over the years i've described international cooperation in addressing threats posed by weapons of mass destruction as a window of opportunity. we never know how long that window will remain open. we must eliminate those conditions that restrict us or delay our ability to act. the united states has the technical expertise and diplomatic standing to

dramatically benefit international security. american leaders must ensure that we have the political will and the resources to implement programs devoted to these ends. the funds in this bill are vital to these efforts. i thank the appropriations committee for its thoughtful attention to this issue. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, the majority leader has signaled that we will finally unveil -- that he will finally unveil the most significant piece of domestic legislation in modern history sometime on saturday and force a vote in the middle of the night about 36 hours later. this is truly outrageous. this will be a bill that none of my constituents have seen, that none of the majority leader's constituents have seen, that none of you have seen, and that

nobody outside the capitol has seen. you could fit into a phone booth the number of people who have seen this bill that will affect the lives of every single american in the most profound way. every american should have an opportunity to know what their senators are voting on before anyone can see it. i doubt if anyone in this chamber could defend the secrecy surrounding this bill. earlier this week the president said -- quote -- "i think it's important for every single member of the senate to take a careful look at what's in this bill." up fortunately there's no bill to read. let me repeat: there is literally no bill to inspect. even senator durbin, my good friend from illinois, who is here on the floor, the second in comond on democratic said, admits he hasn't seen the details of the bill. the only thing that we know for sure about the bill is that it

will raise taxes, raise premiums, and slash medicare. that much we know for sure. the medicare cuts will be nearly a half a trillion dollars to pay for vast expansion of government into health care that an overwhelming majority of americans we now know oppose. that's what's at the heart of this bill that no one's seen yet. so we may not know all the details, but we know this bill can't be fix the. and we know that americans are outraged by what happened in this debate. a bill that was supposed to lower costs and lower taxes and lower premiums will actually raise all three, making existing problems not better, but worse. it's not too late to start over and deliver the reform americans really want, the stop-by-step reforms that we know would -- step-by-step reforms that we know would lower health care costs. they're rushing it through.

that's why the only argument they're left with is a call to history. well, history will be made either way, and this much is clear, passing this bill in this way would be a historic mistake that those who support it will come to regret. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, this is the bill that is before the united states senate. 2,074 pages, and it has been on the internet now for three weeks, in its entirety. you cannot not only read it on the democratic website, you can read it on the republican senate website. so you might ask: wel well, whes the republican comprehensive health care reform bill? it's not to be found. not on the floor of the senate. not on the website because it doesn't exist. after one year of debate about america's health care system,

the republicans in the senate have failed to produce any legislation that has gone through the scrutiny this legislation has faced in terms of its impact on america, its impact on our budget. they're empty handed. what they bring to us on the floor of the senate are speeches, press releases, charts and graphs, and an occasional criticism. i say occasional because for 19 days on the senate floor we have debated this measure, presence health care reform. and let's take a look at the record after 19 days of debate on the floor of the united states senate. the republicans in the united states senate, there are 40 of them, have offered four amendments to the bill in 19 days. four amendments? oh, they've offered six motions

to take the bill off the floor, send it back to committee. they've looked at this, and you heard the minority leader and his criticism of this measure, and found four things that they're willing to bring before the senate to change. it doesn't strike me that this is a good-faith effort to try to bring us to closure in a bipartisan way. instead what we hear from the republican side of the aisle, in addition to only four specific amendments over 19 days is: we haven't had enough time to offer amendments. 19 days, four amendments. you know, i guess some of us are reaching advanced stages in life, age, and maybe don't have the energy we once did, but i honestly believe that even the senate could come up with one amendment a day on health care reform. but the republicans have come up with four over 19 days.

it tells you one of two things, either this is hard work and they're not up to it or they like the current system of health care. and if they do, i would like them to defend the current system of health care. i would like for them to try to explain in their states what i found in my state. and instead of soaring rhetoric and abstractions, let's get down to specifics. this is a gentleman who lives in evanston, illinois, named david buckley. evanston is a great town north of chicago. i enjoy going up there and have a lot of friends there. david had insurance when he needed it, but it ended up costing him his financial health. he's a freelance videographer. he was paying $4,500 a year for health insurance when he was

diagnosed with cancer at 48. he had prompt surgery followed by chemo and radiation. he managed to rid his body of cancer. but that battle ended and another battle began. david's insurance company agreed to cover his cancer treatment, but only after three solid months of investigations of his application for health insurance to determine whether they could find in that application a preexisting condition which would eliminate any responsibility to pay for david's bills. they couldn't. after covering his cancer treatment costs, they did the next thing that insurance companies do. they raised his premiums. and they didn't just raise them a little bit. in the year following his cancer diagnosis, david's insurance rates went up 80%, and that was just the beginning.

within seven years david was paying $28,000 a year in premiums. he had gone from roughly $400 a month to more than $2,000 a month in seven years. and he had a $2,500 deductible, not to mention out-of-pocket expenses. much he's self-played, makes a decent living, about $75,000 a year. imagine taking $2,000 a month out of your paycheck to pay for health insurance. 2 1/2 months after being in the hospital, david flew into a war zone, he was wearing a chemo pump. he's been pushing himself to pay his bills. it's been a losing battle. what started as a $5,000 debt in the year 2000 grew to a $70,000 debt by 2007, and a large

portion came from medical bills. david said i thought the point of having insurance was to keep you out of bankruptcy, not to put you in it. it is meant to be a promise of protection, but for too many people, it hasn't. it has led david to drop his health insurance last year. think about that. he battled cancer an won, and you know, once you've been through that life experience, you are always vigilant, you need the best care to make certain that anything that reoccurs is caught early, but david had to walk away from health insurance coverage because he couldn't afford it. he decided it was health care or saving for retirement or meeting the cost of living. he's in his late 50's. and he's worried about the years when he won't be able to work. health reform is going to help people like david, people who have insurance, but still find themselves vulnerable to financial ruin. it will stop insurance companies from running the rates up sky high when you get sick.

for those with employer-sponsored large-group coverage it will provide access to a larger insurance pool where the cost with be -- will be internet. it will hold insurance companies on annual caps on what they can charge on out-of-pocket charges. think of the battle that this man went through with cancer and then went to battle with his health insurance company. it's not unusual. it happens every day. this bill, which has been criticized by those on the other side of the aisle, will give taifd, and others like -- david, and others like him, a fighting chance. lelet me tell but -- tell you about another person. this, valeri, is from arlington, illinois. she is a doctoral student studying biochap is tri. when she was 4 years old, she was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. she decided early in life she

wasn't going to let diabetes stop her career ambition. she couldn't become an artist or entrepreneur. she knew that she would need a stable job because she needed to have health care, she had diabetes. now at 24, this brilliant young scientist, this doctoral candidate, worries about the diabetes and what she calls the broken, insecure health system, will keep her from returning from the united states to -- to the united states from england and using her skills to help her home country. valeri needs regular doctor visits and insulin shots. for most of her life, her medical care was paid for by her parents. those who have raised children know what happens next. most health care plans that we have for our families cut off our kids at age 24, and that's valeri's age. however, valeri's going to school in england and if you listen to some of the criticisms on the floor here about england,

canada and others, other nations that approach health care differently, you might have an impretion in your mind about -- impression in your mind about what that means. valeri because she's a student in cambridge receives free health care that she said is as -- is as good or better as anything that she had in the united states. in addition to free doctor visits, her care includes care from a dietician and indoe krinnologist -- endrocrinologist free of charge. she is -- in better health than she has been in years. she hopes to open her own laboratory where she can continue research. and -- in myochondrial birolling yism she worries if she would be able to do that if she came back to the united states. here's what she said: as long as the same broken, insecure health

system remains in place, i see little incentive to come home to the united states with my talents an experience. we can't afford to lose talented scientists like valeri who might find a cure for a disease like parkinson. 45,000 a year die -- they can't get the care they need to stay healthy and they lose their lives. if we don't change this system, if we don't reform it, we stand to lose talented people and we also stand to lose valuable lives. the last person i want you to see is a friend of mine, dale mazeer. dale lives in blue mount, illinois. the mazure family is well known in my part of illinois. over the years i visited with them in their homes and their

hometowns. blue mount is a little town south of decatur, illinois. everyone knows one another. they're all neighbors and friends. most of them go to church together and have the community picnics, great, small town in midwestern america. there are a lot of farmers there, retired factory workers from the caterpillar plants in decatur, and a lot of folks who like living in a small town. this used to be a thriving area, it has struggled with changes in manufacturing and changes in our economy. but it is a close-knit community. dale mazere lives there. he was born 61 years ago, a hard worker at the cat plant in decatur for 32 years. he decided to retire 11 years based on a simple calculation, he was told he would have a modest pension and his health care costs would be covered in his union contract. in the time since he retired,

his expectations haven't been met, a difficult economy, new contract negotiations in decatur, resulted in the erosion of dale's union health care coverage. he has to spend more of his pension on filling the gaps of the reduced health care coverage. the monthly premiums skyrocketed from nothing when he retired to almost $400 a month and that's 20% of his pension check. in addition, the quality of coverage has gone down. what was once a generous health care plan, has such high out-of-pocket costs, that dale questions whether he can afford to stay with this. he's like most americans, he doesn't worry about his health until he really needs to do something about it. during the early years of retirement, he considered himself healthy and never saw the need to use it. but we all get a little older, our bodies aren't what they used to be and things changed for dale. a few weeks ago he noticed pain in his chest and dizziness too

noticeable to ignore. he saw his doctor who told him to the emergency room. he fretted about what this would cost him. he but he went anyway. thankfully he's okay. last week dale received his bill from the e.r. his out-of-pocket expense? $600. he has to figure out how to pay that bill as a pensioner. what other skpepbgss will -- expenses will he have to delay? dale and his wife doris live on a fixed income. as i said, he's 61 years old. the money that comes in each month is accounted for and there isn't a lot of wiggle room. he's contemplating coming out of retirement after 11 years primarily because he can't make ends meet because of medical expenses. this isn't a very good economy for a 61-year-old retired factory worker to look for a job.

he's one of the many early retirees who found health care costs threaten their financial stability. the unlucky ones lost their health insurance coverage completely, perhaps because their employer has gone bankrupt. even those like dale who still have coverage are finding themselves in a much more precarious situation than they expected. mr. president, i wanted to tell these stories because these are real life stories of people that i've either met or have come to know because they have contacted our office. i listened to the minority leader come here and say stop the presses. stop the debate. stop moving forward in this effort to have real health care reform in america. the minority leader from kentucky said we need to start over. we've been starting over on health care for decades, and we've never reached the finish line, because there are always obstacles in our path. right now the obstacle in our path is just bringing this matter to a vote.

why were we in session at 1:00 a.m. this morning casting a vote? because the republican side of the aisle has determined that regardless of the issue, they are going to stop us from bringing this matter to a debate and a vote. they don't want us to have a vote on this. they don't want us to make a decision. they don't want to be on the record. and that's unfortunate. the bill that they've chosen now to filibuster, the one that is actually before us in the senate, is a bill that should have no controversy whatsoever. it's a bill to fund our troops. it's the department of defense appropriations bill. and can you imagine in the midst of a war when the bravest men and women in our nation are risking their lives at war, the republicans are filibustering the bill to pay their salaries, the bill to pay for the equipment they need to stay safe, the bill to pay for the medical care of these soldiers, sailors, air men, marines and their families? it's unthinkable.

this is a bill that passed over in the house of representatives overwhelmingly. i think the number was 394-35. 164 republicans voted for it because we want to stand behind our troops. but last night only three republican senators out of 40 would step up and say we should go forward on this bill. only three. the rest of them, led by the minority leader and the minority whip, have said we will stop this bill if this is the only way we can stop the health care debate. why did they pick this bill, of all bills, a bill where we should be standing in solidarity twaoeupbd our troops -- behind our troops. we now have split into partisan camps. there's nothing about partisan about standing behind our troops, and that vote early this morning, unfortunately, was very partisan. there's also a provision in this bill that deals with the unemployed in america. we want to go home. i want to go home. i called my wife this morning.

i've been here now for three straight weeks, and it looks like there's another week to follow before the holidays and christmas. i don't like this, you know, you give up a lot in this job, but you think there are certain pieces of my family life that i hold dear, and this is one of them: to be back home for christmas, not just at the last minute, but to be there. and it doesn't look like we'll be able to because the republicans have decided they will use every political and parliamentary device possible to delay this vote. and so we'll do nothing today because we're running the clock out on the procedures of the senate, and then we'll meet at 7:30 tomorrow morning and have several votes on this department of defense appropriations bill, which should have been passed instantly when we received it from the house of representatives. and then we will start the clock running again to move toward a vote on health care reform.

why? i mean, let's be honest. we ought to bring this matter up for a vote and see if we do in fact have 60 votes on this side of the aisle. i hope we do. we're working on it. the reason i'm here and the majority leader's not is that he's working at this very moment to bring those 60 votes together. instead the republicans have said we're going to do everything possible, including asking members to stay here christmas eve and christmas day in order to stop this vote on health care reform. that's unfortunate. because let me tell you, the bottom line what this bill does for america. this bill -- not perfect, and no bill we ever consider is. this bill, first, is the biggest deficit reduction ever introduced on the senate floor. because if we bring down health care costs, it not only helps families and businesses, it will help governments, even our federal government. as we bring down the increase in the costs in health care, medicare for our seniors costs less to the government. the same thing is true of

medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor and disabled. so first and foremost, the congressional budget office tells us this bill, at a time when we have great national debt, will actually bring down america's debt. $130 billion in the first ten years. $650 billion more in the next ten years. so it is a fiscally possible bill. that is what president obama challenged us to do. if you're going to pass health care reform, don't do it at the expense of the next generation. pay for it. we more than pay for it. we reduce the cost of government in the process. the second thing this bill does is is start to bring down health care costs. it does it in a variety of different ways. i wish it were bringing down faster. i want to commend the presiding officer, the senator from virginia, senator warner. he joined with a group of freshmen democrats, and they introduced cost con canement

amendments to this -- cost con canement amendments to this bill, her rarlded by -- heralded by the businesses and manufacturing groups in america. they rolled up their sleeves and they went to work and they made an amendment. you cannot say the same, i'm afraid, for the other saoeufplt their amendments have not been as constructive as the amendment i why you have just described. they tried to stop this bill rather than improve this bill. senator warner and tpr* virginia and his colleagues have taken a more constructive and positive approach. bringing down costs of health insurance and making it affordable is job one for this health care reform. but it does something else. this bill extends the coverage of health insurance in america. currently there are 50 million americans who don't have health insurance. they are people who have lost their jobs. they are folks who work for small businesses and can't afford health insurance. they're people who have tried their best, but they just can't

get health insurance. 50 million of them. imagine, if you will, going to sleep tonight, if you are a father or mother with a sick child and have no health insurance. imagine thinking for one frightening moment of waking up tomorrow morning to face a diagnosis from a doctor of some serious illness or to be involved in an accident that requires medical care and having no health insurance. 50 million. one of every six americans has no health insurance. this bill will change it. 30 million americans are going to be covered with health insurance that currently don't have coverage. 15 million in the lower-income categories -- the working poor and lower-income folks, will go into medicaid at the state hrefplt 15 million will go into private health insurance. 30 million. at the end of the day with this bill, 94% of americans will have health insurance. that has never happened in our history. ever. 94% will have the peace of mind of having health insurance. and there's something else this

bill does. it goes back to my illustrations. this bill says to the health insurance companies, it's over. the way you've been mistreating the people who pay your premiums is going to come to an end. we're not going to allow you to flyspeck applications for health insurance to try to find some preexisting condition. we're going to make sure those with preexisting conditions have an opportunity for real health care coverage and not be denied when they need that kind of coverage. we're going to also make sure when you really get sick the health insurance company can't cut and run as so many do. and we're going to extend that coverage for young people through the ages of 24 and 25. this is all good and positive, and it will mean that the patients' bill of rights, which former senator kennedy, late senator kennedy and even senator mccain worked for will be part of the law of america. now there are critics of this health insurance plan for sure. we saw them come out at town meetings and protests and so

forth. some don't want to change the system. they like the system. they fear government. whatever it may be, their motive is to stop this. there are also critics who say this bill doesn't go far enough. it doesn't go as far as i'd like to go. i think there ought to be a public option. we ought to have some not-for-profit plan that competes with private health insurance company. but the realities in the senate make it impossible to do that in this bill at this time. i hope we can reach that point. but when the senator from kentucky, the republican leader, comes to the floor and says so many people oppose this bill. some may oppose it because they think it does nothing. that's the nature of this process. here's the bottom line. we have to ask ourselves: is america better if this bill passes or not? i think overwhelmingly it is better. howard dean, fiscal year doctor, said he would vote against this bill. i would say to dr. howard dean,

don't you think 30 million americans with health insurance is worth the effort? i think you do. i think most people do. we can do better, i'm sure. we will work to improve this bill both with the house and later. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. lugar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. lugar: how much time on either side? the presiding officer: 16 minutes on the republican side. 3 1/2 minutes on the democrat side. mr. lugar: mr. president, the bill before us contains more than $128 billion for operations in afghanistan and iraq. since the president's announcement two weeks ago that he would be ordering tens of thousands of additional u.s. troops to afghanistan, congress held numerous hearings examining the military strategy to be employed. political issues in the region and the dispensation of funding for the war.

as we consider our course in afghanistan, we should evaluate options according to how well they contribute to the united states national security. the ultimate purpose of committing tens of thousands of new troops and tens of billions of additional dollars to the war effort in afghanistan must be to enhance united states security and our vital national interests in the region. sometimes during long wars, specific tactical objectives can become ends in themselves, disconnected from the broader strategic context or accounting of finite resources, those resources we are discussing today in this bill. congressional oversight of the funding of this bill is part of that accounting. we need to get the most value for our defense dollars in afghanistan as well as in iraq. and this is especially true at a time when our armed forces have been strained by many years of high deployment rates, our

capacity for new government debt is limited, and our nation has not yet fully emerged from a severe recession. as we think through the implications of the defense spending bill before us, we need to be cognizant that even if the president's afghanistan plan achieves the very best stabilization scenario, allowing for u.s. withdrawals on the schedule that he contemplates, we may be responsible for most of the afghanistan defense and police budgets indefinitely. much of the debate in congress is focused on the president's stated intention to begin withdrawing some united states troops by july 2011. some members voiced a concern that the date undercuts impressions of such resolve and gives the taliban and al qaeda a target. other members with a different view of the war worry the july 2011 date is so flexible it

offers no assurance at all that troops will be withdrawn. this is a legitimate item for debate, but i'm doubtful that success or failure hinges on this point nearly as much as it does on the counterinsurgency strategy employed by allied troops, the viability of afghan's security forces and, most importantly, how the united states engages with pakistan. i have confidence that the addition of tens of thousands of u.s. and allied troops under the directions of general petraeus and mcchrystal will improve the security situation on the ground in afghanistan. more uncertain is whether the training mission will succeed sufficiently to allow u.s. forces to disengage from combat duties in a reasonable time period. the most salient question, however, is whether the improvements on the ground in afghanistan will mean much if taliban and al qaeda sanctuaries in pakistan remain or if instability within pakistan

intensifies. as hearings in the foreign relations committee have underscored, the potential global impact of instability in a nuclear armed pakistan tkar -fs anything likely -- dwarfs anything likely to happen in pakistan. the consequences will be on global economic security and security in the middle east and south asia regions among other major issues.the president and m justified the be plan not only on how it will affect afganistan, but how it will affect our effort to promote a strong are alliance with pakistan that embraces vital common objectives. sects clinton and gates and admiral mullens underscore the administration's executing a regional strategy. i'm encouraged by press reports

that have described the intense diplomatic efforts with the pakistani government aimed at securing much greater cooperation. but we should remain cognizant that the focus of policy tends to follow resources. by that measure, afganistan will still be at the core of our regional efforts. the president has said that the united states did not choose this war, and he's correct. but with these troop deployments in afganistan, we are choosing the battlefield where we will concentrate most of your available military resources. the afganistan battlefield has the inherent disadvantage of sitting astride a border with pakistan that is a porous line for militants. it's a strategic obstacle for coalition forces. as long as this border provides the enemy with an avenue of retreat for resupply and sanctuary, our prospects for destroying or incapaciating the insurgency are negligible.

the risk is that we will expend tens of billions of dollars in afganistan while taliban and al qaeda leaders become increasingly secure in pakistan where the long-term strategic mistakes are even higher. if they're able to sit across the border with a direct hit and run war from afganistan, plotting terrorist tactics abroad, and working to destabilize pakistan within, our regional goals will be threatened despite the progress in afganistan. some reports indicate that the taliban leader's aware of the threat from the united states predator drones are moving into crowded pakistani cities. if such reports are true, the united states will have fewer options in pursuing taliban and al qaeda leaders in pakistan absent the active help of pakistani authorities.

specifically, will pakistan work with us to eliminate the leadership of osama bin laden? in addition to improving the cooperation with the pakistani authorities, the united states and allies will have to be more creative in how we engage with the afghan and pakistani people. we should understand as a matter of survival, people in dangerous areas on both sides of the border will tend to side with whoever is seen as having the best chance of winning. we should also recognize that tribal loyalties, most notably, -- as the rand corporation observed, the object jctive should be is to do what the most effective governments have done, help pakistan tribes. mr. president, i note the presence of my colleague, the

distinguished senator from arizona, and i'm propped to -- i'm prepared to yield to him at this time. i ask the rest of my statement be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: you know, my friend, the senator from illinois, who i see back on the floor, who i, for the record, the senator from illinois, entered the house together back longer ago than we'd like to mention. particularly those who favor term limits. but -- and we've had our philosophical disagreements, but i have appreciated his leadership. i have appreciated his honest approach to the issues, and we, obviously, have significant disagreements. but those disagreements have been respectful and i look forward during the next whatever period of time until we dispense with the issue of health care reform and the issue of d.o.d.

appropriations in discussing this issue with him. the senator from illinois has been saying the republicans are holding up funding for our troops. -- by not conceding to an immediate vote on the defense appropriations bill after the house sent it to the senate. i understand that. and i understand his zeal to get on to other issues, which are the job of the majority, is to get legislation passed. i'd like to point out the real facts here. the real facts about the defense appropriations bill are that the house passed its version on july 30th, last july 30th. the senate passed its version on october 6. by my calculation that's well over two months ago. for over two months -- for over two months this bill -- all they had to do, then, of course, was go to conference and report it out to the floor of the senate.

something that could have been done in 24 or 48 hours. instead over two months has gone by and the democratic leadership in both the house and senate held this bill for the troops captive. why would they do that? because they knew that at the end of the year, they would stuff unrelated, must-pass legislation, which has nothing to do with the department of defense, or the men and women in the military. that they would have to put that in so that they could get it passed. so we have a number of additional pieces of legislation stuffed into the bill which the democratic leadership knew had to be passed. so i say in all due respect to my friend and colleague from illinois, he and i, as i mentioned, have been around here the same amount of time. and the fact is that after the house and senate both passed

their bills over two months ago, they could have brought it to the floor and we could have debated it and, of course, passed it into law. so now we have the secretary of defense calling around to people saying, we've got to pass this immediately. where was the secretary of defense, who i admire and respect, on october the 7, 2009, after the senate passed its bill? where was he then urging members to not harm the men and women who are serving in the military? well, the fact is and i'll get in a minute from my staff the bills that are stuffed into this, which have nothing to do with our nation's defense and have everything to do with the agenda of the democratic majority. and i want to say, again, to my friend from illinois, i understand that. i understand why you are doing what you're doing. but i don't understand why

you're blaming us when after two months that the bill has not been passed. now, let me -- let me just add -- there's a portion of the bill called division b -- quote --"other matters." only in the united states senate could we call it -- quote -- "other matters." let me tell you what they have loaded on to the defense bill. food stamps. food stamps, very necessary. is there anybody against food stamps? extends summation for the supplemental nutrition program in the f.d.a. $400 million in emergency funds through september 30, 2011. satellite home viewer act extension. now, perhaps the senator from illinois, my friend, can tell me what satellite home viewer act extension has to do with defending our nation. i know it has a lot to do with the ability of -- of millions of

americans to watch nfl football, but i don't think it has a lot do with defense spending. patriot act extension, section 1004, provides a clean two-month extension until february 28, 2010, of the free patriot act provision expiring at the end of this calendar year. now, that has to do with investigation of business records and also roving fire taps -- wiretaps. now, is there anyone that didn't know that the patriot act was going to expire? was the senator from illinois unaware that we needed to extend the patriot act? most people believe that we do. we still have extremist organizations that want to attack the united states of america. flood insurance extension. extends the flood insurance program through february 28, 2010.

small business extension of $125 million for the small business administration to continue offering reduced fee and higher cap loan guarantees under the american recovery and reinvestment act, extends the limits until february 28, 2010. further designates such amounts as emergency spending, i.e., it's not included in the budget. that's an argument for another day. here again, what -- small businesses are vital. small businesses are what's been ignored. small businesses are the reason that the stimulus package has failed. because it's done a great job for wall street. boy, these bonuses, $16 billion, $18 billin will be distributed. they'll have a merry christmas at goldman, morgan and all those places. it will be great thanks to the stimulus, thanks to the tarp and the stimulus package, but where is it on main street?

where is main street where we have 10% unemployment. so, of course, we need to try to help small businesses. they haven't done much so far. i'll tell you that. i'll take you to my state, and i'll take you all over this country outside of manhattan and they'll tell you that small businesses are hurting very badly. but we couldn't do that before. we had to put it on to the defense appropriations bill. so we also have payment for north carolina construction project. now, here's -- here's something that really has a lot to do with defending the nation. it provides a $12.8 million appropriation for construction project in north carolina of which no designation of the state, of which $4 million will be obligated immediately and the rest will be available 120 days after the signing of an agreement between the federal government an several local authorities. this is paid through a rescission of funds previously appropriated for this project.

i don't know what the project is, i say to my colleagues, but i'm not sure that it were in dire need. in addition, highways extension. section 1008, extends the authority for the highway trust fund to make and receive payments through february 28. it also provides $33.4 million for administrative expenses paid for out of the earlier rescission from the highway trust fund. now, i -- i am one who believes that we need to make sure that the highway trust fund is funded and that we move forward with the highways. but, again, what does that have to do with defending this nation? not a lot. unemployment insurance extension. here we are again, extends the authority of expiring federal unemployment insurance programs and benefits through february 28, 2010. continuing the current availablity of up to 99 weeks of total unemployment.

of course we have to extend unemployment. unemployment, except up on wall street is at 10%. an in my home state of arizona, real unemployment is 17%. so in addition to that -- in addition to that, i guess the conferees were beavering away by adding earmarks, and plenty of them. in fact 1,027 earmarks totalin totaling $4.3 billion. $2.5 billion in unauthorized and unrequested c-17's. no one outside of those who are contractors believes that we need to spend $2.5 billion unauthorized c-17's which cos cost $2.5 billion. $500 million in unrequested and unwanted funding for the joint strike fighter and presidential helicopter. that's $7.3 billion.

$18 billion in new nonoffset funding for food stamps, unemployment assistance, cobra benefits, physician payments, the so-called dock fix -- doc fix and small business lending. by designating the funding as emergency, none of it's paid for. it's just another $18 billion of money that will be laid on our children, debt that will be laid on our children and grandchildren. and our national debt in 2010. i guess some americans wonder why we're going to have a debt for this year of $1.5 trillion -- trillion, "t," trillion. someone said to me, as several times has been said to me, we hope that the president never learns what comes after a trillion. so here we are a