what do the people in south dakota have to say about this? mr.hune: let me just, if i might enter into discussion with the senator from wyoming. because, as he said, his state and my state, are not unlike in terms of the composition or population. we have big geographies in wyoming and south dakota in the west, and a lot of rural health care delivery. and the primary job creator in places like wyoming and south dakota is small business. i mean, small businesses are the economic engine that creates jobs. as the senator from wyoming mentioned, according to many of the analyses that has been done on this legislation, it would be a job killer suggested by the national federation of independent business, the 1.6 million jobs would be lost. what's ironic about that is i heard our colleagues on the other side come down here repeatedly and say, this is going to create jobs. this is going to be good for the economy. if that's true, then why are all of these business organizations coming out an say it will increase the cost of doing business and increase h

i see my friend from south dakota. i think he understands. he's sitting there and grinning at me now. i think he understands those savings go back into medicare and extend the solvency of the trust funds. let's make that very clear. second, we're using some of the money to reduce part-b premiums. that helps seniors. if part-b premiums are reduced that helps seniors. by how much? $30 million over ten years. that will reduce seniors' part-b premiums. we're helping seniors, giving more dollars to seniors in this legislation. in addition, there are additional benefits for seniors in this legislation. we're starting to close the doughnut hole. that's really something seniors talk about in prescription drug benefits. they want that doughnut hole closed. after that, we are -- other benefits here, new preventive benefits under medicare. mammograms, preventive screening, colonoscopies, annual wellness visits, all new benefits. so i want to make it very, very, very clear here that it's not true when some senators say you're taking money away from medic

. >> a question from the senate colleague from south dakota les year. we heard the majority leader, senator reid come to the floor just a few minutes ago and talk about how this bill is going to get premiums under control, keep the cost of people who have insurance keep their premiums under control. i saw a chart from the center from south dakota yesterday that said 90% of americans those who have insurance now if we did nothing and did not pass this bill the premiums would be lower than if we did pass this bill. passing this bill is going to raise premiums in spite of the fact the president of the united states promised while campaigning he would lower cost of premiums for american families by $2,500 so i would ask my colleague from south dakota isn't it true if this bill passes americans wanting, they've been promised the premiums would be reduced aren't they doomed to disappointment? >> the senator from wyoming is correct and this is where the real world in this bill comes into play because what we were told and promises were made of course many prom

nebraska borders south dakota. i think the people in our part of the country are going to say this really smells. this is the way they are doing business in washington, d.c.? this is business as usual, mr. president. and the final thing i will say and that is that the argument was that it won't add a dime to the deficit. well, here i would give the democrats a little bit of credit because they did raise taxes enough and cut medicare enough that they could actually raise quite a bit of revenue. but that's still saying it won't add a dime to the deficit assumes that there isn't going to be any payment to physicians for the reimbursement -- what we call the physician fee fix which takes about 50 billion. that was completely cut out of here. they're going to have to fix that at some point. so you're not counting that. you're counting $72 billion from a program called the class act which the chairman of the senate budget committee, the democrat from north dakota kent conrad called a ponzi scheme of the first order, some

gregg: the senator from south dakota asked a pointed and appropriate question.he answer to that question is pretty startling. point here that i think most people don't understand is that this money gets spent as it comes in. in other words, let's say over the next 30 years young people pay into this new alleged insurance program, accurately described as a ponzi scream. all of that money that comes in will be spent on other activities of the government and, therefore, the other activities of the government will be allowed to grow fairly dramatically because there will be a lot of money here. you're talking potentially $1 trillion over the next 30 years. well, those expenditures which will have occurred as a result of this money coming in, which will have nothing to do at all with the cost of paying for health care, which these people who buy into this class act think they're getting, in other words, long-term care insurance, has nothing to do with that. it will be on, as i said, education, roads, national defense, whatever we spend it on around here. those expend

i just wanted to comment to ask a comment of the senator from south dakota.and by the way, could i just mention, i haven't quite seen anything on the floor of the senate as i saw the senator from south dakota challenged earlier today. i was watching proceedings on the floor. i wonder if the senator from south dakota would like to maybe respond to really accusations of misleading information, i guess is the kindest way i could describe it. mr. thune: well, i appreciate the senator from arizona yielding and appreciate the discussion of all our colleagues on the floor here this evening who are pointing out not only how flawed this process is and that it's being conducted behind closed doors in contradiction of all the promises and the commitments that were made that this was going to be a transparent, open process. the senator from arizona has been great at i think holding the other side accountable when it comes to these -- all these pronouncements about how this is going to be an soap and transparent process. clearly that's not the case. there's something goin

mccain: i thank the senator from south dakota.i have to say that i have never, in the years that i've been here, seen a process like this. i mean, it is incredibly bizarre that after a year, after hundreds of hours in the "help" committee, after how many hundreds of hours in the finance committee, products are here on our desk, it's in front of the senator from tennessee's desk, and yet, there is a meeting yesterday of the democrats, and they come out and they don't know what the proposal is either. apparently there's only one senator that knows what the proposal is, and that's the majority leader. now, and also then it's okay to go home for the weekend. i honestly say to my colleague from south dakota, i've never seen anything quite like this, especially when we're talking about one-sixth of the gross national product of this country. of course from what they know, doctors, hospitals and others have come out in strong opposition to expansion of a program that, as the senator from south dakota points out, is going broke, is going

in my state of south dakota there about 96% of the game when it comes to employment in south dakota. and so here we are debating a health care reform bill which in addition to spending $2.5 trillion to create this new health care entitlement raises taxes on small businesses, cuts medicare and that the end of the day according to a the experts the congressional budget office, the chief actuary at the center for medicare services, which is the so-called referee and all this that tells us what these things are going to cost and with the impacts are going to be. they've all said that premiums are going to stay the same or go up. the best in small business can hope for under this is the status quo. so i hear our colleagues on the other side coming down here day after day after day, making statements about this is going to be good for small businesses. this is going to help small businesses deal with the high cost of health care. the problem, madam president, with all their arguments is one thing. they are completely and utterly divorced term reality. you cannot look at this proposal, this

it is much higher in my state of south dakota.these tax increases couldn't be more poorly timed in terms of getting the economy restarted and creating jobs for americans and getting them back to work. of course, since most people get their insurance at least currently through their microone of the best things to provide insurance is to put people back to work. this bill would have the opposite effect. as it job killer because of all of the tax increases and every small business organization has said that. it's why it is so important to support the senator from idaho's amendment. senator hutchison and i will offer this amendment hopefully we'll get a vote on later that will at least delay the tax increases until such time as the benefits begin. it essentially alliance the revenue increases and the ben benefits so that they're synchornized and you don't have this period of 10 years where you're taxing people for 10 but only delivering a benefit for six. that, again, i think violates a basic principle of fairness that most americans

the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i wanted to address the issue of health care reform, of course, which is the main reason that congress is here this weekend and how it was here last weekend and in all likelihood how it will be here next weekend. i think it is important we put these things in overall context and take a look at the bill we are voting on right now. we're going to have a final vote on final passage tomorrow. we had a cloture vote this morning on a spending bill. and the spending bill, which represents six, i think, appropriations bill that didn't get done earlier this year represents a package of spending that overall increases by 12% over last year. now, that's an interesting, i think, number given the fact that the consumer price index, which is the sort of, if you will, conduit to which a lot of these decisions are made around here is tied. in other words, the c.p.i. is what we view to be inflation. sometimes when we say we mark bills up inflation, or inflation plus this or inflation plus t

in my state of south dakota there are 96% of the game. when it comes to employment. here we are debating a health care reform bill which it addition to spending 2.5 trillion dollars to create the new health care entitlement raises taxes, cuts medicare, and at the end of the day according to all of the experts, the cbo, the chief actuary for the center for medicare services which is the referee that tells us what these things will cost, they have all said the premiums will stay the same or go up. the best of small business can hope for is the status quo. high here colleagues coming down day after day making statements this will be good for small business and help small businesses steel with a high cost of health care. the problem madam president come up with all of their arguments is the one thing. they are completely and utterly divorced from reality. you cannot look at this health care reform proposal and come away from it and say this is a good thing from small businesses would they say it will drive up the cost of doing business or raise health care costs and the

i know the senator from texas and south dakota are here. what we would do is more firmly put in place, again back policy. the problem with medicare today is physicians and providers are paid fees to do more work so now what we are doing instead of health care reform which is what senator coburn and all of us talked about for some time, we are putting in place and see meant something that works poorly that the mayo clinic says is damaging to them and their patience, we would be putting it in place for even more people so i want to thank the senator for his leadership. i hope to be with you all weekend discussing amendments important, voting on those amendments. i can't imagine a better place for all of us to be. >> i thank the center. can i ask the republican leader again to be very clear that it is his view and that of our entire republican members of the senate that was the and to get this issue resolved and we are prepared to vote through the entire weekend if the majority leader moves to the omnibus appropriations bills. we will have a c

hutchison: i thank the senator from south dakota. just to -- to recap. the amount that would actually be collected before any program is put in place would b be $73 billion already collected. already collected. and that will include, as the senator from oklahoma mentioned, school teachers from oklahoma, who are considered to have these high benefit plans. a school teacher making $50,00 making $50,000, $60,000 a year with a high-benefit plan. do you know what the tax is on that high-benefit plan? do you know what the tax is on that oklahoma school teacher? it's a 40% -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i thank the senator and i would just say i hope we get a bipartisan vote on this amendment, this offer, this motion. i hope we get a bipartisan vote to say the one thing we ought to do, if nothing else, is be fair to the american people. you don't pay taxes until the program is up and going. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i

. >> well, the question from my colleague from south dakota is here. we heard the majority leader, senator reed come to the floor just a few minutes ago, and talk about how this bill was going to get premiums under control, keep the cost of people who have insurance, keep their premiums under control. now i saw a chart from the senator from south dakota yesterday that said for 90% of americans those who have insurance now, that if we did nothing and did not pass this bill, that the premiums would be lower. than if we do pass this bill. that passing this bill is going to raise premiums despite the fact that the president of the united states promised while campaigning that he would lower the cost by $2500. i would ask my colleague from stack, isn't it true that if this bill passes, americans wanting, they've been promised the premiums would be reduced. aren't they doomed to disappointment? >> senator is correct. this is where the real rub in this bill comes into play. because what we were told, promptses were made. of course many promises were made thro

if not, i'd love to yield to the senator from south dakota. the presiding officer: the time for the republicans has expired. mr. corker: thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. specter: mr. president, i have sought recognition to comment briefly on the proceedings in the senate in the last few days. and i would call upon my fellow senators to reconsider the tactics which are being used to defeat the pending legislation. this body prides itself on being the world's greatest deliberative body, but that designation has been destroyed with what has occurred here in the last several days. we have seen the filibuster on the defense appropriations bill. we are more than we have 68,000 young men and women in afghanistan today who are giving life and limb for this country, and we are debating whether or not they ought to be funded. i have heard the question raised by those in the military, doesn't the congress support the troops. and the impact on morale is potentially devastating. w

alexander: i thank the senator from south dakota. the answer is no. the difficulty with the big comprehensive plans, it sounds good but has lots of unintended consequences. if our real concern right now is reducing costs in health care, the idea of a small business health care plan that has no new taxes and no new mandates but creates opportunities for small businesses to pool their resources and offer more insurance at a lower cost to their employees would seem a logical place to start. mr. thune: i appreciate the senator for his work on that issue. that's a view i share, one that -- a proposal that i've been a big advocate of going back to my days in the house of representatives and what one which, as the senator from tennessee noted, has tremendous support among small businesses across the country. about the only place it doesn't have majority support is here in the united states congress, because -- and maybe it makes too much sense. it seems to me there are suggestions and solutions out there which don't require half a trillion dollars of tax inc

many senators -- the senator from south dakota, the senator from kansas have very, very clearly made the case. the people in the united states do not want their tax dollars to go to buying abortions. and so my hope is that 60 will step up on this amendment. i'm sure going to support it. i'll speak everywhere i can in support of it. i just am so appreciative that senator nelson and senator hatch and senator casey brought this forward, and i'm glad to be a cosponsor. and it is my hope, it is my hope that this amendment will pass, but then it is my conviction that we need to stand strong throughout this debate and make sure that this language doesn't end up in the final bill. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. brownback: i think the -- the catholic bitches put it probably as concisely as anybody. they put it in this term -- they said in every major program where federal funds combine with nonfederal funds to support or purchase health coverage, congress has consistently sought to ensure that the entire package of benefits excludes elective abortions.

the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, i want to start by just referring briefly to the rarkts that were made earlier -- remarks that were made earlier by the senator from alaska. she indicated earlier on the floor that she's going to be offering a motion of disapproval for a set of regulations that are not final yet but that have been announced that e.p.a. is coming forward, with the so-called endangerment finding, and i just wanted to indicate, madam president, i intend to support her on that resolution and also had supported her -- i cosponsored the amendment that she tried offering earlier this year to one of the appropriation bills that would have prevented the e.p.a. from moving forward with the endangerment finding for a year. in other words, to allow congress an opportunity to -- to examine this issue and -- and perhaps approach it from a legislative solution as opposed to having e.p.a. move forward in a way that even they acknowledge they really don't have statutory authority to do. and i m

but the average is 37 cents so someone request mail a letter from south dakota. that's great. we september that. that's the way it should be. if you do the same thing off the coastline of new jersey, that's going to undermine the economics from the east coast because it hasn't factored into cost of transmitting that energy 1500 miles all the way into the east coast market. the question becomes how many new jobs will be created alonching the east coast of the united states if there is no incentive any longer. because he's almost bound by his obligation to his share holders to take all of this inexpensive but subsidized energy. >> how do we square this circle so that others on the disincentive to produce renewables. >> broad based fair rates. the people using the power are paying the cost sf i looked at this last year alone the price difference change from 20-30 miles an hour. >> it would be cheaper to use a wind farm operating in the plains 40% of the time. it's the total cost that matters. if you eliminate transmission. suddenly, the 40% time looks cheaper but you put a burden

i know the senator from texas and south dakota are here. but we would do is more firmly put in place, again, back policy. the problem with medicare today is physicians and providers are paid fees to do more work so now what we are doing instead of health care reform, which is what senator coburn and all of us talked about for some time, we are putting in place in cement something that works poorly that the clinic says is damaging the them and their patients as we would be putting in place even more people. i want to thank the senator for his leadership. i hope to be with you all weekend discussing amendments important, voting on those amendments i can't imagine a better place for all of us to be. >> i thank the senator. can i ask the republican leader again to be very clear that it is his view and that of our entire republican members of the senate that we will stay in for as long as it takes to get this issue resolved, and we are prepared to vote throughout the entire weekend if the majority leader moves to the omnibus appropriations bill.

the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr.hune: madam president, i wanted to speak to a couple issues this evening. the first one has to deal with what we understand to be the evolving so-called deal that is being worked out by the other side on the public option/government plan and the attempt to try to reach 60 votes on the other side and what appears to be a process that continues to just sort of unravel and break down because every single day there is a new story about some new gimmick to attract the requisite number of senators to get to that threshold of 60. the most recent one -- like i said, i can't verify any of this because we haven't been privy to or included in any of the discussions that have occurred behind closed doors. in fact, one of those meetings just occurred earlier this evening. but we read from press reports that one of the proposals now being contemplated by the majority to try to get that requisite number of votes is an expansion of the medicare program. and what's interesting about that, of course, is

south dakota, 8,973. tennessee, 233,024. texas, 532,242. my own state of utah, 85,588.vermont, only 3,966, but 3,000 people -- 4,000 people in vermont. virginia, 151,942. washington, 225,918. west virginia, 88,027. wisconsin, 243,443, and wyoming, 3,942. these are people who benefit from medicare advantage that would not like to get off of it. well, this choice in coverage has made a difference in the lives of more than almost 11 million people. 11 million individuals nationwide, families that benefit from this. the extra benefits that i had mentioned earlier are being portrayed as gym memberships as opposed to lower premiums, copayments and deductibles. let me read you some letters from my constituents. these are real lives being affected by the cuts contemplated in this bill. i'm going to have to get my reading glasses on. and you should see some of the beautiful handwriting. some of it is very shaky but beautiful, to me, anyway. from cedar city, utah. "senator hatch: i'm writing to you to request your help in preserving our medicare advantage plans from being cut. my

host: we have a republican from south dakota.i want you to talk about this. nobody is talking about this side of the situation. we live in the south dakota where the poverty is there. money and ministries are given to that reservation. there was a $400,000 house that was sold to a native american with no credit and no house. this is on foreclosure. i have worked with women in prison. i have watched the women have to stay there, and i was trying to connect them with their children. when they go to the reservation, the children are taken away and they are thrown to a treatment center. giving money does not fix the problem. we do not pay people that we win -- the best thing to do is give people opportunities to change their lives. not by throwing more money at them, because the money has been thrown. it is amazing how much money is given to the native americans. this is not fixing anything. the situation is worse. guest: you are wrong and the statistics show that you are wrong. in places like south dakota, there is a lot of animosit

let me give the last five seconds to the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i yield my five seconds. i didn't have time to distribute it equally here. so it wouldn't be fair. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida is recognized. mr. nelson: i ask unanimous consent that the time for debate only be extended until 2:00 p.m. with the time equally divided with senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each with no amendments in order during this time. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, reserving the right to object, i would just ask the senator from florida is it ten minutes then and going back and forth? it's not 30 minutes allocated per side? is that correct? mr. nelson: it is back and forth. mrs. hutchison: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. the senator from missouri is recognized. mr. bond: mr. president, i ask to be advised when i have used eight of my ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so

. >> the senator from south dakota. >> senator from south dakota. >> madame president, i appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important piece of legislation. i want to again point out to my colleagues and to anybody else who may be observing the volume of this. this is what to 100 pages, 2100 pounds which means it is about 1 pound per hundred pages. it is $1.2 billion per page. $6.8 million per whirred, create 70 new government programs and gives secretary of health and human services over 1600, 1700 incidences in this bill the opportunity to create, define and determine things in this bill. this is a big government bill. massive expansion of the federal government. to $.5 trillion when it is fully implemented. now of course to pay for all of the things in this bill not only those intended also the unintended consequences of this bill you have got to have revenue. where to get the revenue? the democrats' proposal, the senator read bill decided they were going to raise taxes on small businesses and individuals and families and that they are going to cut medicare by about half a tr

the clerk: the senator from south dakota, mr. thune, proposes an amendment numbered 2901 to amendment numbered 2786. beginning on page 1925, strike line 15 and all that follows through line 15 on page 1979. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i would like to speak to the amendment that we just filed at the desk. and what this amendment would do -- it's very straightforward and very simple. it does what a number of my colleagues on the other side have asked to do, and that is to strike the class act from the underlying health reform bill -- the health care reform bill that's being debated on the floor of the senate right knew. and i want to read for you some excerpts from a letter that seven democrat senators, including the chairman of the senate budget committee, senator conrad, put together asking in this class act not be included as part of this legislation. they said this, "we urge you not to include these provisions in the senate's merged bill, nor to use t

south dakota, well, they had a 10th congressional district of south dakota. see, folks, south dakota has one congressional district. louisiana doesn't have 15 congressional districts. it has seven. so even lesco here could know. we get back here on some examples of some of that free money quote-unquote that went out. in my home state of oregon, we have actually five -- count them on one hand here -- five congressional districts. that's one, two, three, four, five. and yet on this fancy new website that's supposed to track all this, news media organizations said, wait a minute, there isn't a 00 district in oregon or a 14th or 60th. and this is transparency and accountability in a record amount of money that's being spent? now, frankly, being an oregonian and having five sdricks, i kind of like the notion that we are going to add congressional districts. even the people that live there, that gives us -- gets us cloudier in the congress and that's ok with me. you are talking about taxpayers' money here and it's not creating jobs. now, they went on to say that we

overall jobs or tennessee, or iowa, growing clean jobs at seven times the rate of the average, or south dakota, who mentioned to beat them all with 19 times the job growth in the clean energy sector than overall job growth, we know that it's common sense and good for our economy. when we receive billions of dollars going to other countries, many of whom might not have our security interest at heart, and every year, see ourselves despite rhetoric of after rhetoric, watching our increasing reliance on fossil fuels and on oil that comes from offshore, leave us vulnerable, we know that energy independence is a common sense solution for our country and for hour national security. but for me, most importantly, when we see polluted air, when i see water that is literally in parts of our nation today making people sick, when we experience historic droughts or in my beloved hometown, horrendous historic flooding, we know that clean energy is just fewer common sense for our environment, for reducing climate pollution, reducing other pollutions and confronting once and for all, the threat of climate chan

it certainly would be much higher than that in my state of south dakota.but i commend the senator for seeing his way to offer an amendment that clarifies and removes all this ambiguity and what to me is clearly intentional ambiguity with regard to this issue and the underlying bill. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that senator cornyn be added as a cosponsor of the nelson-hatch-casey amendment. a senator: how much time is left on our side? the presiding officer: four minutes, 48 seconds. mr. johanns: i have been on the floor a number of times now debating this issue a while back on the motion to proceed and since this amendment has come out. the senator from utah, i don't believe i have seen a more concise, clear explanation of the history of the hyde language than i just saw over the last half an hour of debate here on the senate floor. you laid it out perfectly. you laid out how we have over a long period of time stayed with that hyde language. that was the agreement that had been reached. now, our colleague from texas said this is a foot in the door,

and i know the senator from south dakota's on the floor.he's been one of the leaders in this effort because he believes, as i -- i think as i do that we can't mend it, so we need to end it. we need to cut out this revolving credit account that's being used for inappropriate purposes known as tarp, the troubled asset relief program. now, let's go back and look at why tarp was authorized by congress in october of 2008. it's important to remember what the situation was at this time. treasury secretary henry paulson, and federal reserve chairman ben bernanke, had many conversations with legislators on both end of the capitol on both sides of the aisle. they said on their public on september 23, secretary paulson said that congress must act -- quote -- "in order to avoid a continuing series of financial institution failures an frozen credit markets that threaten the very health of our economy." in private the diagnosis was even more dire. we were told that we're literally days away from a complete financial meltdown in the united states unless c

and i know the senator from south dakota's on the floor. he's been one of the leaders in this effort because he believes, as i -- i think as i do that we can't mend it, so we need to end it. we need to cut out this revolving credit account that's being used for inappropriate purposes known as tarp, the troubled asset relief program. now, let's go back and look at why tarp was authorized by congress in october of 2008. it's important to remember what the situation was at this time. treasury secretary henry paulson, and federal reserve chairman ben bernanke, had many conversations with legislators on both end of the capitol on both sides of the aisle. they said on their public on september 23, secretary paulson said that congress must act -- quote -- "in order to avoid a continuing series of financial institution failures an frozen credit markets that threaten the very health of our economy." in private the diagnosis was even more dire. we were told that we're literally days away from a complete financial meltdown in the united states unless

but even nursings homes -- snawl towns in south dakota -- small towns in south dakota -- you're talking about almost 6,000 employees in nursing homes. $40 billion out of home health agencies, what we're talking about, madam president, are huge reductions in medicare, unlike anything we've seen. as i said to put it in perspective, a few short years ago when we were in the majority in a budget tried to reduce medicare by $10 billion over a five-year period, it was referred to as immoral, a a monumental disaster, as cruel. $10 billion over five years. this has half a trillion dollars in medicare cuts, medicare advantage and providers. madam president, i hope my colleagues will support the mccain amendment. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: who yields time? ms. mikulski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: i yield three and a half minutes to the junior senator from minnesota, senator franken. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: thank you, madam president. i rise to express my support for senator mikulski's

south dakota senator john une. >> this is not over yet. they may have 60 ves today, but it a long ways from the finish line. and the american peoplare going to he the opportunity to weigh in when ery one of our senators goes home ovethe holidays andears directly from them. >> reporr: at the white house this aftnoon, president obama said he's delaying his plaed holiday in hawaii, as he aits nate action. >> i will not leavuntil my friends in the senate have mpleted their work. my attitude is if they're king thessacrifices to provide healthare to all americans, the least i can do is pride enuragement and last minute help in the meantime, democrs >>eporter: in the meantime, democrats defended the dealmang they had to use to coral the 60 voteshey needed, for passage, the chaman of the health committ iowa senator m harkin said: "the principl of this bill oveides everything." >> sreenivan: tomorrow night on the newshour jilehrer will have an ierview. republicans have picd up another voten the u.s. house. freshman democrat parker griffith of alaba

we keep hearing from our colleagues and i heard this from the senator from south dakota that we're not going going to be able to save money in the legislation that we are going to pass. and in fact, really nothing could be further from the truth. the fact is that we don't measure, we don't get measured i should say, from the cbo, the congressional budget office. they don't measure many of the things that we are going to do in this legislation that in fact will reduce, all of us now, as a matter of common sense. many of the measures in this legislation are going to reduce the cost of health care. and one of the reasons is that cbo analysis is generally limited to the federal budget. it doesn't attempt to account for savings in the health care system that come from policies that are implemented through reforms. so for example, the cbo found only night teen billion dollars in government savings from transitioning towards postacute bundled payments and medicare. but recent research in the "new england journal of medicine" suggests that bundled payments, bundled payments for somebody listen

the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota is recognized. mr. johnson: i rise to express my support -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. johnson: i move that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. johnson: i rise to express my support for the patient protection and affordable care act and to encourage my colleagues to support this effort to address our health care system's immediate and long-term challenges in a fiscally responsible manner. for decades attempts have been made to reform the way our health care system works. but only incremental changes have been made. the result is a broken system where costs are rising out of control and millions of americans are priced out of the health insurance market. in the last eight years, health care premiums have grown four times faster than wages. if health care costs continue to rise at the current rates without reform, it is projected that the average south dakota family will be paying nearly nearly $17,000 by 2016. that is a 7

if it is not good for us, it is not good for our friends in iowa or missouri or south dakota or any other either. you should have fixed the bill, not just get a special sweetheart bill for nebraska. that is not what we want. i do not know this for sure. i have not talked to our friends in nebraska. but i am sure that that is what they will say in the next several weeks. if you look at the dow jones news wire yesterday, there are more sweetheart deals. apparently, there are other references to insurance companies who meet certain qualifications and it just happens that the three that qualified are blue cross, blue shield of nebraska and michigan and mutual of omaha. in other words, that satisfies the special interests in the state and against what the vast majority of nebraska and are telling him what to do, which was to not support this legislation. >> i think you have a half nelson, a three quarter nelson, a double nelson, and more. one is exempting many floridians. the three quarter notes and is that senator nelson has excluded the position on hospital construction in his state by chang

we keep hearing from our colleagues -- and i heard this from the senator from south dakota -- that we're not going to be able to save money in the legislation that we're going to pass. and, in fact, really nothing could be further from the truth. the fact is that we don't measure -- we don't get measured, i should say, from the c.b.o., the congressional budget office, they don't measure many of the things that we're going to do in this legislation that, in fact, will reduce -- all of us know as a matter of monday cn sense, many of the measures in this legislation are going to reduce the costs of health care. and one of the reasons is that the c.b.o. analysis is generally limited to the federal budget. it doesn't attempt to account for savings in the health care system that come from policies that are implemented through reforms. so, for example, the c.b.o. found only $19 billion in government savings from transitioning toward post-acute bundled payments in medicare. but recent research in the "new england journal of medicine" suggests that bundled payments -- bundled payment, for somebod

it certainly would be much higher than that in my state of south dakota. but i commend the senator for seeing his way to offer an amendment that clarifies and removes all this ambiguity and what to me is clearly intentional ambiguity with regard to this issue and the underlying bill. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that senator cornyn be added as a cosponsor of the nelson-hatch-casey amendment. a senator: how much time is left on our side? the presiding officer: four minutes, 48 seconds. mr. johanns: i have been on the floor a number of times now debating this issue a while back on the motion to proceed and since this amendment has come out. the senator from utah, i don't believe i have seen a more concise, clear explanation of the history of the hyde language than i just saw over the last half an hour of debate here on the senate floor. you laid it out perfectly. you laid out how we have over a long period of time stayed with that hyde language. that was the agreement that had been reached. now, our colleague from texas said this is a foot in the door,

a project in south dakota may be invested on from wisconsin, or they can be from alabama or georgia.le to own a piece of this. one thing i want to do is generate that through renewable -- we have to look at the most cost-effective way to do this. we know about the corridor that will give us a great reduction of wind -- a great production of wind energy throughout the great plains. not every farm is the same. we also have to make certain that when we locate that kind of generation, we can move the fire out of those regions. we have to be very aware of the fact that -- it has been the experience with the bottom-up planning, this works the best. we need local people putting this plan together to determine the best way to move forward. that is a principle but we will have to follow. bottom-up for the transition system of the country. i would also suggest that under these conditions, and the fact that we will have to move the transmission system across state lines, and we may run into difficulty. the national best interest is not being served. so, i think that as we are having the local p

so my colleague from south dakota and i will certainly want to spend more time talking about this and hope very much that our colleagues will look at this. and i don't think this is what the american people thought that they would be getting in health care reform. of course, what we would hope that the american people would get in health care reform would be lower cost options that don't require a big government plan. they wouldn't require big taxes, they wouldn't require big fees. if we just had a lowering of the cost by allowing small businesses to have bigger risk pools, that wouldn't cost anything. it just would allow bigger risk pools that would provide lower premiums and employers would be able to offer more to their employees. most employers want to offer health care to their employees. it's just a matter of the expense. and the bill that we're debating now is going to give more expenses and burdens on employers at the time when we're asking them to hire more people to get us out of this recession. everywhere i go in texas, when i am on an airplane, when i am in a store, grocer

in south dakota, the impact would be $35 million in cuts and reductions. the people in rural areas will have fewer opportunities available to them to be served by a home health care agency. they will likely end up in the hospital. that is many multiple times more in terms of cost. we have about 9000 square miles in south dakota this six times the size of the state of rhode island. it would have two home providers available to them. they are fewer of the time. this is real and taimpacts, particularly in rural areas of the country. all of these cuts and tax increases in the vast expansion of the federal government, when it all comes down to the end of the bottom line, this is supposed to be about driving down costs. you all heard the democrats celebrate the announcement of the new cbo report. it is ironic how much expectations have changed from the point when the president said when he became president, he would have the health care reform bill that cuts premiums by $2,500 per family and covers everybody. this bill still leaves 24 million americans uncovered

host: mitchell in south dakota. safe and really quite effective. so you know i have to respect people's opinion they have but i strongly disagree. first of all, the vast majority of people that deal with cdc find them very courteous and professional. i have them as colleagues and find them extremely courteous and respectful of the american publi(ház i have to with all due respect, disagree with this caller. host: last call from brooklyn. heather on the democrat line. caller: good morning. dr. anthony fauci, i have a question about deaths of seniors from the flu. i have a question about senior deaths from the flu. of the seniors lost every year. from the flu, do you know how many of those have never been vaccinated verses those that have been lapsed in vaccinations. guest: it's a good question. let's get the number so viewer cans get it correct. just to talk about seasonal flu there are about 36,000 death as among individuals who are infected with seasonal flu the vast majority over 90% are individuals older than 65

and i know the senator from south dakota's on the floor.s been one of the leaders in this effort because he believes, as i -- i think as i do that we can't mend it, so we need to end it. we need to cut out this revolving credit account that's being used for inappropriate purposes known as tarp, the troubled asset relief program. now, let's go back and look at why tarp was authorized by congress in october of 2008. it's important to remember what the situation was at this time. treasury secretary henry paulson, and federal reserve chairman ben bernanke, had many conversations with legislators on both end of the capitol on both sides of the aisle. they said on their public on september 23, secretary paulson said that congress must act -- quote -- "in order to avoid a continuing series of financial institution failures an frozen credit markets that threaten the very health of our economy." in private the diagnosis was even more dire. we were told that we're literally days away from a complete financial meltdown in the united states unless cong

south dakota but it isn't true when the president of the united states was a member of this body he co-sponsored this amendment? >> the president was a co-sponsor of this legislation when he served here last year. i do want to say as well when i talked about nexium just as an exit of the american consumer gets to pay ten times the cost? maximus for acid reflux probably a condition that will exist with some after this vote because my understanding is after seven days on the floor of the senate this now an arrangement by which the pharmaceutical industry will probably have sufficient votes safety and reads the stuff that could come right out of a copying machine for ten years, understand this. dr. peter roascht, former vice president of marketing for pfizer and formerly worked on europe in the parallel trading system says this -- quote -- "the biggest argument against reimportation of prescription drugs is safety. what everyone has recently forgotten to tell you is that in europe, reimportation of drugs has been in place for 20 years." it is an insult, in my judgment, to the american people to say

and they're worried about somebody from sioux falls, south dakota, buying prescription drugs from winnipeg. are you kidding me? 40% of the active ingredients in u.s. prescription drugs currently come from india and china, and in most cases, the places that those active ingredients come from have never been inspected. and i'm going to talk about that. i'm not going to go into it tonight, but i'll -- i'll talk about a number of issues related to drug safety of the existing drug supply and how what we have included in this legislation with respect to pedigree and batch lots and tracers will improve dramatically the existing drug supply in our country and make certain that there isn't any safety -- any safety issues at all coming from the reimportation of drugs. now, i'm going to speak to this at some length tomorrow, but i just received a letter from the head of the f.d.a., margaret hamberg, food and drug administration, who raises some questions about the amendment. i'm not going to read the letter into the record. i'll talk more about it tomorrow. i must say that i am in some ways surprised