Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague, Senator Dodd, in introducing an important piece of legislation that will have an enormously positive impact on and improve the lives of blind Americans in the workforce. For too long, capable and talented blind Americans who have the desire and ability to fully participate in the workforce have been discouraged from doing so because of outdated federal disability laws.

Current law stifles earnings opportunities for blind individuals by cancelling all disability assistance for the first dollar of earnings over the government-set threshold. As a result, blind individuals covered by Social Security Disability Insurance, SSDI, which was created to provide security and stability to blind workers during periods of unemployment, are discouraged from expanding their employment opportunities beyond the earnings limitation for fear of suddenly losing their benefits.

Senator Dodd and I have been longtime supporters of legislation that would increase the earnings limit for those covered by SSDI. A similar policy was enacted for senior citizens with the adoption of the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act. The act eliminated the earnings limit for certain seniors covered by Social Security and thereby encouraged more seniors to participate in the workforce.

The current proposal, the Blind Persons Return to Work Act, is an improvement on past policy proposals focusing on modestly increasing the earnings limit. Rather than simply increasing the earnings limit for blind individuals, the act would allow for a gradual phase-out of Federal benefits for every $3 earned over the current limit, providing blind individuals the opportunity to increase their earnings as the SSDI benefit decreases.

The unemployment rate for working-age blind people is currently 70 percent. Many of these individuals are extremely talented and capable of fully contributing to the workforce, and we should provide them an incentive to reach their full potential while reducing the number of federal beneficiaries. The proposal will ease the transition from relying solely upon SSDI benefits to becoming active and productive members of the workforce.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Blind Americans Return to Work Act, to treat blind individuals fairly and to allow them to achieve increased financial independence.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague, Senator Dodd, in introducing an important piece of legislation that will have an enormously positive impact on and improve the lives of blind Americans in the workforce. For too long, capable and talented blind Americans who have the desire and ability to fully participate in the workforce have been discouraged from doing so because of outdated federal disability laws.

Current law stifles earnings opportunities for blind individuals by cancelling all disability assistance for the first dollar of earnings over the government-set threshold. As a result, blind individuals covered by Social Security Disability Insurance, SSDI, which was created to provide security and stability to blind workers during periods of unemployment, are discouraged from expanding their employment opportunities beyond the earnings limitation for fear of suddenly losing their benefits.

Senator Dodd and I have been longtime supporters of legislation that would increase the earnings limit for those covered by SSDI. A similar policy was enacted for senior citizens with the adoption of the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act. The act eliminated the earnings limit for certain seniors covered by Social Security and thereby encouraged more seniors to participate in the workforce.

The current proposal, the Blind Persons Return to Work Act, is an improvement on past policy proposals focusing on modestly increasing the earnings limit. Rather than simply increasing the earnings limit for blind individuals, the act would allow for a gradual phase-out of Federal benefits for every $3 earned over the current limit, providing blind individuals the opportunity to increase their earnings as the SSDI benefit decreases.

The unemployment rate for working-age blind people is currently 70 percent. Many of these individuals are extremely talented and capable of fully contributing to the workforce, and we should provide them an incentive to reach their full potential while reducing the number of federal beneficiaries. The proposal will ease the transition from relying solely upon SSDI benefits to becoming active and productive members of the workforce.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Blind Americans Return to Work Act, to treat blind individuals fairly and to allow them to achieve increased financial independence.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3303

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Coburn amendment to eliminate wasteful and duplicative spending. Before my colleague from Oklahoma leaves the floor, I know he has to go, but I have to pose a question for the Senator from Oklahoma. We have a listing in the Senator's amendment of the many duplicative programs.

Have we had a study that would indicate how many government employees are engaged in administering these duplicative programs?

I do believe that at least we ought to, over time, make an attempt to ascertain the numbers of employees who are in these duplicative government programs. It is really startling--if the American people knew of the fact that there are so many duplicative efforts and different agencies of the government trying to accomplish the same mission.

Before I go much further, I would like to mention, I have the information that tomorrow night the President will propose a spending freeze for discretionary spending with the exception of defense, veterans affairs, and homeland security. I applaud that move on the part of the President.

I think, from the conclusions I have reached so far, it would save some $15 billion next year and perhaps $200 billion over time. We are trying to ascertain exactly what that is.

But I do not see how the President, at the same time that he is recommending a spending freeze that would save some $12 or $15 or $20 billion next year, at the same time to be proposing a stimulus package, another one, that could be $80 or $100 billion. That is not fiscal discipline.

The House, the other body, passed, before we went out of session, a jobs bill that was somewhere around $100 billion, as I understand it. I understand the other side of the aisle is working on a package of about $80 billion. Well, look, let's stop the spending now. Let's stop the spending now.

So if we want to be sincere about stopping the spending that is unnecessary and unneeded, then we certainly should discard the idea that we need another massive stimulus, particularly in light of the fact that by any estimation, including the prediction of the President's economic advisers that if we passed the last stimulus package, unemployment would be at 8 percent.

So this proposal about a spending freeze would have a lot more credibility with me if we said we are going to stop additional spending this year that would also add to the burgeoning national debt.

The Coburn amendment is an important one. The Coburn amendment is best appreciated by the fiscal situation in which we find ourselves. In a recent editorial in the Houston Chronicle, they noted:

Our spending excesses, as most every American knows, are

increasingly financed by foreign sources led by China. In

all, about $4.5 trillion in U.S. debt is held by foreigners

and nearly $800 billion of that is held by the Beijing

government.

So we will increase the debt limit, and who is going to buy that debt? Apparently, the Chinese are buying a lot of it since they own, according to the Houston Chronicle, about $800 billion, and foreign countries own about $3.5 trillion.

On December 16, the Wall Street Journal wrote:

Our view is there is good and bad public borrowing. In the

1980s, Federal deficits financed a military build-up that

ended the Cold War leading to an actual peace dividend in the

1990s of 3 percent of GDP, as well as tax cuts that ended the

stagflation of the 1970s, and began 25 years of prosperity.

Those were high-return investments. Today's debt is financing

what exactly? The TARP money did undergird the financial

system for a time, and is now being repaid. But most of the

rest has been spent on a political wish list of public

programs ranging from unemployment insurance to wind turbines

to tax credits for golf carts. Borrowing for such low-return

purposes makes America poor in the long run.

So if we are increasing the debt limit, and the Chinese and other countries are going to buy that debt, and we are spending money in the stimulus package that has shown very little return on the massive $787 billion investment, then should we not try Dr. Coburn's method and support his amendment which would basically prevent us from having to increase the debt limit?

This amendment of Dr. Coburn's would rescind $120 billion in spending, 5 percent from each agency of government, other than the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs; directing the agencies to consolidate more than 650 duplicative government programs; rescind unobligated discretionary funds available for more than 2 consecutive fiscal years. Most Americans would be astonished to know that there are still tax dollars sitting out there which have been appropriated and not been spent for more than 2 years, sometimes several years.

Directing GAO to identify duplicative government programs and report the findings to Congress would render the debt limit increase in the underlying bill null and void. It is $1.9 trillion.

Let's just look at a few of the duplicative Federal programs that are out there. A 2004 report by a nonprofit research group listed 21 Federal programs across multiple agencies, many at Health and Human Services that funded childhood obesity programs either as the main focus or as one component of the Federal program.

Child obesity is a serious issue in America. Do we need 21 separate programs to address the issue? Would not we be more efficient if we had a single program instead of spreading them out amongst different Federal agencies?

There are 14 programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education related to foreign exchanges and designed to increase the opportunities for

study abroad, 14 programs. According to a 2003 GAO report, the Federal Government funds more than 44 job training programs administered by nine different Federal agencies across the Federal bureaucracy at a cost of $30 billion.

According to data from the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, 14 departments within the Federal Government and 49 independent agencies operate exchanges and study abroad programs.

A 2009 GAO report found 69 early education programs administered by nine different agencies. There are over 30 Federal programs that provide financial assistance to students to support postsecondary education at a cost to the taxpayer of over $30 billion every year.

According to a May 2007 report in the Academic Competitiveness Council, there are 105 Federal programs supporting STEM education with aggregate funding of $3.2 billion in 2006. You will note that I am not even talking about millions or hundreds of millions; we are talking about billions.

Here is one. There are at least 17 offender reentry programs across five Federal agencies, different Federal agencies, costing the taxpayers over $250 million annually.

A 2005 GAO study found there are a total of 23 Federal housing programs targeted or have special features for the elderly, 23 Federal housing programs that target or have special features for the elderly.

There are at least nine programs at the USDA tasked with researching and developing biofuels, costing taxpayers nearly $300 million annually. Over $800 million was included in the stimulus bill for these initiatives.

The Federal Government oversees at least 15 different preservation programs costing taxpayers nearly $100 million annually.

There are at least 28 Federal programs totaling over $5 billion that support job training and employment.

Here we are, with an outstanding public debt well over $12.3 trillion. The estimate for this year is the largest in history. The estimated population of the United States is over 307.6 million people. Therefore, each U.S. citizen's share of this debt is approximately $40,100. That is $40,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. That is shameful, shameful spending that has laid this debt on future generations of Americans. The greatness of America is based on the tradition that one generation has passed off to the next generation a nation that is better off than the one they inherited. What kind of a nation are we going to hand off to the next generation of Americans with a debt to the Chinese of $800 billion, a debt of over $3.5 trillion held by foreigners, and the debt goes on and on and on with no end in sight.

Why should we not try Dr. Coburn's method? Why should we not attempt to do something different rather than raising the debt limit every time we have spent so much we have to raise it again?

Let's look at what we spent last year alone: $787 billion on the so- called stimulus bill which amounts to $1.1 trillion, if you calculate the interest; $700 billion in TARP to bail out the banks and other ailing financial institutions; $410 billion for the Omnibus appropriations bill, a package of 9 appropriations bills rolled together, which contained over 9,000 unrequested, unnecessary, run-of- the-mill pork-barrel earmarks; $450 billion for the 2010 Omnibus appropriations bill, a package of 6 bills rolled together, containing 5,000 unrequested earmarks. Let's put them together. In two bills last year, one for 2009, the other for 2010, were at least 14,000 earmarks. The Democratic leadership worked with the President to ram through a $3.5 trillion budget resolution. We have spent $83 billion to bail out the auto companies. There is still a chance that a $2.5 trillion health reform bill may be passed by the other side.

Overall, domestic spending has increased by 14 percent over the last fiscal year. Inflation has been practically zero for all intents and purposes. But the spending has increased by 14 percent. Don't we get it? Don't we see what we are doing to future generations of Americans? Don't we see that a debt for $40,100 for every man, woman, and child in America is unconscionable? Why don't we try the Coburn amendment before we willy-nilly increase the debt limit by another $1.4 trillion? Why? Why can't we at least make an effort?

One thing I know about Dr. Coburn, he researches his information carefully. He has shown us we don't need to raise the debt limit and give ourselves a green light to spend even more. We have before us an opportunity. We can turn things around today. We can pass this amendment and begin the hard work and make the tough decisions necessary to put us on the path to fiscal solvency and national prosperity.

Here we are with a bill before us to increase the debt limit which would increase, then, the debt that every man, woman, and child in America has, as we continue this almost unrestrained spending spree.

I have said to my colleagues for a long time--and I think it was authenticated in Massachusetts recently--the American people are mad. They are angry at the spending. They do not want to lay a huge debt on future generations of Americans. They do not believe there is a shred of fiscal responsibility in the Congress or the administration. I will fairly note that this out-of-control spending was not invented with this administration. Republicans, when they were in charge, let spending get completely out of control. We betrayed our fiscal base. We paid a heavy price for it, but we deserved to pay that price. Now is the time to say stop, stop borrowing against our children and grandchildren's futures. Stop putting ourselves in a precarious situation, where the Chinese own so much of our national debt that they have their hand on the throttle of the American economy.

I hasten to add, it is not in China's interest to hurt the American economy. But it certainly can't be in our interest, in any way, to be in that kind of fiscal jeopardy. We cannot do that--not to mention the $3.5 trillion in debt held by foreigners.

I say to my colleagues, let's look at the Coburn amendment. It is well thought out, well researched. Let's put the brakes on the mortgaging of America's future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from North Dakota for allowing me to speak out of order. I might add--and I will say this several times--what a privilege it has been for me to have served with the Senator from North Dakota, a man who embodies the best in a prairie populist and one with whom I have had a great honor and privilege working for a long time.

As the hour grows near, I will have more to say about my appreciation and the honor of working with the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to congratulate my friend, Scott Brown, on his historic victory last night.

Scott Brown is a man who has served his country in the Army National Guard and Reserve. He is a person who has served his State in the State legislature. He is a wonderful father and a wonderful public servant. I congratulate him on his landmark victory.

I believe it was in Concord where the ``shot was heard round the world.'' Last night a shot was fired round this Nation. A shot was fired saying no more business as usual in Washington, DC. Stop this unsavory, sausage-making process called health care reform, where special favors are dispensed to special people for special reasons in order to purchase votes.

The American people do not want this health care reform because they do not believe it attacks the fundamental problem with health care in America; that is, there is nothing wrong with the quality, it is the cost that needs to be brought under control.

But there is also anger--I know from the townhall meetings in my own State--about the process: the Louisiana purchase, $300 million for Louisiana; the Florida Medicare Advantage grandfather clause for the Senator from Florida; the $5 billion cornhusker kickback; Vermont, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Michigan, Connecticut--twice in Connecticut-- Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming--the list goes on and on of special deals that were carved for special reasons. The latest, of course, is the incredible action concerning unions being exempt from taxes nonunion members will now have to pay in greater numbers. How do you justify favoring one group of Americans; that is, union members, for any reason other than you owe them political favors and they have political influence?

So the negotiating went from the backrooms here to the backrooms in the White House--the same President who said C-SPAN and a completely transparent process would prevail here so the American people would know who is on the side of the pharmaceutical companies. And the pharmaceutical companies probably got the best sweetheart deal of anybody in this whole process.

So I believe the majority of the American people have said and according to polling data 48 percent of Massachusetts voters have said health care was the single issue driving their vote. Thirty-nine percent said they voted for Brown specifically because of his vocal opposition to the measure. I congratulate Scott Brown. I congratulate our new colleague not only for standing up for what is right but also for articulating the frustration of the American people about this process we have been through.

So here we are, and now the rumors are that they will jam this proposal through the House of Representatives and then bypass what has always been the normal legislative process. They should not do that. The American people have spoken. The people of Massachusetts have spoken for the rest of America: Stop this process, sit down in open and transparent negotiations, and let's begin from the beginning.

We can agree on certain principles and certain measures that need to be taken, such as malpractice reform, going across State lines so people can have the insurance of their choice, and many other things, including, perhaps, a refundable tax credit for those who need health insurance and risk pools for those who have preexisting conditions. There are many things we could agree on if, for the first time in this administration and in this Senate, we sit down across the table from one another in honest and open negotiations and discussions.

We know health care costs in America are out of control. We know they need to be fixed. We want to be part of that process. So I urge the President of the United States, I urge my colleagues--now 59 of them-- to say: Stop, start from the beginning, sit down, and work for America. Let's do what has been done in the past, time after time after time, where we sit down and negotiate in good-faith efforts. So far, that has not happened despite the promises the President made during his campaign.

I urge my colleagues together to say we have to stop this process, we have to stop this unsavory sausage making, Chicago style, that has been going on, and we have to sit down in open and honest negotiations with the American people and fix the health care problem. We can do that together, and that is what the American people want us to do.

Again, I thank my colleague from North Dakota, and I yield the floor.

If the Senator will yield, on that map, I wonder should there not be a sticker for the State of Florida? According to a published report by one of my favorite columnists, Dana Milbank, of the Washington Post:

Gator Aid: Senator Bill Nelson inserted a grandfather

clause that would allow Floridians to preserve their pricey

Medicare Advantage program.

So maybe we should have one of those stickers for Florida there. By the way, that will cost my constituents more money because they will not have that same deal. Should there be a sticker for Montana?

Again, according to Dana Milbank:

Handout Montana: Senator Max Baucus secured Medicare

coverage for anybody exposed to asbestos--as long as they

worked in a mine in Libby, Montana.

Should there be a sticker there?

Continuing, Dana Milbank says:

Iowa pork and Omaha Prime Cuts: Senator Tom Harkin won more

Medicare money for low-volume hospitals of the sort commonly

found in Iowa. . . .

Maybe there should be a sticker for that. I don't know if you have North Dakota in there. Dana Milbank says:

Meanwhile, Senators Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad, both

North Dakota Democrats, would enjoy a provision that would

bring higher Medicaid payments to hospitals and doctors in

``frontier counties'' of states such as--let's see here--

North Dakota!

Should there be one for Hawaii? Mr. Milbank goes on to say:

Hawaii, with two Democratic senators, would get richer

payments to hospitals that treat many uninsured people.

Should there be a sticker there for Michigan? Mr. Milbank says:

Michigan, home of two other Democrats, would earn higher

Medicare payments for some reduced fees for Blue Cross/Blue

Shield. Vermont's Senator Bernie Sanders held out for larger

Medicaid payments for his state. (neighboring Massachusetts

would get one, too).

I guess there are a number of States that maybe should have stickers on them so that the American people can see where these special deals were cut out, and the majority of the population of this country can see where they were not. They are going to pay while those States pay less because of not just their location but because they happen to have been behind closed doors and cut special deals.

Sure. I ask that Senator Baucus be recognized.

Does that mean all these States are being treated the same?

This happens to be 2009. What happens between now and 2016?

If that is the case----

If that is the case, we will be glad to have the same provision inserted for the State of Arizona that was inserted for the State of Florida. You don't have a problem with that, do you?

Do you have a problem with that?

My question to the Senator from Montana is this: Would the Senator from Montana be willing to have the same provision that Senator Nelson, according to these reports, inserted, a grandfather clause that would allow Floridians to reserve their price in the Medicare Advantage Program? Would he accept a unanimous consent request right now that same provision apply to every State in America?

I ask unanimous consent that the same provision that was put in for the State of Florida by Senator Nelson would apply to every State in America.

I think the fact that an objection was heard resolves the case. Those are comforting words on the part of the Senator from Montana, whom I appreciate, but the fact is, there are special deals for special people. It is well known. It is very well known.

May I mention to my colleagues--sort of a personal privilege here-- the Senator from Louisiana came to the floor this morning and said:

Recently, just yesterday, Senator John McCain, our

colleague from Arizona, has claimed that the American people

are opposed to reform and he speaks about the will of the

majority. I would like to remind, respectfully, my colleague

from Arizona that the will of the majority spoke last year

when they elected President Obama to be President and they

decided not to elect him, and the President is carrying out

the will of the majority of the people to try to provide them

hope and opportunity.

I say in response to that, I really did not need to be reminded. I had not forgotten. Sometimes I would very much like to. But I appreciate the reminder.

The fact is that the Senator from Louisiana and other Senators should know that poll after poll, public opinion, partially because of what the Senator from Mississippi is pointing out--the latest being ``U.S. Voters Oppose Health Care Plan by Wide Margin.'' A Quinnipiac poll finds 3 to 1 that the plan should not pay for abortion. And it says American voters mostly disapprove of the plan 53-36 and disapprove 56- 38 percent President Obama's handling of the health care issue.

If I can remind my friend and colleague from Louisiana, I did carry her State.

And the State of the Senator from Montana.

If the Senator will----

But also, doesn't this bring up a larger issue--I ask all my colleagues to comment on this--whether our job here is to do whatever we can to just simply help our State, even if it is at the expense of other States, as the Senator from Mississippi pointed out, or is our title U.S. Senator, Arizona, Nebraska, Mississippi, et cetera? My title is not Arizona Senator, U.S.; it is U.S. Senator, Arizona. So of course I am here to represent the people of my State. But is a U.S. Senator's job to go out and do something which would then be at the expense of the citizens of another State simply by virtue of their clout and influence? Is that what we were sent here by our constituents to do?

Is it true what the majority leader said yesterday:

"I don't know if there is a Senator that doesn't have

something in this bill that was important to them,'' Senate

Majority Leader Harry Reid reasoned when asked at a news

conference Monday about the cash-for-cloture accusation.

``And if they don't have something important in it to them,

then it doesn't speak well of them.''

Does it speak well of us when we do something like the Senator from Mississippi pointed out, that favors Libby, MT, and not the rest of the country, that helps the seniors in Medicare Advantage in Florida and not in Arizona? Is that what we were sent here to do? That has never been my view of what our obligations to our citizens are, but also to the citizens of this country.

I ask my colleagues to comment.

A Senator from Colorado came to the floor and proudly stated that he had not asked for anything or gotten anything, and I will ask the Senator from Nebraska a question because his State seems to be at the center of a lot of attention. But, first of all, there is a little booklet that is put out by the Government Printing Office that talks about how our laws are made. We give it to our constituents and send it to schools all over America. I have never seen anything in that little booklet--it is a very interesting booklet--that says you get behind closed doors and you cut deals.

I know we are all a little cynical about politics and campaign promises, but the negotiating behind closed doors is especially so, particularly after your President says during the campaign, time after time: I am going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We will have doctors and nurses, hospital administrators, insurance companies, drug companies, they will get a seat at the table. They just would not be able to buy every chair. But what we will do, we will have negotiations televised on C-SPAN so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who is making arguments on behalf of the drug companies.

Of all people he recognized, the drug companies--who got the best deal of all? PhRMA. Who has spent the most money lobbying? Who has spent the most money on advertising? PhRMA. Who is going to cost the American consumer $100 billion, that could have been saved by the consumer if we had been able to reimport prescription drugs?

But I would ask my friend from Nebraska because along with the ``Louisiana purchase'' and probably the Florida deal this Nebraska deal has probably gotten the most publicity and visibility. Maybe because it was the 60th vote. I don't know if it is the biggest or not, in terms of money, because we will be finding deals in this 2,700-page bill for months. For months, we will be finding provisions, even though our staffs have carefully read it. It is not 2,700 pages for nothing.

So I would ask the Senator from Nebraska: How does this go over in the heartland of America? How do the people in Nebraska, who see that they have gotten some kind of special deal, a special provision-- certainly reported as so in the media--that would come at the expense of other taxpayers in America? I am curious about the reaction the Senator from Nebraska gets.

Let me make one additional comment. I have seen reform go through the Congress of the United States. The first one I saw was when we saved Social Security--a major reform of Social Security. There was no backroom dealing. It was a straightforward proposal as to how to fix Social Security. We fixed welfare, it was welfare reform--again, open, honest, bipartisan negotiations and bipartisan agreement. Welfare reform, Social Security reform, the efforts we made at tobacco reform, at campaign finance reform, at immigration reform and many others--the Patients' Bill of Rights. Every reform I have ever been involved in has had two major and sole components: No. 1, it is bipartisan; No. 2, there were no special favors or deals cut, provisions in thousands of pages of legislation.

Again, we know where the train is headed. We know what is going to happen a short time from now, but they will make history. You will make history. You will have rammed through ``reform'' on a strictly partisan basis, without the participation of the other party, over the objections of a majority of the American people, done in closed negotiations, with results that are announced to the American people without debate or discussion and to this side without debate or discussion.

The American people do not like it. They do not like for us to do business that way. I am sure this peaceful revolution that is going on out there already--because as the Senator from Idaho pointed out, because of the involvement of the car companies, the stimulus, the bonus, the generational theft we are committing, this, all on top of that, is going to give great fuel to the fire that is already burning out there, where they want real change, real change which they were promised in the last Presidential campaign and certainly did not get.

Of course, this legislation turns everything we know about budgeting on its head, although it has been done before and it has been done by Republicans, to our shame. Today, if you go out and buy an automobile, you can drive it for a year before you have to pay for it. Under this bill, it is the opposite. You pay the taxes, you have the reductions in benefits, and then 4 years later you start having whatever benefits would accrue from this legislation. So for 4 years small businesspeople, people all over America, will see their health care costs increased before there is a single, tangible result from it--remarkable.

Can I say, I appreciate the Senator from Mississippi bringing this important aspect to this issue and continuing to do so.

I would like to pick up on what Dr. Barrasso mentioned about the Kennedy family. It is well known I had a very close relationship, developed over the years, with Senator Ted Kennedy and that we worked together on a variety of issues. So there is a great irony in the constant, over there on the other side of the aisle, references to Senator Kennedy, who always began legislation by getting bipartisan, by getting Members of the other side of the aisle committed and working together--whether it be on immigration reform, whether it be on health care reform, whether it be on one of the great achievements of President Bush 2, No Child Left Behind.

In other words, every dealing I ever had with Senator Kennedy was to reach out, establish a fundamental base for agreement, and then move forward with legislation in a bipartisan fashion, which I think was one of the major reasons why he had such an impressive legislative record.

How did the other side do it? Without a bit of serious negotiation, without bringing anyone on board before moving forward--no one--which ends up, now, with a 60-to-40 vote, which is a pure partisan vote and outcome when there has never been, in history, a single reform that was not bipartisan. That is why the American people are rejecting this. That is why the American people are seeing through it. To hear the constant refrain that the American people want this: Read any poll. It is just a matter of difference because the American people have figured this out. It is going to be one of the great historic mistakes--not historic--but historic mistakes made by the Congress of the United States.

There may be on the floor a unanimous consent request to remove the Nebraska Medicaid deal. I would hope, if there is any unanimous consent agreement at any time, that the whole bill will be fixed, which means every special provision would be removed, whether it be from Nebraska or any other State. We still have the Louisiana Purchase of $300 million. We still have the Florida Medicare grandfather clause, $25 to $30 billion. The list goes on and on. The Connecticut hospital--I guess it is the Connecticut hospital. It is always in legislation, so you have to do research to see who qualifies. I would hope we could have, again, agreement that all these special provisions that affect certain specific States would be removed as well. That would go over rather well with the American people.

I want to say to my colleagues, thank you for your passion. I know a lot of people don't watch our proceedings on the floor. It has played a role in educating the American people as to what we are facing. The media played a role, advocacy groups, grassroots organizations all over America. But I have had the great privilege of engaging in these colloquies with my colleagues. To me, it has been both helpful to my constituents, and, frankly, it has also been helpful to me to work with people who have been involved in these issues, former Governors and others. We have made some kind of contribution, which I think is what we are all sent here for.

May I respond?

All the Senator had to do was have it authorized, bring it up on the floor as an appropriation, and I am sure the Senator's arguments would have been far more cogent than jamming it into a bill which has to do with health care reform, the policy of health care reform.

This legislation and this cause of the Senator from Montana has been turned back several times on other grounds.

I am responding.

Mr. President, as we approach in less than an hour a very important vote--some have called it historic, some call it pivotal; it has been given various adjectives and adverbs--I think it might be appropriate to discuss for a minute or two how this all began.

It all began in the Presidential campaign. I do not like to spend much time recalling it. But health care was a big issue in the Presidential campaign. On October 8, 2008, less than a month before the election, then-Candidate Obama said, concerning health care reform:

I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table.

. . . What we'll do is we'll have the negotiations televised

on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on

behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on

behalf of drug companies--

Keep that in mind: the drug companies--

or the insurance companies.

That was the statement made by then-Senator/Candidate Obama. What we have is a dramatic departure. There has never been a C-SPAN camera. There has never been a negotiation, a serious negotiation between Republicans and the other side. There has never been. I say that with the knowledge of someone who has negotiated many times across the aisle on many agreements. So don't stand and say there were serious negotiations between Republicans and Democrats. There never were.

But there were negotiations with the special interests, with PhRMA, the same ones the President said he was going to see who the American people were on the side of. Clearly, this administration and that side of the aisle was on the side of PhRMA because they got a sweetheart deal of about $100 billion that would have been saved if we had been able to reimport prescription drugs. The AARP has a sweetheart deal. There is a provision in this deal for them, plans that Medigap insurance sold by AARP are exempt from tax on insurance companies. The AMA signed up because of the promise of a doc fix. Throughout we should have set up a tent out in front and put Persian rugs out in front of it. That is the way this has been conducted.

Of course, after the special interests were taken care of, then we had to take care of special Senators. One deal is called--we have new words in our lexicon now--the Louisiana purchase, the corn husker kickback. I have a new name: the Florida flimflam, the one that gives the Medicare Advantage members in Florida the benefit, but my constituents in Medicare Advantage don't get it.

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

A number of States are treated differently than other

States.

Really?

A number of States are treated differently than other

States. That is what legislation is all about. That is

compromise.

Where is that taught? Where is that taught?

A number of States are treated differently than other

States. That is what legislation is all about. That is

compromise.

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

We will have negotiations televised on C-SPAN so that

people can see who is making arguments.

I see the leader from Illinois over there. Just a few days ago, I said: What is in the bill?

The Senator from Illinois said: I don't know. I am in the dark too. I can give him his own quote.

So here we are, as the Senator from Tennessee said, in the middle of the night, and here we are, my friends, about to pass a bill with 60 votes. Sixty votes represent 60 percent of this body, but I can assure my friends on the other side of the aisle it doesn't represent 60 percent of the American people. In fact, 61 percent of the American people, according to a CNN poll, say they want this stopped. They disapprove of it. I guarantee you, when you go against the majority opinion of the American people, you pay a heavy price, and you should.

I will tell my colleagues right now that when you--this will be, if it is passed--and we are not going to give up after this vote, believe me. For the first time in history, for the first time in history, there will be a major reform passed on a party-line basis. Every reform--and I have been part of them--has been passed on a bipartisan basis. This will be a strict party-line basis.

I was thinking today about this vote, and I was thinking about other times and other examples I have had of courage or lack of or the fact that in the face of odds, you have to stand for what you believe in. I thought about back when I first entered the U.S. Naval Academy at the young age of 17. One of the first things they told us about in our learning of naval traditions was about a battle that took place early in the Revolutionary War. An American ship run by a captain engaged a British ship, the mighty British Navy. The American ship was outgunned and was outmanned. As they came together in mortal combat, with dead and dying all around, the British captain said: Do you surrender? The captain, John Paul Jones, said: I have not yet begun to fight.

I tell the American people: We are going to go around this country. We are going to the townhalls, we are going to the senior centers, we are going to the rotary clubs. We are going to carry this message: We will not do this. We will not commit generational

theft on future generations of Americans. We will not give them another $2\1/2\ trillion in debt. We will not give them an unfair policy where deals are done in back rooms, and we--all of us on this side of the aisle--will stand for the American people, and we have just begun to fight.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join many of my colleagues in supporting a resolution designating January 2010 as ``National Mentoring Month.''

We all agree that young people need a supportive environment based on structured and trusting relationships with adults. The world is more complicated for children today than it ever was when I was growing up. Mentors can help young people through the difficult periods, help them see the difference between right and wrong, alleviate their doubts and concerns, and answer their questions frankly. Mentors can dramatically impact a young person's life by providing the support and encouragement that children need in order to grow into responsible, caring adults.

This resolution recognizes the value of volunteering time to make a difference in the life of a child. A growing body of research has shown that high-quality programs can make all the difference and help students in need achieve the type of future they might never have thought possible. Children with mentors are shown to improve in school performance and attendance. Also, they are more self-confident, have good social skills, and above all else, they are motivated to reach their full potential. Unfortunately, a severe shortage of volunteers has left over 15 million young people without mentors.

National Mentoring Month highlights the needs and goals of mentoring in this country and honors the contributions of the many volunteers across the country that are currently connecting with youth in such programs. Next month, nonprofit organizations, schools, businesses, faith communities, and government agencies--led by the National Mentoring Partnership and the Harvard School of Public Health--will join together to encourage adults to serve as mentors for our young people. Programs must be expanded to recruit more volunteers to help fill the mentoring gap. Mentoring has successfully helped many children in this country and we must work together to expand such valuable programs. I urge the Senate to approve this resolution.

Mr. President, much has been spoken about the need for Americans to access safe and affordable drugs and therapies. We know that the pharmaceutical industry has cut numerous deals to protect their interests and line their pockets at the expense of the taxpayers, including seniors and the uninsured. I don't think it is a secret that PhRMA cut a deal with the White House to block legislation allowing for the importation of safe and affordable prescription drugs from Canada and other approved countries. And it seems that PhRMA cut a deal to line their pockets by locking in more expensive brand drugs in the Medicare Part D doughnut hole. Finally, it appears that PhRMA made sure that their profitable biologic medicines are protected for 12 years from competition from FDA-licensed safe and affordable biosimilars.

This legislation has so many sweetheart deals that we probably haven't even found them all yet.

Today, I am filing an amendment that improves the biologic pathway in the bill. It creates a fair pathway for competitive biologics that balances incentives for innovation with patient access to safe and affordable biosimilar medicines.

It is a fact that the cost to discover biologic therapies can be astronomical. That, unfortunately, leads to some patients being unable to afford the needed therapies. Patients benefit from continued innovation but they also benefit from safe and affordable competitive biologics that may not occur under the proposal in the Reid bill. My amendment ensures that incentives to innovate remain in the law.

It is accepted that biologic therapies are different than chemical medicines. That is why there needs to be a unique structure for the approval and licensure of biosimilar medicines.

In creating a pathway to competitive biologics we need to strike a balance that provides patients greater access to more affordable, safe biologic therapies and ensures innovation continues to thrive.

Today, biologics have a monopoly for years and years. I am worried that the underlying legislation would allow biologics to game the system and block competition beyond the 12 years provided in the bill. Some have argued that brand biologic companies will be able to stack 12-year periods of exclusivity on top of each other. My amendment addresses this issue.

My amendment also addresses patient safety issues. FDA has very specific recommendations that I wanted to recognize in this pathway. Access to safe, competitive biologics is only as good as the therapies are safe. My amendment seeks to ensure the pathway for generic biologic therapies is as safe and effective as the original product.

Highlights of my amendment include 10 years of initial data exclusivity for the original product--a decade is enough. Reid--Hatch/ Enzi/Hagan, has 12 years of data exclusivity. It also includes two extra years of data exclusivity if the manufacturer conducts additional research and finds new indications for the original medicine. My amendment also incentivizes additional innovation and encourages second generation therapies to come to market as soon as possible rather than companies waiting until the end of the initial exclusivity period to introduce new versions. Additionally, prescribing physician must authorize therapeutic appropriateness for a biosimilar and finally, the competitive biologic manufacturer is required to ensure the biosimilar medicine is safe and effective through clinical studies.

My goal in introducing this amendment is to ensure patient access to safe and competitive biosimilar medicines, to guarantee innovation thrives and to bring down cost while ensuring safety and innovation.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Tennessee lead a colloquy including the Senator from Oklahoma, the Senator from Wyoming, myself, and the Senator from Kentucky.

I thank the Senator from Tennessee who also understands this issue as well as or better than anyone, having been a Governor and recognizing the problems the Governors face.

If I could step back a second, Governor Schwarzenegger is a very astute observer of the political scene in California. May I point out to my colleagues, in this morning's Wall Street Journal: ``Democrats' Blues Grow Deeper in New Poll,'' and then: ``Support for Health Overhaul Wanes.''

There is some remarkable information concerning the mood and views of the American people, following on a Washington Post ABC News poll out yesterday that says 51 percent of Americans say they oppose the proposed changes to the system; 44 percent approve.

Thanks to the efforts of so many people, including our leadership, we have turned American public opinion because we have been informing them of the consequences of passage of this legislation.

Let me quote from the Wall Street Journal article:

More Americans now believe it is better to keep the current

health system than to pass President Barack Obama's plan,

according to a new Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll.

Findings mark a shift from the fall when the overhaul enjoyed

the edge over the status quo. According to the poll, 44

percent of Americans said it is better to pass no plan at all

compared with 41 percent who said it is better to pass the

plan.

What they are saying is: Don't do this government takeover; don't increase taxes; don't increase spending; don't increase the costs. It is a remarkable shift, thanks to informing the American people.

Could I mention a couple of other points made in this poll in the Wall Street Journal. In September, 45 percent of Americans said they wanted the plan passed; 39 percent wanted to ``keep the current system.'' In December, in polling out today, only 41 percent of the American people want it passed, and 44 percent say keep the current system.

Then, of course, we have another interesting statistic:

Trust that the government will do what is right: 21 percent

say always or most of the time; 46 percent say only some of

the time; and 32 percent of the American people say almost

never.

Of course, the anger and disapproval of this health care plan right now is the centerpiece of Americans' dissatisfaction of the way we do business.

Let me say finally, because my colleagues wish to speak, we don't have a bill. We don't have a bill. Here we have been debating all this time and we do not have legislation. This was one of the bills we were presented with, but we know that significant changes are being made behind closed doors. We don't have a CBO estimate of the cost, do we? We understand they keep sending estimates over to CBO and it comes back and so they send them back, which probably is why last week the Senator from Illinois, the No. 2 ranking Democrat, said to me, I don't know what is in the bill either. I have the exact quote:

I would say to the Senator from Arizona that I am in the

dark almost as much as he is, and I am in the leadership.

That is an interesting commentary.

Of course, the issue of the protection of the rights of the unborn is still unclear. That is a big issue for a lot of Americans. It is a big issue with me, and I know it is a big issue with my colleagues.

So here we are back, off of the bill itself, and apparently we are going to have some kind of vote on Christmas Eve or something such as that.

What the American people are saying now is, when they say keep the status quo, they are saying: Stop. Go back to the beginning. Sit down on a bipartisan basis and let's get this done, but let's get it done right.

Americans know that Medicare is going broke. Americans know that costs are rising too quickly, but Americans want us to do this right and not in a partisan fashion and not with a bill that costs too much, taxes too much, and deprives people of their benefits.

Madam President, isn't that a violation of the commitment that was made that for 72 hours any legislation would be online, not just for us to see but for all Americans to see?

Could I ask the Senator from Kentucky, the Republican leader: Is it not

the perception now that this bill is probably going to be pushed through? Through various parliamentary procedures, the majority will try to force a final vote on this legislation, no matter what, before we leave? Isn't that in contradiction to what the majority of the American people are saying, that they want us to do nothing? Is this a responsible way to govern, to have the Senate in round the clock, 24 hours, people on the floor, quorum calls and all this kind of stuff; and there would also be no amendments allowed at that time for us to at least address some of the issues of this bill that begins cutting Medicare by $500 billion, increases taxes by $500 billion on January 1, and in 4 years begins spending $2.5 trillion? Is this a process the American people are reacting to in a negative fashion, obviously, by polling data?

By the way, I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal article entitled ``Democrats' Blues Grow Deeper in New Poll'' and ``Support for Health Overhaul Wanes'' be printed in the Record.

May I mention to my colleague that maybe the reason why they don't want it to be online for 72 hours is because when they examined what we have--on page 324 in this bill is an $8 billion tax on individuals who have nongovernment approved plans. On page 348 is a $28 billion tax on businesses that cannot afford to offer insurance to their employees. On page 1979: Raises an almost $150 billion tax on many middle-class workers using so-called Cadillac health insurance plans. Page 1997: Will cost families and individuals an additional $5 billion by prohibiting the use of savings set aside for health care expenses through health savings accounts. Page 2010: Will make the cost of lifesaving medicine more expensive by taxing pharmaceutical research firms an additional $22 billion. The list goes on and on, including on page 2040: Increasing Medicare payroll taxes by $53.8 billion.

That may be a reason why it is going to be difficult for them to win passage of this after 72 hours of examining this bill.

When more Americans begin to understand it, they don't want it. That is thanks to the efforts made all over this country to educate the American people about what the impact of the bill will be.

Well, I don't think that is being added today. Again, I also point out that Americans are now against passage of this legislation. But in that polling data, it is very interesting, also, the majority of seniors, by much larger numbers--the actual beneficiaries of Medicare--are turning against it, and the intensity of Americans against it--which is harder to gauge in a poll--is incredible.

If the responses that our efforts are getting are anything close to indicative of the mood of the American people, and the intensity of it, it is probably as great as I have ever seen in the years that I have had the privilege of serving in the Congress of the United States.

This polling data says more Americans now believe it is better to keep the current health system than to pass President Obama's plan. That is a message being sent, and the intensity is higher than any I have ever observed in my years of service. I thank them for that.

There is a chance that we can stop this, and we start in January. We would be willing to come back and sit down and negotiate, with the C- SPAN cameras on--as the President said or committed he would do as a candidate. We would sit down together here, at the White House, or anywhere, and we can fix this system that we all know needs fixing.

As the Senator from Oklahoma said, it is the cost that has to be addressed, not the quality.

I ask the Senator from Oklahoma, would that aspect of this bill come to light if it hadn't been for the recommendation that was made by another similarly acting policymaking body? In other words, that is what triggered the investigation of what was in this bill, which would have had exactly the same effect. So if we hadn't had that information of a recommendation by another government policymaking bureaucracy, we would not have known about this until the bill would have taken effect.

This example wouldn't have been known if it hadn't been for the actions of the bureaucracy. Doesn't that bring into question what else is buried in this 2,000-page piece of legislation?

Let me point out again that we don't know what the CBO estimate is, because we know the majority leader keeps bouncing proposals back and forth to CBO. That is why we haven't had CBO information now for many days. But there is the Commission for Medicare and Medicaid, which clearly points out that this legislation would increase taxes dramatically, increase costs dramatically, decrease care, and it would have the effect of forcing people not only out of the system, but even if they are in the Medicare system, they would not have physicians to provide the care, because more and more physicians would fail to treat Medicare patients.

I think we know what the outcome will be. We will either be able to reflect the feelings and intense feelings of the majority of the American people about this legislation and say let's go back to square one and all commit to a bipartisan approach to this issue or we will see jammed through on Christmas Eve legislation that will have the most far-reaching effects and devastating effects, I think, not only on our ability to provide much-needed medical care to all of our citizens, but also an impact that would be devastating on the debt and deficit, upon which we have laid an unconscionable burden already.

We have two choices--to go back to the beginning and enact many reforms we can agree on--and there are many we could agree on immediately on a bipartisan basis; as the Senator from Tennessee pointed out, there has never been a fundamental reform made in modern history that was not bipartisan--or we are going to see jammed through, over the objections of a majority of Americans, legislation that they have never seen, read, or understand.

That is the choice we have. That is what it is boiling down to. I think that, frankly, the American people should be heard, not a majority over on the other side.

By the way, could I mention, if you live long enough, all things can happen. I now find myself in complete agreement with Dr. Howard Dean, who says we should stop this bill in its tracks; we should go back to the beginning and have an overall bipartisan agreement. Dr. Dean, I am with you.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Rhode Island be recognized for 10 minutes followed by the Senator from Michigan, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee who will be speaking on the bill, and that I be recognized to follow him.

Yes. I have been around here 20-some years. It is the first time I have ever seen a Member denied an extra minute or two to finish his remarks. I must say that I don't know what is happening here in this body, but I think it is wrong.

It is fine with me that it be 10 minutes.

I will tell you, I have never seen a Member denied an extra minute or so, as the Chair just did.

I haven't seen it before. I don't like it, and I think it harms the comity of the Senate not to allow a Member at least a minute. I am sure the time is urgent, but I doubt if it is that urgent.

I renew my unanimous consent that the Senator from Rhode Island be recognized for 10 minutes, the Senator from Michigan for 10 minutes, and then that I be recognized for 10 minutes.

Madam President, I thank my friend from Michigan. I thank him for his leadership of the Armed Services Committee.

The train is about to leave the station on the last of the appropriations bills for 2010 and, unfortunately, nothing has changed. Everything is the same--earmarking, porkbarrel, excessive and unnecessary spending. Billions in wasteful earmarks again have found their way into this bill which could otherwise be spent for the priorities that our men and women, our military leaders, as well as the Secretary of Defense, has asked for.

There is in this bill--here we go again: an appropriations bill loaded up with earmarks--a 523-page explanatory statement for 1,720 earmarks totaling $4.3 billion. Let's do some simple math: $4.3 billion in pork, $2.5 billion in unauthorized and unrequested C-17s; $500 million in unrequested and unwanted funding for the Joint Strike Fighter alternative engine; and a Presidential helicopter. That is $7.3 billion that neither the military nor the Defense Department requested and does not need--$7.3 billion.

Some people say that is not a lot of money. It is enough to keep the State of Arizonas budget requirements fulfilled for 10 months. States across America are facing great difficulties, as we know, and an additional $7.3 billion would not be so bad.

I wish to say, again, this process of earmarking breeds corruption. That is why we have former Members of Congress in Federal prison. It was not inadequate disclosure requirements that led Duke Cunningham to violate his oath of office and take $2.5 million in bribes in exchange for doling out $70 million to $80 million of the taxpayers' funds to a defense contractor. It was his ability to freely earmark taxpayer funds without question.

I wish to point out, again, the President pledged during the campaign he would work to eliminate earmarks. The President, last March, when we had an omnibus spending bill, said they would not do it anymore. In September, the President spoke in Phoenix, AZ, to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. In that speech, the President's words were quite compelling about waste and porkbarrel spending in Defense bills. In that speech, the President promised--promised--an end to ``special interests and their exotic projects'' and reaffirmed he was leading the charge to kill off programs such as the F-22, the second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, and the outrageously expensive Presidential helicopter.

The President went on to say:

If a project doesn't support our troops, we will not fund

it. If a system doesn't perform well, we will terminate it.

And if Congress sends me a bill loaded with that kind of

waste, I will veto it. We will do right by our troops and

taxpayers.

Mr. President, I can tell you, the President of the United States, that meets your criteria with over $7 billion of unnecessary, unwanted spending. Will the President veto this bill? Not a chance. Not a chance. But the American people are going to demand this obscene process stop. The American people are going to demand it be stopped, wasting $7 billion of their tax dollars on wasteful and earmark spending. I am confident they are aware. They are aware we are spending $7.6 million to fund research in Montana on hypersonic wind tunnels, called MARIAH. This self-licking ice cream cone has been earmarked and unrequested since 1998. The Air Force lost interest in 2004, so the appropriators moved it to the Army. The Army has no requirement for this capability and published a report in 2005 stating their disinterest in the program. In summary, we spent $70 million for some hypersonic wind tunnels nobody wants--$70 million. Unless we demand and receive change, there will be more millions in it next year.

There is $5 million going to the battleship USS Missouri Memorial Association; $18.9 million for a center at the University of Massachusetts ``dedicated to educating the general public, students, teachers, new Senators, and Senate staff about the role and importance of the Senate.'' What does that have to do with defending this Nation? What does that have to do with providing the men and women who are risking their lives, as we speak, with the equipment they need? Madam President, $18.9 million to educate the public about the importance of the Senate? Give me a break.

There is $9.5 million going to the University of Hawaii for a program called the Panoramic Survey Telescope and Raid Response System. The list goes on and on. The Air Force is paying for this, and the Air Force will not be allowed to be getting much in return, since it will only be allowed to use the telescope 5 percent of the time. In other words, in dollar figures, the Air Force pays $10 million to the university and receives $500,000 in return.

What is more, the Air Force has not, in the 9-year life of this earmark, requested a single dollar for this program. Since 2001, the Air Force has been forced to spend more than $75 million of its budget allocation on a program it does not want.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these other porkbarrel earmark programs, such as $1.2 million for the American Museum of Natural History Infectious Disease Research.

Madam President, the list goes on and on: $2 million for the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center's operating room of the future in Los Angeles, CA. That is the second earmark I have seen. The other one is for irritable bowel syndrome. Now we have the operating room of the future. Remarkable.

There is $2.3 million for marine species; $2 million for a marine mammal detection system. There is a threat. Also, $2.4 million for marine mammal awareness alert and response system. The list goes on and on.

I know my time is near to expire.

Here we are with a deficit of $1.4 trillion for this year, a debt of over $12 trillion, unemployment at 10 percent, 900,000 families lost their homes in 2008, and we are spending over $7 billion on earmarks, porkbarrel projects the Department of Defense neither needed nor wants, and there are programs not fully funded because of this that are vital to defending the lives of the men and women who are serving in the military.

Again, this appropriations bill is a disgrace.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, before my colleagues begin, I think it is important for us to point out where we are here on December 16, 2009. We are now almost a year into the discussion and debate about ``reforming health care in America'' and we still do not know what is in the bill. We still do not know the specifics of what we are considering here.

I have had the honor of serving here for a long period of time, but I have never seen a process like this. I have never seen a situation where a major piece of legislation is not before the body and is somehow being negotiated and renegotiated amongst the other side. Meanwhile, according to the Washington Post this morning, a newspaper I always have the utmost trust and confidence in--I wish to say the title is ``Public cooling to health-care reform as debate drags on, poll finds.''

As the Senate struggles to meet a self-imposed, year-end

deadline to complete work on legislation to overhaul the

nation's health-care system, a new Washington Post-ABC News

poll finds the public generally fearful that a revamped

system would bring higher costs while worsening the quality

of their care.

A remarkable commentary about where we are in this legislation. One of the interesting things is this poll goes back to April, where in April, 57 percent of the American people approved and 29 disapproved of the President's handling of health care. Today it is 53 disapprove and 44 approve, which means the American people, the more they find out about this, the less they like it and the more concerned they are. According to this poll again:

Medicare is the Government health insurance program for

people 65 and older. Do you think health-care reform would

strengthen the Medicare program, weaken Medicare or have no

effect on it?

American people have figured it out. Amongst seniors, those who are in Medicare, 12 percent say it would strengthen, 22 percent no effect, and 57 percent of seniors in America believe--and they are correct-- that this proposal would weaken Medicare, the benefit they paid into and that they have earned.

Let me say it again: I plead with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the majority leader. Let's stop this. The American people do not approve of it. Let's sit down and work together; let's have real negotiations; let's even have the C-SPAN cameras in, as the President promised October a year ago. This present legislation spends too much, taxes too much, and reduces benefits for American citizens as far as overall health care is concerned, including Medicare, as the American people have figured out.

I welcome my colleagues here. I see Dr. Coburn is here. Let me restate: It is time to say stop. It is time to start listening to the American people. It is time to start being straightforward with the American people because the American people need to know what we are doing and they do not. The distinguished Senator from Illinois, last Friday when I asked him what is in the bill, said none of us know what is in the bill.

I ask my friend from Oklahoma, isn't what is happening--we have a proposal, we send it to CBO, CBO sends back numbers they do not like so they try to fix it, send it back to CBO, they send it back again. That is why only one Senator, the majority leader, knows what is going on.

What is the parliamentary situation, I ask the President?

Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I think I have made my point here. I wish to yield. I ask unanimous consent to have a colloquy with the Senator from South Dakota, the Senator from Texas, the Senator from Oklahoma, and the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my friend and colleague from Washington, Senator Cantwell, to introduce the Banking Integrity Act of 2009. My reasons for joining this effort are simple--I want to ensure that we never stick the American taxpayer with another $700 billion tab to bail out the financial industry. If big Wall Street institutions want to take part in risky transactions--fine. But we should not allow them to do so with federally insured deposits.

Paul Volcker, a top economist in the Obama administration and former Federal Reserve Chairman, wants the nation's banks to be prohibited from owning and trading risky securities, the very practice that got the biggest ones into deep trouble in 2008. The administration is saying no, it will not separate commercial banking from investment operations. Mr. Volcker argues that regulation by itself will not work. Sooner or later, the giants, in pursuit of profits, will get into trouble. The administration should accept this and shield commercial banking from Wall Street's wild ways. ``The banks are there to serve the public,'' Mr. Volcker said, ``and that is what they should concentrate on. These other activities create conflicts of interest. They create risks, and if you try to control the risks with supervision, that just creates friction and difficulties'' and ultimately fails.

The bill we are introducing today precludes any member bank of the Federal Reserve System from being affiliated with any entity or organization that is engaged principally in the issue, flotation, underwriting, public sale or distribution of stocks, bonds, debentures or other securities. Essentially, commercial banks may no longer intermingle their business activities with investment banks. It is that simple.

Since the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act in 1999, this country has seen a new culture emerge in the financial industry: one of dangerous greed and excessive risk-taking. Commercial banks traditionally used people's deposits for the constructive purpose of main street loans. They did not engage in high risk ventures. Investment banks, however, managed rich people's money--those who can afford to take bigger risks in order to get a bigger return, and who bore their own losses. When these two worlds collided, the investment bank culture prevailed, cutting off the credit lifeblood of main street firms, demanding greater returns that were achievable only through high leverage and huge risk taking, and leaving taxpayers with the fallout.

When the glass wall dividing banks and securities firms was shattered, common sense and caution went out the door. The new mantra of ``bigger is better'' took over--and the path forward focused on short-term gains rather than long-term planning. Banks became overleveraged in their haste to keep up in the race. The more they lent, the more they made. Aggressive mortgages were underwritten for unqualified individuals who became homeowners saddled with loans they couldn't afford. Banks turned right around and bought portfolios of these shaky loans.

Sub-prime loans made up only five percent of all mortgage lending in 1998, but by the time the financial crisis peaked in late 2008, they were approaching 30 percent. Since January 2008, we have seen 159 state and national banks fail. In my home State of Arizona, five banks have shut their doors, leaving small businesses scrambling to find credit from other banks that may have already been overleveraged.

Banks sold sub-prime mortgages to their affiliates and other securities firms for securitization, while other financial institutions made risky bets on these and other assets for which they had no financial interest. As the market grew bigger, its foundation became shakier. It was like a house of cards waiting to fall, and fall it did.

In October 2008, the financial system was on the brink of collapse when Congress was forced to risk $700 billion of taxpayer dollars to bail out the industry. These financial institutions had become ``too big to fail.'' In fact, the special inspector general of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, testified before Congress earlier this year that ``total potential Federal Government support could reach $23.7 trillion'' to stabilize and support the financial system. Ironically, some of these ``too big to fail'' institutions have now become even bigger. An editorial from yesterday's New York Times stated:

The truth is that the taxpayers are still very much on the

hook for a banking system that is shaping up to be much

riskier than the one that led to disaster.

Big bank profits, for instance, still come mostly courtesy

of taxpayers. Their trading earnings are financed by more

than a trillion dollars' worth of cheap loans from the

Federal Reserve, for which some of their most noxious assets

are collateral. They benefit from immense federal loan

guarantees, but they are not lending much. Lending to

business, notably, is very tight.

What profits the banks make come mostly from trading. Many

big banks are happy to depend on the lifeline from the Fed

and hang onto their toxic assets hoping for a rebound in

prices. And the whole system has grown more concentrated.

Bank of America was considered too big to fail before the

meltdown. Since then, it has acquired Merrill Lynch. Wells

Fargo took over Wachovia. JPMorgan Chase gobbled up Bear

Stearns.

If the goal is to reduce the number of huge banks that

taxpayers must rescue at any cost, the nation is moving in

the wrong direction. The growth of the biggest banks ensures

that the next bailout will have to be even bigger. These

banks will be more likely to take on excessive risk because

they have the implicit assurance of rescue.

Excess was a common theme for banks/financial institutions in the mid-2000s--excessive risk, excessive bonuses. Times were good at Merrill Lynch in 2006 when the firm's risky mortgage business was booming. The firm made record earnings of $7.5 billion that year and paid out bonuses of $5 billion to $6 billion. Fast forward to late 2008 when Merrill's gambling left it in deep financial despair with losses exceeding $27 billion. Yet we witnessed the firm pay out another $3.6 billion in bonuses just before it was acquired by Bank of America.

Merrill Lynch wasn't alone in excess and greed. Citigroup posted a net loss of nearly $28 billion in 2008, yet paid out $5.3 billion in bonuses. Although Goldman Sachs earned only $2.3 billion, it paid out $4.8 billion in bonuses. Morgan Stanley earned $1.7 billion, and paid out nearly $4.5 billion in bonuses. JPMorgan Chase earned $5.6 billion and paid $8.7 billion in bonuses. If a company doesn't make money, how can it pay these bonuses? In this case, each of these firms was a recipient of billions in taxpayer-funded TARP money.

The Federal Government has set a dangerous precedent here. We sent the wrong message to the financial industry: you engage in bad, risky business practices, and when you get into trouble, the government will be there to save your hide. Many would call it a moral hazard. I call it a taxpayer-funded subsidy for risky behavior.

The consolidation of the banking world was also riddled with conflicts of interest, despite the purported firewalls that were put into place. If an investment bank had underwritten shares for a company that was now in financial trouble, the investment bank's commercial arm would feel pressure to lend the company money, despite the lack of merits to do so. The Banking Integrity Act of 2009 would eliminate some of these conflicts.

Today, it is time to put a stop to the taxpayer-financed excesses of Wall Street. No single financial institution should be so big that its failure would bring ruin to our economy and destroy millions of American jobs. This country would be better served if we limit the activities of these financial institutions. Banks should accept consumer deposits and invest conservatively, while investment banks engage in underwriting and sales of securities.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my friend and colleague from Washington, Senator Cantwell, to introduce the Banking Integrity Act of 2009. My reasons for joining this effort are simple--I want to ensure that we never stick the American taxpayer with another $700 billion tab to bail out the financial industry. If big Wall Street institutions want to take part in risky transactions--fine. But we should not allow them to do so with federally insured deposits.

Paul Volcker, a top economist in the Obama administration and former Federal Reserve Chairman, wants the nation's banks to be prohibited from owning and trading risky securities, the very practice that got the biggest ones into deep trouble in 2008. The administration is saying no, it will not separate commercial banking from investment operations. Mr. Volcker argues that regulation by itself will not work. Sooner or later, the giants, in pursuit of profits, will get into trouble. The administration should accept this and shield commercial banking from Wall Street's wild ways. ``The banks are there to serve the public,'' Mr. Volcker said, ``and that is what they should concentrate on. These other activities create conflicts of interest. They create risks, and if you try to control the risks with supervision, that just creates friction and difficulties'' and ultimately fails.

The bill we are introducing today precludes any member bank of the Federal Reserve System from being affiliated with any entity or organization that is engaged principally in the issue, flotation, underwriting, public sale or distribution of stocks, bonds, debentures or other securities. Essentially, commercial banks may no longer intermingle their business activities with investment banks. It is that simple.

Since the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act in 1999, this country has seen a new culture emerge in the financial industry: one of dangerous greed and excessive risk-taking. Commercial banks traditionally used people's deposits for the constructive purpose of main street loans. They did not engage in high risk ventures. Investment banks, however, managed rich people's money--those who can afford to take bigger risks in order to get a bigger return, and who bore their own losses. When these two worlds collided, the investment bank culture prevailed, cutting off the credit lifeblood of main street firms, demanding greater returns that were achievable only through high leverage and huge risk taking, and leaving taxpayers with the fallout.

When the glass wall dividing banks and securities firms was shattered, common sense and caution went out the door. The new mantra of ``bigger is better'' took over--and the path forward focused on short-term gains rather than long-term planning. Banks became overleveraged in their haste to keep up in the race. The more they lent, the more they made. Aggressive mortgages were underwritten for unqualified individuals who became homeowners saddled with loans they couldn't afford. Banks turned right around and bought portfolios of these shaky loans.

Sub-prime loans made up only five percent of all mortgage lending in 1998, but by the time the financial crisis peaked in late 2008, they were approaching 30 percent. Since January 2008, we have seen 159 state and national banks fail. In my home State of Arizona, five banks have shut their doors, leaving small businesses scrambling to find credit from other banks that may have already been overleveraged.

Banks sold sub-prime mortgages to their affiliates and other securities firms for securitization, while other financial institutions made risky bets on these and other assets for which they had no financial interest. As the market grew bigger, its foundation became shakier. It was like a house of cards waiting to fall, and fall it did.

In October 2008, the financial system was on the brink of collapse when Congress was forced to risk $700 billion of taxpayer dollars to bail out the industry. These financial institutions had become ``too big to fail.'' In fact, the special inspector general of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, testified before Congress earlier this year that ``total potential Federal Government support could reach $23.7 trillion'' to stabilize and support the financial system. Ironically, some of these ``too big to fail'' institutions have now become even bigger. An editorial from yesterday's New York Times stated:

The truth is that the taxpayers are still very much on the

hook for a banking system that is shaping up to be much

riskier than the one that led to disaster.

Big bank profits, for instance, still come mostly courtesy

of taxpayers. Their trading earnings are financed by more

than a trillion dollars' worth of cheap loans from the

Federal Reserve, for which some of their most noxious assets

are collateral. They benefit from immense federal loan

guarantees, but they are not lending much. Lending to

business, notably, is very tight.

What profits the banks make come mostly from trading. Many

big banks are happy to depend on the lifeline from the Fed

and hang onto their toxic assets hoping for a rebound in

prices. And the whole system has grown more concentrated.

Bank of America was considered too big to fail before the

meltdown. Since then, it has acquired Merrill Lynch. Wells

Fargo took over Wachovia. JPMorgan Chase gobbled up Bear

Stearns.

If the goal is to reduce the number of huge banks that

taxpayers must rescue at any cost, the nation is moving in

the wrong direction. The growth of the biggest banks ensures

that the next bailout will have to be even bigger. These

banks will be more likely to take on excessive risk because

they have the implicit assurance of rescue.

Excess was a common theme for banks/financial institutions in the mid-2000s--excessive risk, excessive bonuses. Times were good at Merrill Lynch in 2006 when the firm's risky mortgage business was booming. The firm made record earnings of $7.5 billion that year and paid out bonuses of $5 billion to $6 billion. Fast forward to late 2008 when Merrill's gambling left it in deep financial despair with losses exceeding $27 billion. Yet we witnessed the firm pay out another $3.6 billion in bonuses just before it was acquired by Bank of America.

Merrill Lynch wasn't alone in excess and greed. Citigroup posted a net loss of nearly $28 billion in 2008, yet paid out $5.3 billion in bonuses. Although Goldman Sachs earned only $2.3 billion, it paid out $4.8 billion in bonuses. Morgan Stanley earned $1.7 billion, and paid out nearly $4.5 billion in bonuses. JPMorgan Chase earned $5.6 billion and paid $8.7 billion in bonuses. If a company doesn't make money, how can it pay these bonuses? In this case, each of these firms was a recipient of billions in taxpayer-funded TARP money.

The Federal Government has set a dangerous precedent here. We sent the wrong message to the financial industry: you engage in bad, risky business practices, and when you get into trouble, the government will be there to save your hide. Many would call it a moral hazard. I call it a taxpayer-funded subsidy for risky behavior.

The consolidation of the banking world was also riddled with conflicts of interest, despite the purported firewalls that were put into place. If an investment bank had underwritten shares for a company that was now in financial trouble, the investment bank's commercial arm would feel pressure to lend the company money, despite the lack of merits to do so. The Banking Integrity Act of 2009 would eliminate some of these conflicts.

Today, it is time to put a stop to the taxpayer-financed excesses of Wall Street. No single financial institution should be so big that its failure would bring ruin to our economy and destroy millions of American jobs. This country would be better served if we limit the activities of these financial institutions. Banks should accept consumer deposits and invest conservatively, while investment banks engage in underwriting and sales of securities.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I ask for unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from North Dakota.

I think it is important for us to recognize what the Dorgan amendment is all about. It is about an estimated--according to the Congressional Budget Office, and we love to quote the Congressional Budget Office around here--$100 billion or more in consumer savings. That is what the Dorgan amendment does.

It cuts the cost of the legislation before us as much as $19.4 billion over 10 years. We are always talking about bending the cost curve, saving money, particularly for seniors who use more prescription drugs than younger Americans, and yet there is opposition.

I would like to ask my colleague from North Dakota, one, how long has he been fighting this issue; and, two, why in the world do we think anybody would be opposed to an amendment that would save $100 billion for consumers?

Could I also ask my friend, has he seen this chart? This chart shows that the pharmaceutical companies in America increased wholesale drug costs, which doesn't reflect the retail drug cost, by some 8.7 percent just this year, while the Consumer Price Index--this little line here, inflation--has been minus 1.3 percent.

How in the world do you justify doing that? These are lists of the increases over a year in the cost of some of the most popular or much needed prescription drugs. Why would pharmaceutical companies raise costs by some 9 percent unless they were anticipating some kind of deal they went into?

I don't want to embarrass the Senator from North Dakota, but isn't it true that the President, as a Member of this body, cosponsored this amendment?

Haven't we seen this movie before? The movie I am talking about is that we have an amendment or legislation pending before the body or in committee that will allow for drug reimportation, as the Senator pointed out from that previous chart, in a totally safe manner. Then there is always, thanks to the pharmaceutical lobbyists--of which there are, I believe, 635 pharmaceutical industry lobbyists, a lobbyist and a half for every Member of Congress--an amendment that then basically prohibits the reimportation of drugs.

Haven't we seen this movie before? Apparently another deal was made so that they are now going to have sufficient votes to again cost the consumers $100 billion more in cost for the pharmaceutical drugs. Their representatives are here on the Senate floor ready to tout the virtues of an amendment which, as we all know, is a killer amendment. Let's have no doubt about that.

My only conclusion is that what we are seeing is really what contributes to the enormous cynicism on the part of the American people about the way we do business. This is a pretty clear-cut issue. As the Senator from North Dakota pointed out, it has been around for 10 years. For 10 years we have been trying to ensure the consumers of America would be able to get lifesaving prescription drugs at a lower cost. And the power of the special interests, the power of the lobbyists, the power of campaign contributions is now being manifest in the passage of a killer amendment which will then prohibit--there is no objective observer who will attest to any other fact than the passage of the follow-on amendment, the side-by-side amendment, will prohibit the reimportation of prescription drugs into this country which we all know can be done in a safe fashion and could save Americans who are hurting so badly $100 billion a year or more and cut the cost of the legislation before us by $19.4 billion. To scare people, to say that these drugs that are being reimported are not done in a safe manner to ensure that the American people's health is not endangered is, of course, an old saw and an old movie we have seen before. It is regrettable that the special interests again prevail at the power of the pharmaceutical lobby.

Of the many traits the Senator from North Dakota has that I admire, one of them is tenacity. I want to assure him that I will be by his side as we go back again and again on this issue until justice and fairness is done and we defeat the special interests of the pharmaceutical industry which have taken over the White House and will take over this vote that will go at 6 o'clock. It is not one of the most admirable chapters in the history of the Senate or the United States Government.

I would say to my friend, the Republican leader, that I have seen a lot of processes around here and a lot of negotiations and a lot of discussions, but I must admit I have not seen one quite like this one, nor do I believe my leader has.

I was on the floor in a colloquy with the assistant Democratic leader a couple days ago, and I said: What is in the bill? He said: None of us know. Talk about being kept in the dark.

I would say to my friend from Kentucky, we have to put this into the context of what the President of the United States said in his campaign because the whole campaign, as I well know better than anyone, was all based on change. On the issue specifically surrounding health care reform, I quote then-Candidate Obama on October 18, 2009:

I am going to have all the negotiations around a big table

televised on C-SPAN so that people can see who is making

arguments on behalf of their constituents and who is making

arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance

companies.

He went on to say that a couple more times.

I would ask my friend: Hasn't it been several days that we basically have been gridlocked over one amendment, which is the amendment by the Senator from North Dakota that would allow drug reimportation from Canada and other countries?

So then, guess what the reports are today:

PhRMA renegotiating its deal? Inside Health Policy's Baker,

Pecquet, Lotven and Coughlin report: `The pharmaceutical

industry is negotiating with the White House and lawmakers on

a revised health care deal under which the industry would

ante up cuts beyond the $80 billion it agreed to this summer,

possibly by agreeing to policies that would further shrink

the . . . doughnut hole. . . .'

I will not go into all the details of that.

Just a few minutes ago on the floor, guess what. They announced there would be some change made, an amendment that would be included in the managers' package.

I would ask my friend, is it maybe the case that the majority leader, who is having a meeting, as we speak, of all the Democratic Senators behind closed doors, without C-SPAN, has cut another deal along with the White House with--guess who--the pharmaceutical companies that have raised prices some 9 percent on prescription drugs this year?

This is a process the American people don't deserve, so I would ask my friend from Kentucky.

So we were hung up--or should I say gridlocked--for 2 or 3 days, over the entire weekend. The Republican leader even agreed to a unanimous consent agreement that would allow a Democratic side-by-side amendment, and that was not agreed to--until over at the White House, according to this report, PhRMA renegotiated its deal and apparently they now have sufficient votes to defeat the Dorgan amendment which, as of last summer, according to the New York Times, said the last deal shortly after striking that agreement, the trade group--the Pharmaceutical Research Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA--also set aside $150 million for advertising to support the health care legislation.

I ask my friend, is this changing the climate in Washington or is it not only business as usual but, in my opinion, I haven't seen anything quite like this one.

Hadn't there been charge after charge that Republicans are ``filibustering'' and Republicans have been blocking passage of this legislation? I would ask my friend, hasn't the Republican leader offered a series of amendments we could get locked into and have votes on?

As I understand it, there is a meeting going on behind closed doors, again, where there are no C-SPAN cameras.

According to the Washington Post this morning, it says:

The Senate will resume debate Monday afternoon on a popular

proposal to allow U.S. citizens to buy cheaper drugs from

foreign countries which led to a last-minute lobbying push by

drug makers last week and bogged down negotiations over a

health care reform bill.

It goes on to say:

The fight over the imported drugs proposal poses a

particularly difficult political challenge for President

Obama who cosponsored a similar bill when he was in Congress

and who included funding for the idea in his first budget.

But the pharmaceutical industry, which has been a key

supporter of health care reform after reaching agreement with

the White House earlier this year, has responded with a

fierce lobbying campaign aimed at killing the proposal,

focusing on Democratic Senators from States with large drug

and research sectors.

So it will be interesting to watch the vote.

I would also point out to my friend, it is clear that if we allow drug reimportation, we will save $100 billion, according to CBO, and the deal that was cut--the first deal that was cut with the White House was they would reduce it by $80 billion, so they had a $20 billion cushion. Now it will be very interesting to see what the latest deal is and how the vote goes.

But, again, I wish to ask my Republican leader, we get a little cynical around here from time to time and we see sometimes deals cut and things done behind closed doors. I am past the point of frustration; I am getting a little bit sad about this. Because I think we know we are now bumping up against Christmas. Sometime we are going to break for Christmas. So the pressures now are going to be even more intense because I think it is well known and reported that if they don't get a deal before we go out for Christmas, then it will be very much like a fish sitting out in the sun. After awhile, it doesn't smell very good, when people see a 2,000-page bill which has all kinds of provisions in it.

So I understand, without C-SPAN cameras, that all the 60 Democratic Members of this body are going to go down to the White House for another meeting tomorrow, and we will see what happens then.

Well, my understanding is, if you go out and buy a car today from any car dealer, you don't have to make payments for a year. You can get that kind of a deal if you want it. This deal is exactly upside down. You get to make the payments early, and then you get to drive the car after 4 years.

I would also like to say, there is a history we should not ignore; that is, that every major reform ever enacted in the modern history of this country has been bipartisan, whether it be Medicare, whether it be Social Security, whether it be welfare reform, as we remember under President Clinton. Every major reform has been accomplished by Democrats and Republicans sitting down together and saying: OK, what is it we have to do? What kind of an agreement do we have to make?

Some of us have been around here long enough to remember that in 1983, Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill, a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts and the conservative Republican from California, sat down with their aides across the table and key Members of Congress when Social Security was about to go broke.

Why can't we, since there must be areas we agree on, now say to our Democratic friends and the President, rather than trying to ram 60 votes through the Senate, why can't we now sit down and proceed in a fashion--we will give things up. We are willing to make concessions to save a system of Medicare that is about to go broke in 6 years. We will make some concessions but get us in on the takeoff and don't expect us to be in on the landing when already the bill is written and the fix is in, as the fix apparently is in on the Dorgan amendment.

Madam President, it is a remarkable process we are going through. I see that my friend from Tennessee is here. I know he, being the head of our policy committee and a major contributor to keeping us all informed and up to date, would also like to say something.

First, I will say something I had not planned on saying; that is, this has been a vigorous debate. I think we have been able to act in an effective way, which has been reflected in the polls of the American people who are largely opposed to this measure and greatly supportive of a process where we can all sit down together--with the American people in the room, to be honest--when we are talking about one-sixth of the GDP. The Republican leader's job has been compared by one of his predecessors to herding cats--I agree with that--or keeping frogs in a wheelbarrow. I have not seen the Republican Members on this side of the aisle as much together and as cohesive and working in the most cooperative and supportive fashion of each other since I have been in the Senate. For that, I congratulate the Republican leader.

I will mention, also, on the issue of PhRMA, again, here we are in the direst of economic times, with a Consumer Price Index that has declined by 1.3 percent this year, and they have orchestrated a 9-percent increase in the cost of prescription drugs--that is remarkable--laying on an additional burden, which naturally falls more on seniors than anybody else since they are the greatest users of pharmaceutical drugs. I don't blame them for fighting for their industry. But the point is, what they are doing is harming millions and millions of Americans.

Again, about contributing to the cynicism of the American people, whether you are for or against the issue of drug reimportation, to cut a deal behind closed doors and then, apparently, because of support of an amendment by Senator Dorgan, go down and negotiate another deal--how do you describe a process like that?

The original deal was published in every newspaper, and it was that they would close the so-called doughnut hole by some $80 billion. CBO said their profits would be reduced by some $100 billion if we allow reimportation. They had a $20 billion cushion.

But then, incredibly, they counted the votes. The votes were there to pass the Dorgan amendment. According to published reports, the pharmaceutical industry is negotiating with the White House and lawmakers on a revised health care deal under which the industry would ante up cuts beyond the $80 billion it agreed to this summer.

In other words, because that wasn't sufficient to get votes to kill the Dorgan amendment that would allow reimportation of drugs, they went down and renegotiated. What is that called?

Can I also give you this to illustrate it graphically? In this news report, several lobbyists told Inside Health Policy--that is the organization that is reporting this--they have heard that the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America may have already reached a deal with the White House and AARP to close the Senate bill's coverage gap by 75 percent versus the 50 percent under the current bill. PhRMA declined to confirm the reports that it may be agreeable to reforms that would further close the doughnut hole but signaled discussions were underway, and AARP said no agreement has been reached. We haven't seen a deal.

Here are our old friends at AARP at it again. They are at it again.

Yes.

When you lose Medicare Advantage, as Dr. Barrasso will fully attest, then you are almost forced into the so-called Medigap policies, which then cover the things that are no longer covered under Medicare Advantage, such as dental, vision, fitness, and other aspects of Medicare Advantage.

So if you destroy Medicare Advantage, then people will be forced into the Medigap policies. Who makes their money off Medigap policies? AARP.

I agree with the Senator. Again, I would like to ask Dr. Barrasso because he has treated patients who are under Medicare Advantage. Before I do, I want to say again that the whole process has been wrong. The process of going behind closed doors; the process where, after nearly a year of addressing this issue, the distinguished--and he is a fine person, a fine Senator from Illinois-- the No. 2 leader in the majority, in a colloquy I had with him just 2 days ago, said no one knows what is in the bill. He said no one knows what is in the bill. This is after a year. It is wrong. What it does is--this issue is vital, but it destroys the confidence of the American people to be truly represented here to have their interests overridden by the special interests, of which PhRMA and this deal that is going on right now is a classic example. I ask Senator Barrasso.

May I interrupt? I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Tennessee take over this colloquy.

Go ahead. I am sorry.

The point I want to make is this process has turned into something, again, like I have never seen before. I was just handed this FOX News, just-reported breaking news that Harkin said--I guess referring to the Senator from Iowa--Harkin said that Medicare buy-in and public option are now dead. I don't know what to say except it seems to me they are just throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks and what doesn't stick. This is really, again, one of the most astounding kinds of situations I have observed in the years I have been in the Senate. Medicare buy-in is dead, public option is now dead.

What I would like to see is that Harkin would report that now Republicans and Democrats will sit down together and try to work out something of which the American people would heartily approve.

If I can speak for just about 10 seconds.

Very briefly, I say to my friends, apparently, if the news reports are right, the public option and Medicare is out. That is an interesting twist, and again, I think affirmation that they are just throwing things against the wall to see if anything sticks. But it doesn't change the core of the bill, which the Senator from South Dakota has been so eloquent about, and that is the $\1/2\ trillion in cuts from Medicare and increases in taxes.

So you can take the public option out or leave it in, and it still doesn't change the fundamental fact that it is going to restructure health care in America and do nothing to reduce the cost and nothing to improve the quality. I just wanted to make that comment and ask for comment from the Senator from South Dakota.

By the way, could I just mention, I haven't quite seen anything on the floor of the Senate as I saw when the Senator from South Dakota was challenged earlier today. I was watching the proceedings on the floor, and I wonder if the Senator from South Dakota would like to maybe respond to accusations of misleading information, I guess is the kindest way I could describe it.

I would respond by saying whether the public option is in or out or whether expansion of Medicare is in or out, the core of this legislation will do nothing to reduce or eliminate the problem of health care in America, which is the cost of health care not the quality of health care. In fact, it will, in many ways, impact directly the quality of health care, increase the cost, as we all know, by some $2.5 trillion, according to the chairman of the Finance Committee.

But I also want to point out the back and forth of this--is it in there, is it out? Well, let's try this. Who, up until a week ago, ever heard we were going to expand Medicare? Now it is out, now it is in. We used to have hearings around here, proposals, witnesses, and then we would shape legislation, which would be amended in the committee, and then brought to the floor and amended on the Senate floor. Here we have to get news flashes to know whether the public option is in or out, whether Medicare expansion is in or out. Again, this is kind of a bizarre process.

But my friend is right; it doesn't affect the core problem with this legislation, which is that it does not reduce cost, and it increases the size and scope of government and the tax burden that Americans will bear for a long period of time, including, by the way--and, again, I don't mean to sound parochial, but there are 337,000 of my citizens in the Medicare Advantage Program. The other side has admitted that the Medicare Advantage Program will go by the

wayside. That is affecting a whole lot of people's lives, I would say, and that is in the core of the bill. That will not be changed by expansion of Medicare or with a public option or with no public option.

If I could just mention this. Over the weekend, obviously people watched football games. I was obviously pleased to see my alma mater prevail over those great cadets at West Point. We have a tendency to divert our attention--even seeing, for a change, the Redskins winning a football game--but what we talked about late last week is vitally important. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had some devastating comments to make.

This is the organization that is tasked to provide us with the best estimates of the consequences of legislation--specifically Medicare and Medicaid.

The CMS, referring to this bill, said:

. . . we estimate that total national health expenditures

under this bill would increase by an estimated total of $234

billion during calendar years 2010 to 2019.

It goes on and on and talks about the devastating effects of this legislation, whether the public option is in or out, whether we expand Medicare or not. It is remarkable information that is in this study, a study being ignored by the other side. Clearly, what is happening on the other side is only one Senator is throwing proposals back and forth to the CBO until they get something that perhaps looks like it might be sellable. But the CMS has already made their judgment on this legislation.

If I could, before my friend from Alabama, I wonder also, when we are talking about dropping expansion of Medicare as is reported by news reports--I don't know; we have not been informed--could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that the AMA came out in opposition to it? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the American Hospital Association came out in opposition to it? Of course, that the PhRMA situation is a parliamentary procedure that is awaiting action on the floor speaks for itself.