grassley: medicare. mr. sessions: medicare. i'm going to yield the floor, senator grassley. and i appreciate your leadership and insight into that issue and i value your whole approach to it. i think most americans, if they understood this -- the information as you do and as you have articulated it, the opposition to the bill would be even greater than it is. so i thank the chair. i urge my colleagues to examine the fact that the bill simply does not do what it sets out to do. does not meet its promises and, as a result, we absolutely should not go down this road to a major federal takeover of health care with ramfications that go far beyond what it might appear today. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa's recognized. mr. grassley: i had a chance to hear a great deal of what the senator from alabama said. and i think i would highlight what he said is what he's hearing from the grassroots of his state, which is very much what i hear from the grassroots of my state, that people are very concerne

montana, next up for senator grassley. caller: senator grassley, how are you doing this evening? guest: very good. caller: why has there not been discussion on the cost of the actual medical treatment in hospitals and doctors? guest: you will have to explain your question a little bit further. i can tell you where there is some discussion of that. for instance, we reimburse doctors and hospitals on the quantity. in other words, the number of times to go to the doctor, you pay for going to the doctor. when you go to the hospital, you pay for entering the hospital. we do not pay based on quality. the public, we do not get the medicine we pay for. in that context, we do talk about treatment by doctors. that may not be what you're talking about. our goal is to go from reimbursement based on quantity to reimbursement based on quality to interest the first health care to be given the first time. for instance, people who leave hospitals -- 20% of them are back in the hospital within 30 days. to encourage hospitals to do it right the first time, we are going to give some encouragement fo

grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. grassley: mr. president, we've all been waiting for many weeks while the democratic leadershipship worked behind closed doors out of public view to write this new health care reform bill. and this is, of course, this process is very much contrary to what the president promised during the campaign, that negotiations on the health care reform bill would even be on c-span so that everybody in the country could see it. so now a very secretly put together bill is out for our consideration, with just a few days to consider it. last week they were considering expanding medicare to people between 55 and 64 years of age, also increasing medicare to cover people up to 150% of poverty, and thirdly having a government-run plan run by the office of personnel management. now we have something entirely different. we have the reid amendment, and it's chock-full of special deals, and it does nothing to fix the fatal flaws in th

grassley: no. the only way he would have got benefits is if he had become disabled before age 6567895. mr. sessions: so he pays in all these years and just now gets to draw it and start taking it out. well, i want to thank you, senator grassley, for your leadership on this issue. and i think you and i kind of come out of the soil of our states, out of the real world, and my impression is that nothing comes from nothing. would you agree? somebody's got to payment mr. grassley: say it this way. we're in a town where we're dealing way lot of washington nonsense and i hope from the rural areas of alabama, like the state of iowa, you bring a lot of commonsense to this town where there isn't a lot of it. mr. sessions: thank you, very much. mr. president, i just would say that the matter is a very serious one that we're dealing with. i today had the opportunity to talk about a -- talk to a very experienced person involved in health care issues for many years, and i expressed my bafflement about some of th

grassley: i yield myself such time as i might consume from this side. i listened to the distinguished majority whip, and i don't know how many times we on this side have to tell him that if they want to read republican bills, here's an opportunity to come and read them. so they do exist, and they've existed for a long time going back to some of their entries into the senate in the spring. another thing that i heard was that republicans have no ideas taking on the insurance companies. i would refer him to the coburn-burr bill that does away with the discrimination that insurance companies can't deny health insurance because of preexisting conditions. i heard him say that we're newfound supporters of medicare. well, let me suggest to him that when we learned from the complaints of his party four years ago when they were berating the fact that we wanted to take $10 billion out of medicare and how that was ruining medicare, well, we're faced now with $464 billion out of medicare, and so we think that they've talked out of both sides of their mouth in the se

grassley: thank you for your kindness. mr. whitehouse: very well. mr. president, i have had the chance to -- i had the chance to sit yesterday where you are sitting today and had the chance to hear several hours of republican criticism of the health care bill, much of it focusing on the recent report from the c.m.s. office of the actuary. and the concern about cost -- and i'd like to come and say a few words about that. clearly, the problem of cost is a very, very real and dramatic one. this is the curve of our national health spending. starting back in 1955, the year i was born, at $12 billion -- $12 billion -- and increasing at an accelerating rate -- increasing at an accelerating rate -- until in 2009 we were at $2.5 trillion every single year. and, of course, if you look at the curve, we're not going to level out next year at that level. it's going to keep rocketing upward to the point where in my home state of rhode island, if we don't do anything, by 2016, which is just over the horizon -- that's not too far to look forward to, even in this buildi

grassley: so i see this as a free trade issue. imports create competition and keep domestic destroy more responsive to consumers. in the united states, we import everything consumers want, so i ask again why not pharmaceuticals? that's why it's a trade issue for me as much as a health care issue. consumers in the united states pay far more for prescription drugs than those in other countries. if americans could legally and safely access prescription drugs outside the united states, then drug companies will be forced to re-evaluate their pricing strategies. they would no longer be able to gouge american consumers by making them pay more than their fair share for research and development. now, it is true that pharmaceutical companies do not like the idea of opening america up to a global marketplace. they want to keep the united states closed to other markets in order to charge higher prices here. based on the reports that i just read, it seems that the white house has already sided with the drug manufacturers and promised them the

grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: there was a report released recently by the chief actuary, rick foster. i hope that this report will once and for all put to an end any serious consideration of the class act. now the class act is going to be in the bill if this bill passes congress. but it shouldn't be in it and we should have had a long discussion on -- on -- on this provision because it's simply unsustainable. fiscally unsustainable. the information that the chief actuary's letter provides is amble -- ample evidence of why the class part of this bill can't work. and quoting from page 13 of the chief actuary's letter, "we estimate that an initial average premium level of about $240 per month would be required to adequately fund class program costs for this level of enrollment, anti-selection, and premium inadequacy for students and low-income participants." so who would enroll in the class program? an american making 300% of poverty has a gross income o of $32,

grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i would ask my friend from montana, senator baucus, to be alert because i have a similar request to set aside, but before i do that, i want to explain why i'm doing this. i worked for six years to pass the congressional accountability act which was signed into law by president clinton in 1995. i worked so hard because i strongly believe that there should only be two sets of laws in this country -- one set of laws in this country. prior to 1995, there were two sets of laws, one for capitol hill and the rest for the rest of the country because congress exempted itself, so that's why following on that practice of 1995 i offered an amendment during the finance committee markup to require that members of congress and congressional staff get their employer-based health insurance through the same exchanges as our constituents. that's something i also heard complaints from the grassroots of iowa during my town meetings. now, i did offer that amendment and it was adopted without obje

grassley: mr. president, i'd like to also come -- make a statement related to the amendment that's present -- being presented by the senator from colorado. speaking for several members on my side, hopefully for all of the members on my side, we are very, very concerned, as i think we've all made clear by now, that the medicare savings in this bill are being used not for preserving medicare, but, instead, are being used to finance the creation of a new federal entitlement program. my understanding of the purpose of the senator from colorado's amendment is -- is to indicate that medicare savings will be used for extending the solvency of medicare and the trust fund, reducing medicare premiums, and other cost sharing for beneficiaries, and to improve or expand medicare benefits and access to providers. now, nobody can really argue with that purpose that the senator has expressed or his amendment expresses. but the concern on our side that we have with this amendment is that it not -- does not require

grassley: i yield to senator thune. mr. kerry: i have objected to the statement being put in unless i have a chance to explain it. i would like to get it in there. the presiding officer: the objection has been heard. mr. mccain: i would ask unanimous consent that the senator from massachusetts be allowed three additional minutes and i be allowed two additional minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kerry: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: i thank my good friend from arizona because this is the way the senate ought to work, and i totally agree with what the senator just said, and i want the senator to know i agree with it. he is correct that the statement in factclerk.org calls the obama campaign to account for -- fact check.org calls the obama campaign to account for a misat the same statement about his proposal. i agree it did that. it didn't recommend a reduction in benefits, but that's not what i just suggested that it did. what i'm talking about is that t

miles city, montana, next up with senator chuck grassley. >> caller: senator grassley? >> guest: go ahead. >> caller: yes, this is kurt from montana. how are you doing this evening? >> guest: very good, go ahead. >> caller: my question is, why hasn't there been any discussion of the actual medical costs in the hospital and the doctors. >> guest: okay, you'll have to explain your question a little bit further. i can tell you where there is some discussion of it, for instance, we reimburse doctors and hospitals today on the quantity. in other words, the number of times you go to a doctor, you pay for going to the doctor. the number of times you go to a hospital, you pay for entering a hospital. we don't pay based upon quality. and consequently, we don't get the medicine we actually pay for. so in that context we do talk about treatment by doctors and treatment by hospitals, but that may not be what you're talking about. our goal is to move from reimbursement based on quantity to reimbursement based on quality to encourage the best health care to be given the first time. f

grassley: mr. president, do we have time on this side? the presiding officer: six and a half minutes remain. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: before the senator from arizona leaves -- before the -- before the senator from arizona leaves, the point you made and the efforts by the members of the other party to strike medicare advantage, i have a letter here that was sent to members of the medicare conference september 30, 2003, with more democratic signers that are still in the senate than republican signers that are in the senate that set out all of the reasons why medicare advantage was so, so very important and why it needed to be -- why it needed to have more money put it in the year 2003. for instance, i would read from this letter." for nearly five million medicare beneficiaries across america, medicare choice "-- and that's what it was called before it was called medicare advantage --" is an essential program that provides compensation affordable health coverage. these seniors a

grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. 34 grassley: we have two key votes this afternoon on drug reimportation. mr. grassley: these votes mean that today is the day that we can show the american people whether we can really pass drug reimportation or whether the senate will give it lip service and nothing else. now, we have heard here on the floor the concerns that some have about drug importation and whether or not it can be safe. everyone who knows me knows that i care deeply about drug safety. the fact of the matter is that the unsafe situation is what we have today. today, consumers are ordering drugs over the internet from who knows where and the f.d.a. does not know -- does not have the resources, in fact, to do much about anything about it. the fact is that legislation to legalize importation would not only help to lower the cost of prescription drugs for all americans but also should shut down the unregulated importation of drugs from foreign pharmacies that we have --

senator grassley asked very good questions. we worked together on health care reform. but you know what happened? you know what happened, mr. president? i could feel it happening. one by one by one they started to drift away. they wanted to pass health care reform, they wanted to act i ona bipartisan basis but they were pressured, pressured from the out -- from their political party not to do it, not to do it, not to do it. why were they pressured not to do it? unfortunately they gave in to that pressure because their leadership wanted to political -- wanted to make a political statement. one senator on the floor here said let's make this obama's waterloo, health care's waterloo. they did not to want work with us on that side of the aisle, they did not want to work with us because they thought it was better to make a political statement -- attack the bill, attack the bill, attack the bill, attack the bill, in order to make points for the 2010 election. so i ask, mr. president, where's the courage? where's the courage? where's the republican senator that's going to stan

grassley: there has been a lot of talk over the past few days about senator reid's so-called compromise. although he said he has broad agreement, i have yet to see any specific details. in fact, it sounds like members of his very own caucus, the democratic caucus, aren't really aware of these details either. now, i find it quite hard to understand how there can be -- quote -- unquote -- "broad agreement" on something when they don't know what's in it. and, of course, i hope that we'll see details very soon. something like health care reform affecting 306 million americans and restructuring 1/6 of our economy is something that should not be done in secret, and when so-called compromises come out, i would expect we would have the same 72 hours on the internet for the public and the 99 members of this body other than the leader to review them in the totally transparent way that we have always been promised. and as this 2,074-page bill has been transparent as well as all of the amendments, because this is one of the biggest and most important pieces of legislation that i have worked in -- w

grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. 34 grassley: we have two key votes this afternoon on drug reimportation. mr. grassley: these votes mean that today is the day that we can show the american people whether we can really pass drug reimportation or whether the senate will give it lip service and nothing else. now, we have heard here on the floor the concerns that some have about drug importation and whether or not it can be safe. everyone who knows me knows that i care deeply about drug safety. the fact of the matter is that the unsafe situation is what we have today. today, consumers are ordering drugs over the internet from who knows where and the f.d.a. does not know -- does not have the resources, in fact, to do much about anything about it. the fact is that legislation to legalize importation would not only help to lower the cost of prescription drugs for all americans but also should shut down the unregulated importation of drugs from foreign pharmacies that we have --

grassley: thank you. mr. president, i come to the floor at this point to give some breadth to a statement that was made on the floor earlier today and it was made by my friend, senator baucus. and i don't take offense to what he said because i sense a great deal of frustration in his statement. and i'm going to read what he said so you know what i'm reacting to. and the reason i don't take offense to what he said is because he and i have worked so closely together over ten years as one or the other of us being chairman of the senate finance committee, that we have such an understanding of each other. and just prior to the remarks i'm going to read, he had spoken positively about senator enzi and me. so i want my colleagues to know that this statement is not made out of anger, that i'm going to give a rebuttal to. quote -- "well, we kept working bipartisan, working together for days and days, hours and hours and then fortunately, mr. president, it got to the point where i'm just calling it as i see it, i can't

grassley: then i withdraw my objection. the presiding officer: hearing no objection, it is so ordered. mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, i now yield 20 minutes to the chairman of the health committee, senator harkin, and then 18 minutes to the senator from colorado, senator bennet. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, i guess we -- i can say we passed the rubicon last night at 1:00, and reading some of the press reports, of course, most of the newspapers didn't have it because it occurred at 1:00 a.m., but some of the different reports have been online this morning, and it occurred to me that a lot of people are missing really the overall importance of what happened last night, the overall importance. oh, we can get into the fine tuning and the nit-picking and the -- sort of the fear and the anger that i hear from the other side. every time i listen to speeches over there with the exception of the last speaker, but almos

and we should have the support of senator kyl and senator grassley and senator hatch. on october 17 in 1995, senator kyl said -- quote -- "we also know that it is necessary to prevent the medicare program from going broke. the republican budget will slow the growth in medicare because the medicare trustees have warned us that without doing so, the system will go pwroefpblgt i think that it is -- will go broke. i think that it is totally irresponsible for any organization in america to be scaring america's senior citizens. i am quoting senator jon kyl. irresponsible for any organization to be scaring american seniors, and here is the republican party scaring america's seniors. now, mr. president, i want to talk about what this legislation does and doesn't do, because every claim that is being made is simply without foundation. this amendment is basically an amendment designed to try to gut this bill. and what it does is try to condition any kind of spending that we might spend additionally or any tax reduction in the bill. it conditions it on a certification that they a

grassley: i need to correct the record. in the part of my statement where i referred to the july 8 meeting with senator reid, it was -- it was only snowe, grassley, and -- and enzi, not other senators that i named. so i'd like to correct -- i'd like to correct that record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: 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. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 4165 received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 4165, an act to extend through december 31, 2010, the authority of the secretary of the army to accept and expend funds contributed by nonfederal public entities to expedite the processing of permits. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to

grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. grassley: i ask to speak as if in morning business for 10 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. grassley: mr. president, i rise on the issue of jobs and 10% unemployment and to tell my fellow senators what we can do to preserve maybe 23,000 jobs yet in an industry that by the end of the month will be otherwise shut down because congress is not taking action. and the main point of my remarks are the issue of if we don't extend the biodiesel tax credit by the end of the month, she's jobs will be lost. in fact -- mr. durbin: excuse me senator. do you mind if i make a unanimous consent request? i'm sorry to interrupt you. i didn't have this when i was speaking, i have 10 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet in today's session of the senate, they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders, i ask that these be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding off

thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you very much, senator grassley. senator franken. >> thank you, madam chair, and i want to thank you and chairman lay hi in your leadership on this issue. i want to thank each of our witnesses, ms. smith, ms. seipech, for your courage and strength, and mr. redding and ms. stol of for your expertise and professionalism and ms. haulie for your advocacy. last month i introduced a bill joined by my colleague senator grassly and senator hatch and senator feinstein that would create financial incentives for jurisdictions to process the rape kit backlogs and remain prompt. the truth is i think this is one of those i

senator grassley, senator stabenow. madam president, let me ask consent for five additional minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dorgan: this is broadly bipartisan, and it's one of the few bipartisan amendments -- and my expectation is that we will have a vote on the crapo amendment. he offered his last evening, and i offered mine last evening, and my expectation is that we'll have a vote on the crapo amendment and then have a vote on this amendment and move on. i would hope that we'll have the votes on this because it is the only thing in any health care proposal in the house or the senate that starts to put the brakes on the escalating prices of prescription drugs. it is the only thing. without this, we will pass health care reform if, in fact, it passes, and if someone says to you what have you done to try to put the brakes on the fact that prescription drugs are increasing at 9% and 10%, what have you done about that? and the answer is going to be well, we didn't do anything about that, just couldn

senator grassley, we worked to give health care reform her third you know, what happened?i could feel that happening. one by one they started to drift away. they wanted to pass health care reform and act on a bipartisan basis but pressured, pressured from their political party not to do it. not to do it. not to do it. why? unfortunately they gave in to the pressure because their leadership wanted to make a political statement. one senator said make this obama of waterloo. they did not want to work with us on that side of the aisle because they wanted to make a public a call statement, but tax of the bill. that is what they are trying to do. i asked mr. president, where is the courage? where is the courage? war republican senator will say stand up and work together? which also a stand-up and work together? this senator tried mightily to have bipartisan support. >> will the gentleman yield? >> the gentleman from iowa i know he wanted to get health care reform passed by know that is the case. frankly he was pressured and pressured and he could not do it. he just could not do

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. shaheen, aye. mr. shelby, ms. snowe,no. mr. spector,aye. mr stabinow, aye. mr. tester,aye. mr thune, no. mr udall of colorado,aye. mr. udall of new mexico,aye. mr.vitter, no. mr.voinivich, no. mr. warner,aye. mr. webb,aye. mr. white house,aye. mr. wicker,no. mr. whiden, aye. mr. bennett of utah, no. this is a h

we've seen it with charles grassley. seen it with senator demint who said he wished he had told the president, you lied. that's the greatest danger. >> governor k he hadane mentioned at the federal level in 2009 they won 5 of 5 elections and gained two senators with specter and al franken. are the republicans, though, are any of the republicans scared about this or are all of them regretting that they won't the joe wilson, as you said? >> well, david, unfortunately, what governor keene said is half the story. the other half the bad news for the democrats which is losing virginia, losing new jersey, losing the enthusiasm quosh enlt which is so important in elections because there's more enthusiasm and passion right now on the republican side than on the democratic. and just as important is what's happening with independents. first of all, the rise of independents and secondly, the fact that a independents are now favoring republicans over democrats. so there are many problems for both parties. and what is happening more a

during the senate finance committee hearing, senator grassley and the questioning from me said medicare's part of the social fabric of america and at the same time said he hates government programs. if it is part of the social fabric of america, they should join us in protecting and preserving and extending medicare. if it is possible to bring more americans into medicare or something similar to what we believe it is worth exploring. once again our republican friends disagree. on monday senate republican leaders called the idea of expanding medicare a plan for financial ruin. this was just one day after sunday we were defending medicare. they can't have it both ways. maybe it is hypocrisy, maybe it is just an identity crisis, maybe it is just rotten politics. you just can't call republican defenders of the medicare system. it is we who created medicare and we are the ones most committed to defending and strengthening it for years to come. in the 1980s republican slogan was just say no. that worked. it doesn't work anymore. people actually defending medicare, it doesn't go broke. it means

of like to make two points then turn it over to the managers of our bell -- bill senator grassley and senator enzi. and the great place to start is how do the american people feel about this health care bill? the cnn poll that came out last night indicated americans were opposed to this bill 61/36. 61/36. if you look at the pole dated going back over the last few weeks the opposition is widening. a couple of weeks ago it was nine weeks -- nine points but earlier this week, 14 points and now 61/36 in the cnn poll. no question the american people are asking us not to pass this health care bill. now we have a government or the administration's own scorekeeper, the actuary telling us it will not save money. and we thought the whole exercise at the beginning was about bending the cost curve. with that may turn to senator grassley and we will hear from everybody else. >> let me start where senator mcconnell left off. bending the cost curve and broaden that 22 main points. they were goals going back to january when senator baucus and i sat down to talk about the same goals when the group of

grassley: i would yield myself such time as i might take, and i don't think i'm going to speak more than six or seven minutes, for the benefit of my colleagues that may want some of this time. i want to tell my colleagues why i'm supporting the hatch amendment. in my home state of iowa, there are 64,000 seniors enrolled in medicare advantage. these are seniors that have come to rely on lower cost and particularly additional benefits that medicare advantage provides as opposed to traditional medicare. yesterday, i came to the floor to point out that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are playing word games to cover up the fact that they are raiding medicare, cutting benefits by 64% for these 11 million seniors that have chosen voluntarily to go on medicare advantage as opposed to traditional medicare. so let me repeat, this bill cuts medicare benefits, or let's say raids medicare, by 64% for 11 million medicare beneficiaries. my friends on the other side of the aisle keep saying that they're not cutting, and they use these words -- they're not cutting guaranteed benefits. but th

senator charles grassley has logged seven hours, 52 minutes.ator dick durbin, 7 hours 53 minutes. host: linda in bethesda, maryland, you are opposed to the senate health care bill, why? caller: good morning. i apologize for my laryngitis. i feel that this bill will eventually kill of innovation in medical research in the united states once we go down this slippery slope. the government will pay for more and more. we already know that nih grants are down. doctors and people considering going to health care, the bright ones will not go in because all the market incentives will be gone very medical schools are very expensive and i see this as a slippery slope into a government run health care eventually because that is what legislation does once you get it done. host: what kind of health care do you have? caller: have healthcare with an employer. i am happy with it but under this bill, our health care will be very much tact. we will be paying extra tax. we already pay a lot of tax. host: it is a -- is a so-called cadillac plan? caller: no, but bec

he offered an amendment to a bankruptcy bill which senator grassley and i worked on that said, if you were guilty of predatory lending, you will be precluded in bankruptcy from pursuing their claim. that was debated on the floor and debating the other side against my amendment was senator phil gramm of texas, who said on the floor of the united states senate, if the durbin amendment passes, it will destroy the subprime mortgage market. well, my amendment failed. by one vote. and the subprime mortgage market continued until it collapsed, just a couple years ago. i wish i'd had another vote for my amendment. at this time in this debate took place in december of 2006, about 25% of home loans were subprime. so the mortgage bankers, unfortunately, misled the public about the state of the market at the time to wave away any warnings about any crisis that might be following them. we all know twha has meant to this country. i go back to that episode now because in 2009 we have had more than two million foreclosures, something the mortgage bankers association said wouldn't happen, and in fact

president, earlier today senator grassley raised a parliamentary inquiry on, based on rule 44 of the standing rules of the senate. as my colleagues will recall, this was a rule that the senate passed pursuant to the honest leadership and open government act of 2007. and the question had to do with whether the manager's amendment that we're getting ready to vote on complied with rule 44's earmark disclosure requirement. at the time the chair indicated the disclosure list was not submitted. at the time that was about 6:00 p.m. today. my inquiry is: is the chair aware of the disclosure list being made available as required by rule 44 now as we vote in the next 30 minutes? the presiding officer: the chair is not aware at this time whether that statement has been made. the senator from connecticut is recognized. mr. dodd: mr. president, i want to take a few closing minutes if i can. i spoke earlier this evening about the importance of this moment that we all have come to appreciate, i believe, a moment that has been years in the making. going back, as all have pointed out, or most pointed

they went with senator baucus and the senate finance committee, seemingly endlessly to win senator grassleyand senator enzie over to support, make it bipartisan, none of that came so, when you get to the crunch, the 2ked line, christmas being the deadline they imposed, they really don't want to go into next year on this even though they may end up doing that. >> lehrer: they want to get it over with. >> well, one senator has an enormous amount of power and influence. we saw it with senator lieberman. we see it now with senator nelson. >> lehrer: yeah. now david you wrote in your column today that you, if you were one of these 100 in the united states senate you would vote against it, why. >> it was a very tough call. >> lehrer: then i will ask mark why he would vote for it, just for the record. >> has time to prepare. >> i think first of all it does cover 30 million people. it does --. >> lehrer: 30 million new people. >> it does essentially balance the budget and there are going to be tax increases, they will pay for it with medicare cuts there is a lot of good enough stuff in there, and a

- they went with senator baucus and the senate fince committee, seemingly endlessly to win nator grassleyand senator enzie over tsupport, make it bipartisa none of that came so, wheyou get to the crunch, the 2ked line, ristmas being the deadline they imposed, they reall don't want to go into ne year on this evethough they m end up doing that. >> lehrer: they want to ge it over with. >> wl, one senator has an enormousmount of power a influence. we s it with senator eberman. we see it nowith senator nels. >> lehrer: yh. now david you wrotin your column today that u, if yowere one of these 100 in the united stes senate you would te against it, why. >> it waa very tough call. >> lehrer: tn i will ask ma why he would vote for it, just for the recd. >> h time to prepare. >> i think fir of all it does cov 30 million peop. it does -- >>ehrer: 30 million new people. it does essentially balance the budget andhere argoing to be tax increases, they will pay for it with medire cuts there is a lot of good enoh stuff inhere, and a lot of reform for the current stem. my fundamental problem iit is a sw, g

grassley: there has been a lot of talk over the past few days about senator reid's so-called compromisee said he has broad agreement, i have yet to see any specific details. in fact, it sounds like members of his very own caucus, the democratic caucus, aren't really aware of these details either. now, i find it quite hard to understand how there can be -- quote -- unquote -- "broad agreement" on something when they don't know what's in it. and, of course, i hope that we'll see details very soon. something like health care reform affecting 306 million americans and restructuring 1/6 of our economy is something that should not be done in secret, and when so-called compromises come out, i would expect we would have the same 72 hours on the internet for the public and the 99 members of this body other than the leader to review them in the totally transparent way that we have always been promised. and as this 2,074-page bill has been transparent as well as all of the amendments, because this is one of the biggest and most important pieces of legislation that i have worked in -- worked on in

i would be with senator grassley on that one.we are building on the current private employer insurance system in america. we're trying to make that system available to more people. the single failure of our health-care system is that 37 million -- 46 million fellow americans have no health insurance. everyone of us pays a price for that in uncompensated care. the primary portal into the health-care system for those 46 million americans is the emergency room. that raises the health care costs for the rest of us. it's estimated that $1,100 is buried into the premium cost of every insurer family in america to cover for those who have no health insurance. we are trying to change that. a great country needs to make sure that everybody has access to decent health care. that is what we're trying to do. words like socialism to frighten people -- it is not right. to see a distinguished member of congress use those words is very disappointing to me. there's no legislative proposal in the house or senate to go to a single payer system like

grassley: yesterday -- yesterday we had a very ear

senator grassley released a report which was a review of acorn's tax-exempt status. he found almost 50 such tax- exempt subsidiaries of acorn, mainly receiving charitable donations. he concluded that the flow of money among the acorn family of organizations is a big shell game. dollars raise for charitable activities appear to be used for impermissible lobbying and political activity. in 2008, elizabeth kingsley, acorn's own lawyer, prepared an internal report later leaked outlining their interlocking directorate. its lack of documentation about transfers of money between acorn and its many affiliate's, the possible use of tax- deductible, charitable donations for political purposes, and the conflicts of interest acorn interest employees who have dual roles in the tax-exempt entities and the other affiliate's that engage in political activities. acorn even fired some of its own members on the border trusties after they started seeking information on that flow of money and the internal operations of the organization. acorn is a tangled mess where a small group control

stabenow, senator thune, senator bingaman, senator brown, senator collins, senator durbin, senator grassley, stphorb johnson -- senator johnson, senator kerry, senator kohl, senator levin, senator johnson, senator shaheen, senator specter, senator tester. widespread bipartisan support for legislation which says let's end the absurdity of the american people having to pay substantially more for the same exact medicine that is sold in other countries around the world. let me just take a look at some of these charts. to begin with, we all understand that when you deal with the drug companies in the pharmaceutical industry, you are dealing with some of the most powerful lobbyists and forces right here in washington, d.c. these people spend huge amounts of money on campaign contributions, huge amounts of money in lobbying. just recently in order to make sure that they got in under the wire, in case there was some real reform passed here in washington, they substantially raised their prices for particular drugs just in the year 2009. and here is the chart right here . single 12%, plavix12%, lipit

senator grassley said as much last week.senator grassley asked us to vote in favor of the motion to commit and i quote -- "to stop this process right now." direct quote. we must not stop this process, mr. president, we must not stop moving forward in our efforts to reform health care. indeed, we must move forward aggressively. every day that we delay, 14,000 americans lose their health insurance. every year that we delay, 14,000 americans lose their health insurance. and just a two-week period one in every three americans will go without health care coverage at some point. we cannot afford to stop working toward reform. we must reject any attempt to eliminate the provisions in this bill to provide americans with a tax cut. despite the republican claims that they're trying to protect americans from tax increases in this bill, the facts are this bill is a tax cut for most americans. mr. president, on a related matter, there's been some discussion about the office of actuary analysis of the senate bill. let me just cover two ve

grassley: this is typical of the comity of the united states senate, and i thank my good friend for doing that. i have a little different view on some of the things he said about taxes here, and i respect his giving me some time because we don't have time on this side. so it is nice of his doing that. republicans and democrats are working off of the same data provided by the joint committee on taxation. for some reason, my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to want to read this data selectively, so i'd like to look at this data. and i want to stress that this data is from the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation. they're experts. they're nonpolitical people that tell it like it is. so, i -- my friends on the other side are correct in one thing. this bill provides a tax benefit to a small group of americans, and you can see right here that this benefit is to the people here where the minus sign is in front of the numbers. and these numbers are in white. as i pointed out previously, when you see a negative number on this chart, the joint committee on taxation is telling us that

alexander, bohmbach, chambliss, coburn, corker, corn then, demeant, ensign, graham, grassley. hatch, hutchinson. inhofe, kyle, lemieux, lugar, mccain, connor, rich, roberts, sessions, voinovich and wicker. >> mr. byrd, aye. mr. webb, aye. mr. vitter, no. mr. baucus, aye. >> mr. kerry. mr. kerry, aye. mr. schumer, mr. schumer, aye. mr. kaufman, aye. mr. shelby, no. mr. bennett of utah, no. >> mr. lincoln. mrs. lincoln, aye. ms. landreaux. ms. landreaux, aye. >> on this vote, the yeas are 63, and the nay are 55. the motion is agreed. the question is on the motion to concur with the house amendment. sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: mr. leader. mr. reid: may we have order, mr. reid: may we have order, >> leader, may we have order, please the presiding officer: anyone wish to change their vote or hasn't voted? by a vote of 88 ayes and 10 noes, the motion to concur on the house amendment to the senate amendment on defense appropriations is approv

. >> senator grassley. >> 9 q, madam chairman and things to all of you for your testimony.want to ask a few questions of mess halley. i have had the opportunity to work with her before on the restitution of the terms of crime. i thank you for working with us on that. i was glad to have senator frank and asked me if i would join him as the lead co-sponsor of this just as for survival sexual assault act because i think this would cut down on the backlog of untested rate cases. you seem to raise the question of the need to know more about the backlog of untested kits before you have a concrete recommendation to address the problem. i understand your concern that we test dna samples in effectively and efficiently. a few questions along that line -- do you believe a requirement of state and local governments provide statistics to the federal government on ki government ratets -- uncontested rape kits would be useful? >> having that information would definitely be useful. i am concerned nohow difficult it is to provide a separatenij and others have been trying to quantify the exi

. >> i went through bankruptcy reform the senator grassley and the process by the republicans were in majority. he produced a baseline bill and i made some modifications. d-delta miller, one point time we agreed on a bill and came up with a common bill. the starting point i think is just the starting point. i would say to the senator from arizona, look at what happened to the issue of public option. i believe in public option possibly. i really believe it is essential for the future of health care reform for competition for private health insurance companies to give consumers a choice to make sure that we have one low-cost alternative at least in every market. and yet, at the end of the day i didn't do what i wanted. and what is being proposed that the cbo is not my version of public option. we ended up bending towards some of the more moderate and conservative members of the democratic caucus and toward the republican point of view. i don't know of a single republican who came out for the public option. maybe i'm forgetting one. at the end of the data point i'm making to you is there

president, earlier today senator grassley raised a parliamentary inquiry on, based on rule 44 of theules of the senate. as my colleagues will recall, this was a rule that the senate passed pursuant to the honest leadership and open government act of 2007. and the question had to do with whether the manager's amendment that we're getting ready to vote on complied with rule 44's earmark disclosure requirement. at the time the chair indicated the disclosure list was not submitted. at the time that was about 6:00 p.m. today. my inquiry is: is the chair aware of the disclosure list being made available as required by rule 44 now as we vote in the next 30 minutes? the presiding officer: the chair is not aware at this time whether that statement has been made. the senator from connecticut is recognized. mr. dodd: mr. president, i want to take a few closing minutes if i can. i spoke earlier this evening about the importance of this moment that we all have come to appreciate, i believe, a moment that has been years in the making. going back, as all have pointed out, or most pointed out in fav

thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you very much, senator grassley. senator franken. >> thank you, madam chair, and i want to thank you and chairman lay hi in your leadership on this issue. i want to thank each of our witnesses, ms. smith, ms. seipech, for your courage and strength, and mr. redding and ms. stol of for your expertise and professionalism and ms. haulie for your advocacy. last month i introduced a bill joined by my colleague senator grassly and senator hatch and senator feinstein that would create financial incentives for jurisdictions to process the rape kit backlogs and remain prompt. the truth is i think this is one of those issues in congress where we all can agree on the big picture. rape is a hainnuss crime and we need to provide our law enforcement agencies with everything they need to prevent it. and bring perpetrators to juss dis. so i just want to ask a few questions on this front. mr. redding, your testimony you said there was a need for improved infrastructure and lab capabilities so that d.n.a. evidence can improcessed as qu

depending on whether you have a job and where your job is that, the charles grassley is saying -- the cbo is saying that it could go up or down a bit. so, this is something that will use by both parties in the debate. host: for the next 20 minutes, what do they want from the health care bill that will ultimately come out of congress? what is it in this health care bill did you think of first when you hear about this debate and what do you want, ultimately, in a bill? what have you heard about the major sticking points being resolved? guest: there are several of them. the legal immigratn@@@@@@@ the house passed version is more to liking the republicans and pro-rights groups. the senate bill, senator orrin hatch, republican from utah, he will be looking to amend the bill to make it closer to the house-passed version, a lot of liberals in the house were not pleased with the so-called stupak amendment that passed right before the overall underlying house health care bill passed. there are so many provision that is are going to be difficult. you have different ways to pay for it. you have