Floor Statements

Mr. President, our colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, I believe is on her way to the floor of the Senate. She and several other Members, in the time we have allocated to us between now and 11:30, will address her amendment she proposed yesterday. But pending her arrival, I want to respond, if I could, very briefly to some of the conversation here this morning.

First, I know some people have short memories, but I am somewhat intrigued to hear our good friends and colleagues talk about preserving Medicare. I have been around here a few years and recall very vividly the debates of 1995 and 1997 on the issue of Medicare, where our friends, who were in the majority in those days, were talking about slowing the growth of Medicare and one of the proposals they had for doing so was to cut into the benefits of Medicare recipients.

We do not do that in this bill at all. Quite to the contrary, despite the language about ``big cuts in Medicare,'' we strengthen the Medicare Program substantially. That is the reason the AARP and other major organizations involved with the elderly have endorsed our proposals. They would hardly be doing so if they thought this was some massive cut into the Medicare Program that has been so critical to so many of our fellow citizens.

Just for a little bit of history here--In 1995 our Republican colleagues proposed cutting benefits to Medicare beneficiaries. Newt Gingrich, our former Speaker and friend from the other body, was quoted as saying ``let's let Medicare wither on the vine.'' That is not ancient history. That is not 1965.

That is just a few years ago in all of this debate.

There are some very strong provisions in the bill that reduce premiums and co-pays for seniors, ensure seniors are able to see their own doctors, and keep Medicare from going bankrupt for an additional 5 years. If we adopt the McCain amendment, we are being told today by CBO and others that Medicare becomes insolvent in 8 years. So vote for the McCain amendment and you are going to have an insolvent program in 8 years. That is a fact.

We extend the life here an additional 5 years. We provide new preventive and wellness benefits for seniors, lower prescription drug costs, allow seniors to stay in their homes and not end up in nursing homes.

This is a long bill. It is a big bill. But instead of complaining about its size, I would encourage my colleagues to read it and understand what is being done for Medicare. This is a complicated area, but, nonetheless, critically important.

Mr. President, I see my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, who is here, and others who want to address the issue of the Mikulski amendment, and I will yield the floor so they can be heard. I believe it is going to be each for 5 minutes. There are about seven of our colleagues who want to be heard on the issue before 11:30.

Very good.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 1 minute 7 seconds and the time be taken from that of my good friend and colleague from Vermont, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam President, Senator Tom Coburn and I have become great friends. We have spent a lot of time together this summer in my HELP Committee. He talked with great eloquence about that distance that can occur between a doctor and patient, and obviously as someone who practiced medicine for a long time, he speaks from strong personal experience, and I admire and respect that immensely. But let me say to my colleagues, without this bill we are talking about here, this comes to a simple choice. Under existing law, the way things are today, one institution stands between a doctor and patient and that is your insurance company. They ration care all the time. In fact, I am a living example of rationed care, having been through surgery, getting preapproval twice before surgery and then being rejected by the very insurance company I paid premiums to for a long time as a Member of this body. We are working it out, I believe, because they thought--I am 65--that Medicare ought to pay for my surgery rather than the company I paid premiums to for a long time.

They were rationing my care. That insurance company, it wasn't some government entity or someone else, they are the ones. Without our bill, the only one getting to decide what health services anyone receives is the insurance industry.

I hope we would have a chance to debate this further, as I am confident we will.

Let me also say how much I support the effort by Senator Mikulski on her efforts to see to it that women are treated equally, and particularly in preventive care, and I strongly urge the adoption of her amendment and ask to be added as a cosponsor to that amendment.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa is to be recognized next.

I thank my colleague. Just to set the record straight, because it is amazing to me, in a very short amount of time, how people can misconstrue events. First of all, the Senator from Oklahoma was talking about the Medicare Advantage bill, and he said: Do you know who sets the rates? The government sets the rates.

That is true. That is because when that bill was passed, with very few people on this side supporting that bill--almost overwhelmingly on the other side--the requirement under the law, the requirement to pass, mandated under the law that the private plans of Medicare be overpaid, and on average those overpayments averaged 14 percent and in some States over 50 percent. The law that was passed here by the majority-- and running the place at the time--insisted upon the mandates being included. So if you wonder why that occurs today, it is because they required it in the law.

Secondly, when you talk about the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005-- again, memories fade for some people. In fact, under that bill, children, working families lost the insurance they had. Cuts occurred. Women lost access to mammographies. Cervical cancer screenings were cut. Families lost benefits. There were direct cuts in them. The difference is, today, with what we are talking about, you don't cut these benefits at all--at all. In fact, we are increasing the opportunity for Medicare to be strengthened under this bill. There is a vast difference between what happened in 2005 and what is being supported today. So, again, I just want the record to be clear. You can't make these things up as you go along. That is what happened in 2005. It was an abomination and did great damage to people in this country. People lost their insurance.

Under our bill, 31 million Americans will have coverage. We now know the premiums are going to drop for 93 percent of all Americans. Premiums will actually come down for individuals, small businesses, and large employers. For five out of six people who have their jobs, those premiums come down. Thirty-one million Americans will be covered with health insurance. Compare that, if you will, with 2005 when we actually cut mammography screening, cervical cancer research, and assistance in health care for infants and children and women. That all got damaged in that year. Not in this bill. This is the difference.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Absolutely not.

That is true. The record is very clear on this. People had the right to do so; that was their choice at the time. But to try to rewrite history somehow and say those cuts didn't occur--in fact, they did occur in these areas. That is why there were those of us here who objected strongly at the time. My colleague from Arizona is absolutely correct when he said that I said this was going to cut benefits for children and working families and cut screenings and tests for people. It did do that. Those of us who made those warnings on that day were proven to be 100 percent accurate. Compare that, if

you will, with what we are talking about here today, particularly regarding reducing costs, premiums, and providing increased access for millions of Americans. That is the difference.

If you vote for the McCain amendment, we are right back where we were before--right back--which, of course, we all know means premium increases go up by literally 100 percent in the next 7 years. Tell that to a family of four in my State who is paying $12,000 right now and will go to $24,000 in 7 years, as opposed to having those premiums being reduced, depending on if you are an individual, small business, or large employer, by as much as 20 percent, 11 percent, or 3 percent, not to mention, of course, that you will also increase the number of people who will be covered under this.

The present situation runs the risk of bringing our economy to its knees if we don't act. Recommitting this bill--going back, in a sense-- would roll the clock back and do great damage to both individuals and to our country economically. That vote in 2005 set us back terribly in this country. This proposal allows us to move forward and provide the coverage a lot of people need.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, if I may, that I be allowed to speak for 15 minutes and that that time include a colloquy with my colleague, the Senator from Minnesota.

Thank you, Mr. President. I wish to address a couple issues, if I may; one is this debate about Medicare cuts and savings. Let me put up one chart. I will not spend a long time on this, but I wish to make a point to my colleagues.

About a year ago, the Bush administration sent us a budget. According to the Congressional Budget Office and the Senate Budget Committee, the proposals in the Bush administration's budget in the last year alone called for $481 billion in Medicare savings and cuts. It was not in the context of a health care bill; that was part of a budget proposal. That was $481 billion, according to the CBO just last year. Literally, 12 months ago that was the proposal. In the context of the overall reform of the health care system, in which we are trying to achieve savings to make sure the dollars are going to go further and go for the things that are needed, our proposal calls for $380 billion in savings over the coming 10 years.

I think, again, people need to understand what we are talking about and that is the difference. So a year ago, $481 billion and no health care proposal--just to get to budget proposals. Here we are in the context of over 10 years of trying to put things in this bill to ensure a more solid footing.

The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, representing millions of our fellow citizens, wrote a letter to the Senate, every Member, dated December 1, 2009. Senator Harkin earlier put the entire letter in the Record. I am going to read just one sentence from the letter, signed by Barbara Kennelly, the President and CEO of this organization:

Not a single penny of the savings in the Senate bill

This bill we are debating--

will come out of the pockets of beneficiaries in the

traditional Medicare program.

This is an organization that does not bear a political label. It doesn't represent Democrats, Republicans, Independents. It merely spends every hour of every working day assessing what happens to Social Security and Medicare. That is all they do--all they do. Believe me when I tell my colleagues this organization would not make a statement such as this if it were untrue. I know the organization. I know the people involved. They are highly critical of Democrats and have been when they think we have gone too far in various areas. They state, categorically, what this bill does to Medicare.

I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be printed in the Record.

Thirdly, I wish to commend our colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski. Again, a lot has been said about her proposal dealing with women's health. Consider these two statistics as we try to get this right: Less than half the women in the United States have the option of obtaining health insurance through a job--less than half. They are forced either to purchase expensive insurance in the individual market or are dependent upon a spouse to provide health care.

Right now, today, whether you are a Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, whether you live in Connecticut, Texas or Minnesota, consider this: A healthy 22-year-old woman can be charged insurance rates 150 percent higher than a 22-year-old man in a similar condition. Our bill before us ends that--ends that. If you defeat the Mikulski amendment or recommit this bill, remember tonight or tomorrow, when the vote occurs, that 22-year-old woman and that 22-year-old man have a differential as much as 150 percent in health care premiums. That is what happens at this very hour. The Mikulski amendment changes that as well in our bill, among other things.

Lastly--and then I wish to turn to my colleague from Minnesota--just to remind my colleagues, again, what Senator Baucus has done with his committee in the Finance Committee and what we did in the HELP Committee to provide some meaningful advantages and help to people across this country immediately. One, our bill will provide $5 billion in immediate Federal support for a new program to provide affordable coverage to uninsured Americans with preexisting conditions. Coverage under this program will continue until the new exchanges are operating over the next few years.

Secondly, the bill creates immediate access to reinsurance for employer health care plans providing coverage for early retirees. Again, this will help protect coverage, while reducing premiums for employers and their retirees.

The bill also reduces the size of the doughnut hole immediately by raising the ceiling in initial coverage by $500 in 2010, the coming year--immediately. This will guarantee a 50-percent price discount on brand-name drugs and biologics purchased by low- and middle-income beneficiaries in the coverage gap. That is immediate.

Fourth, our bill will offer tax credits immediately to small businesses to make employee coverage more affordable. That is not a year or two or three from now, this is immediate. Tax credits of up to 50 percent of premiums will be available to firms that choose to offer the coverage as a result of the tax break.

Fifth, our bill will require insurers to permit children to stay on family policies until age 26. Right now, that ends at 23. Our bill extends it to 26 immediately, to have this benefit for people across the country who have families and children today who are staying home longer because of the absence of jobs out there for them.

Our bill will provide coverage for prevention and wellness benefits immediately and exempt these benefits from deductibles and other cost- sharing requirements in public and private insurance coverage. Not in a year, not 2 years, not 3 years but immediately when this bill becomes law.

Sixth, the bill would prohibit insurers from imposing lifetime limits on benefits and will restrict annual limits as well.

The bill also would prohibit group health plans from establishing eligibility rules of health care coverage that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees.

In this bill, we also establish standards for insurance overhead to ensure that premiums are spent on health benefits. We also require public disclosure of overhead and benefit spending and require premium rebates from insurers that exceed established standards for overhead expenses.

Lastly, it would create new Web sites to provide information on a facilitated form of consumer choice of insurance options. And there are other immediate benefits to this legislation.

I think it is important, as we discuss the bill, that you understand there are substantial and meaningful improvements. We have debated this bill and debated these issues for months and months on end. The time has come to act. That is what we are proposing with this legislation.

With that, I appreciate the indulgence of my colleague from Minnesota. I yield to him for any additional comments he may wish to make.

Yes, I had asked consent for a time agreement. I suspect we are going to have a lot of time to talk about the bill.

I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Minnesota.

Madam President, let me begin, if I may, by congratulating the majority leader and my colleague and dear friend from Montana, Senator Baucus, and members of the Finance Committee as well as the members of the HELP Committee. As I said before, I am sort of an accidental participant in all this, in the sense that the person who should be standing at this desk and at this podium as the chairman of the HELP Committee is, of course, our deceased colleague from Massachusetts. I was filling in for him during the months of his illness and managing the markup of the bill that produced part, half-- whatever the percentage is--of the combined legislation. All our colleagues know, whether you agreed or disagreed with him, he considered this issue to be what he called the passion of his public life, to make a difference for all Americans when it comes to their health care. So I know it is with a sense of sadness that, on the day on which we begin this historic debate and discussion, he is not here to participate--at least physically. We sense his presence, of course, those of us who had the privilege of serving with him for so many years, as Senator Baucus and I did, and worked with him on these many issues. Of course, our colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, and Senator Grassley did as well over the years. I thank all members of the committee.

It was a laborious undertaking. The Presiding Officer was very much a part of that as well, during those many hours we gathered in the Senate caucus room--the Russell caucus room now named the Kennedy caucus room--in some 23 sessions, over many hours. But that was only the culmination of an effort that began a long time ago.

Actually, the business of writing this bill began months and months earlier. My colleague from Montana can appreciate the hours I know I spent in meetings in his office, late into the evening, long before a markup began. Long before any formal conversations and discussions, there was a significant reaching out to our colleagues, to try to bring us together and develop what we all hoped to be the case and still can be the case; that is, a consensus bill, a bipartisan bill on health care.

I know as a matter of fact here, beginning last fall, Senator Kennedy, when he did have his strength, met on countless occasions with members of the minority to try and navigate the minefield of health care ideas, to see if it couldn't be possible to put together that kind of a consensus bill.

I know our committee began a long process, beginning last winter, to try to begin, long before the markup of this summer, to draft such a proposal, having what they call a walk-through of legislation, going through the various ideas and listening.

It was with some regret that I say this idea that the bill somehow being jammed down people's throats, with little or no thought given to other people's ideas and thoughts, is not borne out by the facts. I have been here for many years. I have been through many markups over three decades in this body on various committees. This effort was and still remains an effort to try to bring us together about this issue, which has such a massive impact on not only the individuals of our Nation who go through the fear every day of wondering whether the coverage they have will be adequate; and if they don't have that coverage, whether an illness or tragedy could befall them that could wipe out everything they have--not only today but for the rest of their lives.

This journey begins. My hope is, before we have finished the task, we will find that common ground that we each bear responsibility to try and achieve.

Before we left for the Thanksgiving holiday, the Senate held a landmark vote on whether we should even debate health care. I must say a lot of attention was given to that. There must be a lot of confusion in the minds of many Americans, wondering why we had to debate whether we could debate. The one issue this body is known for is endless debate. We are not limited, under our rules of the Senate, at least not formally limited, by how much time we can consume when we want to talk. The filibuster is a unique practice which only the Senate has. So we had to vote as to whether we could actually have a vote. We had a debate on whether we could have a debate on the subject matter that is obviously of great concern, whether you agree or disagree.

I think all Americans agree the present system needs a lot of work. The vote we took simply stated that after decades of inaction, despite the efforts of others over the years, this time the Senate would not fail to deliver the change the people we represent across America want and need.

We now begin that long, overdue conversation over exactly what change should look like in the area of health care. There are, as has been made clear over the past months, many different opinions on the subject matter, almost as many as there are Members of this body. I hope my fellow Senators are ready to share their thoughts, listen to the ideas of their colleagues and, most importantly, join together to act. The legislation we present for debate is designed to fix the things that are wrong with our system, while protecting and strengthening the things that are great about health care in America. As I have heard my colleague from Montana say on so many occasions, we are not out here to design or copy what goes on in Canada or Europe or Australia or New Zealand or any other country around the world. We are here to design an American health care plan, an American plan, one we are forging after listening to health care providers, our constituents, and others who have great interest in the debate and discussion and who bring very valuable facts to the table, as all of us, individually, even those not on the committee, have listened over many weeks and months--in fact, over many years that we have been debating this subject matter.

Our long history of innovation and discovery--cures, vaccines, and treatments, discovered and produced right here in our own country, that have saved countless lives here and around the world--is something for which every American ought to be proud. Our legislation, this combined bill, encourages that innovation so more groundbreaking medical discoveries can be made in America.

In fact, one of the debates that occurred in the HELP Committee, as my colleague and the Presiding Officer may recall, was on an amendment offered by Senator Hatch--no technical

amendment--dealing with how to create a pathway for the Food and Drug Administration to approve follow-on biologics and how many years of exclusivity innovators should receive for their original product. We had a heated debate in the committee. It went on for a day or so. In a divided vote, the Hatch amendment was approved with bipartisan support for this very critical and important issue. No technical change, I might add, a significant part of this bill.

Our legislation recognizes that we do best by our citizens when the public and private sectors work together. It has been our history in so many areas, not just in this area.

Medicare, the ironclad commitment to take care of our seniors, dating back to 1965, when Members who preceded us in this Chamber, in a heated debate that went on for days, heated debate over whether we would have a health care program for seniors, decided not on a partisan vote but nearly as much, that there ought to be something called Medicare. It took the poorest sector of our population, the elderly, and lifted them out of poverty. Because we said: After their works on behalf of all of us, their defense of our Nation in two world wars, and their contribution coming out of a depression, we ought to be able to do better by them when it comes to their health care needs, Medicare was established. And despite what some critics have said, this legislation protects and strengthens Medicare. I hope even our friends who have taken to labeling government-run programs such as Medicare as socialist takeovers will join us in keeping this important promise to our seniors.

Of course, Americans are justifiably proud of and happy with our workforce of dedicated health professionals, the doctors, specialists, primary care physicians, compassionate nurses, dedicated medical technicians, and family doctors all across the Nation who make a difference every single day in serving the people of our Nation. This legislation is designed to guarantee that you can get the care you need when you need it from the doctor you like. Meanwhile, it will help that physician spend less time filling out redundant paperwork and more time taking care of you and your family. It will help you spend less time fighting with your insurance company and more time getting better and getting back on your feet again.

There are many things to like about our health care system in the United States. This legislation doesn't change them. There are many things that are wonderful about our health care system. I think it is important at the outset to acknowledge that and to understand, again, the quality of innovation that occurs, the compassionate work done by health care providers in every community. In my State, there are 31 hospitals, all nonprofit hospitals, in the State of Connecticut. I have visited all of them over the years, but I have gone back recently and almost completed a round of going to see them all about this bill, sitting down with rural hospitals in northeastern Connecticut to major urban hospitals in Bridgeport and Hartford. I wish I could take everyone with me to see what everyone does. I know this is the case in other States where people do a remarkable job every day. If you show up in a hospital, they treat you. No one gets turned away. It is a wonderful thing about our health care system, the people who work in them every single day, reaching out to try and make a difference in the lives of these individuals, and how frustrating it is for these health care providers.

I met with a group of ophthamologists in Hartford. One doctor was telling me how a family came to him the other night with a child that clearly needed a medical device and technology and knowing what a difference it could make for her. Yet that insurance company said: No, you can't do it; we don't provide that kind of coverage. The frustration that doctor expressed because he couldn't provide what that family needed. They didn't have the resources financially to pay for it, and they were being turned down. That child could not get that help. Under our bill that won't happen, if we can get this legislation done. Examples like that child happen every day across this great country of ours.

The high cost of health care has bankrupted millions of families. The system, in many ways, despite its strengths, is broken in too many places as well. Without reform, health care will continue to eat up larger and larger shares of budgets--the Federal budget, State budgets, business budgets and, of course, family budgets. Budgets, particularly family and business budgets, are at breaking points. The high cost of health care has bankrupted millions of families, shuttered the doors of businesses, forced States to make impossible choices, and put unimaginable strain on the Federal bottom line. If we don't address the skyrocketing cost of health care, more and more families, more and more businesses could lose everything and our deficit will explode. As bad as it is today, it gets worse if we do nothing.

That is the bigger picture. But the reality of our broken system can be captured by the tragedies that play out in American homes every single day. As we have discussed, tens of millions of our fellow citizens who don't have health insurance at all go to bed every single night knowing that if they wake up sick or their children wake up ill or in need of medical care, they might not be able to see a doctor to get the medical care they need. Many of these Americans don't have insurance because they can't get insurance, they have a preexisting condition, and no insurance company wants them on their rolls.

There are even more Americans who do have insurance but can't be sure of anything these days when it comes to their health care. They are paying more and more in premiums, twice what they paid even a decade ago. Yet they are getting less and less and less coverage for their money. They lie awake at night wondering, what if I lose my job, as many have over these last number of weeks and months, what if I get sick and find out my policy doesn't cover the care I need or, even worse, my insurance company cancels my policy altogether. What if I run out of benefits and have to pay out of my pocket. These are not irrational fears. They are anything but irrational fears. Millions of our fellow citizens have them every single day, and these nightmares come true for far too many of our citizens. People lose their homes because they get sick. People die because they can't afford care.

This does not happen to the 8 million of us who are Federal employees, all of us who serve in this body and the 435 who serve in the other body. Like all Federal employees, we have a special marketplace. Every year each one of us gets to choose from a long menu of insurance options. We sit down. We pick a plan that makes sense for us and our families, and we know the coverage we have chosen will be there when we need it. Every American should have the same opportunity as the people who represent them in the Halls of Congress. That is what our bill tries to do.

For too long health insurance has been a seller's market. Depending upon where you live, you may or may not have more than one option or two options to choose from. Sometimes there aren't any good options at all. You pay whatever the insurance companies want to charge you, and you get whatever coverage they feel like giving you. You are covered only until they decide they don't want to cover you any longer. By the way, if you lose your job, or if you want to change your job, if you want to start a business, if you want to move, you could lose your coverage entirely.

Our bill is designed to help you get a better deal and empowers every American family to pick the plan that works for them, creating a real marketplace, like the one Federal employees have, that members of congress have, with multiple insurance companies competing for your business and a real choice for you and your family. If you like what you have now, great, keep it. If you don't, you will have more and better options to consider. If you are one of the millions of uninsured Americans who has been denied coverage because of a preexisting condition, you will immediately have access to affordable coverage so that you will have insurance while this marketplace is being established. In that marketplace, you will finally have a chance to find affordable insurance that works for you and your family. No matter who you are or which plan you choose, you will have less expensive options. Insurance will be available regardless of your age or your health. And once you

have it, the insurance company won't be allowed to take it away. You stay covered even if you lose your job, even if you move, even if you get sick.

On the day this bill is enacted, health insurance becomes a buyer's market, not a seller's market. That is as American as apple pie, having choices, good old competition out there. So little of it exists today. Our bill is designed to promote and create more of it. When businesses have to compete for your business, we all do better. Businesses do well and, obviously, the consumer has better choices. As other pieces of the legislation begin to take effect, our health care system will become less expensive and more responsive to the needs of the American people. Because American families and businesses literally can't afford more of the status quo, our bill makes health care more affordable.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, if you are buying health insurance in the individual market under the senate bill, premiums may be up to 20 percent lower than equivalent coverage today. According to CBO, if you are buying health insurance in the individual market, you could see premium costs be as much as 20 percent lower than what they are today. If you are working for a small business, according to CBO, your premiums may be up to 11 percent lower than what they are today. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, if you work for a large employer, which five out of six Americans do, your premiums could be lowered by as much as 3 percent. In every single category-- individuals, small businesses, as well as large employers--premium costs come down under our bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Compare that to the status quo of doing nothing or defeating this bill. I can't speak for every State, but I suspect these numbers are probably pretty much true across the country. In Connecticut, in the year 2000, a family of four paid on average around $6 to $7,000 a year in health care premiums. Today that same family in my State, 9 years later, is paying over $12,000 for that same coverage. And if we do nothing in the coming days, those numbers will jump to around $24 to $25,000 in 7 years and as much as $35,000 in 10 years.

Compare that with what we offer here in this bill. The CBO says we can actually lower premium costs in the individual market, the small group market, and the large group market. That is what is in this bill. That is why it is deserving of our support.

Because investing in keeping people well is more cost effective than waiting to treat them when they get sick, this legislation puts a focus on prevention. Let me pay a particular tribute to Senator Tom Harkin, now chairman of the HELP Committee, who spent a long time on the prevention piece of this bill, as I know the Finance Committee did as well, combining efforts to encourage more effort in reducing the tremendous problems that are associated with four or five illnesses that consume about 70 or 75 percent of the health care dollar. You can't wipe them out altogether, but by working on prevention, dealing with obesity, smoking, cardiovascular problems, you can make a difference in those areas alone.

I know my fellow members of the HELP Committee, we passed legislation--and my good friend Mike Enzi was a part of this and a strong supporter on the floor of this body--when for the first time in America history, the Food and Drug Administration can now regulate tobacco products. They can regulate mascara, cat food, dog food, men's cologne, all of those things get regulated, but tobacco did not. We changed that. We finally have regulation of the sale, marketing, and the production of tobacco products by the Food and Drug Administration. That is $180 billion a year in health-care related costs. Four hundred thousand people die every year from smoking-related products; 3,500 young people today will start smoking in the United States; 1,000 will become addicted for life, 3,500 a day just in that one area. If we can reduce people's dependency on those products, if we can get people to quit, if we can stop children from starting in the first place, what a difference that can make for people all across the country. From diabetes screenings to quit smoking programs to mammograms, you will be able to get preventive care at no cost to you under this bill. That we do right off the bat so you can stay well even if your family is not wealthy.

Because our seniors should be able to afford the prescriptions they need to stay healthy, this bill will shrink the Medicare Part D doughnut hole, giving seniors a 50-percent discount on medications. That is a huge savings to our people. Because 200 million American adults don't have insurance protection in place to handle the cost of long-term services and supports, our bill creates a new program that will give American families peace of mind, help working people who are also taking care of a loved one, and save Medicaid dollars in State and Federal budgets.

Because we need our small businesses to do what they do best--create jobs--our bill alleviates their burden by providing a tax credit to help them cover the cost of providing health care to their employees, as so many of them want to do. And because a buyers' market depends on educated buyers, our bill will empower consumers by eliminating the fine print in insurance policies. You will be able to make an apples- to-apples comparison when shopping for health insurance.

Again, according to the Congressional Budget Office, families and businesses will save money because this new marketplace will bring down administrative costs, ensuring you get the most out of your premium payments and increased competition for your business--competition that is increased even further with a strong public option as well.

The analysis confirms that if you like the plan the way it is, the bill explicitly provides that you will be able to keep it. In fact, just so we are clear, let me quote from the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, analysis released today. I quote them:

[I]f they wanted to, current policyholders in the nongroup

market would be allowed to keep their policy with no changes,

and the premiums for those policies would probably not differ

substantially from current-law levels.

The CBO estimates that as the marketplace gets up and running, the deficit will go down by $130 billion in the first 10 years after this bill passes and by $650 billion more in the second decade.

This bill lets you keep your insurance if you like it, this bill protects seniors, this bill gives families more choice, and this bill saves money.

While I hope we can keep our facts straight, let me say at the outset that I expect this to be a full, open, and at times passionate debate in this Chamber, as it should be. This is an issue that represents a full one-sixth, as you have heard already, Madam President, of our economy, and it affects every single one of our citizens. Still, I understand that no matter how patiently and thoroughly we discuss this issue, some will, of course, insist we are attempting to rush through a piece of partisan legislation. Again, let's get our facts straight. Thus far, between the two committees responsible for drafting this bill, we have held more than 100 bipartisan meetings, devoted more than 20 days toward the amendment process, considered more than 400 amendments, and, despite what I have heard, we accepted 170 amendments offered by the minority, including some very substantive ones. Clearly, there were technical ones. I am not suggesting otherwise. But to suggest that all of these were such is not to portray an accurate picture of what occurred. The legislation we will now debate was made available online 72 hours before even a procedural vote was cast.

Well, Madam President, I am committed to ensuring every Senator has the opportunity to offer his or her suggestions. That is what we did in our committee. It took a long time. But while people may not have been happy with the final outcome, I believe people ought to have an opportunity to be heard and their ideas to be vetted here and to engage, I hope, in a civil debate, a passionate but civil debate, not to engage in the ad hominem personal attacks that too often have contaminated debate but, rather, you ought to stand or fail based on the soundness of your ideas.

My dear friend Ted Kennedy spent a lifetime, as I said at the outset of these remarks, fighting for every American's right for decent health care. It is a cause I know we all support. This is our chance to get it right.

This moment calls for commonsense problem-solving that cuts the cost of health care, protects patient choice, and ensures every American gets the care they need when they need it, from the doctors and providers of their choice.

This moment calls for compassion. We must finally hear the cry of the child whose ear infection goes untreated because his or her parents cannot find jobs and cannot afford a doctor; the voice of the small business owner who must choose between laying off workers and cutting off health benefits for them; the call of future generations who will see the rising tide of health care costs become a tsunami if we do not act in these days.

Perhaps most of all, this moment calls for courage. This bill does not necessarily guarantee a tickertape parade or a lot of applause lines. There are some very tough choices in this bill.

With the possible exception of the public option and a few other items, I suspect that if the roles were reversed here and we were sitting in the minority and our friends on the other side were in the majority, frankly, the bill we would be considering today might not be substantially different because, frankly, the options are not unlimited as to how to deal with costs and increased access and prevention. Yes, there are differences. I accept that and understand that. But the kinds of choices Senator Baucus and his committee made, and the ones we considered in our committee, were ones I believe most of my colleagues believe generally have to be dealt with: the quality of care, strengthening our workforce, dealing with the delivery system, increasing prevention and wellness in this country. What steps do we take? We can differ over this item or that, but I believe we generally believe these are items that must be part of a significant health care proposal. So I suspect these bills, were the roles reversed, might not be substantially different. It might not be that different.

Perhaps most of all, it is important we find the means to come together. The road we are on, the status quo, leads to ruin, in my view, for our economy and for our fellow citizens. The road to reform is a long and difficult one, but we have taken so many unprecedented steps just to come to this place. It is time now to finish the job.

So I am prepared--as I know our leader is and as I know my friend from Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee, is, as are the members of that committee, as I believe most of our colleagues here--we would like a legacy to be left long after we have departed this Chamber that will say that in the first decade of the 21st century, when faced with the daunting challenge of doing something positive to increase the availability, increase the quality, and decrease the cost of health care in America, this Congress rose to the challenge and met its obligations. I feel optimistic we can achieve that.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted for the remainder of this Congress to the following members of my staff: Joe Caldwell and Melinda Leidy.

Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of this melded bill, drafted and put together by our distinguished leader, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Before I begin with some brief remarks, let me extend my heartfelt thanks to our majority leader for his tireless work and thank Max Baucus of Montana for his tireless work and the members of the committees who have worked over the past many months to bring us to this moment.

Others this evening have spoken with great eloquence, in my view, about the provisions of this bill, what we hope to achieve for our fellow citizens with the adoption of this legislation.

I commend the Senate HELP Committee, which did such heroic work during the writing of our portion of the bill--my colleagues, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Patty Murray of the State of Washington, and so many others.

I thank my Republican colleagues on that committee as well. While we did not end up with a bipartisan vote at the end of that very long process, we did end up adopting more than 160 amendments offered by my Republican colleagues to that bill, which I think strengthened the legislation, made it a better piece of legislation, and many of which are a part of this legislation this evening.

I also want to pause for a moment, if I can, to recognize a colleague who is here tonight only in spirit, Ted Kennedy. So much has been said and written about his lifelong quest to ensure that every American-- every American--has decent health care. Tonight and in the days to come, we will pay him the highest compliment, as our colleague, by fulfilling that quest of achieving the goal all Americans aspire for; that is, a national health care plan that serves every one of our citizens.

I would like to speak briefly, if I could, to the American people who are at home this evening and I suspect are just tuning in to this debate.

This important vote will occur momentarily. Why does this issue and this debate matter? Why are we here on a Saturday evening? But then again, for that matter, why are you watching C-SPAN on a Saturday evening, I might add?

Well, for one thing, health care represents one-sixth of our economy and affects 100 percent, as we all know, of the population of this country. And it is true that skyrocketing health care costs are the single biggest threat to the financial future of our fellow citizens.

But the reason tonight's vote is so historic, beyond those last two points, is that never, ever before--never before--has this body, elected to serve the American people, confronted directly this simple truth: Nothing, absolutely nothing, matters more to you and to your family than the ability to get the health care you need, when you need it, from the doctor you choose, at the price you can afford.

Health care is our most basic need. Health care is the most basic commitment we should be willing to make to each other. No matter what your family finances, no matter what your hopes and dreams are, no matter who you are or where you live or what your job is in America, in our 21st century America, you should be able to get the care you need.

But for too many American families--perhaps your family, as you watch this tonight from your homes--health care has become your most basic fear. If you do not have health insurance, you go to bed every single night knowing that if you wake up sick or your child does, you might not be able to see that doctor or afford one if you can even find one. Even if you have health insurance, you are paying more and more in premiums and getting less and less coverage for your money.

Millions of you are seeing your premiums skyrocket. Yet you lie awake at night--millions do--wondering: What if I lose my job? What if I get sick and find out my policy does not cover the costs and the care I need--or, even worse, your insurance company cancels your policy altogether? What if you run out of benefits and have to pay out of your pocket? I wish I could say these fears are irrational fears, but they are not. There is nothing irrational about those fears. Insurance does not allow you to be sure of anything these days.

Our system, all 100 of us here know, is broken. People are losing their homes because they get sick. People are dying because they cannot afford the cure. This is just not acceptable in our America. That is why we are here on a Saturday night.

If you have watched the news over the past few months, you have probably noticed there is a wide range of opinions on how we should fix things. And that is as it should be. We need all the good ideas we can get, and hopefully this debate will produce that. But if you have also watched the debate in the Senate over the last 2 days, you have probably noticed something else as well. I don't believe a single person in this body has stood up at any point and said we are OK doing nothing at all. Therefore, in the weeks ahead we will have a full and open debate about every provision of this bill.

But tonight's vote is nothing more than a choice--a choice between doing something or doing nothing. I urge my colleagues this evening to join us, hopefully unanimously, to say we should do something. We should do something about this most basic right that all Americans deserve.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I wish to make some brief comments. I will yield to my colleague from Colorado, Senator Udall, in a moment, and then at the conclusion of his comments I will propound a unanimous consent request. I will not do that until I know there is an objection that will be rendered, and I would certainly wait until I know that is coming. I will not, obviously, make the request until that person arrives so they can express their objection. Regretfully, I might add, they are going to express that objection, but, nonetheless, I don't want them to be worried that I would somehow try to sneak this in, knowing there is an objection to be filed.

I rise this afternoon in support of legislation that would do something that I think most Americans would support as well, regardless of where you live and what your economic circumstances may be; that is, to freeze interest rates on existing credit card balances until the full protections of the Credit Card Accountability Act we wrote earlier this year go into effect. As many of my colleagues will recall, on a vote of 90 to 5, we passed a bill early this year by a near unanimous vote because we all heard the same stories from our constituents across the country: Credit card companies charging outrageous fees; consumers finding out that the interest rates had been jacked up for no apparent reason whatsoever; families struggling to make ends meet and being driven further and further and further into debt by what I would describe as abusive practices.

On that day, on the day we passed the bill, we declared that credit card companies were unfairly padding profits at the expense of the people we work for, so we put a stop to it. Today, it is no different, unfortunately. Knowing that the Credit Card Act will finally protect consumers from these abuses, the industry has tried to make one last grab for their customers' pocketbooks, and that is what has been going on over these past several months. I think this behavior is deplorable, to put it mildly. We can, once

again, put a stop to it, and that is what I will be proposing shortly.

The legislation I rise to discuss would immediately freeze interest rates on credit cards to ensure that Americans are protected until the full provisions of that law go into effect in February. The holiday season is upon us. Hard-pressed Americans want to go out and do what they can to help their families and to celebrate at a very difficult time. Some joy--and a lot of that will have to occur, obviously, by taking a credit card out to make those purchases during the holiday season, the Thanksgiving break coming up, for putting food on the table, traveling, calling a family member, calling a friend. All those activities, to some degree, given the hardship people are feeling, will require them to use that credit card in too many cases.

To do so, of course, they are watching in this window an industry continuing to skyrocket these rates as well as these fees on people.

Let me tell my colleagues something: The reason we allowed a gap period between the passage of the legislation and the imposition of the regulations or the statutory requirements was because the industry came to me and said: Senator, we are going to need some time to administer-- to change how we provide these kinds of benefits to people, so would you give us a little window here to operate. On the basis of that request, we did so. They wanted longer, but we thought February was fine. If that had been what they had done, I think most of us would say we understand that. Unfortunately, they have taken that window and used it as a way to jam in on the consumers of this country, particularly at a time when, again, people are losing their jobs, their homes, their health care, their retirement, and the holiday season is upon us.

Every 6 months, card companies will be required, under our bill, to review each account they hit with a high rate hike since January of 2009 and reduce the rate if the customer has become less of a credit risk.

As consumers, obviously, we have a responsibility to spend within our means and to pay what we owe. We bear that responsibility. But the credit card industry as well has a responsibility to deal with their customers honorably. There is nothing honorable about what has happened with these significant rate increases and fees. Most importantly, they don't have a right to rip off American families, especially when the Congress has already gone on record opposing the very actions they are engaging in and doing so in a timeframe that was given to them to adjust to the new changes that will occur under the credit card legislation. Instead of fulfilling that obligation, they are using it as a window to grab as much as they can out of the pockets of hard- pressed consumers.

So let us help consumers have a break in all this. I see my colleague from Colorado and I will yield to him for a couple minutes and when he finishes his remarks I will make a unanimous consent request that we proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 189, the Credit Card Rate Freeze Act; further, that the bill be read a third time and passed, and that a motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. This would provide us a window of about 12 weeks--that is what it amounts to, between now and the 1st of February--during this holiday season to put a stop to these outrageous rates and fees being charged to people.

I hope my colleagues, whether you agreed with the bill--although most did; 90 colleagues voted for the bill in the spring--why wouldn't you join us today in allowing 12 weeks for a freeze on these rates that are occurring to give our fellow citizens across this country a chance to meet these obligations.

With that, I yield to my colleague from Colorado.

Madam President, I thank my colleague for his remarks. Many others have similar views on this. I regret that there is going to be an objection filed to a measure that would have allowed us to do something meaningful for our fellow citizens at this time of the year.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 189, S. 1927, the Credit Card Rate Freeze Act of 2009; further, that the bill be read the third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, before the Republican leader leaves the floor, let me thank him for his comments about the Berlin Wall, which are very appropriate. I still have on my desk in my office in the Capitol a large piece of stone from the Berlin Wall. I was there a few weeks after the wall came down. It took a long time for it to come down. The symbol of that I look at every single day as a reminder of what all of us knew for so many years; that is, there is something terribly wrong about a system that creates a wall to keep in its people.

So I appreciate the comments on the 20th anniversary, and I think it is appropriate to recognize the great achievement that occurred 20 years ago when that wall did come down, much to the surprise of many that something like that could ever occur.

Today, Mr. President, I want to speak, if I may, for a couple of minutes and to share some brief thoughts in honor of our veterans on Veterans Day. It is a day, of course, to acknowledge the sacrifice of those who have served and those who have given their lives to secure the very liberty we enjoy as Americans.

Forty-three members of the U.S. military from my home State of Connecticut have made that ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past several years. They are all deeply missed, and today our thoughts are with them and their families and friends. This Veterans Day, we feel an additional sense of loss in the wake of the shocking slaughter at Fort Hood last week. Our anger and bewilderment at this horrific act of violence are matched only by the sadness of the loss of these young, brave men and women. We keep the wounded and the families of the victims in our prayers and our minds.

Mr. President, we are proud to be a nation with an All-Volunteer military. No one comes to your door and tells you that you have been chosen to shoulder the burden of protecting that which we all hold dear. It is a burden welcomed by our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen. If all they did was to raise their hands, we would owe them a profound debt of gratitude. But for those who do volunteer, military service isn't just a patriotic obligation, it is an honor, and it is a way of life.

Our men and women in uniform fulfill their duties with unparalleled skill and pride. They represent the greatest fighting force the world has ever known, but also the finest core of infantrymen, pilots, drivers, mechanics, and logistical support staff you will find anywhere in any enterprise. If you visit with our troops, you meet all kinds of men and women: first generation Americans, those with a long family history of service, members of every race, religion, and, yes, even gays and lesbians serve as well, as we all know. Most of them seem impossibly young to me. All of them are unmistakably proud to be serving the United States of America.

Some of them will come home to a hero's welcome, applauded at the airports and greeted by the warm embrace of children who seem to have grown a foot while their mother or father was overseas. Some will come home with wounds that will require a lifetime of recovery; sometimes they are wounds we cannot see. Some of them will come home to find that the home they once knew is gone, and they will need a tremendous amount of our help and support to get back on their feet. All of them, of course, Mr. President, deserve our gratitude. All of them need our support, and all of them deserve to know, as they risk their lives, that the benefits they have earned will be there for them when they return.

Although I know we all share a deep appreciation for our men and women in uniform, the sad truth is that some in Washington have in previous years treated veterans' benefits as a line item like any other, subject to the political whims of the annual budget battles we have.

Let's be clear, if we can. Those benefits aren't a gift from a generous Congress. Those benefits are earned by our veterans, earned with sweat and blood and tireless duty. They represent the most sacred of promises, and they are promises we must keep.

That is why I have always fought for funding of veterans' benefits, including the best health care we have to offer, so that when our troops incur medical costs in defense of our Nation, they do not have to pay them out of their own pockets. That is why I have supported the post 9/11 GI bill, so that troops can continue their education, and fought to include military families under the Family and Medical Leave Act, so the burden of caring for a loved one doesn't crush a family who has already sacrificed so much.

We make these commitments to our troops in recognition of the commitment they have made to us. Today is a day to celebrate that commitment and to mark the many sacrifices it entails. Today, we think of young men and women across our Nation, just out of high school in many cases, sitting down with their parents to tell them they have heard the call to serve, pushing through the difficult days of basic training, facing that very first deployment to the battlefield. Today we think of those families they leave behind, as they pray for the safe return of their loved ones.

Today we will all think of those who have come home draped in the flag they have sacrificed their lives to defend, and those whose lives have been forever changed by the injuries they have suffered in defense of our liberties and freedoms. These are our sons and daughters, our fathers and mothers. They are neighbors of ours and friends and colleagues. They are truly our fellow heroes.

Today we thank them for their service, we mark their sacrifice, we take pride in their remarkable courage, and we reaffirm our commitment to keeping the promise we made when they raised their hands and volunteered.

Mr. President, I know I am not alone in my gratitude for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coastguardsmen. I certainly know I am not alone in my pride in our talented and dedicated military. I hope the troops who are away from home this Veterans Day, those who have returned, and the families who have helped carry their burden, will know they are not alone either. We all stand with them.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the National Liberty Memorial Act, a bill I am introducing with my colleague Senator Grassley. This important legislation would authorize the construction of a memorial in Washington, DC honoring the African American patriots who fought in the Revolutionary War.

For too long, the role these brave Americans played in the founding of our Nation has been relegated to the dusty back pages of history. Fortunately, historians are now beginning to uncover their forgotten heroism, and they estimate that more than 5,000 slaves and free blacks fought in the army, navy, and militia during the Revolutionary War. They served and struggled in major battles from Lexington and Concord to Yorktown, fighting side by side with white soldiers. More than 400 of these brave Americans hailed from my home state of Connecticut.

More than 20 years ago, Congress authorized a memorial to black Revolutionary War soldiers and sailors, those who provided civilian assistance, and the many slaves who fled slavery or filed petitions to courts or legislatures for their freedom. Unfortunately, the group originally authorized to raise funds for and build the memorial was unable to conclude its task, and there remains no memorial to the important, and too often unacknowledged, contributions made by these 5,000 Americans.

But a group of committed citizens has formed the Liberty Fund DC to complete this memorial and ensure that these patriots receive the tribute they deserve here in our Nation's capital. I am honored to work alongside them in completing this mission.

The time has come to recognize the sacrifice and the impact of the African Americans who fought for the birth of our country. I urge my colleagues to support the National Liberty Memorial Act.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the National Liberty Memorial Act, a bill I am introducing with my colleague Senator Grassley. This important legislation would authorize the construction of a memorial in Washington, DC honoring the African American patriots who fought in the Revolutionary War.

For too long, the role these brave Americans played in the founding of our Nation has been relegated to the dusty back pages of history. Fortunately, historians are now beginning to uncover their forgotten heroism, and they estimate that more than 5,000 slaves and free blacks fought in the army, navy, and militia during the Revolutionary War. They served and struggled in major battles from Lexington and Concord to Yorktown, fighting side by side with white soldiers. More than 400 of these brave Americans hailed from my home state of Connecticut.

More than 20 years ago, Congress authorized a memorial to black Revolutionary War soldiers and sailors, those who provided civilian assistance, and the many slaves who fled slavery or filed petitions to courts or legislatures for their freedom. Unfortunately, the group originally authorized to raise funds for and build the memorial was unable to conclude its task, and there remains no memorial to the important, and too often unacknowledged, contributions made by these 5,000 Americans.

But a group of committed citizens has formed the Liberty Fund DC to complete this memorial and ensure that these patriots receive the tribute they deserve here in our Nation's capital. I am honored to work alongside them in completing this mission.

The time has come to recognize the sacrifice and the impact of the African Americans who fought for the birth of our country. I urge my colleagues to support the National Liberty Memorial Act.

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

Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes, if I can, to express my thanks first to Majority Leader Reid and the leadership team for all they have done to bring us to a final vote later this evening on the effort to extend unemployment insurance to jobless Americans as well as to provide tax credits for homebuyers and allow more businesses to utilize the net operating loss carry back. I thank the leadership for it.

I want to also thank Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee, who was responsible for putting this all together, and his staff who worked very hard. I presume they did so in conjunction with Senator Grassley, the ranking member of that committee. I know it took some time. I regret it took as long as it did to get the extension of unemployment insurance.

As I am sure Members have heard over the last few weeks, every day we delayed in providing some relief to people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, 7,000 people were losing their unemployment insurance. Again, all of us know people within our communities, our neighborhoods, and our States who have lost their jobs as a result of the tremendous downturn in our economy. These people are trying to pay mortgages, literally put food on the table and provide for their families. Unemployment insurance has been absolutely critical over the years. This is not the first time, obviously, we have had an extension. It has traditionally been a bipartisan effort. Republican and Democratic administrations have agreed to provide these extensions. This one, unfortunately, took too long, in my view, to put in place, given the depth of this recession, given the fact that so many people have now fallen outside of the employment picture.

I know the numbers people talked about are anywhere from 8 to 15 percent unemployment rates, depending upon where you live. I don't think those numbers are anywhere near close to reflecting what is going on. If you asked me candidly what the unemployment rate is in this country, I think it hovers closer to 20 percent since an awful lot of people are so discouraged they have stopped looking because the economy has been that bad. So this extension of benefits is absolutely essential.

But extending unemployment benefits means in effect there is simply not enough job creation in the economy. That gets me to the second part of this bill and that is the homebuyer's tax credit.

I see my friend from Georgia who has arrived on the floor. It is perfect timing, because I was about to talk about him. He was the principal author a number of months ago of the first-time home buyer tax credit that was included as part of the Recovery Act. That provision authored by Johnny Isakson of Georgia which I was pleased to support has been used by almost 2 million people.

That provision is about to run out by the end of this month. As a result of his efforts these past few weeks--and I am pleased once more to be his partner in this effort--we have been able to extend that benefit to the first-time home buyer. But we have done something beyond that, which Johnny Isakson has talked about over the many weeks he and I have talked and that is to expand it to the move-up buyer. That is that person who literally moves up from the house they are in to that new house. That family may have grown--a couple of additional children--and they are able to move up into that next category. This bill now provides not only the benefit to the first-time home buyer but to that move-up home buyer as well. 70 percent of existing homeowners today can potentially qualify for this move-up buyer credit. That is going to be a tremendous benefit, in my view.

The credit is still $8,000 for the first-time home buyer, but now move-up buyers can claim a credit up to $6,500. You have to have an income, if you are a single person, of $125,000 or less; if you are joint filers, $225,000 or less. There is a cap on the home price of $800,000 or less. Move-up buyers have to have lived in their current home for at least 5 years. And all home buyers, first-time or move-up, have to be prepared to stay in their new home for 3 years. This credit cannot be used by investors. We also included a lot of anti-fraud provisions.

Again, I am confident my friend from Georgia has made this point: The first-time buyer traditionally is someone who has saved just enough to get into that first home. As I think Senator Isakson said, they are probably sleeping on futons and eating a lot of Lean Cuisine or other things just to survive in that new house. They are so excited to be in there, and sacrificed tremendously to get into that first home they dreamed about having.

The move-up buyer is more inclined and capable of buying that furniture, maybe building a porch, putting a garage on, a new roof on the house and generally making improvements. So the ripple effect economically from that move-up buyer is going to be a real benefit. The first-time home buyer obviously helps, but being able to actually make those kinds of investments I

think is going to be help create jobs in this country. It is not going to solve all our problems, but it is going to help get people working again: the home builders, employees at home improvement and hardware stores, landscapers, contractors, people in the real estate business, those kinds of jobs that can make a difference. So I am pleased we are extending unemployment insurance, but I am also very pleased we are doing this on the homebuyer tax credit because it does provide some economic lift in the country at a time when we desperately need to restore confidence and optimism.

We have a way to go, obviously, before we start feeling that level of confidence and optimism that was present before the current downturn. But in most recessions our country has been in, real estate has been at the heart of it, and the recoveries from our recessions have been led by the real estate sector of our economy. If this recession is typical of other recessions, real estate will help our economy to come out of this downturn. It is not the only factor but it is a major factor in recovery. This extension will run to next spring, at a critical time of real estate sales in our Nation.

I can't begin to thank my colleague from Georgia enough for his tireless efforts in this arena. This is how it ought to be, by the way. This is the way we are supposed to do business around here, where we come together, listen to each other's ideas, and then try to work it so our colleagues will appreciate the effort that has been made and try to make a difference in our country.

I thank my friend from Georgia for his leadership once again on this issue. But for him, I don't think this would have happened. You can't always say that about every bill. A lot of people were involved in this issue. But I would say to my colleagues, had it not been for Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia, I don't think we would be where we are today. On behalf of my constituents in the State of Connecticut, your first-time home buyer provision, which I was pleased to join in, will likely help 10,000 home owners in my State. I don't know what the number will be as a result of this provision, but it is going to make a difference to families in Connecticut, so we thank the Senator from Georgia.

I yield.

I thank my colleague and, as I said earlier, I thank Senator Reid and Senator Baucus and their staffs as well for allowing us to come to this moment. It is a good day for our country.

I thank my colleague again, and I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of the Global Child Survival Act of 2009, which I introduced earlier this week along with Senators Corker and Durbin.

I do so in the hopes that the United States will take these important steps towards living up to its obligation as the world's wealthiest nation.

Ours is a moral obligation, of course; reducing mortality rates for children in developing areas of the world is within our grasp. We--we in this very body--have the power to save millions of innocent and vulnerable lives.

Ours is also a literal obligation. As part of the Millennium Development Goals, the United States has made an explicit commitment-- along with 188 other nations--to doing its part to reach this goal.

To date, we have made significant progress and improved the lives of tens of thousands of individuals. But unless we bring to bear the full force of our knowledge, our creativity, our compassion, and our commitment to implementing effective strategies, we will ultimately fail to keep our promise to millions around the world who need us.

I can't accept that.

Not when nearly 9 million children under the age of five die every year--more than 24,000 every day. That is a number equal to the population of South Windsor, CT, dying every day--mostly from preventable and treatable causes like pneumonia, diarrhea, malaria, and sepsis.

Not when nearly 4 million newborns every year die in the first 4 weeks of life.

Not when 2.5 million children die each year from diseases for which vaccines are readily available.

Not when it is clear that simply by living up to the commitments we have already made, to say nothing of furthering our commitments, we could save so many lives so easily.

This is a moral imperative. But it is also a strategic imperative. The state of a country's public health is inextricably linked to its security. Poor health systems around the world represent a danger to America. Last year, the Director of National Intelligence reported as follows:

Chronic, non-communicable diseases; neglected tropical

diseases; maternal and child mortality; malnutrition;

sanitation and access to clean water; and availability of

basic health-care also affect the US national interest

through their impacts on the economies, governments, and

militaries of key countries and regions.

Countries with high child and maternal mortality are inherently less stable and more prone to violence. The consequences of failing to live up to our commitments under the Millennium Development Goals will be felt around the world.

These goals are not beyond our reach. Already, the increased distribution of simply technologies like mosquito nets and basic vaccinations has reduced child mortality to its lowest level since we began keeping track of the statistics in 1960.

Simple efforts like distributing bed nets and micronutrients are saving 10,000 children a day.

But our success to date is not an excuse for complacency going forward. There is more we can do.

We could save 1.4 million newborns by encouraging exclusive breast feeding for the first 6 months of life.

We could cut in half newborn mortality and reduce maternal mortality simply by providing basic childbirth assistance--things like clean equipment and trained attendants.

If we make simple remedies like oral rehydration therapy for diarrhea and antibiotics for respiratory infections available in accordance with the Millennium Development Goals, we could cut the child mortality rate by two-thirds, saving nearly 6 million lives a year.

The legislation requires the administration to develop and implement a strategy to improve the health of, and reduce mortality rates among, newborns and children in developing countries.

It supports effective, life-saving programs to provide children and mothers with basic minerals and vitamins that we daily take for granted, and it takes on the scourge of easily treatable and preventable diseases such as pneumonia and cholera.

It empowers young girls by helping them get good educations, and protects them from abusive practices such as female genital cutting.

It establishes a task force to monitor and evaluate the progress of government agencies responsible for ensuring that we meet our commitment to the Millennium Development Goals.

It puts Congress on record as supporting innovative intervention strategies--from community based health centers to ready-to-use food therapies.

It authorizes the President to put our money where our intentions are.

Finally, this bill makes an important statement at a pivotal time. We are close to reaching a key milestone on the road to achieving our Millennium Development Goals in 2015. This legislation will put the Senate on record supporting robust child survival health programs as the international community redoubles its efforts to achieve these goals and prepares for the 2010 G8 and G20 summit in Canada, where child survival and maternal health will be a major priority for the assembled nations.

It doesn't cost a lot to save a life. Children in developing countries die of diarrhea every day--but the oral rehydration therapy needed to treat it costs just 54 cents. Children die of respiratory infections--but the treatment is just 71 cents.

The United States does a lot to combat child mortality. We have devoted more than $6 billion to child survival programs over the past 20 years. It has worked. But we can do more. We have committed to do more. We must do more.

I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort, which has already garnered bipartisan support. Millions of lives hang in the balance.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, before I get to the substance of my remarks, let me comment briefly, if I can, on the comments of my colleague and friend from Utah, Senator Bennett. He has been an invaluable Member when it comes to these issues of economics in our country. His background and experience has brought a wealth of talent to this institution at some very critical moments.

I want my colleagues to know, as the new chairman of the Banking Committee after the election of 2006, I happened to have been in the position of being asked to manage a situation that began, as many will recall, back in September of last year. September 18 is a date which will be forever emblazoned in my mind and memory. It was on that evening that a small group of us were asked to gather in the office of the Speaker of the House, where Chairman Bernanke of the Federal Reserve Bank and Secretary Paulson, the Secretary of the Treasury, announced to us that we had a matter of days to act as a Congress or we would face a meltdown of our financial system in this country and elsewhere.

In some ways, it was the economic equivalent to 9/11. It took all the oxygen out of the room, I can tell you. I was sitting next to Dick Shelby, my friend from Alabama. As I say, there were about 10 or 12 of us in that room that evening who received that message.

Within 2 weeks, from September 18 to the end of the month, we ended up voting here on the floor that night--we all sat in our chairs, as we do on rare occasions when there is a moment of significant import. Every single Member cast a ballot from their seat.

I knew that evening, by the way, as I listened to the call of the roll, that there were several of our colleagues here who were 40 days away from the election, and that probably they were going to lose their seats if they supported the proposal. And they did. But they did what I thought was the courageous and right thing to do. And 74 people voted that night in favor of it; 25 against. Our colleague from Massachusetts was not here that evening, Ted Kennedy. There were 99 Senators.

As long as I live, I will never forget that vote that evening because I think it is what the Founders sort of had in mind. We recall--those of us who were here, I am sure my friend from Florida remembers, it made the townhall meetings pale by comparison--the reaction over those 2 weeks across the Nation. There will be historians who debate the wisdom of the specifics of the bill.

But I recall with great clarity the morning my friend from Utah just described, with about five of us in the room, and that was S-116, one floor down from where we stand this evening. We met to try and fashion together something on a bipartisan basis that we could present to our colleagues and the administration and others that would incorporate the protections we thought we could pull together in a space of days to respond to this, and with the necessary resources.

Bob Bennett was the author, as I recall, who insisted we break up this proposal into two parts so we would have a chance to evaluate the success of it. I think it was a remarkable and very valuable suggestion that contributed significantly to the outcome of that vote. It also offered those an opportunity at a later date to determine whether to proceed with it.

There were differences of opinion about that, and, again, historians will debate this. But the people of this country ought to know that a guy named Bob Bennett from the State of Utah, along with several others, played a role which I think helped save our country at a critical moment. We have a lot of disagreements around here. I am a Democrat from New England. He is a Republican from Utah, although, as he well knows, my wife's family is from Utah, so I have some Utah connections. But it was one of those moments where I think Americans would like to think we can act around here when a crisis occurs.

While we differ and disagree on a lot of issues, as he knows, despite our friendship--as long as I live, in the years I have served here, that morning, that occasion, and the events that followed in the short days afterwards, I think, helped keep this country on a stable footing and we avoided the kind of depression and collapse that could have occurred.

I did not intend to speak about this, but since he addressed the issue--I have kept a lot of notes about those 2 weeks. I have copious notes, almost 500 pages of them, that describe the events of those 2 weeks in great detail because I was involved in every meeting and every drafting session. So I can tell you down to every dotted ``i'' and crossed ``t'' what happened during those 2 weeks. It was a moment of great import, and I thank my friend from Utah for his contribution to all of that.

Madam President, I want to address the issue of the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act. I am sorry we are still here debating this. This legislation was introduced nearly 3 weeks ago, and twice the adoption of this bill has been stopped, despite overwhelming support. Yesterday 87 of us voted to get us one step closer to extending unemployment benefits. We all would prefer to be talking about how we can get people back to work than extending benefits. It would be far better for the Nation if we could talk about what we are doing to create jobs.

But in the interim, while we have not created as many jobs as we would like, providing benefits is crucial. Let me take a moment to add that we would not be here at all without the work of our colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, who has championed this issue over the last month or so as a new Member. We are neighbors in New England, but she speaks for the country when she talks about the importance of this issue and what a difference it has made in the lives of families, as they struggle to keep their homes and provide the necessary resources for their children and others.

As part of this effort--and I know there is some debate--I wanted to also recognize my colleague and friend from Georgia, Johnny Isakson. The two of us have been working, as many of my colleagues know, on a proposal to extend and expand the first-time home buyer tax credit. Senator Isakson has been the leader on this issue. I commend him for it, and I want to thank him and his staff for their work to get this extension before the credit runs out on November 30.

Already we have seen the impact of this credit on jump-starting the housing sector. Sales of existing homes rose

9.4 percent in September--the highest level in 2 years. Extending this credit, in our view, temporarily through the slowest housing sales months would help maintain the recovery.

The great fear everyone has is that without swift action these good signals we have been getting--and while certainly not a recovery yet, they are an indication we may be heading now in the right direction-- will stall during these critical cold months, and the winter months are difficult months for the housing sector. I think inaction would be a great mistake.

This legislation he and I have authored would extend the current credit through the spring, increase the income limitations, and provide a slightly smaller credit to the so-called move-up market--not just first-time home buyers, but the move-up market--helping to make more than 70 percent of current home buyers eligible for this credit.

I want to stress, as my colleague from Georgia has on numerous occasions, including during a hearing I held only a few days ago of the Senate Banking Committee--where he testified eloquently, I might add, that this tax credit needs to be temporary. Democrats and Republicans on the committees, I think, were deeply impressed with how knowledgeable Johnny Isakson is about real estate issues. He spent more than three decades in the business and knows it well, and he impressed, I think, all of us with his knowledge of this industry and what a critical component it is of our economy.

That aspect he advocated for, as I mentioned before, is that the effectiveness of this credit depends on it being temporary, which it is. That will encourage, we believe, prospective home buyers to buy that home now--those who are thinking about it. Extending it continuously would not.

I want to indicate to my colleagues that this credit should remain temporary and not become a tax extender that we extend year after year after year after year, as we do in certain other areas of our economy.

But neither the unemployed nor prospective home buyers will be helped by stalling on the speedy passage of this legislation.

Every night for 3 weeks now--going back to the unemployment compensation issue--we have gone home and not had to worry about how we are going to make those mortgage payments or feed our families. We are Senators, and so we have these jobs that provide us with more than a decent income, and we never have to feel that gnawing worry about whether there is going to be enough money to allow us to keep our homes or to see to it that our families are going to have the basic necessities they need.

Every night--every night--7,000 more Americans in our Nation have exhausted their unemployment benefits. So for 3 weeks--7,000 people a day have had their jobless benefits run out. They do not have jobs. They do not have benefits to help them. These are hard-working people who contribute to our economy and contribute to our country, their families, and their neighborhoods. They have been good providers. And because of a collapsing economy--which they did not create--they find themselves in the dire circumstances where they are unable to meet those obligations at home.

Over the years I have been in this body, we have come together during critical moments like this--never quite as serious as this one--and have extended those benefits to people because we know how important it is to them. We have been able to come together to get it done. Yet now, for nearly 3 weeks, we have been stalled in our effort to provide needed relief.

I mentioned early we provided relief for the banks, $700 billion in relief, in less time than it is taking us to provide relief to jobless workers. That is what Bob Bennett and I were doing. We had a crisis in the country. So we worked on the legislation for 2 weeks. From September 18 to October 1, that is how long it took for us to come together and vote 74 to 25 to provide $700 billion to stabilize the financial institutions in this country. I think we did the right thing. History will debate it. Here we have been nearly 3 weeks and we can't even come up with unemployment compensation for the 7,000 people every day who are losing these benefits.

You explain that to the American public. This collapse occurred in our economy not because they did anything wrong, but because they lost their job. Here we are still 3 weeks later dithering about whether we can get some special amendment we would like added that has nothing to do with this issue--ACORN payments or other proposals. I don't question the sincerity of people, but why would they allow that to obstruct an extension of jobless benefits that hundreds of thousands of Americans so desperately need?

In total, since playing politics with this issue, 140,000 Americans have exhausted their benefits. That is my math. We know this is important. Last night we had 87 votes to move to the motion to proceed, but here we are running out 30 more hours while another 7,000 people are losing those benefits.

So I don't have to tell my colleagues how vital this lifeline is for families back home in their states. They all know it. People can't find work. They need a little help to put food on the table and make ends meet until they can find that job again. Unfortunately, this recession is hitting families in all of our States.

According to the National Employment Law Project, nearly 14,500 people in my home State of Connecticut and 400,000 people nationwide have already exhausted all of their unemployment benefits. By the end of the year, that will rise to 20,000 people in my State, 1.4 million people across the country.

One of my constituents wrote in desperation the following:

I have been without benefits for two months now. I have a

family of 5. Every day is a struggle. My husband and I have

been looking for work every day. There are no jobs! Something

has to change. I ran out of my benefits. Please have someone

help not only me, but everyone that is without work.

It is not just these people who will suffer when these benefits run out; it will be their children. It will be the local businesses whose customers can't afford to buy their products anymore. It will be the local governments who lose tax revenues that pay the salaries of our policemen and firefighters.

We have a good bill that I worked on with Senator Baucus, Senator Reid, and, as I said, Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire, who has been our champion on this issue. Our new freshman Senator from New Hampshire has led the way, and again, her leadership has been invaluable.

Madam President, 140,000 people over 3 weeks whose benefits have run out while Republicans have stood in the way of this important legislation, I think, deserve better. We managed to give the banks $700 billion in 2 weeks; we ought to be able to take care of people who are losing their benefits by passing a bill that they need so desperately.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I wish to speak in honor of a good friend and a friend to American cinema, Daniel Melnick, who passed away recently at the age of 77.

Those who know Hollywood will remember Daniel as a successful producer of film and television, and as a studio executive who believed in audacity and creativity--a filmmaker's studio executive, if you will.

He was a prodigy, becoming the youngest producer at CBS Television at the age of 19, where he worked on such series as the legendary ``Get Smart,'' and producing his first feature film at MGM, the thrilling ``Straw Dogs,'' before he turned 40. Over the next decade, he played a role in the development of films ranging from ``Network'' to ``Kramer vs. Kramer'' to ``The China Syndrome,'' while serving as head of production at both MGM and Columbia.

As a film producer, Daniels's credits include ``All That Jazz,'' ``Altered States,'' ``Footloose,'' ``Roxanne,'' and ``L.A. Story.'' Fittingly, his work as a producer was bold and vibrant--just the sort of films he encouraged as a studio executive.

In all, Daniel's films were nominated for more than 80 Academy Awards, and won more than two dozen Oscars.

I will remember Daniel as a warm, funny, breathtakingly creative friend whose beautiful house in Utah was the site of many wonderful get-togethers. We are poorer for the loss, but richer for all he gave to our country and the arts.