Ben Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, on the occasion of his 79th birthday, I want to take this opportunity to honor fellow Nebraskan Walter Scott, Jr. for his exceptional business and civic leadership and his significant contributions to the telecommunications, construction, and mining industries, as well as his community, State, and country. Walter began his distinguished career at Peter Kiewit Sons' Inc., formerly Kiewit Construction, working during the summers for Kiewit's construction operations, where his father also worked. In 1953 after earning his civil engineering degree from Colorado State University, he became an engineer for Kiewit in Omaha. A year later, Walter joined the U.S. Air Force as an air installation officer, inspecting military construction projects. Upon returning to Kiewit after his service, Walter excelled in the company, being elected to the board of directors, then becoming vice president in 1964. In 1979 Walter was named president and, later that year, succeeded Peter Kiewit as chairman of the board. Over the next decade, Walter used his leadership and keen insights to advance Kiewit and develop the company to its full potential. Foreseeing the needs of society, Walter began diversifying the company's investment to include mining, energy, and telecommunications interests. By 1992 this expansion had led to the division of Peter Kiewit Sons' Inc. into two major subsidiaries: Kiewit Construction Group, continuing the company's historical excellence in construction and mining; and Kiewit Diversified Group, later renamed Level 3 Communications, focusing on high-speed fiber optics networks and geothemeral powerplants. Kiewit is now a Fortune 500 company and is a recognized industry leader. To this day, Walter remains engaged in the industries he helped to shape, continuing as director and chairman emeritus at Kiewit and serving as chairman of the board at level 3. Walter's numerous contributions to business have been acknowledged with dozens of accolades, including the Horatio Alger Award, the Golden Plate Award from the American Academy of Achievement, and induction into the Nebraska Business Hall of Fame. Beyond his notable accomplishments in business, Walter's civic service and philanthropic contributions have enriched Nebraska and left a lasting impact on our home State. In 1996 Walter helped create the Peter Kiewit Institute, working with the University of Nebraska to provide tomorrow's leaders in information science, technology, and engineering with an unparalleled education. Walter has also given his service to numerous community and nonprofit organizations, including Creighton University, Joslyn Art Museum, Boys & Girls Club of the Midlands, Omaha Development Foundation, Omaha Zoological Society, and Nebraska Game and Parks Foundation. Additionally, I have had the pleasure of serving with Walter as a member of the Open World Board of Trustees, providing international leadership and building multi- national relationships to effect positive change in Eurasian countries. In closing, Walter Scott's illustrious leadership and generous service has strengthened his community, state, and country. On behalf of our fellow Nebraskans and Americans, I thank Walter for his innovation and leadership and wish him the best for the future.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3588

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Curt Tomasevicz of Shelby, NE, and his teammates who won the gold medal in the four-man bobsled at the Winter Olympic games in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. It was the first gold medal for the United States in this event since the 1948 St. Moritz, Switzerland, games more than 60 years ago. After blistering the course with back-to-back track records, the U.S. sled only needed to post a solid fourth run to give the United States a gold medal. The Americans made it through the course in 51.52 seconds, resulting in a total time of 3:24.46, 0.38 seconds ahead of second place. Curt got his start in sports at Shelby High School, where he helped the football team to the State semifinals and was an all-conference pick as both a linebacker and a fullback. After high school, Curt attended the University of Nebraska, where he continued his football career as a Cornhusker. In 2004, Curt began bobsledding; and just 2 years later, he earned a spot on the U.S. Olympic team competing in Torino, Italy. Since then, he has continued to compete in international bobsledding events and took home a World Cup gold medal in two-man sledding in 2007. Curt's dedication and hard work is an inspiration to all Nebraskans. He showed what can be accomplished through determination and teamwork. Congratulations, Curt, on your inspiring achievement of Olympic gold. It is a tremendous accomplishment and instills pride in all Nebraska.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 3431 be in order when we return to H.R. 4213, with up to 10 minutes to speak regarding that amendment.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I still ask for up to 10 minutes to speak on behalf of this amendment, even though the action has been heard and registered.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. The amendment I rise today to speak on is straightforward. It would provide an offset for all known emergency provisions included in the bill, H.R. 4213. The amendment would direct the Office of Management and Budget to rescind $35 billion in unobligated American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds on a prorated basis. The amendment would exclude military construction and veterans affairs stimulus funding from the rescission. This rescission would offset all remaining nonemergency items in the American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act, which is H.R. 4213. As a result of my amendment, all provisions in the bill would be paid for minus the emergency extension of unemployment insurance and COBRA. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle just made the best case I have heard for this amendment. They raised concerns about the underpayments for Medicare and Medicaid patients and patient care. In this underlying bill, doctors would have their fees increased for payment purposes so the concerns that were raised by my colleague from Arizona would be, in part, answered by the increased payments the Mayo Clinic was not receiving and, therefore, made the decision to reduce their care to Medicare patients. It seems to me it would be appropriate to support this bill. I suspect they will not, but it would seem appropriate to support this bill then and also support having it paid for under pay-go rules applying to the unused stimulus funds that would be available through this act. If we are going to see that Medicare patients are treated and are not excluded from treatment, it is going to be because the providers are adequately compensated. That is one of the provisions of this bill. What we are seeking to do is to make sure that is paid for, among other things. The Governors of the States have come to us and said they cannot afford to make their part of the Medicaid match that they are required to make under the Medicaid Program that is approved in virtually every State. As a result of that, a good portion of this bill is seeking money to pay the States, compensate them for that unfunded mandate that the States are currently facing. In other words, they come in and say: You forced us to do this. We don't have the money to do it. We are asking that you make it good. You pay for it. The challenge is, if Medicaid is decreased or payments to providers are decreased, then the concerns they raised about the Medicaid Program underfunding providers will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. It seems to me there is an opportunity for the other side to take a very positive look at this particular bill. I can look at it positively if we pay for it. My concerns are that we pay for the nonemergency provisions within this bill, that we pay for the FMAP fix, that we pay for the other parts of this bill minus the emergency extension of unemployment insurance and COBRA. That would make us consistent with the pay-go rules we forced upon ourselves--I think appropriately so. But it is important that we follow the rules we set for ourselves. This is one of the ways we do it--by paying for these nonemergency items in the underlying bill. That is my argument. That is why I have offered this legislation. I think it is unfortunate the other side has chosen to object to it, but they have and that is it. The amendment will fail unless the other side finds that it makes sense to simply begin to pay for things. I thought the other side was interested in seeing that these requirements are paid for, particularly when they make such a strong case for the payment to physicians for Medicare and Medicaid patients. That does not seem to be the case. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to extend my gratitude to GEN Douglas M. Fraser, Commander, and the men and women serving within the U.S. Southern Command, SOUTHCOM, for what was a true act of heroism. Certainly, all the members of America's great military exemplify a ``can do'' spirit and selfless service to our Nation each and every day. And, as we all know full well, our military has ever- changing missions; yet the men and women of our armed services demonstrate time and again their ability to adapt and perform, as is the case with America's most recent humanitarian mission in Haiti. Recently, staff from Creighton University in my home State of Nebraska sought emergency assistance for some critical patients in Jimani, Haiti. The Creighton medical team on the ground there needed a rapid response for these Haitian patients, but they were unable to connect with any support agencies in the region to get the immediate attention this situation required. The team at SOUTHCOM quickly saved the day, airlifting these critically injured patients from Jimani to Milot, Haiti, where they could be properly treated. The entire American and international teams in Haiti have saved an untold and incalculable number of lives since the devastating earthquake, but I would be remiss if I did not highlight the incredible effort by the men and women of SOUTHCOM. The servicemembers under General Fraser's command managed to evacuate 37 patients and their families over the course of January 31 and February 1, 2010; and these individuals will be forever grateful to the men and woman of America's military for saving their lives. All Americans should recognize this valiant effort by the members of SOUTHCOM. General Fraser showed great leadership in overseeing this mission, and the courageous service of the men and women at SOUTHCOM has the gratitude of not only the medical team and others from Creighton University, but the people of Haiti as well. You are all a credit to our Nation.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I rise to make a parliamentary inquiry regarding the applicability of the Senate's cloture rules to the budget reconciliation process. Under the Congressional Budget Act which governs Senate procedure for consideration of a reconciliation conference report, the question is: Is a cloture vote necessary prior to a vote on adoption of the conference report?

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, another question. Under the Budget Act, which limits the time for debate of a reconciliation conference report, how many hours are provided for debate?

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Thank you. And finally, therefore, under no circumstances would a cloture vote be necessary or required prior to a vote on adoption of a reconciliation conference report?

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 8 minutes.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a serious problem with the way Washington has done business for years. The problem is passing unfunded Federal mandates on to the States that throw State budgets into disarray. Everyone in Congress has to decide how to best look out for their State. A little over a month ago, I decided to look out for all their States and mine too. But the efforts I made to protect my State and all other States should not be the issue. The issue should be, why wasn't everyone taking steps to protect their States and why weren't the critics reacting to the real issue rather than coining names to describe this effort to protect State budgets from the effects of yet another unfunded Federal mandate? The reason is, all along they wanted to derail health reform. Misrepresenting this issue would help that goal. So it was too easy, too convenient to come up with a catchy name and to impugn motives. It was too easy, too convenient to ignore the problem facing Nebraska and every other State--another mandate without money. Unfunded Federal mandates are not just bad for Nebraska; they are bad for all States, from sea to shining sea. They are a fiscal injustice that I fought for two decades during my tenure as a Senator and through two terms as Governor. They are a burden on the States that I will keep fighting to eliminate as long as they continue. Unfunded Federal mandates are pretty simple, but they appear in many unexpected and unwanted ways. They are orders that arrive from Washington on State Capitol doorsteps with too little or no money to carry them out. Unfunded Federal mandates force States all across the country into no-win choices: cut spending on State priorities or raise revenue with tax hikes. They are a fiscal injustice States have no option to avoid. Unfunded Federal mandates are both bad Federal policy and bad fiscal policy. As a Senator, I have said I will put Nebraska first, Nebraska always but not Nebraska only. That remains the case with questions about how the Senate health care bill dealt with an underfunded mandate for expanding Medicaid. First, my goal has always been to draw attention to and fix, with one approach or another, any unfunded Federal mandate that would be passed on to every State through the Senate's health care bill. The bill sought to expand Medicaid to provide health insurance to millions of Americans who do not have it today. The Federal Government would pay 100 percent of the cost for the first 3 years through 2016. In 2017 and thereafter, States would have to pick up a portion of the cost. In other words, they would pay for a new unfunded Federal mandate. I sought an opt-in or opt-out for all States to ease the Federal unfunded mandate. But because there was no Congressional Budget Office analysis for that approach, a provision was placed into the bill for Nebraska. It is not something I sought. It is something I accepted to launch the larger battle against the unfunded mandate affecting all States. I have taken criticism over this issue. If I have received it because I drew attention to unfunded Federal mandates, fine. But the larger question is: How do we in Congress eliminate this practice of passing these mandates on to the States? Rather than criticize me, others should join in fighting the war to stop all these burdens on the States. It is an effort I welcome the Governors to join in, too, for they have a direct interest in the success of this battle. The Nebraska provision was a victory in the battle against unfunded mandates necessary to win the war. What otherwise had gone completely unaddressed is now part of the debate, not only in the Nation's Capital but in State capitals across America. We only have to look back a few years to see what trouble unfunded mandates cause for States. When Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, it was hailed as a landmark that would improve education nationwide. It established new standards to measure educational achievement in our schools and required States to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades. States had to make sure that happened for their schools to receive Federal aid. But the law provided far too little money to meet its requirements. This was a fact acknowledged by its chief sponsor, the late Senator Kennedy. He said: The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally in place, but the funds are not. Was that ever a true statement. States have paid and paid and are still paying for that whopper of an unfunded mandate. In fact, No Child Left Behind, which I opposed largely because of its being an unfunded Federal mandate, has cost my State of Nebraska at least $382.7 million. Nationwide, it has cost all States a total of $70.9 billion from 2002 through 2008, according to U.S. Department of Education data. Those costs have kept piling up ever since, and that is not right. I fought another unfunded Federal mandate in the 2003 major tax cut bill. At the time, cutting Federal taxes would also have forced cuts in State taxes. That, in turn, would have blown holes in State budgets. So I teamed up on a bipartisan basis with my colleagues, Senator Collins from Maine and Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia, to help the States. We won a provision that provided $20 billion in Federal funding to the States to make up for the lost money they needed to pay their ongoing Medicaid costs. Today, here we are again hearing from financially strapped States across the country asking for additional Federal money to pay for other previous unfunded Medicaid mandates. I do not blame them for asking. The government tells them they have to pay a share of certain social services and medical expenses, and in tough economic times such as these they just do not have the money. Unfortunately, neither does Washington. Then, while States are currently seeking aid from Congress, we are busy creating this new unfunded mandate set to hit States beginning in 2017. When would that one be addressed? In 2018, 2019, sometime later? Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. I have been asking: Why not deal with that now in this health care reform legislation and change the paradigm from unfunded mandates and do it in a different way? Just last week, we learned how big this unfunded mandate would be. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that covering the Medicaid expansion costs for all States would cost the Federal Government $35 billion. That means Congress was about to pass a $35 billion unfunded Federal mandate on to the States--until I got wind of it. Let me say that again. Congress was about to send a $35 billion bill to the States, until I blew the whistle. We need to stop this madness of passing these fiscal timebombs on to the States. I would hope my colleagues, on a bipartisan and a bicameral basis, would work with me to make sure Congress stops passing unfunded mandates of any kind on to the States and that the Governors would join in also. They certainly do not like Washington telling them how to spend State money. I hope people put aside the spin, the partisan talking points, and misrepresentation they have heard on this issue, including the media. I hope people stop citing the inaccurate interpretation of it as an excuse to avoid working for health care reform that provides coverage to millions of Americans who today do not have insurance and lower costs to all other Americans who pay ever-rising costs for health care. I hope we can also stop the practice of Washington burdening the States with unfunded Federal mandates which are truly bad for every single State--not just mine but every State--from sea to shining sea. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, on the occasion of her retirement, I take this opportunity to honor Glenda Mlady Reimer for her many years of service to our great Nation. I have known Glenda for a number of those years and will miss her unfailing good humor and her dedication to public service. Glenda began her illustrious career in 1989 after graduating from Northeast Nebraska Community College in Norfolk, NE. She spent the next 7 years working for my good friend, former U.S. Senator Jim Exon, first on his reelection campaign, then as his scheduler and office manager. During that time, Glenda distinguished herself, continually helping others and coordinating activities. She was the volunteer coordinator for Vice President Al Gore's first Inaugural Ball. In 1993 she served as president of the board of directors of the Nebraska Society of Washington, DC, where she still remains an active member today. Glenda also served as the coordinator with Members of Congress for the 1995 National Champion Cornhusker Football Team presentations at the White House. In 1996, Glenda became a member of the board of directors, Cornhusker Capital Chapter, University of Nebraska Alumni Scholarship program, where she continues her lifelong support of my home State's university. After a few years working in the private sector, Glenda returned to Capitol Hill in 2001, joining Maryland Senator Barbara A. Mikulski's Washington office. At the end of that year, the U.S. Air Force hired Glenda for her current position as legislative specialist and scheduler in the Congressional Budget and Appropriations Liaison Office. Over the past 8 years, Glenda has touched the lives of countless uniformed military servicemen and women. She always worked to instill a sense of direction, dedication and family, marking her exemplary career with superb professionalism. While serving in a variety of positions within the U.S. Senate and Air Force, Glenda has assisted me and many members of the Appropriations and Budget Committees with numerous scheduling and coordinating challenges. Her thorough and efficient planning, experience, wisdom, hard work, and organizational skills assured mission success every time. Glenda will definitely be missed. In closing, I firmly believe that Glenda Mlady Reimer deserves acknowledgment and appreciation for her outstanding service to both the legislative and executive branches of our Federal Government. She consistently conducted herself in a manner which brought great credit upon her, the U.S. Senate, and the U.S. Air Force. Glenda's outstanding character and dedication to service have resulted in a career of which she and her son Joel can be very proud; and I am sure my fellow Members of the Senate join me in thanking her for her commitment to our country and in wishing her all the best for her future.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, during the consideration of the health care bill, one of my primary concerns has been ensuring that the longstanding Hyde amendment would be incorporated into the bill. I have strongly held views on the subject, and I fought hard to prevent tax dollars from being used to subsidize abortions. I was pleased that the House included strong abortion provisions in its health care bill in the form of the Stupak amendment. I modified this language to meet the Senate bill and offered the Nelson-Hatch- Casey amendment to prohibit Federal funding of abortion, and I was disappointed to see that amendment was tabled by a vote of 54 to 45. I knew then that the underlying bill did not adequately prohibit Federal funding of abortion and, consequently, I would not be able to support it. So I began to look for other language to accomplish the goal that no public funds should cover abortion in the new health care bill. After long days of negotiations, I believe we came up with a true compromise that stays faithful to my principles. I want to be clear, I stuck to my guns and stood for my pro-life principles. I did not look for weaker language. I looked for clearer language, and my goal stayed the same: to maintain the standard that we have had in Federal law since the mid-1970s. While I respect the opinion of the Senator from Kansas, I have to respectfully disagree. The Senate language fully upholds the Hyde principle like the language in the House bill. The wording may be different, but the principle is, in fact, upheld. Under the health care bill, if you cannot afford insurance, you will receive Federal assistance to help pay for a private health care plan. The Stupak language prohibits that Federal assistance from paying for insurance that covers abortions. If you like a plan that covers abortion, you must purchase a rider or an endorsement to your plan with your own funds. You could do that as well by writing just one check to the insurer. For that you get a separate piece of paper addressing abortion. The Senate language, with my added compromise, also prohibits Federal funds from paying for private insurance that covers abortion. The only difference is that in the Senate bill, if you are receiving Federal assistance to buy insurance, and if that plan has any abortion coverage, the insurance company must bill you separately, and you must pay separately from your own personal funds--perhaps a credit card transaction, your separate personal check, or automatic withdrawal from your bank account--for that abortion coverage. Now, let me say that again. You have to write two checks: one for the basic policy and one for the additional coverage for abortion. The latter has to be entirely from personal funds. So under both the Stupak and the new Senate language, no Federal funds can be used to pay for a plan that covers abortion, and if you choose to purchase abortion coverage--if it is available--you must pay out of your own pocket. Furthermore, the Senate language allows States the right to ban public and private insurance from supplying abortion coverage. Already, 12 States ban abortion coverage on public plans and 5 States ban abortion coverage on both private and public plans. So, in short, the Senate bill ensures, once again, no Federal funds would be used for abortion. I would like to note that the Senate bill goes beyond Stupak in two life-promoting ways. One, it adds funding to support pregnant and parenting teens and women and, two, it expands the adoption tax credit to help adoptive parents with the considerable expense of adoption by making that credit a refundable tax credit. This means many potential parents who lack the regular resources to adopt will now be in a better position to do so. The Senate bill also contains the same strong conscience protections included in the Stupak language. We tried winning approval for the Nelson-Hatch-Casey abortion language in the Senate, but we were unsuccessful. However, we did not give up. I know people have very strong feelings about the issue of abortion, and I respect those who disagree with my position, but I could not support health reform that did not maintain the 30-year standard barring public funding of abortion. I did not compromise my pro-life principles; we just found different wording, different language, and both will work. I believe people will see that no public funding will go to abortion. In addition, my provision empowers the States to pass laws banning the sale of insurance that covers abortion. We make it clear that this new law, this new bill does not in any way preempt the rights of States to be able to continue to make that ban in the decisions they might make legislatively, and we want to make certain there is no doubt but that this bill has no preemption of the States rights. Despite what some partisans and talk show hosts say in their scare tactics, the conscience clause remains. Also, despite what those same people and even some of my colleagues have said, the bottom line is that the Senate health care bill will not allow taxpayer money to pay for abortion, period. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Thank you, Mr. President. Well, this has been quite an enlightening experience on the floor this past 30 or 40 minutes. It shows how emotionally charged this body has become over this issue and perhaps other issues as well. But the challenge is, we are all entitled to our own opinions. We are just not entitled to our own set of facts. I would like to take a moment to explain the so-called Medicaid fix for the State of Nebraska. Now, it has been described as the ``Omaha Stakes fix.'' I take issue--and I only wish my colleague from Nebraska had stayed on the floor to hear this. I take issue with one of the premier businesses in the State of Nebraska used in a manner of derision to outline something that is factually incorrect on the basis of how they are presenting it. You can twist and you can turn and you can try to distort what happens, but it does not change the underlying facts. The underlying facts are, this was pursued initially as an opt-in or opt-out for all States. It was impossible to do that at the present time, and so as a matter of fix, there was, in fact, the extension of the Federal dollars from the year 2017 on, well into the future, as a marker to lay down so that every State could object to this manner of unfunded mandates. As a Governor--and my colleague is a former Governor--we fought against Federal unfunded mandates. As a Senator back here, I have also fought against unfunded and underfunded Federal mandates. This was, in fact, exactly that. While we were not able to get in this legislation an actual opt-out or opt-in for a State-based decision, what we did get is at least a line, if you will, so that in the future other States are going to be able to come forward and say: Hey, either the Federal Government pays for that into the future or the State will have the opportunity to decide not to continue that so that we do not have an unfunded Federal mandate. So I am surprised. I am shocked. Well, actually, I am not shocked. I am disappointed this would be used and misused in this fashion, not only derisively against a great company in Nebraska--the Nebraska Steaks--I am also surprised my colleague would participate in a colloquy that would use the name of that company in such a manner. I am surprised this colloquy went on without understanding the facts of what this so-called carve-out--which is not a carve-out--truly consisted of. There is no carve-out. Each State between now and 2017-- two-thirds-plus of a decade--will have an opportunity to come back in and get this bill changed. Governors asked for relief. As Governors, we asked for relief against these continuing unfunded mandates. Time and time again, we fought against them. This was one more opportunity to fight. As a matter of fact, the Governor of Nebraska spotted this and wrote me a letter on December 16 and said, among other things: The State of Nebraska cannot afford an unfunded mandate and uncontrolled spending of this magnitude. He goes on to say a number of other things about the bill. But he makes the point that this is an unfunded Federal mandate and wanted me to do something about it. So I sent him back a letter on the same date, saying: Thank you. . . . Please be advised that I have proposed that the Senate bill be modified to include an ``opt-in'' mechanism to allow states to avoid the issues you have raised. Under my proposal, if Nebraska prefers not to opt in to a reformed health care system, it would have that right. My colleague and others know this is the case. They know this is the case, but they choose to ignore it. They choose to ignore the facts. On December 20, I again wrote to the Governor and shared with him my concern about this unfunded mandate, and I pointed out that: Within hours after the amendment was filed, [my colleague from Nebraska] objected to the inclusion of these funds. As a result, I am prepared to ask that this provision be removed from the amendment in conference if it is [the Governor's] desire. I got a letter back on the day after, on December 21, talking about this as a special deal. It is not a special deal for Nebraska. It is, in fact, an opportunity to get rid of an unfunded Federal mandate for all the States. Let me repeat that: for all the States. There is nothing special about it, and it is fair. What we have done is we have drawn a line in the sand and said: This is unacceptable, and it is unacceptable for all States as well. I cannot believe that this sort of a situation would continue. There is no misunderstanding here. I think it is just an opportunity to mislead, distort, and, unfortunately, confuse the American public all the more, and to use the State of Nebraska and the name of a good company for partisan political purposes on the other side of the aisle. My colleagues know I am not a deeply partisan person and that I rarely come to the floor to speak, and that when I come to the floor, it is for something like this, to take exception with the misuse of information for partisan purposes. That is exactly what has been done with this situation. I am prepared to fight for the State of Nebraska, and I hope my colleague is as well. Obviously, the Governor was prepared to fight for the State of Nebraska by bringing it to my attention. But I am not prepared to fight to get a special deal for the State of Nebraska. I did not, and I refuse to accept that kind of responsibility or that kind of a suggestion from anyone on that side of the aisle or anyone else. Then, as it relates to abortion, I think my colleagues know that we introduced legislation that is comparable to the Stupak legislation in the House dealing with barring the use of Federal funds for elective abortions. We introduced it over here, and it was bipartisan. It was Nelson-Hatch-Casey, and it did not pass. So I began the process of trying to find other solutions that I thought equally walled off the use of Federal funds and made it clear that no Federal funds would be used. Now, apparently I did not say ``mother may I'' in the process of writing that language because others took issue with it, even though they cannot constructively point out how it does not prohibit the use of Federal funds or wall off those funds or keep them totally segregated. They just did not like the language. Well, if in the conference the Stupak-Nelson-Hatch-Casey language passes, I will be happy, and so will Congressman Stupak, and so would, I would imagine, those who signed on to that legislation. It is unfortunate, though, to continue to distort and misrepresent what happens in the body of the Senate. It is difficult enough to have comity. It is difficult enough to have cooperation. It is difficult enough to have collegiality. When politics are put above policy and productivity, this is what we get. Mr. President, I am very disappointed, somewhat disillusioned, by the use of this method and this approach that would undermine the good name of a company in Nebraska, as well as the name of the State of Nebraska, by associating it with something that has not been done, was not intended, and did not result. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes in the midst of this debate to acknowledge some individuals who work for us here in the Senate. As chairman of the Legislative Branch Appropriations subcommittee that funds these agencies, I have had the opportunity to get to know these staffs and have a good understanding of the work they do for us here in the Senate. These folks work tirelessly behind the scenes at all times to keep this institution running safe and sound under any circumstances. We have been in session every weekend since Thanksgiving, including during the largest December snowstorm in Washington's history, and we have worked uninterrupted thanks to the dedication and hard work of these individuals. It is easy to take for granted the hard work they perform on a daily basis--and we often do, but today, on behalf of the entire Senate I would like to say a heartfelt thank you to all of them. I want to start by thanking the U.S. Capitol Police Force, led by Chief Philip Morse and Assistant Chief Dan Nichols. This force of 1800 officers put their lives on the line every day to protect us and this institution, and they have all worked a tremendous amount of overtime lately. I want to particularly mention the terrific work of Inspector Sandra Coffman and her staff in the Capitol Division for all the extra hours they have worked in securing and protecting the Capitol and the Chamber. They have gone above and beyond their normal duty, and we are extremely grateful for their dedication to our safety and protection. Next I want to thank the staff of the Senate Sergeant at Arms, led by Sergeant at Arms Terry Gainer and Deputy Sergeant at Arms Drew Willison. The SAA staff of nearly 900 people includes the doorkeepers who have worked nonstop through the last month keeping access to the Senate available for staff and visitors who have traveled to Washington to witness this historic debate firsthand. They have kept our computer systems and overstretched telephone systems running, kept the mail moving, and the recording studio functioning, not to mention the facilities staff who have kept the Capitol Building clean and warm, replenishing wood for the fireplaces nonstop. I want to thank the staff of the Architect of the Capitol, led by Acting Architect Stephen Ayers, and the many, many folks who have worked around the clock from Ted Bechtel and the Capitol Grounds crew who have been removing snow from the road, sidewalks, and parking lots of the Capitol Complex, to Robin Morey and his staff who have kept the Senate buildings clean and warm throughout these long, long weeks. I truly appreciate the extra hours of work provided by these individuals. I want to thank the Secretary of the Senate, Nancy Erickson, and her staff, including the legislative clerks, the bill clerks, the enrolling clerks, the executive clerks, Parliamentarians, official reporters of debates, captioning services, journal clerks, and the staff of the Daily Digest. These folks have been here around the clock, under some very tiring circumstances, to deliver the services that are needed to keep this institution running. Last but not least, I want to thank Lula Davis and David Schiappa, our floor leaders, for their tireless guidance in keeping us--the Members--where we need to be when we need to be there. We are in your debt. Mr. President, I have undoubtedly left out many people in the Senate who deserve to be thanked, and I hope they know who they are and how much we appreciate them.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. The Senator is correct.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the bipartisan amendment which I have proposed with Senator Hatch, the Presiding Officer, and others. As my good friend and colleague from Utah has so eloquently explained, our amendment mirrors the language offered by Representative Stupak that was accepted into the House health care bill. Our view is that it should become part of the Senate health care bill we are debating as well. It is a fact that the issue of abortion stirs very strong emotions involving strongly held principles all across America, from those who support the procedure and those who do not. We are hearing that passion at times here on the Senate floor. But we are not here to debate for or against abortion. This is a debate about taxpayer money. It is a debate about whether it is appropriate for public funds to, for the first time in more than three decades, cover elective abortions. In my opinion, most Americans and most of the people in my State would say no. As it is currently written, though, the Senate health care bill enables taxpayer dollars, directly and indirectly, to pay for insurance plans that cover abortion. We should not open the door to do so. As I said yesterday, when we offered the amendment, some suggested the Stupak language imposes new restrictions on abortion. But that is not the case. We are seeking to apply the same standards to the Senate health care bill that already exist for many Federal health programs. But the bill does set a new standard. It is a standard in favor of public funding of abortion. Our amendment does not limit the procedure, nor prevent people from buying insurance that covers abortion with their own money. It only ensures that when taxpayer dollars are involved, people are not required to pay for other people's abortions. Some have claimed that the amendment restricts abortion coverage even for those who pay for their own plan. That is not true, according to politfact.com, a prize-winning, fact-checking Web site, which looked at similar claims by a House Member during House debate on the Stupak amendment. PolitFact found, and I quote: First, she suggests the amendment applies to everyone in the private insurance market when it just applies to those in the health care exchange. Second, her statement that the restrictions would affect women ``even when they would pay premiums with their own money'' is incorrect. In fact, women on the exchange who pay the premiums with their own money will be able to get abortion coverage. So we find her statement false. The Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment only incorporates the longstanding rules of the Hyde amendment, which Congress approved in 1976, to ensure that no Federal funds are used to pay for abortion in the legislation. This standard now applies to Federal health programs covering such wide and broad groups as veterans, Federal employees, Native Americans, active-duty servicemembers, and others--all of whom are covered under some form of a Federal health program. Thus, this standard applies to individuals participating in the Children's Health Insurance Program, Medicare, Medicaid, Indian Health Services, veterans health, and military health care programs. I wish to emphasize another point. All current Federal health programs disallow the use of Federal funds to help pay for health plans that include abortion. Our amendment only continues that established Federal policy. Some have said the Hyde amendment already is in effect in this bill. But that is not the case at all. The bill says the Secretary of Health and Human Services may allow elective abortion coverage in the Community Health Insurance Option--the public option-- if the Secretary believes there is sufficient segregation of funds to ensure Federal tax credits are not used to purchase that portion of the coverage. The bill would also require that at least one insurance plan that covers abortion and one that does not cover abortion be offered on every State insurance exchange. Federal legislation establishing a public option that provides abortion coverage and Federal legislation allowing States to opt out of the public option that provides abortion coverage eases--let me repeat the word ``eases''--the standards established by the Hyde amendment. The claim that the segregation of funds accomplishes the Hyde intent falls short. Segregation of funds is an accounting gimmick. The reality is, taxpayer-supported Federal dollars would help buy insurance coverage that includes covering abortion. I wish to offer some other points about the effect of the Nelson- Hatch-Casey amendment. Under the amendment, no funds authorized or appropriated by the bill could be used for abortions or for benefits packages that include abortion. The amendment would prohibit the use of the affordability tax credits to purchase a health insurance policy that covers abortion. It would also prohibit Federal funding for abortion under the Community Health Insurance Option. In addition, the amendment makes exceptions in the cases of rape or incest or in cases of danger to the mother's life. In addition, the amendment allows an individual to use their own private funds to purchase separate supplemental insurance coverage for abortions, perhaps even what is called a rider to an existing plan. The amendment allows an individual whose private health care coverage is not subsidized by the Federal Government to purchase or be covered by a plan that includes elective abortions, paid for with that individual's own premium dollars. Under the amendment, a private insurer participating in the exchange can offer a plan that includes elective abortion coverage to nonsubsidized individuals on the exchange, as long as they also offer the same plan without elective abortion coverage to those who receive Federal subsidies. On another point, under Federal law, States are allowed to set their own policies concerning abortion. Many States oppose the use of public funds for abortion. Many States have also passed laws that regulate abortion by requiring informed consent and waiting periods, requiring parental involvement in cases where minors seek abortions, and protecting the rights of health care providers who refuse, as a matter of conscience, to assist in abortion. But perhaps most importantly, there is no Federal law, nor is there any State law, that requires a private health plan to include abortion coverage. But the bill before us, as written, does. As I have said, the current health care bill we are debating should not be used to open a new avenue for public funding of abortion. We should preserve the current policies, which have stood the test of time, which are supported by most Nebraskans and most Americans. The Senate bill, as proposed, goes against that majority public opinion. I think most Americans would prefer that this health care bill remain neutral on abortion, not chart a new course providing public funds for the procedure. Public opinion suggests so. So does the fact that over the last 30-plus years Congress has passed new Federal laws that have not broken with precedent. Finally, as President Obama has said, this is a health care reform bill. It is not an abortion bill. So it is time to simply extend the longstanding standard disallowing public funding of abortion to new proposed Federal legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I would like to summarize the reasons for and the intent of the amendment that Senator Hatch and the Presiding Officer and I, together with others, have proposed to the health care bill. First of all, I should say the examples our very good friend from California has outlined would not have been covered under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan either because the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan does not provide abortion coverage for such circumstances. Our amendment mirrors the language that has been offered by Representative Stupak that was adopted into the House health care bill, and we believe it should be applied to the Senate bill as well. As I said earlier, the issue of abortion certainly prompts strong opinions, fierce passions, and deep-seated principles for millions and millions of Americans, those who support the procedure and those who don't. But our amendment does not take sides on abortion. It is about the use of taxpayer money. The question before us is whether public funds, for the first time in more than three decades, should cover elective abortions. Numerous public opinion polls have shown that most Americans, including a number who support abortion, do not support public funds paying for abortion. But the Senate bill we are debating allows taxpayer dollars, directly and indirectly, to pay for insurance plans to cover abortion. That is out of step with the majority of Nebraskans and of all Americans. Our amendment does not impose new restrictions on women despite what some have claimed, and I respect but strongly disagree with them. We are seeking to just apply the same standards to the Senate health care bill that already exist for every Federal health program. Our amendment does not add a new restriction, but the bill does add a new relaxation of a Federal standard that has worked well for more than 30 years. Under our amendment, abortion isn't limited, nor would people be prevented from buying insurance on the private market covering abortion with their own money. Our amendment only ensures that where taxpayer money enters the picture, people are not required to pay for people's abortions. The Nelson-Hatch-Casey amendment incorporates the longstanding standard established by the Hyde amendment which Congress approved in 1976. Today it applies to every Federal health program. That includes plans that cover veterans, Federal employees, including Members of Congress, Native Americans, Active-Duty servicemembers, and a whole host of others. Some people have called our amendment radical. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is reasonable. It is rational because it follows established Federal law. It is right. Taxpayers shouldn't be required to pay for people's abortions. It is just that simple. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help finance the war effort without sharp tax increases or increased foreign borrowing, The United States War Bonds Act of 2009 will authorize the Treasury to issue and market War Bonds to the American people to help finance the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe that we need shared sacrifice and fiscal discipline in financing the war effort. I don't believe our first instinct should always be a rush to tax. The government has gone to great lengths to address the economic downturn and adding new taxes right now could undermine those efforts. We need to work to reduce Federal spending wherever possible and reduce the growth in spending to finance the war. War bonds are a cost-effective way to reduce our dependence on foreign creditors and create an outlet for Americans to express their patriotism and support for our servicemembers and America's mission. War bonds allow us to borrow from ourselves, rather than other countries. This legislation finds a precedent in World War II savings bonds. From May 1, 1941 through December 1945, the War Finance Division and its predecessors were responsible for the sale of nearly $186 billion worth of government securities. Of this, more than $54 billion was in the form of War Savings bonds. Although the times and economic circumstances are different than the 1940s, America's commitment to protecting freedom and our way of life has not waned. My hope is that we can tap into the same spirit of patriotism and create a sense of participation in the war effort akin to that shown by the greatest generation. The new military strategy increasing troops by 30,000 for Afghanistan announced last week by President Obama is estimated to cost $30 billion beyond the baseline for Iraq and Afghanistan funding, which stands around $130 billion for 2010. The United States public debt is currently more than $7.6 trillion and nearly $3.5 trillion--46 percent--of the debt is held by foreign investors.While there are no simple solutions to our fiscal woes, while we endeavor to get our fiscal house in order, we must also be responsible borrowers and reduce our dependence on foreign creditors; this is a step in that direction.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I suggest the absence of a quorum.