Floor Statements

Madam President, the Commonwealth of Kentucky has many heroes. Yet only two have been granted significant prominence to have their likeness stand on permanent display within the halls of the U.S. Capitol building.

The Great Compromiser, Henry Clay, is one of those who have earned such distinction. And the second statue recognizes the contributions of Dr. Ephraim McDowell to modern medicine. While his might not be a household name, Dr. McDowell's contribution to surgical procedure is nonetheless momentous, making him one of only two Kentuckians in history to be recognized in the Capitol.

It was 200 years ago that Dr. McDowell performed the world's first successful ovariotomy. What Mrs. Jane Todd Crawford of Green County, KY, mistook for twins, Dr. McDowell correctly diagnosed as a 22-pound ovarian tumor.

Mrs. Crawford begged Dr. McDowell to prevent her from dying a slow and painful death. The young doctor explained that her only option was to have experimental surgery, and he went further in explaining that none who had previously undergone such surgery had survived. Undeterred, Mrs. Crawford pressed Dr. McDowell to perform the surgery and made the 60-mile horseback ride to Danville, KY, on December 13, 1809.

By the end of the 25-minute procedure, which was performed without anesthetic, Mrs. Crawford's tumor had been removed and she was able to make an uncomplicated recovery. She would go on to live another 32 years. In time, Dr. McDowell would go on to perform nearly a dozen more such procedures, and his meticulous notes of performing a successful abdominal surgery would be reviewed and taught on two continents.

In those notes, he wrote about his first success:

Having never seen so large a substance extracted, nor heard

of an attempt, or success attending any operation such as

this required, I gave to the unhappy woman information of her

dangerous situation. The tumor appeared full in view, but was

so large we could not take it away entire. We took out

fifteen pounds of a dirty, gelatinous-looking substance.

After which we cut through the fallopian tube, and extracted

the sac, which weighed seven pounds and one-half. In five

days I visited her, and much to my astonishment found her

making up her bed.

Madam President, it is not just Mrs. Crawford who owes a debt of gratitude to Dr. Ephraim McDowell. Indeed, because of his efforts and courage, the entire field of medicine made great advancements and society as a whole is the better. With the bicentennial of this remarkable accomplishment soon approaching, I thought it fitting for us to take a moment and remember this man who Kentucky rightfully honors with a place in the U.S. Capitol.

Mr. President, the last 2 years haven't been easy ones for the American people. Millions have lost jobs and homes, and many have had the bitter experience of watching years of savings disappear. Unemployment stands at a 25-year high, and in many States it is worse. Just to take one example, in Kentucky unemployment rose in all 120 counties from June 2008 to June 2009. A lot of Americans are hurting. A lot of them have been struggling for a long time. And despite the occasional piece of good news, the situation doesn't seem to be getting a whole lot better for most people.

This is the situation now, and this was the situation when the White House announced its plan to undertake health care reform. Throughout this debate, the need to do something about the economy has never been far from our minds.

Indeed, from the very outset of this debate, the administration has rested its case for reform on the need to do something about the economy. The economy was in bad shape, the argument went. And reforming health care would make it better.

All of us agree that health care costs are unsustainably high, and alleviating the burden of these costs on American families and businesses is something we should work together to do. But somewhere along the way, the administration got off track. The original purpose of reform was obscured. And now we are hearing from one independent analysis after another that a bill which was meant to alleviate economic burdens will actually make these burdens worse. And the most significant finding is this: A reform that was meant to lower costs will actually drive them up.

Americans are scratching their heads about all this, and rightly so. Business owners can't believe a reform that was meant to help them survive will end up costing them more in higher taxes. Seniors can't believe a bill that was meant to improve their care will lead to nearly half a trillion dollars in cuts to their Medicare. And families can't believe that they are going to have to pay higher health care premiums and taxes at a time when so many of them are already struggling to make ends meet.

Higher taxes, higher premiums, cuts to Medicare. These are three of the major blows this legislation would deal to the American people. And any one of them would be bad enough on its own. But let's just look at one of the unexpected consequences of the Democrat health care plan for a moment--let's look at the tax hikes.

The Senate bill we've seen targets individuals and businesses with a raft of new taxes, fees, and penalties. It imposes a 40-percent tax on high value insurance plans for individuals and families. It imposes billions in fees on health plans that will inevitably be passed along to consumers. It imposes fees on the costs of medical devices and life- saving drugs, fees that would be paid by consumers.

Millions of taxpayers managing chronic conditions and facing extraordinary medical expenses will be faced with even higher out of pocket costs because the bill makes it more difficult to deduct these expenses. And small businesses with as few as 50 employees would be required to buy insurance for all workers whether they could afford it or not, or pay a substantial tax for each of them.

Taken together, the health care plan we have seen would impose roughly half a trillion dollars in new taxes, fees, and penalties at a time when Americans are already struggling to dig themselves out of a recession. What's worse, an independent analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation suggests that nearly 80 percent of the burden would fall on middle-class Americans.

So a reform that was meant to make life easier is now expected to make life harder. If you have insurance, you get taxed. If you don't have insurance, you get taxed. If you're a struggling business owner who can't afford insurance for your employees, you get taxed. If you use medical devices, you get taxed.

This is not the reform Americans were asking for, Mr. President. And that's precisely why more Americans now oppose this health care plan than support it.

The administration didn't listen to the American people when it put this plan together, but it can listen now, and the message it is going to hear is this: Put away the plan to raise premiums, raise taxes, and cut Medicare. Get back to the drawing board and come up with a commonsense, step-by-step set of reforms. That is what people want, and that is what they should get.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, most Americans recognize that our continued success in preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil depends on our ability as a Nation to remain vigilant and clear-eyed about the nature of the threats we face at home and abroad.

Some threats come in the form of terror cells in distant countries. Others

come from people plotting attacks within our own borders.

And still others can come from a failure to recognize the distinction between everyday crimes and war crimes.

This last category of threat is extremely serious but sometimes overlooked--and that is why Senators Graham, Lieberman, and McCain have offered an amendment to the Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill that would reassure the American people that the Senate has not taken its eye off the ball.

The amendment is simple and straightforward. It explicitly prohibits any of the terrorists who were involved in the September 11, 2001, attacks from appearing for trial in a civilian U.S. courtroom. Instead, it would require the government to use military commissions; that is, the courts proper to war, for trying these men.

By requiring the government to use military commissions, the supporters of this amendment are reaffirming two things: First, that these men should have a fair trial.

And second, we are reaffirming what American history has always showed; namely, that war crimes and common crimes are to be tried differently--and that military courts are the proper forum for prosecuting terrorists.

Some might argue that terrorists like Zacarias Moussaoui, one of the 9/11 conspirators, are not enemy combatants--that they are somehow on the same level as a convenience store stick-up man. But listen to the words of Moussaoui himself. He disagrees.

Asked if he regretted his part in the September 11 attacks, Moussaoui said: ``I just wish it will happen on the 12th, the 13th, the 14th, the 15th, the 16th, the 17th, and [on and on].'' He went on to explain how happy he was to learn of the deaths of American service men and women in the Pentagon on 9/11. And then he mocked an officer for weeping about the loss of men under her command, saying:

I think it was disgusting for a military person to pretend

that they should not be killed as an act of war. She is

military. She should expect that people who are at war with

her will try to kill her. I will never cry because an

American bombed my camp.

There is no question Moussaoui himself believes he is an enemy combatant engaged in a war against us.

The Senate has also made itself clear on this question. Congress created the military commissions system 3 years ago, on a bipartisan basis, precisely to deal with prosecutions of al-Qaida terrorists consistent with U.S. national security, with the expectation that they would be used for that purpose.

The Senate reaffirmed this view 2 years ago when it voted 94-3 against transferring detainees from Guantanamo stateside, including the 9/11 planners.

We reaffirmed it again earlier this year when we voted 90-6 against using any funds from the war supplemental to transfer any of the Guantanamo detainees to the United States.

And just this summer the Senate reaffirmed that military commissions are the proper forum for bringing enemy combatants to justice when we approved without objection an amendment to that effect as part of the Defense authorization bill.

Further, our past experiences with terror trials in civilian courts have clearly been shown to undermine our national security. During the trial of Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the first Trade Center bombing, we saw how a small bit of testimony about a cell phone battery was enough to tip off terrorists that one of their key communication links had been compromised.

We saw how the public prosecution of the Blind Sheikh, Abdel Rahman, inadvertently provided a rich source of intelligence to Osama bin Laden ahead of the 9/11 attacks. And in that case, we remember that Rahman's lawyer was convicted of smuggling orders to his terrorist disciples.

We also saw how the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui resulted in the leak of sensitive information.

And we saw how the trials of the East African Embassy bombers compromised intelligence methods to the benefit of Osama bin Laden.

The administration calls these prosecutions ``successful.'' But given the loss of sensitive information that resulted, former Federal judge and Attorney General Michael Mukasey has noted ``there are many words one might use to describe how these events unfolded; `successfully' is not among them.''

Trying terror suspects in civilian courts is also a giant headache for communities; just look at the experience of Alexandria, VA, during the Moussaoui trial. As I have pointed out before, parts of Alexandria became a virtual encampment every time Moussaoui was moved to the courthouse. Those were the problems we saw in Northern Virginia when just one terrorist was tried in civilian court. What will happen to Alexandria, New York City, or other cities if several terrorists are tried there? You can imagine.

It is because of dangers and difficulties like these that we established military commissions in the first place. The administration has now rewritten the military commission procedures precisely to its liking. If we can't expect the very people who masterminded the 9/11 attacks and went to war with us to fall within the jurisdiction of these military courts, then who can we expect to fall within the jurisdiction of these military courts?

The American people have made themselves clear on this issue. They do not want Guantanamo terrorists brought to the U.S., and they certainly do not want the men who planned the 9/11 attacks on America to be tried in civilian courts--risking national security and civic disruption in the process.

Congress created military commissions for a reason. But if the administration fails to use military commissions for self-avowed combatants like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, then it is wasting this time- honored and essential tool in the war on terror.

I would ask the opponents of the Graham amendment the following: what material benefit is derived by bringing avowed foreign combatants like KSM into a civilian court and giving them all the rights and privileges of a U.S. citizen; and why should we further delay justice for the families of the victims of 9/11?

Mr. President, I will proceed on my leader time.

Mr. President, the American people are paying close attention to the ongoing debate over health care, and they have noticed a worrisome trend. The longer this debate goes on, the further Democrats in Congress seem to drift from the original purpose of reform.

At the outset of this debate, the American people were told reform would lower costs, a goal all of us supported. The administration is right when it says the rising cost of health care in this country is unsustainable. Costs must be reined in. But the proposals we have seen so far don't address that problem. In fact, they make it worse. Instead of reining in costs, the proposals they have advanced are expected to drive costs even higher, costs that will then be shifted onto families and small businesses.

Yesterday, I pointed out the absurdity of the situation we are in. Reform that was meant to lower costs is now independently confirmed to make health care more expensive. Reform that was meant to make life easier is now expected to make life harder for families, businesses, and seniors from one end of our country to the other.

Let's focus on Medicare a moment, a program tens of millions of America's seniors rely upon. How is this program doing financially? It is not a pretty picture. Medicare started running a deficit last year, and the Medicare trust fund is expected to run out of money in less than a decade. Looking a little further ahead, Medicare is slated to spend nearly $38 trillion that it doesn't have. Simply put: Medicare is broke. For the sake of our seniors, we need to fix it.

But the advocates of this legislation look at Medicare and they see something else. They do not see a problem to be fixed, they see a giant piggy bank. Rather than fix it, they want to use it to fund an entirely new set of government-run health care programs.

Medicare was an attractive target for the people who wrote this bill. They

were in a bind. At a time of shrinking government revenues, nearly 10 percent unemployment, and record deficits and debt, the bill writers looked around for the money to cover the cost of their health care plan and they couldn't find it. So they decided on massive cuts to Medicare, cuts that will have serious consequences for millions of American seniors.

I am sure they didn't want to resort to cutting Medicare when they started out, but the fact is they are now proposing massive cuts that will inevitably lead to fewer services. Here is what they plan to cut: $8 billion from hospice, more than $40 billion from home health care agencies, more than $130 billion from Medicare Advantage, and more than $130 billion in Medicare cuts to hospitals that care for seniors.

At the outset of this debate, all of us knew Medicare faced significant challenges that needed to be addressed. A program that is already spending more than it is taking in, a program that is expected to be insolvent in just 8 years, should be fixed, not raided. Just about every day I receive letters in my office from Kentuckians who have Medicare. They are counting on this program. They are worried about its future. We have an obligation to our seniors, an obligation to keep our promises.

At some point, the majority will have to work with Members to address this problem. When they do, we should focus on a solution to out-of- control entitlement spending that Americans will embrace.

Forty-four years ago, when President Johnson signed Medicare into law, he vowed that we would never refuse the hand of justice to those who have given a lifetime of service and wisdom and labor to their Nation. We have an obligation to fulfill that vow. We have an obligation to work together on solutions that both parties and the people for whom this vital program was created--seniors--will support.

The health care plan we have seen is deeply flawed. Far from fulfilling the original goal of lower cost, the Democrats' bill would drive costs even higher--an outcome that has most Americans scratching their heads in confusion and disbelief. What is worse, the plan slashes Medicare, too, as a way to pay for new government programs.

Clearly, the effort to reform health care has gotten off track. Higher taxes, higher premiums, and cuts to Medicare is not the reform Americans are looking for. They want commonsense, step-by-step solutions, not a health care experiment that makes existing problems worse. While some may want to move this bill as quickly as possible, Americans have a different message: They would like for us to start over.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I assume the majority leader will be here momentarily. I have a brief statement. I think I will go ahead and make that.

Mr. President, we will all have an opportunity to hear German Chancellor Merkel speak to a joint session of Congress later this morning.

We welcome her to the Capitol. It is always an honor for us to welcome a head of state to this great symbol of democracy in which we all have the privilege to work.

We look forward to hearing Chancellor Merkel's words, and we wish her a very pleasant and productive stay in Washington.

Mr. President, Americans have always had a healthy skepticism about government. But the health care bill that Democrats in Congress have put together this year would surprise even the wariest of citizens about government's potential to misread its mandate.

At a time of near 10-percent unemployment and a staggering $12 trillion Federal debt, this bill proposes to spend at least another trillion dollars to extend the reach of government in the health care decisions of every single American.

What's worse, a bill that was meant to control costs is expected to increase them. One independent study after another has shown that the bills we have seen wouldn't make health insurance premiums go down, they would actually drive them up.

You would think this would be enough to send the bill writers back to the drawing board. After all, the primary argument that was used to marshal support for these bills was the unsustainable cost of health care. Unfortunately, it hasn't. Frankly, it is an absurd spot in which we now find ourselves.

For months and months, we heard that certain reforms were needed to drive down costs. Yet now, after analysts have concluded that these proposals would actually increase costs, the people who were arguing for them are trying harder than ever to get these proposals approved, as quickly as possible.

The irreducible fact is this: while Americans have been saying we need more affordable health care, the Democrat plan makes it more expensive--and that is not reform.

We have the testimony of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Congressional Budget Office, the administration's own Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and separate analyses by many others that say so. Each has said that the proposals we have seen would lead to higher premiums. And these higher premiums would especially hit the young, the healthy, and small businesses owners.

Here is the breakdown. Premiums for young people could go up nearly 70 percent, and even more than that in places such as Kentucky. And millions of Americans who have chosen a plan that fits their needs and their budgets will be forced to buy more insurance, at a significant cost. Like most of my colleagues, I am particularly concerned about what these plans will mean for the families I represent. And what I have seen so far from these reports is disturbing.

As a result of all the various new rules, regulations, and tax increases that would come about as a result of the Democrat health care plan, a family of four in Kentucky that earns $66,000 a year is estimated to see their insurance premium double--from $355 to $787 a month.

The other side will say that they intend to provide subsidies for families like these, and they do. But those subsidies would only cover about half the increase. So even after these subsidies are applied, this family ends up paying an extra $180 a month. As any family will tell you, that's $180 that will not go to the college fund, to the retirement account, or toward a family vacation.

New taxes on medical devices would also contribute to higher premiums.

Same goes for new taxes on life-saving prescription drugs and new taxes on insurance providers. One independent study shows that the new taxes and fees would add nearly $500 a year to the cost of insurance for American families.

The Congressional Budget Office also predicts that a new charge to participate in so-called exchanges would lead private health plans to increase their premiums by about three percent. That is on top of all the other forces in this bill that work to drive up Americans' health insurance premiums.

The testimony of these groups is clear: the Democrat plan would not only raise taxes and slash Medicare, it would also raise health insurance premiums. This is not reform, and it's certainly not what the American people were told they could expect.

Republicans have proposed a different approach, one that responds to today's needs and one that respects the challenging economic environment we're in.

We are for helping small businesses find affordable health insurance options for their employees. We are for providing individuals the same tax benefits for purchasing insurance that businesses get.

We are for protecting doctors from frivolous lawsuits, so they can focus on treating patients--and lower their costs. We are for cracking down on the rampant waste and fraud that drive up the cost of care. And we are for the kind of wellness and prevention programs that have worked at places like the Safeway grocery chain.

Contrast that with the other side's plan. A reform that was meant to cut costs has been shown to increase them. As I said, that is not reform. But it is also not too late. It is not too late for the parties to get together and deliver the reforms Americans really want.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for months, the American people have been sending us a clear message about what they want to see in health care reform. They want practical, common-sense reforms that drive down the cost of care, improve access, and create more choices. What they are getting instead from Congress are higher premiums, higher taxes, Medicare cuts, and more government control over their health care decisions.

They are getting the same old big-government solutions to problems that call for creative, modern-day solutions.

Quite simply, there seems to be a disconnect between the American people and Democrat leaders in Congress. And nowhere is that disconnect more apparent than in the 2,000-page bureaucratic monstrosity of a bill that House Democrats dropped on the American people last week.

At its core, this bill is very similar to what we have already seen in the Senate--a trillion-dollar government experiment that raises taxes, raises premiums, slashes Medicare, and leads to unprecedented government control over the health care decisions of Americans. That is the foundation, the starting-off point. It doesn't get any better from there.

Let's start with the pricetag. At a time of unprecedented government spending and a staggering $12 trillion debt, the Democrat health care bill asks taxpayers to pony up at least another trillion dollars. To get some sense of the size of that figure, consider the fact that this bill would cost more than $2 million per word. And believe it or not, that is a conservative estimate.

Once fully implemented, the bill will spend $2.3 trillion. And this doesn't even account for the $250 billion that is needed to prevent a cut in reimbursements to doctors who treat Medicare patients. While this so-called ``Doc Fix'' is no longer in the bill, we saw last month how Democrats in both the House and Senate plan to pay for it. They want to put this $250 billion on the government credit card and then claim their plans don't add to the deficit.

Well, Americans aren't buying it.

The bill would also hit already-struggling States by imposing a crippling, 10-year, $34 billion expansion of Medicaid. And it fails to meet the key test that Americans had set for reform, which was to control costs. Indeed, contrary to early promises by the administration about the need to control costs, this bill would actually increase long-term Federal health care spending.

The health care choices that Americans currently enjoy would also be limited under this bill, and the government's role would increase dramatically. If you don't want to buy insurance, too bad: under this bill, the government forces you either to buy insurance or pay a new 2.5-percent tax. Under this bill, the government would also tell you what kind of insurance you can have by dictating the benefits you receive. If a politician in Washington doesn't approve of your current health care plan, you may be forced to give it up. Ironically, the person who would dictate your benefits would go by the title of the Health Choices Commissioner only in Washington, Mr. President.

Notably, this bill no longer includes language from earlier draft legislation stating that essential benefits coverage should not lead to the rationing of health care. Language preventing rationing is out. We can only conclude from the exclusion of this language that the bill writers have opened the

door to rationing care at some point down the road--just like every other country that has gone in the direction of government-run health care for all.

Business owners are also a special target of this bill. The government will tell all but the smallest employers they must cover employees even if they cannot afford it. If they refuse, they get hit with a $135 billion tax--a tax that independent experts warn will lower wages and kill jobs.

Unemployment is nearly 10 percent, despite the administration's prediction that it would not rise past 8 percent if we passed the stimulus. But instead of trying to create jobs, Democrats are trying to push through a trillion-dollar experiment with massive new taxes that would kill even more jobs right in the middle of a recession.

Finally, under this bill, the government would create a government- run health care plan that Americans oppose. Democrats say the whole point of a government plan is to give Americans a lower cost option. But the CBO has said that the premiums for the House government plan would actually be higher than the premiums for private plans. So in order for the government plan to meet its goal of offering a lower cost alternative, it would have to use the power of government to subsidize costs, ration care, and undercut private insurers. Democrats may call this an option, but it is clear to everyone else that this type of government-run plan would eventually become the only option.

Americans want real reforms that lower costs and increase access-- reforms such as getting rid of junk lawsuits, leveling the playing field on health care taxes, and incentivizing healthy choices. Yet instead of adopting these commonsense ideas, the authors of this bill seem intent on forcing the American people to accept more spending, more debt, more taxes, and more government in their daily lives.

You can call that a lot of things. You can call it a lot of things, but you cannot call it reform. The passage of time has not been good to Democratic efforts at health care reform. Earlier versions were deeply flawed to begin with. But when Americans look closely at this latest version, they will wonder who exactly congressional leaders have been listening to over the past several months. Clearly, it is not the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, it was a signature assurance of the President's campaign: Middle-class Americans would see no new taxes of any kind under the new administration.

It is a pledge he will have to break if the health care bill, as currently moving through Congress, makes its way to the President's desk and he signs it. We already know that the bill slashes seniors' Medicare, and study after study shows it is going to drive up premiums for people who already have insurance. Higher taxes will be the third painful blow to Americans already struggling in a recession.

Here is a sample of the new taxes Americans are going to have to bear to finance more government health care. Anyone whose health care benefits are worth more than $8,000 or any family whose benefits are worth more than $21,000 will get a 40-percent excise tax. While backers like to call these ``high value'' or ``Cadillac'' plans, the new tax won't be indexed to keep pace with rising health care costs. So as time marches on, it won't just hit the so-called Cadillac plans but the ``Buick and the Chevy'' plans, too--all the way down to tricycles. Eventually, this tax will hit all plans.

Health insurers also get hit with a giant new nondeductible tax, which we know will get passed along to families in the form of higher premiums.

The bill would tax life-saving medical devices such as heart stents and prosthetics. Prescription drugs get taxed, which we know patients will have to pay for in the form of higher drug costs and premiums.

Tens of millions of American families who have experienced tax-saving benefits of Flexible Spending Accounts to pay for prescription drugs and other necessities will see those benefits wiped out under this plan. In an effort to redirect billions of dollars these families currently save through FSAs back to the government, FSAs would automatically be capped at $2,500 and then phased out over time. Anything families currently save by deducting more than that would go to the government instead.

People who choose not to buy government-approved health insurance will get clobbered with a penalty as high as $1,500.

Businesses would also get hit. According to the bill, any business with 50 or more employees that doesn't currently provide insurance to its employees will be forced to subsidize it at a significant cost per employee--all of which brings us back to the President's pledge.

Would health care reform hit the pocketbooks of all the people who earn less than a quarter million dollars a year or wouldn't it? That is the question. You bet it would. I have listed some of the ways middle- class Americans get hit under this plan. These are the ones we know about.

But don't take it from me. The testimony of the independent, nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation could not be clearer. It looked at the taxes in the Finance Committee bill and found that nearly 80 percent of the burden would fall on Americans earning less than $250,000 a year. Again, 80 percent of the burden would fall on those making less than $250,000 a year.

Taxes on insurers and manufacturers will be passed right along to consumers, and the average income for people who have Flexible Saving Accounts is $55,000--hardly the wealthiest segment of Americans.

Bottom line: If you have insurance, you get taxed. If you don't have insurance, you get taxed. If you are a struggling business owner who cannot afford insurance for your employees, you get taxed. If you use medical devices, you get taxed. If you buy over-the-counter medicine, you get taxed. In other words, Americans get taxed going and coming under the $1 trillion plan that is making its way through Congress.

No wonder most Americans oppose this plan--higher premiums, higher taxes, and cuts to Medicare. This is not the reform America bargained for. In fact, it is no reform at all. It is a bill of goods being forced on the middle class when they can least afford it.

Commonsense reforms and lower costs--that is what people want, and that is what they should get.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

We do have some objections on this side; therefore, I must object.

There are objections on this side; therefore, I must object.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I think there is a good chance this nomination will be cleared. I need to hotline this nomination. If it comes out the way I anticipate, we should be able to confirm this nominee in wrap-up. Therefore, I object.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will object, this is the same subject we have been going back and forth on for days. I have pared back our request for amendments significantly, but we are still unable to get even a modest three amendments on this side of the aisle. Therefore, I object.

Madam President, I believe the majority leader propounded another consent agreement. Reserving the right to object, let me briefly recount for colleagues where we have been on this issue over the last days.

We initially offered a modest number of amendments--eight. Five of my Members have been willing to discontinue their request for votes on their amendments. The majority leader just indicated he is willing to have one TARP amendment. We have one more TARP amendment. That would make for a total of three amendments. We could enter into a consent agreement to have votes on these three amendments, with short time agreements, and be through with this bill this afternoon.

I hope this is not the way the majority leader is planning on handling the health care debate because the American people will storm the Capitol if they think the majority is going to dictate to the minority what amendments will be offered on a bill as significant as restructuring one-sixth of the economy.

I feel as if we have been extraordinarily reasonable. We are down to three simple amendments on which we would be willing to accept time agreements to complete this unemployment insurance compensation bill. I don't think that is unreasonable. Therefore, Madam President, I object.

Madam President, just to make sure there is no misunderstanding with the consent agreement I am willing to agree to, with votes on three amendments, with short time agreements, we could be finished with the unemployment compensation bill this very afternoon. This is not an effort to delay. If my friend is concerned about the amendment, he has 60 votes on his side; he could simply vote it down. That is an easy solution to the problem--to enter into the consent agreement, have short time agreements, and if my friend from Nevada opposes them, I am sure he can convince 60 Democrats to vote them down.

Madam President, the way to finish this right now is to enter into a consent agreement to have votes on three amendments, with very short time agreements, and we can solve this issue. If my friend is worried about whether the House will accept it, he can vote it down, defeat the amendment. Around here, if you get the most votes, you win; if you don't, you lose. All I am suggesting is that we have three amendment votes, with short time agreements, this afternoon, and we can wrap up this bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, would the majority leader yield?

I would just say to my friend, we have a lot of fights around here over things we disagree on, but on this particular measure, this is an unnecessary impasse that we have. We have come very close to a very modest number of amendments. My side would be more than happy to accept time agreements on all of the amendments. I want to second what the majority leader says, that I hope we can indeed work out an agreement for a modest number of amendments with time agreements and wrap up this bill because I certainly share his view that most Members support the underlying measure and the additions to which the majority leader has referred.

Mr. President, my good friend the majority leader used to say frequently when he was in the minority that the price of being in the majority in the Senate is you have to take votes in order to advance bills in a smooth process.

My understanding is that we were within one amendment of reaching an agreement several days ago. I think we are not that far away from an agreement that would allow us to expedite consideration of the bill, move it along, and be fair to the minority. I think everyone knows it is not uncommon in the Senate--in fact, it is routine--for there to be amendments offered by both sides that are not directly related to the bill. So there is nothing extraordinary about this.

Let me repeat, we would be more than happy to enter into a short time agreement on the amendments we were discussing with the majority and try to wrap up this bill at the earliest possible time, certainly earlier than we would wrap it up if we let all of this time run until after midnight tonight.