Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act Of 2009
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank my gracious colleague, and I am grateful for his kind words.
Each Member of this body has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Not any Constitution, not their own personal Constitution, not a fake or pretend Constitution, but the real Constitution of the United States. That means that there will come times when politics says yes, but the Constitution says no. There will come times when the grand plans and good intentions of politicians meet the limits of the Constitution. I submit that this is one of those times, and the constitutional point of order raised by the Senator from Nevada presents each of us with the choice of whether politics or the Constitution will win the day. I choose the Constitution and will vote to support the point of order.
America's founders gave us a written Constitution that delegates certain powers to the Federal Government, separates those powers among three branches, and enumerates the powers given to Congress. They did all of that writing, delegating, separating, and enumerating for one overriding reason, to set limits on Federal Government power because liberty cannot survive without such limits. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor reaffirmed in 1991 when writing the Supreme Court's opinion in Gregory v. Ashcroft, our system of federalism and the separation of powers ``was adopted by the Framers to ensure the protection of our fundamental liberties.' '' Liberty requires limits on government power, it always has and it always will. The question for us today is whether liberty is still more important than power.
The Members of this body have our own, independent responsibility to ensure that the actions we take are consistent with the Constitution we have sworn to support and defend. We cannot simply assume that the Constitution necessarily allows us to do whatever we may want to do. And we cannot ignore this question by simply punting it to the courts. Litigation is likely, to be sure, which means that the courts will be asked to decide certain legal questions, including whether this legislation is constitutional. Judges also take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and must exercise the powers it grants to them. Speculating about how courts may decide a hypothetical case in the future, however, is no substitute for Senators making a decision about an actual piece of legislation today.
The Constitution cannot limit government if government controls the Constitution. If the Constitution means whatever we want it to mean, then we might as well take an oath to support and defend ourselves. Frankly, that is what it seems like we do sometimes. But we cannot take the power the Constitution provides without the limits the Constitution sets.
Turning to the legislation before us, we all want to see a higher percentage of Americans covered by health insurance. That is a desirable goal, but my friends on the other side of the aisle would achieve that goal with a very blunt instrument, an order that Americans purchase health insurance. That is a means that the Constitution does not permit. While the Constitution gives Congress power to regulate interstate commerce, that power does not mean anything and everything we want to mean. Those words are not infinitely malleable. I agree with the 75 percent of Americans who say that this mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional because Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce does not include telling Americans what they must buy.
When President Franklin D. Roosevelt chose Frances Perkins as his Secretary of Labor, they discussed social policy legislation including health insurance. As Secretary Perkins later described it, they agreed that such legislation would pose ``very severe constitutional problems,'' including fundamentally altering Federal-State relationships. That is why the Social Security Act uses the payroll tax. Even the Roosevelt administration, which oversaw the most dramatic expansion of federal power in our Nation's history, would not go as far as the legislation before us today would go. Even they knew that the Constitution put certain means off limits.
The goal of raising the percentage of Americans with health insurance could be achieved by constitutionally permissible means. My friends on the other side of the aisle know as well as I do, however, that those means are politically impossible. And so they have chosen politics over the Constitution, and that is why I will support the constitutional point of order.
In 1995, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that there are indeed limits on the means Congress may use to achieve its goals. The Court rejected a version of the power to regulate interstate commerce that would make it hard to imagine any activity by individuals that Congress could not regulate. The legislation before us would not only regulate economic transactions in which individuals choose to engage, it would require that they engage in those transactions. This is the first time that Congress has ever ordered Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service. Crossing that line would do exactly what the Supreme Court said we may not do, and would virtually eliminate whatever limits remain on federal government power. That would deprive the Constitution not only of its meaning, but of its function as a guardian of liberty. I urge my colleagues to put the Constitution ahead of politics and support this point of order.
There is a lot of talk from the majority about why passing this bill is the right thing to do for the American people. It is a decision of conscience for them. Well, let us take a closer look at these decisions of conscience.
After weeks of closed-door, clandestine negotiations, Senator Reid finally emerged with a 383-page Christmas list. This bill is a dark example of everything that is wrong with Washington today. Despite all the promises of accountability and transparency, this bill is a grab bag of Chicago-style, backroom buyoffs. It is nothing more than a private game of ``Let's Make A Deal'' with the special interest groups financed by American taxpayers.
So who won and who lost in this game? Well, let's take a closer look. The AARP issued a strong statement of support for this bill. The Reid bill slashes Medicare by almost a $ 1/2 trillion to finance additional government spending. So why would the Nation's largest lobbying organization, avowed to protect the interests of seniors, support this legislation? To find the answer, similar to anything else in Washington, follow the money.
AARP takes in more than half its $1.1 billion budget in royalty fees from health insurers and other vendors. The sale of supplementary Medicare policies, called Medigap plans, make up a major share of this $1.1 billion royalty revenue. AARP has a direct interest in selling more Medigap plans. However, there is a strong competitor to Medigap policies, and that happens to be the Medicare Advantage plans.
These private plans provide comprehensive coverage, including vision and dental care, at lower premiums for nearly 11 million seniors across the country. Seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage do not need Medigap policies. So what happens when the Reid bill slashes this program by almost $120 billion? That is with a ``b.''
Look at the Washington Post front-page story from October 27, questioning whether AARP has a conflict of interest. I quote:
Democratic proposals to slash reimbursements for ..... Medicare Advantage are widely expected to drive up demand for private Medigap policies like the ones offered by AARP, according to health-care experts, legislative aides and documents.
One of the most disturbing developments in the Reid bill has been the perpetuation and even the doubling of the unconstitutional mandate tax from $8 billion to $15 billion. You heard me right. This unconstitutional mandate tax actually doubled behind closed doors. I have long argued that forcing Americans to either buy a Washington-defined level of coverage or face a tax penalty collected through the Internal Revenue Service is highly unconstitutional.
We hear a lot of rhetoric from the other side about Republicans defending the big, evil insurance companies while they are the defenders of American families. The insurance mandate is a clear example of this partisan hypocrisy. Let me ask one simple question. Who would benefit the most from this unprecedented, unconstitutional mandate to purchase insurance or face a stiff penalty enforced by our friends at the Internal Revenue Service?
The answer is pretty simple. There are two clear winners under this draconian policy--and neither is the American family. The first winner is the Federal Government, which could easily use this authority to increase the penalty--or impose similar ones--to create new streams of revenue to fund more out-of-control spending.
Second, the insurance companies are the most direct winners under this individual insurance mandate because it would force millions of Americans who would not otherwise do so to become their customers. I cannot think of a bigger giveaway for insurance companies than the Federal Government ordering Americans to buy their insurance products. If you do not believe me, then just look at the stock prices of the insurance companies that have recently shot to their 52-week highs.
Jane Hamsher, the publisher of the very liberal blog Firedoglake, said the following in a recent posting:
Having to pay 2 percent of their income in annual fines for refusing to comply with the IRS acting as the collection agency just might wind up being the most widely hated legislation of the decade. Barack Obama just might achieve the bipartisan unity on health care he always wanted--Democrats and Republicans are coming together to say ``kill this bill.''
Now that we clearly understand the huge windfalls the Reid bill provides AARP and insurance companies, let me take a moment to talk about the winners and losers in the so-called abortion compromise.
The language to prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortions is completely unacceptable. The new abortion provisions are significantly weaker than the amendment I introduced with Senator Ben Nelson to ensure that the Hyde amendment, which prohibits use of Federal dollars for elective abortions, applies to any new Federal health programs created in this bill. The Hyde amendment has been public law since 1976.
The so-called abortion compromise does not stop there. The Reid bill creates a State opt-out charade. However, this provision does nothing about one State's tax dollars paying for abortions in other States. Tax dollars from Nebraska can pay for abortions in California or New York.
This bill also creates a new public option run by the Office of Personnel Management that will, for the first time, create a federally funded and managed plan that will cover elective abortions.
When you have Senator Boxer, the distinguished Senator from California, and Speaker Pelosi, the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives--two of the largest pro-abortion advocates in the Congress--supporting this sham so-called compromise and everyone from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to the National Right to Life Committee and the Family Research Council opposing it, there is only one clear loser, and that is the majority of Americans who believe in the sanctity of life and oppose the use of Federal dollars for elective abortions.
Last, but not least, I wish to spend a couple of minutes talking about the numerous special deals conferred on States in this $2.5 trillion spending bill.
How hefty are the price tags for decisions of conscience? Here are some highlights: $300 million for Louisiana, $600 million for Vermont, $500 million for Massachusetts, $100 million for Nebraska, and that is just the beginning.
At a recent news conference, when the authors of this legislation were asked about the Nebraska earmark for Medicaid funding, the majority leader simply replied:
A number of States are treated differently than other States. That's what legislation is all about. That's compromise.
The next logical question is pretty straightforward: Who will pay for these special deals? The answer is simple: Every other State in the Union will pay for these special deals, including my home State of Utah. All of these States that are collectively facing $200 billion in deficits and are cutting jobs and educational services to survive will now pay to support these special deals.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Medicaid expansion in the Reid bill creates a $26 billion unfunded mandate on our cash-strapped States.
Coincidentally, only one State avoids this unfunded mandate; that is, the State of Nebraska.
Of course, let's not forget about the biggest loser in this bill: the hard-working American taxpayer. This bill imposes over $ 1/2 trillion worth of new taxes, fees, and penalties on individuals, families, and businesses. The new fees begin in 2010, while the major coverage provisions do not start until 2014. Almost $57 billion in new taxes are collected before any American sees the major benefits of this bill, which are largely delayed until 2014, assuming they are benefits at all.
It is also no coincidence that through the use of these budget gimmicks, the majority can claim this bill reduces our national deficit when we all know these reductions will never, ever be realized.
Based on data from the Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan congressional scorekeeper, this bill would break another one of President Obama's campaign promises by increasing taxes on 42 million individuals and families making less than $250,000 a year. At a time when we are struggling to fight a double-digit unemployment rate, the Reid bill not only increases payroll taxes by nearly $87 billion but also imposes $28 billion in new taxes on employers that do not provide government-approved health plans. These new taxes will ultimately be paid by American workers in the form of reduced wages and lost jobs.
However, it is hard to say we didn't see these new taxes coming. For years now, many of us have warned that the out-of-control spending in Washington would eventually have to be repaid on the backs of American families. In this bill, the repayment comes in the form of stifled economic growth, lost jobs, and new and increasing taxes--and they are just the first installment of what will be a long and painful extortion of taxpayers if Congress doesn't stand up and stop these terrible bills. According to a recent study of similar proposals by the Heritage Foundation, these new job-killing taxes will place approximately 5.2 million low-income workers at risk of losing their jobs or having their hours reduced and an additional 10.2 million workers would see lower wages and reduced benefits.
Poll after poll tells us about the growing opposition against this tax-and-spend health care bill. The latest Rasmussen poll shows that 55 percent of Americans are now opposed to this bill. The CNN poll is an even higher 61 percent. Among senior citizens, the group most likely to use the health care system, only 33 percent are in favor while 60 percent are opposed. Independent voters are also opposed 2 to 1. Opposition in certain State polls such as Nebraska is even higher at 67 percent.
So what is the majority doing to address these concerns? Nothing. In fact, despite the efforts by many of us here on this side of the aisle to express our substantive policy disagreements for months, one Senator recently said the following:
They are desperate to break this President. They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama. The birthers, the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups, it is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist.
That statement is outrageous. It was made by a very dear friend of mine, and I know he probably didn't mean it the way it comes out, but it is outrageous.
Instead of listening to the policy concerns of a majority of Americans, the other side is simply dismissing them as rants from the far right. If the majority refuses to listen to what Americans are telling them now, I am sure they are going to have a rude wake-up call later. It should come as no surprise that this kind of arrogance and power has led to congressional approval ratings rivaling the most hated institutions on the planet at a dismal 22 percent and falling.
One of the biggest tragedies of letting this bill move forward is that it will do nothing to address the fundamental issue of rising health care costs in this country. According to the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, this bill will actually raise our national health care costs by $200 billion. The administration's own Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, agrees with this assessment.
When this bill fails to work, Americans will no longer have anything in Congress to effectively address the issue of health care reform. The opportunity to save Medicare and Medicaid from their impending financial collapse will be lost for another generation.
The historic blizzard in Washington earlier this month was the perfect symbol of the anger and frustration brewing in the hearts of the American people against this bill. I urge the majority once again to listen to the voices of the American people. Every vote for this bill is the 60th vote. Let me repeat that again. Every vote for this bill is the 60th vote. My Republican colleagues and I are united with the American people in our fight against this $2.5 trillion tax-and-spend bill. I implore my colleagues not to do this to the American people. Don't foreclose on their futures. Don't stick them with even more government spending and more government intrusion.
We can fix health care. Many of us have been working to do just that for many years. A truly bipartisan bill that would garner 75 to 80 votes, which has always been the case in the past on these major pieces of legislation in the Senate, would be fiscally sound and provide the American people with the fixes they are asking for in the health care marketplace, and it would be easily achievable if we would just open our hearts and work together. Many of us are standing at the ready, and have been for months, to step forward and pass meaningful health care reform that truly would help American families and please American taxpayers. To date, we have been rebuffed by an unfailing determination by a few to pursue a nearly Socialist agenda.
I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who do not believe in the Europeanization of America, who believe in doing truly bipartisan work here in the Senate, to step forward and vote against advancing this bill and work with those of us on this side of the aisle who are committed to making a difference to craft a health care reform bill they can be proud to support.
Having said that, I do praise my colleague and friend from Montana, Senator Baucus, who literally did try for months in many meetings with first the Gang of 7--I was in that and then finally decided I could not support what they were going to come up with and expressed to my colleagues that I would have to in good conscience leave the negotiations. He tried, but he was too restricted in what he really could do, so that in the end no Republican supported what was done. We had a totally Democratic bill in the HELP Committee, a totally Democratic bill with the Pelosi bill in the House, and the Reid bill has been done in back rooms here with the White House, with very few even Democrats involved, and many of the things some of my friends worked so hard to get in the bill were no longer in it.
Let me just say there are good people in this body on both sides of the floor, but I have suggested in times past and I suggest it again: If you can't get 75 or 80 votes for a bill that affects every American, that is one-sixth of the American economy, then you know that bill is a lousy bill.
There are many on our side of the aisle who have stood ready, willing, and able to try to do something in a bipartisan way. I have spent 33 years here, and I have participated in a bipartisan way to help bring both sides together on all kinds of health care bills that work. This one would work, too, if we would just work in a bipartisan way.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there is a lot of talk from the majority about why passing this bill is the right thing to do for the American people. It is a decision of conscience for them. Well, let us a take a closer look at these decisions of conscience.
After weeks of closed-door clandestine negotiations, Senator Reid finally emerged with a 383-page Christmas list. This bill is a dark example of everything that is wrong with Washington today. Despite all the promises of accountability and transparency, this bill is a grab bag of Chicago-style, backroom buy-offs. It is nothing more than the Democratic leadership's own private game of ``Let's Make A Deal'' with special interest groups financed by American taxpayers.
So who won and who lost in this game? Well let us take a closer look.
AARP issued a strong statement of support for this bill. The Reid bill slashes Medicare by almost $ 1/2 trillion to finance additional government spending. So, why would the Nation's largest lobbying organization, avowed to protect the interests of seniors, support this legislation? To find the answer, like anything else in Washington, just follow the money.
AARP takes in more than half of its $1.1 billion budget in royalty fees from health insurers and other vendors. The sale of supplementary Medicare policies, called Medigap plans, make up a major share of this royalty revenue. AARP has a direct interest in selling more Medigap plans. However, there is a strong competitor to Medigap policies--Medicare Advantage plans.
These private plans provide comprehensive coverage, including vision and dental care, at lower premiums for nearly 11 million seniors across the country. Seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage do not need Medigap policies. So what happens when the Reid bill slashes this program by almost $120 billion? Just look at the Washington Post front-page story from October 27 questioning whether AARP has a conflict of interest:
Democratic proposals to slash reimbursements for ..... Medicare Advantage are widely expected to drive up demand for private Medigap policies like the ones offered by AARP, according to health-care experts, legislative aides and documents.
One of the most disturbing developments in the Reid bill has been the perpetuation and even doubling of the unconstitutional individual mandate tax from $8 billion to $15 billion. You heard me right--this unconstitutional mandate tax actually doubled behind closed doors. I have long argued that forcing Americans to either buy a Washington-defined level of coverage or face a tax penalty collected through the Internal Revenue Service is highly unconstitutional.
We hear a lot of rhetoric from the other side about Republicans defending the big, evil insurance companies while Democrats are the defenders of American families. The insurance mandate is a clear example of this partisan hypocrisy. Let me ask one simple question: Who would benefit the most from this unprecedented mandate to purchase insurance or face a stiff penalty enforced by our friends at the Internal Revenue Service?
The answer is simple. There are two clear winners under this Draconian policy--and neither is the American family. The first winner is the Federal Government, which could easily use this authority to increase the penalty, or impose similar ones, to create new streams of revenue to fund more out-of-control spending. Second, the insurance companies are the most direct winners under this individual insurance mandate because it would force millions of Americans who would not otherwise do so to become their customers. I cannot think of a bigger giveaway for insurance companies than the Federal Government ordering Americans to buy their products. If you do not believe me then just look at the stock prices of the insurance companies that have recently shot to their 52-week highs.
Jane Hamsher, the publisher of the very liberal blog Firedoglake, said the following in a recent posting: ``Having to pay 2 percent of their income in annual fines for refusing to comply--with the IRS acting as the collection agency--just might wind up being the most widely hated legislation of the decade. Barack Obama just might achieve the bipartisan unity on health care he always wanted--Democrats and Republicans are coming together to say kill this bill.' ''
Now that we clearly understand the huge windfalls the Reid bill provides AARP and insurance companies, let me take a moment to talk about the winners and losers in the so-called abortion compromise. The language to prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to fund elective abortions is completely unacceptable. The new abortion provisions are significantly weaker than the amendment I introduced with Senator Ben Nelson to ensure that the Hyde amendment, which prohibits use of federal dollars for elective abortions, applies to any new federal health programs created in this bill. The Hyde amendment has been public law since 1976.
The so-called abortion compromise does not stop there. The Reid bill creates a State opt-out charade. However, this provision does nothing about one state's tax dollars from paying for abortions in other states. Tax dollars from Nebraska can pay for abortions in California or New York. This bill also creates a new public option run by the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, that will, for the first time, create a federally funded and managed plan that will cover elective abortions.
When you have Senator Boxer and Speaker Pelosi, two of the largest pro-choice advocates in the Congress, supporting this sham so-called compromise and everyone from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to the National Right to Life Committee and the Family Research Council opposing it, there is only one clear loser--the majority of Americans who believe in the sanctity of life and oppose the use of federal dollars for elective abortions.
Last but not least, I would like to spend a couple of minutes to talk about the numerous special deals conferred on States in this $2.5 trillion spending bill. How hefty are the pricetags for decisions of conscience? Here are some highlights: $300 million for Louisiana; $600 million for Vermont; $500 million for Massachusetts; $100 million for Nebraska.
At a recent news conference, when the authors of this legislation were asked about the Nebraska earmark for Medicaid funding, the majority leader simply replied, ``A number of states are treated differently than other states. That's what legislation is all about. That's compromise.''
The next logical question is pretty straightforward--Who will pay for these special deals? The answer is simple. Every other State in the Union, including Utah, who are collectively facing $200 billion in deficits and are cutting jobs and educational services to survive, will now pay to support these special deals.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Medicaid expansion in the Reid bill creates a $26 billion unfunded mandate on our cash-strapped States. Coincidentally, only one state avoids this unfunded mandate--Nebraska.
Of course, let us not forget about the biggest loser in this bill--the hard-working American taxpayer. This bill imposes over a $ 1/2 trillion worth of new taxes, fees, and penalties on individuals, families, and businesses. The new fees begin in 2010, while the major coverage provisions do not start until 2014. Almost $57 billion in new taxes are collected before any American sees the major benefits of this bill, which are largely delayed until 2014. It is also no coincidence that through the use of these budget gimmicks the majority can claim this bill reduces our national deficit when we all know these reductions will never be realized.
Based on data from the Joint Committee on Taxation--the nonpartisan congressional scorekeeper--this bill would break another one of President Obama's campaign promises by increasing taxes on 42 million individuals and families making less than $250,000 a year.
At a time, when we are struggling to fight a double-digit unemployment rate, the Reid bill not only increases payroll taxes by nearly $87 billion but also imposes $28 billion in new taxes on employers that do not provide government-approved health plans. These new taxes will ultimately be paid by American workers in the form of reduced wages and lost jobs.
However, it is hard to say we didn't see these new taxes coming. For years now, many of us have warned that the out-of-control spending in Washington will eventually have to be repaid on the backs of American families. In this bill, the repayment comes in the form of stifled economic growth, lost jobs, and new and increasing taxes--and they are just the first installment of what will be a long and painful extortion of taxpayers if Congress doesn't stand up and stop these terrible bills.
According to a recent study of similar proposals by the Heritage Foundation, these new job-killing taxes will place approximately 5.2 million low income workers at risk of losing their jobs or having their hours reduced and an additional 10.2 million workers could see lower wages and reduced benefits.
Poll after poll tells us about the growing opposition against this tax-and-spend health care bill. The latest Rasmussen poll shows that 55 percent of Americans are now opposed to this bill. The CNN poll has it even higher at 61 percent. Among senior citizens, the group most likely to use the health care system, only 33 percent are in favor while 60 percent are opposed. Independent voters are also opposed almost 2 to 1. Opposition in certain state polls, like Nebraska, is even higher at 67 percent.
So what is the majority doing to address these concerns? Nothing. In fact, despite the efforts by many of us here on this side of the aisle to express our substantive policy disagreements for months, one Senator recently said the following: ``They are desperate to break this president. They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama. The birthers, the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups, it is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist.''
This statement is outrageous. Instead of listening to the policy concerns of a majority of Americans, the other side is simply dismissing them as rants from the far right. If the majority refuses to listen to what Americans are telling them now--I am sure they will have a rude wake-up call waiting for them later. It should come as no surprise to anyone that this kind of arrogance of power has led to congressional approval ratings rivaling the most hated institutions on the planet at a dismal 22 percent and falling.
One of the biggest tragedies of letting this bill move forward is that it will do nothing to address the fundamental issue of rising health care costs in this country. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill will actually raise our national health care costs by $200 billion. The administration's own actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, agrees with this assessment. When this bill fails to work, Americans will no longer have any faith in Congress to effectively address the issue of health care reform. The opportunity to save Medicare and Medicaid from their impending financial collapse will be lost for another generation.
The historic blizzard in Washington earlier this month was a perfect symbol of the anger and frustration brewing in the hearts of the American people against this bill. I urge the majority once again to listen to the voices of the American people. Every vote for this bill is the 60th vote. Let me repeat that again--every vote for this bill is the 60th vote. My Republican colleagues and I are united with the American people in our fight against this $2.5 trillion tax-and-spend bill. I implore my colleagues not to do this to the American people. Don't foreclose on their futures. Don't stick them with even more government spending and government intrusion.
We can fix health care. Many of us have been working to do just that for many years. A truly bipartisan bill that would garner 75 to 80 votes in the Senate, would be fiscally sound and provide the American people with the fixes they are asking for in the health care marketplace is easily achievable. Many of us are standing at the ready, and have been for months, to step forward and pass meaningful health care reform that truly would help American families and please American taxpayers. To date, we have been rebuffed by an unfailing determination by a few to pursue a nearly Socialist agenda. I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who do not believe in the Europeanization of America, who believe in doing truly bipartisan work here in the Senate, to step forward, vote against advancing this bill and work with those of us on this side of the aisle who are committed to making a difference to craft a health care reform bill they can be proud to support.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source