let's take all meant to describe the way the finance committee usually operates. when we consider a bill like this like we are today, we did not actually have legislative language in front of us. in fact, we have not seen the language of some of it and it probably has not even been written yet. instead, we have a description of the changes the chairman wants to make, called the chairman's modified mark. .

particularly when you consider that with legislation, the devil is in the details. the win legislative language is written, you can have a large impact on the way the policy is actually implemented and even the cost of the provision. that is why i modified my amendments likely to require the cbo to also provide a final and complete score at least 72 hours before the committee votes on final passage. it is critically important that we know the true costs of this legislation before we pass it. particularly because the cbo director just seemed to indicate a little while the yesterday that after this conceptual bill passes, cbo may begin to shift their focus on

providing cost estimates for the merged package between the finance committee and the senate health committee bills, which means we may never know what the real cost of this bill is. i strongly believe that this bill is too important for us to rely on conceptual language. every member of this committee and every member of the american public should have the opportunity to take a look if they choose at the legislative language and final costs before this committee votes on final passage. i believe it is the right thing to do. the bill before us is not a normal bill. with more than 17% of our gross domestic product spent on health care, the changes we are considering could have a tremendous impact on our economy. america cares deeply about the

issue of health-care reform, regardless of what side of the debate they are on. the town hall meetings this summer were eyeopeners. americans who had never been politically active were taking time out of their days to attend and voice their opinions. americans have flooded our offices with letters and telephone calls about this conceptual bill, and americans are talking about health-care reform with their friends and neighbors. this bill will impact every american, and i believe they will realize it. changes will be coming to the type of health-care coverage they have and the amount of taxes they pay. the bill is too big and too important for us to rely on conceptual language and a preliminary analysis of the costs. the amendment gives us the chance to be transparent with

what we are doing. it simply requires the committee to have legislative language and the final costs of public for three days, only three days, before the committee can vote on final passage, so let's go through all the amendments and it to a point where we are finished and about ready to vote on the final passage of this bill, and then, let's take a minute to get the legislative language and cost analysis finalized. let's posted on the website some members of congress and members of the public can actually read it, and then vote on final passage. quite frankly, i think americans are tired of us taking the easy way out, tired of us not reading or having time to read legislation before we vote on it. they expect more from us, and we should deliver it. i hope everyone on this committee can support my

amendment, and i would like to add, senator corzine is a co- sponsor -- senator cornyn. [laughter] that is a freudian slip. [laughter] >> i do not know quite what to do with that one. ok. >> mr. chairman, i wanted to just respond to my friend and indicate i think we all know that we have to have full costs and that people have to have an opportunity to look at this, the public has to have an opportunity to about the way this. there has been a tremendous amount of confusion around these various bills. i guess what i would just offer is that we know the finance committee is not the final bill going to the floor. it is going to be merged, and so

i would be concerned that we would be adding to confusion by not waiting as cbo recommended to actually wait until they are merged and then see the final numbers and then give people the opportunity to see what, in fact, will be coming to the floor, because while we will be at an incredibly important part of the work, we are not the total work, so i think confusing for people because there have been a number of committees and the house, two committees in the senate, and, mr. chairman, i guess i would just suggest that rather than adding to that confusion, from the public's standpoint, merging the bills and then seeing all the final numbers and giving them the opportunity to about the way what in fact we have done as both committees would be more helpful to people and actually make more sense. >> mr. chairman?

>> senator cornyn. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> corzine? mr. gordon -- senator cornyn. >> i strongly support this amendment. i remember sitting at the dais when president obama was inaugurated and gave his inaugural speech when he talked about the importance of transparency in government. he said transparency breeds accountability and build public confidence, and i think this committee has done a good job under your leadership putting the amendments that have been filed on the web site on saturday -- i have got to emails. i have gotten tweets. i have got all sorts of things on things i have filed and other people have filed, and i would suggest that this legislation has captured the imagination and certainly the attention of the american people, and there are a lot of people across america who

are reading these bills. they read the house bill. they read the house committee bill, and they are intensely interested in what this committee is doing, and i think for a bill most of which will not be implemented until 2013, it is not an inconvenience. it is not, i think, something we ought to overlook the opportunity to get the american people to be able to read it and get a full score. i have heard a lot of discussion at town hall meetings and elsewhere, people mad about congress voting on things we have not even read. the stimulus bill was released a thursday night, and we had to vote on it less than 24 hours later. i voted no, so that was not a particular problem, but i do not know how anybody could be held responsible or did a public confidence if they are not able to make their own evaluations.

so i would encourage adoption of this amendment. thank you. >> mr. chairman, this would be the first time in the history of this committee, which has considered some of the most complicated, most impacting legislation historically in the country, that we have ever been required to provide the legislative language. i mean, let's be honest about it. the legislative language, as we know, is relatively arcane, legalistic, and most people do not read the legislative language. it is not what is of greatest concern to people unless it changes the conceptual language. the conceptual language is the heart of what we are doing here. when we say we are going to, as we are debating now, how are we going to provide to do all eligible medicaid-medicare seniors, are we going to allow

them to get a low-cost access to drugs? that they currently purchased at a much higher price? that is a very simple, but -- concept which people can understand. the language that translates that legally to codify it is up to us to verify at the final moments, in essence, but i would also offer this. this is fundamentally a delay tactic. it is a delay tactic because in essence it requires a long process of that legal language to be put together before we can even move forward on what is not going to be the bill that we are going to vote on in the united states senate. moreover, if you want to get technical year, the finance committee does not vote on final passage. we report a bill out, so it is impossible for us to vote on quote unquote final passage. also, the final and complete

cost analysis will not be a complete analysis of the cost. now, i do believe that the senator is correct that we ought to have a cost analysis. it is not going to be the final one, but we should have a cost analysis of the bill we are looking at, and i am confident that the germans will agree that we ought to require that, and i think he is looking for that in the modification, but i do not think there is any thing, given the history of this committee, and the type of legislation, the tax act of 1986, and you can run the list of things we are looking at, we have never been required like this. i think we can proceed forward, mr. chairman, on the procedural language. i think you are correct to ask for that, and i will vote with you to make sure that is what we do. >> senator? >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, yunel, a lot of

things we do around here are kind of mundane and may be complicated, and you might not expect the american people to understand exactly what we are doing and assumes some things that would not otherwise be assumed, but when it comes to the american people asking us, would you promised us that you are going to read a bill before you vote on it, or coming to the town meetings, as they did in august and maybe before then, would you pledged to read a bill before you vote for it, it is pretty simple for the american people to understand the issue that is before this committee right now and before the entire congress, and, particularly, in light of the fact that the president in so many different

ways and on so many different occasions promised a great deal of transparency in american governments, that this is one of these things where you do not want to insult the intelligence of the american people, because they understand what the issue is, because it is kind of what they expect us to do anyway, read a vote -- bill before you vote on it. so i think this is something we had better take very seriously because the american people understand this issue. maybe they understand most of the issues we are working on, but some of them are kind of complicated, but this one is not complicated. this is pretty simple. you know, what are you voting on? and they ask us for these pledges. they ask us to sign, and i know most of you are not interested in what happens at the group of six over the dozens of meetings

we had over the last several months, but one issue that we republicans kept bringing up in the group of six is that even before a bipartisan agreement would have been voted out of our group of six that we would have had the text, and we would have had the cbo estimate of what the bill costs. now, we did not end up with a bipartisan agreement, so that was not in the group of six by what the chairman decided to move ahead on his own tax, but at one point, it was not a case of just doing it in this committee. it was not a case of waiting until it is merged with the health bill or on the floor of the senate. it was a case that when six people were done with it, we wanted to review the text and have a score, so i hope that this is not considered in ordinance. it might be considered inordinate in some sort of tax legislation that we deal with on

a regular basis or other issues, but on restructuring 1/6 of our economy and health, affecting the life of the -- life and death of every citizen, it is a very important issue that i think we ought to take consideration, and i do not consider it any effort to slow things up because in the final analysis, you know, there was some talk last week that we would vote a bill out of committee this week, and it would be on the floor monday. now, it looks like the defense bill is coming up next week, but somebody had to be ready to get this bill ready for the floor for next week, so i think this is a legitimate amendment and that we ought to be supporting it, and it is something that we on this side of the i have have talked about for a long time.

i remember a senator from maine digging out her files that she was carrying around that she was asked to sign. i do not sign petitions, but it is not difficult for me to tell constituents that i am going to read a bill before we vote on it. >> mr. chairman? >> i am about ready to vote on this, but go ahead. >> directly in response to what senator grassley said, one of the reasons that this committee uses conceptual language in some of its bills is that we deal with the irs code, and it is very difficult to continually change and amend provisions of the irs code with tables and so on an easier for us to discuss those kinds of things in conceptual language, but this is not that except for a few provisions. this is a major, substantive bill that changes, as some people said, when six of the economy. i prefer to talk about the

changes will have in the lives of the american people. it deals with a variety of complicated and significance subjects, he and it is important to have the legislative language. i spoke with one of the very helpful staff members last evening about the abortion language, and i said, "would you show me where it says that no money in this legislation would be used to pay for an abortion," and we went over and what was going to be written, and it is very important for things like that that you see the actual legislative language, because, frankly, there is a big difference in interpretation between people who believe that it does and it does not, and i was persuaded that current tensions where consistent exactly with what we were saying yes -- yesterday, but that is an example of where you're going to have to see the legislative language to know precisely how it works, so i think senator grassley makes a good point. this committee frequently needs to deal in conceptual language

because of the tax language we are writing. this bill is mostly not that. other committees, of course, use legislative language, and there is no reason why on a bill as substantive as this that we would not do that. i also know the american public are watching us here, colleagues, and they really do want to know that all of us know what we are doing, and they want to know what we are doing, as well, and it is true, as senator kerry said, that is easier to understand the conceptual language. we all appreciate that fact. but as the other senators said, the devil is in the details, and the legislative language can make the details, and the people who go through this very carefully and then bring those matters to the light of the american people -- we even have laws. i know at least in my state we have a lot, and i think there are federal laws that provide like a three-day grace period, when you sign a mortgage or some

other documents -- we have a loaw. you have three days to think it over, and there is a reason for that. there is a lot of legal language in those contracts, and it is important to talk to people who can read the legal language and tell me what it means, and if you decide it is not what you thought it was, you have three days to decide that you do not want to do it. should not the american people have the same three-day period of time to know what we said and exactly how much it costs, and, in effect, as our bosses say, tell us whether or not we should sign on the dotted line or not? that is all we ask, three days, and, surely, as we go through this market, the warriors in the bathroom can be putting together -- the lawyers in the bathroom can put the language together. i appreciate it will take some

time, but it will not take that much time, and something this important, surely we can wait a matter of a few days for the american people to come in effect, have that three-day notice to take a look at what we are doing and whether or not they want us to sign it. final comments, at two. . the senator from michigan said that this would add to the confusion. i do not think so. i'd think what would be confusing is if we make -- we spent a week or so in this market up, -- markup, and we end up producing a bill that is very complicated and very long, and it would likely be over 1000 people, and it would be confusing for the american people to know how much it costs and what we voted on simply because there is going to be another stage during which some unknown group of people take the house committee bill and somehow or other melded with

this bill. i doubt i will be a part of that process. my constituents will not have any representation in that room. that is not transparency, and that is what it's the american people up in arms. they see us doing stuff behind closed doors, and this is the argument that is made, that it would be confusing for the american people to see what this committee is voting on after all of this time and to know how much it costs to because some unknown group of people is going to take this, go into a back room, somehow combining it with the health-care bill, and for a lot, we are going to be expected to go to the senate floor and start discussing this -- and voila, so, mr. chairman, i think this is a very important amendment. had the american people are watching this. this is the least that we can do. they are our bosses. they deserve to have some time

to understand what we have done and how much it costs before this bill is mysteriously massage into another bill and then brought to the senate floor -- before this bill is mysteriously massage td. i think we would do ourselves a big favor not to incur the wrath of our constituents by thinking it would be too confusing to let them know exactly what the cbo scoring is and what the language is. >> i would like to remind our colleagues what the actual effect of this amendment will be. the effect of this amendment will be this. that after we have completed action on this bill here, we have to wait another two to three weeks before we vote on it. after we have completed action on the bill, we have to wait another two to three weeks before we can vote on it, and that is because this requires

legislative language, and it is at least 72 hours after we get that two-week to three-week delay. i am reminded of what the cbo director elmendorf said yesterday. he said it would probably take three days to get a preliminary analysis, about three days after. and he also said that then, after that, it would take two more weeks to look at the final analysis looking at the legislative language. we have never, ever, ever done that in this committee. i might also remind our colleagues of the almost excessive transparency this committee has utilized in telling the american people what we are doing. let me just review what we have done in this committee. first, it has been on the

website since last wednesday, and the modified mark up has been recently, and this is a new process. that is new. this committee started that. i do not know any committee that has been more transparent than this committee. let me go back. when we start thinking about health care, are committing last november put together an options paper, a white paper, which is basically the foundation for most health-care reform legislation. that was on the website. for everybody to see and work on. then, we had a whole series of round tables, all public. it was also on the website. we sat here, and one of them, i

think, was in this room. we had experts, in whole committee here, bipartisan, asking questions of oliver s. perks -- asking questions of all of the experts. then we had the walk through, same subject. more and more details. let's figure out what is going on here. do we move the coverage? same thing. we had the round tables, it transparency, open, and then the walk throughs, and then we went on to a third subject, as well, and the financing, again, roundtable, walk through. in fact, one very prominent journalist -- in fact, i can see him right now sitting in the audience. he said to me, he said, "senator, you are starting something new in washington.

you are so open, so transparent, so bipartisan, working so hard to dig down and find out what the details are with what this legislation is all about," and then we had the group of six. the members will tell you this. man, that was a really deep-down the drilling of what this legislation is all about, three republicans and three democrats. >> 61 meetings. >> 61 meetings. and we worked so hard to get this right, and, frankly, this mark that we have here is basically a result of that group of six meeting, and i am proud of that. but the effect of this amendment is that we have got to wait two to three weeks after we complete everything. i, frankly, which urged the senator and maybe find some

other way to deal with it. >> which the chairman yield? >> my final point is this. as chairman of the committee, i am going to insist that we get the numbers on this bill before we vote on it, good, solid numbers. i want that. i think every member of this committee wants it, and they are insisting on it come as they should. we are going to get those numbers. with the reading of this amendment, but the fact began not vote for two to three weeks, and i suggest getting this to we write it -- reeritwrite it and t good solid numbers before we vote on this. >> let me counter arguments

because some of them are misleading. some of them are misleading, because what the cbo director said, and the reason he would take time is the merger of the two bills -- i listened to him the same as you did yesterday. >> that is not what he said. >> well, we also understand if all of this openness is so apparent, why is congress' approval ratings so low? this is not what the american people expect of their leaders. they expect them to be open, completely open, and put things -- every other committee that i work on, banking, energy, whatever it might be, always has legislative language, and the scoring of this bill before we merge with the other bill ought

to be known by the american people. now, you are telling me that it will take two or three weeks. well, if it takes two or three weeks, and we get it right, is that more important than taking less time and getting it wrong? we have a difference of looking at the bill. the bill is the most important bill, and i have only been here 24 years, so is the most important bill i have seen in 24 years, so i can tell you that if it takes an extra two weeks to get it right, and i know that the chairman wants to get it right, for the american people's sake -- >> mr. chairman, i certainly

support this amendment because i think it represents common sense, practical, pragmatic, good government approach to understanding the totality and the collective impact of all that we do, and i know that during the course of our group of six discussions, we thoroughly analyzed and reviewed every aspect and the components of this document that is before us, but what was, you know, overriding in all of those discussions in working hand in glove with the congressional budget office director elmendorf is that this matters, and he reiterated that on a number of occasions that in a document on july 28, a preliminary analysis of our coverage specification, he indicated we have not received any legislative language for

those specifications to be put into law, and a review of that language could have a significant effect of our analysis, and then more recently, regarding his analysis on the document that is before us today, he said important caveats regarding this preliminary analysis, he said there are several reasons why the preliminary analysis is with these attachments and does not constitute a comprehensive cost estimate for this proposal, and he lists several of them, one of which, of course, is a review of the legislative language that would translate those specifications into law and could have a significant effect, and the assumptions that they made, and they have not yet had a complete review of the legislative language that could affect those cost things, and to capture their principal effects on federal spending -- so we have not taken into account all of the proposals for other

federal programs, so obviously it matters to the congressional budget office. it ought to matter to us. these are unprecedented times that require unprecedented measures, and i do believe that the american people are rightly entitled to see exactly what we are doing, what we are legislating. we should not be afraid of having a better and complete understanding of exactly what we are doing. i think we all know as legislators, and i have been in the legislative arena for more years than i care to admit, but the fact is words matter, and so do the numbers, and we want to be sure that we are absolutely confident in the integrity of the product that we are going to be voting on in the final analysis. it requires that language. it matters to the congressional budget office. therefore, it should matter to us. time is our ally, not our enemy,

and people in this country are rightly worried as to whether or not we can possibly get this right, that it represents 17% of the domestic product does under people, because they have already seen a cumulative impact -- doesunnerv unnerve people, ay have seen the stimulus, cash for clunkers, and other programs, so why would they not be concerned about us -- about as organizing this amount in one year level of over 10 years? so i would urge the chairman and members of this committee to support this effort. that we did not do it before is not a rationale for saying we should not be doing it now. president obama said in his address before the joint session of congress on september 10 that

our health-care problem -- so we also should be able to agree that any legislation we have would not aggravate those problems. we are facing an experiencing record deficits, $7.10 trillion over the next 10 years alone. a long-term fiscal shortfall is estimated by the treasury department of $56 trillion, so the fact that we are now attempting to address what will represent $33 trillion over the next 10 years in health-care expenditures, i think it does require prudence on our part, so, mr. chairman, i do think that we should move in this direction. one, that we should have language, your respective as to whether the committee has done this historically. there are many facets to this bill that does require legislative language, and the

cbo director has reiterated that fact, that it has a material affect on the bottom fiscal line, so i would hope that we would adopt this amendment. >> senator corker? >> thank you. i want to thank senator bunning for offering this amendment and for causing us to think about this issue and having a chance to discuss it. let me ask a question, mr. chairman, if i could. do i understand that we have or will have a preliminary estimate from cbo on your modified mark by the end of this week? >> that is my understanding. >> as each of us offer an amendment to the modified mark, we have to have an offset for that, do we not? >> that is correct. >> so when we come to the end of the week and have a hope of a chance of voting on the amended package, first of all, a cbo estimate with the modified mark,

and on an amendment by amended bases, we will know what they cost, and we will have to have an offset, so i think it is a pretty good idea. >> my understanding is that correct, but director elmendorf -- there is not 100% correlation, but i think common sense dictates it is pretty close. >> the other thing i want to mention, conceptual language and legislative language, i was talking to someone back home recently, and they said, "what is this conceptual language d.o.?" i had only been on the finance committee for several months, and no one used conceptual language. we use the legislative language, and at first, i thought it was rather strange, and then i tried to read the legislative language, and it reminds me. i said to my friend back home, and do you ever get these

credit-card disclosure is, in you try to read it, and it is like 40 pages long? you read it, and you say, "what did that say?" that is like reading legislative language in many cases. what we like to tell the bank and what they told us is that we would like to have plain language, plain language so that even i can understand it, and that is basically where we have gone and is basically what we are talking about. before we vote on this bill, after reemerges, do we want legislative language? of course, we do. do we want to have a final, i think, cbo score of the merged bill before we actually vote? yes. do we want legislative language when we take the bills to the floor, morganville bills? yes, we do. do we want to have from cbo in hand their final numbers, if you will, on the merged bill? i think we do.

and i think we ought to be able to get it. let me just walk through this, and tell me if i am wrong. we hoped we would report on the bill may be this weekend, and sometimes next week, our leadership, you, hopefully some folks on the other side will have a chance to talk about what should be in the bill that will be merged and for it to, to the floor for debate may be one week from next monday. my guess is that we are not going to finish debate on that bill in one week. it will take a couple of weeks for it to pass, and during that time, the cbo will have the opportunity before we vote on the final bill as amended in the senate, not legislative language, but we will have the cbo down to the dime kind of estimate. the final point i want to say. i mentioned this yesterday in my opening statement. a lot of people are focused on how important the debate is in this committee, and it really

is. i like to paraphrase churchill, and i did yesterday, and i will do it again. what we are doing here today is not the end. this is not the beginning of the end. at the end of this week, it will be the end of the beginning. it will be the end of the beginning, and for me, conceptual language is better, frankly, than legislative language, and for me, knowing the cbo preliminary estimates on the chairman's mark is modified, that is not bad, and for me, that is sufficient. last point. some people are tired of having me say it. i am not going to vote at the end of the day -- i am looking for a bill out of this committee. i am not going to vote for a bill in this committee that i believe fails to rein in the growth in health-care costs, and i am sure not want to vote for a bill after a couple of weeks of

debate that does not been the cost curves, does not restrain the growth, and increases the budget deficit. i am not going to vote for that bill. the president says he is not going to sign a bill like that, and i am not going to vote for it, so we are on the same page there. if it is out of balance, increases the deficit, and fails to bring this in. i want to thank you for bringing this to our attention. i think you have given us a good issue to discuss and think about it, and hopefully, i am sure by the time we have a chance to vote on it, a final merged package within the next month, we will have what we are looking for and what i think we need. >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman, listening to this debate, and i, too, want to thank senator bunning for raising this, because the one thing i have insisted on throughout is that this be a package that we can say with

certainty will reduce the deficit, will reduce long-term costs in health care from what they would otherwise be, and i have said in a closed and open meetings that if we fail to meet those tests, we will be condemned in history, because we're at a point in time where the united states is on a totally unsustainable budget path. the deficits are too large. the debt is growing too rapidly, and we simply cannot permit that to continue. reforming health care is a key part of the strategy to rein in deficits and debt, because the largest unfunded liability of the united states is in medicare. the unfunded liability in medicare is seven times the unfunded liability in social

security. we have an unfunded liability in medicare of more than $35 trillion. that is over 75 years. that is the reality of what we confront. and it is absolutely imperative that we pass a package that reduces deficits and debt. the chairman's mark does that, according to cbo. what we know is that revisions are being made, and what we have to be certain of before we cast a vote in this committee, which the senator of delaware says very appropriately is the end of the beginning, because there are many steps in this process, but what you're -- but what we are looking at before we are done -- and having an assurance that we

know what the cbo analysis is before we vote. that is what senator bunning has described, and i would ask the chairman, can you assure us that we will see a cbo analysis before we have a final vote in this committee? >> i say to my good friend from north dakota absolutely. that is certainly what i want to see. i think that is certainly what each member of this committee wants to see. >> and will that cbo analysis be available on the website? >> absolutely. >> and the language that we would be voting on, you talk about conceptual language. that has been the history of this committee for more than 30 language. what is conceptual language? it is plain english. that is what we're talking about, plain english. i am not a lawyer. the key reason this committee writes its bills in plain

english is so that members can understand it and so the public can understand it, and it is absolutely -- senator robert says that is going too far. no, i think in fairness, if you read a bill that comes from this committee in legislative language, and you read a bill that comes in plain english, plain english is a lot more transparent than the legislative language, because the legislative language refers to different places in the law that are being amended, so it reads like -- i do not even know how to describe it. it is gobbledygook to most people. that is why this committee writes its bill in plain english, so people can understand what is being done. he is not just a bunch of references to various parts of the code.

now, the issue is raised, could there be a difference between the plain english of the bill and the legislative language that ultimately must be voted on? certainly, that is the case, and what has always happened in this committee in the years that i have been on it is once we vote on the plain english, and then the translation occurs in the legislative language, if anybody feels that there is a discrepancy, if anybody feels that the plain english that we voted on has not been captured in the legislative language, the chairman then offers a chairman 's amendment to restore the integrity of what the committee has done. so what will happen here is we will have before we vote an analysis by the congressional budget office that will be on

the website, that says what the cost is, and we will have in plain english what the bill contains. that is transparency. that is in the interest of the people of this country and certainly in the interest of the members of this committee. i think the senator from kentucky's impulse here is absolutely the right one. it should be transparent. it should be clear. i think his language in a couple of respects creates a problem that perhaps is unintended, but the basic impulse here is the right one. there ought to be transparency. there ought to be a complete and clear cbo analysis of the cost, and the language ought to be in plain english, and then, when the legislative language is prepared, if there is a discrepancy, as sometimes there is, there has always been in my experience in this committee a

manager's amendment to restore the integrity of the actions of this committee. >> some are asking why conceptual language, and senator kyl -- it is because we tend to deal with tax issues. statutory language would be just impossible to understand. some part -- subpart q, we would not know what is going on. >> it is music to the years of us more years -- us or years -- us lawyers. it also helps us in our committee to debate issues.

it would be a better idea of what we're talking about. it just helps. it helps develop trust. we see the language that we think we understand. is in english. it is conceptual language, not statutory, but conceptual, and it does help us reach agreement in this committee. this committee has a tradition of bipartisanship and of working together. i think by far more than any other committee. we might also just remind ourselves, to my knowledge, this committee has never had legislative language, and we should not, in my judgment. if we always required legislative language, we would not understand them as well. they would be hard to draft, harder to modify, but since we

are doing the conceptual language, it is easier to draft amendments. it is easier to understand what the author has in mind, and i want to undermine -- underline again the point that senator conrad had. whatever goes to the floor, it is conceptual language, not legislative language, whenever there has been a mistake, when we write the legislative language, we have always corrected it, and in the 30 years that i have been on this committee, it has never been abused. it has never, ever been abused. it is based on a comedy. we work together. we trust each other. we trust each other. -- it works on being accommodating. it is based on the premise because this is a bigger bill, it should be transparent. well, does that mean smaller

bills, we do not care? maybe only 10 pages long, we do not care? i do not think that is a valid premise, the premise being that larger bills are more important than bills that may be fewer pages. basically, a bill is a bill, and we recall a procedure that has worked for us. otherwise, there is a terrible question to decide whether or not if a bill requires conceptual or statutory. then we have to be on that road. the tax reform act of 1986 and the deficit reduction act of -- not only the tax provisions of the medicare, all conceptual language. the tax situation 2001 was introduced in the house on may 15, 2001, marked up by this committee the same day, passed the house one day later, and

then one week later, it passed the senate, and that was a bigger bill, a bill of $3 trillion. that is bigger than this bill, and it had this process of conceptual language, and that has been used by both parties, not just democrats, not just republican. it has worked very, very well, and it just allows us to do our work. a side-by-side amendment, which think accurately reflects and sufficiently helps us get to the goal that we want, namely what the congressional budget office estimate is on this bill but in a way that allows us to do our work and in a way that does not unnecessarily strangle us or in a way that does not unnecessary because a delay of a couple of weeks, but we want to make sure we are doing our job.

senator conrad asked the question if we could have numbers of a least a preliminary analysis by the cbo before we vote on this. absolutely, yes. senator robert? -- roberts? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to go on record to say that i do not think this amendment, although it has raised the question of the committee's integrity in the eyes of some, that is not the issue or the issue of the chairman or any ranking member here, and like tom, i am a new member for about two or three years, and he had to put up with my rands over oxygen tanks and everything else, and i am struck by the bipartisan nature of the committee -- might win its -- my

rants over oxygen and everything else. the chairman, i would hope that you would not take this amendment personally, and there is not anybody on the committee that does not respect your integrity and your dedication to this. i would like to vote for this because of what happened in the other committee, and that was the predecessor here, and the health committee did not work on concepts. it just worked on an incredible amount of legislation, but the problem was that we were trying to amend a bill that we had never seen, and i have an amendment on c.e.r, my favorite topic, and another, and what they should be doing with regards to cost containment, and what that meant and to prohibit them from simply using c.e.r.

for cost containment without regard to care, and we got into the debate on what the word "prohibit" means. i think that is pretty clear. if you are going to prohibit something, it is, hey, you cannot do that, but we got into a link the deal, and they said, "well, let's take a look at it, and we will get back with you tomorrow." and i said, "what is the problem with the were prohibit?" and it got tossed out, and that was that, but it at least got a vote. i am going to do my usual thing here and say in my previous life i was a reporter/editor, so on and so forth, and if you look at my by a, it says that i was a journalist, and, actually, that is an unemployed newsmen. i know the press is here. -- if you look at my bio.

the american healthy future act, the legislative language, and a final and complete cost analysis by the cbo must be public and available on the finance committee website for at least 72 hours. if you ask the american public to vote on that, never mind the great debate over concepts and whether they are inaccurate or not or legislative language. that is not the issue, and the integrity of the committee is not the issue. the issue is just four lines here or 3.5-year that would get a vote of 90% from the american people, and i think you are going to provide those numbers anyway. why do we not go down the road and vote for this, and you have already indicated to the committee that that is exactly what is going to take place? and the chairman has disappeared. no, he has not. there he is. >> he asked me if i could chair. >> thank you.

the american people are nervous about our attempts at health- care reform and overhauling, but it represents 17% of the gdp, and they are nervous about it because they are concerned that we will not get it right. and it is an issue that affects each and every american. as i said yesterday. personally as well as financially. legislative specifications matter to the congressional budget office. that is a fact. that is a fact that has been stated and restated, and it is certainly something that dr. elmendorf had indicated to us during the course of our meetings in the group of six, so if it matters to the congressional budget office, it should matter to us. it is not second-guessing whether or not who can read it, how they will interpret the legislative specifications.

but it is important and central to the final number on this legislation, and that should concern all of us, and that is exactly what concerns the american people. you can have the conceptual language. that is fine. but the legislative language is ultimately what becomes the law. that is what affects the bottom line. now, if the director of the congressional budget office in these monumental times and true the consequential to the fiscal health of our country on an issue that could have a profound and influential in fact in terms of trillions of dollars, we are not just talking billions. we are talking trillions. then it ought to be of paramount concern to each and every one of oz. if the congressional budget office director is saying

legislative language could have a significant effect on our analysis, then we ought to be concerned. we ought to oblige that. we are legislators. we deal with legislative language. that is what it is all about. and i just do not understand, frankly, why we would be so disconcerted about the notion of having legislative language that could have a material impact on the fiscal cost of this legislation. if this document before us has a $28 billion surplus, it might not. would we not want to know that? would we want to know that we would have the collective effect over the next 10 years that could turn something into the trillions? i think so. this is all about good

government. and we have an obligation to understand that, and i do not understand what is happening in two weeks that we need to drive this on a legislative fast- tracked. i do not understand it. i do not know what is happening in two weeks that we cannot wait to get the final numbers if that is what is going to take for the congressional budget office director to get it done. he said that very clearly yesterday. he was very precise, as he has been all along in this process. we should not be afraid of that. we should not be afraid of sunshine laws. we should not be afraid of sunlight. we should not be afraid of transparency. we should not afraid of accountability. we should not be afraid of the numbers and the facts, because the facts matter, the numbers matter. and if these numbers are wrong, would we not want to come back as a committee and work on it, revise our work, address those issues? is that