will become eagle scouts. among those will be andrew and timothy bushman, who will be the fourth and fifth grandsons of mrs. roberson to become eagle scouts. marilyn is now 86 years old. like many of her role models she taught her grandchildren the capacity for selflessness and to have the confidence to serve with humility and honor. i knew marilyn's late husband, al, 25 years ago when i first met al and marilyn and several of their children. al grew up in mississippi across the street in tupelo from elvis presley and moved nortsdz, started a business -- north an started a business and was very successful and always marilyn and al gave back to their community. i congratulate andrew and timothy and matthew mckinny and

matthew michael terno for earning this important honor. i congratulate eagle scouts all across america. and the hundreds who earn this honor this year who learn to act with honor and loyalty. it's a parade of common and community purpose based in the scout oath and ever present in the 12 points of the scout law. while each of you as eagle scouts will forever be an eagle scout, your accomplishments are not easily defined by the number of badges earned but rather the character and the dignity you show in earning them. and for andrew and timothy, that dignity has been shaped by your remarkable grandmother, marilyn roverson. thank you, mr. roverson for your dedication to your family, for your service to our great state, and for the legacy you have created for so many. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. brown: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask consent to dispense with e quum cl. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the secretary inform the house that the senate's ready to receive the managers appointed by the house of representatives for the purpose of exhibiting articles of impeachment against g. thomas porteus jr., a judge of the united states district court for the eastern district of

louisiana, agreeable to the notice communicated to the senate and at the hour of 2:00 p.m. wednesday, march 17, 2010, the senate will receive the honorable managers on the part of the house of representatives and order that they may be present and exhibit the said articles of impeachment against the said g. thomas porteus, judge of the united states district court for eastern louisiana. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 455, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 4 455, honoring the life, heroism and service of hair i can't tell tell -- of harriet tubman. the esidg ofcer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be placed in the record at the appropriate plates as if read. -- appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from

further consideration of s. con. res. 53 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. con. res. 53, concurrent resolution recognizing and congratulating the city of colorado springs, colorado, and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements related to the measure be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i understand that h.r. 2314 has been received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: thesh will report. -- the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 2314, an act to express the policy of the united states regarding the united states relationship with native hawaiians and so forth. mr. brown: mr. president, i'd ask for its second request. the presiding officer: objection

is heard. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business, it adjourn until 10:15 on tuesday, march 16. that following the prayer and the pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be redispleived for their use -- predisplerved for their use later -- reserved for their use later in the day and the senate proceed to a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. further, that the time until 10:30 a.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designee and the time from 10:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. that following morning business, the senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, tonight we were able to reach an agreement to set the vote on the motion to concur with respect to

the hire act for 9:30 a.m. wednesday, march 17. tomorrow we'll resume consideration of the f.a.a. reauthorization bill and roll call votes in relation to the f.a.a. bill are possible tuesday afternoon. if there is no further business to come before the senate, mr. president, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:15 tomorrow morning.

>> they can quarrel and disagree. we take their analysis as the rules. that's what they said. >> the officer has expired

offered by mr. connelly. all of those in favor say aye. [aye] >> all those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, they have it. did anyone request the roll call? okay. the clerk will announce, will tally the vote and announce the vote. >> we just voiced it. >> yeah. we voiced it. >> we're going to number six. republican. >> you shouldn't be working this date at night. [laughter] >> we'll go for that. [inaudible conversations] >> okay. garrett? [inaudible conversations]

>> you say garrett. he's republican number six. >> where's the number? oh, i'm sorry. number six is garrett's -- i'm sorry. it's number six. is this not raising taxes? >> you say the motion is agreed to. >> for the record, the motion offered by the gentleman from virginia passed by the vote is agreed to. is there an additional motion on the republican side. mr. garrett, you are recognized for seven and a half minutes, six and a half minutes. >> okay. there we go. i have a motion that would protect american jobs and families by striking tax increases and mandates that would hinder job creation and reduce families income during

the periods of unemployment. one from a constitutional perspective and secondly economic perspective. chart 12, if i may. chart 12 shows us the unemployment rate where we are. this is christina romos numbers. remember, we pass ad the -- passed the economic stimulus pack aage. and the gray, middle gray line, was without the recovery plan of the unemployment. low and behold, even though we spent, what were the actual numbers? that's the real high red line up there at the top, peaking out 10 point something and still around 10. at historical levels such as

this, is this the right time to be imposing on families and small businesses an extra burden in the form of the health care tax? in 2007, which by the way is the time since the chair and speak ers pelosi took the gavel and held, the economy has lost over 8.4 million jobs, nearest high level in 27 years. people who have been out of work for a period of time, it's around 16%. what are we doing with the legislation opposing an additional tax on them? i think in the one area we should agree with cbo. it says if we put in the pay or play, it will penalize workers and further crippling our struggling economy. the cbo says, and i quote, requiring employers to offer or pay a fee if they do not is likely to reduce employment even further. is that what the other side of

the aisle wants to impose on the people who have been out of work on the 10% unemployment numbers, do you suggest it would better them to raise their unemployment level even further? stay out of work longer? the second point, and then i'll yield is on the constitutional grounds. the constitution recognized that they cannot and should not develop. the less liberty and self-determination is available to its citizen. i presume the members on the other side would look to regulate under the provision. components of the health care bill will claim that uninsured people create substantial economic effects by seeking free care from emergency rooms and because the mandate is congress and judgment necessary and proper for financing health care reform. but, if in fact, any activity that's being regulated or is it inactivity? what we are suggesting is occurs

is regulating in activity. that is to say, families who have decided not to buy insurance are now going to be regulated. spa businesses who have decided would now be regulated as well. this would be an extension of the constitution, an extension of the commerce clause, and an extension of the proper clause that the i don't think our founding fathers ever intended. this is not just my opinion. this is also the cbo, the entity that both sides of the aisle continue to look to. in 1994, the mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance -- the government has any further required as lawful resident and i would say we should not be doing so now. with the remaining 2:30 minutes left, i yield to mr. latta. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. we've talked about charts, but

somebody i look at is something that comes out from the jobs and family services breaks down the unemployment in the ohio. as a lot of members heard, i do represent the largest manufacturing district in ohio. the last one that came out. i have one district of 18%, two at 16, two at 15, six over 14, two over 13, one at 12, and one over 9. why is that important? why i'm out i'm trying to cover two counties a day. one thing i do, i go through as many businesses and factories that i can. i was in one business and the gentleman followed me out and said is this health care going to pass? i said i don't know yet. he said you were just in my store. you see the people. i've looked at the numbers. i won't be able to stay in business. i've gone through the smaller factories. they are taking everything that congress is doing and talking

about doing. you know, they've told me the same thing. one more mandate, one more thing out there, and we're out of business. i tell you, when you are talking about to folks with 18% unemployment down to 9% with the vast majority hanging in that 14 to 15%, there's no place for people to find a job. and it's getting tough out there. you know, i got some of my good friends have lost their jobs. and again all of these companies are saying the exact same thing. there's no way we can do this. when they heard the stimulus package, above 8% and you have a county with 18% you are in trouble. one the things that folks back home are looking for is making sure that we do the right thing. again, when you look at the small businesses out there, you know, they are going to be affected by the higher cost. and the more mandates, more regulations, increase taxes. these small businesses are the man -- economic engines that are

getting the economy moving again. unfortunately, i'm not going to see that happening if this business passing and neither will they. i think it's very, very important that we vote yes on this motion. thank you very much, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. who claims time? you are recognized for 7 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's interesting to listen to our colleagues. i would make three simple points. first there is a huge hidden tax right now on all americans and businesses. it is estimated that the average family that is insured is currently paying an extra over $1,000 a year, $368 per individual in insurance premiums just to cover the medical expenses of the uninsured.

uncompensate care provides a very serious distortion in our health insurance market. second, it's interesting to me to watch yet again our republican friends pivot as i watched when i introduced the bipartisan legislation to deal with end of life care which used to be a republican idea which most of them voted for. and then they started talking this mandate, if you go back and look at the history, actually was -- came out of conservative think tanks as part of the republican response to the clinton proposal to have employer-based health care in 1993 and 1994. at that point, it was good enough for the republicans. some of the same senators i've heard quoted against it supported it then. because they understand that

lowering insurance premiums on a comprehensive basis requires that people have to participate. you have to have an individual mandate, it was good enough for the republicans in 1993, 1994, it made sense then. it's one the examples of where we've moved in terms of the reform proposal to be inclusive, and now all of the sudden, the republicans are running away from it. well, the simple fact is if you want it to be affordable for everyone, we need to make sure that everyone is in this system. and a modest disincensive for those people who choose not a participate, to discourage people to wait until they are sick to take insurance, made sense in '94, it makes sense now, and it's important 37 finally, the motion of

protecting jobs. we have legislation here that is going to extent health insurance to an additional 30 million americans. this is going to create jobs. various estimates, 3, 400,000 a year to be able to have people with the streamline more efficient system is going to create employment opportunities. additionally, what is killing many of the small businesses in my opportunity is the spiraling cost where they are paying twice as much as big corporations to be able to provide health care for their employees, they are literally deciding between cutting jobs or reducing health care in some cases, both. this reform will make it possible to reduce the premiums for small businesses dramatically and provide them tax credits so that they will be able to provide affordable care for their employees.

creating jobs, reducing pressure on small business, making sure that we have a system that encourages the broadest possible participation and reducing the hidden tax of uncompensated care. i would respectfully suggest that this proposal is one that moves us in the wrong direction. i strongly urge it's rejection and support for the legislation. and i would turn to my colleague, the gentleman from los angeles, mr. bestta. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding time. i wonder if we are talking about fiscal policy or day one when president bush gave to keys to president obama. the greatest tax on americans on health care would occur if we do

nothing. today most american families who have insurance pay about $1,000 out of their insurance cost simply to cover the cost of americans who are uninsured and thereby, use the health care system and can't pay. the way those providers, doctors, and hospitals make up for those who can't pay the bill is to charge those who can, who have insurance. and so to talk about doing nothing is to tell americans you're going to provide a hidden tax on them to continue that tax of over $1,000 a year. that's not acceptable, at least anymore. because too many families are already going broke trying to sustain their current health care as it is. but more importantly, talking about making a change to health care, it's tough. reform is not easy. we know that. but you have to do it in a way that lets americans believe that

not only will we be good for them but we'll have done it in a way that's fiscally responsible. if i could have chart 11 on the screen. i believe one the difficulties many of us have with this debate is some would lead americans to believe that the cost of doing health care reform, that's not the chart that i was looking for. chart 9 -- excuse me, chart 9. the cost of doing business in this country is nothing. for the last 20 years we try to do it in a wholesale way. all of the sudden they are trying to purr -- persuade the american people you can do it free. what happens when you don't pay for it? take a look at the chart.

budget deficits sore. the deficit that is we see under president bush were astronomical. that's what president obama inherited. if we do this in a fiscally responsible way, not only will we be able to expand, but we'll remove the hidden tax that american families who do have health care pay today because too many americans don't. and so we plan to lower the cost to americans who have insurance. we plan to make it affordable so those who don't can get it. we tend to do it in fiscally responsible way to pay for what we do. i'll yield back to the gentleman. we tend to pay for the work we do. >> thank you. i want to conclude about talking about the republicans change in position. they are now against cutting medicare even though they had very ambitious programs to do it in the past, they have no qualmed about unfunded benefits,

and the mandate, the mandate came from conservative think tanks and was part of the republican approach in 1994, the collective amnesia is unsettling. >> chair yields the gentleman of new jersey. mr. jared has one minute to close. >> we've heard what is the fundamental difference? gentleman from oregon says it's good enough. it's not good enough to violate the constitution. it is not good enough if we have a bill that gives us less liberty, one that gives us less freedom. it is not good enough if one takes away our individual rights and decision making with regard, it is not good enough. on the economic front, i'm pleased to hear that jobs will be created. my guess would be these are going to be government jobs. when the gentleman from oregon speaks about premium reductions, that's not the way the studies have shown.

when the gentleman used to be, not the businesses that i hear, they are being told they have a mandate by or else. the families will be mandated by it or taxed by over $2,000. there's a clear differences. one is constitutional approach. it's a liberty approach that will help reduce the burdens on businesses and families and by passes this amendment, we will be saying do no harm to families, no harm to businesses, not certainly in the time of economic turmoil that we find ourself in today. >> time has expired. now occurs on the motion offered by mr. garrett. all of those in favor, say aye. [aye] >> all opposed say no. [no] >> the opinion the chair, the nos have it. the roll call have been requested. the clerk will call the roll.

[roll call] [roll call] oll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> are the additional members who wish to be recorded. >> mr. chairman, would you record me? >> no. >> how is mr. doggett recorded? mr. doggett, no. >> are there additional member who's wish to be recorded or

change their votes? if not, the clerk will announce the vote. >> mr. chairman on that vote the aye, 14; no, 21. >> it being 14ayes and 21 noes, the notion is not agrees to. chair recognized mr. boyd for 6:30 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your consideration in allowing me to offer this motion which will recommend to the rules. this reflects the student loan reform proposal that will preserve jobs and infrastructure throughout the country that are currently involved in the origination of student loans. as, you know, mr. chairman, since the education and labor committee was required to report

last year, i have expressed my concern to the complimentation of this switch to direct lending could prove detrimental to thousands of employee that is serve in the current student loan industry throughout the country. i'll have to confess that about 700 of those are in the district that i happen to represent, employed by sally mae, located in panama city, florida. i have worked hard and diligently since those reconciliation constructions to find a compromise that would be acceptable to chairman miller and the other leaders. so far, i've been unsuccessful to bring that in for landing. mr. chairman, sally mae has indicated it will cut it's payroll by about 30% should the direct lending reconciliation constructions being enal acted. i'm supporting in stabilizing the industry and supporting