consent to include in the record following my remarks the letter from douglas elmendorf to senator kennedy, june 15, stating his bill would cost $1 trillion more over the next ten years to the debt, and that doesn't even include the medicaid expansions i've just talked about. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: and executive summary of the impact of the 2009 affordable health choices act kphrao*eted by the h.s.i. network released june 13 which estimates that the kennedy bill may be closer to $4 trillion. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: an article from "the wall street journal" yesterday talking about state budget gaps which shows in what dire straits many states are. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator's time has expired. mr. alexander: i thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 15 minutes from now when we have our vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs.

elmendorf, for saying that c.b.o. will -- quote -- "never adjust our views to make people happy." close quot quote. god bless him for his integrity and commitment to tell the truth. we need to deal with the truth and not try to remake it or cover it up. well, the second part of these proposals that causes me grave concern, mr. president, is this notion that some have tried to proposal that we actually need to spend more money in order to be able to save money in the end. spend money to save money. now, i know the distinguished occupant of the chair had very successful business career, but maybe that's true in the private sector. sometimes you have to invest money in order to make money or save money later. but i can't think of a single federal government program where that worked. you have to spend more money in order to save money. it just does not happen around here. so let me just cite somebody who is more authoritative than i am, professor baker of har harvard. she predicted months ago what the congressional budget office has recently concluded. she said -- or the congressiona

elmendorf states and by quote the industry leaders attention to the schools and agreement that significant savings can be obtained are no doubt welcome. however, most of the proposals are steps that do not require the involvement of the federal government or are not specified at a level of detail that would enable cbo to estimate a budgetary savings. in other words $2 trillion may not be there is what cbo is saying. instead of saving $2 trillion savings proposals offered by the health care group might actually end up increasing the cost of health care. i think as we go through this we should adopt one consensus position. do no harm. and in fact cbo raced serious issues lot about what we are doing but about what the white house was able to get in commitments from those in the private sector about changes they could make. now mr. chairman, the president has included in the 2010 budget proposal $640 billion. as a reserve, a prepayment on health care reform. does that suggest we've already given up on the fact that you could readjust the pipes, redesign the architecture of health care? change