abortions while the nelson-hatch-casey package is unprecedented. so i would just like to ask the distinguished senator from utah what exactly did the hatch -- did the hyde language say? let's clarify what hyde was so we can then determine if your amendment is the same. mr. hatch: thank you so much. the current hyde language contained in fiscal year 2009 labor-h.h.s. appropriations act says the following: section 507-a. none of the funds appropriated in this act and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this act shall be expended for any abortion. b, none of the funds appropriated in this act and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this act shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. mrs. hutchison: so that is federal funds prohibited from being used in abortions for that particular pweufplt what about programs like chip? that was created in the balanced budget act, and in 2009 was reauthorized by congress and signed by the president earlier th

the nelson-hatch-casey amendment. in general, no funds authorized or appropriated by this actor and amendments made by this act may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of any health care plan that includes coverage of abortion. >> so based on what you've said, this is not new federal abortion policy. the hyde amendment currently applies to the plans discussed, including the plans that members of congress have antiabortion protection for all of the federal health programs all say exactly the same thing. and that we should -- the amendments that we are going to vote on, that is the nelson-hatch-casey amendment would preserve the three decade long precedent and that's what your amendment does. and that we must pass it if we are going to guarantee that the bill that is on the floor is properly amended so that it is the same as our 30 years of abortion federal policy in this country. >> the reason it's so critical that we pass the nelson-hatch-casey amendment is that it is the only way to guarantee that a

casey: mr. president, i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, first, i ask unanimous consent that on frid friday, december 4, after any leader remarks, the senate then resume consideration of h.r. 3590, with debate only in order until 11:30 a.m., with no amendments, motions to commit or any other motion other than a motion to reconsider a vote, if applicable, in order during this period except those that are currently pending, with the time after the leader time equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first portion of time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executi

in fact, the senator from pennsylvania, senator casey said recently on these medicare advantage cuts, and i quote -- "we're not going to be able to say if you like what you have you can keep it, and that basic commitment that a lot of us around here have made will be called into question." 11 million people who get medicare advantage aren't going to be able to keep what they have, nor are they 10 million people according to the congressional budget office who are going to lose their employer-based coverage if this plan passes. another broken pumpkin. no cuts to medicare. we all know about that. we talked about that for about a week, mr. president, here, and offered amendments to get rid of the medicare cuts. the president said when he was running for office i want to assure you we're not talking about cutting medicare benefits. he reiterated that in his state of the union address. and yet this bill as we know cuts $470 billion out of medicare in the first ten years and when it's fully implemented, it cuts over a trillion dollars out of medicare. in the first ten years, years, $135 bil

i urge my colleagues to support the nelson-hatch-casey amendment.right thing and support our amendment which truly protects the sanctity of life and provides conscience protections to health care providers who do not can't to perform abortions. that's an important aspect of this and i avoided just till the last minute to say something about that. why should people of conscience be forced to participate in any aspect of elective abortions? they shouldn't. people have deep feelings of conscience should not be forced -- that includes nurses, doctors, health care providers, hospitals -- they should not be forced to do this, just because of the radicalness of some people who exist in our society today. and some think some radicalness of some in this body and in the other body. it is radical to expect the american taxpayers to pay for elective abortions. especially when such a high percentage, up to 68% according to some polls -- and i think even higher -- do not want to have federal dollars used for this purpose. mr. president, i appreciate my colleagues

hutchison: isn't that the same as the language of the nelson-hatch-casey amendment? mr. hatch: you're right. let me read that language for you. in general, no funds authorized or appropriated by this act or an amendment made by this act may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the cost of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion. mrs. hutchison: based on what you've said, this is not new federal abortion policy? the hyde amendment currently applies to the plans discussed, including the plans that members of congress have, and the abortion protections for all of the federal health programs all say exactly the same thing and that we should -- the amendment that we are going to vote on, that is the nelson-hatch-casey amendment, would preserve the three-decades long precedent. that's what your amendment does. and that we must pass it if we are going to guarantee that the bill that is on the floor is properly amended so that it is the same as our 30 years of abortion federal policy in this country? mr. hatch: the reason it's so critical that we pa

i chose the casey decision that was decided in 1992.hat is a very obvious reason, at least for me. beginning with justice o'connor's ascension to the bench in 1981, it was very clear that roe vs. wade, the decision establishing a woman's right to have an abortion, was under siege. each time a new opinion came out of the court, the court appeared to be less and less committed to sustaining the right to terminate an abortion, and in fact it finally got to the point where the majorityÑi was down to five, 5-4. there had been indications in 1989 that o'connor might well provideñr evoked to overturn roe vs. wade, and indeed, the regular administration had tried several times to persuade the court directly to overrule it. ñri chose this particularÑi casó because of the audacity of the council who argued in favor of maintaining roe. the women's rights movement very much during muchroe was in jeopardy -- very much fearing that roe was in jeopardy had fashioned it to be a test case. this was put together by the women's rights movement as a fundam

casey, who was at the salahis wedding in 2002. teresa, she and mrs. salahi work together in the past and matthew christian davis, author of the best of d.c. which by the way featured both of the salahis. they were booked to be our guests tonight on this program. they postponed their appearance and they say they are anxious to tell their story. we hope to interview them as soon as they are able to do so. today's white house briefing brought a barrage of questions about the crashing of the state dinner. here is some of what press secretary robert gibbs had to say. >> the individuals that are listed weren't on any list. i think the secret service, through the director, has admitted that somebody who wasn't on a list and wasn't waved in was allowed into an event that clearly he said shouldn't be. >> so are you saying that the social office does not have any responsibility in this at all? >> april, there's an investigation, it's ongoing into the actions of what happened. i'll wait for that to be completed. >> larry: casey, you were at their wedding. have y

had some important cases coming but the three of them went through the list and came up with bill casey who worked in the nixon administration and so they've reached out to bill casey and he ended up replacing john. but it was really because reagan had been pushed hard enough that he had -- she had to get rid of john and as a matter of fact charlie black one of the wisest takes on john sears's role in the campaign said that ronald reagan never would have been president if he had been hired john sears in 1975 and fired him in 1980. >> well put. >> i don't know any of you that have either read his book or have heard about or seen any number of the book reviews but it's getting great reviews and what i noticed, craig, is one of the news items that's popping up in their reviews is the story about putting the finger on the individual that you believe was involved in this famous incident of theft and the turning over of the campaign debate materials of president carter. can you go into that a little bit? >> there's an old fellow i knew by the name of paul corbin, who was pretty much a brogue.

senator nelson and senator bob casey.hink possibly byron dorgan, maybe kent con regard, but -- conrad, but i'm not sure about them. >> how about republicans? >> most of them. the only two i think won't will olympia snowe and susan collins. they like the language as it is. >> what are the possible implications of this amendment passes, and then i'll ask the same question about it failing. >> sure. if it passes, it's likelier that democrats will have senator nelson's vote on the bill. if i can just go ahead and answer your other question, if it does not pass, senator nelson will not support the bill unless more restrictive abortion language is added to it. >> are you getting any sense of the mood of senator as they continue working on this bill? >> yeah. we've been staking out these meetings they have been having almost every night, and when the more liberal senators come out of those meetings, they always seem to be in a good mood. senator chuck schumer of new york says he thinks things are moving along well, but then we t

. >> pennsylvania senator bob casey said he will continue to negotiate with nebraska democrat ben nelson on abortion language for the senate health care bills. those remarks came during a news conference on the 2010 defense spending bill which the house passed on wednesday. this is about 35 minutes. >> good afternoon i'm delighted to be joined by senator stabenow and senator casey. we are in very difficult and challenging times for our economy after the failed policies of the bush administration. yesterday the house passed a 2010 defense appropriations bill. we are here to call for quick passage of this without delay. we could've passed a bill yesterday. we could've passed it today. we should pass it as quickly as possible. first and foremost, this bill provides the funding for our military forces across the globe and ensure they have the proper equipment, proper quality of life, to ensure that they continue to do their job as they face the threats better posed against the united states. but it also assists countless americans who are hit hardest by these difficult times. people love lov

. >> larry: casey, you were at their wedding. have you spoken with them since all of this erupted? >> yes, i have. i talked to them on thursday evening. i've also had some e-mail correspondence with them. and actually talked to them in your green room. >> larry: where they were supposed to be on this show tonight. >> yes. >> larry: i understand they're still going to come when some of this settles down. how are they doing? >> well, they've been troubled. they are not doing that great. michaele was run down by somebody trying to take a picture of her, photograph of her and ran her car off the road. they are obviously not taking this press as well as it should be. but they have been told that -- not to speak at this point in time. but they did send me an e-mail and said they are going to come on your show. >> larry: teresa, why did they go to this event if they weren't invited as you know them? >> as far as i know they were invited. and a friend of mine and i were with her the day of the state dinner where she was preparing to get ready, getting her hair and make-up done. she had her

i'd like to change the topic for just a moment, given that senator casey is not present at the moment, and i would like to make an additional point that i think merits mention and i will yield as soon as he -- as soon as he appears, to him. mr. hatch: would the senator yield for just a second? when the senator completes, i would just like to have a few minutes to wrap up. mr. whitehouse: of course. i would be glaitd t be delightee the senator that time. mr. hatch: i think i can do it in less than five minutes. mr. whitehouse: i would yield five minutes to the senator from utah right now. mr. hatch: i thank my always and friendly decent colleague. mr. whitehouse: would the senator yield back for just one moment? i had the opportunity to be on the floor yesterday and the time was all under agreement and my time was concluded and i was leaving the floor and the senator from utah had the occasion to offer some very kind words about me, and because of the procedural posture we were in, i did not have the chance to reply or respond at that time. this is the first time we've been on the floo

in fact, casey put paul corbin as a retainer.had a background in working with communist party politics, labor politics. had been arrested numerous times for running scams in the midwest and was, you know, all sorts of criminal activities and, of course, governor reagan doesn't know anything about this, whatsoever. the irony the briefing books when i interviewed president carter he to this day he believes he lost because the reagan campaign got the briefing books. but the irony is that the briefing books were nothing more than a compellation of reagan's speeches, radio commentaries, columns, various interviews over 30 years and if there's one man in america in 1980 who knew where he stood and knew where he stood for the previous 30 years it was ronald reagan. so the briefing books were useless. but it was a huge issue in washington in 1983. but when it became -- it was found out three years later that the briefing books had been taken out of the carter white house. >> any other questions out there? i know i've got a few more if --

david drucker, speak about the bob casey part. we read we"cq"that he was given a special task regarding abortion. guest: bob casey is a pro-life democrat from pennsylvania and he would also prefer to vote for a health-care bill that had stronger abortion language and make sure those procedures could not be paid for as a part of health care reform legislation. he has not gone as far as ben nelson of nebraska was said he would filibuster. ben nelson's and then to do so last week failed. his was mirrored after the amendment put into the house built by part -- bart stupak, pro-life from michigan what they're doing is having to bob casey, who probably has the some credibility with the pro-choice liberals and the caucus because bob casey himself as a liberal, trying to put a compromise language that harry reid would wrap into the amendment at the very end that would make ben helson -- ben nelson happy, and make bob casey happy but still not anger the pro-choice democrats and calls any of them to drop off the bill. then nelson told me ye

and as a matter of fact, casey put paul corbin on a retainer to the reagan campaign.here's a guy who just worked for ted kennedy. he had a background of working in communist party politics, labor politics. had been arrested numerous times for running scams in the midwest, you know, was -- all sorts of criminal activities. and, of course, governor reagan doesn't know anything about this, whatsoever. the irony is the briefing books and he believes the reagan campaign got the briefing books but the irony is that the briefing books were nothing more than a compellation of reagan's speeches, radio compensataries, columns, various interviews over 30 years if there's one man in america who knew where he stood and stood for the previous 30 years was ronald reagan. the briefing books were useless but it was a huge issue in 1983 when it became -- it was found out three years later that the briefing books had been taken out of the carter white house. >> any other questions out there? i know i've got a few more. but i'll be happy -- yes, sir. >> what was it about sears that made

mr carper, aye ,r casey? mr. cockburn, know. mr. cochran, ms. collins, no. mr. conrad, aye. mr. courter,no. mr. cornyn, no mr. crepo, no. mr dement, no,. \ mr dodd, aye. mr dorgan, aye, mr durbin, aye mr ensign, no mr enzee, no mr feingold, aye, mrs. feinstein, aye. mr franken, aye. mrs,geillearand, aye. mr graahm, no mr grassley, no. mrñgreg, no mrs, hagan, aye. mr harkin, aye. mr hatch, no. mrs. hutchison -- mr.inhosfe, no. mr noway, aye. mr isaacs said, nope. mr.johans, no. mr. johnson,aye. mr. kaufman,aye. mr. careyaye mr. kirk,aye. mr coles, aye mr. pyle,no. ms landreau, aye. mr lautenberg, aye. mr leahy, aye. mr levin ,aye. mr. lieberman,aye. mrs. lincoln,aye. mr. lugar,no. mr. mccabe,no. mrs. castle,aye. mr. mcconnell,no mr. menendez,aye. mr. merkley, aye. ms. mikulskiaye. mr merkowski, no. mrs. mary,aye. mr. nelson of nebraska,aye. mr. nelson of florida,aye. mr. pryor,aye. mr. reed of rhode island,aye. mr. reid of nevada, [laughter] mr. reid of nevada,aye. [laughter] mr rich, no. mr. roberts,no. mr. rockefeller,aye. mr. sanders, mr. schumer,aye. mr. sessions, mrs. shahee

i modified this language to meet the senate bill and offered the nelson-hatch-casey amendment to prohibit federal funding of abortion. and i was disappointed to see that that amendment was tabled by a vote of 54-45. i knew then that the underlying bill did not adequately prohibit federal funding of abortion and consequently i would not be able to support it. so i began to look for other language to accomplish the goal that no public funds should cover abortion in the new health care bill. and after long days of negotiations, i believe we came up with a true compromise that stays faithful to my principles. and i want to be clear: i stuck to my guns and stood for my pro-life principles. i did not look for weaker language. i looked for clearer language, and my goal stayed the same to:o maintain the standard that we've had in federal law since the mid-1970's. while i respect the senator from kansas' opinion, i have to respectfully disagree. the senate language fully uphold the hyde principle -- upholds the hyde principle like the lange wimg in the hous -- langue house bill. the wording may be

casey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise this afternoon now to speak about the amendment that we're going to be voting on later today -- or one of the amendments we're going to be voting on later today. as we stand here today, we're debating the bill before the floor -- on the floor, the health care bill that -- where we're trying to do a couple of things at one time, and i think we can and i think this bill does it, even though we'll make some changes to it. we're trying to improve the quality of care for americans, whether they get their care heah care through a public program or a private insurance company or private plan. we're trying to finally use preventive measures to make people healthier and have better health outcomes. we're also working to reduce costs. and if you wanted to talk about it in terms of a doctor and a patient or a health care system and an america who should benefit from a health care system, we basically want to have the people get the care they need from the doctor they choose. an

casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president, thank you very much. i want to commend the work of our finance committee chairman max baucus for so many things in this debate. first of all, for helping us get health care legislation moving in 2009 and now at the point of getting very close to passing the bill. grateful for his leadership, and some of the highlights of the bill i just wanted to note in the -- in the remaining moments of our time. first of all, there has been a lot of debate over the last couple of days and weeks, but even over months about cost and care. well, fortunately we're able to report that with this bill coming out of the senate, we'll have more care and less cost. the deficit will be cut by by $132 billion over ten years as a result of this bill, and and $1.3 trillion cut in the deficit in the second decade. it will provide coverage for 94% of the american people, and the bill -- and this has not been talked about much, but the bill is a net tax cut for the american people. we're going to crack d

casey -- that's senator casey says he wants -- quote -- "very comparable protections for his state." surprisingly enough. "where more than one-third of medicare beneficiaries participate in medicare advantage." quote -- "it is the kind of thing that will likely be addressed on the floor, he said. "i eagerly look forward to working on the other side of the aisle with all the members from those states with the exception of new york, florida, and oregon who have earned special shielding from these cuts. i look forward to working with them and let's fix it for all of us. right, senator? mr. hatch: that's right. go ahead. mrs. hutchison: i would just say to the senator from arizona, i was wondering if every state could have the same treatment? why not have every state get this shielding for their medicare advantage? that is 11 million people in this country who would be then helped by a fair assessment all over the country of this. but meet me just point out one -- but let me just point out one other thing. the way they have been shielded is grandfathering. cane inand it is what shielding

the nelson-hatch-casey amendment which is almost identical to the stupak amendment in the house, was included in the house-passed health reform bill in early november by a vote of 240-194. it is important to note that it was supported by 64 house democrats. let me repeat that. the stupak amendment was supported by 64 house democrats, and despite that vote and the support of seven senate democrats, the majority decided not to include this language in the reid bill or the reid manager's amendment. now, i find that absolutely outrageous. moreover, the reid conscience protections are much weaker than those included in the house-passed health reform bill. the house bill included the hyde-weldon conscience protections that have been included in the h.h.s. appropriations bills since 2004. the reid health reform legislation does not. the hyde-weldon language ensures that strong conscience protections are in place for medical providers who oppose abortion. these strong protections which are currently federal law, currently federal law should also apply to the new programs created through the

>> there are two of them i believe, senator nelson and senator bob casey. i think possibly byron dorgan of north dakota and maybe can't conrad of north dakota but i'm not sure about them. >> hobaugh republicans that my vote against it? the most of them. the only to that i think what our lumpiest nolan susan collins. they said they liked the language in the bill as it is. >> what are the possible implications and then i will ask the same questions about a failing. >> it is likely that democrats will have senator nelson vote on the bill. if i can just go ahead and answer your other question, if it does not pessin to nelson said he will not support the bill unless some sort of more restrictive abortion language is added to it. >> with more health care debate possible this weekend are you getting any sense of the mood of senators as they continue working on this bill? >> we have been staking out these meetings they have been having on the public option almost every night and when the more liberal senators come out of these meetings that it always seemed to be i

we introduced has bipartisan it was nelson, casey and it did not pass.so i began the process to find other solutions that i thought equally walled off the use of federal funds and made it clear no federal funds would be used. apparently i did not say mother may i in the process of writing about language because others took issue even though they cannot constructively point* out how it does not prohibit the use of federal funds or keep them segregated they did not like the language. if then the conference the stupak common nelson hatch casey language passes, i will be happy and so will congressmen stupak and also those who signed on to that legislation. it is unfortunate to continue to distort and misrepresent what happens in the body of the senate. it is difficult enough to have comedy and difficult enough to have cooperation and collegiality and when politics are put above productivity, this is what we get. am very disappointed and a somewhat disillusioned by the use of this message and technology and a purchase that would undermine the name of a compan

i chose the casey decision that was decided in 1992. and i did so for what is, for me at least, a very obvious reason. beginning with justice o'connor's ascension to the bench in 1981 it was very clear that roe v. wade, the 1973 decision establishing a woman's right to have an abortion, was under siege. and each time a new opinion came out of the court, the court appeared to be less and less committed to sustaining the right to terminate in an abortion. and, in fact, it finally got to the point where the majority was down to five, 5-4. and there had been indications, particularly in 1989, that o'connor might well provide a vote to overturn roe v. wade and, indeed, the administration, the reagan administration had tried several times to persuade the court directly to overrule it. i chose this particular case for our book about oral argument because of the audacity of the counsel who argued in favor of maintaining roe. the women's rights movement very much fearing that roe was in jeopardy had shaped this case to be a genuine test case. an

. >> as you were describing the casey case, and catherine colbert's argument, it sounded like she wasnfrontational. she was combative and really sticking to her guns. despite all your efforts to get me to deviate from these arguments, i am going to stick to my guns here. in contrast, charles' description of bush vs. gore and his quotes from ted olson suggests that if the justices suggest they want to go in a direction, you are going to follow them in that direction. is your case the anomaly here, or how can we best understand? >> eeo catherine colbert, you know that she is stubborn. she was and remains very committed to work cause -- to her cause. he keep in mind that this was as much a political adventure as a jurisprudential enterprise, catherine knew what was on the line. it was a high risk. she was really rolling for a major loss if she either offended kennedy or o'connor. she clearly needed both of them, and from the exurbs that we played for the audience, it is clear that both of them came into the argument skeptical of her go for broke approach. i don't think -- you could proba

casey. they are washington, d.c.-based attorneys who served in the department of justice during the reagan and bush administrations. in september rivkin and casey published an article in the op-ed. i urge my colleagues to read this article and many others i will be submitting for the record. in the op-ed rivkin and casey argue that the health insurance mandate -- and i quote -- "would expand the federal government's authority over individual americans to an unprecedented degree." it also is profoundly unconstitutional. making healthy adults pay premiums into the national health care market is the only way to fund universal coverage without raising substantial new taxes. would be one more giant cross jenningsal subsidy. imposed on generations stuck with a bill for the federal government's prior spending sprees. a tax that falls on anyone uninsured is a penalty beyond congress's shortcy. if the rule were otherwise, congress could evade any constitutional limits by taxing anyone who does not fo

i modified this language to meet the senate bill and offered the nelson-hatch-casey amendment to prohibit federal funding of abortion. and i was disappointed to see that that amendment was tabled by a vote of 54-45. i knew then that the underlying bill did not adequately prohibit federal funding of abortion and consequently i would not be able to support it. so i began to look for other language to accomplish the goal that no public funds should cover abortion in the new health care bill. and after long days of negotiations, i believe we came up with a true compromise that stays faithful to my principles. and i want to be clear: i stuck to my guns and stood for my pro-life principles. i did not look for weaker language. i looked for clearer language, and my goal stayed the same to:o maintain the standard that we've had in federal law since the mid-1970's. while i respect the senator from kansas' opinion, i have to respectfully disagree. the senate language fully uphold the hyde principle -- upholds the hyde principle like the lange wimg in the hous -- langue house bill. the wording may be

casey. they are washington, d.c.,-based attorneys who served in the department of justice during the reagan and bush administrations. in september, rivkin and casey published an op-ed in "the wall street journal" entitled mandatory insurance is unconstitutional. i emerge my colleagues to read this article and many others that i will be submitting for the record. in the op-ed, rivkin and casey argued that the health insurance mandate, and i quote, would expand the federal government authority over individual americans to an unprecedented degree. it also is profoundly unconstitutional. making healthy young adults pay billions of dollars in premiums into the national health care market is the only way to fund universal coverage without raising substantial new taxes. in effect, this mandate would be one more giant crossgenerational subsidy, and pose on generations who are already stuck with the bill for the federal government prior spending sprees. a tax that falls exclusively on anyone who is u

it was hatch -- it was nelson nelson-hatch-casey, and it didn't pass. so i began the process of trying to find other solutions that i thought equally walled off the use of federal funds and made it clear that no federal funds would be used. now, apparently i didn't say "mother may i" in the process of writing that language because others took issue with it, even though they cannot constructively point out how it doesn't prohibit the use of federal funds or wall off those funds or keep them totally segregated. they just didn't like the language. well, you know, if in the conference the stupak-nelson-hatch-casey language passes, i'll be happy, and so will congressman stupak and so would, i would imagine, those who signed on to that legislation. you know, it's unfortunate, though, to continue to distort and misrepresent what happens here in the body of the senate. it's difficult enough to have comity t.'s difficult enough to have cooperation. it's difficult enough to have collegiality. when politics are put above policy and productivity, this is what we ge

this is far worse than the casey proposal, the cash proposal, and it will eventually have a negative>> the hyde amendment has been part of our law since 1977, and been bipartisan in its support. today we have the first time that that amendment is going to be watered down and no longer exist at all. the house clearly voted in a bipartisan way to protect the amendment, and the fact that we would not have subsidize abortions in this country because so many people feel so strongly about it, i am in absolute support of the hyde amendment and believe that watering it down should defeat this bill. the rest of the things we are learning about this bill that were in the underlying bill should also be recommended for the rejection of it. all of the tax cuts that are going to start in two weeks. the bill does not become implemented for four years. so you are asking people to pay taxes for four years,ó[ hamer insurance premiums on policies if they are covered, hired prescription drug costs, and hired a vice equipment costs because of higher taxes, and yet there is no bill that anyone can sign u

casey: okay. i'll move quickly. the second part of my remarks focuses on pregnant and parenting teens and women. we have an amendment that focuses on a group of pregnant women in america that we're not doing enough about. neither party, in my judgment, is doing enough about them, enough about help for those women. and i'm going to come back to this maybe later today, but it's vitally important that we as -- whether we're democrats, republicans, or independents, but as americans, that we give integrity and meaning to the sentiment that's often expressed that we care about pregnant women, that we care about a teen mother who decides to bear a child, that we're going to help her through that if she makes that decision. if a woman on a college campus becomes pregnant and decides to have that child, we want to give her all the help we can. if a woman is a victim of domestic violence or other sexual violence or stalking and through all of the horrific nightmare of that -- of that violence, that she determines she is going

years, his trajectory has changed and is in the majority moorpark rethink of last year the of gun casey wrote the majority giving individuals the right to own handguns under the second amendment he was much more successful and nobody would predict that in 1986 when he first came onto the court. >> ms. biskupic is the author of an american original. >> pulitzer prize-winning author of bright shiny lives have a new book out. what is the icbm? >> a rocket with a hydrogen bomb in the warhead fired into space and travels at 16,000 miles per hour. 67,000 miles then comes down and strikes. there is no way to stop it. they have never been used. you when i would not be having this conversation if not for these people. they built the weapon not to make war but it is the first weapon in the history of humankind which was built not to use but to deters. >> i think it tells a story of bernard and the scientist for you was something about bernard shaw river? he was six years old when he came here during world war i from germany. two months before we declared war on germany. he grew up in texas and jo

. >> senator casey, if senator nelson doesn't appear to be happy with the language that you did develop, does that mean that you have to go back and kind of start over or do you think that's by tinkering with a language you already have you could get to to something he would be agreeable to? >> as a question for him. >> senator reed, you have already filed, can you please talk about the amendments already riled that are related to this and why this might address some of the concerns? >> i mentioned in the pregnancy amendment in the other one that we have worked hard on is making sure that we can provide a tax credit for adoption and to give parents the ability to have the benefit of a tax credits. even a tax credit that goes up by a thousand dollars front-end with $11,000 would be very helpful. there are obviously other ideas and all of them are necessarily in a particular amendment that i filed. >> -- you mentioned the two amendments. >> the pregnancy part of my proposal guess. >> in addition to the message in there is also funding for programs and yet to a closed briefing yester day,

bob casey. they said they like the language of the bill as it is. >> what are the possible wil implications. >> it is likely that democrats will have simitar nelson's vote on the bill. if i could go ahead and answer your other question, signature nelson said he will not sign the bill unless some sort of more restrictive abortion languages added to it. >>-- languages added to it. >> -- language is added to it. >> when the more liberal senators come out in these meetings, they say that things are moving well. senator chuck schumer of new york says he thinks that things are going well and moderates are not so sure. most importantly, the public option. >> how does it look at getting it done by christmas? >> ifill. we have heard the senator reid is trying to pull together a manager's amendment which is a final package of changes to the bill. his spokesman told us yesterday that they hope to start filing cloture petitions. these are moves to in the debate on the bill. >> we thank you. >> coming up, fe

. >> senator casey. >> mr. chairman thank you very much and i want to thank secretary gates these two things, your public service at this time and a nation's history as well as the review that was conducted along with the president which was both thorough and essential and contrary to some of the commentary around washington. i wanted to return to a topic that minow some have explored to some degree of betty, and that is president karzai and his government. we know that as we have heard a number of occasions in order to get this right and we have to get it right, i can't imagine a more serious and grave situation we have faced in recent american history but to get it right and get the security rights, the government's part of this right as well as other issues like development and to get governance write president karzai has to be a full partner in this. i was in afghanistan pakistan in august and i know that when you are on the ground in a country for a couple of days, i know that those few days in any country

i modified this language to meet the senate bill and offered the nelson-hatch-casey amendment to prohibit federal funding of abortion. and i was disappointed to see that that amendment was tabled by a vote of 54-45. i knew then that the underlying bill did not adequately prohibit federal funding of abortion and consequently i would not be able to support it. so i began to look for other language to accomplish the goal that no public funds should cover abortion in the new health care bill. and after long days of negotiations, i believe we came up with a true compromise that stays faithful to my principles. and i want to be clear: i stuck to my guns and stood for my pro-life principles. i did not look for weaker language. i looked for clearer language, and my goal stayed the same to:o maintain the standard that we've had in federal law since the mid-1970's. while i respect the senator from kansas' opinion, i have to respectfully disagree. the senate language fully uphold the hyde principle -- upholds the hyde principle like the lange wimg in the hous -- langue house bill. the wording may be

casey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise this afternoon now to speak about the amendment that we're going to be voting on later today -- or one of the amendments we're going to be voting on later today. as we stand here today, we're debating the bill before the floor -- on the floor, the health care bill that -- where we're trying to do a couple of things at one time, and i think we can and i think this bill does it, even though we'll make some changes to it. we're trying to improve the quality of care for americans, whether they get their care heah care through a public program or a private insurance company or private plan. we're trying to finally use preventive measures to make people healthier and have better health outcomes. we're also working to reduce costs. and if you wanted to talk about it in terms of a doctor and a patient or a health care system and an america who should benefit from a health care system, we basically want to have the people get the care they need from the doctor they choose. an

this one was written by david rifkin and lee casey. i'm quoting: "but congress cannot so simply avoid the constitutional limits on its power. taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a tax that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond congress's authority. if the rule were otherwise, congress could evade all constitutional limits by taxing anyone who doesn't follow an order of any kind whether to obtain health insurance in this case or join a health club or exercise regularly or even to eat your vegetables. it literally sets the precedent to dramatically expand the powers of the federal government far beyond anything that our founders wrote and limited this congress to doing in the constitution. and i see the republican whip here, and i want to yield to him because of his expertise on the constitution. but i want to make just a real quick point. and reading from another article, i would commend this article to our colleagues. written by ran tker -- randy barnett anded to garziano. "n

casey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise this afternoon to speak about health care and the bill that is on the floor that we have been debating now for a number of days, the patient protection and affordable care act. i wanted to provide first a brief overview, but in particular to focus on provisions that relate to our children and then get into some detail about -- about those provisions and the important programs that are contained within those parts of the bill. first of all, as we all know from the debate here, what this side of the aisle has been trying to do is not just to pass legislation but to do it in a way that meets the goals that we set forth many months ago and as well as what president obama indicated much earlier this year in terms of some basic goals. i will just cite a few of those. to make sure that when we're enacting legislation, that we don't add to the deficit, that we at least break even, so to speak, but the good news is on the scoring done by the congressional budget office that t

i think there was some speculation they might have gone to fight in afghanistan, casey kotchman, kashmir.. kevin chia. and some guys from long island, for instance. >> brown: there were also reports that they were using facebook, youtube, to get in touch with jihad i groups. >> that's true and i think this is not the first case where they've been reports of people from the united states going to pakistan and trying to hook up with these groups and being rejected. i think these groups, especially ones considered pipelines to al qaeda are very, very concerned right now that these people might be spies for the c.i.a. or informant for the f.b.i. or just wannabes that have no place there. so, you know, there's... they have their own operational security and they've rejected americans for not having the right references. >> brown: now how worried are you and your community about the potential for more cases like this? >> well, first of all, we have to make sure that this is a small problem, it's not widespread, but to us it is a serious problem. it is there. it is not widespread, does not refl

general petraeus, i want to follow up a little bit on senator casey's questions about what is happening with the local militia and efforts at reconciliation with some of the taliban. i think i understood you to say that some of those discussions have begun. and or negotiations, i guess, is a better way to put it. i think that's first time i've heard that from anyone and so i just wanted to clarify that that is what you said and how do you envision that going forward? who is going to do those negotiations? what, if you could explain that a little more. >> i was actually talking more about the community defense initiative, which is, again, a local, but i'd be happy to talk about -- >> please. >> it is used -- the term is reintegration of reconcilables in afghanistan as general mcchrystal and others remind me all the time. but recognizing that, again, you can't kill or capture every bad guy out there, you need to take as many of them as you can as we did in iraq and take them from either actively or tacitly supporting the insurgency, and, in our view right now, at low and midlevel, try to

casey jr, a senator from the state of pennsylvania, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: following leader remarks, if any, the senate will resume the house message with respect to h.r. 332, the department of defense appropriations act. the time until 7:20 will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the final ten minutes reserved for the two leaders with the majority leader controlling the final five minutes. at approximately 7:20 a.m., the senate will proceed to a series of votes with respect to the defense appropriations bill. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the house message with respect to h.r. 3326, which the clerk will report. the clerk: house message to accompany h.r. 3326, an act making appropriations for the department

i modified this language to meet the senate bill and offered the nelson-hatch-casey amendment to prohibitat amendment was tabled by a vote of 54-45. i knew then that the underlying bill did not adequately prohibit federal funding of abortion and consequently i would not be able to support it. so i began to look for other language to accomplish the goal that no public funds should cover abortion in the new health care bill. and after long days of negotiations, i believe we came up with a true compromise that stays faithful to my principles. and i want to be clear: i stuck to my guns and stood for my pro-life principles. i did not look for weaker language. i looked for clearer language, and my goal stayed the same to:o maintain the standard that we've had in federal law since the mid-1970's. while i respect the senator from kansas' opinion, i have to respectfully disagree. the senate language fully uphold the hyde principle -- upholds the hyde principle like the lange wimg in the hous -- langue house bill. the wording may be different but the principle is in fact upheld. urn the health care

casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president, thank you very much, and i rise tonight to continue the discussion and debate on health care. i have had the chance over the last couple of months to -- not only to do a good bit of work on a number of issues that relate to the bill and the two bills that came before it was merged into one bill, but also to hear from constituents across pennsylvania. some of them writing to us and urging us to pass a bill and some urging us to go in the other direction. but the communications that i get from -- from people that write about their own stories, their own family, their own challenges are, of course, the most compelling and the most worthy of time and attention, and often they come from pennsylvanians who are not only facing health care challenges but facing -- facing economic challenges that i don't think anyone in this chamber can really fully understand, at least not at this part in someone's life, because when you become a member of congress, you're usually in pretty good sh