A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to requiring a balanced budget and granting the President of the United States the power of line-item veto.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. I am glad she had an opportunity to speak. We disagree on this issue, but I am glad she had her opportunity to speak.

I hear from different people. Obviously, we must ride on different planes because the people I speak with are anxious to see some change in this health care system and know that 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every single day. They know that most people cannot afford health insurance because of the increase in costs.

I say to the Senator from Texas, she is my friend and we have worked on many issues in the past, but we disagree on this issue.

I am coming before the Senate with a holiday proposal. Recently there was a book that was published about World War I. It was about trench warfare that went on and on with horrendous casualties and lives being lost. Then there came a moment, a Christmas moment, when they decided to call a truce because of Christmas and play a soccer game. The Allied and Axis troops came out and, for a brief moment, stopped the war, played the soccer game, and went back to the trenches and the next day started shooting again.

I am looking for a holiday truce here for our troops because what we have before us right now is the Department of Defense appropriations bill. Although Senator Hutchison and I clearly disagree and many Members on both sides clearly disagree when it comes to health care, there is no disagreement when it comes to our troops. Every one of us supports our troops. Every one of us wants to make sure they have what they need, the resources they need to perform their mission successfully and come home safely.

This bill that is before us, this Department of Defense appropriations conference report, is an attempt for us to do something to help these troops in time of war. I would hope I could appeal to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that for one brief, shining moment in the spirit of the holiday we set aside our political differences for the sake of our men and women in uniform.

The point I am getting to is that if we go through the ordinary, tortured procedure and wait, it is going to take us days to complete this bill for our troops. I hope we can show good faith on both sides of the aisle and overcome that. I hope we could enter into a consent agreement among Republicans and Democrats because I know as I stand here that the Republicans feel as the Democrats do--that we should provide funding for our overseas operations of our men and women in uniform.

In this bill, $101 billion is included for operations and maintenance for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and to support the preparations to continue the withdrawal from Iraq.

In this bill, there is $23.36 billion for equipment. We want to make sure our men and women in uniform have the equipment they need to make certain they are safe and have what they need to come home safely.

There is also a pay raise in this bill, a 3.4-percent pay raise. Does anyone dispute the need that our military has to be recognized for what they have given our country and be given a pay raise?

When it comes to readiness and training, there is $154 billion for the defense operation and maintenance account to increase readiness.

In the field of military health care, there is $29 billion for the Defense Health Program to provide quality care for servicemembers and their families. It includes, incidentally, $120 million for traumatic brain injury and psychological health research.

These are issues we have all come together on. We are not arguing about these issues, and I do not think we should at this moment.

There is $472 million for family advocacy programs and full funding for Family Support and Yellow Ribbon to provide support to military families, including quality childcare, job training for spouses, and expanded counseling and outreach.

There is one other section of the bill--and I will yield for a question from my friend from Alaska when I complete this point--there is one other section that relates to the unemployment crisis facing this country. It is a modest extension of the unemployment benefits. The last time it was on the floor, I believe it passed 97 to 0. I do not believe there is any controversy to the fact that we want to extend unemployment insurance benefits through February 28 of next year. It is difficult to envision a situation where we would actually leave here to go home to our families for the holidays and not take care of the unemployed.

There is also a provision for their health insurance under COBRA and for food stamps on which we know so many unemployed families rely. It seems to me if there is one thing in the midst of this political turmoil we can agree on, it is let's stand behind our troops, let's make sure people who are unemployed have a happy holiday season. Why do we want a tortured process to reach a ``yes'' on this conference report? I appeal to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to make this a bipartisan effort. Let's do this part. We can return to the health care bill and the debate. But let's get this done and do it without all the necessary motions and time that may be spent.

I yield for a question from the Senator from Alaska.

I say in response to the Senator from Alaska, I think it is the moment. If we were in a different political environment, I think the Republican Senators and Democratic Senators would agree that this should go through and go through quickly. But we have been caught up for weeks now in debate and controversy, and this bill has been tossed into that environment. That is the explanation because I do not think there is a single provision I read here that Republican Senators do not support, as the Democratic Senators support. That is why I made my suggestion.

I say in response to the Senator from Alaska, it does include some provisions relative to the unemployed. There were other things that could have been included by the House, but we reached out to the Republican side and asked: Are any of these problematic? By and large, they said here are the things you should not include, and we did not. We did our best to ensure we brought a noncontroversial bill for consideration.

I am happy to yield to the Senator from Michigan.

I say to the Senator from Michigan, yes, we could enter into a consent agreement now and pass this conference report without controversy, and I bet you it would get a unanimous vote.

As the Senator from Michigan described this, everybody here wants to make sure we take care of our troops. We received a unanimous vote, if memory serves me, the last time we extended unemployment benefits. I think most Members want to stand up and help those who are unemployed through this difficult time of unemployment in our country.

If there ever were a bill to bring us together in those two areas-- helping our troops and helping the unemployed--this is the bill.

I say in response to the Senator from Michigan, through the Chair, that I am happy to read the latest unemployment statistics showing the number of people declared unemployed each month is going down. We will not feel good about it until it is turned around and we are creating jobs again, which I hope is soon.

In the meantime, we have about six unemployed people for every job that is available. These people are in a market that is terrible, and they are trying their best. Some have gone back to school. Some are getting training courses. Some are trying to keep things together with their family and not lose their home because of unemployment.

I am sure the Senator from Michigan has met with the unemployed in Michigan, as I have in Illinois. Some are, little by little, exhausting the savings they have. Even with COBRA, many people find the COBRA provision, which gives people a chance to buy insurance at discounts, is still too expensive. They are without a job. They are running the risk of losing their home. They are without health insurance for their children and are desperately looking for a job. We certainly do not want to put them in a situation where there is a question mark as to whether after December 31 the unemployment check will be there next month. I think it is that peace of mind we owe these folks caught up in the bad circumstances of our economy.

That is correct, I say to the Senator from Michigan, we can. Earlier we were embroiled in the reading of an amendment that would have literally consumed the entire day and forced us into another day's time and run the risk of not providing money for the troops when the continuing resolution, the funding resolution, ran out.

The Senator from Vermont withdrew his amendment, and now we have moved to this bill. But there is nothing stopping us. A consent agreement can be entered into by both sides of the aisle that can move this through quickly and say to our troops: We are with you.

I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.

I will be happy to yield.

I would say in response to the Senator from Rhode Island, we have heard repeatedly that people want amendment, debate, and a vote. What happened on the floor today, when Senator Coburn of Oklahoma refused to give consent to suspending the reading of the amendment, is that the clerk--clerks, I should say--were forced to start reading. As good as they are at reading, the fact is, it was going to take up to 10 hours to read this amendment. During that 10-hour period of time, nothing could happen--no debate, no amendments--nothing other than listening to the clerks' melodious voices. Fortunately for us, the Senator from Vermont stepped up and said: I withdraw the amendment. But if there was a true interest in debate and amendments on health care, it is inconsistent to say we are going to take a day out of the whole affair and read an amendment.

I can tell you, as I said to the Senator from Oklahoma, I can't believe there is a person in America who sat glued to the C-SPAN television listening to this amendment so they would understand it. It is a very complicated amendment page by page but, in general, understandable. The Senator from Vermont was seeking a single-payer health care system. It was not likely to pass, but it is something he believes in fervently and he wanted to offer it. So I would say the strategy on the floor today belies any request that we have more debate and more amendments.

Before the Senator from Rhode Island continues, I think this has been cleared on both sides, but I ask unanimous consent that the time until 6:15 p.m. be equally divided between the two sides, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes each.

I would say to my colleague from Rhode Island that exactly the opposite was true. They wanted to move quickly to pass any appropriations bill to make certain there was no question in the minds of our men and women in uniform that we were standing with them, and we did. I don't believe even those of us who voted against the invasion of Iraq tried to stop the proceedings from funding the troops, regardless of what our votes might be.

So I think it would be consistent now for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us, in a bipartisan fashion, to say whatever differences on other issues, such as health care, let's let the troops know this holiday season we stand behind them--Republicans and Democrats--and let's do it in an efficient and effective way.

Since this unanimous consent request has been granted, I am going to

yield the floor and any of my colleagues who wish to speak, it will be equally divided time for the next 2 hours.

At this time, I yield the floor. Mr. President, if no one seeks time, I suggest the absence of a quorum and I ask unanimous consent that during the time of the quorum the time be equally divided between both sides.

Madam President, I wish to respond to my friend from Georgia, who just stepped off the floor, about the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo because he misstated a few things that I do not want to stay on the record.

First, he suggested that these detainees would be freed in Illinois. Not so. The plan of this administration is not to free them; the plan is to imprison them in the most secure prison in the United States of America. It is in Thomson, IL, 150 miles from Chicago. I was there a few weeks ago. It is a supermax prison built 7 years ago and never fully occupied. Now they are going to build an additional fence around it. It will be more secure than any prison in America. They will be freed into the most secure prison in America and they are not coming out until such time as there is a resolution of whatever their issues may be or they pass away.

I might also say that the current law in the United States prohibits the President of the United States from releasing these detainees in the United States. Those statements by the Senator from Georgia are just flat incorrect.

He is entitled to his position--and others share it--that we should not close Guantanamo. I believe we should. On my side of this argument would be the following people who have called for the closure of Guantanamo: President George W. Bush; Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell; Secretary of Defense under President Bush and under President Obama, Robert Gates; former Secretary of State and domestic policy adviser Condoleezza Rice; GEN David Petraeus, and 33 other generals, in addition to President Barack Obama.

This argument that closing Guantanamo endangers the United States ignores the obvious. The people entrusted with the responsibility of protecting the United States have called for the closure of Guantanamo. Yesterday, Robert Gibbs, press secretary to President Obama, was asked about this decision to transfer. He said that on more than 30 occasions--I am not sure of the timeframe, whether it was this year or a longer period of time--but on more than 30 occasions, they have found direct linkage of terrorist recruitment activity and the use of Guantanamo as an illustration of why people needed to convert to terrorism around the world. It is still being actively used for recruitment.

If the Senator from Georgia would go back a few weeks and read Newsweek magazine, one of their reporters was captured in Tehran and held in captivity for almost 4 months. He told a story of how he was first incarcerated in a prison in Tehran. As he arrived, his jailer said to him: Welcome to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, American.

So for us to believe that the rest of the world does not have a negative image of Guantanamo and it is not being used against our troops is to ignore the obvious.

There are some in this body who are hidebound to keep Guantanamo open at any costs. I will tell you, the cost is too high. If the continuation of Guantanamo means danger to our troops, we owe it to them to close it. Presidents have reached that conclusion, people in charge of national security have reached that conclusion, and we should as well.

Then there is this notion about the danger of incarcerating terrorists in the United States. For the record, over 350 convicted terrorists are currently imprisoned in the United States, all over the United States. In my home State of Illinois, 35 convicted terrorists are in prison today. The most recent incarceration involves a man arrested shortly after 9/11 in Peoria, IL, an unlikely hotbed of terrorism and spy activity, but, in fact, this man going to school in Peoria, IL, through his communications was linked with al-Qaida. He served time in a Navy brig in South Carolina, if I am not mistaken, and eventually was tried in the courts of Peoria, IL, convicted and now incarcerated in Marion, IL, in southern Illinois.

I heard not one word of criticism when this took place under the previous administration. The belief was this man had to answer for the crimes he was charged with and serve time in our prison system as a result of it. Never--not once, not one time--did I ever hear any Congressman of either political party say: Boy, it is unsafe to try him in Peoria or it is unsafe to incarcerate him in southern Illinois. It has never been said.

What happens to these people when they go into our supermax prisons, where no one has ever escaped? They disappear, as they should. They are where they ought to be--isolated and away from causing harm to anyone.

When President Obama was looking for an alternative to Guantanamo, we came forward. One of the mayors of a small town in Illinois--Thomson, IL--with just several hundred people living there, wrote to the Governor of our State and to me and said: I have a big old prison the State built and never opened--built it in 2001. It has the capacity of several thousand prisoners, and the State could never afford to open it. We had hoped that this prison would create a lot of local jobs for us. Can you find a use for it at the Federal level?

The Obama administration took a hard look at this for a long period of time. Part of it was done confidentially, and then they came out publicly and said: We are seriously interested.

The Senator from Georgia said earlier: Well, the people of Illinois are against this.

Well, I would say to my friend from Georgia, come on down to Thomson, IL. Come down and see the people who are overwhelmingly supportive--and not just Democrats, believe me. Local State representative Jim Sacia is a Republican and a former FBI agent. He said we would be idiots not to take this offer from the Federal Government. He is right. Three thousand jobs. I don't know that there is a Senator here if you said to him: Would you be interested in 3,000 jobs in the midst of a recession, who wouldn't stand up and say: Let's talk.

Well, we did. So it is 3,000 new jobs at this prison when it is opened as part of the Bureau of Prisons and part of the Department of Defense.

How many Guantanamo detainees will be sent there? Fewer than 100. We have 35 in our prisons already. Life has not changed in my home State of Illinois, nor has it changed in any other State where they are incarcerated. It would not change in Thomson, IL. These people can be held safely and securely. I trust our men and women in the military to do that, and the Members of the Senate should do so as well.

These 3,000 jobs are going to be a Godsend to an area with 11 percent unemployment. First, there will be a lot of construction jobs, and we can use those. Those are good-paying jobs for Americans right here at home. Then those who work for the Bureau of Prisons are going to be paid a good salary and receive good benefits, the kind of salary you can use to build a family, a community, a neighborhood. These will be people who will be buying homes--3,000 of them. They will be buying homes, cars, shopping for appliances, and going to the local shopping malls. Is that going to be good for the economy? You bet it is. It is just what we need, and it is just what this area of the State wants. This argument that we somehow will oppose it is just wrong.

There is a local Congressman, who is a friend of mine--a Republican Congressman--who opposes it. We have talked about it. We just don't see eye to eye on it. But even in Rockford, IL, the largest city in his district, which is northeast of Thomson, the city council in Rockford passed a resolution of approval of this Thomson prison, 12 to 2. In county after county, State and local governments--I should say local county governments are coming out in favor of this Thomson prison. Those who come to the Senate floor and argue otherwise don't know the facts. When they know the facts, they will realize we are prepared to do this.

Now the question is whether the Senate will stand behind the President, stand behind our security advisers who believe this is in the best interest of the United States. I think it is. It isn't the first time Illinois has been called on to do something extraordinary for our country. The first supermax prison in our Federal system was built in Marion, IL, years and years ago. There was controversy. This was the most secure prison in America. But I will tell you, the people of southern Illinois rallied behind it. It has been a prison with a lot of great professionals who have worked there. They have done their jobs and done them well.

When I go down to Marion, IL, and talk to them about Guantanamo detainees, they say: Senator, listen. Send them here. We will take care of them. We can point out among those who are incarcerated at Marion prison those who were engaged in al-Qaida terrorism, Colombian drug gangs, Mexican drug cartels, some of the meanest, toughest most violent gang bangers from the cities in the Midwest--and they are held safely every day.

I will tell you, when I hear people say they do not trust our prison system to hold a handful or 50 or whatever the number may be--less than 100--of these Guantanamo detainees, they ought to meet the men and women who do it every single day in America, and do it well. They should realize these detainees will be held by our military, the Department of Defense employees. Those are the ones we can trust to do it.

So I would urge my friends and others who have spoken earlier-- Senator McConnell came to the Senate floor earlier. It has become, unfortunately, a party position now that it is a bad idea. Earlier, Senator McCain and Senator Graham on the Republican side of the aisle didn't argue against the transfer of these detainees. They understand these prisoners aren't larger than life. They have been in prison for 8 years. Frankly, I don't know how much longer they will stay there. But as long as they are a threat to the United States, they will.

Madam President, I would like to at this point address an issue which came up earlier on the Senate floor.

Something unusual happened on the floor of the Senate today, Madam President. It happens but rarely. Under the rules of the Senate, amendments and bills can be read, if a Member requests, and we usually ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. And, routinely, that is done. It is done every day on scores of different things.

Today, Senator Sanders of Vermont offered an amendment near and dear to his heart on single-payer health care reform, and it turned out to be a voluminous amendment--800 pages long. When the time came to ask consent that it not be read, there was an objection from Senator Coburn of Oklahoma. He insisted that it be read. Our poor clerking staff up here--the clerks of the Senate--started reading this bill, and they read on for almost 2 hours or more.

As they were reading it, it came to our attention that Senator Sanders of Vermont had authority under the Senate rules to withdraw his amendment and to stop the reading of the amendment.

I wasn't aware of that because I can't recall that has ever happened since I have been here. But I made a point--since many years ago I was a parliamentarian of the Illinois State Senate and tried to at least read the rules from time to time--to turn to rule XV, section 2, in the Standing Rules of the Senate, and here is what it says:

Any motion, amendment, or resolution may be withdrawn or

modified by the mover at any time before a decision,

amendment or ordering of the yeas and nays, except a motion

to reconsider, which shall not be withdrawn without leave.

In other words, until action was taken on the Sanders amendment, he had the authority under rule XV, paragraph 2 to withdraw his amendment, which he did.

Some have come to the floor and protested and said this was extraordinary, and it can't be backed up by the Senate rules. But I refer them to this rule, which is explicit, and that no action had taken place on this amendment other than the introduction of the amendment and reading. So, as it says here, ``any time before a decision, amendment, or ordering of the yeas and nays.'' I think that is a clear case.

I have since read an earlier ruling by the Chair relative to the same rule that goes back several decades, so the ruling of the Chair today, or at least the finding of the Chair, was consistent with the rules of the Senate. But the strategy that came out in the ordering of this amendment to be read is pretty clear when it comes to health care. The Republican strategy is clear to anyone who is watching the debate: They do not want amendments. In fact, they just don't want us to vote on health care reform. There comes a time when people make the best arguments they can and the Senate makes a decision, and that is what we are facing. That is what we want. We would like to do that in a timely fashion.

Members here believe we can do that in a responsible way and move this health care reform bill to a point of a vote--a cloture vote, with a 60-vote requirement--and do that in a way that we can find the sentiment in the Senate on this important measure and just maybe go home for Christmas, which a lot of us would like to do. We have been away from our families for quite a while.

During the course of this debate, we have been spending a lot of time on the bill itself. I usually like to give people an idea by holding up this 2,074-page bill. It took a lot of work to get to this point. The managers' amendment to this will be several hundred pages, I imagine.

People say: Why is it so big? It is big because we are changing the health care system in America, which is one-sixth of our economy. You can imagine all the different moving parts in this complicated health care system that we address with this bill.

During this period of time, the Republicans have not offered any alternative or substitute. I thought that would be their first motion, to come forward and say: That is the Democratic plan to change the health care system in America, but you should see the Republican plan, how much better it is. They didn't do that because there is no Republican alternative. There is no Republican substitute.

Last week, when I went to the Senate Republican Web site--and I invite people to do the same--I found there was only one bill printed there on health care reform. It was the Democratic bill, not any bill that has been offered by the Republican side. The reason is this is hard work. Putting a bill like this together, getting experts to look at it and decide whether it is going to save money or cost money, it takes time. We have taken that time to do it, and do it right, and they have not. So they are either not up to the challenge of preparing an alternative bill, or they are content with the current system.

I guess some people are content with the current system. Among those who are content with it are the CEOs of health insurance companies. They like this system. They make a lot of money. They do it at the expense of a lot of people who need health care and end up being turned down. So, unfortunately, the Republicans have no constructive proposals to improve our bill. Each and every amendment, almost without exception, has been to send the bill back to committee; to stop working on it, and let's do this another day. All they want to do on the bill is to delay it, as they tried to do today with the reading of the Sanders amendment.

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire is a friend of mine. He and his wife Kathy and my wife Loretta and I have traveled together on official business of the Senate. I like him. He is a smart guy. He is going to retire, and he, in his wisdom, decided to leave a playbook for the Republican side of the aisle, which they shared. It is page after page of ways to slow down and stop the Senate from acting. Senator Gregg is entirely within his rights as a Senator to do it. What I read in his memo was accurate, but the intent and motive are clear: He wanted to stop this bill from moving in order, and that became the real cause on the Republican side of the aisle. They took a page out of Senator Gregg's playbook today with Senator Coburn's demanding the amendment be read. But it didn't work.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a colloquy between former Senators Adams and Packwood on the floor of the Senate on September 24, 1992.

Incidentally, Madam President, that is the colloquy I referred to earlier where the Chair made exactly the same ruling on that day as was made today, the finding in terms of rule XV, paragraph 2.

I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the memorandum prepared by Senator Gregg for the Republican side of the aisle concerning the rights of the minority in the Senate, which I have mentioned earlier, and largely includes the rights to slow down and stop the activity of the Senate.

Madam President, I would just say that when Senator McConnell came to the floor after the ruling and the decision of the Chair, he said the plain language of the Senate precedent--the manual that governs Senate procedure--is that unanimous consent of all Members was required before the Senator from Vermont could withdraw his amendment while it was being read. He said it required unanimous consent. But that is not what the language of the Senate rules say that I have read. They say a Senator has, as a matter of right under rule XV, paragraph 2, to withdraw his amendment before action is taken. In this case, as I mentioned earlier, the argument back in 1992 backs up the Parliamentarian's decision in that interpretation of the rule.

So I would say it didn't work today to stop or slow down the Senate. Currently, we are not technically debating health care reform. What is before us now is the Department of Defense appropriations bill from the House, which I hope we can move on quickly. I think it is not controversial. It is a matter of finding money for our troops who are risking their lives overseas and supporting their families at home and providing health care for members of the military and their families. I don't think there is much debate about that.

It also extends the unemployment benefits that people need across America, which passed with a 97-to-0 vote, if I am not mistaken, not that long ago--the last time it was considered. So these are matters which should move along, and we should be able to do it in a fairly straightforward way. I would hope we can show some bipartisanship when it comes to our men and women in uniform and approve the Department of Defense appropriations bill, which does not contain anything controversial beyond what I have just described. We can then get back to the health care reform bill. I think it is important that at some point we bring this to a vote, to find if we indeed have the 60 votes for health care reform. I sincerely hope we do.

I will close by saying this health care reform bill has its critics, but it also has several features which can't be denied.

The first of those features that have been verified by the Congressional Budget Office: This bill does not add to the deficit of the United States; it reduces the deficit by $130 billion over 10 years and $650 billion, moreover, the following 10 years.

We have also received reports from the Congressional Budget Office that the result of this bill will be a decline in the increase in the cost of health insurance premiums--something we desperately need.

It is a bill that will also extend health insurance coverage to 30 million more Americans who do not have it today--50 million uninsured Americans; 30 million of them, 60 percent of them, will have the protection of health insurance coverage. Ninety percent of Americans will have health insurance coverage--the highest percentage in the history of the United States of America--as a result of this bill.

This bill addresses directly the issue of whether health insurance companies can continue to deny coverage when people need it the most. We know stories from our own life experience and our families' and people who write to our offices, that people in the most need of health insurance protection are often turned down by the companies. They pore through the applications and say: You failed to disclose a preexisting condition. They say: Your amount of coverage has lapsed; your child is too old to be covered by your family plan--the list goes on and on.

Finally, some of the most egregious abuses by health insurance companies are addressed in this bill, and consumers across America are given the legal power to fight back and the legal power to be protected. That is why this bill is important and why it is worth passing, all the criticism notwithstanding.

I might also say that it is a bill that is critically important for the future of Medicare. If we do nothing, Medicare is going broke in 7 or 8 years, but we are told this bill will extend the life of Medicare up to 10 more years. That is good news, to put Medicare on sound financial footing, so our seniors like that.

The majority leader of the Senate came to the floor 2 days ago to announce something else that will be part of the conference committee here. The so-called doughnut hole, that gap in coverage for prescription drugs under

Medicare, is going to be filled so that seniors will no longer have that period of uncertainty where their bills have reached a level where they are disqualified from payment--the so-called doughnut hole. It will be filled. It will give them peace of mind that if they have expensive pharmaceuticals, they will have no interruption in coverage in the future when it comes to those pharmaceuticals.

For seniors, these are two major things--to put Medicare on sound financial footing and to fill the doughnut hole under the Medicare prescription part of the program.

It also is going to give seniors for the first time access to the kind of preventive care--regular checkups--they need for peace of mind and so doctors and professionals can catch problems before they get worse.

This bill is a positive bill, a positive step forward.

Yesterday, we had a chance as a Senate Democratic caucus to meet with President Obama. We went to the White House, the Executive Office Building, and the President talked to us about what this bill means. He reminded us that seven Presidents have tried to do this and failed. He told us when he started this trek that he wanted to be the last President to deal with health care reform because he wanted to get it done. I feel the same way. I think the American people feel the same way.

I am sure there is confusion. There have been a lot of misstatements made about death panels and things that really have no basis in fact. But people should be confident that when the AARP, the American Association of Retired Persons, stands up and says this is a good bill for the seniors in America under Medicare and Social Security and for their families; when medical professionals, doctors and medical professionals, stand up and say this is a good bill, that we have the kind of support we need to say to the American people that this is an important step forward in health care protection in America.

It is time for us to make history and pass this bill. Let's do it and do it in time for Members to enjoy Christmas with their families.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, ``The need for comprehensive national health insurance and concomitant changes in the organization and delivery of health care in the United States is the single most important issue of health policy today.'' Those are not my words. Those are the words of Senator Edward M. Kennedy. The ``today'' of which he spoke was December 16, 1969, exactly 40 years ago today. It was his first major speech on health care reform, and I was privileged to be a young member of his staff. He delivered that speech to a group of physicians at Boston University Medical Center.

Senator Kennedy went on to say:

If we are to reach our goal of bringing adequate health

care to all our citizens, we must have full cooperation

between Congress, the administration, and the health

professionals. We already possess the knowledge and the

technology to achieve our goal. All we need is the will. The

challenge is enormous, but I am confident that we are all

equal to the task.

The world has progressed in many ways since he spoke those words four decades ago, but our health care system has not. In 1969, the United States spent $18 billion on health care. Today we spend over $2 trillion a year. Senator Kennedy pointed out, in 1969, that the Nation faced a shortage of primary care doctors. The reimbursement rates for physicians treating Medicare and Medicaid patients were too low. There was a need to support greater innovation in delivering care, and neighborhood health centers were underfunded. He said we needed to develop an effective means of providing quality, affordable care to all Americans, regardless of their standing in life.

Does all this sound familiar? Yes. But that was then and this is now.

In recent weeks, Senators on both sides of the aisle have come to this floor to debate the merits of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We have had our differences of opinion, to be sure. But on one issue there is no dispute. When it comes to our health care system, there is no such thing as a status quo. We will move forward or we will continue to fall behind.

Here is what we will face, if we do not pass this reform. Premiums will skyrocket and could consume as much as 45 percent of a median family's income by 2016. Bankruptcies will increase due to families not being able to

afford their medical costs. More Americans will be uninsured. Small and large businesses will suffer financially due to health cost increases. Health care could constitute as much as 28 percent of our Nation's GDP by 2030. Fifteen percent of the Federal budget could be dedicated to Medicare and Medicaid by 2040.

Ted Kennedy had a keen sense of history. He knew Germany adopted the idea of national health insurance in the 1880s, that Britain, France, and a number of other European nations embraced the concept after the First World War, that Canada has had a publicly funded system since the 1950s. He would ask, as he did in 1969 and again in 2009: If all these nations understood long ago that their economic health was ultimately tied to the health of their people, why does the United States stand alone as the only major industrial nation in the world that fails to guarantee health care for all its citizens?

It is not that we have never sought this goal in the past. Presidents, Republicans and Democrats, over many decades, have proposed national health insurance in America. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton all made health reform a part of their agenda. Now we stand on the threshold of history. Never has this country been so close to bringing affordable, quality health care to millions of America's families. Today, under President Obama's leadership, the goal is within our reach. Failure is not an option. All interested parties have been brought to the table. Physicians, hospitals, insurance companies, small businesses, pharmaceutical companies, and many others have had an opportunity to present their suggestions and offer their input. Dozens of hearings were held on all topics related to this issue.

The House of Representatives has acted. The Senate HELP Committee, through the diligence of Senators Kennedy, Dodd, and Harkin and the Finance Committee, under the leadership of Senator Baucus, held lengthy executive sessions that discussed all areas of reform and delivered and developed their respective bills. Due to the hard work and tireless patience of the majority leader, we have one merged bill before us, a single piece of legislation which will improve the lives of millions of Americans in the following ways. It expands coverage to an additional 31 million Americans, bringing health insurance to almost 94 percent of our citizens. It saves money by rewarding the quality and value of care, not the quantity and volume of care. It controls the cost of skyrocketing premiums and limits out-of-pocket expenses. It reduces the Federal deficit by an estimated $130 billion in the first 10 years and an estimated $650 billion in the second 10 years. It stimulates competition in the health insurance marketplace through establishment of exchanges. It strengthens Medicare by reducing unnecessary spending, lowering prescription costs, and closing the so-called doughnut hole. It attacks fraudulent and wasteful spending and helps to correct abuses in the system. It rewards wellness and prevention by expanding access to advice on how to live a healthy lifestyle by practicing good nutrition, increasing physical activity, and quitting smoking.

It eliminates unfair discrimination against patients by preventing insurance firms from denying certain coverage to women or to individuals with preexisting conditions.

It promotes flexibility and innovation in new health care technologies. It introduces a self-funded, voluntary choice for long- term services and support for the elderly and disabled. Most of all, it saves lives by providing affordable, quality care for individuals, families, and small businesses.

In my State of Massachusetts, because of our successful reform, the rate of the uninsured has been reduced to 2.7 percent of the population, and the lives of thousands of citizens of our Commonwealth have been immeasurably improved.

Carol's case is one example. Carol did not realize the importance of having quality, affordable health insurance until she was confronted with the gravity of her own health problems. She is a 24-year-old woman suffering from seizures and desperately in need of help.

She remembers having occasional seizures as a child. They occurred mostly when she was overtired. As Carol grew older, the seizures became more frequent. One day, she had an episode when driving her car. Fortunately, her passenger was able to assist her. But that frightening incident convinced Carol to seek professional help.

She learned about the assistance of Health Care For All, the Massachusetts organization dedicated to making quality, affordable health care accessible to everyone. She applied and was declared eligible for Commonwealth Care. She immediately went to see a specialist and was given the health care she needed.

Carol expressed her gratitude in these words:

I definitely feel blessed to be a Massachusetts resident. I

can't thank Health Care For All and MassHealth enough for all

the support given to me. The Helpline counselors literally

held my hands and brought me to live a healthy life, where

there is no fear or embarrassment, but there is knowledge and

a total control of my seizures. So, thank you so much all of

you who make this happen in people's lives.

We should all think about Carol and the millions of working families across the country when we vote for this legislation. It is our responsibility to enact laws that make a positive difference in people's lives, and that is what this bill is all about.

Senator Ted Kennedy envisioned a better America where, as he said:

[E]very American--north, south, east, west, young, old--

will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right

and not a privilege.

This is a historic moment in our national life. We have the chance to finally complete the work that a respected Republican President called for over a century ago. Quality health care for all has always been needed in America but never more than now. The finish line is clearly in sight. The momentum and the energy are with us, and it is our obligation to seize this historic moment.

Every Member of this body is aware of the valiant fight Senator Kennedy waged for his own health during the last 15 months of his life. Many of you saw him, after receiving radiation and chemotherapy in the morning in Boston, walk into this Chamber that he loved to cast a deciding vote in the afternoon on the issue he proudly called the cause of his life.

While being treated at Massachusetts General Hospital, Senator Kennedy met a woman named Karen List. Her daughter Emily was one of many patients receiving a similar regimen of exhausting cancer treatments. They came from different walks of life, and cancer had touched them all.

In September 2008, after Emily's long summer of treatments, Karen wrote about Senator Kennedy and other patients he had met during his treatment. She wrote:

Now, it is almost fall, and little Caroline is starting

kindergarten. Senator Kennedy, who came from a hospital bed

to speak at the convention, is planning his return to the

Senate in January. Alex, an Apache helicopter pilot, is back

at Fort Campbell and expects to be deployed to Afghanistan in

the New Year. And Emily hopes to be well enough by spring to

return to her life in London. The dream, as Senator Kennedy

promised, does live on.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article by Karen List in the Daily Hampshire Gazette be printed in the Record.

Karen's was a statement of hope--hope and promise for each of these patients in the face of daunting odds. Their age did not matter; their economic status did not matter; each received the highest quality of health care available. And so it should be for all our people.

Senator Kennedy understood that we are all connected to one another. He often referred to President Lincoln's words about our common humanity and the good that can come to us all when touched ``by the better angels of our nature.'' And he knew that on no issue are our futures more connected than on health care.

Ted Kennedy's voice still echoes in this Chamber. His spirit of hope and strength, of determination and perseverance is still felt here. He said:

For all my years in public life, I have believed that

America must sail toward the shores of liberty and justice

for all. There is no end to that journey, only the next great

voyage. We know the future will outlast all of us, but I

believe that all of us will live on in the future we make.

Let each of us in this Senate be moved by the better angels of our nature and make that future a better one for our generation and for generations to come. As Ted Kennedy said 40 years ago: ``All we need is the will.'' This is our time, Mr. President. Let us pass this legislation now.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the speech delivered by Senator Edward M. Kennedy on December 16, 1969, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time in the quorum call be divided equally between the majority and minority.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, while we have been here discussing health care, the clock has been ticking on our national debt. Just in the first 2 months of this fiscal year, we have accumulated $296 billion in debt. We took in revenues of $268 billion, and we spent $565 billion. We spent double what we took in just in the first 2 months of the fiscal year.

I know you are new to this Chamber, Mr. President, as am I. I have only been here 90 days, but I have been here long enough to know this system is broken. It doesn't work. Neither this body nor the body across the Capitol has an ability to make ends meet. We continue to spend money we do not have. We spend the money of our children and our grandchildren. Right now we have a $12 trillion debt. It took us 167 years in this country just to amass a $1 trillion debt in 1982. Now we are at $12 trillion. Every family in this country is now responsible for $100,000 of debt.

Where are we getting this money? We are borrowing it from countries such as China, and it is hurting our standing in the world. Central banks that hold American currency are shedding those dollars because they no longer believe our country is a good investment. I worry about our children and our grandchildren. I have three sons, as you know, Max, Taylor and Chase--they are 6, 4 and 2--and we have a baby on the way in March. I am very worried that my children will not be able to experience the American dream like you and I have; to be able to be in the Senate, to be able to achieve all of our goals, whether in public service or in private. I do not believe America is going to be the same place for them, that it is going to hold the same opportunities because I believe this debt is going to strangle us.

If this body and the body across the Capitol don't figure out we need to start making ends meet and stop spending the dollars of future generations, this country will not be the leader of the world. It will not have the promise we have all enjoyed.

I rise today to speak about S.J. Res. 22, which I filed yesterday. It is a constitutional amendment that requires the Congress to balance its budget and also gives to the President of the United States a line-item veto so he, like most of the Governors in this country, can strike out inappropriate budget items, these earmarks that you hear about.

Senator McCain spoke this weekend about $2.5 million to the University of Nebraska to study operations and medical procedures in space. We cannot afford that program under any circumstance, and we certainly can't afford programs like that when we are $12 trillion in debt. These dollar numbers are so big they are hard to comprehend.

What does $1 trillion mean? What does $1 billion mean? In Washington we throw these amounts around, and we do not even comprehend them. I know for the American people at home it is hard to get their minds around how much money this is. I have said this on the Senate floor before, and I am going to keep saying it so people understand that every dollar we spend is a choice.

One million dollars laid edge to edge on the ground would cover two football fields. One billion dollars laid edge to edge on the ground would cover the city of Key West, FL, 3.7 square miles. And $1 trillion would cover the State of Rhode Island--twice. If you stacked them on the ground going up into the sky, it would be 600 miles of one-dollar bills.

Every dollar is a choice, and these numbers are out of control. Just this past Saturday we voted on a spending bill, a spending bill that had a 12-percent increase and $40 billion more than last year. I want to give the American people the sense of what you could do with this kind of money, what good you could do or, better yet, you could give it back to the American people and they could decide what good they could do with those dollars for their families.

With $100 billion, we could give every Floridian a $5,000 tax cut.

With $200 billion we could pay the salary of every teacher for a year. With $300 billion we could pay first-year tuition at a university of their choice for every kid who is in K-12. With $400 billion, we could build high-speed rail for 10,000 miles. We could connect Key West to Anchorage and back.

Every dollar is a choice. We are spending money out of control. Similar to those who have come before me, I will sound the alarm because we still haven't done anything about this problem. There are good measures out there. Senator Gregg from New Hampshire has a measure, along with Senator Conrad, to put together a commission. I support that. Senator Sessions has a measure to bring caps back. Up until about 2002, we actually were making headway against the budget. Then those caps expired and spending went out of control.

I support all those efforts. I support any effort to bring spending under control. This body doesn't have any leadership on spending. Look at what we spend. We don't look at the revenues coming in the door.

I served as chief of staff to a Governor in Florida. When the budget started to go bad in 2007, I was on the phone monthly with the person who determined our receipts. I knew in Florida we could only spend as much money as we had. This institution does not work that way. No one even checks to see what kind of money we are bringing in. We just spend.

I wish to talk to the American people about articles in the Wall Street Journal of today. This is not a Democratic problem or a Republican problem. This is a problem of this institution. The article is titled ``The Audacity of Debt.'' I wish to read one paragraph. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

Reading from the Wall Street Journal:

Democrats ridiculed Mr. Bush as ``the most fiscally

irresponsible President in history,'' but then they saw him

and raised. They took an $800 billion deficit and made it

$1.4 trillion in 2009 and perhaps that high again in 2010. In

10 months they have approved more than $1 trillion in

spending that has saved union public jobs but has done little

to assist private job creation. Still to come is this

multitrillion-dollar health care bill and another $100

billion to $200 billion ``jobs'' bill.

We can't afford the programs we have, let alone the programs we want. I filed this joint resolution to have a balanced budget. I filed the joint resolution to give the President the line-item veto like Governors do. I know I am tilting at windmills. I know there are very few people in this Chamber or the Chamber down the hall who have the courage to do this. They are part of the process. They go along and get along. But I am fresh enough to still remember how things work in the real world. We have to change things. Our children are not going to have this great country. I am so afraid that one of my kids is going to come to me when they are 18 or 22 and say: Dad, I am going to go to another country to make my living. I am going to go to Ireland or Chile or India because I have a better opportunity there to succeed. I can't pay 60 percent in taxes. I can't assume what will then be a $23 or $30 billion debt.

We are not even talking about all the entitlements we haven't paid for. We are not talking about all the money we have raided out of Medicare and Social Security in order to pay for current expenses. Some people say those obligations are more than $60 trillion, numbers we can't even comprehend.

I filed this resolution. I will send a letter to every Governor asking them to adopt it in advance of the Congress taking it up. A constitutional amendment requires two-thirds of both Chambers and three-quarters of the States. They can act first. They can send letters and resolutions from their legislators to this legislative body and say: Get your act under control.

It affects them too. This new health care bill is going to send an unfunded mandate to the States and increase Medicaid from 100 percent of poverty to 133 percent. They will have to pay that bill. It is going to cost Florida in 10 years almost $1 billion. Right now, in Florida, the No. 1 expenditure in our budget is Medicaid. Because we balance our budget, that means we take money away from teachers and education. That means we take money away from law enforcement. It is out of control.

I am here to say the siren is sounding. The ship is going to hit the iceberg. We can't make just incremental change because then we will just hit the side of the iceberg. We have to make substantial change. The people in this body have to have the courage to do it. We can't just go along and get along as we have before. We cannot be tone deaf. The American people are onto us. They understand we are spending money we don't have. I will not stand by and let this great country fall into decline without at least arguing and pushing as strenuously as I can for a solution. I am willing to work with men and women of good will on both sides of the aisle to solve the problem. I am new here. I might not have all the answers. I probably don't. But I will surely work hard. I know this is one solution. If every State can have a balanced budget amendment and 43 States can have a line-item veto, why can't this body?

I have filed this resolution. I look forward to talking about it more. I hope this body will take it seriously. I see my friend from Massachusetts is here. He also is new to this body, although he spent many years working here. We have to do things differently. We throw around billions and trillions like it is just nickles and dimes in our pockets. It is not. Every dollar is a choice. It is a choice to make. If we don't make the right choice, it will be a choice our children and grandchildren will suffer under.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. I have been coming to the floor to remind my colleagues and the American people about the fiscal realities our Nation faces and to explain how this health reform legislation would make our fiscal situation worse and our economy suffer even more. I have been here before to highlight how this health care bill is chock-full of budget gimmicks to hide its true unmanageable costs.

As I have said before on the floor of the Senate, as a former mayor and a former Governor, many people have come to me over the years and said: Mayor, you have to do this; Governor, you have to do this. The plea they had was genuine, and the need they expressed was genuine, but the fact is we couldn't afford what they were asking us to do, and I had to say no. Unfortunately, this legislation, in my opinion, will increase the cost of health care, drive up our national debt, and contribute to unbalanced budgets as far as the eye can see in the United States.

As a former Governor and chairman of the National Governors Association, the past chairman of the National League of Cities, one gimmick I am particularly concerned about is the one that puts 14 million additional individuals into the Medicaid Program and then asks the States to pick up a portion of the tab. I am very familiar with what unfunded mandates can do to State and local governments, and I wish to highlight some of the potential consequences of the Medicaid expansion for my colleagues.

At a $374 billion cost to Federal taxpayers, the health care bill before us would expand Medicaid coverage to all people under 133 percent of the Federal poverty level. Because Medicaid costs are shared by the Federal and State governments, the States will be on the hook for $25 billion of this expansion during the first 10 years.

To put the $25 billion into perspective, let me spend a minute explaining the current fiscal situation of most States in this country. Most States such as my State--and I am sure the same is true in the Presiding Officer's State--are struggling to make ends meet. I have never seen anything like it in my entire life.

According to the National Governors Association, the States are in the deepest and longest economic downturn since the Great Depression. In the first two quarters of 2009, State revenues were down 11.7 and 16.6 percent, respectively. At the same time, Medicaid spending is growing, which already makes up, on average, approximately 22 percent of States' budgets, and enrollment in the program is skyrocketing at the levels it is today because more and more people are becoming eligible for Medicaid under the current Federal law.

In Ohio, for example, where the unemployment rate is hovering around 10.5 percent, 154,000 Ohioans enrolled in the Medicaid Program in the last year alone, an 8-percent increase over last year. This is hard to believe, but Medicaid now provides health coverage to nearly 2 million Ohioans, almost one out of five residents. Unbelievable.

Recognizing this increased demand, States have had some help from the Federal Government. Earlier this year,

Congress provided $87 billion in Federal aid to States in the so-called stimulus bill to help States deal with Medicaid costs. Yet this money was not intended to last forever. As it stands right now, in December 2010, States will face--that is next December--States will face a steep budget cliff when the temporary Medicaid payments coming from the stimulus package expire. In facing these realities, Governors across the country are already wondering how they will cover the cost of their existing programs.

I recently met with Ray Scheppach, who is the executive director of the National Governors Association. He said: Senator, Governor, Mayor, we are going to need some help when the money runs out or we will not be able to handle the Medicaid challenges we have.

Not surprisingly, my State's current Governor, Ted Strickland, a Democrat, has told me if Medicaid is expanded, he hopes the Federal Government will assume most, if not all, the costs. In fact, he told the Columbus Dispatch that he has warned officials in Washington that ``with our financial challenges right now, we are not in a position to accept additional Medicaid responsibilities.''

I suspect that almost every Governor in the country would make that same statement to us in the Senate. By the way, this is both Republican and Democratic Governors.

I ask: How can we in good conscience move forward with this bill and the new mandate it places on States? How can we force the States to make the difficult choices that we are unwilling or unable to make in Washington? Pass it on to them, we will pay for it a while, and then you guys pick up the cost.

I served the people of Ohio as Governor for 8 years, and I was forced to cut my budget in the beginning four times. I will never forget it. There were about 5,000 people outside my office screaming because we had made it more difficult or increased the cost of tuition for our colleges. I had to make countless difficult decisions across the board to be fiscally responsible. I understand the demands of soaring health care costs, and as I called that program then, it devoured--Medicaid devoured up to 30 percent of our State budget, and I referred to it as the Medicaid Pac-Man. I think some people remember Pac-Man. That was the Pac-Man just eating up money like crazy. It took away money from primary and secondary education, higher education, roads, bridges, county and local government projects, and safety service programs that we wanted to provide for the citizens of Ohio. We had to do it. It was a mandate. It just sucked up that money, and that meant we didn't have money for higher education, secondary and primary education, and some of the other responsibilities of the State.

With this experience, I became particularly concerned with the cost of Federal mandates, and I worked tirelessly with State and local governments to help pass the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In fact, the first time I ever set foot on the floor of the Senate is the day the unfunded mandates bill passed the Senate. It was a wonderful day for Ohio and for this country. I was in the Rose Garden representing State and local governments when President Clinton signed the legislation into law in 1995.

After that experience, you can imagine how it pains me to be standing here today debating legislation that provides for the largest single expansion of the Medicaid Program in our country's history and a brandnew fiscal liability for States at a time when the States can least afford it. I have serious concerns if this bill becomes law and States are required to take on more just as the extra stimulus funds disappear--which they are going to have to do or we will have to come up with the money--Congress will be forced to spend billions more to keep the Medicaid safety net from failing completely in the not too distant future.

So what I am basically saying is that when the stimulus money ends in December of next year, the Governors are going to be down here with a bathtub asking us to fill it because if we don't do it, they are going to have to knock off thousands of people, millions in the country, because they don't have the money to provide for the program.

Now, providing extra dollars to States--and I predict it is going to happen. It will become an annual ritual for Congress, just as the doctors fix has become an annual ritual for doctors. Every year they come in. We are not going to cut the annual reimbursement. Next year it is 23 percent, I think. We are not going to fill the hole, and the Governors are going to be asking for the same kind of help. It is not only a mandate for them, it is going to become a mandate for us at a time when we are least able to handle anything like that.

So as a former Governor and a former mayor, a former county commissioner, I urge my colleagues to consider the impact this bill will have on their respective States. Think about it. Talk to your Governors. See what it is going to do to your States. I hope each of my colleagues will give careful thought to the potentially devastating effects it could have on each of their State budgets and to consult, as I said, with their Governors and to talk about the fact that if this happens, what is going to happen in terms of the Pac-Man eating up more money in their State and their inability to take care of primary and secondary education, higher education, and all of the other responsibilities State governments have.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to address the Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010.

As my colleagues know, this afternoon the Senate received this measure from the House which represents a compromise between the bill passed by the House last July and what we passed this past October.

Since passage of the Senate measure, Vice Chairman Cochran and I and our staffs have spent countless hours in discussion with our colleagues in the House to thrash out the differences between our two bills. The product the Senate will consider represents the work of our discussions. While this is a House measure, I can assure my colleagues it is a very fair and balanced product.

The Defense appropriations portion of this measure totals $636.3 billion in discretionary spending, including more than $128 billion for the cost of our ongoing efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In total, the Defense bill is $3.8 billion below the request of the President and within the subcommittee's allocation.

This bill represents the hard work over the past year of all the members of the Defense subcommittee. It contains funds that we believe will best meet the needs of the men and women who volunteer to serve our Nation in the military. The bill provides funding to increase their pay by 3.4 percent. It provides more than $30 billion to care for their health and the health of their families.

It provides support to families with loved ones serving in harm's way overseas and funding to ensure that their workplaces and quality of life back home are protected.

Of equal importance, the funding in this bill ensures that our forces in the field have the equipment and other tools required to meet their missions. Funding has been added to the President's request to provide for more MRAP vehicles to protect our forces from IEDs in Afghanistan.

Funds are provided for more medical evacuation and combat rescue helicopters to save our wounded troops. Funds have been added to sustain production of the C-17 Program so our forces in the field can be adequately resupplied, no matter where they are based.

This bill enhances research in lifesaving technologies and increases funds to care for our wounded personnel. It fully funds the priorities of Secretary Gates and our military commanders.

While I know some will criticize the fact that funds have been included at the request of Members of Congress, I remind my colleagues that, in total, this amount is less than 1 percent of the funding in the bill.

Moreover, all the so-called earmarks in the defense portion of this bill were in either the House or Senate bills. There are no ``airdropped'' earmarks in the defense funding included in this measure.

In addition to the defense portion of the bill, the House has added a little

more than 1 dozen provisions to provide a 2-month safety net to unemployed and nearly impoverished Americans and to extend critical provisions which are set to expire this month.

For individual Americans, provisions were included to extend, through February 28, 2010, expiring unemployment insurance benefits that were established in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Likewise, provisions were included to extend the 65-percent COBRA health insurance subsidy from 9 to 15 months for individuals who have lost their jobs and to extend the job lost eligibility date also through February 28, 2010.

Further, a provision was included to freeze the Department of Health and Human Services' poverty guidelines at 2009 levels in order to prevent a reduction in eligibility for programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, and school lunch programs through March 1 of next year.

This provision keeps struggling families from falling through the cracks.

In addition, provisions were included to provide $125 million to extend the Recovery Act program for small businesses. The program reduces lending fees charged to borrowers under the Small Business Administration's guaranteed loan programs and increases the Federal guarantee on certain small business loans.

The Recovery Act supported a resurgence in SBA small business lending, but funds were exhausted in November. The additional funding in this bill will help support lending for small businesses during the economic recovery by continuing fee relief for borrowers and encouraging lenders to extend credit to small businesses.

Further, this bill includes a short-term extension of the highway, transit, highway safety and truck safety programs. Without this extension, the highway program would be brought to a standstill and the Department of Transportation would be unable to reimburse States for eligible expenses.

In addition, several agencies--including the Federal Highway Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration--would not have the funds necessary to pay their employees.

This is not your typical end-of-the-year Christmas tree; to the contrary, it is the bare minimum of programs which must be continued to provide for our less fortunate and our struggling small businesses.

It also allows for a 2-month extension of laws such as the PATRIOT Act, in order to allow more time for our authorizing committees to come to agreement on more permanent legislation.

The House has passed a compromise measure and forwarded it to the Senate because of the calendar. Today is December 16, and our Department of Defense has been operating on a continuing resolution for more than 2 months.

It is time we get on with the process and get this bill to the President. It is a good measure. Our troops deserve our support. Let's show we support those who volunteered to serve all of us by voting today to send this bill to the President.

As I close, I wish to thank the Defense Subcommittee staff for their dedication and hard work in putting this bill together. I wish to put into the Record the names of these staff members who have worked on this bill in a bipartisan fashion. They are:

Charlie Houy, Nicole Diresta, Kate Fitzpatrick, Katy Hagan,

Kate Kaufer, Ellen Maldonado, Rachel Meyer, Erik Raven, Gary

Reese, Betsy Schmid, Renan Snowden, Bridget Zarate, Rob

Berschinski, Stewart Holmes, Alycia Farrell, Brian Potts,

Brian Wilson and Tom Osterhoudt.

Mr. President, it is my pleasure and privilege to be chairman of the committee. It is a great honor. I wish to make certain we express our gratitude to all these staff people. Without them, I would not be standing here at this moment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there is nothing in rule XLIV which governs a message between the Houses in regard to disclosing earmarks. However, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee it is my belief that the committee should none the less attest that all earmarks have been fully disclosed. Accordingly I note that in the bill H.R. 3326 as passed by the House and explained in the statement offered by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the House of Representatives on December 16, 2009, each earmark in the bill has been disclosed in accord with rule XLIV.