[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3323-3336]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2010

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 2847, which 
the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       House message to accompany H.R. 2847, an act making 
     appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, and Justice 
     and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Durbin amendment No. 3498 (to the motion to concur in the 
     amendments of the House to the amendment of the Senate to the 
     amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Durbin amendment No. 3499 (to amendment No. 3498), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Durbin amendment No. 3500, to provide for a study.
       Durbin amendment No. 3501 (to amendment No. 3500), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Durbin amendment No. 3502 (to amendment No. 3501), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senate returns today to creating jobs. 
Today, we return to the HIRE Act.
  This bill provides incentives for businesses to hire new employees, 
and it encourages businesses to invest in building their operations.
  It has a payroll tax exemption for newly hired employees. It provides 
continued funding for the vital Federal highway program. It expands the 
successful Build America Bonds program. And it extends the tax 
incentive in section 179 of the Tax Code, which allows small businesses 
to expense capital expenditures, instead of depreciating them over 
time.
  These proposals will help to get Americans back to work.
  The Senate passed the HIRE Act last month, with strong bipartisan 
support.
  Since then, the House of Representatives considered the legislation 
and returned it to the Senate with some modifications.
  The HIRE Act includes the Schumer-Hatch payroll tax exemption for 
newly hired employees. This is a straightforward tax cut: If you hire a 
person who has been unemployed for 60 days, you don't have to pay your 
share of the Social Security payroll taxes for that person for the rest 
of the year.
  And if you keep the newly hired person employed for 1 year, you get 
an additional income tax credit.
  The House modified the Schumer-Hatch payroll tax exemption to allow 
employers to receive the exemption if

[[Page 3324]]

they pay the railroad retirement tax instead of the Social Security 
payroll tax.
  The House also included modifications to ease implementation of the 
payroll tax exemption.
  This payroll tax exemption provides a simple and immediate tax 
incentive for businesses to employ new workers, right away. A business 
can use the cash that it saves from the payroll tax cut to help pay the 
wages of the new employee. Or it can invest in equipment. Either way, 
the incentive will help boost hiring and help businesses.
  The HIRE Act will also create jobs in the transportation sector, by 
extending the 2009 highway funding level through the end of 2010.
  Highway construction plays a vital role in our economy. The 
Department of Transportation estimates that every $1 billion in Federal 
highway spending--when coupled with the State or local matching share--
creates or sustains 34,500 jobs. These are jobs in construction, 
engineering, manufacturing and other sectors hard-hit by the recession.
  The HIRE Act keeps the program working.
  The HIRE Act also expands the successful Build America Bonds program. 
Last month, Treasury Secretary Geithner testified before the Finance 
Committee that the Build America Bonds program is the most successful 
stimulus program based on jobs per dollar.
  And the HIRE Act extends the enhanced expensing provision in section 
179 of the Tax Code. This valuable tax incentive allows small business 
taxpayers to write off up to $250,000 of certain capital expenditures 
in 2010, instead of depreciating those costs over time.
  This helps small businesses to pay less in taxes now, and thus meet 
their needs for cash in this difficult time.
  The American economy has lost more than 7 million jobs. And the 
unemployment rate is near 10 percent.
  We need to help people to get jobs. We need to do more to help 
businesses to hire more workers. The HIRE Act does just that.
  And so, let us help America's businesses to create more jobs. Let us 
complete our work on this commonsense legislation. And let us send the 
HIRE Act to the President, so that this law can start creating jobs 
right away.


                                  PEOs

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I would like to ask the 
chairman of the Finance Committee and its ranking member a question on 
the application of the pending legislation, H.R. 2847, the Hiring 
Incentives to Restore Employment Act, to Professional Employer 
Organizations or PEOs.
  In my State we have over 700,000 workers in Florida who are working 
in PEO arrangements regulated by Florida law. PEOs in my State work 
with over 50,000 businesses, most of them small, providing a range of 
human resource-related services. I would like to ask the Senators to 
confirm that for purposes of the retention credit for newly hired 
individuals contained in the legislation the rules for eligibility and 
calculating the credits would be applied to each business working with 
a PEO as if the business was not in a PEO relationship. In other words, 
the retention credit would be claimed by the business in these cases.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator from Florida is correct.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree with the chairman.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The bill 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 motion to 
     concur in the House amendments to the Senate amendment to the 
     House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847, the 
     Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Act.
         Byron L. Dorgan, Carl Levin, Dianne Feinstein, Jack Reed, 
           Mark R. Warner, Patrick J. Leahy, Benjamin L. Cardin, 
           Debbie Stabenow, Daniel K. Akaka, Robert P. Casey, Jr., 
           Michael F. Bennet, Maria Cantwell, John D. Rockefeller, 
           IV, Barbara Boxer, Charles E. Schumer, Patty Murray, 
           Christopher J. Dodd.

  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 the 
motion to concur in the House amendments to the Senate amendment to the 
House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847 shall be brought 
to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Hagan), and the Senator 
from Montana (Mr. Tester) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), and the 
Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning) would have voted ``nay.'' The Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 61, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 49 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

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

                                NAYS--30

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Brownback
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bennett
     Bunning
     Byrd
     DeMint
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Tester
     Voinovich
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 61, the nays are 
30. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are now postcloture. It is my 
understanding that my Republican colleagues wanted some opportunity to 
talk about this bill. We certainly have no problem with doing that.
  I ask, however, that we have a definite time to vote on this 
legislation. I hope we could do it before our caucuses tomorrow. I ask 
my distinguished friend, the Republican leader, to comment on when he 
expects being able to vote on this legislation.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, my members are here and ready to talk. 
We are going to be talking about health care, which is the most 
important issue in the country. We are fully prepared to discuss it 
throughout.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate very much my friend being candid in that 
regard. I

[[Page 3325]]

ask unanimous consent that we have the vote on this matter by 12 
o'clock noon tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as I just indicated, we are here. We 
have been notified by the other side that they wish to have a lengthy 
discussion. We are here and prepared to do that and fully intend to 
talk about what we view as the flaws in the health care proposal that 
will be voted on in the House apparently sometime later this week. 
Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we in America today have a major problem, 
and that is jobs. I appreciate the bipartisan support of this bill; it 
has been bipartisan, but we need to get to this bill and pass it so we 
can start having small businesses take the tax credits that are going 
to be available in this legislation to allow the Build America bonds to 
be replenished. We need to make sure that the highway budgets go 
forward as quickly as possible.
  I understand the efforts to divert attention from the issue at hand, 
but there is going to be plenty of time to talk about health care. 
Let's get this done. The bill we are on now--when we finish this bill, 
there is the FAA bill. There are amendments in that regard that have 
been offered. As we know, Senators can speak about any subject they 
want. But let's get off health care for a few hours and get jobs. This 
bill should go to the President tomorrow so people can start being 
hired.
  For example, I have a provision in this bill that will allow $45 
million that has already been appropriated, to be reprogrammed--in 
fact, I use that term, but it will be directed by this bill--it will go 
to the transportation departments of Nevada, $45 million. The highway 
departments in Nevada will build things to create jobs. That is what we 
need to do.
  We understand the concern people have with health care, but this is a 
jobs bill. I hope that tonight if my Republican colleagues want to talk 
about health care they will take a little consideration and understand 
that this is a jobs bill. But the jobs before us are dealing with this 
beautiful bill that has passed--bipartisan, a bill that will allow 
small businesses to take a tax credit if they hire somebody who has 
been out of work 60 days. It will allow someone who has a small 
business who wants to buy a new machine, a new desk, new office 
equipment to write that off--not depreciate it but write it off. Of 
course, saving 1 million jobs with the highway bill and the Build 
America Bonds.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. REID. Certainly.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Is it not true, Mr. Leader, by the rules of the Senate, 
that the minority could spend time talking about health care tonight, 
without holding up the jobs bill; that they could let the jobs bill go 
forward and then talk about health care all they wanted?
  Mr. REID. The answer is yes. I say to my friend from New York, we 
would be happy to give consent, if they want to talk all night on 
health care or whatever they want. That is fine--and we would be able 
to respond to that, of course--but let us get this done. There are 
people waiting to buy things. Not only does this help small business 
and help them purchase items, but the businesses are going to buy 
them--up to $250,000. In Reno or Las Vegas, this is big-time stuff, and 
I would think the same is true all over the State of New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. That is true.
  Mr. REID. I would bet, in the first week, that this bill was 
effective, there would be a massive purchase of property because people 
no longer have to depreciate. They can write it off, up to $250,000. 
That is a lot of stuff.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. My good friend, the majority leader, left out one 
thing, which is this is the second time he has done what is called 
filling the tree. What that means to the constituents we represent on 
this side of the aisle is, we got to offer no amendments, no amendments 
whatsoever, to this bill. This is the second time and the 27th time the 
majority leader has filled the tree, thereby denying to the minority an 
opportunity to offer any amendments at all.
  We can argue, I guess, about the relative merits of this bill. What 
we do know for sure is that $47 billion of it is not paid for. So it 
adds that much additional money to the deficit. We also note, for sure, 
the one kind of jobs this administration has been able to produce is 
government jobs.
  As a result of the spending binge we have been on for the last year, 
we have added 120,000 government jobs. In America, if you work for the 
government, you make an average of $70,000 a year. If you work in the 
private sector, you make an average of $40,000 a year. We have had a 
job boon all right--with the government. Of course, the stimulus 
package principally benefitted State governments, which were very happy 
to have the money so they did not have to pare back their employment.
  So we are interested in talking about jobs all right, but health care 
is what the majority has been trying to ram through the Congress over 
the last year. It is the big issue this week. I am sure Members on my 
side of the aisle who will speak tonight will indeed talk about jobs, 
but we also fully intend to talk about the health care bill that will 
be voted on over in the House that cuts Medicare by $\1/2\ trillion, 
that raises $\1/2\ trillion in new taxes, and is replete with special 
deals. We now understand the fix-it bill--the second bill that will 
come after the health care bill--will not fix all the special deals; 
maybe only one of the special deals. So we will have on opportunity----
  Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I believe I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader has the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. We will have an opportunity to discuss all these 
things, and what I would suggest to the majority leader, if he wants to 
maximize the time, we could simply agree to vote on this bill at 9 a.m. 
on Wednesday and then go back to the FAA bill, upon which we have made 
substantial progress. That would be another way to advance the ball, 
which I would suggest.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend from Kentucky said it all in the 
last statement. He would be willing to agree to have a vote at 9 a.m. 
on Wednesday morning. Why in the world would we want to waste American 
taxpayer dollars sitting around here not sending a bill to the 
President? This is a bipartisan bill. It is a bill that has been widely 
acknowledged to be approved by groups such as the liberal-minded 
Chamber of Commerce, the National Chamber of Commerce, and other such 
groups. It is a bill that is so badly needed in this country.
  I would also suggest to my friend, I don't know of a single 
government job that would be produced with our HIRE bill. I don't know 
of a single job because everything we have done in the four provisions 
will create jobs in the private sector--thousands and thousands of 
jobs, new jobs, in the private sector.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Would the leader yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. Of course, I would.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Again, first, there are four provisions in this bill: 
One is the highway bill, which as I understand it hires private sector 
people to build highways; is that correct?
  Mr. REID. That is true.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Second is Build America Bonds, which allows the States 
and cities to hire private people; is that correct?
  Mr. REID. The only thing it can be used for.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Third is the depreciation for small businesses, which is 
obviously for the private sector.
  Mr. REID. Nondepreciation. Just write it off.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Four is the provision Senator Hatch and I put forward,

[[Page 3326]]

which gives directly to small businesses a payroll tax deduction if 
they hire; is that correct?
  Mr. REID. The four things my friend has enunciated create not a 
single government job.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Let me ask one other question because my friend, the 
minority leader, talked about the $48 billion not paid for. Isn't it 
correct this bill is fully paid for?
  Mr. REID. Yes, it is.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. REID. I would also say, Mr. President, the State of Kentucky and 
the State of Nevada have been having tremendous problems with a number 
of programs, one of which is Medicaid. One of the things we did in our 
recovery package was to give all 50 States--Nevada and Kentucky, all 50 
States--some help with their Medicaid. The cost of health care is 
wreaking havoc with our States. There is nothing wrong with doing that. 
We have an obligation. Medicaid was a program we started back here. To 
talk about the States getting some kind of a big benefit they do not 
deserve I don't think is right.
  I met 2 weeks ago tonight in Room 219 with 12 Governors. They handed 
me a letter signed by 48 Governors all saying: We need some help, and 
one of the places we need help is with Medicaid. These health care 
costs are skyrocketing. Even though we have given help, there are very 
few States in the Union that haven't had massive layoffs.
  Again, I would hope we could get this out of the way and have a 
discussion on health care at some subsequent point. There is another 
bill that this is holding up. This bill is going to pass, and I 
appreciate very much my Republican colleagues voting for this 
legislation, but let's not waste 30 hours because we are not only 
holding up sending this bill to the President but we are holding up 
finishing work on the Federal Aviation Administration bill.
  My friend has wanted to offer amendments. Amendments are being 
offered on this legislation as we do on most everything. I have been 
very nonrestrictive in how I have handled the floor. Of course, there 
have been occasions when we have done what has been done here for 
generations; that is to say, at this time, we are not going to have, on 
a bill dealing with jobs, an abortion amendment, we are not going to 
have an amendment on gay marriage or on income tax. On things such as 
that, there comes a time.
  On this FAA bill, the first year--the first year--the experts tell us 
will create 150,000 jobs, but not only that, it will make air travel 
safer. We will have the air travelers' bill of rights. We will have, 
for the first time in the history of this country, a GPS system for our 
aircraft which will allow us to do more flights into airports and to 
make it safer.
  I would hope we don't waste this time. It is Monday night, it is 10 
after 6. Let's not waste tonight and tomorrow and into Wednesday. Let's 
get off this, get to FAA, and if somebody wants to give a health care 
speech and beat up on Obama, let them do it on the FAA bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. As you can see, we are all in the mood for a spirited 
debate, and I know the junior Senator from Florida is on the floor and 
anxious to begin the discussion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Before my friend leaves, if I could just say this. I think 
we could probably accomplish what we both should want by saying: OK, 
let's vote at a reasonable time Wednesday morning on this jobs bill, 
but in the meantime--in the meantime, all day tomorrow--let's work on 
the FAA bill. That way we would accomplish two very important things.
  I would hope my friend would consider that. That way we could not 
only have a time certain where we are going to pass this bill--the HIRE 
bill--but we could also work on FAA. We have Senators waiting to do 
work on the FAA bill.
  Mr. DORGAN. Would the Senator from Nevada yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if I could respond to the majority 
leader's suggestion, it may very well be worth talking about. As I 
understand the suggestion, it is that we lock in a time for a vote 
certain, such as the one I suggested, at 9 a.m. on this bill, and we 
resume consideration of the FAA bill between now--tomorrow--and then.
  Mr. REID. I think that is very appropriate. During that period of 
time, people can offer amendments or, if they feel so inclined--
  Mr. McCONNELL. I think that is a matter worth talking about. Why 
don't we put in a quorum call and have that discussion.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, we are going to have the leadership discuss 
the process for moving forward, but I wish to take a minute and talk 
about one of the important bipartisan provisions in the jobs bill. I 
think colleagues know it is never hard to get me to focus on the health 
reform issue, and we are certainly going to be doing a lot of that in 
the days ahead, but our constituents want us to focus on jobs as well 
and particularly a jobs effort that is going to work. We have that in 
the Build America Bonds program. I say to colleagues, the Build America 
Bonds program has far exceeded even the optimistic projections some of 
us had for this program.
  I have been involved in the development of this program now for 6 
years. Senator Thune, on the other side of the aisle, has worked very 
closely with me. When we started our work on the Build America Bonds 
program, our hope was that perhaps $4 billion or $5 billion worth of 
these Build America Bonds would be let. What we have seen is that now 
close to $80 billion worth of these bonds have been issued. They are 
literally selling like hotcakes. They have revolutionized municipal 
finance, and some have projected that perhaps this year $150 billion 
worth of these Build America Bonds will be sold.
  So Build America Bonds work, and they put people in the private 
sector to work as well. In my home State of Oregon, it has been proven, 
time and time again, that private investment follows well-targeted 
public investment. That is what we are seeing with this bipartisan 
program, and that is why colleagues on both sides of the aisle have 
proposed expanding it.
  I note my good friend, Senator Thune, on the other side of the aisle, 
is here. He and I have worked hand in hand on this effort because we 
wanted to have something that would create jobs in our country that was 
nonpartisan.
  The reason Senator Thune and I have worked on this effort in a 
bipartisan way is we wanted to have something that is common sense, we 
wanted to have a jobs creation effort that responded to basic needs of 
our country, and we wanted to see it part of an effort where the 
private sector takes the lead.
  I am particularly appreciative the chairman of the Senate Finance 
Committee is here, Chairman Baucus. I wish to express my appreciation 
to him and his staff for their help in this effort. We saw in the 
Senate Finance Committee--Chairman Baucus is here, he remembers our 
discussions--our projections for Build America Bonds were pretty 
modest. The reality blew past those projections almost overnight. The 
projections for Build America Bonds were a few billion dollars, and we 
blew past those projections like a bullet train.
  Build America Bonds are getting desperately needed funding flowing 
into local communities, they are creating jobs, and they are helping to 
strengthen America's infrastructure. Almost $80 billion has been 
generated. This is in addition to the $80 billion of direct

[[Page 3327]]

Federal infrastructure spending that has been included in the Recovery 
Act.
  I note that in the HIRE bill there is going to be an effort once 
again to ensure there is direct support for infrastructure, and we also 
have this very promising opportunity with the private sector that we 
have been able to secure with Build America Bonds.
  When a project is funded with Build America Bonds, the Federal 
Government pays a portion of the finance costs. It equals a very small 
percentage, perhaps a single-digit percentage of the total project 
cost. The city or State pays almost the entire cost of the project over 
time.
  A project that is funded with direct spending will often have the 
Federal Government pay 50 percent or 75 percent of the project costs. 
Some communities need that kind of help to get needed projects off the 
ground. But when some argued that projects should only be funded with 
direct spending, I thought it was important to look for other 
opportunities. That is why Build America Bonds came into existence. It 
is not possible, given the enormous needs for infrastructure 
improvements, for roads and bridges and transportation systems, to rely 
just on direct spending or rely just on bonds. What we ought to do is 
what we have done here in the Senate on a bipartisan basis; that is, 
put more options in the tool box for funding infrastructure. Of course, 
direct spending will be important. What we have seen is Build America 
Bonds take off as an additional tool.
  In my home State, in the Dayton School District, they are using Build 
America Bonds to employ up to 150 people building and remodeling 
classrooms. By using Build America Bonds, this small school district in 
my home State saved an estimated $1.2 million in interest costs.
  Up in Washington State, in Grand Coulee, the Coulee Medical Center 
was able to finance a new hospital building with Build America Bonds, 
saving more than $7 million in finance costs. They were able to start 
construction immediately. We had discussion on the floor earlier--are 
these government jobs? What that project did was put people in the 
private sector to work--construction workers, plumbers, electricians, 
tradesmen. Once the building, of course, is completed at the end of the 
year, doctors and nurses, clerks and support staff get to work in the 
new hospital.
  Recently, a joint Congressional Budget Office-Joint Tax Committee 
report highlighted other benefits flowing from Build America Bonds. As 
my friend Senator Thune, who is in the Chamber, knows about Build 
America Bonds, this report shows that tax-credit bonds, such as Build 
America Bonds, can be more effective than tax-exempt bonds. The report 
also concluded that because the bonds are more attractive to investors, 
they are more efficient at raising capital.
  Once again, Democrats and Republicans have been able to come together 
in the Senate to advance a fresh approach that saves municipalities 
time and money and effort that can otherwise be devoted to other 
priorities.
  Aside from the fact that the funds are raised efficiently, they are 
answering a cry we hear again and again; that is, get the job done 
quickly. People are frustrated that sometimes it takes eons for 
government to work out the particular project, particularly in the 
transportation area. Bond funds need to be spent within 2 years of the 
date the bond is issued. What that means is money is not just flowing 
into projects, it is being spent in the short term. People get back to 
work quickly. You get more bang for your dollar, and that obviously is 
what Americans are asking for, and Build America Bonds deliver.
  Back in the days before these bonds were issued, the market for the 
traditional, normal municipal bond was just about frozen. It was hard 
to sell them. Now Build America Bonds have changed that. The private 
sector is strongly supporting this program. Groups such as the Chamber 
of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers and 
businesses across the country are saying they need a fresh approach to 
build infrastructure. Particularly with Build America Bonds, we are now 
seeing businesses say this is an approach that gives them a long-term 
boost to what they know they can count on. They can plan new avenues 
for their businesses when they know there is going to be infrastructure 
there to support it.
  It is not, however, just businesses that are buying Build America 
Bonds. Nonprofits such as pension funds are finding these bonds are an 
attractive investment. Nonprofits cannot benefit from the tax credits, 
but bond issuers can pass on the value of the tax credits in the form 
of a higher interest rate for Build America Bonds than other types of 
bonds. By contrast, traditional tax-exempt municipal bonds have not 
been a good investment for pension funds and other institutional 
investors that do not pay taxes. What Build America Bonds have been 
able to do is provide a way for nonprofits to invest in American 
infrastructure that traditional tax-exempt bonds don't provide.
  We are not surprised that Build America Bonds are reinventing the 
municipal bond market. We were told by people in the private sector, in 
the States, in the finance community, all across the country, that they 
thought this was a chance to, in effect, unfreeze the municipal bond 
market that had been frozen in Illinois, in Oregon, in South Dakota, 
and across the country. In some cases, these bonds are going to make 
the difference between whether the infrastructure projects come to 
fruition. In other cases, they are going to lower the cost of the 
projects and allow the community to reinvest the savings in other 
projects.
  By any scenario, the Build America Bonds program helps local 
government, local businesses, and those who rely on them for jobs and 
dependable infrastructure. In my view, that is exactly what the 
American people are looking for from their elected officials--something 
that works, something that is common sense, something that is 
bipartisan, something with a proven track record. That is, in fact, the 
Build America Bonds program.
  Let me close with one last point. There have been discussions--and we 
have been in consultation with Chairman Baucus and the Senate Finance 
Committee staff on this--about financial institutions and whether the 
fees they are charging are appropriate for the issuance of Build 
America Bonds. First of all, it has been the position of Chairman 
Baucus, myself, and others that anybody who tries to take advantage of 
State and municipal issuers needs to understand that the Senate Finance 
Committee is going to have a zero tolerance policy--zero tolerance 
policy--for ripping off the taxpayers. This program is designed to 
create jobs and make infrastructure funding more efficient and 
certainly not create any opportunities for somebody to try to skate 
around the rules and to take advantage of taxpayers.
  In the Senate Finance Committee--and I am very appreciative of 
Chairman Baucus taking this approach. The Congress included a 2-percent 
limit on the amount of fees issuers of Build America Bonds can charge. 
In practice, the typical fee, in fact, has been far less than the 
statutory maximum fee that is allowed.
  As the market for Build America Bonds has grown--and I pointed out 
that it has mushroomed far beyond projections--the fees have kept 
coming down. They have come down close to the levels currently charged 
for tax-exempt bonds. With Build America Bonds having become well 
established--in fact, they now represent 20 percent of the municipal 
bond market--in our view, there simply is no longer a justification for 
charging a higher fee.
  As the expiration of the Build America Bonds program approaches at 
the end of the year--and I am very glad the administration has proposed 
making the program permanent--I intend to keep monitoring the fees 
charged for issuing the bonds. If some can present the case that it is 
appropriate to further reduce the statutory cap on fees, I am certainly 
open to listening to it. I want to make sure every single dime of 
taxpayer money goes to these bondholders.
  I am open to listening to any suggestions and any ideas to make a 
program

[[Page 3328]]

that works, a program that Senator Thune and I have worked on together 
for many months that is working--we are certainly open to ideas for 
improving on it.
  I see my friend from Florida is anxious to speak. I appreciate his 
desire to talk tonight.
  Let's keep focusing--whether it is health care, whether it is 
transportation, whether it is tax reform--on ideas that bring the 
Senate together. I wanted to take a few minutes to talk about Build 
America Bonds specifically tonight. Again, the chairman of the Finance 
Committee is in the Chamber. I am very appreciative of his support and 
Senator Grassley's support. As the majority leader, Senator Reid, noted 
earlier tonight, we have to zero in on jobs. There is no economic 
multiplier out there like jobs. If you put people to work, as I 
outlined--construction workers, electricians, plumbers--restaurants 
make the sandwiches to feed all the men and women who are doing the 
work. Let's keep coming back to approaches that bring both sides 
together. I have tried to do that in health care, in tax reform, and 
certainly in transportation, where Senator Thune and I have been able 
to team up on something that works and is being used around the 
country. Let's remember that is what is needed right now when our folks 
are hurting. When they are looking for approaches that are common 
sense, that are nonpartisan, we can give them one specifically with the 
Build America Bonds program.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oregon for his 
good words tonight and for his approach in trying to do things in a 
bipartisan way.
  There are some good things in this jobs bill. I think the issue we on 
this side of the Chamber have had is we would have liked to have 
offered some amendments. The 18 million people I represent in Florida 
expect that we have the opportunity to offer amendments, to bring up 
ideas, good ideas, and let those ideas rise and fall depending upon 
their merit. Unfortunately, we did not have the opportunity to have 
amendments. My colleague, the Republican leader, said earlier what was 
done on the majority side was something called filling the tree. What 
does that mean? It means we do not have the opportunity to bring 
forward our good ideas. The people of Florida, the people of all of our 
States, expect that we get to do that. So while there are some good 
things in here, it is a shame that we could not have made this bill 
better.
  What I really want to speak about tonight is the debate Americans are 
having around their living room tables and around their kitchen tables 
about this health care bill. This is a trillion-dollar bill that is 
being discussed in this country and that we now hear is going to go 
through the House of Representatives and possibly come back to this 
Chamber through a procedure called reconciliation.
  It occurs to me that what we are dealing with here is a little bit of 
fantasy land. Why do I say that? This weekend, I took my kids to see 
``Alice in Wonderland.'' That is a famous story. It occurred to me that 
we are creating our own sort of wonderland here in the Senate.
  A lot of things have been said about this health care bill, what it 
does and what it does not do. I thought tonight it would be important 
to go through the representations that are being made to the American 
people as to whether we should pass this health care bill. Let's go 
through all the things we have heard, things that President Obama has 
said, things that Members of the majority have said in this Chamber as 
to why we should pass this health care bill.
  Let me first say that everybody believes we need health care reform 
in this country. We have 4 million-plus Americans who do not have 
health insurance. Nearly 4 million Floridians do not have health 
insurance.
  We know the cost of health insurance is too high for those Americans 
who have health insurance. In the last 10 years, health insurance costs 
have risen by 130 percent. That is unsustainable. It is something that 
is afflicting the people of Florida and all across this country.
  It is hard to make ends meet when your salary may be going down or 
you may have lost your job but your health care costs continue to go 
up. So there is no debate within this Chamber that we should do 
something. Of course, we should do something. The debate is about what 
we should do.
  On this side of the aisle, we would like to take a step-by-step 
approach. We would like to go after the cost of health care. We would 
like to increase competition in health care so that costs could 
actually go down. We would like to put patients back in charge of their 
health care purchasing decisions.
  We know if the consumer is back involved the price of health care 
will go down. But we find ourselves having to vote on this massive new 
government entitlement program, a program that I cannot support because 
I do not believe it will be in the best interests of Floridians.
  Last Monday I was down in South Florida, down in Miami and Fort 
Lauderdale. In Fort Lauderdale I had the opportunity to have a townhall 
meeting where we specifically talked about health care. In that meeting 
I had many Floridians come up to the microphone and ask questions. Most 
of them were bewildered about this plan. They wanted to know why we cut 
a $\1/2\ trillion out of Medicare. Medicare is health care for seniors. 
Why would we create a new program by cutting a program we have now that 
is already in financial trouble?
  We know in the next 7 years Medicare is going to have its own 
solvency problems. Why would we take money out of health care for 
seniors--more than 3 million Floridians in that program--to start a new 
program?
  They want to know why we are going to raise taxes on medicine and 
health care devices which we know will increase the cost of health 
care. They want to know why we are creating a $1 trillion new 
entitlement program when we cannot afford the entitlement programs we 
have, when we cannot afford the $12 trillion debt we are saddling upon 
our children and our grandchildren.
  So with that, I would like to go through some of the myths, some of 
the myths that have been created in this wonderland I spoke about 
before, and try to debunk those myths and say what is in this bill and 
let the facts speak for themselves.
  The first myth--and the President likes to say this; he said it again 
today in a rally--if you like your health insurance, you can keep it 
under his proposal. Well, it is simply not true. The Congressional 
Budget Office has said between 8 and 9 million people who would be 
covered by employment-based plans under current law would not have the 
offer of such a proposal. Why is this going to happen? Because under 
the incentives and penalties this bill creates, businesses are going to 
drop health insurance for their employees and put them into the 
government-subsidized system.
  So for those 8 or 9 million Americans, they are not going to get to 
keep the health insurance they have now. They are not going to be able 
to keep the health care they want.
  Rick Foster, the CMS Actuary--and those are the folks who administer 
Medicare and Medicaid--says the number could even be higher. He 
concluded that 17 million people will lose their employer-sponsored 
coverage. Seventeen million people will not be able to keep the health 
care they enjoy today. So what the President says is simply not the 
case.
  Second, we know under this myth that you will be able to keep the 
health care if you like it, that people who have Medicare Advantage, 
Medicare Part C, a lot of them will not be able to keep their program 
either. Medicare Advantage is a promise that offers extra benefits for 
folks on Medicare.
  If you sign up for it, you get wellness benefits, you get hearing 
benefits, you get dental benefits oftentimes. People like it. We have 
more than 1 million

[[Page 3329]]

people in Florida on Medicare Advantage. This bill cuts $120 billion 
out of Medicare Advantage.
  Now, I am not sure how it is going to impact Florida. There was this 
Florida fix that was going to be an off-ramp, not an exit. But over 
several years they would be in the same situation as the rest of the 
folks in America. I do not know whether that is going to make it into 
the final bill. But I do know we are going to cut $120 billion out of 
Medicare Advantage. When that happens, according to Rick Foster, the 
CMS Actuary, lower benchmarks will reduce Medicare Advantage rebates to 
plans and thereby result in less generous benefit packages.
  He estimates in 2015, enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans would 
decrease by about 33 percent. So for many folks, they are going to get 
dropped by their employer and not be able to keep the health care plan 
they have now. For many folks on Medicare Advantage, they are going to 
get dropped as well, as much as 33 percent by 2015. You are not going 
to be able to keep the health insurance you have now.
  We also know these mandates that exist in this bill are going to 
change your health insurance policy. If the government deems that your 
health insurance plan does not pass muster, they are going to mandate 
that your health insurance plan change.
  Now, you may like your health insurance plan the way you have it. You 
may have a high deductible. You may have bought catastrophic insurance. 
You may not want to buy a comprehensive health insurance plan that is 
soup to nuts; you may only want certain things covered.
  Well, under this plan, under this bill, there are going to be certain 
mandates put in place, and you may not be able to keep the type of 
insurance you have. So for those three instances alone--for people who 
are going to get dropped by their employer and get forced into the 
public plan, for people who are Medicare Advantage, and for people who 
have a certain type of insurance plan--they may not be able to keep it.
  So we know, unfortunately, what the President is telling us about 
this bill is not true. Myth No. 1 is busted.
  Myth No. 2: Your health insurance premiums will go down. Why did he 
get involved in this whole debate to start with? What was told to the 
American people during the Presidential campaign in 2008 and since the 
time that we have discussed this health care plan? That we were going 
to lower the cost of health insurance for most Americans.
  That is not going to happen under this plan. We are not going to 
lower the cost of health insurance. In fact, for some Americans the 
price is going to go up. Table 1--I hate to get into the weeds, but 
let's look at the facts.
  We have the CBO report I cited earlier. There is a Table 1 on page 5 
of that Congressional Budget Office report that analyzes this plan. It 
goes through what people have in the current insurance market.
  There are about 25 million people in the small group market. There 
are 134 million people in the large group market. That is 159 million 
Americans who have health insurance. So the small group market, it is 
estimated the cost increase or savings is between a 1-percent increase 
or down 2 percent.
  For those in the large group, it is zero to potentially minus 3 
percent. So this is not reducing the cost of health insurance in any 
meaningful way. For individuals who are out there who are not in a 
group, who are purchasing insurance individually, the Congressional 
Budget Office says their cost of health insurance will go up 10 to 13 
percent.
  So the whole very reason, the primary reason we are about the 
business allegedly of debating health care and passing this big bill 
was to lower the cost of health insurance for most Americans. Not only 
is it not going to lower the cost of health insurance for most 
Americans, it is going to increase it for those who are in the 
individual market.
  I ask unanimous consent that Table 1 be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LeMIEUX. So you are not going to be able to keep your health 
insurance, for a lot of Americans, if you like it, and the cost of 
health insurance is not going to go down. Those two myths have been 
busted.
  Myth No. 3: This plan, the Democratic plan, will lower costs, lower 
the cost of health care overall. We have all heard about--and I said 
before the rising cost of health care, 130 percent in the past 10 
years. There is an expression, ``bending the cost curve down,'' making 
sure that we can get control of costs. This plan is not going to do 
that. This plan does not have mechanisms, true mechanisms in it to 
really control costs.
  In today's Washington Post, Robert Samuelson takes on the President's 
claim that his plan will control costs.
  In this article, he talks about the fact that when people get 
insurance they use more health services; that spending rises and by the 
government's latest forecast health spending goes from 17 percent of 
the economy in 2009 to 19 percent in 2019.
  According to the CMS Actuary, he estimates overall national health 
expenditures under this bill will increase by an estimated total of 
$222 billion during 2010 to 2019.
  It is also going to increase the government's share of health care 
spending. According to the CBO, under the legislation, national outlays 
for health care would increase by $210 billion over the next 10 years. 
So we are just chasing our tails. We are going to put a lot more money 
into health care, but we are not going to reduce costs.
  How could we reduce costs? How do we get at the problem of increased 
health care? Well, we could try to foster more competition among health 
insurance companies instead of creating these subsidies, which is going 
to plow more money into the insurance companies.
  We could make the insurance companies compete across State lines. 
That is one of the ideas the Republicans have brought forward. We also 
could go after meaningful lawsuit reform. There is one estimate we 
would save more than $50 billion a year if we had meaningful lawsuit 
reform.
  My colleague, Senator Coburn from Oklahoma, talks about the fact, 
being a practicing physician, that doctors are engaged in defensive 
medicine, and when thousands of kids across this country this year get 
hit in the nose with a baseball they are going to show up at the 
emergency room. Instead of just watching the patient and making sure 
the kid is going to be OK, they are going to order a CT scan even if 
one is not necessary because that has become the standard operating 
procedure in order to protect the doctor from lawsuits.
  The CBO says if we had real medical malpractice reform, we could save 
as much as $54 billion over the next decade. We also do not have 
transparency. Here is the essential problem with health care costs. We 
do not know what anything costs.
  In the next couple of days my wife and I are going to be fortunate 
enough to have our fourth child. She is due any day now. When we go to 
the hospital, we are going to get back--after that baby is born, just 
like we have done with the last three kids, we are going to get back a 
bill. It is going to be page after page after page of things that we 
cannot understand.
  At the bottom of the bill, we will pay some small fraction because we 
have good health insurance in the Senate. We will pay some small 
fraction of the total bill, and we will never question the pages and 
pages and pages of line items of information we do not understand.
  We will not because we do not have to pay for it, and we, as 
consumers, have been removed from the transaction in health insurance 
because of third-party payers, whether it be Medicare, Medicaid, or 
insurance companies. We are not involved in that transaction.
  Now, let me give you a different example. If we had to look at that 
bill because we were responsible for a portion of it because we were 
given, say, a tax credit to go out and buy insurance, and we were 
trying to get the most bang

[[Page 3330]]

for the buck, and they tried to add $75 for a bedpan or gauze or for 
Band-Aids, Mrs. LeMieux would not pay for that. Mrs. LeMieux would be 
in there saying: Wait a minute. I can go to Target and I can get Band-
Aids for $1.50, not $75.
  I guarantee you that the men and women of this country, if they 
really had to look at those bills because they really had to pay them, 
we would not have these exploding costs. We also would not have all of 
the cost shifting that is going around.
  The dirty secret about health care is that if I have insurance, my 
full payment on insurance or close to the full payment is going to pay 
for the Medicare patient and the Medicaid patient because Medicare and 
Medicaid do not pay enough for the services they render.
  The hospitals cost shift all the money around. At the end of the day, 
we don't have a transparent system or a market-driven system. What we 
should do is give every American who needs it a tax credit to buy 
health insurance on their own. If they were out in the marketplace, 
that would lower cost, because competition would reign and they would 
insist on bang for their buck. But that is not in this bill. We know 
now that, one, you will not be able to keep, in a lot of cases, your 
health insurance, if you like it. We know, two, it is not going to 
reduce your cost of health care. And we know, three, it will not lower 
the cost of health care in general. Those myths have been busted.
  Let me go to the next one, myth No. 4: The Democrats' plan will 
reduce the deficit. We have heard this estimate that over $100 billion 
is going to be saved over the next 10 years. Not true. The way this is 
scored or evaluated by the CBO is that whatever you send them, they 
have to give you an answer back on the confines and the specifications 
of what you sent. So the Democrats' bill has 6 years of spending or 
benefits and 10 years of taxes. If they have 10 years of taxes and only 
6 years of spending, then they can get to a situation where the CBO 
will come back and say: It is going to reduce the deficit. But if you 
compare apples to apples, spending to deficit, if you compare spending 
to taxes, we know it is going to run a deficit. You cannot create a new 
entitlement program and not run a deficit. It is going to cost us, by 
some estimates, more than $400 billion over a 10-year period, in the 
first 10 years, and $1.4 trillion in the next 10 years. We know that 
myth is busted. It is not going to reduce the deficit.
  Let me also say this is going to be a budget buster for States. The 
States, unlike the Federal Government, have to make ends meet. The 
States have balanced budget requirements. As we increase the 
requirements of Medicaid, which this bill does, then we will be putting 
increased burdens upon our States. Our States are going to have to find 
more money to put into Medicaid. They can't print money like the 
Federal Government. They can't spend more than they take in. What is 
going to happen? They are going to have to cut other programs, or they 
will have to raise taxes. What is going to get hurt? I can cite the 
example of Florida where they are suffering under a huge and emerging 
Medicaid problem. Medicaid and Health and Human Services is the No. 1 
portion of the budget of the State of Florida. It grows every year. So 
what loses out? Education, money for teachers and schools, law 
enforcement, protecting the environment, and economic stimulus. Florida 
has to live within its means, unlike the Federal Government.
  This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. Governors of both sides 
of the aisle are very concerned about the increased mandates placed 
upon States. Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee called this bill the 
mother of all unfunded mandates. The head of Washington State's 
Medicaid Program believes that States facing severe financial distress 
may say they have to get out of the Medicaid Program altogether.
  CBO released its first estimate of expected discretionary spending 
under this bill, confirming that $10 to $20 billion in discretionary 
spending over the next decade will be used to implement this 
legislation. We are going to spend $10 to $20 billion to implement this 
bill; $5 to $10 billion to the IRS and to Health and Human Services. 
Also in terms of this topic, of looking at how the plan will reduce the 
deficit, which it will not, we know this is going to be a $1 trillion 
program over time. With rare exception, when this Congress creates a 
program, especially an entitlement program, it does not stay within its 
estimates. It grows and grows.
  We have a debt. When I first came to the Senate and had the privilege 
to serve here back in September of last year, we were at something like 
$11.6 or $11.7 trillion. Now we are already at $12.4 trillion. It is 
unsustainable.
  The fifth myth: Medicare cuts won't affect seniors. This bill cuts 
half of a trillion dollars out of Medicare. Some say this is savings. 
The money that is going to be saved is not going back into Medicare to 
prolong the life of Medicare. We had an amendment from my colleague 
Senator Gregg who said that any savings would have to go into Medicare. 
The majority party defeated that amendment.
  It makes no sense to me that we would take half a trillion dollars 
out of Medicare to create a new entitlement program. I can't go back to 
my seniors in Florida, more than 3 million of them, and say: Your 
Medicare Program is already facing insolvency in about 7 years, but we 
are going to take a half a trillion dollars out of it now to create a 
new health care program.
  This could not be good for seniors. On its effect on Medicare, there 
was a letter from the CBO Director to the majority leader, Senator 
Reid. He warned that while the effects of the cuts to Medicare remain 
unclear, they could reduce access to care or diminish the quality of 
care. Let's go through the cuts: $135 billion from hospitals; $120 
billion from Medicare Advantage; nearly $15 billion from nursing homes; 
$40 billion from home health agencies, $7 billion from hospice. The CMS 
Actuary says that many of the Medicare cuts are unrelated to the 
providers' cost of furnishing services to beneficiaries. That means it 
is not about savings. That means the money is being taken from 
Medicare, robbing Peter to pay Paul. He concludes it is doubtful that 
providers could reduce cost to keep up with these cuts. The CMS Actuary 
also finds that because of the bill's severe cuts to Medicare, 
providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their 
business could find it difficult to remain profitable and might end 
their participation in the program.
  What does this mean in plain language? We are not paying these health 
care providers enough under Medicare, but we are going to take out 
still more money, and they will not be Medicare providers anymore. They 
will not provide health care for seniors. If you want to see the future 
of this, look at Medicaid. Medicaid is even one step worse in trouble 
than Medicare is. We know now that folks who are entering into the 
Medicaid system who are trying to find a specialist in a metropolitan 
area, half of them can't find a specialist. We know in Medicare, 
according to a June 2008 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission Report, 
that 29 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries it surveyed had trouble 
finding a primary care doctor. That is up from 24 percent in 2007. If 
the doctor is not in, it is not health care reform.
  How can I go back to my seniors in Florida and say: We are creating a 
new program by taking money out of your program, and you may not be 
able to find a doctor who is going to see you anymore? That is not 
conscionable.
  Florida will be disproportionately affected by these cuts. It has the 
second highest population of seniors and highest concentration of 
seniors in the Nation at 19 percent. Let me tell you how it will 
specifically hurt one portion of health care for seniors, home health 
care. I talked to Ron Malone, vice president of Gentiva Health 
Services, one of the largest providers of home health services in 
Florida. He said: Look, it is not going to hurt us so much. We are a 
big company. We can spread costs. We will get more market share. But it 
is going to hurt the smaller companies, and a lot of the smaller 
companies are going to go out of business.

[[Page 3331]]

  How is that health care reform? Who do we owe an obligation to 
provide health care more than to our seniors?
  I recently visited with the president of the Florida Medical 
Association, which is the largest physician association in Florida, 
with 20,000 members. They say:

       . . . this legislation does not adequately fix what's wrong 
     with our current system. It contains many provisions that 
     would allow government bureaucrats to interfere with patient 
     care decisions and actually raises the cost of health 
     insurance unnecessarily.

  This is from the doctors association in Florida. They say it is going 
to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship and increase costs. 
Why are we doing this?
  The sixth myth I want to tackle is this idea that emergency rooms are 
going to be less burdened. You hear this justification. People now are 
uninsured. They go to the emergency room to get health care. If we give 
folks insurance or they have the ability to purchase insurance at a 
subsidized rate, they will stop going to the emergency room, and that 
will lower the cost of health care because emergency room procedures 
are expensive. It will free up the emergency room for its intended 
purpose, for people who really have an emergency. But according to the 
Urban Institute, after Massachusetts adopted a somewhat similar plan, 
emergency use remained higher than the national average. More than two-
fifths of the visits in these emergency rooms were nonemergencies and, 
of these, the majority of adult respondents said it was more convenient 
to check into the ER. More convenient?
  We know we are going to be paying health care providers less. What 
does that mean? There is going to be less of them providing health 
care. That means your lines at the doctor's office, which are already 
too long, are going to get longer. So what are folks going to still do? 
They are going to still show up at the emergency room. If we look at 
the Massachusetts model, that has happened. We also know that 
ultimately we are going to have a severe doctor shortage. We have not 
prepared, nor does this bill prepare, to make sure we will have 
sufficient health care providers to meet new demands.
  Seventh myth: The Democrats' plan takes on the insurance companies. 
You have heard the President say we are going to fight against the 
insurance companies; we are going to make sure that we are putting the 
patient first. Basically what we are going to do, in reality, is create 
a lot of new business for the insurance companies. This subsidy plan is 
going to force a lot of new people into health care with an insurance 
company. That is why the insurance companies are for it. What we need 
to do is empower individuals. What we need to do is give individuals 
money that is in their own pocket and let them go out and be consumers. 
If they were consumers, it would lower the cost of health care. What we 
need to do is let insurance companies compete across State lines so we 
as consumers have more choices. Look at auto insurance. It is so easy a 
caveman can do it. In 15 minutes, you can save 15 percent on your auto 
insurance. These folks are out there competing. We need that in health 
care. Why do I only get to pick from the insurance companies that are 
in Florida? If there is an enterprising insurance company from South 
Carolina that wants to come into my State and offer cheaper prices, why 
should I not have that opportunity as a consumer? There are commonsense 
things we can do, market-driven things we can do that will lower the 
cost of health insurance and, by doing so, when it is less expensive, 
more people can afford it and you have more access.
  The eighth myth: It has been said that this bill takes an 
unprecedented step to fight health care fraud. It is going to go after 
waste, fraud, and abuse, and we will save billions of dollars. In fact, 
the $500 billion being cut from Medicare is often described as an 
elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse. It is not. It is just taking 
money out of that program and putting it in this program. To be fair, 
there are some provisions of this bill that go after health care fraud. 
They are good, but they go around the margins. They are going to save a 
billion or two, which is a lot of money, I will grant you that, but it 
is not the kind of money we need to save. We believe there are $60 to 
$100 billion of fraud in Medicare every year alone, not talking about 
Medicaid, not talking about veterans health care, just Medicare, $60 to 
$100 billion, $1 out of every $7 spent. What we need to do is implement 
a plan that is going to stop the health care fraud before it starts.
  I have a bill, S. 2128, that has bipartisan support, has more than a 
dozen Senators who sponsor it. It would do three things. One, it would 
create a person at HHS who would be the No. 2 person at the agency for 
Health and Human Services, appointed by the President to be the chief 
health care fraud prevention officer of this country. No other job, not 
focused on worrying about H1N1, not focused on anything else that 
should be done in health, focused on stopping health care fraud, 
someone we could measure against performance to make sure we are doing 
everything we can to stop wasting the people's money. The second thing 
it does is it takes a page from another business that exists in the 
marketplace that does an excellent job at stopping fraud. There is 
another business that is about the same size as health care, about $2 
trillion a year. That business, instead of having a $1-in-$7 fraud 
ratio, has a ratio of 7 cents out of every $100. That is the credit 
card industry. We have all had this experience. You go somewhere to use 
your credit card and you get a phone call or an e-mail that says: Did 
you mean to make that purchase? If you do not say yes, they do not pay.
  What we do in health care is we pay, and then if we think something 
is fraudulent, we chase. When we chase, the money is gone. The credit 
cards stop the fraud before it starts.
  Now, why couldn't we implement that kind of computer technology? In 
health care, it is called predictive modeling. So when someone tries to 
sell a wheelchair 100 times in an hour, the bells go off, the phone 
call is made, and if it is not verified, we do not pay.
  We have people--unfortunately, a lot of them in my home State of 
Florida--who are bilking the system for tens of millions of dollars a 
year because it is much easier to steal from Uncle Sam than it is to 
steal from anybody else because nobody is watching.
  One group in town that has evaluated my bill with this predictive 
modeling system, where we would set up a computer program to stop the 
fraud before it starts and make people verify when there is a 
questionable transaction, has said it will save $20 billion a year.
  During the health care debate we had last December, I asked to amend 
my bill on to the main health care bill, and my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle objected. Why we wouldn't implement real waste, 
fraud, and abuse reform is beyond me. But this bill we are talking 
about does not have it. That myth I, too, believe is busted.
  The third part of my bill is, it will require background checks for 
all health care providers. Can you believe we do not do background 
checks on people who bill Medicare and Medicaid in this country? We 
have folks who are convicted felons who are billing alleged ``health 
care'' providers. It is so bad that in reimbursements for AIDS 
treatment under Medicare, while south Florida only has 7 percent of the 
AIDS population, they bill 78 percent of the treatment--only 7 percent 
of the population and they bill 78 percent of the treatment. It is just 
fraud, and it should stop today.
  The ninth myth I want to tackle is that this Democratic health care 
reform bill will not impact the doctor-patient relationship. In fact, 
it will. I agree with my colleague, Dr. Barrasso, who supports a 
patient-centered approach. Real health care reform should ensure a 
doctor and a patient can work together to the best efforts in the 
health of the patient. As I said before, we are still going to have 
third-party payers. We have to put the patient back in charge of their 
health care. That is the only way we are going to reduce costs.
  There is a common thread throughout our governmental programs that 
has led entitlements to expand and expand and expand; that is, people 
do not

[[Page 3332]]

have what is called skin in the game. If I am not paying, I do not 
care. But if I have to go out as a consumer, if the government would 
give me a tax credit to go buy health insurance, all of a sudden I am 
in the game. If I have a reasonable deductible where I have to pay a 
little when I go to the doctor, all of a sudden I am in the game and I 
am not going to ask for a procedure I do not need. I am going to sit 
there and talk with my health care provider about whether this is 
something I really need. Now, if you tell me it is free, I will take 
it. And if you advertise to me on television every drug in the world, I 
will go to my doctor and say: Sign me up for that because I get it for 
free. We have to change the whole structure of how we do health care 
because this will just continue to expand. Medicare will continue to 
expand. Medicaid will continue to expand. If this program passes, it 
will continue to expand.
  While it might be great to throw all this money into these programs, 
we cannot afford it. We cannot afford the programs we have, let alone 
the programs the majority in this Chamber want.
  The tenth and final myth I want to tackle tonight is that taxes will 
not go up. This is a jobs bill for the tax collector. We already said 
there is going to be $5 billion to $10 billion to the IRS and HHS to 
implement this bill. Remember, if you do not buy health insurance for 
yourself, you are going to have to pay a tax, a fine, a penalty to the 
IRS--$750 a person. Small businesses that do not provide certain levels 
of health insurance will be fined. And what do you think they are going 
to do? Pay that fine or drop to under 50 employees so they do not have 
to pay the fine anymore, which will cause more people to be out of 
work.
  Can you believe that in the United States of America, we are going to 
tax you if you do not buy health insurance for yourself because the 
government cares more about you than you care about you? If the 
government can tax you for not buying health insurance, what else can 
they tax you for not doing? Not working out? Not eating your spinach? 
That cannot be what our Founders intended.
  Remember, we give up our rights to the government. Our institution 
was created that it governs with the consent of the governed, that we 
have the inalienable rights. In our social contract, we give those 
rights up to the government. It is not the other way around. How is it 
the government can fine me for not doing something?
  So at the end of the day, when this entitlement program increases 
beyond its means, when it is more than we can afford, and when the $500 
billion we take out of Medicare starts to put Medicare in insolvency 
even quicker, what is going to happen? Is the majority in this Chamber 
really going to cut Medicare? Probably not. So what are they going to 
do to help pay for this new program without their cuts? They are going 
to raise your taxes--raise your taxes to levels that are going to be 
hard to imagine when you factor in what we are going to have to do for 
all the other entitlement programs we cannot afford, when you factor in 
what we are going to have to do with our $12 trillion debt that is 
estimated to be $10 trillion higher by 2020.
  That is why the National Federation of Independent Businesses has 
said:

       When evaluating health care reform options, small business 
     owners ask themselves two specific questions. First, will the 
     bill lower insurance costs?

  We know the answer to that is no.

       Second, will the bill increase the overall cost of doing 
     business?

  The answer to that is yes.
  They say:

       In both cases, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
     Act fails the small business test and, therefore, fails small 
     business.

  It has been my goal tonight to present facts. I know others have a 
differing view.
  As a Senator from Florida with more than 3 million folks in Medicare, 
as a Senator who cares about health care reform and wants to create 
more access but also wants to lower the cost of health care, I cannot 
support this bill.
  I hope my colleagues in the House who are being faced with this 
option of voting for this bill and then passing something on 
reconciliation will do the right thing. I hope they will not be 
pressured politically to change their votes from ``no'' votes to 
``yes'' votes. I hope they will stand for the people of their State and 
for the American people.
  We could get this right. We could work together on a bipartisan way, 
as all of the other big, important bills over time have been done, with 
70 or 80 Senators working together to do the right thing for the 
American people. I sign up for that. I am standing ready to do that if 
that opportunity presents itself. But I cannot vote for this bill that 
will not lower the cost of health insurance for most Americans, nor 
will it put us in a situation financially that is tenable going 
forward.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

[[Page 3333]]





[[Page 3334]]


  Mr. LeMIEUX. I yield the remainder of my post-cloture time to the 
Republican Leader, Senator McConnell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Illinois.


                              Health Care

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida for 
coming to the floor and expressing his point of view on the issue of 
health care, and I would like to have a few minutes to express my own.
  Let me explain our health insurance, the health insurance we have as 
Members of Congress. It is a government-administered health insurance 
plan. It has been around for 40 years. It is called the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Program. It is a government plan that 
provides health insurance for most of the Senators in both parties and 
their families, and it establishes minimum standards for the health 
insurance we receive as Members of Congress so we do not end up buying 
health insurance that is worthless when we need it. The government 
picks up a share of the cost--70 percent or so, I believe--and we pick 
up the rest. If you decide in the open enrollment period of each year 
that you want to change your insurance company, you want more coverage, 
then you are going to pay a higher premium out of your paycheck. The 
government pays a share of it, but you will pay a higher premium. that 
is something like an insurance exchange. In Illinois, my wife and I, 
through the Federal employees program, can choose from nine different 
private health insurance plans. It is a dream come true that most 
Americans never, ever experience: competition and choice.
  That is at the heart of health care reform. We want to give to people 
across America the same thing we have as Members of Congress. I have 
yet to hear the first Senator come and stand in this well or stand 
before a microphone and say: The Federal Employees Health Benefits 
Program is socialism. It is a government-run health care program and it 
mandates benefits, and therefore I cannot in good conscience insure my 
family with it, and I am turning in my Federal employees health 
insurance. Not one. Yet when we suggest that for the rest of America, 
they say: This is an awful idea. It will never work.
  It has worked for 40 years in providing private health insurance for 
Members of Congress and Federal employees. It is what we want to make 
available for small businesses, which have no choices. If Members on 
the other side think this is such a bad idea, I want them to march down 
the middle of this aisle and say: We are giving up our Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Programs today; it is such a bad idea. But 
they will not because it is a great program and it works and it gives 
us choice and it empowers us as consumers. If we do not like the way we 
are treated by an insurance company, we can shop for another one next 
year in open enrollment.
  So to argue insurance exchanges are some radical notion--really? We 
live with it every day as Members of Congress. Don't the people of 
America deserve as good of insurance as their Members of Congress? That 
is the starting point in this debate. I think they do.
  Secondly, when it comes to whether health care reform is going to add 
to the deficit, we can debate that for a long time. But the people who 
are the experts, the umpires, and referees, are from the Congressional 
Budget Office. They came back and told us: If you do this health care 
reform, you will reduce the deficit by over $100 billion in the first 
10 years and by over $1 trillion in the second 10 years. That is it. 
They looked at it. They analyzed it, and they concluded it. I hear 
Members come to the floor and say: Oh, this is just going to run the 
deficit up to higher levels than we have ever seen before. There is no 
evidence of that. The CBO analysis comes out with exactly the opposite 
position.
  This argument about heaping a new burden on Governors because there 
will be more people on Medicaid--Medicaid is health insurance for the 
poor and disabled in America, and the Federal Government pays at least 
50 percent of the cost of it. It is true the States have to assume a 
burden. But it also says to the State of Illinois, with 11 percent 
unemployment, when people lose their jobs and lose their health 
insurance and go on Medicaid, the Federal Government is going to pick 
up, in this case, 62 percent of the cost of these Medicaid recipients 
in my State of Illinois, and 38 percent is going to be picked up by the 
State. So Governors can say Medicaid is a terrible thing. What is the 
alternative? More uninsured people in your State showing up seriously 
ill and needing treatment, being treated as charity patients? Is that 
the alternative?
  I have listened carefully while the people on the other side of the 
aisle for over a year have criticized every idea we have come forward 
with on changing the health care system and making it more affordable. 
I have yet to see them come forward with any kind of comprehensive 
bill. They have ideas, and some of them are not bad, but they have 
never put them together in a bill and brought them to the floor. We 
have. That is the responsibility of governing.
  There are other elements here too. The Senator from Florida is 
naturally concerned about senior citizens, and he should be. His State 
has a lot of snow birds from Illinois going down to Florida who spend 
their winters there and some of them end up becoming permanent 
residents. They love the nice climate in your State. We miss it. We go 
visit too, I might add. But the point is if we do nothing about 
Medicare, it is going to run out of money in 9 years. It will run out 
of money and 40 million people plus will wonder why Congress didn't 
act.
  The health care reform bill adds 10 more years to the life of 
Medicare. It closes the gap known as the doughnut hole in prescription 
drug coverage under Medicare, and it gives every senior citizen a free 
annual checkup so they can at least get in to see a doctor and find out 
if something has happened that might be stopped early and avoid a major 
expense or major illness. Those are dramatically positive improvements 
in Medicare.
  Are we going to have to take some money out of Medicare spending? 
Yes. Why? Because we have waste in the system and things that need to 
be reconciled. For the Senator from Florida, let me give a couple of 
illustrations. I lived in Springfield, IL. The average expenditure 
annually for Medicare recipients in my hometown is $7,600 a year 
average. The average in Chicago, IL, for Medicare recipients is $9,600 
a year. The average expenditure for Medicare recipients in Miami, FL, 
is $17,000 a year. Miami may be a little bit more expensive than 
Chicago--we can argue that point--but is it twice as expensive? I don't 
think so. I want to know why. Why does it cost so much more in Miami, 
FL, and in McAllen, TX, for Medicare patients than it does in Chicago 
or Springfield or Rochester, MN? And are there ways to save money 
without compromising quality?
  Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado offered an amendment adopted on 
the floor that said when we get done cutting waste and fraud, we are 
not going to cut the basic benefits under Medicare. We are on record. 
That is part of the bill. That is part of the health care reform bill. 
We could make Medicare better and stronger and save money. There are a 
lot of things being ripped off in Medicare. Turn on late-night TV and 
watch all the come-on ads for people to come and get something they may 
or may not need and Medicare is going to take care of it. Those are the 
things we ought to take a look at and I think it is well worthwhile.
  Let me also say this: We cannot as a nation address the problems of 
health care with 50 million people uninsured and the numbers growing 
dramatically. Our proposal will put 30 million of those under the 
protection of Medicaid and health insurance through exchanges. We will 
provide, thanks to the leadership of Senator Nelson of Nebraska, up to 
2 or 3 years with the Federal Government picking up every penny of the 
cost for the new Medicaid recipients; then, beyond that, high amounts--
90, 95 percent--for several years. It is a reasonable transition for 
the States to absorb people who are

[[Page 3335]]

now uninsured presenting themselves for care.
  We end up with 30 million people with coverage. The Republicans' best 
effort addressing the 50 million uninsured in America covered 3 
million. We can do better. We need to do better as a nation. Uninsured 
people show up at hospitals, incur costs, and pass them along to other 
people. I think we need to move forward on health care reform.
  I had a call in my office on a Saturday. I was sitting around doing a 
few things at my desk by myself in my office and the phone rang in 
Springfield and a lady was calling from Nokomis, IL, which is not too 
far away from Springfield, in Montgomery County. It is a small town 
with a lot of retired farmers and a lot of conservative folks I have 
represented in Congress for a long time.
  She said: Senator, whatever you do, don't vote for health care 
reform.
  I said: Do you have health insurance?
  She said: We do. My husband and I have health insurance.
  I said: You can keep it. If you want to keep it, you can keep it. We 
are not changing that.
  Well, I just worry about the government getting involved in it, she 
says. She says, When government gets involved in insurance, I am not 
sure it is a good thing.
  I said: Is anybody in your family on Medicare?
  Well, sure. We have all signed up for it and my mother who is 85 is 
on Medicare and recently had a surgery, major surgery at Memorial 
Medical Center in Springfield.
  How is she doing?
  Just fine.
  I said: I am glad your mom could depend on Medicare to pick up the 
bills for the surgery and didn't have to exhaust her savings or sell 
whatever property she has left in this world. But that is a government 
health insurance plan, ma'am. It has been there for all of us. My 
contributions out of my paycheck help pay your mom's medical bills and 
that is just fine with me, because I think we are all in this American 
family and we should watch out for one another.
  Well, she didn't see it that way and I am sure I didn't convince her. 
The phone is ringing off the hook in all the offices of Senators and 
Congressmen for and against this idea. There is a lot of 
misunderstanding out there. I think this is an important step forward 
for America. We have put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears in this 
effort and now we need to get it done. We need to give the American 
people an alternative, because watching health insurance premiums go up 
the way they are going up is unsustainable. Businesses can't afford it; 
individuals can't afford it; our Nation cannot afford it.
  For those who stand on the floor and have different ideas, that is 
your right. As a Member of the Senate, that is your right--maybe your 
responsibility. But I also think you have a responsibility to come 
forward with your plan, with your idea, unless you think everything is 
fine and we ought to leave it the way it is; we shouldn't worry about 
the uninsured; we shouldn't be concerned about the increases in health 
insurance premiums; we shouldn't worry that Medicare is going to go 
broke in 9 years. If you think those are things that we should push 
aside and, as some say, let's start over, let's do baby steps, let's 
think about it later, let's go back to it next year, that is a point of 
view, but I don't think that is the responsibility we have as Members 
of the Senate to address the issues facing our Nation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I wish to commend my senior Senator from 
Illinois for his comments on health care and what we must do in this 
body to pass health care. It is long overdue. It is time for us to work 
with our colleagues in the House of Representatives to make sure we 
cover those 50 million Americans who are uninsured.


                           Urban Prep Academy

  I wish to do a little presentation here for some young men from 
Chicago. In 2006, a brandnew school opened its doors to the community 
of Englewood on the south side of Chicago. This school is called the 
Urban Prep Charter Academy for Young Men. It was designed to provide 
quality education to an area desperately in need of a new approach.
  Local schools were failing. Last year, 93 percent of the public high 
school students in the neighborhood were classified as low income. The 
public school attendance rate was around 60 percent. The local high 
school ranked 81st out of 98 Chicago public schools in terms of 
preparing students to succeed on college entrance exams such as the 
ACT.
  Until 2006, there were few places to turn. Most residents were unable 
to afford to send their sons or daughters to expensive private schools. 
It seemed inevitable that these young people would face an uphill fight 
to graduate from high school, let alone move on to get a college 
education and find a good career. It seemed as though there was no 
alternative and no way to break the cycle.
  But then, in 2002, a group of African-American business persons, 
educators, and civic leaders came together under the leadership of a 
young man by the name of Tim King, and they decided to find a solution. 
They started a nonprofit organization designed to give local residents 
the tools to succeed in college and to build a better future for 
themselves. They saw beyond the low-income level and the stereotypes 
and the destructive cycle that kept the neighborhood schools from 
succeeding. So, in 2006, the Englewood campus of Urban Prep Charter 
Academy admitted its first class of students.
  Many charter schools are able to cherry-pick their students, 
selecting from the cream of the crop to ensure a high success rate, but 
the founders of Urban Prep rejected this idea. They looked at the kids 
in the Englewood public schools and they saw that every one of them had 
the potential for success, if given the opportunity. So they selected 
students based on a lottery system rather than strictly by the numbers. 
Some 400 names went into the barrel and the names were drawn from the 
barrel.
  Today, the very first class of Urban Prep students is preparing for 
their graduation date. While other local schools have had attendance 
rates of only 60 percent, Urban Prep maintained an attendance rate of 
91 percent. The local public school ranked 81st at preparing their 
students for the ACT with an average score of 13.4, but Urban Prep is 
ranked third, with an average ACT score of 16.5.
  When the class of 2010 enrolled in Urban Prep in 2006, only 4 percent 
of these students were reading at grade level. But today, as their 
commencement date draws near, I am proud to say that every one of 
them--100 percent of the first-year class--has been accepted to a 4-
year college. Not only that, they were accepted with scholarships, 4-
year scholarships.
  This is an extraordinary success story. This is a testament to the 
vision of Tim King and the faculty and staff that he and other local 
leaders have assembled. I applaud them for their dedication and I 
congratulate them on this outstanding achievement. Most of all, though, 
this is a testament to the students of Englewood and to all of the 
other communities in Chicago--the students who broke the cycle and 
proved they do have the talent, the skill, and the drive to succeed, if 
only they were presented with the opportunity. Thanks to Urban Prep and 
the leadership of those who founded this organization, these students 
got that chance.
  But the story doesn't end here. In August of 2009, a second Urban 
Prep campus opened its doors in East Garfield Park, and later this year 
a third school will open in South Shore, extending the reach of this 
great organization and expanding the opportunity for Chicago students 
to realize their dreams.
  So in the coming months, as my colleagues and I take up President 
Obama's update on No Child Left Behind, I urge them to remember success 
stories such as this one. As we reexamine our educational priorities, I 
hope we can move in a direction that will provide investment in public 
schools

[[Page 3336]]

that need assistance as well as organizations such as Urban Prep. 
Organizations that grow out of local communities demonstrate a shared 
interest in seizing the best future for our children. We need to invest 
in communities such as Englewood and East Garfield Park and South Shore 
and dozens of others in Chicago and across the country. We need to make 
sure more and more students have the opportunity to succeed so they can 
go to college, find a career, and become productive members of our 
society and, as I always say, become an asset to society and not a 
liability to society.
  It really does take a village to educate these young people. It takes 
a steadfast commitment to education and a vision such as the one Tim 
King shared with others in his community back in 2002. As a member of 
Sigma Pi Phi fraternity, we played a minor role in assisting Urban Prep 
with our fund-raising efforts to contribute to the purchase of a 
uniform for these young men. We also make ourselves available to go 
there and work with them during career day to point out our successes 
and opportunities to challenge them to do no less than what we were 
able to do. So the men of Sigma Pi Phi worked with these young men at 
Urban Prep and we made sure that we made a similar contribution to the 
overall efforts.
  Let us renew our investment in America's education system. Let us 
affirm our priorities for young people today and make sure every one of 
them has a chance to get the education they deserve. Together, we can 
build more success stories such as Urban Prep, and that is what we must 
do. Urban Prep is a public school so, therefore, we do not have to be 
dedicating all of the resources commitment to the private schools. We 
can educate our young people in the public system.
  I thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 1586 
at 2:15 p.m., Tuesday, March 16; further, that during any recess, 
adjournment or period of morning business, postcloture time continue to 
run; and that after the convening of the Senate at 9:30 a.m., 
Wednesday, the Senate resume consideration of the House message with 
respect to H.R. 2847, and all postcloture time be considered expired, 
the motion to concur with an amendment be withdrawn, and no further 
amendments or motions be in order, except as provided in the DeMint 
motion to suspend; that it be in order for Senator DeMint to offer a 
motion to suspend the rules in order to offer an amendment, and that if 
the motion is offered, Senator DeMint be recognized for up to 10 
minutes; that upon disposition of the DeMint motion, the Senate then 
vote on the motion to concur in the House amendments to the Senate 
amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________