[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 24]
[Senate]
[Pages 32906-32914]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        SERVICE MEMBERS HOME OWNERSHIP TAX ACT OF 2009--Resumed

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 2786, in the nature of a substitute.
       Reid amendment No. 3276 (to amendment No. 2786), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 3277 (to amendment No. 3276), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 3278 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 2786), to change the enactment 
     date.
       Reid amendment No. 3279 (to amendment No. 3278), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, 
     with instructions to report back forthwith, with Reid 
     amendment No. 3280, to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 3281 (to the instructions (amendment No. 
     3280) of the motion to commit), to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 3282 (to amendment No. 3281), to change 
     the enactment date.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 1 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees, with the majority leader controlling the 
final 10 minutes prior to 1 a.m., and the Republican leader controlling 
the 10 minutes immediately prior to that.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I intend to take 10 minutes of the 
Republican time. Will you please let me know when 1 minute remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will be notified.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, there may be a number of Americans who are switching 
over from the Minnesota v. Carolina football game and they may be 
wondering what in the world is the U.S. Senate doing coming into 
session at midnight on a Sunday in the middle of a snowstorm and 
getting ready to vote at 1 a.m.? So let me try to explain that for a 
moment.
  The reason is, the Democratic majority leader, who is the only one 
who can set our schedule, showed up yesterday with a 400-page 
amendment--yesterday. This amendment had been written in secret for the 
last 6 weeks. The assistant Democratic leader said, last week, on the 
floor, he had no idea what was in it. Of course, none of us on the 
Republican side knew what was in it. So almost no one here knew what 
was in it. It was presented to us. Then the Democratic leader said: 
Well, we are going to start voting on it, and we are going to pass it 
before Christmas.
  This is an amendment to the health care bill, which when fully 
implemented, will cost about $2.5 trillion over 10 years, according to 
the Senate Budget Committee; which restructures a sixth of our economy; 
which affects 300 million people; which will raise taxes by about $1 
trillion when fully implemented over 10 years; and which will cut 
Medicare by about $1 trillion when fully implemented over 10 years. It 
doesn't cut Medicare to make Medicare more solvent which, as we know, 
it is going to become insolvent, according to its trustees, by 2015, 
but to spend on a new entitlement.
  It will also shift to the States a great many expenses, so much so 
that our Democratic Governor in Tennessee has said it is the mother of 
all unfunded mandates. The Governor of California says it is the last 
thing we need, take your time, get it right. But the Democratic leader 
and his colleagues insist that we need to bring this up in the middle 
of a snowstorm, write it in secret, vote on it in the middle of the 
night, and get it passed before Christmas Eve.
  Why would they want to do that? Well, I think the answer is very 
clear. It is because they want to make sure they pass it before the 
American people find out what is in it. Because the American people, by 
nearly two to one, according to a CNN poll, do not like what they have 
heard about the health care bill. When they have to start explaining 
what is in it, they are afraid it will be worse, and it will never 
pass.
  Republicans are not the only ones who believe we ought to stop and 
think about big issues before we deal with it. Eight Democratic 
Senators--Senators Lincoln, Bayh, Landrieu, Lieberman, McCaskill, 
Nelson, Pryor, and Webb--wrote Senator Reid on October 6, saying to 
Senator Reid:

       As you know, Americans across our country have been 
     actively engaged in the debate on health care reform. . . . 
     Without a doubt, reforming health care in America is one of 
     the most monumental and far-reaching undertakings considered 
     by this body in decades. We believe the American public's 
     participation in this process is critical to our overall 
     success. . . .

  I am quoting from the eight Democratic Senators. They go on to say 
they want to make sure the bill is on a Web site ``for at least 72 
hours'' before we vote on it. This bill was given to us yesterday--400 
pages of it--we had not seen before. Seventy-two hours would be 
Tuesday. So the minimum requirement, according to the eight Democratic 
Senators and all 40 Republican Senators, would be that we should not 
even think about voting on it until at

[[Page 32907]]

least Tuesday. And then one would think we would be amending it and 
debating it and considering it and thinking about it and trying to find 
out what it actually does.
  According to the eight Democratic Senators:

       By publicly posting the legislation and its [Congressional 
     Budget Office] scores 72 hours before it is brought to a vote 
     in the Senate and by publishing the text of amendments before 
     they are debated, our constituents will have the opportunity 
     to evaluate these policies. . . . As their democratically-
     elected representatives . . . it is our duty to listen . . . 
     and to provide them with the chance to respond to proposals 
     that will impact their lives.

  Yet, we are presented with it in the middle of a snowstorm on 
Saturday, we are meeting at midnight, we are voting at 1 a.m. It is 
being demanded that it be passed, even though most of the provisions, 
as the Senator from Maine has said, do not even begin to take effect 
for 4 more years.
  What is the rush? I think the rush is that our friends on the other 
side do not want to explain to 40 million seniors how you can cut $1 
trillion out of Medicare--it is exactly $470 billion over the next 10 
years, but when fully implemented $1 trillion out of Medicare--and 
spend it on a new program without reducing Medicare services to 40 
million seniors. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office has 
already said that for the 11 million seniors who are on Medicare 
Advantage that fully half their benefits will be affected.
  I think our friends on the other side do not want the American people 
to understand why the $578 billion in new taxes that are going to begin 
to be imposed next year--they are going to have a hard time explaining 
how that will create new jobs in America, at a time when we have 10 
percent unemployed. New taxes?
  They do not want the American people to find out the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office said that if we put those new taxes on 
insurance providers, on medical devices, almost all of those taxes will 
be passed on to the consumers and, as a result, premiums will go up.
  There are some very strong words that have been coming from the other 
side about Republicans saying this bill will actually increase the cost 
of health care. It is not Republicans who are saying that. Here is what 
David Brooks of the New York Times said in his analysis of the bill 
when he gave the reasons for it and the reasons against it this week 
and came to the conclusion that if he were a Senator he would vote 
against it. Mr. Brooks said:

       The second reason to oppose this bill is that, according to 
     the chief actuary for Medicare, it will cause national health 
     care spending to increase faster.

  That is right, we are going to raise taxes, cut Medicare, send a big 
bill to the States--all for what? `` . . . according to the chief 
actuary for Medicare, it will cause national health care spending to 
increase faster.'' So if you are paying X for premiums, you are going 
to be paying more as a result of this bill.
  Continuing, David Brooks said:

       Health care spending is already zooming past 17 percent of 
     [our gross domestic product] to 22 percent and beyond.

  Then it is going to be hard to explain to the 9 million people who 
the Congressional Budget Office letter said would lose their employer 
insurance under this bill why that will happen. Of course, it will 
happen because under the bill as a whole, as employers look at the 
mandates and the costs, many will decide not to offer health insurance, 
and so those employees will find themselves either in Medicaid, the 
program for low-income Americans--into which 15 million more Americans 
are going; a program for which 50 percent of doctors will not see new 
Medicaid patients; it is like giving you a ticket to a bus when the bus 
only runs half the time--that is where many of these Americans will go, 
or they will go into the individual market, and the individual market 
will have higher premiums.
  The other side says: Ah, but there will be subsidies for some of you. 
But the premiums are going to be higher, the health care costs are 
going to be higher.
  The majority does not want to explain why this bill changes the 
bipartisan agreement not to have Federal funding for abortion that has 
been agreed to since 1977.
  They do not want to take time for the American people to understand 
the CLASS Act, the long term insurance act, a new entitlement which 
sounds wonderful, but the Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee 
described it as a Ponzi scheme worthy of Bernie Madoff. That is because 
the amount of money that would be paid in, if a person pays a premium 
of $2,880 per year for 5 years, would be $14,000, and then they would 
have a $1,500 monthly benefit for a long time after that.
  It is obvious why the majority has cooked up this amendment in 
secret, has introduced it in the middle of a snowstorm, has scheduled 
the Senate to come in session at midnight, has scheduled a vote for 1 
a.m., is insisting it be passed before Christmas, because they do not 
want the American people to know what is in it.
  It is a deeply disappointing legislative result. But our friends on 
the Democratic side seem determined to pursue a political kamikaze 
mission toward a historic mistake, which will be bad for the Democrats, 
I am convinced, but, unfortunately, even much worse for our country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as we approach in less than an hour a very 
important vote--some have called it historic, some call it pivotal; it 
has been given various adjectives and adverbs--I think it might be 
appropriate to discuss for a minute or two how this all began.
  It all began in the Presidential campaign. I do not like to spend 
much time recalling it. But health care was a big issue in the 
Presidential campaign. On October 8, 2008, less than a month before the 
election, then-Candidate Obama said, concerning health care reform:

       I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. 
     . . . What we'll do is we'll have the negotiations televised 
     on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on 
     behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on 
     behalf of drug companies--

  Keep that in mind: the drug companies--

     or the insurance companies.

  That was the statement made by then-Senator/Candidate Obama. What we 
have is a dramatic departure. There has never been a C-SPAN camera. 
There has never been a negotiation, a serious negotiation between 
Republicans and the other side. There has never been. I say that with 
the knowledge of someone who has negotiated many times across the aisle 
on many agreements. So don't stand and say there were serious 
negotiations between Republicans and Democrats. There never were.
  But there were negotiations with the special interests, with PhRMA, 
the same ones the President said he was going to see who the American 
people were on the side of. Clearly, this administration and that side 
of the aisle was on the side of PhRMA because they got a sweetheart 
deal of about $100 billion that would have been saved if we had been 
able to reimport prescription drugs. The AARP has a sweetheart deal. 
There is a provision in this deal for them, plans that Medigap 
insurance sold by AARP are exempt from tax on insurance companies. The 
AMA signed up because of the promise of a doc fix. Throughout we should 
have set up a tent out in front and put Persian rugs out in front of 
it. That is the way this has been conducted.
  Of course, after the special interests were taken care of, then we 
had to take care of special Senators. One deal is called--we have new 
words in our lexicon now--the Louisiana purchase, the corn husker 
kickback. I have a new name: the Florida flimflam, the one that gives 
the Medicare Advantage members in Florida the benefit, but my 
constituents in Medicare Advantage don't get it.

[[Page 32908]]

  So in answer to this, in answer to a question today, the majority 
leader said:

       A number of States are treated differently than other 
     States.

  Really?

       A number of States are treated differently than other 
     States. That is what legislation is all about. That is 
     compromise.

  Where is that taught? Where is that taught?

       A number of States are treated differently than other 
     States. That is what legislation is all about. That is 
     compromise.

  My friends, that is not what the American people call governing. That 
is called exactly an opposite contradiction of what the President of 
the United States said, where he says:

       We will have negotiations televised on C-SPAN so that 
     people can see who is making arguments.

  I see the leader from Illinois over there. Just a few days ago, I 
said: What is in the bill?
  The Senator from Illinois said: I don't know. I am in the dark too. I 
can give him his own quote.
  So here we are, as the Senator from Tennessee said, in the middle of 
the night, and here we are, my friends, about to pass a bill with 60 
votes. Sixty votes represent 60 percent of this body, but I can assure 
my friends on the other side of the aisle it doesn't represent 60 
percent of the American people. In fact, 61 percent of the American 
people, according to a CNN poll, say they want this stopped. They 
disapprove of it. I guarantee you, when you go against the majority 
opinion of the American people, you pay a heavy price, and you should.
  I will tell my colleagues right now that when you--this will be, if 
it is passed--and we are not going to give up after this vote, believe 
me. For the first time in history, for the first time in history, there 
will be a major reform passed on a party-line basis. Every reform--and 
I have been part of them--has been passed on a bipartisan basis. This 
will be a strict party-line basis.
  I was thinking today about this vote, and I was thinking about other 
times and other examples I have had of courage or lack of or the fact 
that in the face of odds, you have to stand for what you believe in. I 
thought about back when I first entered the U.S. Naval Academy at the 
young age of 17. One of the first things they told us about in our 
learning of naval traditions was about a battle that took place early 
in the Revolutionary War. An American ship run by a captain engaged a 
British ship, the mighty British Navy. The American ship was outgunned 
and was outmanned. As they came together in mortal combat, with dead 
and dying all around, the British captain said: Do you surrender? The 
captain, John Paul Jones, said: I have not yet begun to fight.
  I tell the American people: We are going to go around this country. 
We are going to the townhalls, we are going to the senior centers, we 
are going to the rotary clubs. We are going to carry this message: We 
will not do this. We will not commit generational theft on future 
generations of Americans. We will not give them another $2\1/2\ 
trillion in debt. We will not give them an unfair policy where deals 
are done in back rooms, and we--all of us on this side of the aisle--
will stand for the American people, and we have just begun to fight.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, for the last several weeks, all we have 
heard from the other side is attack, attack, attack. All we have heard 
from the other side is no, no, no. They keep talking. I just heard the 
Senator from Arizona saying this is not a bipartisan bill. I have heard 
so much talk on the other side in the last several weeks about how this 
should be bipartisan. Well, let's look at that for a second.
  As I see it, the Republicans have no bill of their own. Our bill has 
60 Democrats, a supermajority, a supermajority. Well, I guess there is 
a bill over there. It is the Coburn-Burr bill. It has seven cosponsors. 
That is it. That is it. Nothing else. Not all the Republicans are 
supporting it. My friends on the other side are all over the place. 
They can't even agree among themselves what they want to do. They have 
no comprehensive bill as we have come up with.
  So I keep hearing that we Democrats are not bipartisan, but whom do 
we deal with? Just the Senator from Arizona? Just the Senator from 
Tennessee? How about the Senator from Oklahoma or the Senator from 
South Carolina? So I am sorry. I feel sorry the Republicans are all 
split up. They have not done their own homework to pull their own 
Senators together for something positive. So what they have done is 
they pulled together to say no, to try to kill the reform bill we have 
worked so hard on all year.
  We extended a hand. If we had wanted to ace out the Republicans, we 
would have followed their lead on what they did in 2001, when they 
rammed through that tax cut for the wealthy. They did it on 
reconciliation so we couldn't filibuster it, so we couldn't have any 
debate on it. That is what they did. We didn't do it that way.
  President Obama said we want to hold out the olive branch. We want to 
work with Republicans, so that is what we tried to do. Under the 
leadership of Senator Dodd on our committee, we had numerous meetings 
with Republicans. We had a markup session that lasted 13 days 54 hours. 
We accepted 161 of their amendments and, in the end, everyone on the 
Republican side voted against it.
  Senator Baucus bent over backward, week after week. He not only went 
the extra mile, he went the extra 100 miles to try to get Republicans 
to work with him on this bill. In the end, only one Republican would 
vote for the bill out of committee.
  So that is what we have. I am sorry to say my friends on the other 
side are in total disarray. They have nothing they can agree on. Well, 
we have something we have agreed on. Sixty, a supermajority, have 
agreed on moving a bill forward, a pivotal point in our history, in a 
decades-long march toward comprehensive health reform. It has alluded 
Congresses and Presidents going back to Theodore Roosevelt.
  My friends on the other side defend the status quo. They want us to 
vote our fears--fear, fear, fear. Everything you hear, it seems, on the 
other side is fear. Be afraid. Well, it is not going to work this time 
because what the American people want is not fear, they want hope. They 
want the hope they will have the health care they need when they have 
to have it at a price that is affordable. They want to have the peace 
of mind and security of knowing that their children, if they have a 
preexisting condition, will be covered by health insurance. They want 
to have the peace of mind of knowing that if they lose a job, they 
don't lose their health insurance. The American people want the hope 
and the security of knowing that if they get ill, they will not be 
dropped by their insurance company. They want the hope and the security 
to know they aren't just one illness away from bankruptcy.
  We are the only country in the world--the only one--where people can 
go bankrupt because they owe a medical bill. No other country would 
allow that to happen. We are the only one. This bill is going to stop 
that. People will not have to fear going bankrupt because someone in 
their family got a chronic illness or a disease that is going to cost a 
lot of money. The American people want us to move forward, and we are 
going to do it tonight at 1 o'clock. We are going to move forward. We 
are not going to vote fears, we are going to vote hope.
  We are going to tell the American people we are going to do three big 
things. First of all, we are going to cover 94 percent of Americans 
with health insurance--94 percent. Thirty-one million people out there 
without health insurance are going to get health insurance.
  Secondly, we are going to crack down on the abuses of the insurance 
companies. No more cancelling your policy just because you got sick. No 
more lifetime caps which basically cause more and more people to go 
into bankruptcy. No more of those lifetime caps. We are going to make 
sure your kids can stay on your policy until they are age 26. We are 
going to do away with all these preexisting condition clauses next year 
for children, up to age 18, and then for

[[Page 32909]]

everyone later on after we get the exchanges set up.
  Insurance companies will not be able to rescind your policy or drop 
you because you got cancer or heart disease. If you are a person out 
there who has your own health insurance policy right now and you like 
it, you can keep it. But guess what this bill will do. It will lower 
your premiums, and it will improve your coverage if you want to keep 
your own health insurance that you have right now.
  Every year, about 45,000 Americans die in this country because they 
have no health insurance. Johns Hopkins did a study and said that 
children who have no health insurance are 60 percent more likely to die 
because of hospitalizations than kids who have health insurance 
coverage. It is a moral disgrace. The health insurance policies of 
America, what we have right now is a moral disgrace. You can talk to 
people from other countries, our closest allies, our closest friends 
who share so many of our values, and when they find out about our 
health care system, they say: How can you put up with it? This is 
disgraceful. You are the leader of the free world. You are supposed to 
set the example. And what a terrible example we have set in health 
care, what a terrible example.
  Well, we have finally arrived at one of the most significant moments 
in the history of the Senate, one of the most significant. Our former 
chairman, Senator Ted Kennedy, fought all his life for national health 
insurance, and years ago, back in the 1960s, said health care ought to 
be a right, not a privilege.
  He said that over 40 years ago, almost 50 years ago, that health care 
should be a right and not a privilege. It was always his highest 
priority. It was his great dream of an America where quality, 
affordable health care is that right. He thought of it as a moral 
imperative--a moral imperative. A lot of times, we lose that. We hear a 
lot of debate about how much this is, who is going to lose this, all 
these scare tactics. We see all these numbers and all that kind of 
stuff. We forget the essence of it. It is a moral imperative. We are 
called upon to right a great injustice, a great wrong that has been put 
upon the American people for far too long. It is a moral imperative 
that confronts us now that we will vote on in half an hour. We are 
closer than we have ever been to making Ted Kennedy's dream a reality.
  A lot of people have worked very hard on this bill. I mentioned 
Senator Baucus. I mentioned Senator Dodd; Senator Reid, our leader, the 
amount of hours he has spent and the days he has spent here without his 
family, without going home, being here all the time working; our 
assistant leader, Senator Durbin. So many people have worked so hard on 
this bill. We have had so much input. Everyone has had input on this 
bill. Our Republican friends have had input on this bill. They had it 
in our committee. As I said, we accepted 161 amendments. So I guess you 
can say this bill has a lot of authors. But there is really only one 
author of this bill--Senator Ted Kennedy. It is his bill because it 
does get us the start.
  To my friends, I say this is not the end of health care reform, it is 
the beginning. But we must make this beginning in order to fulfill that 
dream and really make health care a right, not a privilege.
  In half an hour, let's make history. The other side says fear. We say 
hope. The other side says no. We say yes. We say yes to progress, yes 
to people, yes to health care as an inalienable right of every American 
citizen.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CORNYN. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, earlier today Senator Grassley raised a 
parliamentary inquiry on rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate. 
As my colleagues recall, this was a rule that the Senate passed 
pursuant to the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. The 
question had to do with whether the managers' amendment we are getting 
ready to vote on complied with rule XLIV's earmark disclosure 
requirement. At the time, the Chair indicated that the disclosure list 
was not submitted at the time. That was 6 p.m. today.
  My inquiry is this: Is the Chair aware of the disclosure list being 
made available as required by rule XLIV now as we vote in the next 30 
minutes?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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 wish to take a few minutes in closing, if 
I may.
  I spoke earlier this evening about the importance of the moment we 
have all come to appreciate, I believe, a moment that has been years in 
the making, dating back, as all have pointed out or most have pointed 
out who spoke in favor of this legislation, to the early part of the 
last century with Theodore Roosevelt, a former Republican, who first 
advocated the notion of a national health care system in our Nation. 
Franklin Roosevelt picked up that challenge, and Harry Truman, of 
course, was the one who articulated it in specific terms.
  It was 69 years ago this very month that Franklin Roosevelt 
identified the four freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, 
the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear. It is that last 
freedom that Franklin Roosevelt talked about in December of 1941 that 
is deserving of our attention in these closing minutes.
  Whatever else one may argue about the specifics of this bill, it is 
that fear that so many of our fellow citizens have over whether they 
will be confronted with a health care crisis and have the resources to 
address it and the ability to have a doctor, a physician, a health care 
provider, a hospital to provide them with that kind of help when they 
need it. That fear is not just for those without health care; it is 
even for those who have health care insurance. That fear persists.
  This evening, more than anything else, beyond the specifics of the 
legislation in front of us is our desire to address that freedom from 
fear that was addressed so eloquently almost 70 years ago. So this 
evening we attempt, anyway, to begin that journey of eliminating those 
fears so many of our fellow citizens have over the loss or inability to 
acquire that kind of health insurance or the inability to have a 
doctor.
  So we are poised to make a monumental vote on legislation that 
finally makes access to quality health care a right for every American. 
If you do not believe it is a right, that it is only a privilege, then 
I suppose you could come to a different conclusion. And there are 
those, I guess, who believe it is a privilege to have access to health 
care as an American citizen. Those of us on this side of the aisle 
believe it is a right, and as a right, you ought not to be denied that 
right based on economic circumstances, your gender, or your ethnicity 
in this Nation. You ought to have access to health care as a 
fundamental right in our Nation.
  Obviously, we need to participate, engage in responsible activities 
that will make sure we contribute to the well-being of all our Nation 
to reduce the cost of health care.
  This is a comprehensive bill. It has been more than just a year 
specifically on this effort but goes back 40 or 50 years in terms of 
drafting, and efforts have been made to achieve what we are trying to 
achieve this evening.
  At the end of the day, however, this legislation is really about 
freedom from fear, as I said a moment ago. The bill frees Americans 
from the fear that if they lose their job, they will never find 
insurance coverage again. The bill frees Americans from the fear that 
they might get sick and be unable to afford the treatment they need. 
And the bill frees Americans from the fear that one illness, one 
accident could cost them everything they built--their homes, their 
retirement, their life savings.
  In a nation founded on freedom and sustained by unimaginable 
prosperity, as I mentioned before, this bill is long overdue and 
critically important. No

[[Page 32910]]

American can be free from fear when getting sick could mean going 
broke.
  This fight is older than most of us who serve in this body. Our path 
has been illuminated by a torch lit years ago in the days of Harry 
Truman and sustained for decades by good people, Republicans and 
Democrats--the Nixon administration, the Clinton administration, 
Members such as John Chafee, who worked tirelessly in trying to craft a 
good health care bill. We heard others talk about the regrets they had 
not acknowledging his ideas when he proposed them or we might have been 
able to address this issue years ago. Good people have tried to come up 
with some answers to this issue. It is with a note of sadness this 
evening that we are going to have a partisan vote on this matter. I 
wish it was otherwise.
  I would like to point out that many of us have fought and challenged 
us to come up with these answers, but tonight this is our answer, the 
60 of us who will vote to go forward with this bill. As Senator Harkin 
just pointed out, it is hardly the final answer on this matter, but it 
allows us to begin that process of addressing these issues in a more 
thoughtful and comprehensive way in the years ahead.
  Of course, no one was a better champion of all of this, as Senator 
Harkin pointed out, than our deceased and beloved colleague from 
Massachusetts, Senator Ted Kennedy. He fought these battles for so many 
years. He understood that you could never solve all of these issues in 
one fell swoop. It was going to take an incremental approach to get us 
there.
  I can guarantee that if he read this bill, there would be 
disappointments he would have in it. I knew him well enough to say that 
this evening. If he had written it on his own, he would have written it 
differently. Were he here among us this evening, he would urge all of 
us to move forward on this bill to address it, to vote for it, to allow 
this Nation to begin to grapple with this issue that should have been 
solved more than 50 years ago.
  So this evening, again, as we come down to the final minutes of this 
debate, let's remind ourselves that history will judge us well for 
taking up this challenge once again and asking ourselves to give 
Americans the opportunity to live free from those fears they have this 
very evening. And tonight, we begin to alleviate those fears.
  I urge my colleagues to support this effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, tonight marks the culmination of a long 
national debate. Passions have run high, and that is appropriate 
because the bill we are voting on tonight will impact the life of every 
American. It will shape the future of our country. It will determine 
whether our children can afford the Nation they inherit. It is one of 
the most consequential votes any of us will ever take, and none of us 
take it lightly. But make no mistake, if the people who wrote this bill 
were proud of it, they would not be forcing this vote in the dead of 
night.
  Here are just some of the deals we have noticed: $100 million for an 
unnamed health care facility at an unnamed university somewhere in the 
United States. The bill does not say where and no one will even step 
forward to claim it. Mr. President, 1 State out of 50--1 State out of 
50--gets to expand Medicaid at no cost to itself while taxpayers in the 
other 49 States pick up the tab. The same Senator who cut that deal 
secured another one that benefits a single insurance company--just one 
insurance company--in his State. Do the supporters of the bill know 
this? I say to my colleagues, do you think that is fair to all of your 
States? What about the rest of the country?
  The fact is, a year after the debate started, few people would have 
imagined this is how it would end--with a couple of cheap deals--a 
couple of cheap deals--and a rushed vote at 1 o'clock in the morning. 
But that is where we are. And Americans are wondering tonight: How did 
this happen? How did this happen? So I would like to take a moment to 
explain to the American people how we got here, to explain what has 
happened and, yes, what is happening now.
  Everyone in this Chamber agrees we need health care reform. Everybody 
agrees on that. The question is how. Some of us have taken the view 
that the American people want us to tackle the cost issue, and we 
proposed targeted steps to do it. Our friends on the other side have 
taken the opposite approach, and the result has been just what you 
would expect. The final product is a mess--a mess. And so is the 
process that has brought us here to vote on a bill that the American 
people overwhelmingly oppose.
  Any challenge of this size and scope has always been dealt with on a 
bipartisan basis. The senior Senator from Maine made that point at the 
outset of the debate and reminded us all of how these issues have 
typically been handled throughout our history. The Social Security Act 
of 1935 was approved by all but six Members of the Senate. The Medicare 
Act of 1965 only had 21 dissenters, and the Americans with Disabilities 
Act in 1990 only had eight Senators who voted no.
  Americans believe that on issues of this importance, one party should 
never be allowed to force its will on the other half of the Nation. The 
proponents of this bill felt differently.
  In a departure from history, Democratic leaders put together a bill 
so heavy with tax hikes, Medicare cuts, and government intrusion that, 
in the end, their biggest problem wasn't convincing Republicans to 
support it, it was convincing the Democrats.
  In the end, the price of passing this bill wasn't achieving the 
reforms Americans were promised, it was a blind call to make history, 
even if it was a historical mistake, which is exactly what this bill 
will be if it is passed. Because in the end, this debate isn't about 
differences between two parties, it is about a $2.3 trillion, 2,733-
page health care reform bill that does not reform health care, and, in 
fact, makes the price of it go up.
  ``The plan I am announcing tonight,'' the President said on September 
9, ``will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our 
businesses and our government. My plan,'' the President said, ``would 
bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family. I will not sign a 
plan that adds a dime to our deficit,'' the President said, ``either 
now or in the future.'' And on taxes, ``No family making less than 
$250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase,'' he said.
  He said he wouldn't cut Medicare. He said people who liked the plans 
they have wouldn't lose their coverage, and Americans were promised an 
open and honest debate. ``That is what I will do in bringing all 
parties together,'' then-Senator Obama said on the campaign trail, 
``not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties 
together and broadcasting these negotiations on C-SPAN.''
  Well, that was then and this is now. But here is the reality. The 
Democratic bill we are voting on tonight raises health care costs. That 
is not me talking, it is the administration's own budget scorekeeper. 
It raises premiums. That is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 
talking. It raises taxes on tens of millions of middle-class Americans, 
and it plunders Medicare by $\1/2\ trillion. It forces people off the 
plans they have, including millions of seniors. It allows the Federal 
Government, for the first time in our history, to use taxpayer dollars 
for abortions.
  So a President who was voted into office on the promise of change 
said he wanted to lower premiums. That changed. He said he wouldn't 
raise taxes. That changed. He said he wanted lower costs. That changed. 
He said he wouldn't cut Medicare. And that changed too.
  And 12 months and $2.3 trillion later, lawmakers who made these same 
promises to their constituents are poised to vote for a bill that won't 
bend the cost curve, that won't make health care more affordable, and 
it will make real reform even harder to achieve down the road.
  I understand the pressure our friends on the other side are feeling, 
and I don't doubt for a moment their sincerity. But my message tonight 
is this:

[[Page 32911]]

The impact of this vote will long outlive this one frantic snowy 
weekend in Washington. Mark my words: This legislation will reshape our 
Nation, and Americans have already issued their verdict: They do not 
want it. They do not like this bill, and they do not like lawmakers 
playing games with their health care to secure the votes they need to 
pass it.
  Let's think about that for a moment. We know the American people are 
overwhelmingly opposed to this bill, and yet the people who wrote it 
will not give the 300 million Americans whose lives will be profoundly 
affected by it as much as 72 hours to study the details. Imagine that. 
When we all woke up yesterday morning, we still hadn't seen the details 
of the bill we are being asked to vote on before we go to sleep 
tonight.
  When we woke up yesterday morning, we still hadn't seen the details 
of the bill we are going to be asked to vote on before we go to sleep 
tonight.
  How can anybody justify this approach, particularly in the face of 
such widespread and intense public opposition? Can all of these 
Americans be wrong? Don't their concerns count?
  Party loyalty can be a powerful force. We all know that. But 
Americans are asking the Democrats to put party loyalty aside tonight, 
to put the interest of small business owners, taxpayers, and seniors 
first.
  And there is good news: It is not too late. All it takes is one--just 
one. All it takes is one. One can stop it. One can stop it or everyone 
will own it. One can stop it or every single one will own it.
  My colleagues, it is not too late.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, all over this great country of ours, people 
are dying soon--far too soon. More and more Americans who come down 
with the flu, develop diabetes, or suffer a stroke are dying far 
earlier than modern science says they should die. More and more 
Americans who contract skin cancer or have a heart condition are dying 
rather than being cured.
  Pull out the medical records of these patients and the official forms 
will tell you they died from complications of disease or maybe some 
surgery. But what is really killing more and more Americans every day 
are complications due to our health care system.
  Much of our attention this year has been consumed by this health care 
debate. A national study done by Harvard University found that 45,000 
times this year, nearly 900 times every week, more than 120 times every 
day, on average every 10 minutes, on end, an American died as a result 
of not having health insurance. Every 10 minutes. The numbers are 
numbing, and they don't even include those who did have health 
insurance but who died because they couldn't afford a plan that met 
their most basic needs.
  This country--the greatest and richest the world has ever seen--is 
the only advanced Nation on Earth where dying for lack of health 
insurance is even possible. To make matters worse, we are paying for 
that privilege. The price of staying healthy in American goes up, it 
goes up, it goes up and, not surprisingly, so do the numbers of 
Americans who can't afford it. In fact, medical bills are the leading 
cause of bankruptcy in America. And the second choice is way down the 
list--it is medical bills.
  That is why we are here. Just as we have the ability to prevent 
diseases from killing us too soon, we have before us the ability to 
provide quality health care to every American. We have the ability to 
treat our unhealthy health care system. That is what this historic bill 
does. It protects patients and consumers. It lowers the cost of staying 
healthy and greatly reduces our debt.
  This landmark legislation protects America's youngest citizens by 
making it illegal for insurance companies to refuse to cover a child 
because of a preexisting condition.
  It protects America's oldest citizens by strengthening Medicare and 
extending its life for almost a decade. We are also taking the first 
steps to closing the notorious loophole known as the doughnut hole that 
costs seniors thousands of dollars each year for prescription drugs. 
These are some of the reasons the AARP--the American Association of 
Retired People--and its 40 million Americans are supporting this bill.
  Contrary to what we heard from my distinguished friend, the 
Republican leader, premiums are reduced by 93 percent. Ninety-three 
percent of people who have insurance will have reduced premiums.
  This effort also strengthens our future by cutting our towering 
national deficit by as much as $1.3 trillion over the next two decades. 
What my distinguished Republican counterpart is saying is without basis 
in fact. These aren't numbers that I came up with, these are numbers 
that the Congressional Budget Office came up with--$1.3 trillion. That 
is trillion with a ``t.'' It cuts the deficit more sharply than 
anything Congress has done in a long time. It lowers costs. I have 
talked about Medicare.
  My friend, the Republican leader, said it is going to reshape our 
Nation. That is why we are doing it. That is why we are doing this. We 
want to reshape the health care delivery system in our country. Is it 
right that America has 750,000 bankruptcies a year, about 80 percent of 
them caused by health care costs, and 62 percent of the people who have 
filed bankruptcy have health care costs? We are reshaping the Nation. 
That is what we want to do. That is what we have to do.
  With this vote, we are rejecting a system in which one class of 
people can afford to stay healthy while another cannot. It demands for 
the first time in American history good health will not depend on great 
wealth. Good health should not depend on how much money you have. It 
acknowledges, finally, that health care is a fundamental right, which 
my friend Senator Harkin spoke about so clearly--a human right--and not 
just a privilege for the most fortunate.
  President Johnson, former majority leader of the Senate, signed 
Medicare into law when he was President, with the advice: ``We need to 
see beyond the words to the people they touch.'' That is just as true 
today as it was 44 years ago when he signed that legislation.
  This is not about partisanship or about procedure. And everyone knows 
we are here at 1 o'clock in the morning because of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle. For them to say with a straight face--and I 
know some of them didn't have that straight face--that we are here 
because of us is without any foundation whatsoever. And everyone knows 
that.
  This is not about politics. It certainly is not about polling. It is 
about people. It is about life and death in America. It is about human 
suffering. Given the chance to relieve the suffering, we must.
  Citizens in each of our States have written to tell us they are broke 
because of our broken health care system. Some have sent letters with 
even worse news--news of grave illness and preventable death. For 
weeks, we have heard opponents complain about the number of pages in 
this bill, but I prefer to think of this bill in terms of the people it 
will help.
  A woman named Lisa Vocelka, who lives in Gardnerville, NV--a 
beautiful city below the Sierra Nevada mountains--lives with her two 
daughters, both of whom are in elementary school. The youngest suffers 
seizures. Her teachers now think she has a learning disability.
  Because of her family history, Lisa, the girl's mom, is at high risk 
of cervical cancer. Although she is supposed to get an exam every 3 
months, she doesn't go. She is lucky if she goes once a year, and most 
of the time she is not very lucky. When Lisa lost her job, she lost her 
health coverage. Now both Lisa and her daughter miss the tests and 
preventive medicine that could keep them healthy. Her long letter ended 
with a simple plea. It was: ``We want to be able to go to the doctor.''
  That is why this bill will ensure all Americans can get the 
preventive tests and screenings they need. I am voting yes because I 
believe Lisa and her daughter deserve to be able to go to the doctor.
  A teenager named Caleb Wolz is a high school student from Sparks, NV.

[[Page 32912]]

Like so many students, he used to play soccer when he was younger. Now 
he sticks to skiing and rock climbing. You can forgive him, I am sure, 
for giving up soccer. You see, Caleb was born with legs that end above 
his knees.
  As children mature, even Caleb, they grow out of their clothes. Most 
kids grow out of their shoes. Caleb doesn't. A lot of kids probably get 
a new pair every year but Caleb has needed a new pair of prosthetic 
legs every year since he was 5 years old. Unfortunately and 
unbelievably, Caleb's insurance company has decided it knows better 
than his doctor and has decided Caleb doesn't need those legs. That is 
why this bill will make it illegal for those insurance companies to use 
preexisting conditions as an excuse for taking our money but not giving 
coverage.
  This is a big change. But isn't it a good change? I am voting yes 
because I believe Caleb deserves a set of prosthetics that fit.
  Ken Hansen wrote to me from Mesquite, NV, a town on the border of 
Nevada, Utah, and Arizona. He has chronic heart problems and parts of 
his feet have been amputated but Ken can't go to the doctor because he 
makes too much to qualify for Medicaid and too little to afford private 
insurance. I share with the Senate exactly what Ken wrote me:

       I am very frustrated because it seems my only hope is that 
     I die very soon, because I cannot afford to stay alive.

  That is why this bill will expand Medicaid to cover people like Ken 
from Mesquite, NV, who are caught in the middle. I am voting yes 
because when someone tells me his only hope is to die, I think we have 
to take a close look at that. I can't look away. I cannot possibly do 
nothing.
  A man by the name of Mike Tracy lives in North Las Vegas. His 26-
year-old son has been an insulin-dependent diabetic since he was a 
baby. The insurance Mike's son gets through work will not cover his 
treatments and the Tracys can't afford to buy more insurance on their 
own. But his family's troubles are about more than just money. Since 
they couldn't afford to treat his diabetes, it developed into Addison's 
disease--which of course they can't afford to treat either. It could be 
fatal.
  This is what he wrote to me 2 weeks ago:

       I don't know what to pray for first: that I will die before 
     my son will so I don't have to bear the burden, or that I 
     outlive him so I can provide support to his family when he is 
     gone.

  Quite a set of prayers. This should not be a choice any American 
should have to make. It should not be a choice any father or mother 
should have to make--and when given the chance to help people like 
Mike, our choice should be very easy.
  That is what this legislation is all about. These are hard-working 
citizens with heartbreaking stories. They are people who played by the 
rules and simply want their insurance company to also do the same. They 
are not alone. These tragedies do not happen only to Nevadans. They 
don't happen only to people who, despite all their pain, find time to 
write their leaders in Congress. These tragic events happen to people 
on the east coast, the west coast, and everywhere in between. These 
tragedies happen to Americans in small towns and in big cities. These 
tragedies happen to citizens on the left side of the political spectrum 
and on the right side. As Mike Tracy wrote in his powerful letter about 
his son:

       Democrats need health care. Republicans need health care. 
     Independents need health care. All Americans need health 
     care.
       Get it done.

  He is right. Every single Senator, every one of us, comes from a 
State where these injustices happen every single day. Every single 
Senator represents hundreds, thousands of people who have to choose 
between paying an electricity bill or a medical bill; between filling a 
doctor's prescription or--well, maybe just hoping for the best--between 
their mother's chemotherapy treatment and their daughter's college 
tuition.
  As I mentioned earlier, on average an American dies from lack of 
health insurance every 10 minutes. That means in the short time I have 
been speaking our broken system has claimed at least two lives. Another 
American has died, another American has died--two have died a 
preventable death, each of them.
  So as our citizens face heart-rending decisions every day, tonight 
every Senator has a choice to make as well. That choice: Are you going 
to do all you can to avert the next preventable death? I hope so. I 
urge an aye vote to stop this filibuster.
  Mr. President, I advise my Members that in 1984 the Senate adopted a 
resolution, S. 40, to impose a requirement that Senators vote from 
their desks. I know we do not do this all the time but I ask tonight we 
do vote from our desks and follow the rule, S. Res. 40, and have 
Senators vote from their desks.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to invoke cloture having been 
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the 
motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Reid amendment 
     No. 3276 to the Reid substitute amendment No. 2786 to H.R. 
     3590, the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009.
         Christopher J. Dodd, Richard Durbin, Max Baucus, Paul G. 
           Kirk, Jr., Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester, Maria 
           Cantwell, Barbara A. Mikulski, Mark Udall, Arlen 
           Specter, Sherrod Brown, Mark Begich, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Bill Nelson, Roland W. Burris, Kirsten E. 
           Gillibrand, Ron Wyden.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call 
is waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate 
on amendment No. 3276 to the Reid substitute amendment No. 2786 to H.R. 
3590, the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 60, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 385 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). On this vote, the yeas are 60, 
the nays are 40. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Chair announces that because cloture has been invoked, the motion 
to refer falls.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like to thank the employees in the 
Office of the Secretary of the Senate who read the managers' amendment 
aloud for more than 7 hours on Saturday, December 19, 2009. They are:


[[Page 32913]]

       Kathie Alvarez, John Merlino, Mary Anne Clarkson, Scott 
     Sanborn, Leigh Hildebrand, Sheila Dwyer, Adam Gottlieb, Joe 
     Johnston, Elizabeth MacDonough, Ken Dean, Michelle Haynes, 
     Patrice Boyd, William Walsh, Valentin Mihalache, and Cassie 
     Byrd.

  The readers represent the offices of the Legislative Clerk, Assistant 
Secretary of the Senate, Parliamentarian, Bill Clerk, Journal Clerk, 
Executive Clerk, Daily Digest, Enrolling Clerk, and the Official 
Reporters of Debates.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, on Wednesday, the junior Senator from 
Vermont offered his ``single-payer'' health insurance amendment, amdt. 
No. 2837, to H.R. 3590. Under rule XV of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate, an amendment must be read aloud into the Record unless its 
reading is dispensed with by unanimous consent. Such consent is 
routinely granted but in this instance, the junior Senator from 
Oklahoma objected so the clerks commenced with reading the 767-page 
amendment. After several hours passed, Senator Sanders withdrew his 
amendment.
  Later in the day, the Republican leader came to the floor and 
complained that ``the majority somehow convinced the Parliamentarian to 
break with the longstanding precedent and practice of the Senate'' with 
regard to the reading of the amendment. He claimed that continued 
reading of the amendment could not be dispensed with absent consent 
being granted, suggesting that Senator Sanders had no right to 
interrupt the reading to withdraw his amendment. The Republican leader 
cited Riddick's Senate Procedure: Precedents and Practices, pages 43-
44, which states, in part:

       Under Rule XV, paragraph 1, and Senate precedents, an 
     amendment shall be read by the Clerk before it is up for 
     consideration or before the same shall be debated unless a 
     request to waive the reading is granted; in practice that 
     includes an ordinary amendment or an amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute, the reading of which may not be dispensed 
     with except by unanimous consent, and if the request is 
     denied the amendment must be read and further interruptions 
     are not in order; interruptions of the reading of an 
     amendment that has been proposed are not in order, even for 
     the purpose of proposing a substitute amendment to a 
     committee amendment which is being read.
       When an amendment is offered the regular order is it 
     reading, and unanimous consent is required to call off the 
     reading.
       A Senator has, at the sufferance of the Senate, reserved 
     the right to object to dispensing with further reading of an 
     amendment.

  Later on Wednesday, the senior Senator from Illinois ably addressed 
the Republican leader's concerns but I bring the matter up again 
because I was presiding at the time Senator Sanders withdrew his 
amendment and Senator Coburn called for regular order. I received 
several phone calls afterwards from individuals who claimed that I 
acted erroneously in permitting Senator Sanders to withdraw his 
amendment so I would like to set the record straight.
  First of all, before Senator Sanders withdrew his amendment, I 
consulted with the Senior Assistant Parliamentarian, who was on the 
floor while I was presiding. He assured me that a Senator has the right 
to withdraw an amendment if no action has been taken on it. No action 
can be taken on an amendment until it is officially pending. An 
amendment is not officially pending until it has been read into the 
Record or such reading has been waived by unanimous consent.
  It is important to understand that while the Presiding Officer, not 
the Parliamentarian, makes rulings, it would be unusual for him or her 
to ignore the advice of the Parliamentarian. Martin Gold, who was the 
senior floor staffer to two former Republican majority leaders, Howard 
H. Baker, Jr., and William H. Frist, MD, of Tennessee, writes in his 
definitive book, ``Senate Procedure and Practice,'' that former 
Parliamentarian Floyd M. Riddick ``claimed that in twenty-five years of 
advising the presiding officer, the Senate only once voted to overturn 
him on appeal. He also cites an example of Vice President Alben Barkley 
ignoring the parliamentarian's advice, only to be overturned on 
appeal.'' The Parliamentarian is a nonpartisan officer of the Senate. 
In the 72 years since the position was created, there have been just 
five Parliamentarians. The Parliamentarian and his staff are 
experienced professionals. I sought and received the Parliamentarian's 
advice on this matter and I followed it, which is how the Senate 
usually operates.
  The Parliamentarian and his staff conducted extensive research on 
rule XV and the precedents governing the reading and withdrawal of 
amendments prior to what happened during Wednesday's session. While the 
Riddick's text the Republican leader cited seems plain enough, it is 
trumped by section 2 of rule XV itself, which clearly and succinctly 
states:

       Any motion, amendment, or resolution may be withdrawn or 
     modified by the mover at any time before a decision, 
     amendment, or ordering of the yeas and nays, except a motion 
     to reconsider, which shall not be withdrawn without leave.

  Prior to the time Senator Sanders withdrew his amendment, no action 
had been taken on it that would have prevented such a move without 
consent for a very simple reason: the amendment wasn't officially 
pending while it was being read into the Record. So Senator Sanders had 
an unfettered right to withdraw it under such conditions.
  The precedent for a Senator's ability to withdraw an amendment while 
it is being read without gaining consent first, either to dispense with 
the reading or to withdraw it, was firmly established in 1950 and 
reiterated in 1992. On April 14, 1950, Senator Forrest C. Donnell 
insisted that an amendment being offered by Senator William Benton be 
read in its entirety. Afterwards, Senator Benton sought unanimous 
consent to withdraw his amendment. Senator Donnell made a parliamentary 
inquiry of the Chair, asking the Presiding Officer whether a Senator 
may withdraw an amendment while it is being read. He further stated 
that if consent were necessary he would object. The Presiding Officer 
replied that an amendment may indeed be withdrawn while it is being 
read, citing the language in rule XV I just mentioned. And Senator 
Benton withdrew his amendment.
  On September 24, 1992, Senator Brock Adams offered an amendment to a 
tax bill and sought consent twice to dispense with reading it. In both 
instances, Senator Bob Packwood objected so the clerk proceeded to read 
the amendment aloud. Later, Senator Adams asked for ``permission'' to 
withdraw the amendment and the Chair replied affirmatively that he had 
the right to do so.
  The 1950 precedent is cited on page 119 of Riddick's for the 
proposition that an amendment may be withdrawn ``even as soon as it has 
been read'' but it is, in fact, the same ruling as the 1992 precedent, 
that a Senator may withdraw his amendment while it is being read.
  The Republican leader did not refer to the 1950 precedent in his 
comments on Wednesday but spoke disparagingly of what happened in 1992, 
saying, ``the Chair made a mistake and allowed something similar (to 
Senator Sanders' move) to happen. But one mistake does not a precedent 
make.''
  The Parliamentarian doesn't share the Republican leader's contention 
that the 1992 action was a ``mistake,'' not a precedent. The 
Parliamentarian's view is echoed by Walter Oleszek, the noted senior 
specialist in American National Government at the Congressional 
Research Service, CRS, who wrote last year, ``Senators are free to 
modify or withdraw their amendments until the Senate takes ``action'' 
on them.'' This is from Senate Amendment Process: General Conditions 
and Principles, CRS Report 98-707, May 19, 2008. Martin Gold's book, 
``Senate Procedure and Practice,'' states:

       When a senator sends an amendment to the desk, he continues 
     to ``own'' that amendment in the sense that he can modify or 
     withdraw it at will (my emphasis) . . . Once ``action'' has 
     been taken on the amendment, that situation changes, and the 
     senator can modify or withdraw his amendment only by 
     unanimous consent. This is from page 102.

  The minority has tried to argue that there was Senate action on the 
Sanders amendment because the Senate previously had agreed to a 
unanimous consent request defining the amendment and the Hutchison 
motion to recommit as the only propositions in order at

[[Page 32914]]

that stage and prohibiting amendments to them. It is true that if an 
amendment is on a defined list of the only amendments made in order, 
that amendment when pending cannot be withdrawn except by unanimous 
consent. But that order is irrelevant in this case because, as I 
mentioned before, the Sanders amendment was not pending and could not 
be until it was read in full or unless the reading was dispensed with 
by unanimous consent. Another way to put it is that the reading of the 
amendment was not ``interrupted'' by Senator Sanders; in withdrawing it 
he obviated the reason for a reading. The order allowed but did not 
require, as it could not, that Senator Sanders offer the amendment and 
take steps to make it pending.
  So, to summarize, rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate and the 
1950 and 1992 precedents are clear that Senator Sanders was well within 
his rights to withdraw the amendment, the reading of it 
notwithstanding. The Parliamentarian advised me accordingly and I 
followed his advice. I would add that Senator Coburn never explicitly 
objected to Senator Sanders withdrawing the amendment. He called for 
regular order. While regular order was indeed the reading of the 
amendment, that status couldn't prevent Senator Sanders from exercising 
his right to withdraw it.
  Finally, I regret that several of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle made comments that were critical of the Parliamentarian and 
his staff following this incident. The current Parliamentarian helped 
to write, edit, and revise Riddick's Senate Procedure and he has served 
in his current capacity as Chief Parliamentarian for 17 years and 
counting, and as a Senate Parliamentarian for 33 years. He and his 
staff have a combined total of 84 years of experience. They are 
professionals who serve this institution and the American people with 
distinction.

                          ____________________