our colleagues if they would be open to our suggestions, but i have to tell you as a member of the finance committee, he virtually every suggestion that republicans made during the amendment process -- a member of the finance committee, virtually every suggestion that republicans made during the amendment process was turned down. we asked once it was reduced to legislative language and the cost is determined that it be put on the internet for 72 hours. that was voted down along a party-line vote, but i would think the presiding officer and the other folks on the other side of the dial, eight of whom have written to the majority leader, saying that makes sense to them -- and the other folks -- i would think the presiding officer and the other folks on the other side of the aisle. there aren't medicare beneficiaries that are engaged

in the medicare advantage program in order to pay for this bill -- there are the medicare beneficiaries. medicare is on a pathway to bankruptcy by 2017. why would you do that to create a new government program? it could only make sense inside the beltway that if you voluntarily suspend your powers of disbelief. it just does not make sense across the country, so that is why it is so important that we have these discussions, have transparency, and today, i want to ask another question. will the health-care proposals, like the finance committee proposal and others, break the president's promise of not raising taxes on families making less than 250 thousand dollars per year? now, unfor the, i will the finance committee -- unfortunately, the finance committee bill does, in fact, raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year. and so you can't keep the -- the president can't keep his promise if we pass this particular

legislation. for example, this bill imposes a penalty on individuals who do not meet the washington-imposed mandate that will be enforced by the internal receive new service. the internal revenue service is going to impose a penalty on you if you don't have health insurance that meets the washington-imposed mandate. according to the joint tax committee the penalty initially included in the bill would hit especially middle-class families hard. they found that at least 71% of the penalty would come from people earning less than $250,000 a year. the bill also increases the penalty from 10% to 20% for americans who use a portion of their health savings account for purposes other than qualified medical expenses. it seems to me that we ought to be encouraging more people to use their health savings accounts rather than less, but, as i've discussed yesterday on the telephone with the c.e.o. of whole foods, john mackey, he

said the -- the health savings accounts -- they call them wellness accounts that are overwhelmingly successful and voted every year with the satisfaction rate of some 85% or more by the employees of whole foods, headquartered in austin, texas, that will be an inlegal plan under this mandate. an insurance premiums, of course, will go up in the process. this bill also raises the floor on deductions for medical expenses to 10% from its current level of 7.5%. so you'll be able to deduct less of your medical expenses if you have serious health care expenses, which means that your taxes will go up if you can deduct less, your taxes will go up. and the committee did, i would point out, consider an amendment that was intended to bring the bill in line with the president's promise not to raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year and it was voted down along party lines.

republicans were for it, democrats were against it. this amendment would have protected families who earned less than $250,000, but, as i say, it was voted down. so, mr. president, in addition to imposing taxes on people the president promised not to impose taxes on, this also imposes additional so-called industry fees which experts have said will ultimately be passed down to consumers in higher insurance costs. so instead of making insurance more affordable, this bill would actually make it less affordable and head in the wrong direction. the nonpartisan congressional budget office and the joint tax committee both confirm these fees woulds passed -- would be passed along to consumers an would ultimately raise -- and would ultimately raise premiums. so, mr. president, my question today is will these proposed health care reforms break the

president's promise not to raise taxes on those making $250,000 or less? unfortunately the finance committee proposal, which we will now apparently vote on tuesday of next week, does break the president's proposal or promise, i should say. republicans stand ready to work with our friends on the other side if they would just accept some ideas on how to do this to bring down costs and to cover more -- cover more people and make health coverage more affordable, but so far we've been rejected -- all of those suggestions have been rejected along party line votes. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. bent bent mr. president, along with -- mr. bennett: mr. president, i noticed in the paper -- it said that the -- that what is comes out of the finance committee will not increase the deficit.

i the thought, that's a little bit hard to believe. then i looked at the details and all of this reminded me of a scene out of an old movie. and the movie's not worth talking about, but the seen is worth talking about to describe what's happening. it's a circumstance where a spend this rift husband comes home -- thrift husband comes home to a frugal wife with a new car. and the wife takes a look at the new car and says, "why in the world are we doing this? we can't afford a new car." he says, "no, remember, we got that windfall. there was an inheritance that came through. we got some extra money. and we can use a new car and it won't add, in words from the democrats, a dime to the new deficit. because we have this windfall coming in and we can afford the new car. she says, are you kidding?

the roof is leaning. the -- leaking. our house payments are in arrears. we got that windfall, we can take care of some of these other problems. we do not need a new car. well, he said, we got the money and i've already spent it on the car and there's nothing you can do about it now. as it turned out in the movie, the new car got repossessed later on because he had only made a down payment on it and they couldn't afford the payments to keep the car. why do i say that the health care debate reminds me of this scene from the movie? the federal debt is rising, the deficit from the regular appropriations bills are enormous, we are wallowing in red ink here in the federal government, but this bill is not going to add to the deficit because we found $1 trillion as

a way to pay for it. we found $1 trillion someplace else that we can pay for this bill. we can buy this new car and, ok, the roof is leaking, the college fund is gone, the house is in arrears, but somehow we have an extra $1 trillion that we think is best spent on the new car. if the new car is that much better than the old car, maybe the case could be made that we should take this $1 trillion and spend it on the new car. what do we get for $1 trillion from the baucus bill? the $1 trillion, which if it is available to make this thing deficit neutral, could very well be spent in balancing other budgetary problems and paying down the national debt and doing other things with it. if we really do have $1 trillion to spend here, what are we getting for it when we're spending it and tirely on the

baucus bill? well, we're getting a continuation of defensive medicine because there is no significant malpractice reform or tort reform in this bill. in his speech to the congress, president obama said, i don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but i have talked to enough doctors to they that defensive medicine may be contributing to costs. close quote. i don't want to argue with the president that much because i was delighted when he said that and i was on my feet applauding with others for that particular statement. i would say defensive medicine not may be contributing to unnecessary costs, defensive medicine clearly is contributing to unnecessary costs. but we're not dealing with that in the baucus bill. we're raising $1 trillion somewhere else so we can continue business as usual with

respect to defensive medicine and malpractice awards within our present system. so the new car, no better than the old car. costing us a lot more money, but it's no better than the old car. are we getting coverage of the 47 million americans that we hear about over and over again in the debate? when they say that the whole purpose we have to understake this is that we have 47 million americans who do not have health care coverage, are we getting them taken care of? do we have room for them in the new car? well, not really according to the paper this morning we're going to get 29 of the 47 million taken care of, which means roughly 20 million left out. we can go into the details of who the 47 million are and, as we do, we find out it is a very mixed bag of people who are just passing through that category, people who deliberately choose

not to be there. if we're spending $1 trillion just to get to 29 million out of the 47 million, we're not getting a very good new car. we're not getting an improvement over what we've already got. an, again, that $1 trillion could be spent in a much better and wise are way. , if indeed, we have an extra $1 trillion that we can spend on health care, if indeed, we do have an opportunity to buy a new contacts this is the kind of thing -- car, this is the kind of thing we could get for the $1 trillion, if we say, all right, we've got an extra $1 trillion lying around, let's put it in health care. we can double cancer research funding, we can provide treatment for every americans whose diabetes or heart disease is going unmanaged, we could contribute to a global campaign to save millions of children's lives and we would still have enough money leftover to keep doing these programs for at least a decade or probably more.

that's what we could get for a new car in the form of health care reform if we were willing to spend the $1 trillion on trying to improve people's health. but instead of trying to improve people's health, we are simply trying through this bill to keep the present system as it is. now, i've heard my friends from the other side of the aisle say repeatedly the present system is broken, the present system is not an acceptable alternative, the present system must be changed. and i say, who are ray. i -- horray. i agree. i just wish the baucus bill would deal with the present system. i just wish the baucus bill would give us, in fact, a new car rather than simply replacing the old car with a duplicate of the old car that just happens to cost an extra $1 trillion.

so, mr. president, i'm hoping as this thing moves forward we can make some significant changes in it, because at the present time what we've got here is a program that would spend federal ms. mikulski: well, thank you very much, mr. president. as the dean of the democratic women in the senate, we want to tell our colleagues and the american people that we want to join together as women of the senate today and to talk about the compelling issues facing the american people in terms of the need of health care reform. we're going to be speaking out and speaking up about the need for reform. i will be the wrapup speaker. in order to kick it off, i'm going to yield three -- how much does the gentlelady from minnesota need? ms. klobuchar: i would say about five minutes.

ms. mikulski: we have nine speakers. ms. klobuchar: three minutes. ms. mikulski: i yield the gentlelady three minutes. you may proceed at will. ms. klobuchar: thank you very much. mr. president, mr. president, i rise today to talk about the importance of health care reform to the women of this country. now, let me tell you how i it is when my daughter was born. when she was born, she was very sick, and she cannot swallow. she was in intensive care. they thought she had a tumor. it was a horrendous moment for my family. i was up all night in labor, of all day trying to figure out what was wrong with your, and they kicked me out -- up all day trying to figure out what was wrong with her. they had arule, and it was called a drive by imports --

they had a rule, and it was called "drive-by births." we said enough is enough, and we passed the first block, guaranteeing mother -- and we pass the first law, guaranteeing mothers and their babies 48 hours in the hospital -- we passed the first law. i brought six pregnant friends of mine. when they said, "when should this bill take effect? and all of the pregnant women said, "now." we cannot keep having these escalating costs and making it harder and harder to afford health care. i always tell the people in my state to remember these numbers, six, 12, 24. they were paying $6,000, and now they are paying something like $12,000, small businesses even

more, and in years from now, they will be spending $24 and dollars, if we do not do something to bend the cost curve -- they will be spending $24,000. condition, mr. president, is this pre-existing conditions. what i found out last week i couldn't believe, that in nine states and the district of columbia, women who are victims of domestic abuse, who have been victims of domestic abuse can be denied health care coverage because domestic abuse can be considered a pre-existing condition. so they get abused and then they can't even get the health care coverage to help them. maternity, being pregnant. these things can all be pre-existing conditions, and that's something that we need to stop, and that's what i'm so glad one of the major, major proposals in this reform is to do something about pre-existing conditions. we also need to make sure preventative care, so important to women, things like mammograms, are covered by our health care plan. and then finally, one of the things that i know the senator

from maryland has been such a leader on is aging parents. people like me, we have kids of our own, and then we also have aging parents. we're caught in what they call the sandwich generation. taking care of our own kids and making sure our parents get care at the same time. predominantly, a lot of women are in this situation, mr. president. that's why the class act that senator kennedy proposed that's in one of the health care proposals which allow americans to use pretax dollars to pay for their health insurance and their long-term care insurance is so important. so i'm glad for the american women that we are moving forward on this health care reform. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: i thank the gentlelady for her advocacy to end this drive-by delivery and other punitive practices in her role. i now yield three minutes to the gentlelady from north carolina. mrs. hagan: thank you, senator mikulski. mr. president, i am joining my

colleagues on the floor today to talk about how health care reform will improve women's access to care. i recently received an email from a woman in raleigh that truly underscores why women need health care reform in america. julie wrote to me about her sister who was uninsured and waited years for a mammogram because she literally couldn't afford to pay for one. then she found a lump in her breast. by the time the lump became a mass, julie's sister finally got a mammogram and had to pay for it with cash. the mammogram confirmed what she suspected -- she had breast cancer. now she had the diagnosis, she had no way to pay for the treatment. she lost her battle with breast cancer this march, and like thousands of women across america, julie's sister perhaps could have beaten this cancer if she had had access to affordable, preventative care. and after her diagnosis, access to either insurance or medical care to cover her cancer treatment. in this heartbreaking situation, julie's sister was sick and

stuck. unfortunately, i hear about cases like this far too often. infishies and discriminatory practices in our health care system disproportionately affect women. and in all but 12 states, insurance companies are allowed to charge women more than they charge men for coverage. the great irony here is that mothers, the people who care for us when we're sick, are penalized under our current system. my daughter carrie recently graduated from college and had to purchase her own health insurance. for no other reason than her gender, her insurance policies cost more than they do for my son tilden. yesterday, a 23-year-old staffer in my office, a female in fayetteville, shopped for health insurance on the individual market for the most basic, best-selling plan, it would cost her $235 a month. for a man of the same age, $88. that's 2 1/2 times more expensive.

close to $1,800 more per year. many women who have health insurance are still stuck. insurance companies don't often cover key preventative services such as mammograms and pap smears, and often the co-pays for these critical services can be out of range for many women where they range as high as $60 a visit. more than half of all women like julie's sister delayed preventive screenings. without insurance, mammograms cost you well over $100. in many cases the difference between life and death is early detection. the affordable health choices act, which i worked with my colleagues on the health, education, labor and pension committee to craft, makes preventive care possible. it eliminates all co-pays and deductibles for recommended preventive services. we're stopping insurance companies from charging women more than men -- the presiding officer: the

senator's time has expired. mrs. hagan: or using preexisting conditions. thank you very much. ms. mikulski: i now yield three minutes to the gentle lady from michigan -- the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president, and to the dean of the women in this senate. i want to thank senator mikulski for bringing us all together on the floor and joining with my great colleague from california and north carolina and i know that other colleagues are joining us as well to talk about the importance of health care reform for women. women are the majority of the population. we have the ability to benefit from this reform that holds insurance companies accountable and creates more opportunity for coverage. we have a great -- great benefit to come from all of this. and i want to speak to just one

piece of that. i mean, we know that majority of people today, men and women, families, have insurance. and there are a multitude of bad insurance company practices that are occuring today. stopping people from getting coverage because they have a preexisting condition and, by the way, we found out that just last week that in "the washington post" that some insurance companies treat pregnancy or the intention to adopt as a reason to reject someone for a preexisting condition. i mean, that's really pretty shocking to me. in fact, in the same report they said being pregnant or being an expectant father also for some companies were grounds for automatic rejection -- automatic rejection of being able to get a health insurance policy. so this reform is about making

sure that everyone benefits. that women who have insurance as well as woman who don't currently have access to health insurance can see protections and changes that stop the discrimination and create better access to health care. because that's what this is all about being able to afford affordable health care and health care that meets your needs. all of the women across the country certainly are desperately concerned about that. we have 62 million american women right now who are in their childbearing years. and, mr. president, i was quite shocked, actually, to learn that right now according to the women's law center, nearly 60% of the individual insurance plans that are throughout in the marketplace, if you're not getting insurance through your employer, but you're going out yourself to find an insurance policy for you or your family,

nearly 60% don't provide any coverage for maternal care or even an option or supplemental insurance for an additional cost. so for the women in these plans, or who are attempting to get insurance, no amount of money can buy maternity care that they need. and so -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. ms. stabenow: this bill is about changing that and make sure the women of the country have the care that they need. thank you very much, mr. president. ms. mikulski: i now yield three minutes to the senator from california, senator boxer. mrs. boxer: thank you, senator, mikulski, for your leadership. everyone in america has a stake in health care reform even if they're happy with their insurance at the moment. and the main reason is that costs are exploding and the health care insurance companies walk away from you without any penalty. they come up with a reason and

we are paying, all of us with insurance, for those without insurance and wind up in the emergency room. women have even more at stake. why? because they're discriminated against by insurance companies, and that must stop and it will stop when we pass insurance reform. now, how are women discriminated against? if they had been victims, mr. president, of domestic violence, that is considered to be a preexisting condition and, therefore, they're told they can't get insurance and that happens in eight states and the district of columbia. it's a tragedy and it will change when we pass health insurance reform. if they're pregnant, only 14 states in america require insurance companies to cover maternity care. imagine in a country that puts family values first, only 14 states, that will change. and everyone is faced with huge

increased costs, but women 18 to 55 are charged nearly 40% more than men for similar coverage in my home state and that happens in most state and health reform will stop that. because of discrimination, women are at risk under the current system. more than 52% of women reported delaying needed care or avoiding it completely because of costs. compared to 39% of men. now, 39% is terrible. 52% is deplorable. people are walking around sick because they can't afford to go to the doctor and health insurance reform will stop it. there will be no more gender rating. women earn less than men, that's why it's an impossible situation. in my home state over the past nine years premiums have risen four times as fast as earnings. we spend more than twice as much

as any other industrialized nation on health care. you'd think we'd have great outcomes, mr. president, with 29 out of 30 industrialized nation in infant mortality. it isn't surprising when so many women are not getting prenatal care. medicare, more than half of those on medicare are women. if we do no, medicare goes broke in 2017. so when politicians try to care our seniors, it's despicable, because it is the status quo that is dangerous much when we -- dangerous. when we fix medicare, and we will in health care reform, women will get preventive care, mammograms, annual physicals. women and men need us to act on health reform. we must make our voices heard. and i thank my women colleagues for coming to the floor today to wake up this nation.

ms. mikulski: i now yield three minutes to the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i thank our leader from maryland for organizing this effort on the floor this morning. the senator from maryland, senator barbara mikulski. i'm pleased to join my sisters here this morning and -- and colleagues in the senate to really raise some specific and important issues relative to this reform debate, mr. president, that is moving forward. and there are important facts as we press forward with our reforms. i'd like to begin just briefly with reminding all of us that we began, even as the president called for us to focus on health care reform, to reduce costs, costs to our nation, costs to our states, costs to individual businesses as they continue to see these premiums skyrocketing

beyond their ability to either afford it or control it. and costs to individuals. the baucus mark in the senate finance that is pending goes a significant step forward in terms of that issue and that is very encouraging to those of us that believe health care reform is essential for several reasons, but one of the important reasons is to get cost under control and begin to help balancing this federal budget and getting us back on a surer financial footing, which, as has been stated by many experts, mr. president, impossible without that is 0.1. point two. the benefit of moving forward with reform will significantly improve outcomes for women, and as the senator stated, are

senator from california, it is going to help all americans -- our senator from california, particularly those of child- bearing age who are often discriminated against because of the child-bearing age, and they have to see doctors more often just because of the nature of pregnancy and care, and because they have to see their doctors more often, their insurance is often significantly higher. in fact, the records showed that the cost for an insurance plan for a 40-year-old woman could be up to 38% more than a 40-year- old man in the same circumstance, same house, same geographic location. hours will eliminate that bias and make health care more affordable for everyone, but particularly for women. i wanted to take my last minute and just submit for the record a letter from daniel walker, a 25- year-old woman living in baton

rouge, just graduated from school, went on to get a job. -- danielle walker. 20% of her paycheck is going towards insurance. this bill will help young women, middle-aged women, and older women on the issue of affordability. thank you, mr. president. president. the presiding officer: without objection, the letter will be printed in the record. ms. mikulski: i now yield three minutes to the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i'm very pleased to join my women colleagues in the senate today to talk about the importance of passing health care reform for all the women in this country. and i want to thank senator mikulski for her leadership on this issue. plain and simply the status quo is not working.

today's health system is simply not meeting the needs of women. for too many women and their families today quality, affordable health care is out of their reach. now, it should surprise no one that women and men have different health care needs. despite this difference, it is unacceptable that women are not treated fairly by the system and do not always receive the care they require and deserve. in cases where women can find coverage that is affordable, often it is woefully inadequate. a recent survey by the national woman's law center found that the vast majority of individual market health insurance policies did not cover p maternity care d only a few number of insurers sell a separate maternity rider. this isn't that surprising, when you consider, as we've heard, only 14 states require maternity coverage and insurance companies

are all about their bottom line. defending the practice, one insurance spokesman called pregnancy, a matter of choice. to make matters worse, many insurance companies consider c-section a preexisting condition, and one insurer simply regrets -- simply rejects women who have had c-sections. this is unbelievable. and what is most shocking to me is that insurance companies can deny coverage to a woman for having been a victim of domestic violence. domestic violence, something that no woman plans for or wishes upon herself or anyone else, can be denied insurance company. mr. president, this cannot be allowed to continue. without a doubt, the current private health insurance framework leaves too many women uncovered and for those who are covered care often falls short. it's time to end the insurance

discrimination that women face. i'm pleased that both senate bills that have come out of committee ban discrimination based on preexisting conditions. i also applaud the finance and the "help" committees for putting an end to gender discrimination and pricing insurance and ensuring that women and men pay the same price for the same coverage. we must come together to pass comprehensive health reform to help all the women of our nation who are facing high insurance costs just because they're women. i applaud the women on the "help" and the finance committees for the work that they've done. and reiterate that any legislation we consider must level the playing field and make health care accessible and affordable for all. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: mr. president, how much time is remaining in our morning business? the presiding officer: 5 1/2 minutes. ms. mikulski: i ask unanimous

consent that morning business be extended for another 15 minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. mikulski: i withhold my unanimous consent request. i ask for 15 minutes that it be equally divided. and i ask unanimous consent that morning business on our side be extended for 15 minutes and that it also be added to 15 minutes to the republican side. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. ms. mikulski: and i want to assure my colleagues on the other side that all time will be protected. i think there is a little confusion where i haven't been briefed on the order of the day.

i can assure everyone's time will be protected at the time that they were assured that they could speak. i now yield to the senator from new york three minutes. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i rise today to speak in support of the health care reform on behalf of the greater access to health care for women. i'm very grateful to senator mikulski for her extraordinary leadership on this health care debate. there are few americans who are not hurt by the rising costs of health care. however, it's shocking to think that in today's america, over half of this country could be discriminated against in one of their most basic life needs. women must shoulder the worst of the health care crisis, including outrageous

discriminatory practices in care and coverage. according to the data compiled by the national women's law center, under the current system, a 25-year-old woman pays up to 45% more for the same or identical coverage. some of the most essential services required by women are not covered by many insurance plans, such as childbearing, pap smears, or mammograms. as a mother of two young children, i cannot imagine how awful it would be for a woman who does not have these basic needs covered. that's exactly what millions of women and young mothers face because of the costs of childbirth. a standard in-hospital delivery costs between $5,000 and and $10,000, and much more if there are there are complications. in the current system, pregnant women can be turned down for health care coverage because insurance companies would rather evade those costs. pregnancy should never be a pre-existing condition. such discrimination is unacceptable and is contrary to

our core american values of equality and equal rights. as we address the inadequacies of our current system, we must safeguard the women's health clinics that are essential -- that are an essential point of care for millions across this country. their work is being politicized as part of this debate. politicizing health care delivery endangers young women, putting them at risk for teen pregnancies, s.t.d.'s or cervical or breast cancer. women's health clinics provide critical services to women every day. in my own state, over 400,000 new yorkers receive health care from planned parenthood each year. about 50% are working adults whose jobs don't include health care benefits. our strategy for reform must protect these critical services that clinics provide and expand upon their success. the health care crisis is a life and death issue for so many americans, one that disproportionately affects women in this country. we must reform our broken health care system and disparities

among race and gender and make quality, affordable health care affordable for every single american. thank you. ms. mikulski: i now yield four minutes to the gentlelady -- to the senator from washington state. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank my colleague senator mikulski and all the women who are on the floor today to talk about this critical issue, because the rising cost of health insurance is hurting women and it's hurting our country. for the millions of women across this country who open up the mail each month to see their premiums rising dramatically, who can't get preventative care like mammograms because the co-pays are too much or who work part time or for a small business that doesn't provide insurance for them and their families, who can't get covered for prenatal care or who are forced to stay in an abusive relationship because if they leave, their sick kids will lose their health care coverage. mr. president, we are their voice. you know, i remember a similar

debate like this on this floor almost 16 years ago. senators in this chamber were debating legislation that would allow 35 million americans to be able to stay home to take care of a newborn or sick child, parent, spouse without fear of losing their jobs. i came to the floor then and i told the story about a woman i knew whose child was sick at the time and who was not allowed to take time off from work to care for him as he was dying because she would lose her income and the health insurance that covered him. at the time, as a new member of the senate, i spoke passionately about that, told the story, and as i was walking off the floor, one of our colleagues came up to me and he said, you know, here in the senate, we don't tell personal stories. i remember well what i said to him. i came here to tell the stories of the people i represent. they deserve a voice in this united states senate. those stories impacted that debate, and we passed the family and medical leave law.

well, mr. president, i'm back today to tell the story of a woman whose child was sick. i want to tell everyone about the story of this little boy here. his name is marcellus owens. i met him at a health care rally in seattle. he was 10 years old. he and his two sisters who you see here as well have been through a lot. two years ago, their mother tiffany, who is not in this picture -- that is his grandmother -- tiffany lost her life because she was uninsured, 27 years old. how did that happen? well, tiffany was a single mom who felt strongly about working to support her family, and she worked as an assistant manager at a fast food restaurant. she had health care coverage for her family. but in september, 2006, she got sick and missed some work. her employer gave her an ultimatum -- make up the lost time or lose your job. well, because she was so sick, she physically couldn't make up the time and she did lose her

job. when she lost her job, she lost her health insurance. and without the coverage and care she needed, in june, 2007, tiffany lost her life. marcellus and his sisters lost their mom. our health care system is broken. it's broken for moms like tiffany who work to provide for their families and do the right thing and for men who lose their health care in this market we have today. it's broken for women we have heard about who have been denied coverage or charged more for pre-existing conditions like pregnancy or c-sections or tragically domestic violence. it's broken for their families and for little boys like marcellus who will never get back what he lost. enough is enough. the time is now. the status quo that is being defended by the other side is not working. for women across this country, for their families, for our businesses, for our nation's future strength that as mothers

we care about so much, we have to get this right. we have to remember these stories. we need to be their voice. that's why we're here today and why we're going to keep fighting to make sure that we reform the health care insurance system in this country finally and do it right. thank you, mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: mr. president, as we wrap up our discussion on health insurance reform, i want to say as the senior democratic woman that i'm very proud of my colleagues today and how they have spoken up about the terrible practices of the insurance companies discriminating against women. what you heard about here today is that health care is a woman's issue, and health care reform is a must-do woman's issue, and health insurance reform is a must-change women's issue. because what we have demonstrated is that when it comes to health insurance, we women pay more and get less.

what -- we stand today on the senate floor to say we want equal access and equal benefits for equal premiums. we women pay more and get less when we do pay our premiums. a 25-year-old woman is charged more than a 25-year-old man of equal or similar health status. and at age 40, it's often up to almost 50%. and when we do pay our benefits, when we are able to cross that barrier of getting health insurance, we get less coverage because insurance companies have certain punitive practices. number one, we're often denied coverage because of something called a pre-existing condition. these pre-existing conditions are not catastrophic. we hear horror story after

horror story that a woman who has had a baby by a c-section which was medically mandated is then denied subsequent coverage because she had that. we've heard horror story after horror story that in some states victims of domestic violence because they have been battered by a spouse, and then they are battered by the insurance company. this has to change. coverage for women is often skimpy and spartan. i think people would find it shocking. good men would find it shocking that maternity care is often denied as a basic coverage, or we have to pay more to cover for maternity care. often, basic preventive care, like mammograms and cervical screenings, which have to pay significant copay -- we have to pay significant copays to get

it, so we as women are fighting. these are very basic things that we support. number one, we want to make sure that medicare is strengthened and saved. we know that medicare is a woman's issue and a family issue. not only because of the significant number of women -- there are more women on medicare and then there are men, but we know -- then there are men -- there are more women on medicare than there are men. mr. chairman, mr. president, you see that i am speaking from a wheelchair. that is because i had a fall and a couple of weeks ago. o.r., the rehab room, that if i did not have medicare and my benefit, my health care benefit, i would be bankrupt today.

and if health care is good enough for a united states senator, it's good enough to make sure we have health care for u.s. citizens. and so in order -- so we want to save medicare. we also want to close that doughnut hole, the doughnut hole for drugs has been very, very difficult to swallow. now it's time to change that. we want to end the punitive insurance practices of discriminating on the basis of gender. so whether you have had a c-section or whether you need mental health benefits after you have been raped, you can get your coverage. later on this weekend, there will be many in my state that will be racing for the cure. i think it's great that we're looking for the cure for breast cancer, and we salute the komen foundation. but we not only want to do the research to find the cure, we want to make sure that women have access to preventative screening for breast cancer,

ovarian cancer, and cervical cancer, so we are fighting to make sure that access is -- is provided for these important screenings and there is no barriers for payment. in a nutshell, mr. president, we, the women of the senate, have fought for equal pay for equal work. now we're fighting for equal benefits for equal premiums. we hope that when the insurance debate comes to the senate we will be able to elaborate, but today we wanted to say let's get rid of the mob scene that's going around the debate on health care. let's focus on the compelling human needs. and, mr. president, i now conclude my remarks and i believe this concludes morning business. i yield the floor. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> in a few moments, our special

series on the supreme court has of lawyer's perspective on the court. in one half-hour, the white house briefing with white house spokesman robert gibbs, including afghanistan. after that, house debate on a bill about the hate crimes debate. and then, a hearing on a fannie mae and freddie mac. -- on fannie mae and freddie mac. on "washington journal," tomorrow morning, we will look at the role of the white house economic adviser. our guest is from "the new yorker." there is the former head of the congressional budget office. "washington journal" is live

every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. our special look at the supreme court continues on c-span with a variety of perspectives on the high court, including attorneys that have argued before the justices. interviews with all of the justices air tomorrow, saturday, and sunday. today, we talk to two attorneys who argued several cases before the court, including an appellate attorney who clerked for chief justice william rehnquist. drew days and maureen mahoney. >> mr. roberts, we will hear from yunel. >> mr. g justice, and if it will please the court, after punishing him with two years in prison and a $5,000 fine -- mr. chief justice -- >> do you remember your first

case? >> yes, and i was very nervous, and i was very nervous when i did my last argument, well. i think if you're arguing before the supreme court and you are not nervous, you do not know what is going on. >> about fielding those questions and using the time strategically so that you respond to your questions. it is essential to answer the questions. >> the courtroom, the people in the courtroom, the physical movements that are going on, it is quite remarkable. >> in this program, we talk with two attorneys who have argued several cases in front of the supreme court. they will take us inside the courtroom and asa about how and where they prepare for this crucial one hour to potentially swayed the justices. we begin edit room just down the hall from the supreme court chamber, where they gathered just before oral argument. >> in the lawyers lounge, the

deputy clerk and clerk of the court to come in and give practical pointers. they try hard to put people at ease. it is a fun place to be before going into the courtroom, because it is friendly, and you can opposing counsel if you have not met them before. it is friendly. >> it is designed to calm lawyers down if they are doing it for the first time to make sure that there are not faux pas or that they do not try to make jokes during their oral arguments are not to refer to their familiarity with one of the justices, and that, indeed, they will survive the experience, and they ought to see it where they can make their best case, and the court will hear them, and they will get a fair decision. >> we want them to enter that courtroom prepared and ready, and both sides have an equal chance of winning the case. the attorneys are instructed to be there after 9:00 in the

morning, and the regulars all know to be there and come there. sometimes, they do not know it could be new york and california. it is a national court, so it is not just a bunch of attorneys who hang around the same courthouse. the exchange greetings, take their seats, go over the events that are going to go on that day, he met them know if there are any opinions coming down, and the absence of any judges that may be reduced, offering them cough drops, aspirin, anything that they might need to make them feel more comfortable -- the absence of any judges that may be recused. >> the honorable chief justice is an associate justices of the supreme court of the united states. all persons having business before the honorable supreme court of the united states are admonished to draw near and give

their attention, for the court is now sitting. god save united states and this honorable court. >> when you're sitting in the chair getting ready to argue, they come in from behind the bench through the curtains, and they are called in by a martial. it is a very formal entry, and everyone rises, of course, to show respect, and then the gavel goes, and people sit down, and the court is called into session. it is always very ceremonial. the building is majestic. the procedures are high ceremony. it is very traditional. nothing sort of informal or modern about the way the court conducts its proceedings. very, very traditional, but i like it that way. i would not change it, and i have never heard and advocates

say they would like to see the court proceedings modernized in some way. there is still enormous respect for the institution, for the processes, a lot of reverence for the court. >> we will hear arguments today in this case, the district of columbia -- >> it is a very powerful experience. i think everyone feels it, and even people there have been before the court many, many times still get a rush when it happens. in fact, one of the lawyers on my staff, quite a good lawyer, and i went to him, in fact, when i was fairly new in the office, and i said, "how do you feel when you're arguing? do you have butterflies?" and he said, "i do," and this was a big guy, and he said, "i decided it is like playing ball. you are nervous until the first hit. after that, it is fine." >> when your first argument arrives, i think the uniform

argument is, "i cannot believe i am here." there was enormous pressure to perform, and that is what i feel every time i am there, but it was probably the most intense the first time i was there, because i understood that if i did not do well, i probably would not come back, and for many lawyers, it is the crowning achievement of their careers, to argue before the supreme court, and it was intimidating, but it went pretty well. >> mr. justice, and may it please the court -- >> a certain nervousness on people who have appeared before the court. my recollection is i argued a voting rights case before the court, and my opponent was not particularly skilled or well prepared as an advocate, so i got the sense that the court was reaching out to help him, and i wanted to know, why not me, but ultimately, i won the case, and one of the things i remember

about that period is a different rhythm of oral arguments when chief justice burger headed the court. they were ferry -- fairly relaxed. one had the full 30 minutes. justices held off on their questions a while to let you have five or six minutes of your argument, and then the questions began to fly. when i argued under chief justice rehnquist's tenure, the rhythm was quite different reason he ran it in a military way. you got 30 minutes. when you got to the end of your time, if you were mid syllable, he would say, "thank you, general days,' and that was the end of the story, and i had to get used to that. now, back with chief justice roberts, i think we are back to a relaxed justice -- relaxed

situation in the court to the extent that he has been identifying with those of us who are standing up, and that maybe they should be allowed to finish their sentences before they are told to sit down. >> it is important for lawyers to be nervous because anxiety, i think, helps to improve performance. it is very much like being an athlete, and i think having some anxiety before it begins helps you to perform at your highest level, and that is what you want to do when you go to the supreme court. i actually feel that way about other courts, too, but you want to reform at your best. they deserved it. it helps with the development of the law. if the justices are fully prepared, the advocates are fully prepared. you'll do your job and hopefully help your clients in the case. when you look in the court room, you will see the unlike many quarters, you do not really walk very far. it is just a few inches away.

you are seated next to the podium, so you really stand up and slide over a few inches, and for me anyway, it is about taking a deep breath and say, "mr. chief justice, may it please the court." >> could not share in the award given by the jury unless -- >> you have a few sentences usually that you have chosen to deliver the court, but you will start getting questions, it usually within the first minute or two. -- getting questions, usually within the first minute or two. >> we have some people with the rapid-fire style, others who like to spin out long hypotheticals. >> i just want the conclusion. one minute has passed before he says yes. has that changed everything, and it has become lawful? >> can you explain why it was irrelevant that the gun