Department Of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield for a question from the Senator from Alaska.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, if I may ask one more question. That last statement the Senator from Illinois made, I know as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have not heard complaints about this bill from anyone from the other side. I am asking, from a leadership position, have we heard any complaints on this legislation? Is it just that, it is the moment in time?

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

Mr. BEGICH. I thank the Senator.

Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Michigan.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, from the Senator's explanation and from what we have been working on, I want the Senator to clarify two things.

First of all, we could do this conference report today if there were a willingness and, secondly, we have a pay raise for our troops that is coming right before Christmas, the holidays, help for families, help for those who have lost their jobs and are trying to figure out how they keep their health care going, and help for people who are trying to put food on the table for the holidays; is that correct? I ask the Senator to expand. As I understand it, we could actually get this done today and give people some peace of mind going into the holidays.

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

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

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I wish to ask another question of the Senator from Illinois. If, in fact, the Senator from Illinois is finding the same thing I am right now--certainly, we have the highest unemployment rate in Michigan--and we are hearing it from all over the country; we are hearing from people that their unemployment benefits are about to expire. They are trying to figure out how they are going to make it through the next few months.

There are particular concerns that if we do not extend it by the end of the year that, in fact, many will have to go out and resign up with a new bureaucracy to continue benefits.

I wonder if the Senator has heard the same kinds of concerns and sense of urgency people have about being able to keep a roof over their head, keep food on the table, and keep their health care going--the same sense of urgency that I know we are feeling from people in Michigan?

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

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

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

Ms. STABENOW. If I may conclude, to clarify, we can get this done today. We can create that peace of mind for families going into the holidays, going into Christmas, into the end of the year. We could actually do that today in the next few hours?

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

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

I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I am interested in the parliamentary situation that took place earlier whereby one of our Members was actually obliged to withdraw an amendment that was going to be voted on by all of us because of an insistence on the part of the other side that 800 pages be read by our poor clerk before that vote should take place.

I have also heard the other side say that we want to get going, we want to move toward votes.

I would be interested in the reflections of the distinguished majority whip on the extent to which a procedural objection to force the clerk to read 800 pages of an amendment, and deny one of our colleagues his vote, fairly represents a desire to move forward and get through our votes.

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

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

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. If the Senator from Illinois would yield for another question.

I was elected just about 3 years ago, and I came in with the new majority, so I did not have a chance to serve in this body when there was a Republican President and a Republican majority. I wonder if the Senator, who was here at that time, would reflect on how the other side viewed Defense appropriations for our troops during the Iraq war when they were in the majority. Were they desirous of delay and obstruction and debate and procedural maneuver on Defense appropriations at that time or is this a new strategy of theirs?

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

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

Since this unanimous consent request has been granted, I am going to yield the floor and any of my colleagues who wish to speak, it will be equally divided time for the next 2 hours.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I heard not one word of criticism when this took place under the previous administration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any motion, amendment, or resolution may be withdrawn or modified by the mover at any time before a decision, amendment or ordering of the yeas and nays, except a motion to reconsider, which shall not be withdrawn without leave.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The majority leader of the Senate came to the floor 2 days ago to announce something else that will be part of the conference committee here. The so-called doughnut hole, that gap in coverage for prescription drugs under Medicare, is going to be filled so that seniors will no longer have that period of uncertainty where their bills have reached a level where they are disqualified from payment--the so-called doughnut hole. It will be filled. It will give them peace of mind that if they have expensive pharmaceuticals, they will have no interruption in coverage in the future when it comes to those pharmaceuticals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source