mr. 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 the 2,074-page bill that we started with. and now we have a bill that's probab

mr. 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

mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. grassley: we keep hearing about all the tax cuts that are in this 2,074-page bill. earlier today i heard the distinguished senator -- senior senator from illinois say this, after senator kyl was done speaking: first -- and i am reading from the transcript -- "first, this bill has $441 billion in tax cuts in the first ten years. for average people trying to pay their health insurance premiums, i don't know if the senator from oz oz, senator kyl, thinks that's a good idea for not. hay never spoken to that. at least i haven't heard it. i think it is a good idea if you're making less than $80,000 a year, i won't's want to make sure you have insurance and it bill wants to make sure we give you a helping hand. it is a tax cut." first of all, when you have a tax credit or subsidy for buying insurance, the joint committee often taxation -- the joint committee on taxation describes 70% of that as outlays, 27% as tax reductions. so, to call $441 billion a tax cut is completely contrary to the wa

mr. 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 the

mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. grassley: i ask the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report the kenilworth. the clerk: conference report to accompany h.r. 3288, the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the amendment of the senate to the bill h.r. 3288, making appropriations for the departments of transportation and so forth and for other purposes, having met, have agreed that the house recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the senate and agree to the same with an amendment, and the senate agree to the same, signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both houses. mr. grassley: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i know we have moved to the omnibus appropriation bill to continue government and the time is running out for the current authorization bill, and this brings us back to the authorization of spending, but it also takes us away from health care ref

mr. 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

mr. 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

mr. 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

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 and disabled americans have voluntarily chosen to receive their health benefits through medicare h.m.o.'s and other private sector plan

mr. 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

mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i'd like to add to what he said by speaking positively on this issue and to remind my colleagues who maybe have been watching the last three weeks and have seen senator baucus and i on separate sides of the issue on health care reform, that it's very uncharacteristic of our being on different points of view on most legislation. because in the 10 years that he and i have been leaders of the finance committee, most of the issues coming out of our committee have been very bipartisan. and what he just talked about and what i'm going to respond to is one of those issues. i agree, chairman baucus, that we should retroactively extend the tax provisions as soon as congress reconvenes in 2010. as chairman of the finance committee in 2005, i worked with then ranking member baucus, and we authored the biodiesel tax credit. it's a tax credit that's really needed to be extended before the end of the year to prevent the biodiesel market to grinding to a halt on january 1, 2010. this tax cr

mr. 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

mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: it is so ordered. mr. grassley: i would call the attention of the leadership of the majority party that i have a unanimous consent request i want to make. i'm going to be visiting with my colleagues about the issue of taxes on medical devices so my -- unanimous consent is in regard to that. and i would hope that people would observe that if there's an effort to block this motion i'm going to make, i think it's an endorsement of the tax on devices like berlin hart and hundreds of other children across this country rely on. so with that in mind, i ask consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to offer my motion to commit. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: with regret, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. grassley: well, this is disappointing for those of us on this side of the aisle to not being permitted to consider an amendment that is important li

mr. 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 -- t

mr. 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

mr. 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 objec

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

mr. 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 -- t

mr. 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

mr. grassley: i'm -- two seconds. mr. president, i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. 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 proces

mr. grassley: the kicker here is that c.b.o. has told congress that roughly one-half of those americans that will pay this tax are individuals between 100% and 300% of poverty. these folks earn less than the $250,000 a year. i see the light at the end of the tunnel that this tax increase express is going through. unfortunately, that light at the end of the tunnel is the tax increase express and we can derail the tax increase express if we want to. that is why today i'm supporting senator crapo's motion to commit the reid amendment to the senate finance committee. senator crapo's motion would require that the finance committee report a bill back to the senate that does not include tax increases, fees and penalties included in the reid bill. so why should my democrat friends vote in favor of the motion? because they shouldn't want to bear the fallout of legislation that was rushed through congress like this -- like the economic stimulus package was back in february. they shouldn't want to tell their constituents that they voted in

mr. 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

mr. grassley: the opponents of the gregg amendment claim that the reid bill doesn't technically change the law on guaranteed benefits for beneficiaries. but they're enduring the fact that while those benefits may be technically guaranteed -- and i want to say technically guaranteed -- if the cuts put health care providers out of business, then those guarantees will be nothing more than useless words in the medicare act. guaranteed benefits are not worth much without health care providers who can treat patients, provide home health services, run hospitals and hospice agencies. these claims are not good enough to ensure seniors who have paid into medicare program for all these years. it's not good enough for protecting access to health care services and the benefits that our seniors have been promised. so, my colleague from new hampshire, in his amendment, would back up those claims with very real enforceable mechanisms to ensure that medicare savings aren't being used to fund a whole new program at a time when the trust fund is just about broke. the gregg amendment is needed to protect the

mr. grassley: i had a chance to listen to my good friend from -- the senator from illinois on his remarks about why the bill before the united states senate is going to reduce costs and pay down on the national debt. that's the senator from illinois. i'm the senator from iowa. but i would like to not refer to my judgment about this bill right now, but i'd like to refer to the judgment of a report that was issued today from the chief actuary of the center on medicare services in the department of health and human services, a professional person that calls it like it is. that's his responsibility. but, remember, i'm quoting from a report that was just given today about this 2,074-page bill we have before us that my friend from illinois was just speaking very favorably about. so we're talking about somebody in the executive branch of government under the president of the united states that says this about this reform bill -- that it will cost more than the status quo. so the chief actuary of the center for medicare and medicaid services issued a report on senator reid's bill, which shows tha

mr. grassley: mr. president, you're absolutely right. and let me emphasize it this way: i was on a radio program in iowa yesterday where a lady called me up, and i've been saying as you just said, that for -- you've got to wait until 2014 for this program to take into effect. and she says "you're meaning to tell me that you're going to pass this bill right now, but we've got to wait till 2014 until we get any benefit from it?" she didn't talk about the taxes like you, but the taxes go into effect. i think another smoke screen here is that you've got ten years of tax increases, fee increases, and the program is six years long, the taxes are ten years long. so it's easy for the congressional budget office to say, yeah, this is balanced and maybe even has a surplus in it. but over the long term, you know, this program does not cost just $848 billion. i hope i answered your question. mrs. hutchison: well, you did. it's interesting because you say well, maybe it's going to be break-even. how is it going to be break-even, i would ask my senate

mr. grassley: for the benefit of my colleagues waiting to speak, i don't think i'll speak more than 10 minutes. before i speak on my purpose for coming to the floor to support senator mccain's amendment, i want to take just a couple of minutes to go over a source of information that's no longer credible, that's been used in debate on this floor several times, used throughout the year. information that's even been in letters to the editors of iowa newspapers. and the most recent hearing of this was when the senator from california rose to talk about the quality of our health care. and the reference to the fact that the united states is 37th out of -- of all of the nations in the world in quality of health care. and i don't deny that we have to do a lot to improve the quality of health care in america. and i even admit that in this legislation, even though i oppose the bulk of this 2,074-page bill, that there's even a lot in this bill that has to do with the enhancing of quality of care. so we keep hearing, madam president, about the united states being 37th in quality. well, that comes from a w

mr. grassley: yesterday -- yesterday we had a very ear

mr. 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

mr. grassley: i would yield such time as is left to the senator from utah. iding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, i have a longer statement that i was going to deliver this afternoon but after listening to some of my colleagues speak about the nelson-casey-hatch amendment, i want to take my time to refute some of the arguments that they're making about our amendment. it doesn't even sound like they are talking about the same amendment that i filed with senators nelson and casey. our amendment does nothing to -- quote -- "roll back" women's rights. when my colleagues on the other side say that, they are simply mischaracterizing our amendment. our amendment simply ensures that the hyde language, a provision that has been contained in the h.h.s. appropriations legislation for the last 33 years, will apply to the new health care programs created through this bill. we are applying current law to these programs. that is it. the current hyde amendment ensures that no federal government funds are used to pay for elective abortion or health pl

mr. 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

mr. 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

mr. reed of nevada, aye. senators voting in the negative. 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 approve

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 stand up and say, boy, let's work together to pass health ca

mr. durbin: i went through bankruptcy reform with senator grassley and the similar process followed whenhe republicans were in majority. ultimately at one point in time we agreed on a bill. came up with a common bill stampletting point is just that, a 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 pash gnatly. i really believe it is essential for -- passionately. i really believe it is essential for health care reform, to give insurance companies a choice, to make sure we have one low-cost alternative in the market. yet at the end of the day i didn't get what i wanted. now what is proposed is not my version of public option much we ended up -- public option. we ended up bending toward some of the more moderate members of the caucus and toward the republican point of view. i don't know a single republican who came out for public option. at the end of the day, the point i'm making to you, there was an effort at flexibility and an effort at change to find common ground. unfortunately the ground we're p

mr. president, parliamentary inquiry? >> so recognized in the early today senator grassley raised parliamentary inquiry based on rule 44, the rules of the senate. as my colleague will recall, this was a rule that is 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 earmark disclosure requirement. at the time the chair indicated the disclosure list was not submitted at the time, that was about 6 p.m. today. my inquiry is, is the chair aware of the disclosure list being made a veiled as required by rule 44 now as we vote in the next 30 minutes? >> the chair is not aware at this time whether that statement has been made. >> under the senator from connecticut is recognized. >> 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 are most of pointed out, in favor of this legisla

mr. mcconnell: the senator from tennessee is entitle correct. we made a major effort, senator grassleys well as senator snowe, were in endless discussions with the majority. then it came clear that they were not interested in doing anything short of this massive restructuring of one-sifnlg our economy, which includes, as you indicated, we expressed our concerns about earlier this half a trillion cuts in medicare to start a program for someone else. i would go so far as to suggest, the reason the public's reaction to this has been so severe is because they have chosen such a partisan route. had they chosen a different route, had we produced a bill in the middle, a bill much more modest in its intention rather than this audacious restructuring, the american people would see us behind it and they'd be behind it. so by choosing this sort of narrow "my way or the highway approach" we're going to get the 60 votes and jam you, they have made it impossible to make this a proposal that they could sell to the american people because the american people are not foolish, and the difference between

mr. reading and ms stoiloff for your expertise and professionalism. last month, i introduced a bill joined by my colleague, senator grassley, senator hatch, that would createl incentives for jurisdiction to process the rate kit backlog to make sure that processing them continues to remain prompt. the truth[sm is,.t thisç, is e issues in congress where we all can agree on the big picture. rape as a heinous crime and we need to provide our law enforcement agencies with everything they need to prevent justice. i want to estimate few questions mr. redding,l;3dnsph,d there as the need for improved infrastructure so dna evidence can be processed as quickly as possible. the national institute of justice study revealed that six out of 10 police departments lacked computerized evidence tracking systems. they rely on paper tracking systems. it is no surprise that when some police department's review their inventories, they discover stores of untested kits. angeles. m r reading and ms stoiloff,#yew your department's track dna várq&ped police departments set up tracking that they would require? >> in my county, there are 46 different jurisdictions. that ability to a

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 very key points from that letter. the actuary at h.h.s. concludes that this legislation extends the life of the medicare trust fund by nine years. nine years. we know

armed forces and certain other federal employees, signed by 17 senators as follows: mcconnell, grassley -- mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i ask consent that the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, now, i hope that we can bring to fruition a consent agreement to allow us to begin to vote. yesterday, against considerable opposition on my own side, i basically backed down and offered the subsequent agreement that the majority leader had offered a few days ago which would have allowed our democratic friends to have side-by sides of their own amendment on the issue of drug importation and a side-by-side to senator crapo's amendment on taxes, and the majority objected essentially to the consent that they had previously offered a few days before. so, mr. president, i hope that we can get back on track here. the commitment was made by the majority at the beginning of this debate that we would have plenty of amendments. we had a process where we went from one side to