the details of the legislative process, and even the integrity of our constitutional duties. let's consider the underlying health care legislation itself. using the president's proposal, because it's built upon the same philosophy as the house and senate health care bills, first, the most fundamental problem is that this legislation is not about health care. at the base, essence of it, it's about ideology. it moves away from the american idea and toward a european-style welfare state that will leave millions of americans into becoming more detendent upon the government rather than upon themselves. even though it's not single payer, and even though without the so-called public option, this is still a government takeover of health care. and here is why we keep saying that. the entire architect surdesigned to give the federal government control over what kind of insurance is available for pati,@rr)r$#rr

the proposal gives the secretary of health and human services a new health benefits advisory committee, an unelected group of bureaucrats to change the requirements for acceptable coverage. it gives the u.s. preventive

services task force new powers to further limit patient choice allowing the secretary of hhs to unilaterally deny payment for prevention services contrary to task force recommendations. it empowers an effectiveness board created by stimulus bill to help provider decisions about what treatment is best for that your patients. as i pointed out at the blair house summit a few weeks ago, the reality of this bill violates the president's promise that this legislation will, quote, not add a dime to our deficit, closed quote. my friends will say the cbo has scored this overhaul and says it reduces the deficit. here in this committee we work with cbo every day. they are great hard-working people and great professionals and they do their work very, very well but let's be very clear. cbo's job is to score what is placed in of them. the authors of the gamed the

system themselves. when you strip away the gimmicks, the double-counting and the faulty assumptions it is clear that this overhaul does not reduce the deficit and it does not contain costs. this charade both today's blind markup and the entire past year of debate is dispiriting in so many ways. there are real problems that need to be fixed in healthcare and we could have done so in a bipartisan way. that's the shame of all of this. we agree on the key problems and agree that real reform is needed. skyrocketing healthcare costs are driving families, businesses and government to the brink of bankruptcy and leaving millions of people without adequate coverage. we agree on the need to address preexisting conditions, realign the incentives of insurance companies with patients and doctors and root out waste, fraud and abuse. we agree on the problems. and even rhetorically on many of the same goals. yet the past 12 months have crystallized the differences in approaching to fixing what's broken in healthcare.

it didn't have to be this way. and it doesn't have to stay this way. at the blair house summit vice president biden claimed we aren't qualified to speak on behalf of the american people. i respectfully disagree then and now. we are representatives of the american people. we communicate every day with those we serve and it's clear that they are engaged. the people we represent and i suspect most of us passionately believe to fix what's broken in healthcare but i don't believe this is the way to do it. the abuse of the legislative process, the abuse of the constitution and massive government takeover of healthcare in america. this process is not worthy of your support. this is not worthy of your vote. let's start fresh and let's work seriously to address this issue and let's do it together. mr. chairman, before we move on to the motions, i'd like to ask for the requisite 48 hours to submit minority views. >> so ordered.

>> now under section 310 of the congressional budget act of 1974, the budget committee will proceed to report the reconciliation act of 2010 to the house without any substantive revision. this process means that the consideration of the amendments of the bill is prohibited by law. and any motion to amend would be ruled out of order. i now recognize the gentlewoman of pennsylvania our vice chair for the motion, the motion of the reconciliation board before us. >> mr. chairman, i move the committee on budget reported to the house without recommendation, the reconciliation act of 2010. >> the question comes on the ordering of the reconciliation act of 2010 to be reported to the house without recommendation. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. >> no.

>> in the opinion of the chair the aye have it and the roll call has been requested. the clerk will call the roll. [the clerk calling the roll] [the clerk calling the roll] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

>> are there members who wish to record their votes who have not voted? or changed their vote? if not the clerk the report the vote. >> mr. chairman, on that vote, the ayes are 21, the no's 16. >> there being 21 ayes and 16 no's the reconciliation act is agreed to and we report to the house without recommendation. i would note a quorum is presentation and the motion upon consideration is laid upon the table. the request is noted for the record. i recognize the gentlewoman of pennsylvania for another request. >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent with respect to the

reconciliation and legislation just reported that the chair be authorized to offer such motions in the house as may be necessary to enter a conference with the senate on the reconciliation act of 2010 pursuant to clause one of the house rule 22. that the staff be authorized to make any necessary technical and conforming corrections prior to filing the bill and the motion to be reconsidered be laid on the table. >> without so objection it is so ordered. >> i got it. this concludes the procedural portion of the markup that's required by the 1974 budget act. the committee has reported the reconciliation bill to the house. without revision. we now turn to the consideration

of nonbinding motions or recommendations to instruct the chairman to go to the rules committee and request certain amendments be made and ordered. we must conclude this portion of the meeting before midnight tonight. that's our mandate and we intend to keep it. within that limitation, each side will be allowed to offer a maximum of 10 nonbinding motions to instruct. but as i said, we must finish before midnight tonight. by agreement with the minority, the time for debate on motion to instruct if offered shall be limited to 20 minutes with the time equally divided between the proponent and the member in opposition. and when each member offering a motion completes his or her opening statement, the member should have the right to reserve 1 minute to close or rejoin. without objection, we're prepared to consider motions to instruct. who seeks recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman.

and i would also like to thank the ranking member. i think we all recognize the importance of today's markup. and the gravity to which decisions that are being made here today and certainly no one is new to the -- to the arguments and debates that have been made, and i think both -- certainly the ranking member and the chairman have done a great job of outlining what's before us and what the debate is. and certainly the american people understand and recognize what it is that the congress is about to do. this first motion to instruct would prohibit the use of comparative effectiveness to restrict medical professionals from providing and/or prescribing the care they believe to be medically necessary. and i think this really goes to the core of a lot of the frustration that you're feeling and that you're hearing from the american people.

the american people want the relationship between themselves and their doctor to be preserved. they do not want to see the federal government, bureaucrats and politicians making decisions that would have a negative impact on themselves and their families and their lives. the idea that somehow a bureaucrat or a politician knows what's best for a patient is absurd. and what we're saying is let's preserve that relationship, that doctor/patient relationship and let's think about this for a second and if i may, i'm just going to give you a little family story here. i had an uncle mike who passed away of cancer at a very early age. and it was -- it was his doctors that really provided the care. and it was that -- it was the family meeting with the doctors

that we could talk about what's best for him and how to get through his illness. and what procedures to take and what tests and what medicine. it was very personal. later on down the line, my grandfather died of cancer. and again it was that relationship between my grandfather, our family, and the doctor that helped set a course that we used to fight -- try to fight cancer and try to win and try to extend his life. later on my mother got breast cancer and she survived. and again, it was that relationship with her doctor that she was able to -- and as a family talk with the doctor about what is the best course of action. now, imagine if somehow there was a washington bureaucrat or a politician that was in the mix,

that is not -- you know, the last thing in our mind when my mother was fighting her breast cancer was the idea that government somehow was going to control what kind of procedure she could have, what medicine she could have, what the proper course of actions were. it was the doctors and my mother and our family who made those decisions. again, later my father ended up with melanoma and he survived. and he survived because of the relationship between my father, our family and his doctor. later on my sister got cancer. and again, it was that relationship between the doctor, my sister and our family. not a washington bureaucrat, not a politician that made those decisions. the american people are saying

loud and clear, hands off, stay away. we do not want you involved in our healthcare decisions. this is a very personal decision for many people. and lastly, i just would like to to say this that i have a young daughter and a young son and as they grow older, what's going to help them through their challenges in medicine is going to be the relationship between the doctor and them. if we do not move forward with this motion to instruct, i'm afraid that it's going to be the washington bureaucrats, government. it's going to be politicians that are going to decide the care of my children and your children. the american people have said loud and clear they do not want

government involved in the decisions that are being made on their healthcare. they want to preserve that for the doctor, for themselves and for their doctor. this is an important motion. i think this goes to the heart of what the frustration, the fears are with the american people. and i would hope that all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize the importance of this and will support this motion to instruct. and at this time i'd like to ask the congressman if he would also like to make some comments. >> i thank the congressman for yielding. [inaudible] >> let me go back and kind of reemphasize the fact that this bill does certain things and has certain measures that empowers and one of those is what was in the stimulus bill referred to as the federal coordinating counsel

for comparative research. i want to close some language in the stimulus bill in the direction we are going with this. quote, by knowing what works best and presenting this information more broadly to patients and healthcare professionals, those items and procedures and investigations are most effective to prevent control and treat health conditions will be utilized while those that are found to be less effective and in some cases more expensive will no longer be prescribed. and this healthcare plan empowers this comparative effectiveness board and creates new bureaucracies. these are measures that take away the ability of doctors and their patients to decide together what is best for the patient and i also want to share a story if i may very quickly because my father was a physician. my mother because a nurse. i had a brother who was a doctor and a sister who's a nurse and a sister who's a doctor. we have a lot of healthcare professionals in our family. big family i come from. but we grew up in a small town

in in xenia. but my father had the same relationship that the gentleman from florida talked about with every one of his patients. he lived with them, he went to church with them. he cared for their well-being and he trusted them. and when he made a recommendation on care they needed, it was because that was the care that that individual required. not because statistically it was a cheaper option on some government scale. allowing the government to make healthcare decisions on behalf of patients will fundamentally change the relationship between an individual in the federal government. we need to reform healthcare reform while preserving the doctor/patient relationship with commonsense reforms that give individuals maximum control over their healthcare decisions, not more government interference. if in any way this bill limits an individual's right to choose their own healthcare provider or coverage or limits a patient's right to choose their own doctor and whatever treatment that patient or doctor chooses for themselves or their family, it's wrong.

this motion to instruct will ensure that even if there's any uncertainties in this bill, that this 1,000-page bill will ensure the doctor/patient relationship and that's extremely important and with that, mr. chairman, i will yield back to the gentleman from florida. >> thank you. and i think we'll wait to close. oh, wait, i'm sure. -- i'm sorry. >> you want me to close? >> please. >> take the last 36 seconds. >> look, the whole point we're trying to make with the motion to instruct is this. the architecture of this idea if you could bring up chart 4, please, is the government is becoming the dominant player in this healthcare legislation. the only way to contain costs under this kind of policy is to deeply and systematically ration care that's why these bureaucracies are being put in place. we heard the man in canada who

had a hip replacement because he was. if she was a british citizen you can't get it if you have ovarian cancer that's why we oppose this. >> i recognize in opposition mr. bishop and mr. laurel. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. let me start off and let me thank mr. mack for offering this motion because it give us an opportunity to have the kind of fact-based discussion on what is in and what is not in this bill that i think the american people deserve. under the heading of fact, nothing in this legislation would in any way tell a doctor how to practice medicine. there is not a single provision in the bill that gives the government the ability to determine what treatment an individual can receive. let me quote from the house bill under the comparative effectiveness research. nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the

commission to mandate coverage reimbursement or other policies for any public or private payer. next page under the heading of protecting the patient relationship. nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize any employer to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine. that's pretty clear. next page, research may not be used to deny or ration care. that's pretty clear. senate bill, and their comparative effectiveness research section. comparative effective research shall not be construed as mandates for practice guidelines, coverage recommendations, payment or policy recommendations. so there is nothing that is contemplated or suggested in the language of any of the bills before us that would allow for the sort of nightmare scenarios that are envisioned bit legislation. let me say a couple of other things. comparative effectiveness research has been -- has had

bipartisan support up until this year. the 2003 medicare modernization act which was written by a republican-controlled house and republican-controlled senate and passed largely with republican votes required -- required the department of health and human services to conduct research on the, quote, outcomes comparative clinical effectiveness and appropriateness in of healthcare items and services. i'm quoting from the legislation. president bush supported comparative effectiveness research in fiscals '06 and '07, he requested $15 million for comparative effectiveness research in fiscal '08, '08. he recommended 30 million in '08 and $50 million in '09. we have a long history of supporting comparative research. physicians support comparative effectiveness research. let me tell my own anecdote. not with my family but this july

i received a call from a cardiologist from my hometown, a guy who has practiced for 30 years and he said he needed my help. he needed my help with an insurance company because he had a 35-year-old patient who had gone to the emergency room on a sunday afternoon complaining of chest pains. emergency room gave him an ekg. it was normal and they sent him home. he came back to the cardiologist later on in the week because he was still experiencing chest pains. the cardiologist wanted to have him undergo what's called a thallium stress test or a nuclear stress test. he fought with this gentleman's insurance company for five weeks to get the insurance company to provide approval for this procedure to take place. five weeks. he then calls me and asks me if i will please intercede with the president of the insurance company to get that insurance company to acquiesce and provide coverage.

we have a government provided healthcare subsidy it's called a medicare. if that was a 75-year-old patient complaining of the exact same symptoms that cardiologist would have offered the test and the test would have been approved in a heartbeat, no pun intended. so we clearly have -- we are envisioning a system here in which we are returning control of healthcare decisions to where they belong. and that is they belong with patients and they belong with physicians not with the bureaucrats who administer healthcare insurance companies and with their principal focus being maximumization of profit not protection of patients. and with that i will yield to my colleague. >> okay. this one sounds okay.

i'm in opposition to the motion because once again i think it seeks to frighten and to mislead the american public. our republican colleagues choose now to attack healthcare quality research on one side of their mouth while on the other side they defend the insurance companies who are the real ones who are interfering with patients and with their doctors. that is at the coffer this. not comparative effectiveness research. that isn't it? and imagine being told that your doctor thinks you need surgery for cancer or another condition and then your insurance company says, they don't cover the procedure or you have a lifetime cap and you cannot afford that care or you get into an awful horrible car accident and you're told your insurance company is dropping you because you fail to disclose an unrelated illness years ago. i don't make up that story. that really happened to jennifer

lathum a former preschool teacher and a mother of four of the plan in colorado. it sets new rules of the road for insurance companies to protect consumers from these abuses. and my colleague -- i was pleased to hear from my colleague, mr. mack, because insurance company interference in patient care is one reason that i introduced several years ago the breast cancer patient protection act. and i was joined this year by our republican colleague joe barton. and i want to applaud my colleague, mr. mack, because you are an original cosponsor of that piece of legislation. over the years countless stories from women who say that they're -- literally kicked out of hospitals after surgery for a mastectomy and they're kicked out within 24 hours or less when they're not ready to go home, either physically or psychologically. that bill passed in the house by bipartisan support, 421-2.

and the insurance companies killed it. on the senate side. we can't be in the position of agreeing to setting some basic rules for mastectomy and not want to help people with other -- with other efforts. that's why that we want to move forward. there is nothing in this bill, nothing that would get in the way of the patient/doctor relationship. what gets in the way of the patient/doctor relationship are insurance companies and, yes, indeed, yes, indeed, there are insurance company reforms in this bill. and that's why my colleagues should support the healthcare and be opposed to this motion. i would like to yield now to our colleague, mr. andrews. >> i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i'm a philadelphia area baseball fan. and your family has done an awful lot for philadelphia or

baseball so i appreciate the sorry so there's none of us who wouldn't want our grandfather or our sister or whomever to get the care you discussed. that's why the bill expressly says that comparative effectiveness research can't be used to set reimbursement rates under medicare. comparative effectiveness research is really about the best minds in healthcare and research coming together and figuring out what works. and then to encourage people to use what works but there is not a word, not a word in this legislation that would permit anybody be denied care because of it and i would to join what ms. lauro says there's rationing of healthcare in america. it's rationed by insurance companies who decide they would rather fatten their bottom line than provide care to people. and i think everyone in this room have had constituents or family members rather or others call them and talk about these problems. members of congress should not

have to be making phone calls to presidents of insurance companies to ask them to provide chemotherapy or heart surgery for people who paid their premiums. the purpose -- one of the purposes of this underlying legislation makes sure that doesn't happen anymore. this isn't a government takeover of healthcare. it's a consumer takeover of healthcare and it's long overyou due. i yield back to my friend, mr. bishop. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i yield 30 seconds to ms. mccollum -- [inaudible] >> we all agree but we do know insurance companies are the ones interfering with it right now. in fact, the american medical association and many other health groups have endorsed this comparative effectiveness research and with that i yield back to mr. bishop. >> building back and to close congressman captain. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding and we'll put a chart up on the boards when the

insurance companies stand between the patient and the doctor, what they do with the money that they take by denying care -- it is unbelievable that companies like wellcare their ceo makes $20 million a year. cigna, over $12 million a year. that doesn't count their vested stock options and their regular stock options and everything else they have. they are taking money from the american people and denying them care and i might say, mr. mack, we want the same coverage your parents got through the federal employee health plan for all the american people, coverage just like congress gets, private coverage for all the american people. >> mr. mack is recognized for 1 minute to close. >> thank you. and you know what? i feel sorry for you because you have to make an argument on this that just doesn't make sense. on one hand you're saying that, yeah, you want to preserve the doctor/patient relationship and then on the other you have

things that you're supporting that will destroy that. and if i can remind you about the u.s. preventive services task force that recently had the controversial recommendations regarding mammograms. .. dear friend of mine who is in her 30s has breast cancer, and if she wasn't able to have the mammogram who knows where she would be today and who knows where her children would be, so to be able to sit there and in one hand say that you want to preserve that doctor/patient relationship and on the other hand somehow say you're not going to support this motion to instruct, again, i feel sorry for you, and i know there's a lot of pressure that you're feeling from the speaker and from others, but the american -- it's true, yes, it is. the american people -- the american people know what this bill is, even though the president said in his state of

the union that maybe somehow the >> maybe somehow the american people haven't understood -- members, please support this. >> we now turn to the democratic side and recognize -- i beg your pardon. do you want to record a vote? all of those in favor of the mac amendment motion say aye. all those opposing know. the nose have it. spent i asked for a recorded vote. >> the clerk will records the vote. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] >> additional members who wish to reap the records have not been recorded? any members who wish to have their vote change? if not the clerk will announce the vote. >> mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 14, nays 22. >> the motion is not agreed. >> are there additional motions?

ms. schwartz is recognized for emotional. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i've a motion to instruct. and this is a particularly important motion. there will be a number of them, but there's some aspects of the health care reform legislation that we are moving forward today. one of the most common sense, understandable issues, the american people, is there are going to be new rules for insurance companies. commonsense rules, that will create protections for americans and being able to ensure that they can buy affordable, meaningful coverage. it is a major issue for americans with someone in a family who has a preexisting condition that they have been unable to bite insurance coverage that's affordable or in some cases, unable to buy any insurance for that particular health problem. just two quick stories, if i may, from constituents of mine. one of them call that my office and said she had recently unemployed, she had a son, her

son had hemophilia. her husband was self-employed. so they went out to find insurance for their family. and, in fact, could not find insurance coverage that would cover the hemophilia that their son had. so they were faced with devastating high costs on the fear that their son would not be able to get the health coverage that they needed. this legislation would end that practice. starting almost immediately, insurance companies would not be able to deny coverage for children with preexisting conditions. all children in this country will be protected, and be able to get the insurance coverage that they need and their family is trying to provide for them. the other quick story i will give is a six month old baby who had john does and is a newborn in the hospital was put under the ribbon lights, when his parents applied for insurance for him, they said they would not give him in insurance even though he was a healthy six

-month-old, because he was a slightly higher risk than when he was in his '70s, he might be susceptible to liver disease. and they denied coverage for him, healthy six -month-old. who had potentially considered private preexisting condition. this is unacceptable. americans were trying to take responsibly for themselves and their families cannot find affordable health insurance, health registration that we are putting forward to getting the process today would end that practice and enable all americans to be able to buy health insurance that covers preexisting conditions for themselves and their families. and i'm proud to be able to offer this amendment. i did want to ask a couple of my colleagues to join in support of this amendment. so i would like to give two minutes to mr. blumenauer. >> thank you very much. i appreciate your courtesy, and permitting me to speak on and appreciate you bringing it forward. because this is an example of the disconnect between some of our well intended, i'm sure,

rhetoric from our friends on the other side of the aisle. and the reality that is faced by the american public. this notion somehow about being concerned about government bureaucrats coming between people and their health care. as you and others have pointed out already, this is happening every day. only, they are not a government agency with rules of the road to have been established through a democratic process, these are would have taken place within the insurance industry itself. and nowhere is this more insidious than it does with preexisting conditions. members of congress can take off the number of our colleagues, i got over 100, who would be uninsurable but for government insurance that we get like every other federal employee. people with heart problems, cancer, multiple sclerosis, artificial -- you go through the

list of our colleagues, who would not be able to have an insurance. and i think they would be more eager, frankly, to be concerned about health care reform on the other side of the aisle if they face the problems that our constituents face. our friends have offered up an idea -- they sort of understand we need to do something about preexisting condition, but they talk about some sort of transitional high-risk pools. two-thirds of the states have high-risk pools now. they cover only a couple hundred thousand people. it's expensive. it's not a solution. it's a dodge. i strongly urge the approval of this motion, and you back to my colleague from pennsylvania. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments. and behalf of the american people i want to also ask one more, two minutes to let her comments on this amendment. or motion your. >> thank you so much, madam vice

chair, for yielding to me. i could tell you as a woman with three children, and as a victim of domestic violence, it is really a relief to see that we have a piece of legislation that prevents insurers from discriminating against youth at the casa preexisting conditions. when you're a woman you're caught in this conundrum that you are in actual actual, potential or former mother. and so, the health care costs for women have always been costlier because of this particular biological fact. and to think of how outrageous it is to have an insurer not qualify you for health care the if you've been the victim of domestic violence, to actually say, because you've been beat up by a partner, we will not injure you. this is absolutely outrageous that this is one of the worst, most despicable practices that

the government takeover of health and insurance reform will and. thank god we are taking over this particular defect in insurance coverage. i yield back. >> thank you. and i just want to add that everyone of us us as we speak to our constituents, hear stories about the inability of americans to be able to buy affordable health insurance in the private marketplace. this legislation is going to do, is going to enable americans to have a fair shot at being able to find affordable coverage in the private marketplace. they will be new commonsense rules of the road for insurance companies. it's about time americans who are out there shopping for health insurance are able to find affordable, meaningful coverage for themselves and their families. and every day we don't do this, it means that some of our sickest children, some of our sick of adults, and some of us who just want to take care of

ourselves and findings early and know how to prevent diseases from getting worse, don't get the care that they need. they don't go to the doctor because they know they won't be able to afford to. they don't take medicines because they know they can't afford to pay for it. they are calling on us to do something, to make sure that they can buy affordable, meaningful coverage. and having a preexisting condition in the family has made it almost impossible for literally hundreds of thousands of americans to buy meaningful coverage. action we take today will believe that sense of insecurity. that so many americans have. and i would imagine hearing the stories from the other side, each and everyone of us have someone in our family or know someone who works with us or ourselves who have the situation. and worry about losing a job, worry about being between a job, where about not being able to get the health coverage we know we need, taking this action today moves us forward to address what is an unsustainable

problem for so many americans. and really important for all of us. and i ask for unanimous consent would be very nice, for this motion to instruct. and i yield back. >> mr. chairman? >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, this is a concept we all agree on and i think the american people agree on. but let's just have a little bit of a reality check and commonsense. in order to do with this issue, you do not need a 2000 page monstrosity. there's agreement on this issue. you know, obviously having pre-existing condition should not prevent one from having access to quality health care. the american people understand and we understand it. we agree on that. and there's, there's other reforms that the american people support and that we can agree on. but again, and since that it doesn't require 2000 page

government takeover of health care to accomplish this particular issue. and some other things that i think the american people want. the republican alternative that was offered back in november would have done that without a 2000 page bill, and it would have done so sooner. and this proposal in this bill, that doesn't even take into until 2014. republican alternative would have kicked in immediately. now look, again, we can disagree on some small details on this issue about whether we should tweak it here or tweak it there. what let's just be straightforward and honest with the american people. it does not require 2000 pages. it doesn't require massive tax increases. that does not require a rating medicare. as is not require all this monstrosity in order to deal with the fact that their people the have preexisting conditions and should have access to quality health care that we all agree on.

so a little while ago i heard the statement that this is not a solution, it's a dodge. let me tell you about that big bill himself, that's not a solution. that is a dog. it is a flea infested, tick infested, parasite infected special interest infected, wet, smelly dog. we don't need that in order to deal with some issues that the american people agree on. this is one of those issues that we can agree on, and i would hope that everybody could take a step back, take a deep breath, listen to the american people, listen to our conscience, get the things done that we need to do, including deal with preexisting conditions without imposing this utah dog of a bill that the american people don't want, that the american people can't afford, that will cause a lot more damage than good. and with that, what i would like to do if that's all right, mr. chairman, i would like to yield some time to the gentleman from

alabama. >> first of all, let me stress again that this is an important issue. this is an issue that is a bipartisan issue. the truth of the matter is that the republicans, included in the provision in the alternative. again, as my colleague just pointed out, the democrat senate bill does not industry nation based on preexisting conditions until the year 2014. the republican bill would put the ban into effect immediately. this is just another example how the majority has just back room deals to craft health care legislation that hurts more than it helps. republican support indian discrimination based on preexisting conditions immediately. unfortunately, under the democratic bill if you are, if you have a preexisting condition, you will have a difficult time finding health insurance between now and the year 2014. and the republican plan the

discrimination ends once the bill is signed into the law by the president. the republicans have proposed several reforms to the insurance industries such as not allowing insurers to take away your insurance. but we have all been blocked out of health care discussions that have moved forward. unfortunately, this bill is not about reform. it is about democratic priorities and about supporting partisan ideology. health reform should not be a partisan issue. but it should be something that we should move forward and together, and one of those solutions is an discrimination based on preexisting conditions, not today, not on 2014. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. chairman? i don't want to be repetitive, but again, the bill that the republicans have submitted many, many months ago would have ended that quite a way. this is and it until 2014.

we agree with the concept. we agree it has to be done, so again, we don't object to this. what we object to is using a 2000 page vehicle that will do so much harm to the american people. do understand, to get, to reject, to do something like this that we could do in a very few pages and very little time, if the majority just want to get out of this back room smoke-filled, you know, private meetings. and if they're willing to go to the public, do in public and to in the sunshine we could pass a bill in a matter of days to do this without creating this whole burden some 2000 page monstrosity that we are about to impose and ran down the throats of the american people. without i yield back. thank you. >> ms. schwartz has one minute to close. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know it's almost hard to figure out how to start here in

one minute but let me just quickly say, we have been to bunning this bill for one year. most of those debates and hearings and votes have been on the air. and the legislation, and it is fairly long, it is complicated, but it is important. and sometimes something important takes a few pages to talk about. we always hoped there would be republican cooperation, but the fact is the republican alternative said those with preexisting conditions would go into high-risk pools and have to pay whatever they had to pay. several states have it now, provide some relief. it's not adequate. the fact is that our legislation moves ahead, and for the first time in this country, would say that all americans would have access to coverage whether they have a preexisting condition or not. they are immediately behind the school for adults, immediately insurance companies would be prohibitive from excluding children with preexisting conditions. this is important for americans, and i look for to sing it

passed, not only this motion, but going ahead with health care reform. and i yield back. >> any additional a minute on the republican side? mr. campbell? i beg your pardon. i'm anxious to move along. [laughter] >> the vote knockers on the motion by ms. schwartz. all of those in favor say aye ko. all of those opposed they know. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. do want to record the vote? the generally requires to record the vote. all right. let's move forward. >> is there an additional motion on the republican side? mr. jordan is recognized for nine minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, who would've thought this great country we would have seen the things we have over this past year. who would have thought we were

to present of the nicest fire the ceo of general motors? who would have thought we, the taxpayers, would own general motors? who would've thought we would see this congress pass a so-called $700 billion spending package that hasn't done the first thing to stay in the economic growth? who would've thought the united states of america, would have a federal government pays are telling private american citizens how much money they can make? who would have thought in this great country would have a $1.4 trillion deficit, a 12 trillion-dollar national debt? and now, mr. chairman, who would have thought this congress and his administration would again attempt to ram through this health care bill using a partisan reconciliation process? simply put, mr. chairman, the american people have had enough. they told democrats know in august. note september. they told them no advice given, no in christmas when they try to pass this bill. they said no when the democrats wanted to do by the state of union and they will say no to more 1000 americans come to washington again to say enough is enough. during the past year i've traveled around our district

throughout ohio and i've seen firsthand the emergence of a grassroots movement, people who in large part by the arrogant and out of control federal government. millions of americans of every walk of life have stood up and in many cases for the first time, to make their voices heard. they gather in town squares. they organize, they pray, and they marched on washington. far from the dangerous extremists, the other side and the elite may characterize them as, these ordinary people, mom and dad, grandpa's and grandmas. they are freedom loving americans if you like the government is ignoring them. they work hard everyday so that their kids and grandkids can have life and little better than they did. and they believe that there are ideals and principles that make this country special and they see those principles being assaulted every day and you. i think economies and gathered in town squares where our founding document have been distributed and even read about. and no matter how many times i could them, i am always moved by the principles they promote.

and i would argue the declaration of independence, next to scripture, the words that start that document that started this great nation, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and down by the greater with certain enable life, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. i think it's interesting to note the order, and we've offered this before, but the order, can you pursue happiness, can you go after your goals and your dreams, those things that have meaning and significance to you if you first don't have liberty? if you've first don't have freedom? and it do you ever expressed true liberty, true freedom and the government doesn't protect your most fundamental right, you're right to live? the majority of americans who believe like i do that life is precious and it is a sacred gift from god. and over that time whenever disagreement there were with those of us who don't share those beliefs, there was a shared understanding that federal dollars should not be used to take innocent human life.

since 1976, the hyde amendment has done just that. under long-standing policy, no federal dollars are used to pay for abortion or abortion services. the senate passed health care bill would dramatically change that. it represents the largest threat to innocent human lives since the roe v. wade supreme court decision to fortunate there's another way. when the house passed its own health care bill this past november, we include stupak amendment. the amendment simply says that no federal dollars can go to pay for abortion are subsidized a plan that covers this procedure. discontinue the current policy under the hyde amendment and make sure that it is permit applied to any health care reform law that is overwhelmingly passed the house with the support of all but one republican, and one-fourth of the democrat caucus. the motion i'm offering to do is agree state of the stupak gets a minute. it depends the senate bill. this is important. the will of this house on this amendment has been clear. it would be irresponsible for this committee to pass that

reconciliation instructions without this important amendment being included. and not only is it the will of this body but of the american people. polling in ohio and across the nation indicates that 70 percent of americans are opposed to the federal dollars being used to pay to take the life of an unborn child. i've heard some people say the life of vision in the senate bill are adequate, that they can go for the senate bill and continue to claim the pro-life label. that simply is an active because of the appropriate $7 billion for sinners many of which are located in digits represent. and a seven-point as the subject of hyde amendment protections because the phone is not in the appropriations bill. the senate bill also authorizes tax subsidies for plans that cover abortion. this is a slap in the face to pro-life americans who will not be forced to pay for this procedure. by adopting this motion the house will send a strong message that at its most basic level real health care reform respects and protects human life. we send that signal in november when the house passed the stupak

amendment to its principles must include in any fix that has worked out in the future. that is why this committee must adopt this motion to ensure that any bill that becomes law has airtight and absolute protection for human life. i along with my pro-life college and birdhouse would've to continue working towards that goal. just 10 days ago and i will end with this, mr. chairman. former buckeye and nfl start crisp human stood before a packed house in columbus oh how. there he was, one of the toughest guy to ever play the game of football recount a very tender and touching story about a challenge he and his wife faced a few years ago. chris and stephanie when the midst of her bout with cancer that she was two years cancer free when she came to chris with a harsh drop in news that a husband and dad don't want to hear. something is happening she told. i don't you're right that i need to see a doctor. what they learned was that stephanie was pregnant, and that would normally be joyous news. but because of her cancer they were faced with a unique talent that tested their fate that stephanie was on a drug, for her

cancer and they were told that a baby had never been born to a mom on that drug. they were given three choices, stay on the drug and risk losing the baby, terminate the pregnancy or go off the drug and risk losing both mom and baby. he has a pitiful seven ago that he is crazy about. mr. chairman, in this debate we have an even greater choice to make. we are not just making decisions our own families but for millions of american families that pro-life majority in this country is make who will not allow our values to be hijacked by this debate. on the issues of life, we are about to pass notes to read in public service is the choice of clear or the stakes higher. now is the time for such to the. i urge my colleagues to choose life and support this motion. with that, mr. chairman, ideal the bounds of my time. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. too many times in this congress we have seen legislation pass along party lines. today americans do this is one of the most polarized congress is that they have seen. however, we have seen some

moments of bipartisanship in this congress. last fall while debating the democrat health care bill, there were 64 democrats and join with 176 republicans to favor the stupak-pitts a minute. this amend prohibits the federal funding of abortions in the new health care bill. as has been the case with the hyde amendment and medicare and medicaid. unfortunately, there are some that will disregard the bipartisan vote that we had in november, the long-standing status president and the will of the american people by removing the stupak-pitts a minute from legislation that are considered today. the issue is not just as the unfortunate that it is simply on the question of compelling taxpayers to underwrite a portion. it has been a long-standing federal policy not to fund plans that cover abortions such as any federal employee health benefits

program, medicaid and schip. the senate health bill, the house plans to take up actually used an accounting gimmick to separate private and public funds for health plans that provide abortions. government funds will simply help these plants reduce their premiums a century subsidizing abortions that this is a clear departure from the president and contradicts the will of the american people. in fact, what began this debate just about a year ago, there was a gallup poll that found president obama's decision to restore funding to overseas groups and the moto borscht at only 35% support, the lowest of any administration policy they tested. last november right after the vote on 39-62 cnn found that six in 10 americans oppose federal financing of abortion. provisions in this current government taxpayer subsidies to private health plans that allow abortions.

while some would claim that the funds will not be used for abortion, it is merely an accounting's team that separates private and public dollar. the gentleman's time has expired. >> for that reason, mr. chairman, i would say would be imperative that we keep intact bipartisan language and i yield back to. >> let him a clue that what we're doing now, amounts to most wrecked and mendacious or it doesn't amend the bill. it doesn't have, it is a recommendation and it is nonbinding but very clearly the basis of what we're doing. is the opposition on the democratic side? ms. delauro recognize for 10 minutes to. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in objection to this motion. this amendment was a bad idea when it was included in our legislation last november. it remains a bad idea today. then as now the motion attempt to hold health care hostage to abortion politics. and ignores the language already in the bill prohibiting federal funds from being used to pay for

abortion. and then as not it attempts at unprecedented overreach of women's basic rights. on this first point, it existed long before this particular amendment came up last november. and it currently exists in the senate version of this legislation as well. i will say it one more time. since for some reason too many of our colleagues have not gotten the message, or like congressman weiner, have willfully continued to refute falsehoods about it. other than the situations accepted by the hide language as has been the case for years now, no federal funds are used for abortion. or can be used for abortion in this health care package. i might add that this reaffirmation, i and the rest of my pro-choice colleagues made

very early on to reach common ground on this a truly contentious issue. we made this concession because we know that abortion has always been a matter of conscious on both sides of the issue. and the health care bill was not the place to mitigate abortion. meanwhile, access to quality, affordable health care coverage is literally a question of life or death for millions of americans who have already waited too long for us to act. right now, an estimated 45,000 americans die each year because they have no health insurance. so holding up this bill, to play politics, with the abortion issue is emphatically not a pro-life stance. let me just read to you some

excerpts from a recent articles and letters in the last couple of days, and i would ask the chair, if i can include these letters into the record. the letter by sister carol keenan, who is the catholic health association president and chief executive officer. c. aj has a major concern on life issues. we said there could not be any federal funding for abortions and had to be strong funding or maternity care. especially for vulnerable women. the bill now being considered about people buying insurance through an exchange to use federal dollars in the form of tax credits and their own dollars to buy a policy that covers the health care. if they choose a policy with abortion coverage and they must write a separate personal check for the cost of that coverage. there is a requirement that the insurance companies be audited annually to ensure that the

payment for abortion coverage fully covers the administrative and clinical costs, that the payment is held in separate account from other premiums, and that there are no federal dollars used. let me quote from an article by timothy jost, who is a health law professor. it was in the pittsburgh post-gazette, and went nationwide. it's title is pro-lifers should support health reform. it would not encourage a abortions but it would save countless lives. and he is a health law expert, and he says as a strong believer in the sacredness of human life, as an educator for 30 years experience teaching health care law, i have followed the health care reform debate immediately. approximately 45,000 americans die each year because they are uninsured, and health care costs increase annual for almost all of us. many in congress have been

working hard to solve this crisis, but not be wrote his claims about the issue of abortion, a matter of tremendous moral concern, are threatening to derail these efforts. the senate bill like the house bill prohibits the use of federal subsidies to pay for abortions in situations where federal funding of abortion is now permitted under the medicaid program. the cases of rape, incest or physical threat to the life of a mother. the senate bill creates a new community health center fund of $7 billion, some of our get this money may go towards abortions. however, this money must be spent in that the department of health and human services which is subject to the hyde amendment which prohibits federal spending on abortion. and finally, he says, in the endless debate about abortion is the fact often lost in this endless debate in the senate bill would cover 30 million uninsured americans, thousand of whom will otherwise die prematurely every year against they lack health insurance.

it would be doubly tragic to deny them the care they need on a misunderstanding of health care reforms effect on abortion policy. a principal pro-life stand on health care reform must rest on accurate arguments as well as a deep concern for life at all stages. we should accept the word of people who are experts in the health care industry like the catholic health association. we should listen to people who have examined this very, very carefully, day in and day out, and who have made comment on this. perhaps this has something to do with the fact that with very few exceptions, the most vocal proponents of this amendment are the exact same individuals who want to see our health reform package fail. at any cost. as i said last november, this

amend it goes well beyond existing law. it disallows private insurance companies who operate in the new exchange from covering abortion services, and plans that receive government subsidies. in other words, it attempts to bar women from access to an abortion, even if they pay for it with their own money. it invades women's personal decisions. it discriminates against working women and it violates the law of the land. and i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. >> yield your time to speak i would be happy to give my time and following to others. >> i'm sorry, to mr. yarmouth first. >> i thank my friend. i just want to say, this is a very peculiar issue in the way because it is an issue only

about an issue and not about substance. we agree on the goal. we agree on the fact that no federal money should be used to finance abortions. we have a strange issue and that the logic behind the stupak amendment and many of us have talked to him about it is that somehow the fund ability of money means that if anybody buys insurance, buys insurance into a pool with tax dollars subsidies, that even if somebody pays for insurance policy with their own money from the same pool, that somehow that means taxpayers are paying for abortion insurance. that would be the same way of saying that if any hospital performed an abortion, that no hospital could receive federal funds, even a catholic hospital that didn't do it. because they are being paid out of the same pool of money. the logic just doesn't hold up, and the extension of the logic is just kind of ludicrous.

i thank my colleague for the word. but we have here is a provision that will not reduce the number of abortions. it will discriminate against women who were in the individual and small business market, while anyone who is working and ensure through an employer-based plan will still be able to have insurance that provides coverage for a legal procedure. and those women who were in the individual market must, in order to get coverage for a legal procedure, have to anticipate and unplanned event and by a writer which would be like buying somebody asking, summit in kentucky to buy insurance against a hurricane. well, that's not likely to happen that nobody would do that. and jet last year we had a hurricane in kentucky. so i think while the goal of the amendment is noble, and we all agree on it school, it doesn't accomplish much, except to create an issue where the really isn't an issue.

and it does discriminate against many women in this country. i yield back. >> you yield to mr. moore? >> and i just want to say with regard not to the minute because i think it's been spoken to, what we need a health insurance, health reform in this country. congress should of done this for years ago. we can't change what didn't happen for 40 years. but we need to give the people in this country a program that works. and this bill is a program that works. i implore all of my colleagues to vote for this bill and put something in place, even if it's decent, we can't improve it in the future. i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> time has expired. the gem is recognized for one minute and closing. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, the gentle lady said the language in the senate bill was going to prohibit dollars are being used to cover this procedure. it's just not true.

mr. stupak in his statement said look, the federal government, the review of the sale by which indicates a dramatic shift. the late which is unacceptable. the catholic bishops, every bolt and last sunday said the senate bill requires federal funds, help subsidize. so her statement is just not accurate. here's the bottom line. if everyone who voted for this on the house floor in this committee support to today, this motion to instruct will pass. we can send this motion to the rules committee sank make sure that any senate bill that goes through is going to have this stupak lange which in a. if everyone just votes the way they did in november, there are memos on the other side who voted with the stupak language. if the people vote the same way today this motion passes. and without i want you back back, mr. chairman. spent a vote knockers on the motion offered by mr. jordan. all those in favor say aye ko. all of those opposed they know.

>> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> additional memos who wish to be recorded? if not the clerk will announce the vote. >> mr. chairman, on that note the ayes or 17, the nays 19.

>> the motion is not agreed. >> the house budget committee finish its work on health care legislation which cleared its first procedure furlough on monday when the committee passed a reconciliation bill. the measure now goes to the rules committee wednesday to set up the parameters of debate for the house floor. for more information visit c-span's health care hub. go to c-span.org/health care. live now to the u.s. senate where members opened the morning with the general speeches. the chamber plans to recess at 12:30 p.m. eastern for weekly party lunches. but they will return at 2:15 to continue work on legislation that extends faa programs. members finally worked out an agreement on amendments, and there are currently over 80 pending. senators also plan to return to a 17 billion-dollar jobs bill tomorrow with a final passage vote expected in the morning.

live now to the u.s. senate here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. fountain of all light and glory, giving life and light and joy, your greatness and power continue to amaze us. today, guide our senators with your abiding love. keep them brave before their fears, pure in their battle against temptations, and true to the duty you have called them to fulfill. may they see in their times of need the shadow of your presence

ready to bless even before they ask you. lord, take us all as we are, and make us, by your grace, what we ought to be. we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, march 16, 2010.

to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jeanne shaheen, a senator from the state of new hampshire, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, president pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks #-rbgs the senate will proceed to a period of morning business until 12:30. senators will be allowed to feck for up to 10 minutes each with the time between 10:30 equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. that the time from 10:30 until 12:30 equally divided with the majority controlling the first half of that time, and the republicans controlling the second half. the senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus loons p. luncheons. when the senate resumes consideration at 2:15, it will resume consideration of the f.a.a. reauthorization legislation. senators should be prepared for roll call votes this afternoon in relation to the f.a.a. bill. and the reason i talk about the

time equally divided and controlled between democrats and republicans, according to how long senator mcconnell might takers it may not be a full two hours. so it'll be very close thereto, though. madam president, i understand that h.r. 2314 is at the desk and it is due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the bill for the second time. the clerk: h.r. 2314, an act to express the policy of the united states regarding united states relationship with native hawaiians land to provide a process for the recognition by the united states of the native hawaiian governing entity. mr. reid: i ask that the bill be placed on the calendar. i failed to do that. i do it now.

the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the matter will be placed on the calendar. under rule 14. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: madam president, the president recently noted that everything there is to be said about health care has already been said. when it comes to the substance of the legislation, this may be true. i suspect that's why an overwhelming majority of americans oppose it. americans know exactly what's in this bill, and they reject it. they do not want it to pass. but there's still a lot to be said about the process that democrats are using to force this bill through. that won't change whether they get their votes this week or not. the fact is, the dye has already been cast on this congress. democratic leaders have been imploring members to make

history. make history, they say, by voting for this bill. but this congress is already guaranteed to go down in history, not for the any piece of legislation but for the arrogant way that it's dictated to the american people what's best for theme. -- for them. and for the ugly way in which it's gone about going around the will of the american people. democratic leaders have made it perfectly clear that they view their constituents as of an obstacle, particularly on the issue of health care. at every turn, they've met fierce public opposition. and every time they've tried to come up with a way to get around that fierce public opposition. it's become a vicious cycle. the harder democrats try to get around the public, the more repellents their proposals become, and the more greiges their efforts become to get -- and the more egregious their efforts become to get them through anyway.

we watched last corms they forced their partisan health care bill through the committees. we watched as they tried to sell it to the public as something other than what it was. we watched as they wrote the final bill behind closed doors, then wheeled and dealed to get the last few votes they needed to squeeze if through both chambers on a party-line vote. we saw the cornhusker kickback, the louisiana purchase, ga stvment ohade and all the rest. as distasteful as all these deals have been, they were child's play -- child's play -- compared at that the scheme they've been cooking up over in the house just this week. the plan that speaker pelosi has hatched for getting this bill through to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the public and it's jaw dropping -- it is jaw dropping in its audacity. here is their plan:

speaker pelosi can't get enough of her democratic majority to vote for the senate version of the bill, so she and her allies have concocted a way to pass it without actually casting a vote on it. they are coven cocting a way to pass it without actually casting a vote on it. the so-called slatter solution in which the senate bill is -- quote -- "deemed to have passed." this way they'll claim they never volted for it even though they'll vote to send to to the president for his signature. this scheme-and-deem approach, this scheme-and-deem approach has never been tried on a bill of this scope, according to today's "washington post." this is how they'll try to keep their fingerprints off a bill that forces taxpayers to cover

the cost of abortions, it cuts medicare by half a trillion dollars, raises taxes by half a trillion dollars, raises insurance premiums, which creates a brand-new government entitlement program at a time when the entitlement programs we already have are on the verge of bankruptcy, and which vastly expands the cost and reach of the federal government in washington, at a time when most americans think government is already entirely too big. as speaker pelosi put it, nobody wants to vote for the senate bill. but anyone who believes they can send this bill to the president without being tarred by it is absolutely delusional. anybody who thinks this is a good strategy isn't thinking clearly. they're too close to the situation. they don't realize that this is

a strategy -- they don't realize that this strategy is the only thing that they or this congress will be remembered for. anyone who endorses this strategy will be forever remembered for trying to claim they didn't vote for something they did. they will forever remembered by claiming they didn't vote for something that they did vote f for. it will go down as one of the most extraordinary legislative slights of hand in history. make no mistake, this will be a career-defining and a congress-defining vote. make no mistake, this will be a career-defining and a congress-defining vote. most of the time the verdict of history is hard to predict. in this case, it's not.

anyone who endorses this strategy will be remembered for it. on the other hand, anyone who decides in a moment of clarity that they shouldn't, that they should resist this strategy, will be remembered for standing up to party leadership that lost its way. democratic leaders continue to advance the false argument that this effort is somehow akin to certain legislative efforts of the past. there is no comparison. first of all, the good programs they're referring to were far more modest. they enjoyed broad support from both parties in congress. most importantly, they enjoyed broad support of the american people. by contrast, there is no bipartisan consensus about this

bill in congress. it aims to reshape no less than one-sixth of our entire economy at a moment when our economy is already suffering and our existing debts threaten to drawn news a sea of red -- to drown us in a sea of red ink. more importantly, americans overwhelmingly oppose it. and if you need any evidence of that, look no further than today's "washington post," which calls this process "unseemly" or the cincinnati inquirer, which calls it "disquufting." and look no further than the president's own polester who's telling the white house that they canary the democrats have used to advance this measure is a sear produce -- is a serious problem. this entire effort has been a travesty, a travesty. but the latest delusion to give house members a way out by telling them they can pretend they didn't vote for something

they will in fact be voting for has sealed its fate. the latest solution to give house members a way out: by telling them they didn't vote for something that they will be in fact voting for has sealed the fate of this legislation with the american public. it's time for rank-and-file democrats to pull the fire alarm, pull the fire alarm -- and save the american people from this latest scheme and this unpopular bill. the process has been tainted. it's time to end the vicious cycle, start over, cleanse the process, and work on the step-by-step reforms the american people really want.

it's time to recognize that constituents are not obstacles -- constituents are not obstacles -- to overcome with schemes and sweetheart deals. fortunately, madam president, it's not too late. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, there will be a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, and the the time from 10:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. shall be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the majority role is controlling

the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quom. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: madam president, there are many reasons why the united states senate is known as -- the presiding officer: there is a quorum call in progress. mr. warner: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be viscerated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: madam president, there are many reasons why the united states senate is known as one of the world's greatest deliberative bodies. this chamber has seen some of the most important debates and votes since the beginning of our republic. as a freshman senator, i know my colleague, the presiding officer -- also a freshman senator -- and soon to be joined by a series of other freshmen and sophomore senators. my good friend, the senator from illinois, is here as well.

i think we've all been struck by how much history has been made in this very chamber. and i am reminded, as we saw last evening some of the exchanges between the majority leader and the republican leader, that there's still an awful lot that i at least feel like i've, as a newcomer, have got to learn. but, madam president, one thing has become clear to me since being sworn in a little over a year ago. some of the very safeguards that were created to make this a serious and responsible deliberative body have been abused in a way that damages this institution. in some instances, this abuse also runs contrary to our national interest. now, this became very clear to me several weeks ago during the nomination and voting on justice barbara keenan.

senator jim webb, my khraoerbgs khraoerbgs -- colleague and had the honor of nomination barbara keenan. she is one of the most highly regarded jurists in virginia. she was reported by the judiciary committee unanimously last october, and then her nomination just ground to a halt. first for weeks and then for months. in fact, her nomination was filibustered, if you can call it that. i mean, i recall in school thinking that the filibuster was something that was only going to be used in rare occasions of issues of national concern, to make sure that minority rights were protected. well, justice keenan was filibustered in effect because

one senator placed a hold on her. so consequently, cloture had to be filed. and that was despite the strong endorsement that justice keenan had received from our new republican governor, governor mcdonnell. and i appreciate his support of justice keenan. a funny thing happened in this cloture, though. when we finally forced the vote both on the cloture and the nomination, she was confirmed unanimously. filibustering a nominee who gets a unanimous vote, something's not right with that. that's not the way this body is supposed to work. this experience was truly an eye-opener for me. i see dozens of executive branch nominees caught up in this web. my understanding is right now, the second week of march, literally the obama administration has 64 nominees pending. these are nominees where despite overwhelming committee votes,

they languish on the calendar for months often because one senator has a completely different gripe about a completely unrelated issue. now, the presiding officer knows -- she and i were both governors. we were both c.e.o.'s. and i think it's incredibly important whether you are a governor, whether you are a c.e.o. of a private company, and particularly if you're the president of this great country, you ought to be able to have your management team in place clearly 14 months after the inauguration of president obama. i certainly don't believe the senate should be a rubber stamp for nominees. far from it. in cases where there is legitimate disagreement about qualifications of any particular nominee, i'm all for having a debate and then a straight up-or-down vote.

but that has not been the case. it's not been the case with justice keenan. and i'm going to cite one other individual today. and i know my other colleagues are going to be citing others. the individual i want to talk about is michael mendaka. he's been nominated by president obama to be assistant treasury for tax policy, a very important job for crafting tax and revenue policies. he's both highly qualified and well respected having worked previously at high levels of the treasury department and at the international tax department of earnings -- ernst and young. as i understand it, his nomination was approved overwhelmingly, 19-4, in the senate's finance committee before christmas. since then he's been denied a vote in this body not over any

substantive concerns. if there is a concern about his qualifications, the senate ought to come and make that case and we ought to have a debate. no, that's not the reason. it's because one senator or a group of senators have decideed to try to leverage this nomination to some other end. to me, that's simply not fair. so this morning -- i see my colleagues starting to arrive -- many senators will take to the floor who are relatively new to the body. we're the new guys and gals. the freshmen and the sophomores. maybe we don't understand all of the rules and traditions: we basically spent our first year trying to learn those rules and traditions. one of the things that united us in coming here this morning is that the nominations process is broken. and we are asking all of our colleagues, republicans and democrats, to come together not

as partisans but as americans. in the last four presidential terms, there have been two democrats and two republicans holding the white house. i'm confident that we'd be here regardless of who occupies the white house because a president deserves his or her management team 14 months after inauguration to be in place. and if there are problems with their nominees, they ought to be debated and brought to the floor and discussed, not simply left in this limbo. we need to start doing our job and start voting up or down on these nominees that are languishing on the senate calendar. i see my colleague who is much more experienced than this freshman. my good friend, the senator from rhode island, has joined. i now yield four minutes to my friend, senator whitehouse. madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: the last two years have seen the american

economy on the brink of collapse, battered by an economic maelstrom not seen since the great depression, and now slowly -- too slowly -- recovering eults strength. president obama -- its strength. president obama's recovery act led the way, and we've seen its benefits over the last year with job losses slowing significantly. he inherited an economy losing, i think 700,000 jobs a month, and it's now back to nearly break even. an essential element this have recovery has been encouraging thriving export markets. last week president obama laid out his plan to double exports in five years, an initiative which could create up to 2 million jobs. as the president said, in a time when millions of americans are out of work, boosting our exports is a short-term imperative. but for international trade to function, our government must

participate fully in international trade negotiations. advocating fair and open trading rules that allow american businesses to compete and export. yet, a single senator, the republican senator from kentucky, has blocked the president's nominees for two key trade positions, nominees who cleared the committee with strong positive votes. michael punke, nominated as deputy trade representative to virginia and islam siddiqui, nominated to be chief agricultural negotiator deserve an up-or-down vote in the u.s. senate. in this economic crisis, why in the world would a senator hold up such important appointments for our exports and for our economy? hobbling this administration's ability to fully participate in international trade talks. well, the senator from kentucky has told us why.

to try to force u.s. trade representative rob kirk to file a complaint regarding canada's recently passed antismoking law. yes, believe it or not, the senator from kentucky is blocking the appointment of critical u.s. international trade officials to try to force the administration to put pressure on canada to change its antismoking law. i'm sure the tobacco industry is important in the senator's home state, and protecting home-state jobs is important. but hampering our ability to negotiate our trade agreements in this time of economic distress isn't the way to do it. the senator's hold is particularly ironic and unproductive since trade officials, like these nominees, are the ones charged with negotiating resolutions to trade issues like the one that appears

to motivate the senator from kentucky. ambassador kirk recently commented that the absence of these officials is having a significant impact and indicated the situation is causing some countries to question our commitment to serious trade talks. we would be greatly advantaged not only just from the manpower and intellectual strength these two individuals bring, but i think it would help us regain some of our credibility, is what ambassador kirk said. and let's be clear, the senator from kentucky has said he doesn't have any objection to these nominees. he's only blocking the nominations as leverage against the president and ambassador kirk. that is pure obstructionism. it's these kind of political power plays -- one senator actually had 70 nominees on

hold -- that lead to such cynicism in the country about our ability to work together to get things done. when a senator blocks basic governmental action, action that all agree is of national importance, for purely parochial and political reasons, the the public rightly wonders what is going on. if the senator from kentucky disagrees with the canadian legislature, fine. he should voice that disagreement publicly and try to persuade the president of the merits of his point of view. he is welcome to do that. instead, he has chosen to add to the obstructionist tactics that are poisoning this chamber and preventing the government of the united states from doing its business. that may serve the immediate political goals of his party, but it is wrong, madam president, for our country, and it is wrong for all

americans who depend on an effective united states government. madam president, i urge the senator from kentucky to release his holds. and i yield the floor to my very distinguished colleague from the state of illinois. -- back to senator warner from virginia. mr. warner: thank you, senator whitehouse. madam president, unanimous consent request unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to the following member of senator cardin's staff: scott glick, during the pendency of morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: i appreciate senator whitehouse's comments and pointing out one more example of the qualified nominee that needs toc needs to be votea aproved up or down. i now call on my colleague from

illinois, senator burris. mr. burris: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. burris: it is a pleasure for me to join in this very, very important position in the united states senate. i'm proud to join my democratic colleagues on the floor this morning to discuss some of the obstructionism we're seeing from the other side on a number of presidential nominations. it is a duty of the senate to provide advise and consent for more than 2,000 government officials appointed by the president of the united states. these individuals range from cabinet-level officers to agency administrators, ambassadors, federal judges, and more. they are tasked with leading important agencies and offices like the transportation security administration, a and diplomatic missions and various law enforcement organizations. these nominees generally make it through the committee 0 on near

unanimous bipartisan votes. they are extremely dedicated public servants who stand ready to defend our national security, advance our shared interests and carry out the important work of the american people. but, mr. president, when these nominations come out of the committee, they invariably hit a roadblock. they hit a stonewall, mr. president. they're stalled the moment that they come to the senate floor. that's because my republican friends are holding up dozens of these nominations, scores of important offices remain vacant because of the same partisan tactics of distraction and delay that we're seeing time and time again from the other side. mr. president, it is 0 not my republica--mr. president, it isy republican colleagues have any problem with the qualifications of the nominees themselves. they carry high esteem of both democrats and republicans.

and when they're finally able to break the filibuster, and they have an up-and-down vote, these individuals almost always are confirmed unanimously, as on a judge from virginia, a vote of 99-0. that was senseless for that nomination to be held up for that long. but thanks to the same old political games, it is difficult to get cloture on these nominations so we can have a floor vote in the first place. the same republica republican sy to keep them from moving forward as a full senate. this obstructionism. this is pure politics at the expense of the american taxpayers. this is a waste of our time and effort and the american people deserve better. they sent us to washington to solve big problems, to create jobs, to reform health care, to strengthen our educational system. but my republican friends aren't

interested on working together to confront these challenges. instead, they drag their feet on unconventional things like presidential fume nations in hopes of scoring points. they bring this body to a standstill so they can advance a partisan agenda. meanwhile, dozens of other federal agencies are without leadership at the highest levels. thousands of government employees are working without public servants appointed to lead them all because of political games. so i would like to ask my colleagues to abandon these tactics of delay. let's have a substantial debate about the issues, not an argument over procedure. let's stop wasting timed and start working together to solve the problems we face. in the meantime, let's confirm these nominees so they can take up their appointed offices and begin to serve the american people. i thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i yield to the distinguished

senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you. i'm here to join you and my other colleagues from the freshman and sophomore class to point out the obstruction that we're seeing from the other side of the aisle in holding up these executive branch nominees. it's unfortunate, with so many challenges facing this country that we have to be here on the floor of the senate today talking about obstructionism rather than talking about what we can do to address the real issues facing this country. one of those has to do with how we get this economy going again. 95% of the world's consumers live outside of the united states, and for american companies to grow and expand, to create jobs, we've got to increase exports of goods and services. that's the simple reality. there are several actions we need to take to help american

companies compete overseas. tomorrow, for example, i'm going to be back here on the floor talking about what we can do to strengthen the small business administration's export, lending, and promotion services. well, certainly another thing we need to do is to protect the interests of american companies and workers in the trade arena. and, as we've already heard from senator whitehouse, that's why it is unconscionable that the confirmation of president obama's nominee for ambassador to the world trade organization, michael punke, is being held up by a single senator. senator tester came to the floor last week to ask senator bunning to stop blocking mr. punke's confirmation. now, after reading yesterday's "new york times," i felt compelled to also speak about the hold on this confirmation. yesterday's story in the paper

reported on china's aggressive filing of complaints with the w.t.o. in the last 12 months china filed more complaints with the w.t.o. than any other country, even though it is cleaning the clock of every country on the planet, including the united states, when it comes to trade. china racked up a nearly $200 billion trade surplus with the rest of the world last year. its trade imbalance with the united states is 4:1. and yet the united states's top position at the w.t.o. -- you guessed it, the position that mr. punke has been nominated for -- is being held up. it's still vacant because there is one senator who is unhappy with canada's tobacco law. that's right. as senator whitehouse has already told us, the hold on mr. punke has nothing to do with whether he's qualified to be

ambassador to the w.t.o. his confirmation was unanimously recommended by the finance committee three months ago. nope, this critical post remains vacant because one senator, senator bunning, is angry that canada banned flavored significant retds as a way to combat teen smoking -- cigarettes as a way to combat teen smoking. i certainly understand that the tobacco industry fears the canadian law will be interpreted broadly to ban american-blend cigarettes but blocking the confirmation of our w.t.o. ambassador over this issue at this time, when expanding exports is critical to our economic recovery, is counterproductive and it's an abuse of senate rules. the point has now been made, so now is the time that senator bunning should lift this hold so we can confirm mr. punke, so we can get this critical position filled, so we can make sure american businesses have a level

playing field when it comes to exports. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota is recognized. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i am proud to join my colleagues in the freshman and sophomore classes today to highlight a recurring problem in the senate, the republican holds on the confirmations of crucial executive branch nominees. these are not controversial people, as you'll hear from what i'm going to tell from my part of the story today and what you've heard from some of my colleagues. as a former prosecutor and a manager of a prosecutor's office of over 400 people, i know from personal experience, mr. president, how important it is to have a strong leadership team in place. only with a strong leadership team can an executive implement his or her vision. in our current economy of vision for increased trade in export

promotion is particularly important and the president has one. earlier this year he announced a plan widely sported by c.e.o.'s of large corporations, small corporations to double american exports overseas in the next five years. export promotion is a topic that's of special interest to me as i chair the subcommittee on competitiveness, innovation, and export promotion. i truly believe if we're going to move this economy again, we have a world of opportunity out there. 95% of the world's customers are outside of our borders. this is a different world, with growing buying power in countries like india and china, where instead of just importing goodgoods we we can making stuf, we can sending it out so customers this these other countries can be buying t you look at the numbers. a diverse tied base of customers helps weather up and down.

these are the facts. so it is hard to believe when we have a laser focus on the economy right now, when that is all i hear about from the people of my state, it is hard to believe that my friends on the other side of the aisle there are holding up the president's nominees for positions that promote american exports abroad. it makes absolutely no sense. right now holds are blocking votes on the confirmations of michael punke, nominated to be deputy u.s. trade representative, an mr. siddiqui. they have five decade of experience between the of them, including private sector and government work. they just want to get this economy moving again but our friends on the other side of the aisle are placing holds on them at the very time when we all know that this is the direction we need to move in. these are exactly the type of

people that could help expand american agriculture and small business exports and grow our economy. the two of these nominees have been fully vetted and received strong bipartisan support in their finance committee hearings. they were recommended by the finance committee to the full senate by a vote of 23-0, madam president. 23-0, including the vote of the senator who has since placed a hold on mr. punke. the reason for the hold? the senator from question wants mr. punke to dmoit forcing canada to repeal parts of an antismoking law passed by the canadian parliament. so we have people in rhode island, in illinois, in minnesota, in new hampshire that are looking for jobs. they're looking for jobs, and they know a key part of this is to increase exports, to be able to sell our goods to other countries. and these guys are placing a hold on the very people that can get this work done because

they're concerned about a law passed by the canadian parliament. it is really too good to be true, madam president. but sadly, it's true. holding these nominees in limbo has dire consequences for our ability to promote american products abroad. our international partners actually use the absence of mr. punke and dr. siddiqui as an excuse to stall progress on serious negotiations. they say, you don't have your people in place. so we're not negotiating with you, america. blocking these nominees gives cover to other nations who want to keep the u.s. from getting fair market access in the global trading system for american agriculture, manufacturing, and services. a coalition of 42 food and ad groups wrote senators reid and mcconnell in january to call for quick approval. they said, u.s. food and agricultural exports are under asoughtssault in many markets and traitding partners erecting

even more barriers in recent months t has to stop. in the united states, madam president, we further export through a variety of different executive agencies. and republicans aren't just holding up ustr represents. they're also holding up eric hirshhorn. this is the division of the commerce department that screens exports to make sure that national security, economic security, cybersecurity, and homeland security standards are upheld when we export sensitive technologies. the head of this bureau engages in strategic dialogue with high-government officials from key countries such as malaysia and the united air be a emirate in order to prevent sensitive technologies from being diverted to china and north korea. leaving this position unfilled sends a negative message to the domestic exporting community, to our allied governments, and in parts our security. why would we want to leave this

position unsnild mr. hirshhorn has spent more than 30 years involved in issues reemented to export control. as an author of numerous articles in the export control and embargo handbook which is widely recognized as the leading text on the issue, hirshhorn displays an unparalleled understanding of the importance of export control systems and work. these are just a few examples of the pivotal positions being held up by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. if you're going to talk the talk about moving this economy, about exports, about trade, about getting our goods out there, manufacturing things again, you should walk the walk. you shouldn't be holding up siddiqui and punke and hirschhorn. these are noncontroversial people. no one watching c-span has heard of them before. they are not in the middle of some controversial mess. they are trying to get our country moving again. so for people that are trying to get jobs that, trying to move this country, they need people

in place in the government to help them take those holds off, get this moving, put these people in place. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: madam president, i rise today to decry the attack of my republican colleagues on the executive branch of the united states of america. the constitution, which we are sworn to uphold, calls for a balance of power between three branches of government: executive branch, legislative branch, judicial branch. and in it, it gives us a certain ability to test the fitness of high appointees to the executive branch. that is the advise and consent clause of the constitution. the discussion does not have a delay and obstruct clause. it has an advise and consent clause, which means we have the

responsibility on a timely basis to review high appointees to the executive branch and give our opinion. and if we vote a person down, then indeed that nomination doesn't go forward. but what we have here is not a sincere application of advise and consent. we have a systematic effort underway to undermine the credibility and the capability of the president's team here in the united states of america. this is a list of nominations that are being upheld. this is not one nomination here and one nomination here. this is dozens and dozens of key appointees that make the executive branch operate. let's look at some of the names here. the federal election commission, the department of energy, the small business administration,

the national labor relations board, the legal services corporation, the department of homeland security, the army, the executive office of the president, the amtrak board of directors, the national transportation safety board, the equal employment opportunity commission, the farm credit administration, the department of commerce, the department of housing and urban development, the department of treasury, the department of health, the department of veterans affairs, the department of state, the department of energy, the nuclear regulatory commission, the national council on disability, the tennessee valley

authority, fellow americans, i think you get the picture that this is a list of systematic efforts to undermine the ability of the executive branch to do its job. if we simply look back on the nominations on which we've had to file cloture and hold a vote in this chamber, two-thirds of those nominees have passed by more than 70% of this body. many of them had 80 or 90 votes, because there was no sincere objection to this individual, that he or she in a number of these departments, but it was a systematic effort to delay the capability of the executive branch of the united states of america. and that is unacceptable. we are not empowered as a chamber in this constitution to delay and obstruct and prevent the executive branch from doing its job. so i call upon my republican

colleagues who are conducting this attack on the president and his team to honor their constitutional responsibilities to advise and consent, to take this list, and if there are a couple key nominees that you have serious concerns about, then indeed let's have that debate here on the floor. but these dozens need to be set free to do their job. that is how the balance of powers is envisioned in the constitution of the united states of america. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president, i rise this morning to raise questions about why the republicans in the senate are holding up a number of nominations. we've heard some of that articulated this morning by a number of our colleagues.

i have a specific example of what this kind of obstruction leads to. it's -- it's with regard to a circuit court nomination. in this case a judge in the middle district of pennsylvania, someone i've known a long time, someone that i've known to be not only capable to do the job that a united states court of appeals judge must do, but also someone who has demonstrated his ability on the district court for many years. the person i'm speaking of is judge thomas vanasky, who's been nominated for the position on the third circuit court of appeals which covers pennsylvania, new jersey, delaware, and the virgin islands. i've known him a long time. he's someone who's been a legal

scholar, someone who has a long and distinguished career on the federal bench as well as a career as an advocate when he was practicing law. his biography -- and i'll submit a longer statement for the record, and i'd ask consent that a fuller statement of his record and resume be made part of the record, and ask consent for that. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. casey: judge vanaskie graduated with high honors, an honorable mention all football player, attended the dickinson school of law, graduated in honors in 1978, editor of the law review clerk for judge neelin, the chief judge for the united states district court for the middle district of pennsylvania. judge vanaskie went on to have a

distinguished career as a lawyer, got to the middle district court, united states middle district of pennsylvania, in 1994, became the chief judge as he -- just like judge neelin, the judge he served. judge vanas k*eu e, chief judge in 1999. his seven year term was completed in 2006. he was appointed by chief justice rehnquist to the information technology committee where he served as chair for three years. i'll submit for the record, as i mentioned before, what many people have said about him in addition to his record. i'll just read one of those at this moment. judge neelin, someone who has been on the district court, district court in pennsylvania, the middle district, for more than a generation, since 1962.

here's what that judge said about judge vanaskie. he said -- and i quote -- "especially qualified, outstanding, brilliant, objective and tireless." not much more you could say that would be higher praise than that from not only a colleague but someone who had decades of experience presiding over complex matters in the district court. i just want to say in my own -- in my own judgment, judge vanaskie demonstrated when he was on the district court the kind of legal acumen and scholarship and commitment to the rule of law that was -- that made his stand out in the district court. i know that i have personal experience with that. i appeared before him. i remember in particular trying

a case in front of him. he's someone i knew very well for many years, someone i have great respect for, but also someone that i knew personally. despite that personal connection, i do remember him ruling against me on a number of objections. so that alone is testament to his integrity. but, it's widely shared. so when you consider all of that legal experience, unquestioned ability on the district court, unquestioned ability to handle very complex matters to prepare him to serve on the third circuit court of appeals and voted out of committee close to unanimously -- i think there was three votes against him. i think the vote -- i'll double check this -- was 16-3. i'll make sure we check that for the record. having said all that, i can't understand why our friends on the other side of the aisle would want to hold up someone who has such a brilliant record,

who is committed to being, and has already demonstrated a commitment to be a fair-minded judge, someone who will set aside their personal points of view or their personal biases to rule on matters that come before the united states court of appeals for the third circuit. it doesn't make much sense when you consider the support that he's received. but it seems like on so many of these nominations, the impediment here is not just -- is not a set of questions, not a set of unresolved issues. what the impediment is is that you have too many senators on the other side of the aisle who want to use the nomination process to achieve political objectives. that's in my judgment is what's happening here. what they should do for the american people is set aside

those political objectives and get people confirmed, just like they would hope their nominees, people they support under a republican president, would be confirmed. so, this is just one example, but i think a very telling example of what our friends are doing when they hold up a judge who has that kind of a record of service, of commitment to justice and the rule of law. and i think it speaks volumes about what's happening here in the senate on nominations. mr. president, i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota is recognized. mr. coleman: tkpaurbs mr. frankn : -- mr. franken: talk to the average person on the street and he will probably tell you that americans are frustrated with government right now. people think government doesn't

work and politicians care more about fighting with each other than they do about helping american families. some days i can hardly blame people who hold this opinion. we're now in the second year of president obama's administration, and we've only just begun to fill the spots in the executive and judicial branches because filibusters, holds and other procedural tactics have delayed an extraordinary number of people. we have no under secretary for domestic finance at the treasury department, despite the fact that our country has just experienced arguably the worst economic crisis since the great depression. we have no assistant secretary for legislation at the department of health and human services. you'd think when we've been considering health care reform legislation in the past year, it might be helpful to confirm an assistant secretary for legislation at the department of health and human services.

there are so few members of the national labor relations board, the supreme court is currently deciding whether the nlrb's current decisions have any legal standing. yet, we have failed to confirm a single one of president obama's three nominees. and in one of the most egregious examples of obstructionism, the senate failed to vote on the appointment of the first nominee for transportation, security administration chief. the person charged with keeping our nation's airlines safe. in the interim, a terrorist tried to attack northwest flight 253, perhaps unsurprisingly, the nominee eventually withdrew himself from consideration saying he was -- quote -- "obstructed by political ideology." i said it before and i'll say it again, i have no problem with standing on principle. our first president, george washington, supposedly once

said, we pour house legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it. whether or not that story is true, the senate has long served as the cooling chamber, the place of reasoned and thoughtful debate. the filibuster is a key tool toward that end, a way the minority can stand up to a majority that is acting rationally in the heat of the moment. so i have no problems with my colleagues threatening to filibuster nominees or legislation that they actually oppose. that is what the foundes intended. the senate has an important role to play in giving the president its advice and consent 0 on nominations and i take that role very seriously. but too often my colleagues filibuster nominees they actually support in an effort to

extract other promises or just to slow the senate down. in february, the senate finally confirmed a noncontroversial administrator of the general services administration after nine months. the vote was 94-2. similarly, this month, my colleagues forced a cloture vote -- they forced a cloture vote to approve a judicial nominee for the fourth circuit court of appeals. she was then confirmed unanimously. 99-0. and yet we were forced to vote for a filibuster. that's nuts. this is a perversion of the filibuster and a perversion of the role of the senate. it used to be that the filibuster was reserved for matters of great principle.

today it has become a way to play out the clock. some of my colleagues seem more interested in using every procedural method possible to keep the senate from doing anything than they are in creating jobs or helping americans struggling in a difficult economy. they seem to actually want the government to fail. why else delay things that you actually agree with? no wonder americans are frustrated with the government. it's time for this to stop. it's time for the senate to stop playing politics or pursuing personal agendas and start approving well-qualified nominees without forcing unnecessary delays. for our government to function the way it's supposed to, it needs to have personnel. let's give the executive branch

and the judicial branch the people they need so we can help government function in the way it's supposed to and reassure americans that government really does work for them. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado is recognized. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. i rise along with my colleagues this morning to draw attention to the growing dysfunction exacted on this institution's ability to confirm both judicial and executive branch nominees. now, mr. president, having served five terms in the united states house of representatives, i've come to expect a certain amount of political revelry and combat. and while i was honored to serve in the house and i've got fond memories of the often-raucous debates there, i had high expectations that the united states senate would truly be a place of deliberation and bipartisan good will. of late, however, it seems,

though, that the worst political gamesmanship has infiltrated the united states senate. perhaps the proverb that the grass is always greener on the other side applies here, but i do have to tell you, mr. president, i think that the level of gridlock that we faced in the last year is unprecedented. we've seen roadblock after roadblock as we've tried to exercise one of the most basic functions of the senate, that of making sure that we have a full complement of federal judges and ensuring that the agencies are filled with competent public servants. in contrast, mr. president, by this date during president bush's first term in office, the senate, with a democratic majority, had confirmed twice as many circuit and district court nominations. and the obstruction of these present judicial nominations is all the more galling when you note that they were reported by the judiciary committee without dissent. two weeks ago today we were

forced to invoke cloture on barbara milano keenan to be united states circuit judge. her nomination was held up for months and we finally will to say, enough is enough, and shut off the filibuster. and when we finally voted on cloture, it was invoked 99-0, meaning that not a single senator was willing to stand up and oppose the nominee. mr. president, you know in your state this is the kind of superficial partisanship that the american are fed up with. in addition to judicial nominees, president obama's executive branch appointments have suffered from a similar kind of gamesmanship. one would be hard pressed to find one single department in this administration whose work hasn't been interrupted by phony delays. let me give you an example. after having invoked cloture and overcome a filibuster on martha johnson to be director of the general services administration, not a single senator was willing to stand up in opposition to the nominee. cloture was invoked. she was confidence by 96-0

margin. now, i know that partisanship is rampant in this town, but the american people deserve to know what's happening here in the senate. we are really reaching a heightened level of imprudence, the kind that george washington referenced in his farewell address in 1796. in outlining the principle that we all have an obligation to govern, washington stated, "all obstructions to the execution of the laws with the real design to direct, control, counteract the legislative action are destructive of this fundamental principle." mr. president, as i cloarks the american meme knee this town causes grown men and women to bicker and fight like children. children have an excuse. they're children. we aren't. we can do better, and i urge my colleagues to set aside their partisan differences. end this gridlock and begin working together for the good of the american people. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mrs. hagan: mr. president, i am joining my freshmen colleagues on the floor today to stress my amazement at this body's inability to conduct the simplest functions. when i came to the senate, i was certainly under noil lugeses that the process here would be lightning fast. i believed strongly that we should take the time to make reasoned judgments about both legislative and executive branch and judicial nominees. the american people are better served when we take the time to make the best decisions. but there is a difference between makin taking time and ig progress for the sole purpose of delay. there arees currently 67 executive branch nominee neighses awaiting action by the full senate. every one of these has been approved by the committee of jurisdiction, many having been

approved unanimously. 31 of those 67 nominees were approved in committee last year and have been waiting for months for action by the full senate. one individual awaiting action by the senate, michael punke, has been nominated to be our ambassador to the world trade organization. he was approved unanimously by the senate finance committee in december. as my colleagues know, the member countries of the w.t.o. are currently engaged in a round of trade talks that could have enormous implications for american workers and industries. wouldn't it make sense to have the best possible american representation at those tox? shouldn't we want someone there who is advocating forcefully on behalf of our american workers, producers, and businesses? it's been reported that the delay in considering this particular nomination is connected to a concern one senator has regarding a recent

tobacco law passed in the canadian parliament. well, i represent the largest tobacco state in the country, and i'll be honest. i understand the concerns of my fellow tobacco state senator regarding this legislation, but i guess i haven't been here long enough to understand how concerns with canadian tobacco legislation lead you to the conclusion that you should prevent the united states from being represented in international trade negotiations. how are we supposed to address our issues with canada and all trading partners when our seat at the table is empty? that's just one example. the calendar is full of nominees who deserve a vote. in fact, there are two judicial nominees on the calendar from north carolina who i believe would be easily confirmed should they come up for a vote: jim winn and al diaz, nominees for the fourth circuit court of appeals. they were both approved by the

senate judiciary committee in january. but the truth be told, we haven't just been waiting since january. we have been waiting since 1994. there's been an opening for a north carolina judge on the fourth circuit since 1994. partisan politics has gotten in the way of filling that vacancy time and again. finally, we have not one but two qualified judges supported by both myself and senator burr. let's bring them up for a vote. the government can't function without fallified appointees in place. let's stop the delays and bring these nominees up for a vote so they can get on with the business of the american people. thank you and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. a senator: mr. president, i rise today to call on the senate to ask the senate to do something that the rest of the american people are doing: our

jofnlt most of the nominees are not even remotely controversial. the country need them on the job and their responsibilities, their careers and the stress of their families should not be caused by holds and other pointless delay. mr. bennet: we face serious challenges as a nation. unemployment and underemployment rates are unacceptably high. we're fighting two wars and have the persistent threat of terror that casts a shadow over our security. we need a functioning federal government. the american people expect this, yet some in this body are too tied up in politics as usual to get our government working again. rather than making sure that we get the government up and running by allowing our votes on key administration nominees, the senate is mired in perpetual stalling, failing to perform its constitutional responsibility to advise and consent. qualified people nominated to hold key positions in the

administration are languishing in the senate because of procedural abuses. these should end, mr. president. i have introduced a resolution which would help address some of these abuses. my resolution would bring holds by one senator out of the shadows, time limit them, and place requirements that after two days holds must be bipartisan to continue. these commonsense improvements ought not be necessary, but in today's senate, unfortunately, they are. i fully support scrutinizing all position poz requiring confirmation. in fact, mr. president, that's why my suggested resolution actually says if you have bipartisan support and there might be a reason to really look at it other than just pure politics, i think we should playbook at it. but useless delay is not getting us anywhere. i'm not asking for a rubber stamp from anyone, but a desire to assert leverage over the administration or a desire to frustrate the government's efforts to work for the american people are unacceptable reasons

for holding up nominees. too often we've seen nominees held for months only to be confirmed by overwhelming margins. elogy, judge barbara keenan was just recently confirmed by the breath takingly close vote of 99-0. to the fourth circuit court of appeals. this was after her nomination was held up for four months, following approving by the judiciary committee. there are currently 16 other judicial nominees who, like judge keenan, have cleared the senate judiciary committee and are awaiting floor time. unfortunately, they are subject to partisan and meritless delays. the as a result that our district and appellate courts will continue to be backlogged and justice will not be served in communities all across the united states of america. judicial nominations have a sad history of bipartisan -- of partisanship in recent years. the delays and games that have

replaced the senate's role to advise and consent have now bled into all executive branch nominations at unprecedented levels. just last month the media reported that 80 nominees were being held up by one senator. these holds included the under secretary for military readiness and top officials of the departments of state and homeland security. these holds were unrelated to the actual nominee and solely concerned parochial political interests. our national security should never be subgoo gaited to one senator's politics. we also have the president's nomination to the transportation security administration tied up and ultimately withdrawn because of partisan birk unrelated to his responsibilities to secure our airports. this is unacceptable. does it no longer matter whether or not there's someone at the helm of the agency responsible for securing our airports? 0 how is this acceptable behavior in the united states senate? it would not be acceptable

behavior around my kitchen table. it's not acceptable there. it shouldn't be acceptable here. there are too many examples of qualified, noncontroversial nominees like martha johnson be, the g.s.a. administrator, with impeccable qualifications, whose nomination was held for nine months, yet she was confirmed with a 96-0 vote once the hold on her nomine nomination was re. these nominations are being blocked even though they have broad bipartisan support. i urge my colleagues to remove holds on noncontroversial administration nominees and allow confirmation votes. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: i ask unanimous consent that seven minutes of morning business be added to each side at the end of all that time, the senate stand in recess as provided for under a previous order. i thank my colleagues on the other side for their courtesy. the presiding officer: without

objection. a senator: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: i'm pleased to join my colleagues on the floor today to discuss what none of us are the least bit happy to see happening on this senate floor. we were sent here by the people of our states to get work done. this means passing legislation and overseeing the work of federal agencies. it is difficult, if not impossible, for federal agencies to do the work congress and the the american people want them to do if they spend months, in some cases years, leaderless. it is impossible for them to do the work if they can hope that the momentary peace will break out in the senate to allow the confirmation of the presidential designees for their respective agencies. as senators, we are endowed with the constitutional responsibility to lend our advice and consent to the men and women the president nominates to run agencies and

parts of agencies. career civil servants can do a lot. we would be lost without them. but they do not have the authority or the accountability to congress and to the american people to accomplish what a president selects them to do. yet, many on the other side of the aisle would deny president obama any of his nominees. i believe a president, the current president or any future president with whom i'm lucky enough to serve, is due a great deal of deference in her or his selection for senate-confirmed positions. for our republican colleagues, it seems that it is a belief that the federal government should not function. certainly any government led by president obama. we have seen the slow walking in definite and indefensible holds on nominations for crucial national security positions. only when armed services committee chairman levin took the step of embarrassing colleagues who were placing a hold for their home state

politics did a number of important nominees get reported out of committee. there is still a hold by one of our republican colleagues, unbelievable as it may seem, on the promotion of an army general on our nation's -- while our nation is involved in two wars. the cynicism of the republicans obstruction is seen nowhere as obviously as in the judiciary. there are currently 103 federal judge vacancies. several nominees reported out of the judiciary committee have been denied votes in the senate by republican obstructionism for almost 200 days. in some cases the judicial seats to be filled have been vacant for years, as you've heard earlier. it is clear that even if they are in denial about who was elected in 2008 as our president, our republican colleagues have the sights set on 2012 and beyond when they hope to have a large number of federal court vacancies to be filled by a president more to

their liking. obstructionism of nominees hurts the functioning of the government our colleagues have strived to be part of. if they continue to block qualified nominees, our republican colleagues only further demonstrate their unwillingness to perform the duties for which they were elected and prove their disdain for the constitutional responsibilities with which they have been entrusted. i would urge my colleagues on their side to do what's right, do and move these nominees forward. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: let me first thank senator warner for organizing this presentation to point out the abuses that the republican minority has used in blocking the responsibility of the united states senate to confirm appointments made by the president of the united states. i believe in the rights of the minority. at times it needs to be exercised. but it's been abused. and i think the american people

need to know that because it's affecting their rights and the ability of agencies and our courts to be available to protect the rights of americans. let me just cite one number. 60 individuals that the president has nominated for important offices have been blocked in their confirmation votes on the floor of the united states senate, even though their nominations were approved by the committees either by voice vote or unanimous vote or by significant supermajorities. these are just being delayed when we know the final outcome will be approval. as a result, americans are being denied their judges on the courts. they're being denied administrators who can help enforce their rights. you've heard circumstances about our courts about how we've had to take to a cloture vote -- which means floor time for a nomination of judge keenan who received 99 votes and no one in opposition. we have two vacancies in the fourth circuit of the united states right now.

these appointments have been approved overwhelmingly by the judiciary committee. albert diaz and james wynn by votes of 19-0 and 18-1 by the judiciary committee. they have the support of senator burr and senator hagan and have not been brought to the floor for a vote. that's 20% vacancy denying the people of my region their full representation on the appellate courts. mr. president, we're very proud of legislation we passed to help the disabled, a.d.a. law, to guarantee gender pay equity with the lilly ledbetter law, genetic discrimination prohibitions and legislation that we passed, but it takes the e.o.c. to enforce those rules. president obama has submitted four nominees for the e.o.c., and yet they have been approved by the committee by voice votes, which means they're not controversial. and yet, we cannot bring those nominations to the floor for

quick action because the republicans are abusing their rights to hold up action on the floor of the senate to carry out our constitutional responsibilities to act on the president's nominations. this is denying the people of america the protections that they're entitled to by their courts and by their agencies to protect their rights. it's wrong. it's time for this practice to end. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. kyl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: i ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized without objection. mr. kyl: thank you. mr. president, we're going to be taking up the so-called hire act, i believe, starting tomorrow. and i wanted to address some of the problems with this since the procedure under which we have considered this bill does not

allow any amendments. and as a result, we have no opportunity to fix problems that i think are inherent in the bill and will force me to vote against it. the first provision that should be highlighted is the provision called the build america bonds. this was created first in the 2009 stimulus bill. it offers a direct subsidy from the federal government to states and other governmental entities to cover their cost to financing for certain kinds of projects. the house-passed bill expands this subsidy by allowing for current tax preferred bonds to qualify under the direct subsidy under this program and increases the generosity of that subsidy to cover all of the borrowing costs for education projects. this will mean an expansion of the already substantial support that the federal government

offers for state and local governments. supporting that we taxpayers then are responsible for. the federal government gave $44 billion in extraordinary stimulus state aid last year, and regularly spends $26 billion annually in federal government subsidies through tax-exempt bond financing. so this is a significant federal expenditure for which the taxpayers will be responsible. here's the key problem with it, in addition to the additional exposure of taxpayers: because interest rates reflect risks, states with poor credit rating who, therefore, pay higher interest rates, would actually be rewarded under this legislation due to the structure of these bonds. for example, a state that issues $1 billion worth of debt paying a 5% interest rate would receive a bigger direct payment from the federal government than a state issue $1 billion worth of debt

paying a 4% interest rate. thus, states with lower credit ratings could receive larger subsidies which, of course, encourages greater risk-taking and creates an incentive for states to issue even more debt than they would have without the subsidy. the so-called jobs bill would further reward states with poorer credit. the senate version of the bill expands the "build america bonds" program by giving ensurers he have certain tax credit bonds for alternative energy projects the option of receiving direct payments of up to 65% of the interest cost. the house bill would in certain cases reimburse up to 100% of a project's interest costs. the original build america bonds program encouraged states to take greater risks. the bill we will consider starting tomorrow would make the problem even worse. one of the lessons from the financial crisis is that people should not borrow more than they

can afford. unfortunately, it appears that many of us have not taken this lesson to heart. there's a provision relating to highway extension. rather than being a straight extension of the current highway authorizations, this bill represents a significant expansion of the federal government's funding for highway projects. the highway piece first cancels rescissions that were scheduled under the last highway reauthorization. it then permanently increases the authorization levels for highway spending and permanently authorizes interest payments from the general fund to the highway trust fund, and finally authorizes a onetime transfer of $19.5 billion from the general fund to the highway trust fund. although not all of these costs will show up as increasing the deficit because of the unique c.b.o. scoring conventions, all told, the highway extension,

under this bill, will add $46.5 billion to the debt over the next ten years and will authorize $142.5 billion in additional spending over the next ten years. mr. president, you hear the president talking about not adding to the deficit. all of our colleagues wring their hands and say we've got to somehow control federal spending. so in this legislation, we take up tomorrow, we have $46.5 billion to the debt over the next ten years and then authorize an additional $142.5 billion of spending over the next ten years. when will it stop? there's a provision of the bill that has some merit to it. it's called the payroll tax holiday. although i think the way it's actually been constructed, it is not something we should do. this is the most of expensive

piece of the bill. in fact, the congressional budget office has told us that it expects a provision similar to this to create five to nine jobs for each $1 million in budgetary costs in 2010, since this provision would cost approximately $13 billion, by using the c.b.o. model, one would estimate that the provision would create between 65 and 117,000 jobs this year at a cost of $110,000 to $200,000 per job. this sounds a lot like the stimulus bill to me: a very inefficient way to create jobs if in fact they actually get created. the proposed payroll tax holiday comes on the heel of the senate-passed health care bill which actually increases the medicare payroll tax from 2.9% to 3.8%. this actually would relieve employers of an element of the payroll tax. which is it? do we agree that payroll taxes

that are increased are unhelpful to job creation? according to timothy bartick of the economic policy institute -- and i quote -- "the employer tax credit in the senate jobs bill is likely to create few jobs and at an excessively high cost." as i said, up to $200,000 per job. here's how he explains it: awarding credit for hires can be expensive. over a one-year period the number of hires as a percentage of total private employment is over 40% even during a recession. to pay for hires that would have occurred anyway will be expensive and won't necessarily increase total private-sector employment. schumer-hatch design tries tee sroeutd some of these -- avoid some of these costs in several ways. first, apply only to the rest of 2010 and are only worth 6.2% of the new hires payroll costs. the retention bonus is of modest size and delayed. while these limits control

costs, they also hamper the credit's benefits. limiting the credit to hiring someone unemployed at least 60 days makes the credit less attractive to employers. not only does the credit become more complicated to claim, which reduces its effectiveness, but restricts the employer's hiring to a more limited pool of workers. end of quotation. bartick also explains the past experiences. for example, with the targeted jobs tax credit, the work opportunities tax credit, and the welfare-to-work tax credit show that tax credits to encourage hiring disadvantaged workers usually generate little employer interest. and have a negligible effect upon employment or employer behavior. he says "employers are happy to claim such credits if they happen to meet the credit's rules but they are reluctant to change their behavior in response to such targeted tax credits." so, mr. president, even the one provision of the bill that actually has some alleged

relationship to job creation probably wouldn't and to the extent it does would cost an extraordinary amount of money per job actually created. now let me turn to one of the ways in which these expenses are allegedly offset, delaying the application of the so-called worldwide interest allocation. this is a very bad idea. this delays implementing a corporate tax reform that we passed in 2004 in order to help american businesses properly account for their overseas income and frankly be more competitive with those abroad. the worldwide interest allocation rules were originally approved as part of the american jobs creation act of 2004, as i said, and were scheduled to take effect in 2009. however, the housing and economic recovery act of 2008 delivered the effectiveness of these rules by two years to

2011. the worker homeownership and business assistance act of 2009 that extended the first-time home buyer tax credit further delayed the effectiveness of these rules to 2018. now the so-called jobs bill would delay this provision through the end of the existing budget window to 2021. repeated delays have the same effect as real peel. an increase in the effective corporate tax rate. as i said, that does nothing to help our american businesses and their desire to compete overseas. so, mr. president, these are just some of the reasons why i'm not going to be able to support the hire act and i would urge my colleagues, since we're not going to have an opportunity to amend it, to oppose it as well. now, in the remaining time -- and might i ask, mr. president, how much time i have remaining? the presiding officer: the senator has five minutes. mr. kyl: thank you. mr. president, i want to address now the health care legislation

that we passed here in the senate and that is pending over in the house of representatives. there is a news report that democrats are going to use the strangest of all procedural tactics to try to pass the senate health care bill over in the house of representatives. and this is against a backdrop of a lot of strange things: the use of the reconciliation process, all of the back-room deals that result in the various benefits for various senators and representatives that we've heard so much about. it almost seems that democratic leaders view the views of their constituents as an obstacle to be overcome. and every time the polls show even more opposition to the legislation, they decide to try even more clever ways of getting around their constituents' views. wheeling and dealing, backdoor legislation -- but nothing quite as brazen, i

guess i would say, as the process that we now see developing. this is a process that was -- that i became familiar with as a member of the senate, not when i was in the house of representatives because i don't believe it was ever used then -- although it might have been and i was not aware of it -- but it is a process by which house of representatives members can actually say that they've passed a piece of legislation without ever voting on it. now, you might say that doesn't quite come por comport with whai learned in civics class. and you would be rice. the only way the president can signing a bill is if identical versions of legislation pass both the house and senate. the house doesn't want to have to vote on the senate bill, health care bill, because, as the speaker of the house said -- and i'll quoting now -- "nobody wants to vote for the senate bill." end of quote. so now what they've done is to

concoct a way that you can actually pass the bill without ever voting for t and it is by including the substantive senate-passed bill into the rule that as a procedural matter the house votes on to consider each measure. so, as a rule to consider the reconciliation bill is brought to the house floor, it would contain a provision that would deem the senate-passed bill passed even though the house members would never vote on it. that's wrong. it's probably unconstitutional. and any house member that believes that he or she can go home and say to their constituents, well, i never voted for the senate-passed bill, is frankly not going to get away with it. because by voting for the rule, they will have voted nor the senate-passed rule. it seems to me that this is the time for principled members of the house of representatives to stand up and say, enough.

i may even somewhat like what we're trying to do with this health care legislation, but somebody has to stand up for principle. and principle means, at a minimum, voting for legislation that you send to the president for his signature, not standing behind a rule which deems legislation to have been passed even though it was never separately voted on. so it seems to me, mr. president, that, first of all, we should make it crystal clear that this will -- we will make this famous to the american people, if in fact they decide too-to-use this process, something that's never been used for a bill like this before, this so-called "deeming rule" will become part of the lexicon of american political discourse, and people will come to know it just like they did the house banking scandal and certain other things near washington to

represent a time period and a group of people who were willing to violate all rules of sensibility, of morality, as well as legality in order to try to accomplish ends that couldn't be accomplished in other ways. and nobody who votes for this rule and then later claims that they didn't have anything to do with passing this senate bill is going to be able to get away with that. the american people will understand it and, frankly, whether or not they are sympathetic to the underlying health care legislation, they're not going to be sympathetic members of the house of representatives who decide to do this kind of end run, this sort of scheme-to-deem a bill passed that's never been voted on in that body. mr. president, i hope that the

health care legislation that we've now debated for a year can stand or fall on its merits. the american people have canadiamade itclear. they don't want this legislation. 25% do. but 73% have said either stop altogether or stop and start over. that's what we should be doing. and because of this wave of opposition by our constituents, our colleagues in the house are going to try get around that by using a procedure that is totally inappropriate to the purpose. might i make a parliamentary inquiry. is there more time remaining on the republican side? the presiding officer: 51 minutes. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. if -- what i would like to do, until senator grassley then arrives, i would like to ask first unanimous consent to

insert into the congressional record a letter from governor january is k. brewer of arizona dated march 10, 2010, to president barack obama. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: let me describe the reason for this request. arizona is suffering, as are other states, from the economic downturn. we have an unemployment rate that's now more than doubled. it's gone from 3.6% in june of 2007 to 9.2% i this month and or state faces a $1.2 billion shortfall and ads 3.2 billion shortfall for the next fiscal year despite the fact that the governor and the state legislature have imposed significant spending reductions. state revenues are down by 34%. notwithstanding this, over 200,000 arizonans have enrolled in the state's medicaid program

known as "access," wigs our arizona health care cost containment system just since the beginning of 2009. that's nearly 20,000 new enrollees every month. the last thing, given the kind of -- these numbers, that washington should be doing is make the economic situation worse. yet that's exactly what the health care bill would do. it would require every state to expand its medicaid program. the tbeeght foot the bill for three years. then the states would have to help financial the expansion in 2017 and in subsequent years. she estimates that the bill would increase the cost to arizona by nearly $4 billion over the next ten years. and making matters worse, the early expansion states like arizona, who have already expanded medicaid to cover uninsured, as i noted, will actually get fewer federal dollars than the states that have not yet expanded their

medicaid program, in effect punishing those who have tried to do the right things. the exact things the democrats have wanted in the health care bill. "arizona taxpayers will have the misfortune to pay twice, once for arizona's program and then once more for the hire match for other states." in addition, states maintain flexibility in administering their program so they aren't caught offguard as the economy chaifntle but as she notes, a h. and i quote again, "under your proposal, more power is centralized in washington, d.c., and the states just become another financing mechanism. not only will states be forced to pay for this massive new entitlement program, but our ability to control the costs of our existing program will be limited. these policies are simply not sustainable and will result in a greater burden on state budgets and state taxpayers."

mr. president, since i put the letter in the record, i'll not reflect further on it but just note the enact this is yet one more -- note the fact that this is yet one more reason for states to oppose the senate-passed health care bill. mr. specter: would the senator from iowa yield for a a unanimous consent request? mr. grassley: for 30 seconds, yes. mr. specter: it won't take that long. i ask that a statement on reconciliation be included in the record as if read in full. and that a statement in bill "the fugitive information network database act" be included in the record as if read in full. and i will return at a later time to speak on the subjects, and i yield back the balance of the 30 seconds so graciously offered. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you, mr. president. one of the provisions that the democratic leadership decided to

put in this hire bill is the expansion of build-america bonds. build-america bonds is a very rich spending program, however it's disguised as a tax cut. one democratic senator was asked why build-america bonds program is us viewed differently than appropriations. and she replied, "it has a good name." ironically, the finance committee is returning to its roots of doing appropriations bills. when our committee was established in 1816, the finance committee handled the major appropriations bills that came before congress. i would ask unanimous consent that a portion of the document outlining the history of the finance committee be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: bloomberg news reported that large wall street investment banks were charging

37% higher underwriting fees on build-america bond deals than on other tax-exempt bond deals. therefore, american taxpayers appear to be funding huge underwriting fees for large wall street investment banks as part of the build-america bonds. "the wall street journal" article dated march 10, 2010, stated that wall street investment banks have made over $1 billion in underwriting fees on build-america bonds in less than one year. and the "wall street journal" article, based on data from thompson reuters, stated that underwriting fees on build-america bond deals are higher than those for tax-exempt bond deals. that sounds like a great