dale and his wife doris live on a fixed income. as i said, he's 61 years old. the money that comes@@@ amhnh')d 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 to expand that. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: before he leaves the floor, i want to commend the distinguished senator from illinois for his statement and also that the body recognizes that it has been senator sand hoarse has championed this -- sanders who has championed this cause making the case that

dollar for dollar there is no better investment in health care than these community health centers. i was going to spend my time this morning talking about the opportunities for democrats and republicans to continue to team up on this health reform issue. i think it's worth noting, that senator sanders, who has championed this effort in this bill, is actually picking up on work that a number of the most influential republicans in this country have been interested in for years. george bush -- president george bush was a great champion of community health centers an bernie sand -- and bernie sanders in this bill is making sure that we get a very significant increase. thousands of new clinics. so are opportunities for democrats and republicans to work together. i'm going to talk about a way we can create a new marketplace in american health care through these exchanges and get more value for the health care

dollar, again, focusing on the opportunity that we see with community health centers for democrats and republicans to team up. and i thank my colleague for his statement. mr. president, and i know because of our work together on health legislation, you share my view that we can continue this effort to bring the senate together, both sides, around key principles of health reform. and i want to do that again this morning by focusing on one of the most transformational and least understood parts of the health care debate. and that is the question of the health insurance exchanges. now, my guess is across the country people are trying to figure out what in the world these are and is this, yet, some other kind of health care lingo? but i think it's fair to say and just base -- in just basic english, this will be like

farmers markets. this will be an opportunity for people to go to one place and to do what you can't do in the dysfunctional american health care system today. and that is actually shop and be in a position to compare various kinds of products and services and when you invest wisely, you can put the savings in your pocket. and the reality is that has not been possible in our country since the middle of the 1940's. during the 1940's when there were wage and price controls, judgments were made about the delivery of american health care. made sense back then when people went to work somewhere and stayed put for 30 years until you gave them a gold watch, but today's economy's very different. people change their jobs 11 times by the time they're 40, and we need to make sure that no

longer is the consumer insulated from the health care system. no -- no longer are most consumers incapable of being rewarded when they shop wisely, and we make sure that people even understand that they lose out in terms of their wages if health care costs continue to rise as a result of inefficiency. so these health insurance exchanges are the key to making health care markets work in effect for the first time since the middle of the last century. now, in the merged bill, senator reid, in my view, has laid an important foundation, and there are three fundamental principles in senator reid's merged bill -- and of course, we're going to

continue to work on this. the managers' package. this bill gets out of the united states senate. we're going to be working on this for quite some time, mr. president. we're going to be@c$@ @ @ @ @ @t

bill that democrats and republicans alike should appreciate is it will be possible to keep low quality plans out of the marketplace. this is especially important at the outset, prpt, and i learned this back in the days when i was codirector of the oregon gray panthers, the senior citizens group. one of the things the country learned in the early days of medicare is a lot of the policies that were sold to supplement medical were just junk. they weren't worth the paper they were written on, and people would buy 10, 12, 15 policies, literally wasting money that the seniors could have used for food and fuel and paying the rent. and it took us until the mid 1990's to drain the swamp, and finally we were able to do it, standardize those packages, stop the rip-off of older people with

products that literally weren't worth the paper they were written on, and the consumer protection provisions that senator reid has put in the merged bill as it relates to exchanges are going to keep low-quality plans out. this is going to offer consumers the peace of mind, knowing that when they look at the plans, they can be certain that they will have to meet minimum consumer protection standards. this is an important message to send in a new marketplace, and, boy, it will be an opportunity to have a very different start than we saw with medicare during those early days when seniors were sold these policies to supplement their medicare private insurance policies that were a lot of junk. finally, under the merged bill, you're going to be able to see the value that you're getting for your health care dollar in

an important respect through what are called loss ratios that insurance companies would have to make public. what this means, of course, mr. president, is that consumers want to know that when they put out a dollar for premiums, that they get a significant portion of that dollar back in actual benefits, services and benefits, and with the exchange it's going to be possible to finally get this kind of lost information in one place and make it public. now what i'd like to do is talk about the steps from here, and particularly build on principles that the president talked to us about earlier this year in terms of ideas that bring democrats and republicans together, and that is more choice and more competition in the health care marketplace.

and what we're pointing to, mr. president, is the day when every tourism in america can say to their insurance company i'm giving you an ultimatum. you treat me right or i am taking my business elsewhere. that is what we are pointing to, and here are some of the steps that it is going to take in the days ahead to build to that future. first, you've got to have a big enough pool of people as soon as you can so as to maximize their clout in the marketplace. you've got to make sure that the exchanges are open to more than just folks who have been uninsured. if you open it just to folks who are uninsured, who haven't seen a doctor, have chronic illnesses, haven't been able to get the preventative care, you

have coming to the exchanges folks that are sicker, and, of course, they are more expensive in terms of getting them good health care and it is harder to hold costs down. now, once you have a big enough pool where the risk is spread across a large group of people who have a wide range of health seasons, you will be in a better position to force the insurance companies to compete and drive down costs for everybody. so in effect in the days ahead, we'll be in a position to put in place a cycle in the health care marketplace that will get more value for the american consumer. more and more people will come to the exchanges because the premiums are lower. more insurers will come into the exchange because they see that's the place you have to go in order to get business, and you

have what amounts to the beginnings of a revolution in the health care marketplace. get as many healthy people into the exchange, make it impossible for the insurance companies to find loopholes and use slick marketing campaigns to cherry pick just the youngest and healthiest, force them to compete on the basis of price, benefit, and quality, and then you are on your way, mr. president, to taking a dysfunctional american health care system and getting the choice and competition that will finally pay off for the american consumer. now, there are some additional interim steps that i just want to mention briefly, mr. president. the majority leader, senator reid, and chairman baucus and i

have come to an agreement that will also provide the opportunity to get more choice and more competition into the health care marketplace. what we have agreed is that folks who spend more than 8% of their income on health care but aren't eligible for subsidies -- in effect, folks with what are called the hardship waiver -- they would be able to get a voucher and go into the marketplace and with that kind of approach, which would be tax free to them, our estimate is that that will be only about a third as expensive, in terms of getting health care for those folks as the alternative, the traditional system of subsidies. so, again, we get more people covered in a more affordable way, building on these

time-honored principles of choice and competition. finally, senator collins, senator bayh and i have a proposal, a proposal that has been endorsed by the national federation of independent businesses that would say that employers who are in the exchange, if the employer voluntarily says that they want to give their workers more choices, they could do so. in effect, it would say to the small employers in the exchange you and your workers will have a choice to have a choice. no employer is required to do anything but should they want to concentrate on making their widgets rather than being in the health insurance business, they would have the opportunity to do it. what they would give their worker would be tax free to the employer, tax free to the

worker, and once again you bring the principles of choice and competition into the health care marketplace, move us closer to that day when the consumer can give the insurance company the ultimatum i have envisioned, which is treat me right or i go elsewhere. mr. president, i close by saying that in my view, the majority leader has laid the foundation for a new health care marketplace. i'd certainly like to do more. as the distinguished president of the senate knows, the cosponsor of our bipartisan healthy americans act, i'd like to do more and i'd like to do it faster, but make no mistake about it, this is laying a foundation to create a new marketplace in american health care where that concept has been foreign, to let people make apples to apples comparisons, keep crummy products out of the

exchange, to make sure people can get information about loss ratios. that's a real foundation. then we seek to go further, and we have had the counsel of some of the country's leading thinkers about american health care. let's get more healthy people into the exchanges. let's make sure that we have these big pools. let's make sure that the insurers can't try to steer the marketplace because we know that they are going to try an ingenious ways through advertising and market promotion strategies to still find the best risks. let's build on what senator reid has laid out with respect to the exchanges in the days ahead. we're going to be at this a long time, mr. president. you aren't going to fix a dysfunctional american health care marketplace in a matter of weeks. we are going to be at this the rest of this week, next week, well into 2010.

i have been part of this debate since i was codirector of the oregon gray panthers going back 30 years now. i continue to believe there is an opportunity for democrats and republicans to work together. our party has been right on the issue of coverage. you cannot fix this unless all americans have good quality, affordable coverage because otherwise there will be too much cost shifting. but as i have said to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle -- i see senator bunning here. he and i have worked together on the finance committee. our colleagues on the other side of the -- on the other side of the aisle make important points with respect to choice, with respect to markets, with respect to competition. this is an area we can work together. there is nothing partisan in my view, mr. president, about creating a new health care marketplace through these exchanges. this bill lays a foundation, and there will be opportunities for

democrats and republicans to build on that foundation in the days ahead. mr. president, i yield the floor. expired. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, for those who are keeping score and following the senate and may wonder what we are doing here, we are in the middle of a filibuster, which is an attempt to stop legislation from moving forward. it is a filibuster inspired by the republican side of the aisle, and the bill that they are filibustering and trying to delay is the department of defense appropriations bill. this is the bill that funds our military. it is the bill that funds our soldiers and sailors, airmen and marines who are at war in iraq and afghanistan. it is a bill that almost without fail passes overwhelmingly with a bipartisan majority in the senate and the house each year. and it has passed the house of representatives with a substantial vote of about 394-

394-35, 164 republicans voted for it over there. there was no controversy associated with it. and yet when it came to the senate, the senate republicans announced they were going to filibuster the defense appropriations bill. why? do they disagree with any of the contents? i've yet to hear, aside from senator mccain and senator coburn whorbgs went to two or -- who went to two or three provisions of the bill they disagree with, i've yet to hear anyone say we shouldn't fund our military. we certainly should. some have come to the floor and argued the reason we're in this predicament is because the democrats, in control, have waited too long to bring this bill to the floor. but that statement fails to acknowledge the reality of what this calendar year has meant because day after day and week after week, month after month with very few exceptions the role and strategy of the minority -- the republicans in the senate -- has been to slow down and stop consideration of

important legislation. mr. roberts: would my friend and colleague yield? mr. durbin: pardon me? mr. roberts: would my friend and colleague yield? mr. durbin: only for a question. mr. roberts: only for a question? mr. durbin: i yield for a question. mr. roberts: i want to assure him, in the form of a question, if he were asking me am i filibustering, that is not the case. the problem was, as i see it -- and i'm asking the distinguished senator that i've known for a long time and respect -- what would he think about the response -- this is the question -- where we have only had seven amendments that have been allowed on this bill? i have one on the medicare advisory board, we have one on c.e.r. here, rationing, i had another one in regards to a tax matter -- about four amendments, all of which have been considered in the finance committee. all were defeated by a party-line vote, so i know where it was headed.

but i thought it certainly deserved some debate and some consideration on the floor, to all of a sudden limit a bill of this side -- health care bill, not defense bill -- to seven amendments seemed to be very untoward and showing a lack of comity in regards to a bill of this size. the defense bill has the doc fix in it. as such, i think you could pivot into the problems that doctors face and at least have an opportunity to talk about, this is the first time i have had 10 or 15 minutes to talk about anything about health care. it's not that i would choose to do it when we are considering the defense appropriations bill. i served on the armed services committee, the intel committee, as the senator knows. there's no person stronger for our warriors than our men and women in uniform, and they will get their money. this bill is going to pass. that's not the issue. the issue is we haven't had enough time -- and i would ask

the senator to comment on my comments and tell me if i'm wrong. mr. durbin: i would say in response to the senator from kansas, he has a grievance in consideration of this bill, the health care reform bill, 2,000-page bill which i will address in a moment. we are considering this bill, the department of defense bill. because of the grievance over the consideration of this bill, the republicans are filibustering the department of defense appropriations bill. they are trying to slow down as much as possible the passage of the department of defense appropriations bill. many of us think that that is unfair, particularly when we have our best and bravest young men and women at war, that we would somehow make the bill funding their effort and funding the things they need to protect themselves the center of a political debate over another bill. and it is a filibuster. twice last night on this

floor -- early this morning, i should say, in the early hours of the morning i made a unanimous consent request that on a bipartisan basis we fund our troops. i offered it on the floor, and twice it was objected to, the last time by the republican leader and the republican whip in the well of the senate. had a chance to pass this bill. the funding for our troops runs out at midnight tomorrow. we are going to come in at 7:30 tomorrow morning because the republicans insist on this delay, and we are actually going to fund the troops. i really believe when push comes to shove we will. i hope we do. i'll be voting for it. i hope the republicans will join me. so i don't understand why the republicans are holding the department of defense bill for our troops hostage to their anger or frustration over health care reform. and then let me address health care reform. i'd say to the senator from kansas, we've been on this bill for 19 days. you know how many substantive amendments have been offered by the republican side to this bill

in 19 days? four. not even one a day. and six amendments -- i should say motions were made to this bill to send it back to committee and start over. so if the senator has substantive amendments, and others do, the obvious question is: where have they been? 19 days, 4 amendments. it appears to me when the decision was made several days ago on the republican side to order the reading of an 800-page amendment, it was very clear this had nothing to do with debate and voting on amendments. it was all about slowing things down and stopping them. and they tried and couldn't on the reading of this bill. and now they are trying as best they can when it comes to an unrelated bill. there comes a point, i would say to the senator from kansas, where there has to be a vote. and we are here to vote. let's get on with it. we either win or lose. you either win or lose. and we have to go forward. you don't support this, i know,

from what you've said. i do. i may prevail. you may prevail. but at some point don't we owe it to the american people to take a vote? unfortunately, this delaying tactic that's been going on here is just postponing what i think we're here to do. and it's doing it at a time of year when i have to tell you that, you know, i always say, at least they told me when i ran for the house, if you don't like this job, don't run for it. and if you get this job, don't complain about it. well, i'm not going to complain, but i do have to tell you that most of the members of the senate would like to be home with their families for christmas, and we may not be. mr. roberts: allow me to respond to your question? mr. durbin: i can yield for a question. otherwise i'd be yielding the floor. so i would certainly yield to the senator from kansas for a question. mr. roberts: you could go for it and yield the floor and see what happens. i think the question the senator asked of me -- and i will traoefr back to him in the -- refer it back to him in the form

of a question was that we, i, was taking part in a filibuster. the only reason i'm here to talk about rationing -- and i had that rationing amendment ready along with the medicare advisory board and along with several others and all of a sudden were told that they were not in order. why are they not in order. they're just not in order. we're going to move on this bill. so consequently i have four amendments sitting on my desk waiting to at least talk about them as opposed to bringing them up. i don't think that's filibustering. i think i'm taking advantage of whatever time we have to at least talk about these amendments certainly on the health care bill, on the defense appropriations bill, i can assure you, i don't think there will be one republican that will vote "no." and it wasn't too long ago, i would ask the gentleman if he can remember, on your side of the aisle with a previous president, i think people over there said the war is lost, we oppose the surge. we're going to hold up some of the bills, et cetera, et cetera. i didn't like it then, i don't

like it now. it's very unfortunate this situation has developed. but i want to assure the gentleman and my good friend that i am not here trying to hold anything up. and one other thing, isn't it true that there is a bill out there but nobody has really seen it, more especially the manager's amendment combined with what came over from the house and we do not have a score? whatever you have there, if that's the bill, i'd sure like to get it up on the web or something so we can take a look at it and also have a score. we keep talking about the bill. i would just ask the gentleman: is that the bill? is that the final bill with a score? mr. durbin: i would say to the senator from kansas, it's not the final bill. there will be a manager's amendment offered tomorrow. it will be considerably smaller than this. and it will have specifics in it that have been reviewed by the congressional budget office, and that is underway. it will be introduced, i hope, tomorrow morning. and it will be up for

consideration for a procedural vote early monday morning, and then the remainder of the week as long as the republicans want us to stay. it's your decision whether we'll be here for christmas. we are prepared to stay if necessary to get it done if that's what it takes. but it is true that there is a manager's amendment coming. it is also true that the congressional budget office may be one of the most powerful agencies of the federal government because it literally can stop the congress in its tracks while the people who work there pore through these bills and try to make some estimate as to whether they're going to add to the deficit or not, whether they will in fact reduce health care costs. the good news for all of us is they took a look at our bill, the democratic health care reform bill and concluded that it would in fact reduce the deficit $130 billion over the next ten years and $650 billion beyond that. it's also true this is the only bill brought before us that

would expand the coverage of health insurance to 94% of americans. there have been talk about rationing in other countries. senator kyl of arizona talked about racking and there is a fundamental unfairness to waiting in line when the doctor said that you need treatment. keep in mind that there is rationing in america. 57% of people don't have insurance and many don't have -- have health insurance policies that aren't worth anything. that's rationing. more and more people in america are filing for bankruptcy because they don't have the out-of-pocket money for medical care they need in america and that's rationing. and in the developed world, which america certainly leads, we're the only nation on earth where a person can die for lack of health insurance. and that's rationing. and that's our current system. some say, well, these reforms are too complex, 2,000 pages. i defy to find anyone to find

2,000 pages an write down the current health care system in america. they can't. it is much more arcane, complex and bewhich wouldering than this bill. this bill is going to give people an opportunity to fight the health insurance companies who consistently turn down the requests of doctors an patients for care saying they're not covered by the policy or the person failed to disclose everything they should in their application for health insurance. we take them on here. and it's about time we did. these health insurance companies make a fortune. their c.e.o.'s are paid a fortune and they have created a situation which rations care to american today. i've seen it firsthand. i know friends who are going through it. people right in my office and anyone who is listening to their constituents back home know this is true. there is also one other element i'll mention before yielding the floor to the senator from minnesota. we will dramatically expand the

community health care clinics in america with this bill. if you're aware of these clinics, and you should be, you'll know these are the clinics with the doctors, nurses, dentists, raidologists who provide basic primary care to people who are not wealthy. they provide care at a fraction of the cost to people going into a hospital or emergency room for people with a fever or a child with an earache. they do it well, they do it all over my state and we will expand it. you will see a dramatic change in primary care. more and more primary care physicians, costs brought down with quality care at a local level. there is nothing coming from the other side that even matches it. i'm prepared at this point to yield the floor to the senator from minnesota for the balance of the time until 4:00. the presiding officer: the

senator from minnesota has the floor. mr. franken: i will yield to the senator from kansas. for a question. for a question. mr. roberts: you again. mr. franken: you again. mr. roberts: just a personal aside. well, when we get through with the defense appropriation bill, which will be soon, and that issue will be settled and i'm not going to talk about it anymore with the exception that this is the only time that i have had to speak to several amendments that i feel very strongly about. but, as i say, i don't know whether four is the accurate number of being a subsidy or not. i think the four amendments that i have on the desk, i think it i will skinny is down to three, that i will offer to the finance committee, i say to the senator -- are you going to -- the senator is surely not shifting

his position. i would say to the senator when we take up health care again would the senator give me some assurance i can offer the medicare advisory board, one to cut out the cuts in regards to the hospitals, that's $1.5 billion to kansas alone, and then what we're talking about here is the four rationing task forces we had when i was making my speech. if i could have some assurance that i could offer them -- the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota has the floor. if you've -- if he's yielded for a question, the senator -- should propound the question. the senator from minnesota has the floor. not senator from illinois. mr. roberts: that's a question. if he could ghief some assurance -- give me some assurance that that could be considered, but that hasn't happened with the situation we are. i'm done. mr. franken: thank you, mr.

president. mr. durbin: if the senator from minnesota would yield for a kind of -- kind of a question. mr. franken: certainly. mr. durbin: i wonder if you're aware that we've been debating health care reform for 19 days and in that time there were four republican amendments to change the bill, six motions to commit the bill back to commit, stop the -- committee, stop the debate on the floor and that is the sum total of all of the effort on the republican side to date. we don't choose the amendments, the leadership chooses it on the republican side of the aisle. i ask the senator from minnesota, are you aware of it? mr. franken: i am now. i was aware of the general shape of things which is the sort of dearth of substantive amendments offered and sort of the delay, yes, then i'm aware. thank you. mr. president, i -- i ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as if in morning

business. mr. roberts: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. roberts: reserving the right to object, and i will not object to my good friend. but i can't -- i can't let this stand when the distinguished senator from illinois indicates there's only been four substitute amendments and i have three on my desk -- the presiding officer: does the senator from kansas have an objection? mr. roberts: i'm reserving the right to object, mr. president. under my reservation, i would point out to my distinguished friend i'd like to invite him to my office to see the amendments that were

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, remove from our any destructive fear of the future, whether of the life that now is or the life that is to come. today, abide with our lawmakers,

giving them wisdom to allow your spirit to have access to their hearts. deepen their joy during this sacred season when we remember your journey to our world to save us from sins. remind them that they cannot begin to manage life as you intend it to be unless they look to you for guidance and power. renew their trust in you, as the sovereign of our nation and the generous benefactor of the blessings that come to our land.

we pray in your mighty name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, december 19, 2009. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable robert p. casey jr, a senator from the state of pennsylvania, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized.

mr. reid: following leader remarks, if any, the senate will resume the house message with respect to h.r. 332, the department of defense appropriations act. the time until 7:20 will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the final ten minutes reserved for the two leaders with the majority leader controlling the final five minutes. at approximately 7:20 a.m., the senate will proceed to a series of votes with respect to the defense appropriations bill. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the house message with respect to h.r. 3326, which the clerk will report. the clerk: house message to accompany h.r. 3326, an act making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 7:20 a.m. shall be divided equally and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the final ten minutes reserved for the two leaders and with the final five minutes controlled by the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: it's my understanding the time until -- let's see, until 7:10 is equally divided and controlled, is that right? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. reid: i designate the majority whip, the senator from illinois, dick dinner, to have control of that ten minutes -- dick durbin, to have control of that ten minutes on our side. the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, how much time do we have on this side? the presiding officer: ten minutes. mr. alexander: please let me know when a minute remains. mr. president, we're here on this early saturday morning as

we lead up to christmas day to finish work on the defense appropriations bill, but the country knows that the focus of our attention, the reason we're here is because of the health care debate. we're in our 19th or 20th consecutive day of considering health care and we still don't have a bill. in other words, we don't yet know what we're voting on, how much it costs, or how it affects the american people. on october the 6th, 2009, eight democratic senators wrote the majority leader a letter which expressed the view also of all 40 republican senators, and it said what ought to be obvio obvious, that when debating even a minor bill, but certainly a major bill of this -- of this magnitude, the public's participation in this process, so the letter went, is critical to our overall success of

creating a bill that lowers health care costs and offers access to quality and affordable health care to all americans. the letter from the eight democratic senators continues: "every step of the process needs to be transparent, and information regarding the bill needs to be readily available to our constituents before the senate starts to vote on legislation that will affect the lives of every american. american." the letter continues: "the legislative text and complete budget scores from the congressional budget office of the health care legislation considered on the senate floor should be made available on the web site the public can access for at least 72 hours prior to the first vote to proceed to the legislation. likewise, the legislative text and complete c.b.o. scores of the health care legislation, as amended, should be made available to the public for 72 hours prior to the vote on final passage of the bill in the senate. further, the legislative sex of allegislative textshould be pube

senate floor prior to debate on the amendment. finally, an agreement between the house of representatives and the senate, a formal conference report detailing the agreement and complete c.b.o. scores of the agreement should be made available to the public for 72 hours prior to the vote on final passage of the conference report in the senate. mr. president, that is wise advice from senator lincoln and senator bayh and senator landrieu and senator lieberman and senator mccaskill, senator nelson, senator pryor, senator webb. what they're saying is before we vote on a health care bill that affects nearly every one of the 300 million americans, that when fully implemented will spend $2 tril yop, that the chief actuary of the government says, so far as we know it, will increase the

costs of health care rather than reduce it, will take a trillion dollars out of medicare in the form that we've seen so far when the bill is fully implemented and not use it to strengthen medicare, which is becoming insolvent in the years 2015-2017, according to the trustees of medicare but instead would spend that money on some other program, would what david brooks in "the new york times" column yesterday call a huge -- create a huge tax, $1.42 trillion in the second decade of its operation to help pay for this, which the director of the congressional budget office has said would inevitably be passed along to consumers and cause premium costs to go up, not down, and which would expand medicaid, the other large government program that we already have for low-income americans, sending a bill of

$25 billion to the states that has been roundly denounced by almost every governor in the country, democrat and republican, because at a time when the states are strulg ling, more than they have since the great depression with their budgets, when they can't print money, when they have to balance their budgets, we're expanding health care and sending them a huge bill to help pay for it, which inevitably will raise taxes, raise college tuitions, and in my state, the governor's considering releasing up to 4,000 nonviolent offenders from the prisons as a result of some of the pressures that are on him. so that's what we do know about the bill but we don't have the final version of the bill. yet we're -- it's said that we should vote on this by christmas, when, in fact, most of the provisions of the bill don't take effect until 2014.

that's four years from now. a few do, a few start right away. $73 billion in taxes start right away. medicare cuts start right away. mandates start right away. a few benefits start right away. but basically, the thrust of this massive legislation that affects 17% of our economy doesn't take effect for four years. so if we don't have the bill, mr. president, and if most of the legislation doesn't take effect for four more years, then why are we spending this time staying up all night, rushing into christmas to enact the bill? i believe it's because the majority knows that the longer the public sees the bill, the more they know about it, the less they like it and they want to try to pass it before people

know what's in it. otherwise, we would already have the bill. otherwise, we would be taking the time we took with the farm bill, with the education bill, with the energy bill, with other major legislation that takes five, six, eight, ten weeks. otherwise, we would have worked across the lines and had many different kinds of views. so this is a rush, mr. president. there's been a lot of talk about making history on health care. the problem is, there are different kinds of history. and in this case, the democratic majority seems to be determined to pursue a political kamikaze mission toward an historic mistake. if it succeeds, the results will be disastrous for the democrats in 2010, i would predict, but unfortunately it will be a bigger disaster for our country. now, this won't be congress's first historic mistake. the smoot-hawley tariff of 1930 to "buy american" sounded pretty good, sounded like a good way to protect jobs by keeping foreign products out, but historians

agree it was a historic mistake, setting off retaliatory waves, tariffs, and making the great depression worse. the alien sedition act of 1798 sounded good too. the idea was, let's protect the country from enemies within our midst, mostly french then, but that turned out to be an historic mistake, encourage more protests and offending our traditions of free speech n.1969, the congress -- free speech. in 1969, the congress found americans who weren't paying taxes and said let's have a millionaire's tax too. turned out to be an historic mistake. last year it caught 28 million americans before we rushed to patch it -- to fix it for a year. more recently, there was the catastrophic coverage act of 1968 to help seniors deal with financial losses. the trouble is that seniors resented paying for it and angry crowds surrounded the chairman of the house ways and means committee in his home district. congress repealed the mistake and the leader of the angry

seniors is now congresswoman from illinois. and then there was the luxury tax on boats in 1991. that sounded really good. we're going to get all those people who have boats that cost more than $100,000. trouble was, it raised about half the revenue projected and it nearly sank the boat indust industry, putting 7,600 people out of work. a change in congress repealed that one too. rather than make history of this sort, mr. president, congress should learn from history, we should take governor schwartzenegger's advice this week. he suggested, ", i would say, be very careful -- quote -- "to the federal government, before you go to bed with this, let's rethink t. there's no rush from one second to the next. let's take another week or two and come up with the right package." the governor, of course, was concerned about the medicaid expansion costs in his state, $3 billion for california. he said -- quote -- "the last thing we need is another $3 billion of state spending" -- thank you, mr. president --

"when we already have a $20 billion deficit." so what -- why the rush, mr. president? we don't have the bill. we have plenty of time to deal with this >> so what -- why the rush, mr. president, we don't have the bill. we have plant of time to deal with this. most of it doesn't take effect for four more years and what if in trying to fix everything all at once we get it wrong. rushing back to fix health care, again. because, congress made another historic mistake. won't be nearly as easy as repealing a votes tax, i thank the president and yield the floor. >> the assistant majority leader. >> mr. president, we meet before 7:00 a.m., on this saturday morning. and i am reminded of that famous quote, neither snow, more rain, nor heat, nor g