murkowski: mr. president, i want to start my comments by acknowledging my colleague from maryland and accept her gracious offer to continue to work on this issue as it relates to women's health and women's health services. as has been noted by the senator from maryland and the senator from washington, this is an issue that we women of the senate have come together repeatedly to work cooperative cooperatively, and while we do have some would say dueling amendments here, i think it is important to recognize that the goals that we are both seeking to attain here are certainly right in alignment. we're just choosing different means to get there. but i appreciate again the civility and the cooperation from not only senator mikulski but the other women of the senate on this very important issue. mr. president, i'd like to reiterate a couple points about the amendment -- my amendment that i made yesterday. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i fear that the gentle

here is the difference between the murkowski amendment and the murkowski amendment to read the senator from maryland relies on the government to make the decision on what will be covered. she refers to the health resource services administration. she refers to the health resources service administration who has no guide points whatsoever on women's health care right now what you're in prenatal care and child care. that is the only thing they have. who does hrsa work for? secretary of health and human services. so the contrast between the two amendments couldn't be any more clear in terms of if you really want to solve the problems we just experienced on mammogram recommendations. we can let the government decide which got us into this trouble and they will set the practice guidelines and their recommendations for screening or you can let the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists, you can let the american college of surgeons, the american college of oncologist set and use their guidelines. so the choice is simple. the government can decide what cared you get or the people

senator murkowski has incorporated similar language. i was hoping we could come together 100-0 to actually pass this onto the bill whichever alternative tomorrow is voted up and maybe they both will be, but which ever is voted up or which ever is voted down, i think it's very important to come together and state that we don't want these new task force recommendations to have any force and effect, so let me propose a third and final alternative unanimous consent request that at any point after

murkowski: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to engage in a colloquy with my republican colleagues o on an amendment tht i will be discussing. the presiding officer: without objection. it is so ordered. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. a great deal of discussion certainly this week and last with the announcement from the united states preventive services task force, the uspstf, the recommendations as they relate to mammograms, and the recommendation that women under the age of 50 do not need to be screened until they reach age 50 and then on attaining the age of 50, every other year after that. when these recommendations came out on the 16th of november, i think it is fair to say that they generated a level of controversy, a level of discussion, and really a level of confusion around the country by women from all walks of life. i think for many, many years now women have operated under what we knew to be the standards, the protocols. if you had a history of breast cancer in you

the second item that we will be considering after the mikulski amendment and the murkowski amendment, besides senator mikulski's, is the mccain motion. the mccain motion is going to strike the medicare cuts from this bill. his motion, which i certainly endorse and support, would send the bill back for a rewrite. it would send it back to the finance committee with instructions to give us a new bill that does not include half a trillion dollars in medicare cuts. a bill that would not be paid for on the backs of our seniors who we should be protecting. as i mentioned previously, the bill that is before us would cut nearly half a trillion dollars dollars, $500 billion from medicare. it will not make it stronger. it will fund more government spending, more government takeover in our health care system. health care reform should not mean slashing medicare by cutting half a trillion dollars from seniors' care. this is not reform, mr. president. mr. president, if we can support the mccain motion to go back to the drawing board and look for a way that we can have a bipartisan bill that would h

senator murkowski has incorporated similar language. i was hoping we could come together 100-0 to actually pass this onto the bill whichever alternative tomorrow is voted up and maybe they both will be, but which ever is voted up or which ever is voted down, i think it's very important to come together and state that we don't want these new task force recommendations to have any force and effect, so let me propose a third and final alternative unanimous consent request that at any point after these votes but before cloture is filed on the pending matter, that this amendment 2808 receive a vote on the senate floor as a first-degree amendment to the underlying bill. mr. durbin: mr. president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: may i suggest to my friend from louisiana, would you consider approaching senators mikulski and/or murkowski first thing tomorrow and see if they are prepared to work with you on this? this mikulski amendment has been pending for three days. mr. visitor: mr.

murkowski: mr. president, i don't believe that the body is in order. the presiding officer: will the senate be in order. thank you. the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that we do not have government entities that are making those decisions that we as individuals working with our doctors feel is best. the -- the intent behind this amendment is to ensure that those medical professionals, those medical professional organizations -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. thank you, senator byrd. ms. murkowski: we want to ensure that those medical professionals, whether it is the american society of clinical oncology or the college of surgeons or the radiation oncology, the american college of obstetricians and gynecolgists, those who are in the practice, those who are making the recommendations, these are the individuals that we want to know are being consulted, not some entity that has been created by those of us in government b

murkowski: okay, thank you. if i may ask my colleague from kansas, do i understand that you're seeking about ten minutes? is that correct? okay. so that i know what we're doing here in terms of time. thank you. i want to speak just a little bit about small businesses because we've all been talking about the impact to small businesses. under this bill as we know, small businesses are going to be penalized $750 per employee if even one of their employees seeks governmental health care whether through medicaid or the federal subsidies. if you've got 50 or more employees, you can be expected to pay fines in an a. $750 -- amount of $750 per employee employee or $3,000 for that individual employee. madam president, i think we need to put it in perspective in terms of who these businesses are. these are the solo practitioners like the one-lawyer office or small doctors office. if these individuals in alaska purchase health care in the individual market they're going to see premiums go up an extra $1,160 per year per fa

senator murkowski, senator coburn have come up with an alternative that actually puts the decision whether to cover something on a preventive service, whether it's for a mammogram for breast cancer or some other test to may be developed that's better than a mammogram, which most people think that an m.r.i. is going to be better than a mammogram for diagnosing breast cancer, or whether it's a test for prostate cancer for men. those kinds of things should be determined by experts in the field, not by government bureaucrats. the various colleges, the american college of obstetrics and gynecology, for instance, they come out with certain recommendations, along with the american college of surgeons. those are the experts with peer-reviewed science. that's who should determine what the recommendations are for whether we pay for preventive services or not. not a government bureaucrat. and, unfortunately, the mikulski amendment just gives it to a government bureaucrat. that's why we should reject the mikulski amendment, adopt the murkowski amendment, the senator from alaska, because she puts it in

murkowski: thank you, mr. president. appreciate the good senator fr from -- from pennsylvania and his discussion and his very constant focus on children, children's health and just want to commend him for his -- his good work in always reminding us of the importance of our children in so many aspects of our policies. so thank you for that. mr. president, i, too, rise this afternoon to talk about the -- the debate on health care and the debate that we seem to -- to have ongoing with the numbers. and whether it's numbers that are coming out from the congressional budget office, c.b.o., or for -- from our states or from other noteworthy entities, there's a great deal of back and forth as to whose numbers are right, whose numbers are wrong. well, a great deal of discussion in the past day or so about the numbers that we have received and the analysis that we have received from the office of the actuary, from c.m.s., the center for medicare and medicaid services. the chief actuary is mr. richard foster. and a good deal of dis

murkowski: i know that the senate is primarily focused on health care. i have come to the floor to speak on another important topic, than is climate change. i would like to speak of an action by the environmental protection agency and the consequence it's could entail with our economy. i'd like to start by reminding my colleagues that i committed to a careful evaluation of all of the options to address climate change in order to develop an approach that will benefit both our environment and our economy. over time it is becoming increasingly apparent that some approaches are better than others. and while we have not yet found that right approach, yet, we have certainly identified the wrong approach. e.p.a. regulation of greenhouse gases under the clean air act. i believe that this option should be taken off the table so that we can focus our attention on more viable policies. my concerns about this led me to introduce an amendment in september that would have limited e.p.a.'s ability to limit greenhouse gases for one fiscal year. i offered my amendment fo

murkowski: i rise to speak on the defense appropriations bill.i appreciate all the hard work that goes into the formulation of this bill and i commend the appropriations committee, senator inouye and senator cochran on a very fine product. it's a product that does justice to the men and women who wear the uniform of our country in defense of peace and liberty, and it's a product that does right by our military families who we must never forget also serve. i just want to recognize this morning, share some comments about what this bill means for the fighting men and women in my state of alaska. alaska's home to about 21,000 men and women who serve on active duty. add to that number approximately 4,700 members of the national guard and the reserves. the bill that is before us supports the soldiers of fort richardson, fort wayne write, -- waynewright, clear air force station, and 18 radar sites in remote rural areas of our state. we also have the marine detach many that's hosted by elmendorf air force base and naval special warfare center detachment

14 democrats, including senator lieberman, senator mccould you say key, who is the one -- senator murkowski, who is the one who joined yesterday. i thank you for your support. 34 co-sponsors in that short of period, because we just circulated this proposal days ago. i thank all of the members who have signed up and some of them under pretty fierce lobbying by those who do not want to see us proceed in this way. you know, we have colleagues who are very dug in on the notion that this invades their turf. and this upsets the normal distribution of responsibilities to the committees of congress. i would just say to those members, i respect the jurisdiction of your committees. but even more than that, i believe the threat posed by the debt crisis in this country supersedes any commitment to the jurisdiction of any specific committee because the committees of jurisdiction have had years to face up to this problem and have failed to do so. that is a fact. before i discuss the specifics of the conrad-gregg task force, allow me to take a moment to discuss how i see our economic future and why i thin

14 democrats, including senator lieberman, senator mccould you say key, who is the one -- senator murkowski who joined yesterday. i thank you for your support. 34 co-sponsors in that short of period, because we just circulated this proposal days ago. i thank all of the members who have signed up and >> i thank all of the members who have signed up and some of them under pretty fierce lobbying by those who do not want to see us proceed in this way. we have colleagues who are buried dug-in on the notion that this invades their turf. and this upsets the normal distribution of responsibilities to the committees of congress. i would say to those members, i respect the jurisdiction of your committees. but, even more than that, i believe the threat posed by the debt crisis in this country supersedes any commitment to the jurisdiction of any specific committee. because the committees of jurisdiction have had years to face up to this problem and have failed to do so. that is a fact. before i discuss the specifics of the conrad-grade task force, allow me to take a moment on how i see the economic fut

14 democrats, including senator lieberman, senator mccould you say key, who is the one -- senator murkowskione who joined yesterday. i thank you for your support. 34 co-sponsors in that short of period, because we just circulated this proposal days ago. i thank all of the members who have signed up and some of them under pretty fierce lobbying by those who do not want to see us proceed in this way. you know, we have colleagues who are very dug in on the notion that this invades their turf. and this upsets the normal distribution of responsibilities to the committees of congress. i would just say to those members, i respect the jurisdiction of your committees. but even more than that, i believe the threat posed by the debt crisis in this country supersedes any commitment to the jurisdiction of any specific committee because the committees of jurisdiction have had years to face up to this problem and have failed to do so. that is a fact. before i discuss the specifics of the conrad-gregg task force, allow me to take a moment to discuss how i see our economic future and why i think some specia

murkowski: mr. president, i want to start my comments by acknowledging my colleague from maryland and accept her gracious offer to continue to work on this issue as it relates to women's health and women's health services. as has been noted by the senator from maryland and the senator from washington, this is an issue that we women of the senate have come together repeatedly to work cooperative cooperatively, and while we do have some would say dueling amendments here, i think it is important to recognize that the goals that we are both seeking to attain here are certainly right in alignment. we're just choosing different means to get there. but i appreciate again the civility and the cooperation from not only senator mikulski but the other women of the senate on this very important issue. mr. president, i'd like to reiterate a couple points about the amendment -- my amendment that i made yesterday. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i fear that the gentle