some things that are in the legislation that i think make sense because they're based and founded on what works. and as an old governor -- and senator nelson has already spoken from nebraska -- we're used to focus on what works and try to replicate and to put those ideas to work. i want to mention a couple of the things that we have taken that work, and we're trying to grow them and in some cases on a national level. one of the things that senator baucus and his staff on the finance committee focused on i think is maybe the best idea in the health care sltio legislatis an exchange. as a naval officer, we went to an exchange, i hope that we can open up the exchanges sooner, that's going to be place for people to go buy health care coverage. and when people do that, they'll

become part after purchasing pool in their state or maybe in a couple of states that ban together and form a regional purchasing pool. why is a purchasing pool important? we're part of one. with eight million people in our purchasing pool of federal employees and retirees, we have a lot of competition, a lot of companies want to offer us products to choose from. with eight million people in a purchasing pool, we drive down administrative costs to about 3% to every premium dollar. that is more than folks buy on their own in the open market. they may pay 33% on the premium dollar for -- for their administrative costs. they're not paying 3%. we're going to try to replicate that. we do it in the exchange and there may be 50 exchange throughout the country. when states create an ability to cross statelines like in new jersey, pennsylvania or new

jersey, insurance sold in any of those four states can be sold across statelines and introduce additional competition for the businesses or for those -- for those two or three or four states. another thing that works is the -- the delivery system -- delivery of health care in outfits like the cleveland clinic, mayo clinic, geisiniger and kaiser permanent in california and i went with rachel and what we found is that the cleveland clinic and mayo have the same template. they focus on primary care. they focus on prevention and wellness. they coordinate the care of folks who have -- have receiving treatment. they provide for other patients have electronic health records.

the medical malpractice coverage is provided by the mayo clinic, the cleveland clinic, all of the doctors ron salary. they've gone after what we call not just defensive medicine, but fee-for-service, and they've done a good job of reducing the problems that flow from fee-for-service that have to -- they -- they get better outcomes, they spend less money and what we tried to do in this legislation is try to take the health care delivery ideas from the nonprofits an instill them in the delivery of health, particularly in medical care. i like to shop for groceries. we have a bunch of good groceries in delaware. one of the places i shop is safeway in dover and a guy named steve byrd, b-u-r-d, have helped to form the decision making in this debate in ways that remarkable by the way that they

provide coverage for their employees, it is not just safeway and pitney bowes, there are a number of companies trying to figure out better results for their companies and we're borrowing from some of tire ideas. one of the ways is how does safeway provide health care coverage for their employees? they haven't reduced the benefits. one of the things they've done is incentivize their employees, get employees if they're overweight to bring the weight down, if they do, that the payments reduced, if they're smokers, they get rewarded for stopping smoking, high cholesterol or blood pressure, they get rewarded for reducing their blood pressure and cholesterol. i thank the chairman for his support, an amendment by senator ensign and myself, to have a discount for employees who do the right thing for their own health. they will reduce the health care costs not just for their

employer, but for others in the group in which they are covered. there's another piece in the legislation that -- that really borrows from an idea that is popping up in a couple of cities and that's why don't we better inform people, you know, we're interested in personal responsibility, people taking charge of their own health and reducing their health care liability. why don't we do a better job when i go into a restaurantor any of us go into a restaurant, we look at the board in the restaurant and we know what the calories are in what we're drinking for an entree or salad or dessert. they have to have on site information on transfat, sodium and on and on. the better is to make us better, informed consumers, as we track obesity, one-third of the population is obese, kids are catching up with their parents,

unfor thely. that's one of the things in the legislation, it is the idea to provide personal information so that people can assume personal responsibility wrivment there's a lot of people, speaking about what we should eat or not eat. i want to mention doughnuts. i will mention it in the context of the so-called doughnut hole. many people have probably heard of this before, many people on the medicare prescription drug program, if they reach out of costs, the costs for prescription medicine reaches about $2,500, medicare pays 75% of the cost and the individual pays 25%, once the prescription costs reach $2,500 to $5,500, medicare doesn't pay anything, and that's called the doughnut hole. it has nothing to do with doughnuts. the legislation before us and, again i give a lot of credit to our chairman and others who negotiated this, we're going to fill the doughnut hole much

we're going to basically cover people in that cap from$2 500 to $5,500, people will be able to take the medicine they need to take. they will have availablity to medicine and primary care. and i'm -- at the tender age of 62, i think the presiding officer from delaware is also about the same age as me. when the people in this country are old enough for medicare, they get a one-time only medicare physical. that's it. one time. if they live to be 105, they never get another, not paid for by medicare. in terms of borrowing good ideas from the nonprofits, cleveland clinton igs and may -- clinics and mayo clinic, we're going to say you can have a physical at 62, 6, 68 and you can find out what is wrong with people or right with people. smart idea. that's part of the reforms in the legislation. in terms of going back to

medicine, though, we want to make sure that people have good access to primary care and physicals if they're on medicare. if their doctor finds out somewhat wrong with them, if they need exercise or stop smoking, or lose weight, also to learn if there's medicines that they need to take and, second, if they can afford them. and our legislation improves the likelihood that if they're prescribed that they will be taken in the way they're prescribed. there is a piece of the legislation that senator wyden deserves credit for, and if people because of a genetic makeup, they have a particular condition, and the medicine's not going to help them, same group of people who have the same problem or different group of people, different problem, the medicine will help one group, but not the other, we want hike this sure we spend the money on the folks who will be helped and not waste money on the people who will not be helped because of the genetic makeup, and that's called

personalized medicine. i think in the future it will be an important addition. and, lastly, i want to build on, if i could, a proposal offered by -- again by senator baucus with senator enzi, and the issue -- the issue is defensive medicine -- the presiding officer: the senator has used 15 minutes. a senator: the issue is medical malpractice, there is a couple of amendments from across the aisle for us to try to deal with the incidence of medical malpractice lawsuits, where doctors prescribe too many tests an too many procedures just in an effort to reduce the likelihood they would be sued. mr. carper: we have taken an idea from the states -- the states are doing interesting stuff with respect to trying to make sure we reduce the incidents of medical malpractice lawsuits, and improve health care outcomes and we're going to

take those ideas, one called -- where people have an opportunity -- doctors an opportunity to apologize an offer a financial settlement to people who have been harmed by that doctor an idea called pals of certification, like we have in delaware, before i can sue my doctor, i go before a panel to see if my suit has any basis, in fact. we'll take ideas like safe harbor, the doctor does everything by the book, so that doctor has some kind of -- expectation that maybe they are safe from lawsuits and reduce exposure to lawsuits. we think there should be some of that. the idea of -- of health courts, where the folks on the -- on the court look like a bankruptcy court, folks that are experts before a suit can actually go into a court, that -- that health court would actually sit in determination of whether or

not a doctor, a hospital, a nurse has really messed up. those are all the ideas talked about, experimented with, we will make sure they are robustly tests and the stay applies for grants and maybe others they come up with, and reduce the incident of medical malpractice lawsuits, reduce the incident of defensive medicine and improve the health care outcomes. those are some of the ideas that we're doing. those ideas build on what works. they're not democratic ideas, they're not republican ideas. i think they're just smart ideas for the most part an there are ideas as time goes by people find out if they do the trick to rein the health care. i will close with this, if i could, mr. -- mr. president. i -- for the folks in this country who are just totally confuse bid all of this, the people who are scared that we're doing something really foolish and it's going to be a disaster for our country, let me just say when the -- the -- all of the

negative ads sort of are stopping, when folks have a chance to be drilled down and understand some of the things that i talked about here today and a lot of the aspects of the bill that will really improve outcomes and rein the costs. i think they'll be pleasantly surprised. in closing, i'm the guy that came here -- believing that democrats an republicans should work together. and i know our chairman tried mightily in the finance committee to do that. i commend him and others for their efforts. when we come back, we can't have another 12 months of this or 12 years of this. i mean this -- our country's in trouble. is this the -- if this is the way that we're going to be doing business in the future. our country's in trouble. my hope is that we'll get this done and behind us and the president will improve the bill in conference and the president will provide for us a signature and we'll go back to work implementing this. just like medicare -- just like medicare.

the key isn't to stop. the key is to make it better and build on this as a foundation. i'm committed to doing that. i know my colleagues on this side of the aisle are committed to doing that and my hope is that our friends on the other side will want to join us. i commend the chair of the finance committee, senator reid and i commend olympia snowe who had a lot of courage and here on the floor was under enormous pressure as were some of our colleagues in the -- republican friends in the finance committee. and it would have been a better bill if they had been more participative. it won't be this time. it has to be the next. on that happy note, i say to my colleagues, we'll gather again afternoon the holidays, get this job done and work on a host off other issues. none will be more important than this one. none will be more important than this one.

thank you, mr. president. mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, i want to begin by saying how much i agree with my colleague from delaware. this partisanship has got to stop. it's just too much. i think the senate, it's ironic, sort of bittersweet because we will pass health care reform legislation, we're reaching a low point in terms of partisanship. it is very unfortunate and many of us in the last several days are -- have been scratching our heads just trying to figure out what could we do to avoid this next year. and the hope springs eternal. i know this senator and the -- and most senators want to try find ways for this body to be much more civil. we're not just blowing smoke here. we really mean it. and i thank very much the senator from delaware for raising that point. it's needed and i do think this country is in trouble if we

don't find some solution and end this excessive partisanship, which is certainly harming our country. mr. president, on another matter, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle asserted that the penalty proposed under the bill before us for failing to maintain health care reach is unconstitutional. one senator has raised a point of order -- that's senator ensign -- on that subject and that is now pending. those of us who voted to proceed to the health reform bill and to vote for cloture on the substantive amendment take seriously our oath to support and defend the constitution. every senator here takes that oath of office very seriously. and we have looked at this question as well seriously and have concluded that the penalty in the bill is constitutional. and those who study constitutional law as a line of

work have drawn that same conclusion. most legal scholars have considered the question of requirement for individuals to purchase health coverage argue forcefully that the requirement is within congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. take professor irwin cherwinsky, author of four popular treatieses and casebooks on constitutional law and the dean of the university of california irvine school of law. professor cherwinsky has gone so far as to say that those arguing on the other side of this issue do not have, and i quote, "the slightest merit of a constitutional perspective." end quote. an argument dk falls within congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, the professor compares health care reform to the case of gonzalez vs. risch, often cited by the other side. in that case, the supreme court

held that the federal government's commerce clause powers extend to the cultivation and possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use. professor cherwinsky notes that the connection between health care coverage and the national economy is even clearer than the cultivation and possession involved in gonzalez vs. risch. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that professor cherwinsky's los angeles times article be printed in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: as a second example, i refer my colleagues to an article by mark hall, law professor at wake forest university. professor hall's article is a peer review analysis of the constitutionality of a federal individual responsibility requirement. in it, professor hall concludes that there are no clausible tenth amendment or states' rights issues arising from the imposition by congress of an individual responsibility to

maintain health coverage. professor hall notes further that health care and health insurance both affect and are distributed through interstate commerce, and that gives congress the power to legislate a coverage requirement using his congress clause powers. professor hall notes that the supreme court indicated its decision in united states vs. morrison, united states vs. lopez, two other cases relied on by the other side that the noneconomic criminal nature of the conduct in those cases were central to the court's decisions in those cases that the government had not appropriately exercised power under the commerce clause. health insurance, on the other hand, does not deal with criminal content. health insurance is commercial, it is economic in nature, and to reiterate, substantially affects interstate commerce. health insurance and health care services are a significant part

of the national economy. national health spending is 17.6% of the economy, and it is projected to increase from from $2.5 trillion in 2009 to to $4.7 trillion in 2019. private health insurance spending is projected to be be $854 billion in 2009. it covers things like medical supplies, drugs and equipment that are shipped in interstate commerce. health insurance is sold by national or regional health insurance carriers. thus, health insurance is sold in interstate commerce. as well, claims payments flow through interstate commerce. the individual responsibility requirement, together with other provisions in the act, will add millions of new consumers to the health insurance market, increasing the supply and demand for health care services. under existing health and labor laws, the federal government has

a significant role in regulating health insurance. other prominent legal scholars have also said that congress has the constitutional authority to impose a requirement on individuals to maintain health coverage. jonathan adler, professor of law at case western reserve university school of law has stated, and i quote -- "in this case, the overall scheme would involve the regulation of commerce as the supreme court has defind it for several decades, as it would involve the regulation health care markets. and the success of such a regulatory scheme would depend upon requiring all to participate." end quote. doug kendall of the constitutional accountability center similarly concluded, quote -- "the fundamental point behind pushing people into the private insurance market is to make sure that uninsured individuals who can pay for health insurance don't impose costs on other taxpayers." professor michael dorff of the

cornell university law school also noted that, quote -- "the individual mandate is plainly adapted to the undoubtedly legitimate end of regulating the enormous and enormously important health care sector of the national economy. it is therefore constitutional." and robert shapiro, professor of law at emery university of law school stated and i quote -- "everyone thinks of the wisdom of the universal mandate or health care reform generally, it would be surprising if the constitution prohibited a democratic resolution of the issue. happily, it does not." end quote. thus, mr. president, the weight of authority is that health care and insurance represent interstate commerce, and the individual responsibility requirement to maintain coverage would be within the congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. mr. president, in the last hour, several senators on the other side listed many organizations

which they claim oppose the bill before us. i would like now to -- to indicate many organizations that favor the health care reform. i will begin with the american medical association. that's the major doctors association that support this legislation. in fact, the incoming president, president-elect of the a.m.a. in a press conference here yesterday made that statement very clear. in addition, the american heart association supports the legislation. it believes that many patient-centered provisions are a significant step forwards toward meaningful health care. the american hospital association supports passage of this legislation. the american cancer society network supports this legislation. the federation of american hospitals also support it. national puerto rican coalition supports this legislation. i might say, mr. president, it would be unfair for me to say these are all total hundred% endorsements, but rather these are statements of support from

these organizations. some totally support it. some say there are very, very good features. so far as i know, none of these groups oppose this legislation. in fact, they favor it. some would like to see some changes, but they favor this legislation. the american association of retired people supports this legislation. that's the largest seniors' group. they think this is good, and i'm sure for one -- a lot of reasons. one is it extends the solvency of the medicare trust fund for another nine years. the business roundtable also supports this legislation. i will not say categorically, but i am willing to quote here on behalf of members, i want to commend your efforts for a step toward our shared goal of providing affordable high-quality health care for all. it will include proitionz to accelerate and advance the process for delivery for the medicare system. it strengthens the mass between insurance reforms and individual obligations. we'll continue to work with you

in congress to achieve the goals we set forth when this process began. clearly, a statement in very strong support. american diabetes association also nor'easter, saying there are long overdue improvements in our broken health care system. small business majority also believe the manager's amendment includes new provisions essential for small business protection survival. doctors for america supports passage of this legislation. the national hospice and palliative care organization strongly supports this legislation. there has been some confusion whether they did or didn't, but the national hospice and the palliative care organization strongly supports it. i will read the quote here." on behalf of hospice and palliative care providers and the 1.5 million patients, on and on, we would like to express our strong support for the national effort to enact health care reform. we act nonl the complexity, we applaud your recognition of various provisions supporting the bill. families u.s.a. supports this

legislation, and aarp -- i mentioned aarp also supports it. community catalyst. that's another organization that supports it. center for american progress. medco health, microsoft, a big company, of course, of the united states issued a strong statement approving the measures we are talking here. we just wanted to make the record clear that there are many organizations that support this legislation. this is just a sample of the few. mr. president, how much time i ask is remaining on our side? the presiding officer: ten minutes. mr. baucus: mr. president, i yield ten minutes to the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president, thank you very much. i want to commend the work of our finance committee chairman max baucus for so many things in this debate. first of all, for helping us get health care legislation moving in 2009 and now at the point of getting very close to passing the bill. grateful for his leadership, and

some of the highlights of the bill i just wanted to note in the -- in the remaining moments of our time. first of all, there has been a lot of debate over the last couple of days and weeks, but even over months about cost and care. well, fortunately we're able to report that with this bill coming out of the senate, we'll have more care and less cost. the deficit will be cut by by $132 billion over ten years as a result of this bill, and and $1.3 trillion cut in the deficit in the second decade. it will provide coverage for 94% of the american people, and the bill -- and this has not been talked about much, but the bill is a net tax cut for the american people. we're going to crack down on insurers, practices that have gone on for far too long and were allowed to go on for far too many years, ending

pre-existing condition discrimination, ending discrimination based upon gender, providing protection from exorbitant out-of-pocket costs, something we hear about all the time. just with regard to older citizens across our country. number one, the bill will extend the solvency of medicare. number two, it makes prescription drugs more affordable by filling the so-called doughnut hole and helping people with those costs. cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in medicare, and ensuring medicare funds go to improving care for seniors and not to simply going directly to insurance companies. small business. if there is one sector of our economy we have heard from over and over again about the crushing burden of health care costs, it's small businesses. i know that tens of thousands of small businesses in pennsylvania, for example, will benefit from this legislation.

two points with regard to the bill and small business. first of all, the bill provides tax credits to small businesses to make employee coverage more affordable. secondly, tax credits of up to 50% of premiums will be available to eligible firms that choose to offer coverage. a tremendous breakthrough for people out there who are creating most of the jobs in pennsylvania and most of the jobs nationally. one of the -- one of the more unreported or underreported aspects of the bill is what happens immediately? a lot of folks say well, we like your bill, we like what's going to happen, but a lot of it won't take effect for many -- for at least several years, to 2014. well, a good part of this bill takes effect in 2010. just a quick summary of those provisions. first of all, it provides affordable coverage to the uninsured with pre-existing

conditions. if you have -- if there is an insurance company that excludes you because of a pre-existing condition, you can go into a high risk pool to get help right away. it improves care to older citizens, as i mentioned, in lowering their prescription drug cost. it reduces costs for small businesses through the tax credits. fourth, it extends coverage for young adults. young adults, 25, 26 years old who may be living under difficult circumstances and don't have insurance coverage. preventative care. we have preached and talked about preventative care for years and we point to studies and good practices, but we have never made it part of our overall health care policy. this bill does it for the first time. we eliminate lifetime limits on the amount of coverage a person may receive. a terrible problem for families. the message from our system has been we can cure you but we have to limit the kind of care we're going to provide for you.

three more points in this area of what are our immediate benefits right away in 2010? prohibiting discrimination based upon salary, gender, or illness, and we make insurance plans more transparent and competitive, and finally -- and this is a rather new change -- it prohibits insurance companies from denying children coverage due to a pre-existing condition. that has moved up in the bill, so to speak, to an immediate benefit for children. so at least in the short term for children, no more denying them coverage due to a pre-existing condition. a tremendous breakthrough for a child, for his or her family, and for -- and for our economy and for our health care system, to protect c -- to protect children in a very substantial way. so whether it's cutting the deficit, providing a better quality of care, providing

opportunities for great prevention, which will lead to healthier outcomes, protecting people so they don't have to go bankrupt to get the care they need, and especially for protecting older citizens and children. this bill moves forward in a way that we've never had an opportunity to move our system forward in a very positive way. so i want to again commend chairman baucus on his work and our majority leader, harry reid, and all those who made this possible to move this bill forward and to have it passed through the senate and move it to enactment. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: i ask unanimous consent the next block begin immediately. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from florida.

mr. lemieux: i thank the chairman of the senate finance committee for his courtesy and appreciate the community to be here. i understand, mr. president, that i have a certain allotment of time. if i could be notified when i have two minutes left, i would appreciate that. the presiding officer: the chair is unaware of the restriction. it's one hour for your side. mr. lemieux: okay. if i could be notified when i've spoag enfor 20 minutes. -- spoken for 20 minutes. the presiding officer: the chair will so notify you. mr. lemieux: thanks so much. mr. president, i rise today to talk about this health care bill. i've spoken about it before but i feel obligated on behalf of my state of florida to explain why i unfortunately will not be able to support this bill on final passage. i think in doing so it's important to talk about why we're here and how we got here. i'm sure the american people think that in this process of debating health care over the past weeks and months that this has been a process where both sides, republicans and democra

democrats, have worked together, sat in an open room, and gave ideas back and forth. there's been give and take and compromise so that we could come to the plan that's before us here today. i'm sure the american people believe, mr. president, that amendments were offered, that each senator could come to the floor and offer amendments and that his and her colleagues were allowed to hear those amendments and vote them up and down. and i also believe the american people think, mr. president, that we don't just come to this chamber and give monologues. they probably think that this room is not empty and that there's not just two of my distinguished colleagues here but that we all sit here and listen to each other's arguments and try to decide what's best for the american people. but unfortunately, mr. president, that's not the case with this bill. this bill was designed and crafted by the democratic leadership without the input of the colleagues from this side of the aisle.

there was no give and take, there was no back and forth in a conference room with c-span in the room, as the president told us he would ensure when he ran for -- for the office of the presidency, and we didn't have the opportunity to offer amendments to make this bill better. now, i know that seems hard to believe, that we wouldn't have the ability to offer amendments to make this bill better, but i can prove it to you. mr. president, i have an amendment at the desk. it's amendment 3225. and what this amendment does is it takes a piece of legislation that i filed shortly after coming here to the senate in september of this year and it's called -- the legislation's called "the prevent health care fraud act of 2009." this legislation has 11 cosponsors. it has bipartisan support. and what the bill does is basically three things. one, it creates the chief health care fraud prevention officer of the united states.

be the number two person at health and human services. their only job would be to ferret out health care fraud. second, it would use and take a page from the private sector to go after fraud. there is a industry out there right now that does an excellent job of stopping fraud and that industry is about the same size as the health care industry. it's the credit card business. about a $2 trillion business. health care is about a $2 trillion business. in health care and in medicare alone, estimates are that $1 out of every $7 in medicare is fra fraud. in the credit card business, it's pennies on the hundreds of dollars. how does the credit card business do it? well, we've all had this experience. you go to purchase something in a store and when you leave, you get an e-mail or a phone call and your credit card company says to you, did you really mean to purchase that good or service? and guess what? if you say no, they don't pay. the way we do things in medicare

and medicaid is we do pay and chase. we pay and then when we think there's fraud, we try to go after it. this model stops the fraud before it starts. and a group here in washington, d.cwashington,d.c., has evaluate of legislation and that says it might save as much as $20 billion a year in medicare alone. we think that there's $60 billion of fraud in medicare, $1 out of every $7. and this bill, this proposal that we've put forward also would require background checks for every health care provider in america to make sure they're not a criminal. florida, unfortunately, my state, is ground zero for health care fraud. we have the worst health care fraud in america. just this past week -- and i've sent this letter around to my colleagues -- $61 million medicare fraud scheme out of florida and some other states. my bill, this proposal, which has bipartisan support, could

save $20 billion a year. and we have fashioned this bill into an amendment to this health care bill. and, mr. president, at this time i would ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside to call up my amendment. it's senate amendment number 3225. mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. baucus: mr. president, reserving the right to object and i hope my colleague would let me just say a word or two under my reservation. the underlying bill, i might say while i'm reserving the right to object, is crafted in a way with the guidance of c.m.s., the office of inspector general, h.h.s., and the justice department for stronger antifraud provisions. it would give c.m.s. new screening authority to provide resources to the c.m.s. for new screening authority. also limit providers in other ways by more oversight when fraud is suspected, like limiting the number of durable medical equipment providers because we know that d.b. is fraught with fraud. we also require under the bill

to require providers to have compliance programs to make sure providers know the rules. also, increase penalties for fraudulent activity. that's in this bill too. but most importantly, this bill would give c.m.s., h.h.s., o.i.g., more tools at their proposal to protect the integrity. so the bill does a lot to protect fraud. i must say, i know this is on his time but this is a bit unusual, this procedure here, and i appreciate the indulgence of the chair as well as the indulgence of the senator from florida. but there were -- you won't believe, senator, the number of amendments that were offered, bipartisan basis, in the finance committee as well as the "help" committee and were adopted in both committees. it's very, very transparent, very open, bipartisan. unfortunately, by the time the bill got to the floor here, it became apparent that we were facing less than the nature of legitimate amendments, more message amendments, and so the majority leader resorted to a

procedure to try to move this thing expeditious. and i know that i'm taking advantage of the senator by explaining athathi not the prop, but there are strong antifraud provisions in this legislation and very, very, very respectfully i must object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. lemieux: well, i thank my colleague and the chairman, the distinguished chairman of the finance committee. and, sure, there are things in this bill, he's pointed out, that go after fraud. but i would like to inform the senate of the report that came out evaluating this new bill in the managers' a.m. and i have here a table that evaluates how much we estimate will be saved from the waste, fraud and abuse provisions which are in this bill. and it's $.9 billion. $.9 billion. the proposal that i have, one group -- and, again, it's not the c.b.o. -- but one group has that said it might save $20 billion a year. so putting aside our differences, i sure wish we could talk about my amendment today, i would say to my friend, my colleague. i hope that we can revisit it

after this is over, because we should be able to agree -- and it does have bipartisan support. i wish we could amend the bill today, but i hear the objection and i will move on. but i hope that -- mr. baucus: might i -- mr. lemieux: but i hope that we can talk about this. mr. baucus: may i ask the senator to yield using whatever time we have on our side. i fully agree with the senator. it is unfortunate that we can't proceed at this moment. but i pledge my support next year to work aggressively with very strong oversight to -- to boost our antifraud measures even more than there are in this bill. there's going to be an awful lot of oversight necessary when this bill is passed to make sure that all the provisions that are intended actually come true. and, in fact, we think we're working hard now to get this bill passed. frankly, i think we're going to have to work even harder next year to make sure the provisions work. but i pledge my support and to work very aggressively in that area. but i thank the senator. mr. lemieux: i thank the chairman.

the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. lemieux: i wish we could -- respectfully, i wish we could do it before we had to rush to judgment on this bill. i wish we had more time. i wish we didn't have to be backed up against a wall of christmas. i understand our colleagues on the other side have the desire to get this done, but it's mirey concern with this measure ask with the other measures in -- measure and with the other measures in the bill that we could have worked together. now, mr. president and mr. chairman, you know, i'm new to this chamber, but this is not the way that businesses work, it's not the way that american families work, it's not the way that even state legislators work, which i have experience with this florida. so i wish we could have talked about that amendment and offered it and talked about it. and i wish my colleagues were here to debate it up or down. but let's talk about where we are instead. let's talk about what this bill does and why i, unfortunately, can't support it as a senator from florida. we know that this bill cuts medicare by nearly half of a trillion dollars. we know that this bill raises taxes by nearly half of a

trillion dollars. and we know it does not accomplish the fundamental goal that the president set forward when we embarked upon this debate about health care reform. the american people are beginning to realize, and if they haven't realized yet will be shocked to hear that this bill is not going to cut the cost of health care for people who have insurance already. that's the very reason that this debate was embarked upon. not just access for people who don't have health care insurance but to bring the costs down. health care has gone up 130% in the past ten years. this bill will not address that. in fact, estimates show that for some folks, the cost of health care will go up. so, mr. president, there are basically five reasons why i cannot support this measure as the senator from florida. i'm concerned, first of all, about access and quality of care for our seniors.

when you take a half of a trillion dollars out of medicare, my fear is that it's going to diminish the quality of care for seniors in florida. now, it is said on the other side that we're not going to take away benefits, we're just going to take away money from providers. it's said on the other side that the new insurance will take care of uncompensated care so the cuts to hospitals and the cuts to hospices and the cuts to other providers won't really hurt seniors at the end. i think that's a tremendously risky experiment and i can't believe at the end of the day when we pay providers less that it's not going to affect benefits. right now the studies see that 24% of senators medicare trying to find primary care physicians can't find one. i get letters from seniors in florida who say they can't find a doctor who will take their medicare. and tbhe we know that in medicad it's worse. we know that in medicaid that if you're just going into the program and you're trying to find a physician, almost 40% of

the physicians won't take it. and in metropolitan areas, for special it's, it's up to -- for specialists, it's up to 50% who won't take medicaid. i fear if we take half a trillion dollars out of a program that is already in financial trouble, a program that in the next seven years is going to be in serious financial trouble and not be able to meet its obligations, that it's going to hurt seniors. now, i've heard this discussion about how we're prolonging the life of medicare, and the distinguished chairman just spoke about it. but when you look at what the act ware of h.h.s. has said about that assumption, the assumption is that we're not going to restore the 21% decrease in physician payments. which, of course, as soon as we get back in the new year we're going to have before us. you can't take money out of medicare and pay for a new program and short medicare. you don't need an actuary or an evaluation or an analyst to tell you that. it makes common sense.

you can't get blood from a stone. and if the doctor is not in, it's not health care reform. i've gotten a letter, as many of my colleagues have, from an organization called 60-plus, represents 5.5 million seniors. james martin, the president of that, writes, "cutting a half a trillion dollars from medicare while adding $31 million more -- 31 million more to the medicare rolls is an outrage. 60 plus strongly supports health care reform but first we should do no harm for a system serving so many well. make incremental changes that do not bankrupt the system already teetering on insolvency." i want to talk a minute about medicare advantage. more floridians in medicare advantage than any other state. lots been talked about this program. we've had amendments to try to stop the cuts. 950,000 floridians.

now, medicare advantage is a great program, and people in florida enjoy it. seniors like it because you get more than just regular medicare. you get eye care, you get hearing care, you get wellness, you get diabetic supplies and other things that add to the quality of life for seniors. these medicare advantage providers are actually working hard to make sure that their senior customers are happy. you know, not really a concept that you hear a lot about when the government's in charge. now, there is a fix for florida as been talked about. but i want to talk about what that fix is, as i understand it. it is an offering. for the rest of the country, it's going to be skwha of an -- somewhat of an accent. in florida it is an offering. we don't know what's going to happen in conference. i don't know if the florida fix will still be there. in talking to experts and

reading the bill myself, specifically around page 95 through about 9 -- page 895 through 901 of the original reid bill, there is this grandfathering in for folks in florida and other areas. of the 950,000 people, the experts think 150,000 to maybe as many as 250,000 won't get this grand tpaergts in. they're going to get the cuts to medicare advantage. so this is not good for them. for the other, say, 700,000 people or so, every year starting in 2013, their benefits or the payments to the providers for benefits are going to decline 5% a year. that's on page 895 through 897. so it's an off ramp. every year less payments. every year less benefits. i talked to one provider down in miami that many senators in this chamber visited who runs a very successful medicare advantage program. he said that these cuts would be

devastating. while it might not be an exit for florida right away, it's certainly going to be an off ramp that one day ends up being an exit. let's remember that many of the folks on the other side of the aisle who are proposing these cuts to medicare advantage didn't vote for medicare advantage to start with. they don't like it. they don't like the private sector being involved. they don't like these extra benefits being provided. it goes against what they philosophically believe. but i knee floridians like -- i know floridians like it. because this bill cuts it, i can't be for it. no one can guarantee me in the next ten years medicare advantage in florida will be as robust as it is today. i'm concerned also about the home health care payments. i'm concerned about what it's going to do to small business, home health care providers in florida. i talked to the largest provider of home health care in tphrar did a, and he -- in florida, and

he said we'll be fine. the small mops -- small moms and pops will go out of reason. the second reason why i can't support this bill is this is going to have a devastating effect. we talked to the head of the florida health care system, the agency for health care administration. these increases in medicaid, raising medicaid from 100% of poverty to 133% is going to cost florida an estimated $3.5 billion over the next ten years. $3.5 billion that florida can't afford to pay. our budget's gone from $73 billion to $66 billion in a short period of time with the economic decline. unlike this chamber, which spends money it doesn't have, florida has to balance its budget. so what happens when you have less money? you've got to cut programs. but when you have a federal mandate, you can't cut that. so what do you cut? cut education and teachers. you cut law enforcement. not good for florida.

a burden florida can't afford to pay. that's why all the governors in the country, virtually, republican and democrats alike, including our governor, charlie crist are against this unfunded mandate. the third reason why i can't support this bill is it raises taxes. what happens when you're a drug company who makes your medicine or a device company that makes the lifesaving implement for you gets taxed? they're going to pass it along to you. mr. president, they're going to put it right in the bill. that's the way it's going to work. that's why health care costs aren't going to go down for the 170-some million americans who have health insurance. in fact, for some they're going to go up. that's not health care reform. fourth, this is a budget-busting bill. it is not deficit-neutral, and let me explain why. you'll hear reports that this is going to cut more than $100 billion from the deficit over the next ten years.

only in washington, d.c. could you come to this calculation. it's funny math. we have this congressional budget office, which is sort of the arbiter of all things financial here in washington. you send them a proposal, they give you an answer. but it is not a thinking answer. it is an analytical answer. and it gets gamed. what you send them determines what you get back. they only look at ten years of a period. what it's going to cost in the next ten years. if you're going to bring in more money than you spend in the next ten years, then it's going to cut the budget. it will cut the deficit. that's what they say back to you. so what was done in this bill in order to get something that would fulfill the president's promise to be a budget cut or at least deficit-neutral? we have ten years of taxes and six years of benefits. most of the benefits don't start until 2014. yet, the taxes start in two weeks, in january. that's like you going to buy a home, say i'm going to live here

for ten years, and then say well, that's great. start paying today and you can move in in 2014. it's funny math. this is a $2.5 trillion new entitlement program that we can't afford. we can't afford the programs we have, let alone the programs that the majority in this chamber want. we have a $12 trillion deficit. we have $30-some trillion in unfunded entitlement deficit. hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt for every family in america, and no plan to pay for it. we just spend more than we take in. we spent $1.4 trillion -- we have a $1.4 trillion deficit this year. just the debt this year. that's more than the past four years combined. and the american people are on to this, and they're angry about it. the presiding officer: the senator has used 20 minutes. mr. lemieux: -- and they should be. fifth and finally, mr. president, the reason i can't support this bill is it doesn't lower the cost of health

insurance for americans. the congressional budget office has said the majority of americans will see the same increases as they currently get under the current system. and for some people, individuals policies, for example, they will receive a 10% to 13% increase. mr. president, i'm going to conclude by saying this, and this will probably be the final time that i'll speak before we have final passage on this bill. i long for what could have been. we could have worked together. we could have had an 80-vote bill. we could have had a bill that would have said insurance companies can't drop you if you're sick. insurance companies can't deny you if you have a preexisting condition. insurance companies compete across state lines, soviet up an exchange, give a tax credit to the american people, put money in their pocket, let them be consumers that go out and buy health insurance and drive the costs down because the market economy would once again work in health care. this bill doesn't solve the problem. it just perpetuates it.

it makes it worse. and at the same time it cuts health care for seniors and doesn't lower the cost of health insurance for most americans. and for more and more seniors, the doctor will not be in. that's not reform. and for those reasons, mr. president, respectfully, for that lost opportunity, i will not be able to support this bill. i yield the balance of my time to my friend and colleague from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: very articulate

comments from my friend from florida. we recognize his time here has been very, very short. in terms of an individual jumping in with both feet kpwraeugs the challenge we have in -- embracing the challenge we have in front of us and representing the constituents in florida that he has deserves public distinction and i thank you for your leadership. we had occasion to talk about the similarities between alaska and florida, and you might not think of there being much in relationship there, me being in the north in the cold versus the sunny south in florida. but when it comes to our senior populations, this is where we have a truly a shared interest. florida is probably the largest number of seniors per capita. and in my state of alaska, we are the state that has the fastest-growing population of seniors per capita. one might not think of alaska as

being a retirement haven, but more and more we are becoming so. and we share the same problems when it comes to access. when you can't get in to see a provider, when that insurance card is really all we have given you, then we haven't done anything, mr. president, to really provide for a level of care to improve the situation for the residents of florida or the residents of alaska. so what we are, what we're doing today as we move towards final passage on legislation that i would concur with the senator from florida, we are not fixing the problem. we are not dealing with how we appropriately and adequately provide for access to quality health care. we have much work remaining before us. and, mr. president, we have -- we've had some time these past couple days, actually these past

couple weeks as we have spent a considerable amount of time in our office waiting for votes at 1:00 a.m. in the morning or early-morning votes at 7:00 in the morning. i've had a chance to go through some things on my desk, but i've also had an opportunity to spend a lot of time checking to see what people are saying when they are contacting our office. and the volume of correspondence, when in e-mails or faxes or phone calls, coming in from alaskans at this time has been absolutely unprecedented. i think typically in the legislative calendar about this time, several days before christmas, you don't see constituents contacting their senators and pounding the drum. well, let me tell you, the people in alaska are pounding the drum.

in just the past 24 hours, we got probably close to about 500 health care e-mails that have come in overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly these are e-mails from constituents saying, "no, this is not good. you must do what you can to prevent this reform package, as you call it, from moving forward." and it seems that the longer the people from alaska -- the longer the people from around this country have to look at what is contained in this 2,000-plus page bill, the more they realize the negative impacts, the consequences to them, their family and their businesses. and they're no longer silent. i've had so many calls and letters from people coming in saying i've never weighed in with you before, never weighed

in with my delegation, but this is something that i can't keep silent on. when you look at just some of the ones that have come in -- these are just today's that i'm looking at. there's one from a woman in anchorage who said yesterday on the tv news heurd about the sweetheart deals that senator nelson made. to say that i'm angry is putting it mildly. there's a gentleman in fairbanks who writes in, "i'm very skeptical about this mandatory health insurance that apparently everyone will have to buy in." this is from a fellow in anchorage also. he says "you're moving a health care bill that can't be understood unless a person has a law degree." another individual, this is an interesting one, he and his family apparently own four indoor tanning businesses in alaska. we need to get a little

sunshine, even if it's not what god has provided us. these are good businesses. and he says "when did this go from a 5% tax increase for cosmetic surgery to 10% for indoor tanning anyway?" and he adds that adding another 10% tax hike on small businesses like indoor tanning will likely drive many families just like mine into bankruptcy. mr. president, i could go on and on in terms of the stacks of correspondence and phone calls that we've gotten in, but suffice it to say, the more people understand what is in this legislation, the greater their concerns are. and really the greater their outrage as they learn what is contained in it. one of the things i learned just yesterday, which i don't think we've gotten the focus or the attention on this.

this is a concern that was raised by the anchorage home builders and the alaska state home building society. they have pointed out that as an industry, they are -- as an industry, the home builders industry, they're being unfairly singled out in this bill. now, we've talked about the employer mandate that is contained in this legislation and that mandate applies to those businesses with 50 or more employees. but there's a zing here in this legislation to home builders who are now responsible for providing federally approved health benefits if they have five or more employees. well, you know, look at what's going on throughout this count country, madam president, in terms of industries that have taken a real hit with this economic downturn in this recession. the home building industry has

just suffered incredibly during this downturn, and -- and, you know, now we are going to, on top of depressed house prices and increases in home foreclosures, we're now going to punish them with an employer mandate that treats them worse than any other employer. so, in other words, if you've got five or more employees as a home builder, you need to know that your industry -- your industry -- is the one, the only one that will be subject to the employer mandate of $750 per employee. now, in alaska, we did a -- we checked to see how many individuals are home builders within the state. we've got about 250 home builders in alaska, but when you -- when you look to see how many individuals they employ, that's about 3,078 employees. it's about 12 employees to every builder. so the total home building industry that would be impacted is about 800 employers in my

state. yesterday, there was a letter that was sent to members of the senate here and this is from -- from the home building industry as well as -- as many other associated industries, the air conditioning contractors, the builders and contractors, the electrical contractors. but i -- i want to -- to just mention some of the statements that are contained in this letter. again, it's written yesterday and they say, "we're writing to express our strong opposition to language contained in the managers' amendment which excludes the construction industry from the small business exemption contained in the bill. the fact that the managers' amendment was made public less than two days before the first vote on the matter has increased the difficulty of playing a constructive role in the legislative process." and i'll just take a little detour here from the letter. this is part of the problem. you've got these organizations

and these groups -- and there's a list of about a dozen of them here that have signed on to this letter. they had literally hours, literally hours before we were forced to vote on the managers' amendment. they didn't know what was in the bill and how it impacted them. they go on to say, "the managers' amendment singles out the construction industry by altering the exemption so that it applies only to those firms with fewer than five employees. this is an unprecedented assault on our industry. it is unreasonable to presume that small business owners can bear the increased costs of these new benefits simply because congress mandates that they do so. and they go on to conclude in the letter, "we are unaware of any data or evidence that suggests that the needs and struggles of a construct contractor with fewer than 50 employees are so different from those of small business owners in other industries.

and absent such convincing evidence, we are left to assume that this specific provision is merely a political payto have satisfy the desires of a small constituency." well, madam president, those are some pretty strong words there towards the end, but it does cause you to wonder why in this legislation if we're going to require that -- that businesses -- only businesses in excess of 50 employees are going to be subject to this mandate. why -- why this unprecedented assault on the home builders? i don't get it. but what it does cause me to get is that there is a heck of a lot more out there that the more we read it, the more we sit down and we connect the dots, the more we realize that this fish

that we've set out on the front porch is just going to continue to stink. it just -- it stuns me. we've got the home builders up in alaska that are just beside themselves saying, you know, can you take a look at this and let me know how the senators feel. what are you going to do about this, lisa, is the question that we got -- that i have received. well, this is something that we all have to -- have to reckon with. and, madam president, at the conclusion of my remarks, i'd like to make sure that the copy of the letter is included as part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: madam president, i want to -- i want to speak a little bit about how aspects of this legislation have impact specifically on my state. as a rural state, sometimes the impacts that we see are different than you have in more

urban states. our geography's different, our lack of providers, our high senior population, our extremely expensive costs. there's a lot of dynamics at play that cause real issues and real concerns. and there have been many words that have been exchange odd this floor about what -- exchange odd this floor about what this bill does do or what it doesn't do. i find it helpful to go to the experts, the think-tank in my state, and ask them flat-out, we've got a -- we've got an institution at the university of alaska called the institute of socioeconomic research, and i take what they have to say very seriously. i also take very seriously what our congressional budget office has to say, what the c.m.s. actuary has to say, because i think, as my colleague from florida pointed out, these are the independent arbiters, these are the guys whose job it is to really work the numbers.

so i'd like to discuss some of the findings from the university of alaska, also try to inject some -- a little bit of common sense into the debate as to -- to what it means for alaska, how it increases their premiums, how it raises that cost curve on the federal health care expenses, the taxes on the small businesses, for the individuals, the families, the health benefits that the police, the pfeiffefirefighters, other prote services that put their lives on the line for so many. these are the things that unfortunately we might not be getting the full picture. now, our colleagues on the other side have claimed that -- that health care coverage will be expanded and, again, let's go to -- to our nonpartisan entities. the c.b.o. and the joint committee on taxation. the average premium per person if you purchase in the individual market is going to be 10% to 13% higher in 2016 than the average premium under current law. so that tells you that if these

federal score keepers are correct, your premiums are going to go up under this health bill if you buy insurance yourselves. now, in alaska, according to iser, again, the institute of social and economic research, we've got go 28,000 alaskans who would pay 20% more for their premiums. it's going to cost an individual in my state an extra $1,100 per year and a family in my state nearly $3,000 more for the coverage by the year 2016. so again, you've got to ask the question: is health care really expanded? this bill forces you to purchase federally approved health care. otherwise, you have to pay the penalty of $750 or 2% of your income. if you earn more than $37,500. now, as you look at alaska's population, this is -- is going to bring in more than 50% of alaska's population who are going to be penalized if they

fail to have health insurance. so, again, you ask the question: is health care coverage going to be expanded? well, since the law that we are advancing is going to require that you buy federally approved health insurance and then we're going to penalize you if you don't buy it, then what you have is the heavy hand of the federal government, who forces you to buy health insurance which is going to cost about 12% more once this bill is enacted, 12% northern would todaymen today. now, the democrats will also talk about the hidden tax on families and how that will go away because once this bill passes, under this bill, everyone's going to have coverage. well, alaskans and all americans who do not get federally approved health insurance that the federal government is going to require that you have, you're going to be fined $750 or 2% of your taxable income, the

democrats won't tell you when they say that health care going to be expanded or the hidden tax goes away, is that those with income greater than $37,500, again, affecting over 50% of the people in my state, are going to be taxed at a full 2% of their household income once the bill is fully phased in if they don't get health insurance. and it's this penalty, this penalty that's going to raise $15 billion to help pay for this bill. so this is how we're paying for the bill. c.b.o. and c.m.s., they told us that the taxes on medical devices, whether they're tongue depressors or x-rays or blood sugar meters, these are going to be passed on to the individuals. so you're going to be taxed for vital medications and other health products. and the -- the question you then have to ask yourself, okay, so do these hidden costs actually go away? and i suppose they do because they're no longer really hidden. what we will have done is we will have raised your premiums, we will have increased the -- the penalties on those earning

more than $37,500 who didn't buy into health insurance, and we will have taxed you on tongue depressors and your x-rays to pay for the bill. and, in addition, the smallest of the small businesses are going to be taxed if they don't provide insurance for their employees and individuals and couples earning over $200,000 are going to be penalized because they're the higher-income earners. now, the democrats are also telling you that as the medicare patients, they're going to get some good, positive things. they will get free preventive services. and this is good, this is absolutely great. we should be encouraging preventive services. but, as my colleague from florida was explaining, as i have mentioned, after this bill passes, are any of the 13 -- or i think we're down to only 12 now -- primary care doctors in alaska or in the anchorage area

anyway, accepting new medicare patients? so we're saying, well, we're going to -- we're going to provide this service to you, we're going to -- no cost. but, again, if you can't get anybody who will take you as a patient, how are we really helping you? we've heard -- again, we've heard from a doctor in anchorage. in fact, i've got an opinion piece that was published just this week in the "anchorage daily news" that i'd like to submit to the record, but she's indicated that she's dropping out of medicare and she's doing it because of this legislation. it is no secret, madam preside madam president, in my state of alaska and in far too many states around this country, we just don't have enough providers who will take these individuals. iser has said that nrs in low-payment -- seniors in low-payment medicare states will be forced to wait in line.

well, alaska is one of two states. we are i think the second to the last in terms of medicare payments and where we stack up in relation to -- to -- to the reimbursement. iser goes on to state that "independent of the doc fix, in alaska, the remainder of seniors are at risk of long lines to see a primary care doctor and overflowing to community health centers and hospital emergency rooms where existing capacity is highly likely to be quickly overwhelmed and long wait times become increasingly common." they've also said that additional new insured patients are going to hurt medicare beneficiaries and they state "federal health care reform applied to alaska likely will exacerbate an already very challenging access situation for alaska's seniors as baby boomers age into medicare and finding themselves waiting in line behind a rapidly expanding line of better paying private plans." we're told that five years from now, our medicare population is going to increase by 50%.

we can't accommodate those who are medicare eligible now. our boom is -- is not sustainable. the c.m.s. actuary has said the reid bill reduces payment updates to health care providers which are unlikely to be sustainable on a permanent bas basis. as a result, providers could find it difficult to remain profitable and absent legislative intervention might end their participation in the medicare program. well, it is happening. doctors, providers, physicians are making those decisions as we speak. they are opting out. so this is not just some theoretical approach to the problem. this is happening, madam president. madam president, how much time do we have on our side? the presiding officer: 17 minutes. ms. murkowski: okay, thank you. if i may ask my colleague from kansas, do i understand that

you're seeking about ten minutes? is that correct? okay. so that i know what we're doing here in terms of time. thank you. i want to speak just a little bit about small businesses because we've all been talking about the impact to small businesses. under this bill as we know, small businesses are going to be penalized $750 per employee if even one of their employees seeks governmental health care whether through medicaid or the federal subsidies. if you've got 50 or more employees, you can be expected to pay fines in an a. $750 -- amount of $750 per employee employee or $3,000 for that individual employee. madam president, i think we need to put it in perspective in terms of who these businesses are. these are the solo practitioners like the one-lawyer office or small doctors office. if these individuals in alaska purchase health care in the individual market they're going to see premiums go up an extra

$1,160 per year per family and nearly $3,000 more in 2016. one of the things that we face in alaska is we're defined as a high-cost state. and if you're a small business who can afford to pay good health and dental benefits for your employees and those benefits amount to $8,500 per individual or $23,000 per family, in a high-cost state like alaska, you look to be hit with a 40% excise tax because you basically want to provide your employees with good benefits. again, according to iser, they say this, alaska is a high-cost state and, thus, roughly 50% -- 50% -- of health plans in alaska will be subject to the tax by 2016. this is compared to only 19% average in the lower 48. again, by 2016, 50% of the plans

in my state will be subject to this 40% excise tax. and, i would like to also include in the record a letter that we received from the municipality of anchorage from their police and fire retiree medical trust. the city of anchorage, largest city in the state, we have -- we've received this letter just last week. and in the letter, they cite specifically to three provisions in the bill that are of particular concern. number one, inclusion of health care benefits as taxable income to employees. and it states "not only will this increase the employees taxable income but the municipality of anchorage's payroll tax will also increase." their second point is the taxation of the municipalities health care plan. they state this tax will be

imposed on the kpwhroeurbgs the current -- employer, the current design is subject to a 40% excise tax. they go on to say there is also an aggregation rule for the value of employee coverage with multiple employers or retiree medical. if a retiree would purchase the municipality's health insurance that is considered excessive. the excise tax would be incurred. one may argue the tax is a tax to the employer. the argument can be made the trust is an integral part of the municipality. thus, the tax would be payable from the trust general fund assets. the third point in the letter is current municipal employees are able to be reimbursed tax free from money they have placed in their flexible spending account for over the counter medicine. retired police officers and firefighters are allowed this under their medical benefit. under this bill, the

reimbursement would no longer be allowed. this is a reduction there employee benefits. it is also likely tone courage an increase in the utilization of more expensive over the counter prescriptions as they are a covered expense. madam president, there's about 400 members that are part of the police and fire retiree medical trust. when they find out, as i'm sure they will, and the more they learn, when they find out that essentially they are going to be taxed on their plan -- i think most of these firefighters and these police officers don't view themselves as having access to a cadillac plan. they're just firefighters and police officers. but, this is coming from their trust fund expressing great concern over what we have in front of us. and a concern, again, that i

want to have included in the record. madam president, i've mentioned that we have received a copy of an opinion piece from primary care provider in anchorage who has outlined why she is opting out of the medicare system in alaska. i'd like to include her letter to the editor. i would also ask -- and these will be my final remarks here today. one of the things that we don't have in this legislation is a provision that relates to medical malpractice. it's been stated that, well, in alaska, you tried medical malpractice reform, and we haven't seen the positive impacts. i'd like to include a statement from the alaska state medical association along with an article that was published in alaska medicine in september of

2009 entitled "malpractice relief: lower premiums, tort reform add to alaska's appeal." the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you, madam president. the bottom line that the alaska state medical association provides is that the cumulative result of alaska physicians advocacy has been a success for physicians and their patients. again, we've seen positive impact in alaska because of the laws that we have passed. i think it's unfortunate that we didn't take that opportunity as we dealt with health care reform these past many months. madam president, at this time i will yield to my colleague from kansas and thank the chair for her attention. mr. brownback: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. brownback: thank you very much, madam president. i'm glad to join my colleague from alaska and florida in talking about the health care

bill. you can look in "the new york times" today. there was a full-page ad put up describing the bill. i'm putting it up here, the same thing that was in "the new york times" today. and it starts with the basic question, i want to receive care from my doctor. and this on one page puts the 2,600 pages all kind of what you're going to see with it. it's convoluted, it's difficult, it's expensive. and this is what you're going to get. this is in "the new york times" today if you want to take a look at that and try to figure out, okay, this is where i sit or this is what's going to happen to me in this overall system. it's no wonder that the american public doesn't want this. they are not excited about this. they're not excited about what it's going to do to the budget, $2.5 trillion, that's about $700 million a day if you're counting in millions a day, is one way to look at it. there are some interesting

things hidden within the bill. one of the things i want to point out is the transfer of wealth from young people to older. one of the things that po*e's really bugged me about what we've done, a wealth transfer from younger people to older people. several of my children are students and working part-time jobs, and they're paying payroll tax. they say where's this payroll tax going to? i say go talk to your grandparents and tell them to say thank you to you. these are funds that they're collecting that are going to pay for their retirement funds. but it doesn't seem to be very satisfying to them, because they're look to go saying why aren't i putting this into something that could be saving money for me so i can have this later on instead of this i'm paying and they're getting. what's going to be there when i get there. that sort of wealth transfer from young people to old people continues in this bill.

younger people will pay more for health insurance premiums so older workers can pay less. their cost, if you're age 25, are going to go up 20% for health insurance premiums. if you're 64, it's going to go down 20% for health care. this is another one of the wealth transfers that takes place that isn't right. it's taking from the kids. it's taking from the grandkids. it shouldn't be continued, and here it's going to be continued in this bill. you could look at it another way about subsidies in this bill go disproportionate to the older americans. average subsidies of a 55-year-old are nearly ten times that of a 25-year-old. the young american gets a subsidy, another wealth transfer taking place from younger to older. then you can look at also the claims that in this bill there are going to be tax cuts for the middle class. that's in you're -- if you're in the lucky group in the middle

class. for every load of -- low- to middle-income family with a tax tax cut, three have an increase by the structure of this bill. by this structure th-fplt convoluted, difficult to navigate, hard to understand, expensive, $2.5 trillion structure. and that's where we stand. likely to pass this body and then go to the house of representatives. where there's a major issue that's still brewing, difficult and must be dealt with, and that's the issue of public funding of abortion that's in this bill. i would say, you want to cut some of the cost out of this thing, why don't you take some of those expenses out of this? that would be one way to cut back some of the expenses. but in the house bill they included stupak language which continued the hyde tradition and law of this land that the government will not pay for

abortions other than cases of rape, incest and life of the mother. it's the only cases where you pay for it. except now buried in the senate bill, in the reid amendment is the public funding of abortion which we haven't done for years. i talked to both congressman stupak yesterday, senator nelson, they both agree that the stupak language is far superior, one that actually doesn't publicly fund abortions, whereas this bill now does. you don't need to take just my word for it. you can hear what others have said about it. u.s. conference of catholic bishops who want a health care bill but are opposed to abortion say this: the bill is morally unacceptable unless and until it kphraoeuz with long-standing current laws such as the hyde amendment. in staourbgs which we voted on in this floor in the nelson-hatch amendment which is now not in the bill. you don't have to just take that.

you can take bart stupak, democrat from michigan who voted for the bill in the house of representatives, says this about the senate bill -- it's now not acceptable, "a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage. the american public doesn't want that either. the latest poll, december 22, show that 72% of the americans oppose using any public money to pay for abortions including 54% of democrats and 74% of independents. that's where they are. that's where the public is. national right to life, which is the gold standard on standing up for life, says this about the base democrat bill now. quote, "the reid manager's amendment requires all enrollees in an abortion recovery plan make a separate payment into a account that will pay for abortions. the bill also contains language intended to prevent or

discourage any insurer from explaining what this surcharge is to be used for. there is nothing in the language to suggest that payment of the abortion charge is subject to the enrollee. another thing in it is it takes the individual opt out and moves it to a state opt out. while kansas may opt the out, they still have to pay taxes that go to another state to pay for abortions there which are equally offensive to people in my state or other states that don't want to see this funding take place. it doesn't address the issue of having preventive services include abortion. there was discussion on this floor that we would have, okay, that we're not going to include preventive services in it, but that's not in the language. there was discussion. we tried an amendment. that's not there. it can still be defined. so now, it may ultimately unwind the entire bill based upon the

funding of abortion that's in the senate bill. it will be up to the house members, a number of which are very concerned and quite fired up about this particular piece, to take this out. i know congressman stupak is working to do that, wants to see that done. agrees with senator nelson that his language is far superior, actually does that, is supported by the catholic bishops, the national right to life and other prolife groups that say the way to go is the stupak language. it's not what is in the senate bill. the senate bill will actually fund abortions and then we go through the specifics as i have in here, the various places it has. i met with senator nelson about those specifics. i addressed a number of those concerned. he continues to work on it but at the end of the day this is one of those babies you can't split.

you need to have the stupak language in this bill. i'm afraid at the end of the day that that's not going to be there or i know that's what congressman stupak is pushing very hard, and i wish him all the best. this is now, if it passes this body, going to be up to the house of representatives to put that stupak language in and they can do it. and it's my hope that they will do it. i think the overall bill, i don't think it should be passed. but certainly you shouldn't have this piece of funding in this bill. and breaking the long-standing work that we've had in the hyde agreement, in the hyde language. thank you very much, madam president. how much time do we have remaining on our side? the presiding officer: one minute. mr. brownback: madam president, in that concluding minute, what i would like to briefly speak about is the overall process.

i think there are people in this body that didn't want to include things like the abortion funding in the bill, but when you operate in a closed process like this, these sort of things end up happening because the people that work on these issues are excluded. i certainly wasn't consulted. and they're saying look, you're not going to get your vote anyway so we don't need to have it. if you don't want to have abortion funding in it, one should look past that and say let's get the people that understand and work on this unless we agree we shouldn't have this in. that is what president obama said. it shouldn't be in there. let's see what language passes by their muster and that wasn't done. that is what happened as part of this process. i think it is tragic it happened that way as part of this process. that is wrong. i think it builds a bill that people are not satisfied with and certainly a process that they do not agree with that takes place in this overall bill.

it's still not too late. there's still time. now that we have the bill to be able to look at to address these issues and people of good faith on the other side want to get these addressed, there are ways and we have the language on how to address it. it's called the stupak language. it's already passed the house of representatives. it's called the nelson-hatch amendment that is debated here although it wasn't passed. we can do that. it is important that it get done. this bill is not supported by the american public and particularly this funding piece that is so offensive to so many americans. and we can debate about abortion but the government shouldn't be funding it, and that's agreed to by over 70% of the american public. so i would just ask my colleagues on the other side, as you move on forward with this, this bill passes here, take this piece out. we know what language is agreed to and works. this piece can be taken out of this. it can be taken out yet. expik the whole bill may unwind

if it is not taken out -- i think and the whole bill may unwind if it is not taken out. unwind because the number of democrats who voted for the bill on the house side want the stupak language and they don't want the inferior language that's put in the senate side that will actually allow and start the funding of abortion that we haven't done for 30 years. i thank my colleagues and would yield the floor. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the se the see completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:45 a.m. wednesday, december 23. that following the prayer and the pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, the senate resume consideration of h.r. 3590, the health care reform, with the time following -- with the time following any leader remarks and until 10:00 a.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. that at 10:00 a.m. and until 2:00 p.m., time be controlled in alternating one-hour blocks of time with the majority controlling the first hour.

further, that the remaining time until 2:13 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders with the majority leader controlling the final half. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, senators should expect a series of roll call votes, maybe as many as five, to begin at approximately 2:13 tomorrow afternoon. and if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order following the remarks of senator dodd of connecticut. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. dodd: madam president, i'd ask consent that the call of the quorum be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dodd: madam president, i'm going to take a few minutes here if i may this evening to speak about what this health care bill means to my constituents in connecticut, the benefits to our states are very similar in many, many ways but object dwrusly we like to point --

obviously we like to point out what this means in our own respective jurisdictions, what this means. but before doing, so i wanted to take a few minutes if i could, because, again, the -- tomorrow will be a short day and then the votes apparently we're going to have on thursday, and then we'll be leaving the senate for a number of weeks before we return in mid-january. and it might not be possible tomorrow or in the very early hours of christmas eve to say a special thanks to the people who work with our offices in this chamber, both on the minority and majority side, who rarely get the kind of recognition they deserve. and i try periodically over the years to make sure that on every major bill or consideration that we talk about the staff and what they've done, so i wanted to take a couple of minutes and identify people that i've worked with -- this is not an inclusive list. there are many more people. i've worked with individual senators who've done outstanding work, our floor staff here, both

the majority and minority, do a remarkable job and have great patience with all of us. and i'm very grateful to them as well for the jobs they perform. but i wanted to take a few minutes and recognize some people i've worked very, very closely with over the last, well, intensely over the last almost year now on this issue. certainly? senator reid's office, the majority leader's office, kate leone and carolyn glook and randy devok deserve a great deal of credit. all of us know them and how hard they've been involved in this issue. and for those of us who serve in our caucus, we've listened to kate leone on numerous occasions go over the details of these bill, answer the questions that members have raised about the importance of the legislation. and so to the members of senator reid's staff, and obviously there are a lot more people in his office that deserve recognition but i particularly wanted to recognize these three individuals that we've worked very, very closely with. senator kennedy, as we all know, was such a lion of this institution and cared so deeply

about this issue. and over the years attracted some wonderful people to work with him as he fought year in and year out to bring us to the moment we're about to enjoy and that is to see some national health care legislation adopted for the very first time. michael miers has worked on this issue for a number of years for senator kennedy and still is here working with senator harkin now as part of the help, education, labor and pensions committee. mark childress again worked for the majority leader, worked for tom daschle, has worked for others in this body, has just done a fantastic job, stayed on at my request and the request of leader reid to help us work with this issue, was involved with the white house as well, really understood the substance of this bill as well as the political navigation that was necessary to bring us to this moment. pam smith as well for her fine work. janell kinushmoury is a

wonderful contribution. she worked closely with market? closely senator harkin and i want to thank her. connie gardener, responsible for many years working on the class act which is a part of this bill. porcia woo, david bowen, john mcdunn that, anmcdonough. and on senator baucus' staff, liz fowler, bill douster, liz sullivan, kathy koch, yevette corchcorch, and shawn bitner and shawn kessler which is the pronunciation. again, we could give separate remarks about each of these individuals and their contribution. again n my office, like others, i've been blessed with wonderful people. jim fenton is my legislative

directer and done a terrific job. tomaro carroll, who is sitting on the floor with me this evening. i know we're not supposed to recognize people other than members, along with jeremy sharpe have just done a wonderful, wonderful job. and i know all of my colleagues have gotten to know both of them because of their work. monica -- monica fight, lia lopez, danielle balava have made wonderful contributions as well. special thanks to billing baird present throughout the entire "help" committee and has gone way beyond. they never get the kind of recognition they deserve. they do a tremendous job in drafting the actual legislation once these ideas become -- are developed, then it requires legislative language to be written. from the administration, nancy-ann deparle whom all of us have gotten to know very well. jean lambrew.

she has been incredible in terms of her encyclopedia-like knowledge of the issues, working very close with our staffs. again, individuals who may not be well known to the public, but when this bill becomes law, these are the individuals who deserve special credit for their tremendous work. mike cash, lauren enderson, kathleen sebelius, left the governorship of kansas, has come here to be head of the health and human services agency and has done a magnificent job. jim mussina who worked with max baucus for years and has been the deputy chief of staff at the white house and done a tremendous job. phil shilera and sean moch worked to defend the administration, done a tremendous job. and dana singheiser as well for her work. we'll make these lists available for the record, madam president.

but i wanted to thank these individuals again for their fine, fine work. madam president, i want to speak, if i can today about, not as my capacity as a senior member of the health, education, labor, and pensions, nor in my capacity as one of the coauthors of the underlying legislation, but rather in my capacity, as i said at the outset of these remarks, as a senator representing 3.5 million residents of the state of connecticut. the neighboring state, my good friend and colleague, the presiding officer represents new hampshire in new england. if you travel my state, madam president, you will meet some of the world's most talented and dedicated health care professionals, tour some of the nation's finest hospitals where patients get world-class treatment. but you'll hear heartbreaking stories from people in my state, people who have come from middle-class families who have lost everything, their homes, their life savings, hope for the future just because someone in

their family got sick and needed special care. you'll meet hard-working men and women who have seen their health insurance premiums skyrocket from around $6,000 for a family of four to over $12,000 annually for that same family. you'll wonder how much longer they'll be able to continue how much of the coverage they have. you'll meet small business owners facing an impossible choice between cutting off health care benefits for their employees or laying off their workers. i've talked specifically about constituents of mine, small business people who literally have been faced with that choice. or employees who dreaded having to least job they have had because there was not health care benefits. took reductions in pay because they just couldn't stay given the health conditions of their family, leaving a job they have had for 20 years or more to find new work where there was health care coverage. leaving a job they love for less pay because they weren't able to get that health care coverage.

not because their employer didn't want to give it to them but because that small employer just could not afford to do so and stay in business. and those who are healthy in my state who have insurance, there is that worry as well. what i have described is not an irrational fear they have that someone in their family will lose their job. worried that that child will develop an illness not covered by their policies and worry that no matter how much they pay in premiums, their insurance doesn't allow them to be sure of anything at all. madam president, the residents of my state understand that the status quo is no longer sustainable. because the so-called status quo threatens the basic economic security of every family in my state as it does across this country of ours. they and their fellow americans in all 50 states sent us here to take action. and it is action that we shall take. when this bill becomes law, the people of my state will begin to

reap the benefits right away. one in four of my constituents have high blood pressure. one in four teens suffers from diabetes in connecticut. today, madam president, insurance companies can use these preexisting conditions along with many others as an excuse to deny these people coverage. immediately young people in our state, across the country will be protected against these preexisting conditions and receive the coverage they need. beginning 90 days after this bill becomes law, every uninsured resident of my state who has been denied coverage because of a preexisting condition will be able to find the affordable coverage they need to treat that condition. small businesses make up more than three in four businesses in the state of connecticut, but today only one half of them are able to offer health benefits to their workers. beginning in 2010, madam president, next year, some 37,000 small businesses in my

state will be eligible for tax credits to make those benefits more affordable. a 50% tax break. $40 billion in this bill that is provided specifically for that purpose, to assist the 37,000 small businesses get a tax credit, as much as 50% to allow them to defer or reduce the costs of health insurance to their employees. small business owners throughout connecticut experienced persistent annual increases in premiums. in recent years -- and this is true across the country but certainly true in my state, it's not uncommon for small business owners to be told they have to pay 20% or more for the same insurance that they had the previous year. so, madam president, the bill we're about to pass will empower the state insurance exchanges like the one we have in connecticut in 2014 to deny insurers access to the exchange if they engage in consumer price

gouging in the next few years. that's going to be critically important. for more than half the million seniors in connecticut this, bill protects medicare keeping it solvent into the future. nearly 100,000 seniors in my state hit what is called the doughnut hole in the prescription drug benefit area, costing them an average of more than $4,000 annually. this bill we're about to adopt takes the first critical step towards closing that doughnut hole, and connecticut seniors should know that i and chairman baucus along with majority leader harry reid have committed to completing that job in conference, and we will do so. meanwhile, in connecticut, madam president, seniors will see their medicare premiums go down. they'll see major improvements in the quality of care they receive, resulting in as many as 29,000 hospital readmissions being prevented.

in my state of connecticut, three in ten connecticut residents have not had a colow colow -- colo rectal cancer screening. these are important screenings and other wellness programs will be provided at no cost to people in my state as well as across the country. beginning in 2011 seniors will be able to get a free annual checkup so they can stay well instead of simply receiving care when they get sick. and that annual free checkup can make such a difference. i'm a living example of that, madam president, where because under our health care plans, i can have a free medical checkup once a year. and as a result of that discovered that i had colon cancer -- excuse me -- that i had prostate cancer. what a difference that made to be able to discover that, to get through the surgery of it all and to know that i have a bright future ahead of me, not one that i would discover later on when

the kind of surgery i received might have been worthless and pointless. these kinds of annual physicals, members of congress get it under our health care plans. and our fellow citizens ought to be able to get so as well, particularly our seniors. in addition, madam president, there are some 255,000 connecticut residents between the ages of 55 and 64 who will need home health services after they turn 65 because of an illness or an injury. these services, whether they involve installing a handicap shower or hiring a home health care aid will help these older americans live in their homes with dignity and with independence. but today, madam president, these services are not always covered by medicare or private insurance. rather than having to impoverish themselves so they can qualify for medicaid by transferring all of their wealth and assets to a family member or rely on a full-time help of loved ones, these seniors will be able to take advantage of a new

voluntary program called the class act authored by senator kennedy years ago, which is now a part of this bill, that will provide a cash benefit to be used on these services and supports. totally paid for by the individual themselves, not a nickel, not a penny of federal money is in that program. it's totally based on the contribution that people make to that program. and so when i hear people talk about this as if it was some great robbery from the federal treasury, it doesn't involve the federal treasury at all. the bill takes effect, the health insurance exchanges are set up, the health insurance will become a buyer's market for people in my state as well. more than 350,000 connecticut residents who today do not have insurance will finally have affordable options to choose from. $250,000, nearly a quarter of a million people in my state would be eligible for premium credits to help take care of the cost of

insurance. that doesn't go into effect until 2014. but in 2010, next year, insurance companies will be prohibited from imposing lifetime caps on the amount of care that you can receive. people will be prohibited next year from taking away your coverage after you purchased a policy. and they'll be prohibited from discrimination based on gender, gender or income in the year 2014. in 2010, the insurance industry will be forced to spend more of your premium dollars on your health care, not on bureaucrats hired to come with reasons to deny you that care that you need. this is called the so-called medical loss ratio, which require that resources be spent on patient care and needs of the policyholder rather than on profits or administrative costs. the industry will also be required to offer next year you an appeal if your claim is denied. and each state will set up its

own independent appeals process to keep the industry honest. next year the industry will be forced to provide more details about their policies so that you can shop for health insurance the same way you shop for anything else. armed with enough information to be a smart consumer. all these insurance items will take effect at least by 2014, many of them next year. it's not just consumers who will benefit as well, madam president, so that connecticut's 15,000 physicians will also benefit. today these physicians spend on average 140 hours and $68,000 every year just dealing with bureaucrats at the health insurance companies. let me repeat that. 140 hours and roughly $68,000 every year just dealing with bureaucrats at the insurance industries. that's 2.1 million hours and $1 billion in costs overall, time and money wasted in my state alone. that's going to end. this bill cuts down on bureaucratic red tape, needless

paperwork. doctors will be able to spend their time caring for patients, not fighting with the insurance industry. meanwhile, more than 5,000 connecticut primary care physicians will qualify for the new 5% to 10% payment bonus. that happens next year in 2010. new programs will incentivize many more young doctors to stay in primary care, which we all know is critically important. today 9% of connecticut residents can't access a primary care physician because there aren't enough doctors to go around. this bill makes an investment in our medical workforce and a $10 billion investment in community health centers and the national health service corps, begin taking effect immediately in 2010 and will be phased in over five years. that's going to expand dramatically the availability of, again, patient care with our community health care system. and as more uninsured people gain coverage, connecticut will no longer have to subsidize the

$383 million it spends in uncompensated care to our providers to deliver each year. important at a time when my state is already, like every state, almost every state, in serious budget trouble. madam president, i've just recited a long list of statistics showing how my state will benefit from this bill. in many instances benefit immediately. some will take a little longer, but many of these provisions go into effect in the next year. but more important than any statistic will be what you'll see when you tour my state or any other state, for that matter, after this bill takes effect. or more accurately, what you won't see. you won't see 100 people losing their insurance, their health insurance every single day, finding themselves cast into uncertainty and fear. 100 people every day. that will no longer be the case. you won't see families paying an extra $1,100 a year in health insurance premiums, the so-called hidden tax paid by everyone with insurance as a

result of the nearly 50 million uninsured americans. you won't see seniors facing the loss of their medicare benefits because overpayments to private insurance companies have rendered the program insolvent. and you won't see parents lying awake at night praying that their child's cough goes away because they can't afford to take him or her to see a doctor. and you won't see people losing their homes, their life savings, losing their economic security all because they got sick or a child or a spouse did. you won't see people dying as 45,000 do every year in our country because they couldn't afford to access the health care system. mr. president, as a senior member of the health, education, labor and pensions committee, and a cloture and -- close and dear friend of our departed colleague, senator ted kennedy who led this fight for so long, it would be my honor, a deep honor indeed, one of the highest honors i would have had in the 30 years i have served here to cast a vote in favor of this

landmark legislation that has one of two senators whose job it is to look out for the people of my home state of connecticut, supporting this bill is nothing short of my duty. and i intend to fulfill it with great pride at 8:00 a.m. on christmas eve. what better gift could i give to my folks at home than to cast my vote as 1 of 100 in this body for health care reform in this nation. so long overdue, so long awaited for. and on this christmas eve, it will become an accomplished feat of the united states senate. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor, note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. dodd dodd: dodd: i rescind m call. mr. president, there were a number of other people that i wanted to mention. i didn't go through the entire list of all the staff who's been involved in this effort in the united states senate. and i'm sure i'm going to miss some people and i apologize if i do but it's a rather lengthy list of those who played such an

important role. and again, i was fearful that i wouldn't have a chance between now and the actual vote on thursday morning, christmas eve, to express my deep gratitude as one member here who have benefited tremendously from th the -- from the participation of my staff, two of whom are seated here with me this evening, and i know that's probably in violation of senate rules to recognize them but i want to -- i want my constituents at home and the american public to know how many dedicated people there are whose names they never know, faces they'll never see, a record that will never be a part of any public document that can express our collective thanks. and let me say to the minority staff as well, i've talked about the majority staff here, and i'll add names as well on them. and while we disagree and while they didn't vote for the bill, there are people i admire immensely on the minority staff. on our committee, there were some very wonderful suggestions and contributions made to our

bill that came from the republican side of the aisle. and while they didn't support the bill in the end, i think they made it a better bill because of their contributions. and so i want to add their names as well and thank them, particularly on the "help" committee. mike enzi of wyoming is the ranking member and i worked with every member, every member, every republican minority member of the "help" committee offered amendments that were included as part of this bill. and so while they may not want to acknowledge it or admit it, they made a -- a contribution to this bill which strengthens it, makes it stronger and a better piece of legislation. and so i want to add their names as well of thanks for their efforts, if i can. and with that, mr. president, i want to move to the closing business of the senate for this evening, if i can. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of monk business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. dodd: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the

senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 4284, received from the house and at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 4284, an act to extend the generalized system of preferences and the andean trade preference act and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. dodd: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and any statements appear at this point in the record as if read with no intervening action. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. dodd: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on armed services be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to h. con. res. 206. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 206, commending the soldiers and civilian personnel stationed at fort gordon and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. dodd: mr. president, i ask

unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dodd: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h. -- excuse me, s. res. 386, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 386, condemning the government of iran and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. dodd: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dodd: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dodd: mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. dodd: mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. dodd: no, i yield the floor. call off the quorum call. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:4 a.m. tomorrow. time

until 5:30 this evening. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i said when the senate opened today and i'll say again because of the i'll say again because of the >> mr. president, i said when the senate opened today and i'll say it again, because of the long hours we've spent here for weeks now, there's a lot of tension in the senate. and feelings are high and that's fine. everybody has very strong concerns about everything we have done and have to do. but i would hope that everyone would go back to their gentlemanly ways and i would hope that -- i was trying to figure out how to say this. gentlemanly ways they used to

say in the house, gentlewomen so i guess it's the same here. so anyway, i guess i hope as i said to a number of people, rodney king, let's just all try to get along. that's the way we need to do it. this is a very difficult time in the next they are so an let's try to through this. we have, for those of the christian faith we have the most important holiday and that is chris smith. i would hope everyone would keep in mind that the time when we reflect on peace and the good things in life. i would hope that everyone would kind of set aside all their personal animosity if they have any the next little bit and focus on the holiday. >> mr. president. >> the minority leader. >> images add to my good friend

data majority leader. yet i have an excellent relationship. we speak a number of times in the course of everyday have no animosity whatsoever. and we are working on an agreement that will give certainty to the way to end this session and hopefully the two of us together can be recommending dumping them make sense for both sides in the distant future. >> who yields time? [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> senator from montana to >> senator, what's the regular order? time until 930 kluck is equally divided between the leaders and their designees. >> thank you good mr. president, the senate is not in order. >> senate will come to order. >> members they take your conversations off the floor. visscher recognizes the senator from montana. >> i'm surprised it has been more than a month since the majority leader was to lead. at long last, the senate is now the final throes in passing of this historic legislation. from the beginning, the senator has thought out what abraham lincoln had called the better angels of our nature and that's why we proceeded the way we did and that's the way that the senator has always sought to

legislate. a year and a half ago, i convened a bipartisan retreat with the library of congress. half a year ago i convened three bipartisan route tables with health care experts. after your ago the finance committee conducted three bipartisan walk-throughs of the major concepts he signed the bill before us today. as your president, the senate is not an order. >> members, please take your conversations from the floor. senator from montana. >> we went the extra mile. i reached out to make good friend the ranking member of the finance committee. i reached out to the ranking republican member of the health committee. we saw to craft a bill that would appeal to the broad bill. we sought to craft a bill that would win the support of the republicans and democrats alike.

we met a group of six of us, three democrats and three republicans. we met more than 30 times and met for months and i might add encouraged by the president to do so. our group met with the president several times. the president has encouraged us to keep pursuing our negotiations hoping to get bipartisan agreement. we did not reach a oral agreement because of the leadership on the other side of the iowa two great links to stop us from doing so. even though we did not reach a formal agreement we came very close to doing so. the principles that we discussed our very much the principles upon which the finance committee built this bill. the principle we discussed is very much the principles reflected in the bill before us today. i might say, actually our work began much earlier than i indicated. we met all the preceding year about tenure in the finance committee working towards health care reform. we also finished with a white

paper in november, a year ago, november 2008. and i dare to say with some trepidation that basically that is the foundation, the white paper is the foundation for which almost all ideas and health care reform have emanated here if i may say also to be totally fair the ideas of that paper have been floating around for some time. part of the printable skin for massachusetts health care reform. most of the health care experts and policy experts for the economist have been working with health care reform i publish their ideas and we sought out the best and compiled them into the best together about white paper that was published in november of last year. from the debate that the senate has conducted this past month, you would not know it. that is the principles we put together. during this debate someone on the other side of the aisle have mischaracterized the build a

forest. some on the other side of the aisle have said about a systematic campaign to demonize this bill. through bare assertion alone, with business connection to facts, they affect to vilify our work. if one listened to their assertions alone, one would not recognize the bill before us. and so, let me quite simply state the facts. some on the other side of the aisle assert that this bill is a government takeover health care. the fact is that the nonpartisan congressional budget office says that this bill would reduce the government's fiscal role of health care. just three days ago cba wrote and i quote, cbo expects the proposal would generate a reduction in the federal budgetary commitment to health care during the decade following the ten-year budget, end quote. some on the other side of the aisle assert that this would add to our nations burden of debt. the fact is that the it will

reduce the budget by $132 billion the first ten years am i $650,000,000,000.1.3 trillion in the second ten years, reduction. in the second ten years between $650,000,000,000.1.3 trillion in the second ten years of this bill. the fact is this is the most serious deficit reduction efforts in more than a decade. some on the other side of the aisle assert that this bill would harm medicare. the fact is that medicare's independent actuaries say that this bill would expand the life of medicare by nine years. the fact is that this is the most responsible effort to share up medicare and more than a decade. some on the other side of the aisle assert that this is not doing enough to ensure the uninsured. the fact is the nonpartisan

congressional budget office says that this though would expand access to health care to 31 million americans who otherwise would have to go without. the fact is that cbo says and i quote, the share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage would rise from about 83% currently to about 94%, and quotes. nothing that senators on the other side of the aisle proposed would come close. the congressional budget office estimated that the republican offered in the house of representatives have extended coverage to just 3 million people. the fact is that cbo says i quote, the legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2008 would be about 83%, roughly aligned with the current chair. that's their description of the republican substitute in the house of representatives. contrast that with the increase in a person's insured middle

between us from 82% to about 94%. i could cite facts about the republican substitute. the fact is that there is no republican substitute. some on the other side of the aisle assert that they simply prefer a more modest reform of health care. the fact is that republicans control the senate from 1995 to 2001 and from 2003 to 2006. the fact is that before they took control in 1994, 36 million americans, 1520% of non-elderly americans were without health insurance coverage. the last of their control in 2006, nearly 47 billion americans out of 1720% of non-elderly americans were without health insurance coverage. the legacy of republican control with 10 million more americans uninsured. some on the other side of the aisle say that we are moving too fast. the fact is it was 1912 when

former president, theodore roosevelt, first made national health insurance of the progressive parties campaign platform. the fact is that people of goodwill have been working on this for nearly a century. the fact is health care reform for america is now within reach. the fact is the most serious effort to control health care costs is now within reach. the fact is life saving health care coverage with 31 million americans is now within our reach. let us at long last grasp that result. let us this time not let this good things slip through our hands and let us at long last night health care reform for all. >> mr. president, in a little while i will be making a constitutional point of order against the substitute amendment. and i will make that because we're working on an agreement on when we can have that vote, but i want to start talking about

the reason i believe that this bill is unconstitutional, the individual mandates in this bill and i'm going to be speaking for about ten minutes now and then resume my remarks at 9:30 after one of the democrats comes down and uses their 15 minutes. mr. president, this constitutional point of order, it is rejected and the health care bill reform passes, i believe that the court should reject it on constitutional grounds. some of my colleagues may not be aware of the finance committee's debate on the constitutional -- constitutionality of this health care reform bill. during the committee markup of its version of the health reform bill, senator hatch raises some very thought-provoking constitutional questions. he also offered an amendment which i supported to provide a process for the courts to probably consider any constitutional challenge to the finance committee.

and the reform language in that bill. he chose the same language that was put into the bipartisan campaign reform act. unfortunately, it was deemed phentermine. i'm seriously concerned that the democrats health care bill violates the constitution of these united states. as part of comprehensive health reform, the democrats would require every single american citizen to purchase health insurance. americans who fail to buy health insurance that meets the minimum requirements would be subject to financial penalties. this provision can be found in section 1501 of the democrats health reform bill. it's called the requirement to maintain minimal essential coverage. while this is a constitutional point of order, i feel it is important to note that in the declaration of independence, american founding fathers provided that and i quote, we

hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. what happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? i guess americans can only have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if they comply with this new bill and by a bronze, silver, or gold atom health insurance plan. america's founders and subsequent generations but dearly for the freedoms that we have today. i question the appropriateness of this bill and specifically the constitutionality of this individual mandates. is there really constitutional for this body to tell all americans that they must buy health insurance coverage? and if so, what's next? web personal liberty or property will congress seek to take away from americans next? will we consider legislation in the future requiring every american to buy a car?

to buy a house? or to do something else at the government wants? a friend and colleague senator hatch asked similar questions during the finance committee. in fact he raised the following question. if we have the power simply to order americans to buy certain products, why did we need a cash for clunkers program where the up coming program for rebates for purchasing energy-efficient appliances. we can simply require americans to buy certain cars, dishwashers, or refrigerators. mr. president, where do we draw the line or will we even draw one at all? well, mr. president, the constitution draws that line. it's called the enumerated powers. i don't think andris has ever required americans to buy a product or service like health insurance under penalty of law.

i doubt that congress has the power to do that in the first place. as the cbo explained during the 1990's and i quote, a mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. the government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the united states. close quote. yet, that's exactly what this health care bill would do. this bill would require americans to buy a product that many of them do not want or simply cannot afford. some individuals may raise the example of car insurance in the context of this debate. by requiring someone to have a car insurance for the privilege of being able to drive as much difference than requiring someone to have health insurance. as senator hatch pointed out, people who don't drive don't

have to buy car insurance. and senator hatch is right. if you live in new york city, you probably rely on subways or some other form of mass transit. and you probably don't own a car so you have no reason to buy car insurance. yet, this health care reform bill requires americans to buy health insurance whether or not they ever visit a or, get a prescription, or have an operation. under this bill, if you do not buy health insurance coverage, you will be subject to a penalty. let's call this penalty what it really is, a tax year it even worse, this penalty operates more like a taking than an ordinary tax. if an american chooses not to buy minimal essential health coverage, he or she will face rapidly increasing taxes. after 250 -- $750 or 2% of taxable income whichever is

greater by the year 2016. there's no penalty for americans who qualify for hardship or religious exemptions. there's also no penalty for illegal immigrants or for prisoners. americans typically pay taxes on a product or service that they buy or on income that they are in. for example, if you fill up your car at the pump, you pay a. if you earn income, you can income tax. yet this bill creates a new tax on american who choose not to buy a service. it's very counterintuitive. this bill taxes americans for not doing anything at all other than just existing. and this penalty is assessed to the internal revenue code. senator hatch made the following statement. if this is a tax at all, it is certainly not an excised tax.

instead it is a direct tax. and while the constitution requires that excise taxes must be uniform throughout the united states, it requires a direct tax must be apportioned among states by population. now just as the excise tax on high premiums is now a uniform, this direct tax on individuals who do not purchase health insurance is not apportioned. i recognize that the authors of this health reform bill included an individual mandate in this bill based on the idea that health care will be spread among all americans and would ultimately reduce their health insurance costs. the claim is that insurance costs will be the word because of cost shifting. because cost shifting will be reduced. this cost shift arguably takes place because health care providers, doctors, and

hospitals to provide free or uncompensated care to the uninsured shift the cost of providing that care to insured or paid patients. the hospital or doctor then shifts the cost of that unpaid for care to the insured pain patient in the form of higher charges in order to cover the cost of uninsured patients. well, i understand this concept but i'm incredibly concerned that the individual mandate provision takes away too much freedom and choice from nevadans and from americans across the country. mr. president, i've read and studied multiple articles by scholars on the constitutionality of the individual mandates. i believe the individual mandate provision in the south reform bill causing to question several revisions of the constitution

and i think that congress does not have the authority under its enumerated powers to enact such a mandate. i know the supporters of the individual mandates have claimed that the commerce clause and the taxes of general welfare clause in article i, section eight of the constitution provide authority for congress to enact such a mandate. well, i wholehearted leap disagree with that assessment. according to the constitution, the federal government only has limited powers. although the supreme court has upheld some far-reaching regulations of economic dignity most notably in weaker versus so boring and gonzalez versus right, and neither case supports a mandate on the commerce clause. in these cases, the court held that congress was allowed to regulate and trust state

economic activity as a means to regulate interstate commerce and goods. the mandate to purchase health insurance however is not proposed as a means to regulate interstate commerce. nor does it regulate or prohibit activity in either the health insurance or the health care industry. the mandate to purchase health insurance does not purport to regulate or prohibit back to duty of any kind whether economic or noneconomic. instead, the individual mandate provision regulate no action. it purports to regulate an activity by converting the inactivity of not buying insurance into commercial at dvd. so in effect, advocates of the individual mandate content at the congressional power to regulate commerce among the several states congress may

reach the doing of nothing at all. the supreme court would have to concede that the commerce clause provides unlimited authority to regulate. this is a position that the supreme court has never affirmed and that it rejected in recent cases. congress lacks the authority to regulate the individual's decision not to purchase a service or enter into a contract. so similarly, i believe that congress cannot rely on its power to tax, to justify imposing the individual mandate. this mandate amounts to a taking under the fifth amendment takings clause. i'd like to take for a moment -- i'd like to take a moment to read the relevant parts of the read the relevant parts of the

i would like to take for a moment, i would like you take a moment to read the relevant parts of the fifth amendment. it says in part, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without the due process of law. nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. now, let me repeat part of the fifth amendment that most applies to the issue at hand. it says nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. the bill before us today would require an american citizen to devote a portion of it, his or her income. that is his or her private property to the health insurance coverage. there is an exception of course for the religious reasons or for financial hardships. but mr. president, if one of my constituents in nevada does not want to spend his or her

hard-earned income on health insurance coverage and would prefer to spend it on something else such as rent, or a car payment, this requirement could be a taking of private property under the fifth amendment. as noted in a recent article co-authored by dennis smith and former deputy general counsel of the department of health and human services, peter cabana what requiring a citizen to purchase health insurance could be considered an arbitrary and capricious taking no matter how many hardship exemptions the federal government might dispense. some of my colleagues also may be familiar with david ripkin and lee casey. there washington d.c.-based attorney to served in the department of justice during the reagan and bush administration. in september rivkin and casey published an op-ed in "the wall

street journal" entitled mandatory insurance is unconstitutional. i urge my colleagues to read this article and many others that i will be submitting for the record. in the op ed rivkin and casey argued that the health-insurance mandate, and i quote, would expand the federal government's authority over individual americans to an unprecedented degree. it also is profoundly unconstitutional. making healthy young adults pay billions of dollars in premiums into the national health care market is the only way to fund universal coverage without raising substantial new taxes. in effect this mandate would be one more giants cross generational subsidy imposed on generations who are already stuck with a bill for the federal government prior spending sprees.

a tax that falls exclusively on anyone who was uninsured is a penalty beyond congress's authority. if the rules were otherwise, congress could eve faith all constitutional limits by taxing anyone who does not follow in order of any kind. as the fourth chief justice of this supreme court, john marshall, stated, the power to tax involves the power to destroy. well unfortunately, this could certainly be true in the context of this health bill. we in congress must zealously defend our citizens' rights and prevent this from happening. libelee that the legislation before us violates the greatest political document in the history of the world, the constitution of the united states. i urge my colleagues to think very very carefully about the

constitutional issues that i have raised. now i know that most people around here don't like to talk about whether something is constitutional. we just want to do what feels good. because we think we are helping people. but our founders set forth in the enumerated powers limits on what this body and this federal government could do. and as members of congress, one of our most important responsibilities is to protect, to defend and preserve the constitution of the united states. in that light is not only appropriate but essential for this body to question whether it is constitutional for the federal government to require americans to buy health insurance coverage. we should also question whether it is constitutional for the federal government to tell americans what kind of health insurance coverage that they have to purchase.

so, not only does this bill tell them they have to buy health insurance, it tells the americans what kind of health insurance must be purchased. americans also deserve to know how the bill but impact their ability to choose the health insurance coverage that best fits their needs. so that is exactly why i am raising this constitutional, will raise this constitutional point of order. freedoms, freedom and choice are very precious rights. let's not bury our heads in the sand and take away freedom and choice from american citizens. we need to think about this individual mandate very carefully. now mr. president, i have several articles here and i would like to read a couple of quotes from these articles. the first one is by, from "the

washington post" by david rivkin and lee casey. it says in here the otherwise uninsured would be required to buy coverage, not because they were even tangentially engaged and the production, distribution [ male announcer ] the lexus december to remember sales event. now through january 4th. ♪ special lease offers now available on the 2010 is 250. ♪

♪ fig for the right ♪ a the army goes rolling along ♪ >> it's hard to imagi school with moris lus try use alumnis west point. grt, eisenhower and buzz aldrin are just a few of the names. bu for the college football fan, the bck knights have producedome pretty giant names as well. >> a lot o ghosts here at west point. who would be the gho that you would have admired the most? hmm, hard qution. i don't think you can limit yourse to one. on the athletic side of the house, obviously we have some of the best names in sports, college footba. red blake and davis, pete

dawkins, people like that. and you walk around and you can't help being motivated by, you see the statues to eisenhower and george washington. so you can't limit yoursel to just one. that's why think it keeps me here and lifted every day. it's such a special, special place and you just can't limit yourself to one. ♪ >> for lynn davis and doc blanchard were teammates with different but eective running styles. called the touchdown twins, they also earned the nicknames mr. inside and mr. outside. and in 1946, created an extremely rare situation. two heisman winners on the same team. it should be little surprise that 1946 saw the national title go to the acamy and mr.nside and mr. outside became household

names. another nicknamed cadet, carpenter bece famous for his position in a new formation. imagine by legendary coach red blake. in ct, carpenter would line up so close to the sideline that he didn't even join in the huddle. the novelty created a media because that helped his teammate pete dawkins become army's third heisman winner. >> i didn't expect to win the heisman. we were kind o a cinderella team, not highly thoug of ahead of tim but i think we ended up third in the nation. so i was genuinely not expecting to be selected. but thrilled beyond description when i learned it. >> army footbal in those days,

our success made it a very popular place. like i say, the esprit decorps and the pride the cadets had s just terrific. >> are the players familiar with the great history that some of the army teams have had over the years? >> i think one thing the coach has done, he's brought that back. you kn, during preseason camp, he was showing us highlig films of past year teams of army football and i think we've grown accustomed to knowing that army has a winni tradition and our job is to keep it going.

>> we've storied the glory. that's up next on "the game 365" presented by american press.

in 1977, in johannesburg, south africa, an 8-year-old boy picked up the game of golf from his father. by the age of 9, he was already outplaying him. the odds of this gentle lad winning the junior world golf championships at the age of 14? 1 in 16 million. the odds of that same boy then making it to the u.s. and european pro-golf tours? 1 in 7 million. the odds of the "big easy" winning the open championship once and the u.s. open championship twice? 1 in 780 million. the odds of this professional golfer having a child diagnosed with autism?

1 in 150. ernie els encourages you to learn the signs of autism at autismspeaks.org. early diagnosis can make a lifetime of difference. [ taps being played ] ♪ >> hit it! ♪ >> even with parades and military upform adding to the atmosphere on game day, the football played by the black knights looks the same a it does at schools all across the

country. but at the united states military academy, everything leading up to saturday is very different. with increased responsibilities, undercutti the team's ability to study films and get more than a few hours sleep. the playing field hardly seems level when you add in the challenge o recruiting to a school with top admsion standards and a strict co of conduct and discipline. now that it's almost over for you, you can tell us, did you ever break any rules o get caught? >> interesting. i broke rules and yes, i did get caught. i've had probably close to 200 area tours, where you put a uniform on and you walk in a square for five or six hours. i've had close to 200 hours. just for small things. >> like being in manhattan when

you shouldn have been there. >> it was actually the movie theater. >> but despite the program's struggles, you won't hear the cadets on the team making any excuses. you guys play a pretty tough schedule and some power house schools. when you're on the fie with the power house schools, are you at a disadvantage because you can't spend your whole day lifting weights. >> our mentality is the same as everybody else's in the country, we're here to win games. >> is it difficult for you to be on a field again notre dame or bost colle knowing these guys have dedicated their whole day, not their whole day, but dedicated a good porti to thi football game where you might be doing something else secondary to football? slz it's difficult but you have to look at it a differentway. i taket as a challenge that, okay, i'm not getting maybe all the rest that they're getting or al the time to study film as

they're tting. but let me work that much harder. let me go this extra mile and i'm going to be on the same page as they are. you can look at it like, god, we're not getting enoh sleep or enough film time or anything like that, or you can say all right, sense i'm n getting all this stuff they're getting, i'm going to have to work tha much hard tore get on their same level. >> however, after weathering a nationwide reshuffling of conferences, the academy is now a football independent, and may be poised to turn the corner competitively. with the program, there is hope tt the black knights can attract the hhest caliber of studentthletes once ain, thanks to a recent tv deal and a new military policy allowing cadets to pursue professional sports.ñi do you eve think about guy whose played football forports

at west point and cldn't go on beuse of restrictions, they ha to put in time, at navy, roger starbach h to put in time. >> they me a new policy for the army and says if you have a special interest, like playing prfootball, basketball, any sport, and it's in the army's interest for the good, then they will for the first two years you'll get signed to a duty post of the general area of where i would be playing ball and you would be an armyrecruiter. so for twoyears, i would go to a local high scol and do recruiting things for the army. after that, you have the opportunity to buy out of your contract as long as you're still in the public interest f the army. does it help you to have west point behind you or hurts you? >> i don't think west point ever hurts. it's a magical name. it's a brand, place, army

football has such a great history. so any time you can attach the west point, it's magic. i think once you bring in a media opportunity or aroup to come and spend some time and quite honestly the best selling point is our cadets. we have a television contract with espn, guarants all of our home games is on national tv. and we can tell our young men that come to play football here for us, we're one of three school information the count that have that. notre dame, navy and army. even the lger schools, ohio, michan, the can't tell their parents or players they're going to be on national tv every single week. we are guarantied and i think a lot of that is the west point brand. and when we get recruits that come here and spend time, the highlit of their visit to west point is the time they spend with our cets and we feel that is a huge selling point.

>> careers or cade? that's whe we return on "the ga 365" presented by american express. (announcer) pizza hut knows you've been good.

so here's a great holiday meal deal. right now get two medium one topping pizzas and five breadsticks for just $14.99. that's enough to feed the whole family. carryout and we'll throw in a free two liter pepsi. happy holideal from pizza hut. i tried for some time with army starting strong sety before he even mentioned that he hopes to bounce back from knee

surgery this sean to earn a shot at the nfl. he is moreiky to talk about leadship andis growt as a cadet than his pro football chances. but former army coach bobby ross, who too san diego to a super bowl berth in 1994, has said tt campbellas nfl talent and scouting websites list him among the best college safeti in the country. even when asked directly about the chance to play profsionally, cpbell remains aware of the things the academy values a that he will b an officer and not simply a otball player. when you first signed on to come to west point, the restriction was in order, correct? >> yeah. >> so you weren't saying if i'm good enough i can play pro football. i know it's tough to say this,

but if i put a big contract right here,'m assuming you would say, where are the shoulder pads? >> it's always been a dream of mine to play professional football. but when i committed to come here to west pnt, that wasn't the deal. i knew what i was getting mysel into and i knew i was going to be an officer in the united states army. that's what i wanted to do and there'sust a bonus now that i have the opportunity t maybe continue playing ball after my four years of college and that's just something i alwa wanted to do. so it's something i pursued and it could hel out the army in the bigger picture wit recruiting purposes >> however, most of his teammates know there's little chance they will hear an nfl team call their name on draft day. instead, they are proud to go on to represent the academy in a very different way. we know aut the day in the life of acadet. what happens when you graduate? what immediately happens?

>> well, you're commissioned at a second lieutenant in the army and pretty much you have between 30 and 60 days of what we call ave, which is pretty much a vacation. then as soon as that iover, you go int your specialized training for -- to become an officer in whatever branch you pick. from there, you're given a platn, which is usually about 32 people, men and women, and pret much fromhere it's all about winning the war. >> do you still, deep down inside, have a dream of playing pressional football? >> well, sometimes i would like to play, but at the same time i don't know how much longer i could play football. i'm kind of beat up and i don't kn if i even have the abili to still keep on playing after this year. so i think i have a bigger purpose besides playing football for the rest of my life. i have a bigger thing to do after i graduate, so i'm looking forward to that. >> treme, whose father played r the chicago bears and denver

broncos, says he's made his peace with the things he sacrificed to become a cadet, including any dreams of following in his ther's foot steps. because he chose west point, tremble knows he will take away from his four years more than ju the statistics he's put up on the field. after a brief period of time, have you ever second guessed your decision to come to the school where i'm assuming football is not number one priority? >> you know, i think you can ask not just football players, any cadet here, they probably second guess whether this was the right place for them. but as time goes on, you know growing these great bonds with my fellow cadets, i don't think i would rather be anywhere else. ♪ >> as a matter of fact, the most important traditiont the united states military academy

is probably the development of those bonds and of the cadets themselves as people. whether or not campbell's future includes pro football, he remains aware of what the academy has done for him. do you like yourself more today than you did coming out of high school? >> finitely. why? >> i'm defitely more of a mature guy. i'm definitely more responsible. i think i can handle a lot of different things that are thrown at me. i go home at christmas and i hear my frids from high school complaining about the smallest thing. i'm like god, if you only knew. >> the accomplishment i'm most proud of is going to west point andraduating from west point. that has meant more to me i think than anything in my whole life. -- cwww.vitac.comtac --