quorum call:

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the house message to accompany h.r. 2847, which the clerk will report. the clerk: hou house message to accompany h.r. 2847, an act making appropriations for the department of commerce and justice and science and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana is recognized. mr. baucus: mr. president, the senate returns to creating jobs. today, for example, we turn to the hire act. this bill provides incentives for businesses to hire new employees. it encourages businesses to invest in building their

operations. it has a payroll tax exemption for newly hired employees. it provides continued funding for vital federal highway programs, it expands the successful build america bonds program, and it extends the tax incentive in section 179 of the tax code. which allows small businesses to expense capital expenditures instead of depreciating them over time. these proposals will help to get americans back to work. the senate passed the hire act last month. i might add, with strong bipartisanship support. since then, the house of representatives considered the legislation and returned it to the senate with some modifications. the hire act concludes the schumer-hatch -- includes the schumer-hatch payroll tax exempts for newly hired employees. this is a straightforward tax cut. if you hire a person who has been unemployed for 60 days, you don't have to pay your share of

social security payroll taxes for that person for the rest of the year. and if you keep the newly hired person employed for one year, you get an additional income tax credit. the house modified the schumer-hatch payroll tax exemption to allow employers to receive the exemption if they paid railroad retirement tax instead of social security payroll tax. the house also included modifications to ease implementation of the payroll tax exemption. this payroll tax exemption provides a simple and immediate tax incentive for businesses to employ new workers right away. a business can use the cash that it saves from a payroll tax cut to help pay the wages of a new employee or they can invest in equipment. either way, the incentive will help boost hiring and help businesses. the hire act will also create jobs in the transportation sector by extending the 2009 highway funding level to the end of 2010.

highway construction plays a vital role in our economy. the department of transportation estimates that for every $1 billion in federal highway spending, when coupled with the state or local matching share, that $1 billion in federal spending creates or sustains 34,500 jobs. these, of course, are jobs in construction, in engineering, manufacturing, and other sectors hard-hit by the recession. the hire act keeps the program working: the highway program, transportation. the hire act also expands the successful build america bonds program. last month, treasury secretary geithner testified before the finance committee that the build america bonds program is the most successful stimulus program based on jobs per dollar. the hire act extends the enhanced expensing provision. in addition, section 179 of the tax code. this tax incentive allows small

business taxpayers to write off up to $250,000 of certain capital expenditures in 2010 instead of depreciating those costs over time. this helps small businesses to pay less in taxes now and thus meet their needs for cash in this difficult time. the american economy has lost more than 7 million jobs, and the unemployment rate is still hovering near 10%. we need to help people get jobs. we need to do more to help businesses to hire more workers. the hire act does that. and so let us help america's businesses create more jobs, let us complete our work on this commonsense legislation and let us send the hire act to the president so that this law can start creating jobs right away. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: .

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from montana is recognized. mr. baucus: mr. president, i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to concur in the house amendments to the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 2847, the commerce-justice-science appropriations act signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call is waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that the debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate's amendment to h.r. 2847 shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory

under the rules. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 61, the nays are 30. three-fifths of the senate duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. the senate be in order. the senate be in order, please. mr. reid: move to reconsider. mr. baucus: move to lay that on the table.

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: mr. president, we're now postcloture. it's my understanding that my republican colleagues want tom opportunity to talk about this bill and so we certainly have no problem with doing that. i would ask, however, that we have a definite time to vote on this. i would hope that we could do it before our caucuses tomorrow. so i would ask if my distinguished friend, the republican leader, would comment on when you expect our being able to vote on this. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i would say that my members are -- are here, ready to talk. we're going to be talking about health care, which is the most important issue in the country and fully prepared to discuss it throughout. mr. reid: i appreciate very much my friend's being candid in that regard. i would ask consent that we have the vote on this matter by -- at

12:00 noon tomorrow. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection -- mr. mcconnell: mr. president, as i just indicated, we are here, we've been notified by the other side that they'd like to have a lengthy discussion and we're here and prepared to do that, fully intend to talk about what we view as the flaws in the health care proposal that will be voted on over in the house apparently sometime later this week. therefore, i object. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: objection is heard. the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, we in america today have a major problem and that is jobs. this bill which i really appreciate the bipartisanship support of this bill. it has been bipartisan. but we need to get to this bill. passed and so we can start having small businesses take the tax credits that are going to be available in this legislation, to allow the build for america bonds to be replenished.

we need to make sure that the highway projects go forward as quickly as possible. and i understand the efforts to divert attention from the issue at hand, but there's going to be plenty of time to talk about health care. let's get this done. the bill that we're on now, when we finish this, is the f.a.a. bill. we have -- there are amendments in that regard that have been offered. but as we know, senators can speak about any subject they want. but let's get this health -- let's get off health care for a few hours and get jobs. this bill should go to the president tomorrow so people can start being hired day after tomorrow. and, for example, mr. president, i have a provision in this bill that will allow $45 million that's already been appropriated to be reprogrammed in effect -- i use that term but it will be as directive of this bill -- that will go to the department t of transportation of nevada,

$45 million new money that the highway departments will have in nevada to build things, to create jobs. that's what we need to do. we understand the concern that people with health care, but this is a jobs bill, and i would hope that tonight, if the -- my republican colleagues want to talk about health care, that they'll take a little consideration and understand that that also is a jobs bill. but the jobs bill before us is dealing with this beautiful bill that's passed, bipartisan, a bill that will allow small businesses to take a tax credit. if they hire somebody that's been out of work for 60 days. they will allow someone who is a small business who wants to buy a new machine, a new desk, new office equipment to write that off. not depreciate it, write it off and of course saving a million jobs with the highway bill. mr. schumer: would the leader yield for a question? mr. reid: i will be happy to yield. mr. schumer: isn't it true, mr. leader, by the rules of the

senate that the minority could spend time talk about health care tonight without holding up the jobs bill? they could let the jobs bill go forward and then talk about health care all they wanted? mr. reid: the answer is yes. the answer is yes. i say to my friend from new york, we would be happy to give consent. if they want to talk all night on health care or whatever they want, that's fine. we would be able to respond to that, of course. but let's get this done. there are people waiting to buy things. not only does it help the small business in an effort to purchase things, but the businesses are going to buy things, up to $250,000. in reno and las vegas, this is big-time stuff. and i would think the same all over the state of new york. i would bet in the first week that this bill was effective, there would be a massive purchase of property because people no longer have to depreciate it. they can just write it off, up

to $250,000. that's a lot of stuff. thank you, mr. president. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the minority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader, i'm sorry. mr. mcconnell: my good friend the majority did one thing is this is the second time he's done what is called fill up the tree. what that means to the constituents of ours that we represent on this side of the aisle, we got to offer no amendments. no amendments whatsoever to this bill. this is the second time and the 27th time that the majority leader has filled up the tree, thereby denying to the minority an opportunity to offer an amendment at all. we can tkpwaourbgs i guess, about the -- argue, i guess about the relative merits of this bill. what we know is that $47 billion of it are not paid for. so it adds that much additional money to the deficit. we also know for sure that the one kind of job this administration's been able to produce is government jobs.

as a result of the spending binge that we've been on for the last year, we've added 120,000 government jobs. mr. president, now in america, if you work for the government, you make an average of $70,000 a year. if you work in the private sector, you make an average of $40,000 a year. we've had a job boom all right with the government, and of course the stimulus package principally benefited state governments who were very happy to have the money, so they did not have to pare back their employment. so we're interested in talking about jobs all right. but health care is what the majority has been trying to ram through the congress over the last year. it is the big issue this week. i'm sure members on my side of the aisle who speak tonight will indeed talk about jobs. but we also fully intend to talk about the health care bill that will be voted on in the house that raises half a trillion

dollars in new taxes, is replete with special deals. we understand the fix-it bill will not fix all of the special deals. maybe only one of the special deals. mr. durbin: would the senator yield for a question? mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i believe i have the floor. the presiding officer: the republican leader has the floor. mr. mcconnell: we'll have an opportunity to discuss all of these things. and what i would suggest to the majority leader, if he wants to maximize the time, we could simply agree to vote on this bill at 9:00 a.m. on wednesday and then go back to the f.a.a. bill, upon which we had made substantial progress. that would be another way to advance the ball, which i would suggest. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: mr. president, my friend from kentucky said it all in the last statement. he would be willing to agree to have a vote at 9:00 a.m. on wednesday morning. why in the world would we want to waste the american taxpayers'

dollars sitting around here not sending a bill to the president? this is a bipartisan bill. it's a bill that's been widely acknowledged to be approved by groups, the liberal-minded chamber of commerce, national chamber of commerce and other such groups. it's a bill that is so badly needed in this country. and i would also suggest to my friend, i don't know of a single government job that will be produced with our hire bill. i don't know a single job, because everything that we've done, the provisions in this will create jobs in the private sector. thousands and thousands of jobs, new jobs in the private sector. mr. schumer: would the leader yield for a question? mr. reid: of course i would. mr. schumer: first, there are four provisions in this bill. one is the highway bill, which as i understand it, hires private-sector people to build

highways; is that correct? mr. reid: that is true. mr. schumer: second is build america bonds which allows the states and cities to hire private people; is that correct? mr. reid: the only thing it can be used for. mr. schumer: third is depreciation for small businesses which is obviously for the private sector? mr. reid: nondepreciation. mr. schumer: the fourth is the provision that senator hatch and i put forward which gives directly to small businesses a payroll tax deduction if they hire; is that correct? mr. reid: and the four things my friend has enunciated creates not a single government job. mr. schumer: and let me ask one other question because i know my friend the minority leader talked about $47 billion unpaid for. i think that's not the bill before us. isn't it correct that this bill is fully paid for? mr. reid: yes, it is. mr. schumer: thank you. mr. reid: i would also say, mr. president, that the state of kentucky, the state of nevada have been having tremendous problems with a number of prabs,

one of -- programs, one of which is medicaid. one of the things we did in our recovery package was to give the states, all 50 states, nevada and kentucky, all 50 states some help with medicaid. the cost of health care is just wreaking havoc with our states. there's nothing wrong with doing that. we have an obligation. medicaid was a program that we back here started. and to talk about the states getting some kind of a big benefit that they don't deserve, i don't think that's right. i met two weeks ago tonight in room 219 with 12 governors. they handed me a letter signed by 48 governors all saying "we need some help. and one of the places we need help is with medicaid, these health care costs are skyrocketing. skyrocketing." and even though we have given

help, there are very few states in the union that haven't had massive layoffs. so, mr. president, again, i would hope that we could get this out of the way, have a discussion on health care at some subsequent time. another bill that this is holding up, this bill is going to pass, and i appreciate very much our republican colleagues voting for this legislation. but let's not waste 30 hours, because we're not only holding up sending this bill to the president, but we're holding up finishing work on the federal aviation administration bill. my friend has wanted to offer amendments. amendments are being offered on this legislation as we do on most everything. i have been very, very nonrestrictive in how i've handled the floor. of course there have been occasions when we have done the, what has been done here for generations, and that is say this is time we're not going to have on a bill dealing with

jobs. we're not going to have an abortion amendment, one on gay marriage, we're not going to have one on income tax, things like that. there comes a time. now, mr. president, f.a.a., the first year -- the first year experts tell us will create 150,000 jobs. but not only that, it will make air travel safer. we'll have the air travelers bill of rights. we will have, for the first time in the history of this country, g.p.s. positioning for our aircraft, which will allow us to do more flights into airports and make it safer. so i would hope that we don't waste. it's monday night. it's 6:10 -- not waste tonight and tomorrow and wednesday. let's get off this, get to f.a.a. if somebody wants to get a health care speech and beat up on obama, let them do it on the f.a.a. bill. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: as you can see, we're all in the mood for a

spirited debate here. and i know the junior senator from florida is on the floor and anxious to begin the discussion. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: before my friend leaves, if i could just ask this: you know, i think we could probably accomplish what we both should want by saying, okay, let's vote sometime at a reasonable time wednesday morning on this jobs bill. but in the meantime, in the meantime, all day tomorrow let's work on the f.a.a. bill. that way we would accomplish two very important things. i would hope that my friend would consider that. that would -- we could not only have a time certain where we're going to pass this bill, the hire bill, and we could also work on f.a.a. we have senators waiting here to do work on the f.a.a. bill. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, if i could just respond to the majority leader's suggestion, it's very well worth talking about. as i understood the suggestion, it was that we lock in a time for a vote certain such as the one i suggested at 9:00 a.m. on this bill, and we resume consideration of the f.a.a. bill between now -- tomorrow and then? mr. reid: i think that's very appropriate. during that period of time, people can offer amendments. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i think that's a matter worth talking about. why don't we put in a quorum call here and have that discussion. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. wyden: i would ask unanimous consent to vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. wyden: mr. president, thank you. we're going to have the leadership discuss the process for moving forward. but i wanted to take a minute and talk about one of the important bipartisan provisions

in the jobs bill. i think colleagues know it's never hard to get me to focus on the health reform issue. and we're certainly going to be doing a lot of that in the days ahead. but our constituents want us to focus on jobs as well, and particularly a jobs effort that's going to work. we have that in the build america bonds program, mr. president, and i would say to colleagues that the build america bonds program has far, far exceeded even the optimistic projections some of us had for this program. i've been involved in the development of this program now for six years. senator thune, on the other side of the aisle, has worked very closely with me on this. and i would say, mr. president, and colleagues, that when we started our work on the build america bonds program, our hope was that perhaps $4 billion or

$5 billion worth of these build america bonds would be left. what we have seen is it's now close to $80 billion worth of these bonds have been issued. they are literally selling like hot cakes. they have revolutionized municipal finance, and some have projected that perhaps this year $150 billion worth of these build america bonds would be sold. so build america bonds are bonds that work, and they put people in the private sector to work as well. in my home state of oregon, it has been proven time and time again that private investment follows well-targeted public investment. that's what we are seeing with this bipartisan program, mr. president. and that's why colleagues on

both sides of the aisle have proposed expanding it. i note on the other side of the aisle my good friend, senator thune, is here. he and i have worked hand in hand on this effort because we wanted to have something that would create jobs in our country that was nonpartisan -- the presiding officer: would the senate suspend. could we have order in the chamber, please. order in the chamber? mr. wyden: thank you, mr. president. the reason senator thune and i have worked on this effort in a bipartisan way is we wanted to have something that was common sense. we wanted to have a jobs-creation effort that responded to basic needs of our country. and we wanted to see it be part of an effort where the private sector takes the lead. i'm particularly appreciative the chairman of the senate finance committee is here, chairman baucus.

i want to express my appreciation to him and the staff for their help in this effort. we saw in the senate finance committee -- and chairman baucus is here. he remembers our discussions. our projections for the build america bonds were pretty modest. the projections for build america bonds were a few billion dollars and we blew past those projections like a bullet train. build america bonds are getting desperately needed funding flowing into local communities, they're creating jobs and helping to support america's infrastructure. almost $80 billion, mr. president, has been generated. this is in addition to the $80 billion of direct federal infrastructure spending that's been included in the recovery act and i would note in the hire bill there's going to be an effort once again to

ensure that there's direct support for infrastructure and we also tap this very promising opportunity with the private sector that we've been able to secure with build america bonds. when the project is funded with build america bonds, the federal government pays a portion of the finance cost. it equals a very small percentage. perhaps a single-digit percentage of the total project cost. the city or state pays almost the entire cost to the project over time. a project that's funned with direct spending -- that's funded with direct spending will often have the federal government pay 50% or 75% of the project cost. some communities need that kind of help to get needed projects off the ground. but when some argue that projects should only be funded with direct spending, i thought it was important to look for other opportunities and that's why build america bonds came in

to existence. it's not possible, mr. president, and colleagues, given the enormous needs for infrastructure improvements, for roads, bridges, and transportation systems, to rely just on direct spending or rely just on bonds. what we ought to do is what we have done near the senate on a bipartisan basis and that is put more options in the toolbox for funding infrastructure. of course direct spending will be important. what we have seen, mr. president and colleagues, is build america bonds take off an additional tool. in my home state in the dayton school district, they're using build america bonds to employ up to 150 people billing and remodeling classrooms. by using build america bonds, this small school district in my

home state saved an estimate estimated $1.2 million in interest costs. up in washington state in grand cooley, the coolly medical center was able to finance a new hospital building with finance cost. they were able, mr. president, to start construction immediately. we had discussion on the floor earlier, is this government jobs? what that project did was put people in the private sector to work, construction workers, plumbers, electricians, tradesmen. once the building is completed, mr. president, at the end of the year, doctors, and nurses, clerks, and support staff get to work in the new hovment now, recent -- hospital. now, recently the joint tax committee report highlighted other benefits slowing from build america bonds. as my friend, senator thune, who's on the floor knows about build america bonds, this report

showed the tax credit bonds, like build america bonds, can be more cost effective than tax exempt bonds. the report also concluded because the bonds are more attractive to investors, they're more efficient at raising capital. so, once again, democrats and republicans have been able to come together in the united states senate to advance a fresh approach that saves municipali municipalities time and money and effort that can otherwise be devoted to other priorities. aside from the fact that the funds were raised efficiently, they're answering a cry that we hear, mr. president, again and again, and that is get the job done quickly. people are frustrated that sometimes it takes eons for government to work out a particular project, particularly in the transportation area. bond funds need to be spent within two years date the bond

is issued. and so what that means is money isn't just flowing into projects, it's being spent in the short term. people get back to work quickly. you get more bang for your dollar and that's obviously what americans are asking for and build american bonds deliver it. now, back in the days before these bonds were issued, the market for the traditional, normal municipal bond was just about frozen. it was hard to sell them and now build america bonds have changed that. the private sector is strongly supporting this program. groups like the chamber of commerce, the national association of manufacturers, businesses across the country saying that they need a fresh approach to build infrastructure, particularly with build america bonds, we're now seeing business say this is

an approach that gives them a long-term boost to what they know they can count on. they can plan new avenues for their businesses when they know that there's going to be infrastructure there to support it. it's not, however, just businesses that are buying build america bonds. nonprofits like pension funds are finding that these bonds are an attractive investment. nonprofits can't benefit from the tax credit, but bond issuers can pass on the value of the tax credits in the form after higher interest rate for build america bonds than other types of bonds. by contrast, traditional tax exempt municipal bonds have not been a good investment for pension funds and other institutional investors that don't pay taxes. so what build america bonds have been able to do is to provide a way for nonprofits to invest in american infrastructure, the --

that traditional tax exempt bonds don't provide. now, we're not surprised that build america bonds are reinventing the mr. lemieux: imunicipal bondmarket. we were told by the people in the private sector, in the states, in the finance community, all across the country, that they thought that this was a chance to, in effect, unfreeze the municipal bond market that had been frozen in oregon, illinois, in south dakota, across the country. in some cases these bonds are going to make the difference to whether the infrastructure projects come to fruition or not. in other cases they're going to lower the costs of the projects and allow the community to reinvest the savings in other projects. by any scenario the bill america bonds program helps local government, local businesses, and those who rely on them for jobs and dependable infrastructure.

my view is that's exactly what the american people are looking for from their elected officials: something that works, something that's common sense, something that's bipartisan, something with a proven track record. that is, in fact, the bill america bonds program. now, let me close with one last point, mr. president. there have been discussions and we've been in consultation with chairman baucus and the senate finance staff on this about financial institutions and whether the fees they are charging are appropriate for the issuance of build america bonds. first of all, it's been the position of chairman baucus, myself, and others that anybody who tries to take advantage of state and municipal issuers, they need to understand that the senate finance committee is going to have a zero tolerance policy. zero tolerance policy for ripping off the taxpayers. this program is designed to create jobs and make

infrastructure funding more efficient and certainly not create any opportunities for somebody to try to skate around the rules and to take advantage of taxpayers. so in the senate finance committee -- and i'm very appreciative of chairman baucus taking this approach -- the congress approved a 2% limit on amount of fees that issuers of build america bonds can charge. in practice the typical fee, in fact, has been far less than the statutory maximum fee that's allowed. now, as the market for build america bonds has grown, and i pointed out that it has mushroomed far beyond projections, the fees have kept coming down. they have come down close to the levels currently charged for tax-exempt bonds. with build america bonds having become well established, they represent 25% of the municipal bond market. our view is that there isn't any

longer a justification for charging a higher fee. as the expiration in the build america bond approaches at the end of the year, and i'm very glad that the administration has proposed make the program permanent, i intend to keep monitoring the fees charged for issuing the bonds. now, if some can present a case that it's appropriate to further reduce the statutory cap on fees, i'm certainly open to listening to it. i want to make sure that every single dime of taxpayer money goes to these bondholders, and i am opened to listening to any suggestions and any ideas to make a program that works. a program that senator thune and i have worked on together for many months that is working, we are certainly open to ideas for improving on it. i'll close. i see my friend from florida anxious to speak, and i want to

appreciate his desire to talk -- talk tonight. let's keep focusing. whether it's health care, whether it's transportation, whether it's tax reform on ideas that bring the united states senate together, i want to take a few minutes to talk about build america bonds specifically tonight. again, the chairman of the finance committee's on the floor. i'm very appreciative of his support, senator grassley's support through this. as the majority leader, senator reid, noted earlier tonight, we've got to zero in on jobs. there is no economic multiplier out there, mr. president, like jobs. you put people to work, as i outlined construction workers, electricians, plumbers. restaurants make the sandwiches to feed all the men and women who are doing the work. so let's keep coming back, colleagues, to approaches that bring both sides together. i've tried to do that in health care, in tax reform, and certainly in transportation

where senator thune and i have been able to team up on something that works, is being used around the country. let's remember that that's what's needed right now when our folks are hurting, when they're looking for approach that's are common sense, that are nonpartisan, we can give them one specifically with the build america bonds program. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida is recognized. mr. lemieux: thank you, mr. president. let me thank my colleague from oregon for his good words tonight and for his approach for trying to do things in a bipartisan way. this jobs bill, there are some good things in it. some issues that we on this side of the chamber have had, is we would have liked to have offered some amendments. now the 18 million people that i represent in florida expect that we have the opportunity to offer amendments, to bring up ideas, good ideas, and let those ideas rise and fall depending upon their merit.

but, unfortunately, mr. president, we didn't have the opportunity to have amendments. the -- my colleague, the republican leader, said earlier what was done on the majority side was something called filling the tree. what does that mean? it means that we don't have the opportunity to bring forward our good ideas. the people of florida and other good states are expected to do that. while there are some good things in here, it's a shame that we couldn't have made this bill better. mr. president, what i really want to speak about tonight is the debate that americans are having around their living room tables, around their kitchen tables, that they're talking about and that's this health care bill. this trillion dollar bill that's being discussed in the country, and that we now hear is going to go through the house of representatives and possibly come back to this chamber in a procedure called reconciliation. and it occurs to me, mr. president, that what we're dealing with here is a little bit of fantasyland.

and why do i say that? well, i took my kids this weekend, mr. president, to see alice in wonderland. you know, that is a famous story and it occurred to me that we're creating our own sort of wund areland right here in the united states senate. now, a lot of things have been said this about health care bill, what it does and what it doesn't do. and i thought tonight it would be important to go through the reputations that are being made to the american people as to whether or not we should pass this health care bill. so let's go through all the things that we've heard, things that president obama has said, things that members of the majority have said in this chamber as to why we should pass this health care bill. and let me first say that everybody believes, mr. president, that we need health care reform in this country. we've got 40 million-plus americans that don't have health insurance, nearly 4 million floridians do not have health insurance. we know that the cost of health

insurance is too high for those americans who have health insurance. in the last ten years, health insurance costs have risen by 130%. that's unsustainable. and it's something that's afflicting the people of florida and all across this country. it's hard to make ends meet when your salary may be going down or you may have lost your job but your health care costs continue to go up. so there is no debate within this chamber that we should do something. of course we should do somethi something. the debate is about what we should do. on this side of the aisle, we'd like to take a step-by-step approach. we'd like to go after the cost of health care. we'd like to increase competition in health care so that costs could actually go down. we'd like to put patients back in charge of their health care purchasing decisions. we know that if the consumer's back involved, that the price of health care will go down. but what we find ourselves in is having to vote on this massive

new government entitlement program, a program that i cannot support because i do not believe it will be in the best interest of floridians. last monday i was down in south florida, down in miami and fort lauderdale, and in fort laud daily, i had the opportunity to have -- and in fort lauderdale, i had the opportunity to have a town hall meeting where we specifically talked about health care. and in that meeting, i had many floridians come up to the microphone and ask questions, and most ofhe were bewildered about this plan. they wanted to know why we were cutting a half a trillion dollars out of medicare. medicare is health care for seniors. why would we create a new program by cutting from a program that we have now that's already in financial trouble? we know that in the next seven years, medicare is going to have its own solvency problems. why would we take money out of health care for seniors, more than 3 million floridians in that program, to start a new program? they want to know why we're going to raise taxes on medicine and health care devices, which

we know will increase the cost of health care. and they want to know why we're creating a $1 trillion new entitlement program when we can't afford the entitlement programs we have. when we can't afford the $12 trillion debt that we are saddling upon our children and our grandchildren. so with that, mr. president, i'd like to go through some of the myths, some of the myths that have been created in this wonderland that i spoke about before and try to debunk those myths and say really what's in this bill and let's let the facts speak for themselves. the first myth -- and the president likes to say this, he said it again today in a rally that he was at -- if you like your health insurance, you can keep it, under his proposal. well, mr. president, it's simply not true. the congressional budget office has said between 8 million and 9 million people who were covered by employment-based plan under current law would not have

the offer of such a proposal. why is this going to happen? because under the incentives and penalties that this bill creat creates, businesses are going to drop health insurance for their employees. so for those 8 million or 9 million americans, they're not going to get to keep the health insurance that they have now. they're not going to be able to keep the health care that they -- that they want. rick foster, the c.m.s. actuary -- and that's the folks who administer medicare and medicaid -- says the number could even be higher. he concluded that 17 million people will lose their employer-sponsored coverage. 17 million people will not be able to keep the health care that they enjoy today. so what the president says is simply not the case. second, we know under this myth that you'll be able to keep the health care if you like, it that

people who have medicare advantage, medicare part-c, a lot of them will not be able to keep their program either. medicare advantage is a program that -- that offers extra benefits for folks on medicare. if you sign up for it, you get wellness benefits, you get hearing benefits, you get dental benefits oftentimes. people like it. we've got more than a million people, mr. president, in florida on medicare advantage. this bill cuts $120 billion out of medicare advantage. now, i'm not sure how it's going to impact florida. there was this florida fix that was going to be really an off-ramp for these people, not an exit. but over several years, they would be in the same situation as the rest of folks in america. i don't know whether that's going to make it into the final bill. but i do know that we're going to cut $120 billion out of medicare advantage.and when that happens, according to rick fost, the c.m.s. -- rick foster, the c.m.s. actuary, lower benchmarks

will reduce benefits and therefore result in less generous benefits packages. he estimates that in 2015, enrollment in medicare advantage plans will decrease by about 33%. so for many folks, they're going to get dropped by their employer and not be able to keep their health care plan they have now and for many folks under medicare advantage, they're not going to get dropped as well. they're not going to be able to keep the health insurance you have now. we also know that these mandates that are existing in this bill are going to change your health insurance policy. if the government deems that your health insurance plan doesn't pass muster, they're going to mandate that your health insurance plan change. now, you may like your health insurance plan the way you have it. you may have a high deductible. you may have bought catastrophic insurance. you may not want to buy a

comprehensive health insurance plan. that is soup to nuts. you may only want certain things covered. well, under this plan, under this bill, there is going to be certain mandates put in place and you may not be able to keep the type of insurance you have. so for these three instances alone, for people who are going to get dropped by their employers and get forced into the public plan, for people who are on medicare advantage, and for people who have a certain type of insurance plan, they may not be able to keep it. so we know that, unfortunately, what the president is telling us about this bill is not true. myth number one is busted. myth two -- your health insurance premiums will go down. now, mr. president, why did we get involved in this whole debate to start with? what was told to the american people during the presidential campaign in 2008 and since the time that we've discussed this health care plan?

that we were going to lower the cost of health insurance for most americans. that is not going to happen under this plan. we are not going to lower the cost of health insurance. in fact, for some americans, the price is going to go up. table one -- i hate to get into the weeds on this, but let's look at the facts. we have the c.b.o. report that i've been citing to earlier and here is a table 1 on page 5 of that congressional budget office report that analyzes this plan. and it goes through what people have in the current insurance market. there's about 25 million people in the small group market. there is 134 million people in the large group market. that's 159 million americans who have health insurance. for the small group market, it's estimated that the cost increase or savings is between up 1% in increase or down 2%.

and for those in the large group, it's zero to potentially minus 3%. so this is not reducing the cost of health insurance in any meaningful way. and for individuals who are in -- who are out there who are not in a group, who are purchasing insurance individually, the congressional budget office says that their cost of health insurance will go up 10% to 13%. so the whole very reason, the main, primary reason why we are about the business allegedly of debating health care and passing this big bill was to lower the cost of health insurance for most americans. not only is it not going to lower the cost of health insurance for most americans, it's going to increase it for those who are in the individual market. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that this be offered into the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

mr. lemieux: so you're not going to be able to keep your health insurance for a lot of americans if you like it and the cost of health insurance is not going to go down. those two myths have been bust busted. myth number three, this plan, the democratic plan, will lower costs, lower the cost of health care overall. we've all heard about and i said before the rising cost of health care, 130% in the past ten yea years. there's this expression, bending the cost curve down, making sure that we can get in control of costs. this plan's not going to do that. this plan does not have mechanisms, true mechanisms in it to really control costs. in today's "washington post," robert samuelson takes on the president's claim that his plan will control costs, and, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that this article from "the washington post" by mr. samuelson of today also be entered into the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. la hugh: i--

mr. law few: mr. president, in this -- mr. lemieux: mr. president, in this article, he talks about the fact that health insurance spending rieses, and it goes from 17% of the economy in 2009 to 19% in 2019. according to the c.m.s. actuary, he estimates that overall national health expenditures under this bill will increase by an estimated total of $222 billion during 2010-2019. it's also going to increase the government's share of health care spending. according to the c.b.o., under the legislation, federal outlays for health care would increase by $210 billion over the next ten years. so we're just chasing our tail here. we're going to put a lot more money into health care but we're not going to reduce costs. now, how could we reduce costs? how do we really get at the

problem of increased health care? well, we could try to foster more competition among health care insurance companies, instead of creating these subsidies which is just going to plow more money into the insurance companies, we could make the insurance companies compete across state lines. that's one of the ideas that the republicans have brought forward. we also could go after meaningful lawsuit reform. there's one estimate that we would save more than $50 billion a year if we had meaningful lawsuit reform. my colleague, senator coburn from oklahoma, talks about the fact, being a practicing physician, that doctors are engaged in defensive medicine, that when thousands of kids across this country this year get hit with a baseball in the nose, they're going to show up at the emergency room and instead of just watching the patient, making sure the kid's okay, they're going to order a c.t. scan, even if one's not necessary, because that's become the standing operating procedure in order to protect the doctor

from lawsuits. the c.b.o. says that if we have real medical malpractice reform, we could save as much as $54 billion over the next decade. we also, mr. president, don't have transparency. and here is the essential problem with health care costs. we don't know what anything costs. in the next couple days, my wife and i are going to be fortunate enough to have our fourth child. she's due any day now. and when we go to the hospital, we're going to get back after that baby's born, just like we've done with the last three kids, we're going to get back a bill and it's going to be page after page after page of things that we cannot understand. and at the bottom of the bill, we'll pay some small fraction because we have really good health insurance here in the united states senate, we'll pay some small fraction of the total bill. and we'll never question the pages and pages and pages of line items, of information that we don't understand.

we won't because we don't have to pay for it. and we as consumers have been removed from the transaction in health insurance. because of third-party payers, whether it be medicare, medicaid or insurance companies, we're not involved in that transacti transaction. now, let me give you a different example. if we had to look at that bill because we were responsible for a portion of it, because we were given, say, a tax credit to go out and buy insurance and we were trying to get the most bang for the buck and they tried to put on their $75 for a bed pan or for gauze or for band-aids, mrs. lemieux would not pay for that. mrs. lemieux would be in there saying, wait a minute, i can go to target and i can get band-aids for $1.50, not $75. and i guarantee you that the men and women of this country, if they really had to look at thee bills because they really had to pay them, we wouldn't have these exploding costs. we also wouldn't have all the cost-shifting that's going around.

the dirty secret about health care is that if i have insuran insurance, my full payment on insurance, or close to full payment, is going to pay for the medicare patient and the medicaid patient, because medicare and medicaid don't pay enough for the services they render. so the hospitals just cost-shift all this money around. so at the end of the day, we don't have a transparent system and we don't have a market-driven system. what we should do is give every american who needs it a tax credit to go buy health insurance on their own. if they were out in the marketplace, that would lower costs, because competition would rein and they would insist on bang for their buck. but that's not in this bill. so we now now that, one, you're not going to be able to keep in a lot of cases, your health insurance in you like it. we know too it will not reduce your cost of health care. and we know, three, it's not going lower the cost of health care in general. those myths have been busted. let me go to the next one, myth

number four, the democrats' plan will reduce the deficit. you've heard this estimate that over $100 billion will be saved over the next 10 years. not true. and here's why: the way that this is scored or evaluated by the congressional budget office is that whatever you send them, they have to give you an answer back on the confines and specificses of what you sent them. so the democrats' bill has six years of spending or benefits and 10 years of taxes. because if they have 10 years of taxes and only six years of spending, then they can get to a situation where the congressional budget office will come back and say, look, it's going to reduce the deficit. but if you compare apples to apples, if you compare spending to deficit, if you compare spending to taxes, we know that it's going to run a deficit. you cannot create a new entitlement program and not run

a deficit. it's going to cost us some estimates more than $400 billion over a 10-year period in the first 10 years and $1.4 trillion in the next 10 years. so we know that this myth is busted. it's not going to reduce the deficit. let me also say under that that this is going to be a budget buster for states. the states, unlike the federal government, has to make ends meet. the states have balanced budget requirements. so as we increase the requirements of medicaid, which this bill does, then we're going to be putting increased burdens upon our states. our states are going to have to find more money to put into medicaid. and they can't print money like the federal government. and they can't spend more than they take in. so what's going to happen? well, they're going to have to cut other programs or they're going to have to raise taxes.

so what's going to get hurt? well, i can just give you the example of florida where they are suffering under a huge and emerging medicaid problem. medicaid and health and human services is the number one portion of the state of florida's budget and it grows every year. so what loses out? education, money for teachers and schools, law enforcement, protecting the environment, economic stimulus because florida has to live within its means unlike the federal government. now, this is not a republican or democratic issue on this topic. governors of both sides of the aisle are very concerned about the increased mandates that will be placed upon states. governor phil brettison of tennessee called this the mother of all unfunded mandates. the head of washington state's medicaid program believes that states facing severe financial distress may say, i have to get out of the medicaid program all

together. c.b.o. released its first estimate of expected discretionary spending under this bill confirming that 10 -- $10 billion to $20 billion in discretionary spending will be used to implement this legislation. we're going to spend $10 billion to $20 billion to implement this new bill. $5 billion to $10 billion to the i.r.s. and to health and human services. also in terms of this topic, of looking at how whether or not the plan will reduce the deficit, which it will not. we know that this is going to be a trillion dollar program over time. and with rare exception when this congress creates a program, especially an entitlement program, it does not stay within its estimates. it grows and it grows and it grows. we've got a $12 trillion debt in this country. when i first came to the senate, i had the privilege to serve here back in september of last

year, we were at something lik like $1.06 -- $11.06 o or $11.7 trillion. now we're at $11.4 trillion. the fifth myth, medicare cuts won't affect seniors. this bill cuts half of a trillion dollars out of medicare. now, some say this is savings. well, the money that is going to be saved is not going back into medicare to prolong the life of medicare. we had an amendment from my colleague, senator gregg, who said that any savings would have to go into medicare and the majority party defeated that amendment. so it makes no sense to me that we would take a half of a trillion dollars out of medicare to create a new entitlement program. and i can't go back to my seniors in florida, more than three million of them, and say, look, i know your medicare program is already facing insolvency in seven years. but we're going to take a half

of a trillion dollars out of it now to create a new health care program. this cannot be good for seniors. in this effect on medicare, there was a letter from the c.b.o. director to the majority leader, senator reid, and he warned that while the effects of the cuts to medicare remain unclear, they could reduce access to care or diminish quality of care. let's go through these cuts. $135 billion from hospitals. $120 billion from medicare advantage. nearly $15 billion from nursing homes. $40 billion from home health agencies. $7 billion from hospices. the c.m.s. actuary say that's many of the medicare cuts are unrelated to the provider's costs of furnishing services to beneficiaries. that means it's not about savings. that means that the money is being taken from medicare, robbing peter to pay paul. he concludes that it is doubtful

that providers could reduce costs to keep up with these cuts. the c.m.s. actuary also finds because of the bill's severe cuts to medicare, providers for whom medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and might end their participation in the program. what does this mean in plain language? we're not paying these health care providers enough under medicare. we're going to take still more money out and they're not going to be medicare providers anymore. they're not going to provide health care for seniors. if you want to see the future of this, look at medicaid. because medicaid is even one step worse in trouble than medicare is. and we know now that folks who are entering into the medicaid system who are trying to find a specialist in a metropolitan area, that half of them can't find a specialist. we know in medicare, according to a june 2008 medicare payment advisory commission report, that

29% of the medicare beneficiaries it surveyed had trouble finding a primary care doctor. that's up from 24% in 2007. mr. president, if the doctor is not in, it is not health care reform. how can i go back to my seniors in florida and say, we're creating this new program by taking money out of your program and you may not be able to find a doctor who's going to see you anymore. it's not conscionable. florida will be disproportionately affected by these cuts. it has the second highest population of seniors and the highest concentration of seniors in the nation at 19%. let me tell you specifically how it will hurt one portion of health care for seniors, and that's home health care. i talked to ron malone, who is the vice president of gentiva health services and one of the largest providers of home health services in florida. he said, look, senator, it's not

going to hurt us so much. we're a big company and we can spread costs. we'll get more market share. but it is going to hurt the smaller companies and a lot of the smaller companies are going to go out of business. how is that health care reform? who do we owe an obligation to provide health care more than to our seniors? the florida medical association, and i recently got to visit with their president, which is the largest physician association in florida, with 20,000 members says, that this legislation does not adequately fix what's wrong with our current system. it contains many provision that's would allow government bureaucrats to interfere with patient care decisions and raises the cost of health insurance unnecessary lymph this is from the doctors of florida. and they say it's going to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship and increase costs. why are we doing this?

the sixth myth that i want to tackle, mr. president, is this idea that emergency rooms are going to be less burdened. you hear this justification, people now are uninsured and they go to the emergency room to get health care. and that if we give folks insurance, or they have the ability to purchase insurance at a subsidized rate, that they're going to stop going to the emergency room and that's going to lower the cost of health care because emergency room procedures are expensive and it is going to free up the emergency room for its intended purpose, which is people really having an emergency. but according to the urban institute, after massachusetts adopted a somewhat similar plan, emergency use remained higher than the national average. more than two-fifths of the visits in the emergency room were nonemergencies. of these the majority of adult respondents said that it was more convenient to check into the e.r. more convenient.

now, we know as i just talked about, that we're going to be paying our health care providers less. what does that mean? there's going to be less of them providing health care. and that means your lines at your doctors office, which is already too long, are going to get longer. so what are folks going to still do? they're going to still show up the emergency room. if we look at the massachusetts model, that's haptd. we -- that's happened. we also know that we're going to have a severe doctors shortage. and we have not prepared, nor does this bill prepare, to make sure that we're going to have sufficient health care providers to meet the new demands. seventh myth, the democrats plan take on the insurance companies. you heard the president say that we're going to take on the insurance companies, you heard that we're going to put the patient first. well, basically what we're going to do in reality is create a lot of new business for the insurance companies.

this subsidy plan is going to force a lot of new people into health care with an insurance company. that's why the insurance companies are for it. what we need to do is empower individuals. what we need to do is to give individuals money that's in their own pocket and let them go out an be consumers -- and be consumers because if they were consumers it would lower the cost of health care. what we need to do is let insurance companies compete across state lines so we as consumers have more choices. we know it works. look at auto insurance. it's so easy a caveman can do it. in 15 minutes you can save 15% on your auto insurance. these folks are out there competing. we need that in health care. why do i only get to pick from the insurance companies that are in florida? why if there's not an enterprising insurance company from south carolina wants to come to my state and offer cheaper prices? why can't i have that? there are market-driven things

that we can do that will lower the cost of health insurance. and by doing so, when it it's less expensive, guess what? more people can afford it. and you have more access. the eighth myth i want to tackle tonight. it's been said that this bill takes an unprecedented step to fight health care fraud. that it's going to go after waste, fraud, and abuse, and we're going to save billions an billions of dollars. in fact the $500 billion that's going to be cut from medicare is often described as an elimination of waste, fraud, and abiewsms it's not. it's just taking money out of that program and putting it in this program. now in fair credit there are some provisions of this bill that go after health care fraud. and they're good. but they go around the margins. they're going to save a billion or two dollars. a billion or two dollars is a lot of money, i'll grant you that. but it's not the kind of money that we need to save. we believe that

there's $60 billion t to $100 billion of fraud in medicare every year alone. not talking about medicaid. not talking about veterans health care. just medicare. $60 billion to $100 billion. one out of every $7 spent. now what we need to do in my opinion is implement a plan that's going to stop the health care fraud before it starts. i have a bill, senate bill 2128, that's has bipartisan support in this chamber. it has more than a dozen senators who sponsor it. and it would do three things. one is it would create a person at h.h.s. who would be the number two person at the agency for health and human services appointed bit president of the united states -- appointed by the president of the united states to be the chief health care officer of this country. no other job. not focused on worrying about

h1n1, not focused on anything else that should be done in health, focused on stopping health care fraud. someone we could measure against performance to make sure that we're doing everything we can to stop wasting the people's money. the second thing it does is take a page from another business that exists in the marketplace that does an excellent job at stopping fraud. there's another business, mr. president, that's about the same size as health care. in that business, instead of having a $ $1 in $7 ratio, it hs a raish yoar of 7 cents -- ratio of 7 cents out of every $100. and that's the credit card industry. and we've all had this experience. you go somewhere to use your credit card and you get a phone call or an e-mail that says, did you really mean to make that purchase. if you don't say yes, they don't pay. what we do in health care is we pay and then if we think

something's fraudulent, we chase. when we chase, the money's gone. credit cards stop the fraud before it starts. now, why couldn't we implement that kind of computer technology -- it's called predictive modeling -- in health care? so that when someone tries to sell a wheelchair a hundred times in an hour, the bells go off, the phone call's made, and if it's not verified, we don't pay. we have people, unfortunately a lot of them in my home state of florida, who are bilking the system for tens of millions of dollars a year because it's much easier to steal from uncle sam than it is to steal from anybody else. because nobody's watching. not one group in town who's evaluated my bill with this predictive modeling system where we'd set up a computer program to stop the fraud before it starts and make penal verify -- make people verify when there's a questionable transaction has said that it will save

$20 billion a year. now, during the health care debate that we had last december, i asked to amend my bill on to the main health care bill. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle objected. why we wouldn't implement real waste, fraud and abuse reform is beyond me. but this bill that we're talking about doesn't have it. and that myth i too believe is busted. the third part of my bill is it would require background checks for all health care providers. can you believe that we do not do background checks on people who bill medicare and medicaid in this country? we have folks who are convicted felons who are billing health care, alleged health care providers. it's so bad that in reimbursements for aids treatment under medicare that while south florida only has 7% of the aids population, they bill 78% of the treatment.

only 7% of the population and they bill 78% of the treatment. it's just fraud and it should stop today. the ninth myth that i want to tackle, mr. president, is that this proposal, this democratic health care reform bill will not impact the doctor-patient relationship. mr. president, in fact, it will. i agree with my colleague, dr. barrasso, who supports a patient-centered approach. real health care reform should ensure a doctor and a patient can work together to the best efforts and health of the patient. as i said before, we're still going to have third-party paye payers. we've got to put the patient back in charge of their health care. that is the only way that we're going to reduce costs. there is a common thread throughout our governmental programs that has led to entitlements to expand and

expand and expand and that is people do not have what's called skin in the game. and if i'm not paying, i don't care. but if i have to go out as a consumer, if the government would give me a tax credit to go buy health insurance, all of a sudden i'm in the game. if i have a reasonable deductible where i have to pay a little when give to the doctor, all of a sudden i'm in the game and i'm not going to ask for a procedure i don't need. and i'm going to sit there and talk with my health care provider about whether or not this is something that i really need. now, if you tell me it's free, i'll take it. and if you advertise to me on television every drug in the world, i'll go to my doctor and say, "sign me up for that because i get it for free." we've got to change the whole structure of how we do health care. because this will just continue to expand. medicare will continue to expand, medicaid will continue to expand. if this program passes, it will

continue to expand. and while it might be great to fund -- throw all this money into these programs, we can't afford it. we can't afford the programs we have let alone the programs that the majority in this chamber want. the tenth myth, final myth that i want to tackle tonight is that taxes will not go up. mr. president, this is a jobs bill for the tax collector. we already said there's going to be $5 billion to $10 billion to the i.r.s. and h.h.s. to implement this bill. remember, if you don't buy health insurance for yourself, you're going to have to pay a tax, a fine, a penalty to the i.r.s. $750 a person. small businesses who don't provide certain levels of health insurance will be fined. and what do you think they're going to do: pay that fine or drop under 50 employees so they don't have to pay the fine anymore, which will cause more people to be out of work? can you believe that in the

united states of america, we are going to tax you if you don't buy health insurance for yourself? because the government cares more about you than you care about you. and if the government can tax you for not buying health insurance, what else can they tax you for not doing? not working out? not eating your spinach? that can't be what our founders intended. remember, we give up our rights to the government. our institution was created that it governs with the consent of the governed, that we have the inalienable rights. in our social contract, we give those rights up to the government. it's not the other way around. how is it that the government can fine me for not doing something? so at the end of the day, when this entitlement program

increases beyond its means, when it's more than we cannot afford, and when the $5 billion that we take out of medicare starts to put medicare in insolvency even quicker, what's going to happen? is the majority in this chamber really going to cut medicare? probably not. so what are they going to do to help pay for this new program without their cuts? they're going to raise your taxes. raise your taxes to levels that are going to be hard to imagine when you factor in what we're going to have to do for all the other entitlement programs we can't afford, when you factor in what we're going to have to do with our $12 trillion that's estimated to be $10 trillion higher by 2020. that's why the national federation of independent businesses has said, when evaluating health care reform options, small business owners ask themselves two specific questions. first, will the bill lower insurance costs? we know the answer to that is

no. second, will the bill increase the overall cost of doing business? the answer to that is yes. so they say in both cases, the patient protection and affordable care act fails the small business test and, therefore, fails small businesses. mr. president, it's been my goal tonight to present facts and i know that others have a differing view. but as a senator from florida with more than 3 million folks in medicare, as a senator who cares about health care reform and wants to create more access but also wants to lower the cost of health care, i cannot support this bill. and i hope that my colleagues in the house who are being faced with this option of voting for this bill and then passing something on reconciliation will do the right thing. i hope that they will not be pressured politically to change their votes from "no" votes to "yes" votes. i hope that they will stand up for the people of their state and for the american people. we could get this right. we could work together on -- on

all -- on a bipartisan way, as all of the other big, important bills over time have been done, with 70 or 80 senators working together to do the right thing for the american people. i sign up for that. i'm standing ready to do that if that opportunity presents itself. but i cannot vote for this bill that will neither lower the cost of health insurance for most americans nor will it put us in a situation financially that is tenable going forward. that, mr. president -- with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i thank the senator from florida for coming to the floor and expressing his point of view on the issue of health care and i'd like to have a few minutes to express my own. i would say, i'm not certain about the senator from florida but for most senators, democrats and republicans as well as members of congress, let me explain to you our health insurance, the health insurance we have as members of congress. it is a government-administered

health insurance plan. it's been around for 40 years. it's called the federal employees health benefit program. a government plan that provides health insurance for most of the senators on the floor in both parties and their families. and it establishes minimum standards for the health insurance that we receive as members of congress. so we don't end up buying health insurance that's worthless when we need it. the government picks up a share of the cost, 70% or, so i believe, and we pick up the rest. if you decide in the open enrollment period each year that you want to change your insurance coverage, you want more -- insurance company, you want more coverage, you'll pay a higher premium. the government pays its share but you'll pay a higher premium. now, that's something like an insurance exchange. in illinois, my wife and i can choose from nine different health insurance plans. it is a dream come true that most americans never, ever experience.

competition and choice. that is at the heart of health care reform. we want to give to people across america the same thing we have as members of congress. i have yet to hear the first senator come and stand in this well or stand before a microphone and say, "the federal employees health benefit program is socialism, it's a government-run health care program and it mandates benefits and, therefore, i cannot in good conscience insure my family with this and i am turning in my federal employees health insurance." not one. and yet when we suggest that for the rest of america, they say, this is an awful idea, it will never work. it's worked for 40 years. providing private health insurance for members of congress and federal employees. it's what we want to make available for small businesses which have no choices 6. if members on the other side think that this is such a bad idea, i want them to march down the middle of this aisle and say, we are giving up our federal employees health benefit programs today, it's such a bad

idea. but they won't. because it's a great program and it works. and it gives us choice, and it empowers us as consumers. and if we don't like the way we're treated by the insurance company, we can shop for another one next year in open enrollment. so to argue that insurance exchanges are some radical notion, really, we live with it everyday as members of congress. don't the people of america deserve as good of insurance as their members of congress? that's the starting point in this debate. i think they do. secondly, when it comes to whether or not health care reform is going to add to the deficit or not, we can debate that for a long time. but the people who are the experts, the umpires and referees, are called the congressional budget office. they came back and told us, if you do this health care reform, you will reduce your deficit by over $100 billion in the first ten years and over $1 trillion in the second ten years.

that's it. they looked at t. they analyzed it -- they looked at it, they analyzed it and they concluded it. and i hear members come to the floor and say, this is just going to run the deficit up to higher levels than we've ever seen before. there's no evidence of that. and the c.b.o. that does the analysis comes out in exactly the opposite position. now, this argument about heaping a new burden on governors because there will be more people on medicaid. medicaid is health insurance for the poor and disabled in ameri america, and the federal government pays at least 50% of the cost of it. it's true, the states have to assume a burden, but it also tosses the state of illinois, with 11% unemployment, when people lose their jobs and lose their health insurance and go on medicaid, the federal government's going to pick up, in this case, 38% of the cost of these medicaid recipients in my state of illinois. 38%, rather, is picked up by the state, 62% picked up by the federal government. so governors can say, you know,

medicaid's a terrible thing. what's the alternative? more uninsured people in your state showing up seriously ill, needing treatment, being treated as charity patients? is that the alternative? i've listened carefully while the people on the other side of the aisle for over a year have criticized every idea we've come forward with on changing the health care system and making it more affordable, and i have yet to see them come forward with any kind of comprehensive bill. they have ideas and some of them aren't bad. but they've never put them together in a bill and brought them to the floor. we have. that's the responsibility of governing. there are other elements here too. the senator from florida is naturally concerned about senior citizens, and he should be. his state has a lot of them. in fact, a lot of snowbirds from illinois go down to illinois -- down to florida, spend their winters there and some of them end up becoming permanent residents. they love the nice climate in your state, and we miss them. and we go visit them too, i might add. but the point is that if we do

nothing about medicare, it's going to run out of money in nine years. run out of money and 40 million people-plus will wonder why congress didn't act. the health care reform bill adds ten more years to the life medicare, it closes the gap known as the doughnut hole in prescription drug coverage under medicare, and it gives every senior citizen a free annual checkup so that they can at least get in to see a doctor and find out if something's happening that might be stopped early and avoid a major expense for a major illness. those are dramatically positive improvements in medicare. now, are we going to have to take some money out of medicare spending? yes. were why? because we have waste in the time and things that need to be reconciled. for the senator from florida, let me give you a couple of illustrations. i live in springfield, illinois.

average expenditure annually for medicare recipients in my hometown is $7,600 a year, average. the average in chicago, illinois, for medicare recipients, $9,600 a year. the average expenditure for medicare recipients in miami, florida, $17,000 a year. miami may be a little bit more expensive than chicago. we can argue that point. but is it twice as expensive? i don't think so. i want -- i want to know why. why does it cost so much more in miami, florida and mccalland, texas than rochester minnesota? michael bennet said that after waste an fraud we're rot -- we're on the record. that's part of the bill. that's part of the health care reform bill. we can make medicare better and

stronger and save money. there are a lot of things being ripped off in medicare, turn on late-night tv and watch all the come-on ads for people to come out and get something that they may or may not need and medicare's going to take care of it. those are things that we have to take a look at and i think well worthwhile. let me also say something. we can't as a nation address the problems of health care with 50 million people uninsured and the numbers growing dramatically. our proposal will put 30 million of those under the protection of medicare part-d and health insurance through exchanges. we will provide thanks to the leadership of senator nelson of nebraska up to two or three years with the federal government picking up every penny of cost in the new medicaid recipients and beyond that high amounts, 90%, 95% for several years. it is a reasonable transition for the states to absorb people who are now uninsured presenting themselves for care. we end up with 30 million people

in coverage. the republicans best effort addressing the 50 million uninsured in america covered three million of them. we can do better. we need to do better as a nation. uninsured people show up at hospitals, incur costs, and pass them along to other people. i think that we need to move forward on health care reform. i got a call in my office on saturday. i was sitting around doing a few things at my desk by myself in my office and the phone rang in springfield and a lady was calling from dacomuk, illinois, it's a small town, a lot of farmers, conservative folks i represented in congress for a long time. she said, senator, whatever you do, don't vote for health care reform. i said, do you have health insurance? i said, we do. my husband and i have health insurance. i said, if you want to keep it, you can keep it. we're not changing that. well, i just worried about the government getting involved in

it, she says. she said, when government gets involved in insurance, i'm not sure it's a good thing. i said, is anybody in your family on medicare? well, sure, we all kind up for it and my mother, who's 85, is on medicare and recently had a major surgery at memorial medical center in springfield. how is she doing? just fine. i said, i'm glad. i'm glad that your mom could dependent on medicare to pick up the bills for her surgery and didn't have to sell whatever property she has left in this world. but that's a government insured plan, ma'am. it's there for all of us. my contributions out of my paycheck helps to pay your mom's medical bisms that's just fine with me. i think we're all in this american family and i think that we ought to watch out for each other. i didn't convince her. and the phone is ringing off the hook for senators and congressmen for and against this idea. there's a lot of misunderstanding out there i

think this is an important step forward. we put a lot of blood, sweat, an tears in this for america. we need to give people alternatives. watching health insurance premiums going up the way they're going up, it's unsustainable, individuals can't afford it, businesses can't afford it, our nation cannot afford it. as a member of the senate, that is your right, maybe your responsibility. i think you have a responsibility to come forward with your plan, with your idea, unless you think everything is fine, that we ought to thieve the way it is. that we shouldn't be worried about the uninsuredle we shouldn't be worried about the increases in health insurance premiums. we shouldn't be worried that medicare will go broke in nine years. if you think those are things that we should put aside, some say start over, baby steps, let's go back to it next year, that's a point of view. i don't think that meets the responsibilities that we have as a senate to address the issues

facing our nation. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. burris: thank you, mr. president. i want to commend my senior senator from illinois for his comments on health care and what we must do in this body to pass health care. it's long overdue, mr. president. it's time for us to work with our colleagues in the house of representatives and make sure that we cover those 50 million americans who are uninsured. mr. president, i'd like to do a little presentation here for some young men from chicago. in 2006, a brand-new school opened its doors to the community of inglewood on the south side of chicago. this school was called urban prep charter academy for young men. it was designed to provide

quality education to an area desperately in need of a new approach. local schools were failing. last year 93% of the public high school students in the neighborhood were classified as low income. public school attendance rate was around 68%. the local high school ranked 81st out of 98 public schools in terms of preparing students to succeed on college entrance exams like the a.c.t. until 2006, there were few places to turn. most residents were unable to afford to send their sons and daughters to expensive private schools. it seemed inevitable these young people would face an uphill fight to graduate from high school, let alone move on to get a college education and find a

good career. it seemed like there was no alternative and no way to break the cycle. but then in 2002, a group of african-american business persons, educators, and civic leaders came together under the leadership of a young man by the name of tim king. and they decided to find a solution. they started a nonprofit organization designed to give local residents the tools to succeed in college and to build a better future for themselves. they saw beyond the low-income level and the stereotypes and the destructive cycle that kept the neighborhood schools from succeeding. and in 2006, the inglewood campus of urban prep charter academy admitted its first class of students. mr. president, many charter

schools are able to cherry pick their students, selecting from the cream of the crop and ensuring a high success rate. but the founders of urban prep rejected this idea. they looked at the kids in inglewood public schools and they saw that every one of them had the potential for success if given the opportunity. so they selected students based on a lottery system rather than strictly by the numbers. they named some 400-plus names went into the barrel. and the names were drawn from the barrel. and today the very first class of urban prep students is preparing their graduation date. while other local schools have had attendance rates of only 60%, urban prep maintained an attendance of 91%.

a local school ranked 81st at preparing their students for the s.a.t. and an average score of 13.4. but urban prep is ranked third with an average a.c.t. score of 16.5. with the class 2010 enrolled in urban prep at 2006, only 4% of these students were reading at grade level. but today as their commencement date draws near, i'm proud to say that every one of them, 100% of the first year he's class has been accepted to a four-year college. not only that, mr. president, they were accepted with scholarships, four-year scholarships. this is an extraordinary success story, mr. president. this is a testament to the vision of tim king and the faculty and staff that he and

other local leaders have assembled. i applaud them for their dedication and i congratulate them on this outstanding achievement. but most of all, mr. president, this is a testimony to the students at inglewood and all the other communities in chicago. the students who broke the cycle proved that they do have the talent, the skill, the drive to succeed if only they were presented with the opportunity. thanks to urban prep and the leadership of those who founded this organization, these students got that chance. the story doesn't end here, mr. president. in august of 2009, a second urban prep campus opened its doors in east garfield park. and later this year a third school will open in south shore extending the reach of this great organization and expanding the opportunity for chicago students to realize their

dreams. so in the coming months, as my colleagues and i take up president obama's update on "no child left behind" law, i would urge them to remember success stories like this one as we reexamine our educational priorities, i hope that we can move in a direct that will provide investment to public schools that need assistance as well as organizations like urban prep. organizations that grow out of local communities and demonstrate a shared interest in seizing the best future or 4 children. we -- 4 or -- for our children, we need to invest in inglewood, and south shore, we need to ensure that more and more students have the opportunity to succeed so they can go to college, find a career, and become productive members of our society. as i always say, become an asset

to society and not a liability to vote. -- to society. it really does take a village, mr. president, to educate these young people. it takes a steadfast commitment to education and a vision like the one tim king shared with others and his community back in 2002. as a member of sigma pi phi fraternity, i take a special role. for we played a minor role in assisting urban prep with our fundraising efforts to contribute to the purchasing of these uniforms to these young men. and we also makure selves available to go there and work with them during career day to point our our successes and opportunities and to challenge them to do no less than what we were able to do so. so the men of sigma pi phi

fraternity worked with these young men at urban prep and we made sure that we made a similar contribution to their overall effort. so let us renew our investment in america's educational system. let us affirm our priority for the young people of today and make sure that every one of them has a chance to get an education they deserve. together we can build a more successful -- a -- more success stories like urban prep, and that's what we must do. an urban prep is a public school, so, therefore, we do not have to be dedicating all of the resources, commitment to the private schools. we can educate our young people and the -- in the public system. i thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22 the senate resume consideration of h.r. 1586 at 2:15 p.m. tuesday, march 16. further that during any recess adjournment or period of morning

business postcloture time continue to run. and that after the convening of the senate at 9:30 a.m. wednesday, the senate resume the house message with respect to h.r. 2847. and all postcloture time be considered expriored, the motion to concur with amendment be withdrawn and no further amendments or motionings be in order except as provided in the demint motion to suspend that it be in order for senator demint to offer a motion to suspend the rules in order to offer an amendment and if the motion is offered senator demint be recognized for up to 10 minutes. that upon disposition of the demint motion the senate then vote on the motion to concur on the house amendment to the senate amendment to the house amendment to the senate amendment to the bill. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection. mr. durbin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent t dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak about a dear and trusted friend. not just for me and my family, but for the people of lorain county, ohio. onhatcher, is a man -- john hatcher is man of conscience and courage, even in the face of criticism and attempts to silence him. in large ways and small ways john hatcher has done more for the working men and women of lorain county and organized labor than anyone else i know. he is a retired autoworkers member from the ford motor company assembly plant. for generations lorain helped to build the middle class the same way that american manufacturing

built america's middle class. he's long held a position of leadership in the union movement and to his fellow workers and those who championed them has never wavered. he is a member of the lorain county u.a.w. council. he has chaired the labor day -- an event that attracts lorain families to -- this every month john finds time to deliver food to the elderly. for many years that i've known john, 2 1/2 decades, he has been a fighter who is not afraid to stand up for what he believes. as he battles cancer, john's displaying the same vigor, the same fighting spirit. yesterday hundreds of family, friends, and elected officials joined in honoring john at the lorain county afl-cio lifetime achievement award. john said, and i was standing

with him. he said, i haven't been out in the community much in the last few months, but as the warm weather comes, i'll be back out soon. in many ways john's presence has helped lorain for the workers he helped and the causes he championed. he's made an invaluable contribution to the labor movement and you never wonder where you stand with john hatcher. he's the best kind of friend. he stands sturdy at your side in the high yes winds, but also willing to rein you in if you think you're getting too full of yourself. he's one of the kindest people i know, always greeting his friends with the twinkle in his eye. of all of his accomplishments, the hours of labor spent in the factory and union hall and picket line in fighting for others, if you ask john, his proudest achievement is his being a devoted husband to carole, one of my favorite people. and a loving father to six

children and 13 grandchildren and seven great grandchildren. thank you, john, for your service to the working men and women of lorain county. for your service to the state of ohio, for your service to our nation. connie and i are honored to consider you our dear friend. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the -- that the following be placed in a different place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to honor marilyn ropperson of massland, ohio, a proud grandmother of five eagle scouts. this year the boy scouts of america celebrates its 100 years of service to our nation. i have attended scout celebrations. around ohio and our nation families and friends, community and business leaders are celebrating scouting's

commitment to service, to protecting the outdoors, some of the original environmentalist, and to instilling the value of faith and fellowship. growing up in mansfield, ohio, a city of 50,000 in north central ohio, my parents installed in my brothers and me our own passion of commitment to community. my two brothers and i are eagle scouts, my mother wore a charm bracelets proclaiming her son's accomplishments. my eagle scout emblem was larger than my brother's. he always denied that. in many ways scouting commitment laid my groundwork to public service. i think there are six others in the united states senate, teachers and classrooms and model citizens everywhere in our country. on march 20, 2010, the boy scouts of america venture crew 10 of