[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 138 (Tuesday, September 29, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9906-S9910]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 3326, which the clerk will report by 
title.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3326) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and 
     for other purposes.


                           Amendment No. 2558

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2558.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike amounts available for procurement of C-17 aircraft 
 in excess of the amount requested by the President in the budget for 
    fiscal year 2010 and to make such amounts available instead for 
 operation and maintenance in accordance with amounts requested by the 
 President in that budget and for Operation and Maintenance, Army, for 
                    overseas contingency operations)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Reduction of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 
     for Excess Amounts for C-17 Aircraft.--The amount 
     appropriated by title III under the heading ``Aircraft 
     Procurement, Air Force'' is hereby reduced by $2,500,000,000, 
     the amount equal to the amount by which the amount available 
     under that heading for the procurement of C-17 aircraft 
     exceeds the amount requested by the President in the budget 
     for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2010 for the 
     procurement of such aircraft, with the amount of the 
     reduction to be allocated to amounts otherwise available for 
     the procurement of such aircraft.
       (b) Availability for Operation and Maintenance.--The amount 
     appropriated by title II for Operation and Maintenance is 
     hereby increased by $2,438,403,000, in accordance with 
     amounts requested by the President in the budget for the 
     Department of Defense for fiscal year 2010.
       (c) Availability for Operation and Maintenance, Army, for 
     Overseas Contingency Operations.--The amount appropriated by 
     title IX under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'', is hereby increased by $61,597,000.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment strikes funding in the 
Defense appropriations bill for 10 C-17 Globemaster aircraft that we 
neither need nor can afford. My amendment also redirects those funds to 
critically important operations and maintenance accounts which the 
appropriators have seen fit to cut.
  At about $250 million per aircraft, the total cost to the taxpayer of 
the C-17 earmark in this bill is $2.5 billion. But how are we paying 
for these aircraft? With the cuts made in the bill, it appears much of 
the offset for paying for the 10 aircraft falls on the O&M accounts. So 
why are we buying C-17s we don't need and can't afford while at the 
same time reducing overall O&M accounts by $3 billion?
  I am sure the managers of the bill will justify this cut in 
operations and maintenance. I would rely on the judgment of the 
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman and members of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff who will tell us they need this money for operations and 
maintenance.
  I hope my colleagues understand what this really means. If this bill 
passes with these cuts, the Air Force in particular will be forced to 
decrease funding for training, equipment, depot maintenance, and the 
restoration and modernization of air bases across the United States, 
and they would not be alone. The Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and National 
Guard would also come out on the wrong end of these cuts and would be 
forced to reduce funding for facilities sustainment, training, and 
recruiting.
  After 8 years of war, the Army's equipment readiness has fallen to 
truly worrisome levels. In testimony before the Armed Services 
Committee this year, Secretary of the Army Pete Geren said:

       Predictable and timely funding is key for us to be able to 
     operate an organization the size of the United States Army. . 
     . .When funding is unpredictable, it makes it very hard to 
     plan long term.

  I have seen a hollow Army, deeply degraded in the decade after 
Vietnam and again during the drawdown of the 1990s. Today's forces are 
not in such dire straits as those, but 8 years of war has taken its 
toll on the Army, Marines, Guard, and Reserve component ground forces. 
As GEN George Casey said: ``The current demand for our forces exceeds 
the sustainable supply.''
  Particularly in a time of war, I urge my colleagues to invest in the 
recapitalization of our ground forces--not funding aircraft we neither 
need nor can afford with those investments.
  Finally, I wish to mention the Army Reserve and National Guard, which 
are, as General Casey described, ``performing an operational role for 
which they were neither originally designed nor resourced.'' In my 
view, any cut to their operations and maintenance accounts will retard 
the ability of these components to fit and deploy for missions at home 
or abroad. And I am sure the Secretary of Defense would say he would 
like a lot more because of the wear and tear and degradation that 
already exists to much of our equipment and capabilities.
  We can and must do better. Left uncorrected what we would do in this 
bill is effectively fund the purchase of new aircraft that we neither 
need nor can afford with critical sustainment money. That would have a 
significant impact on our ability to provide the day-to-day operational 
funding that our service men and women and their families deserve.
  Let me turn briefly to the merits of the C-17 earmark itself. If some 
of these remarks sound familiar, that is because I was on the floor of 
the Senate less than 3 months ago speaking about C-17s when the Senate 
Appropriations Committee earmarked eight of these cargo aircraft in the 
2009 supplemental appropriations bill at a cost of $2.25 billion. That 
is right. In just 3 months, the Appropriations Committee has set aside 
nearly $5 billion for 18 C-17 aircraft that we don't need, the Pentagon 
doesn't want, and we can't afford.
  Against that backdrop, over the last 3 years the White House has 
actively been trying to close down the C-17 production line, asking for 
as much as $500 million per year to shut down the line. But over that 
same period, the appropriators have been working in the exact opposite 
direction to ensure continued funding for the program in supplemental 
war funding bills--bills that

[[Page S9907]]

are supposed to be used to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  So despite that the Democrat Department of Defense's overall 
requirements for C-17s continue to sit at 180, the appropriators have 
required the Department to buy through fiscal year 2009 a total of 213 
C-17s, and they have done so before two key studies have been 
completed.
  This chart illustrates what is going on. Marked in red we see the C-
17s the appropriators have added. Why? Because our service men and 
women need them? No. In 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 the Air Force 
budgeted money to close the line each and every year.
  Is the reason some sort of new stimulus package which will create new 
jobs? No. That is because, as I mentioned, they have had three dozen 
more C-17s than the Air Force has needed. In fact, right now, the 
backlog of C-17s is such that Boeing will not begin building these 
aircraft earmarked by the appropriators for another 2 years.
  In the bill we are debating today, the 10 C-17s the appropriators 
want to fund will bring the total number of C-17s the Senate 
Appropriations Committee has added above any validated military 
requirement to 44. Enough is enough.
  According to the most recent Statement of Administration Policy, the 
administration ``strongly objects'' to the addition of $2.5 billion in 
funding for 10 unrequested C-17 aircraft. The Department of Defense's 
own analyses show that the 205 C-17s in the force and on order, 
together with the existing fleet of aircraft, are sufficient to meet 
the Department's future airlift needs even under the most stressing 
conditions.
  Secretary Gates has likewise very clearly said that the military has 
no need to buy more C-17s. While Secretary Gates called the C-17--and I 
agree--a ``terrific aircraft,'' he stressed earlier this year that the 
Air Force and U.S. Transportation Command ``have more than necessary'' 
strategic airlift ``capacity'' for airlift over the next 10 years. 
Nonetheless, continuing C-17 production would cost about $3 billion per 
year from 2010 onward.
  There is little reason why, in connection with the fiscal year 2010 
budget request, the President not only requested no funding for 
additional C-17s but also recommended this program for termination. In 
light of today's financial exigencies, continuing to spend billions of 
dollars for C-17s the Pentagon doesn't need and can't afford is 
becoming increasingly unsustainable. More so than almost any other 
earmark I have discussed on the Senate floor, this earmark shows our 
priorities are just about the opposite of where they should be.
  For that reason, I am persuaded by the strength of Secretary Gates's 
opposition, and I find unacceptable the apparent source of funding for 
this earmark and urge the Members of this body to support my amendment. 
As I mentioned before, the amendment would redirect money from buying 
the C-17s we don't need and can't afford to critically important 
operations and maintenance accounts that are the lifeblood of our 
troops and their families.
  So we have a choice with this amendment. We can either continue to 
fund an airplane that the military neither wants nor needs, or we can 
restore the cuts in funding in operations and maintenance which, 
according to the testimony of every military leader, is badly needed 
and wanted. The body will be presented with that choice.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Investing in Education

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, as Congress awaits health reform and 
climate change, we must also remember that education is another one of 
the great moral issues of our time.
  Last week, my Washington office was honored to have DeAnthony 
Cummings serve as an intern for the day. He was 1 of only 60 students 
selected nationwide who traveled to Washington to participate in Job 
Corps Day, 45 Years of Building Lives and Launching Careers. For more 
than four decades, Job Corps centers around the Nation have provided 
vocational academic training for nearly 3 million economically 
disadvantaged young Americans.
  DeAnthony is enrolled at the Cincinnati Job Corps Center where he is 
serving his second term as class president. Several months ago I 
visited with him and his friends at Job Corps. As the eldest sibling, 
DeAnthony wants to set a good example for his family. He says Job Corps 
is preparing him for college, where he wants to study psychology and 
political science. He told me he wants to run for elective office 
someday to serve his country. He deserves an educational system that 
helps him get there.
  In the coming weeks, the Senate will take up a major bill to expand 
student aid and education funding at no additional cost to taxpayers. 
For aspiring college students such as DeAnthony, the bill would move 
all Federal student loans to the more efficient and less costly public 
direct loan program. The $87 billion in savings over 10 years can be 
invested in educational opportunities for our students--for future 
teachers and doctors and engineers and scientists and computer 
technicians and farmers.
  The bill will protect a student's purchasing power of a Pell grant by 
ensuring that the maximum grant grows faster than inflation. Senator 
Casey from Pennsylvania, who is with us today, worked with me last year 
to raise those Pell grants that hadn't been raised in 5 or 6 years to 
get them to the place where students had more opportunity to go to 
school. For students attending college today, the maximum Pell grant is 
now $5,350, a historic high.
  By eliminating wasteful subsidies to lenders, we can make college 
more affordable and focus our attention on retention and students' 
success. That is where one of the Nation's most valuable resources 
plays a critical role. The community college system is essential to 
training our most talented workers and students for new jobs in new 
industries. Last month, the New York Times reported how Sinclair 
Community College in Dayton focuses on jobs not just degrees.
  President Obama's American Graduation Initiative has proposed 
investing $12 million in community colleges and increasing the number 
of community college graduates by 5 million over the next decade. Dr. 
Jill Biden, one of the Nation's most eloquent voices on community 
colleges, has said:

       Community colleges change lives and serve as a gateway to 
     opportunity for students at all stages of their lives and 
     careers.

  A few months ago, at a constituent coffee in Washington, I met an 
Ohioan who inspired me. Denee, from Columbus, grew up with 13 different 
foster care families and spent time with the Department of Youth 
Services. But she believed that better things were ahead for her. She 
worked hard, earned her GED, enrolled in Columbus State University, and 
is now finishing nursing school and will start a new job in the fall. 
Legislation such as the Building Student Success Act, which I recently 
introduced, will help community college generate a better outcome for 
their students. It is that type of Federal investment that will help 
presidents of Ohio's colleges and universities provide the resources 
for student success on campuses all over my State.
  For the last 2 years, I have held the Ohio College Presidents 
Conference which brings together presidents of Ohio's 2- and 4-year 
colleges and universities to craft education policy in Washington that 
meets the needs of Ohio's students. Some 55 college presidents each of 
the last 2 years have attended and shared their experiences and ideas 
and views and best practices with one another. Much of what we 
discussed is what President Obama has explained before: that it is not 
enough for our economy just to recover, we must rebuild it, and that 
starts in our classrooms.
  Reforming Federal student loan programs frees up resources to 
modernize schools and strengthen early childhood education. The impact 
of these investments will, of course, span generations. Student loan 
reform gives us an opportunity to address another problem that has 
become more acute because of the economic crisis. Too many of our 
Nation's students are signing away their

[[Page S9908]]

economic future when they sign up for college.
  In 2007, 63 percent of Ohio graduates of public colleges finished 
school with an average debt of $21,000; 75 percent of Ohio graduates of 
private colleges finished school with an average debt of $22,700.
  Private loans typically, though, have higher interest rates that can 
top 18 percent and have fewer repayment options than loans administered 
directly by the U.S. Department of Education.
  According to an analysis by the Project on Student Debt, nearly two-
thirds of private student loan borrowers didn't exhaust their Federal 
loan eligibility. That is why I introduced the Private Student Loan 
Debt Swap Act.
  Under my debt swap bill, if you have an expensive and unaffordable 
private student loan, you can use your remaining Federal student loan 
eligibility to pay off or at least pay down some of that loan. By 
swapping expensive private loan debt, sometimes with local banks or 
national banks at 18 percent interest, with low-cost Federal student 
loans capped at under 7 percent, borrowers could much more readily 
repay their loans.
  This legislation wouldn't increase government spending; in fact, it 
will likely reduce it. Expanded Pell grants and a strong debt swap bill 
would help Ohioans such as Kimberly, a schoolteacher from Toledo. 
During college, she took out private student loans, expecting that she 
would consolidate them after graduating. After accepting a teaching 
position, her lenders would not consolidate the loans because of the 
economy. Kimberly is a teacher at a low-income Head Start school, so 
she doesn't make as much money as a teacher in a public high school. 
She has four loans, with four different interest rates, which are all 
significantly higher than Federal student loan rates.
  Kimberly should not have to spend the rest of her career paying off 
her loans or as she writes:

       I knew that I would be paying out my loan long after 
     graduating, but at this point, someone else will have to pay 
     out the loan after I'm gone.

  Imagine that. She thinks she will never be able to fully pay this 
loan back because of the exorbitantly high interest rate charged by the 
banks.
  Private student loans with enormous interest rates are driving young 
Americans into never-ending debt. There is no American dream within 
reach in that scenario for the Kimberlys of the world, just a sense of 
helplessness and hopelessness.
  That is why this student reform bill is so important. John F. Kennedy 
said once: ``Our progress as a nation can be no swifter than our 
progress in education.''
  In Portsmouth, Lima, Mansfield, Marietta, Toledo, Akron, Gallipolis, 
and Mason, we have leaders in our community, such as Kimberly, teaching 
in our classrooms, or, such as Denee, healing people in our hospitals.
  Years from now? DeAnthony Cummings should be able to stand in this 
Chamber representing Ohio because there was an education system that 
believed in him.
  The student aid reform bill is part of the progress we seek--that 
will allow a child, a working mother or an older worker to believe that 
in this Nation, if you work hard and play by the rules, you, too, can 
have part of the American dream.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there is no doubt that there may be things 
in the Defense budget that you could characterize expensive, 
overbudget, and behind schedule programs. But the C-17 aircraft is not 
one of them, which is why it is so bewildering--and disappointing--that 
some of this Chamber's well-known budget hawks are opposed to a model 
procurement program and a boon for the taxpayers.
  While the most important concern, of course, is for our warfighter 
and national security--which I will go into in more detail in a 
moment--let me address what seems like the primary concern for some of 
my colleagues: the budget.
  Investing in the C-17 is actually a better use of taxpayer dollars 
than the obsolete and unreliable C-5A. C-17s are planes we need and can 
afford. The Government Accountability Office has found it would take 
seven rehabbed and remanufactured C-5As, at a cost of $924 million to 
the taxpayer, to equal the capability of just one new C-17. They have 
to have that airlift. Right now, the C-5A is part of it. But it cannot 
continue as it is. You can get a C-17 for a lot less than you can 
remanufacture and rehab one of the old C-5As, and that doesn't even 
work so good.
  My biggest concern, of course, is national security. Some of my 
colleagues have attacked the C-17 as a special interest item. I agree. 
Investing in the C-17 is in the special interest of our warfighters and 
it is critical to our national security interests and it gives us the 
heavy lift air mobility we require these days.
  The C-17 is a proven, combat-tested airlift capability that is 
essential to the fight we are in right now, and it has been a workhorse 
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  As some of my colleagues have mentioned, we are at war. I couldn't 
agree more that this is our primary concern, which is, again, why the 
C-17 is so important. With the war in Afghanistan heating up and the 
war in Iraq continuing, our airlift needs are only growing.
  The Congressional Research Service has indicated that the C-17 was 
designed to fly 1,000 hours per year over 30 years. But as our overseas 
commitments have grown, some aircraft have even reached 2,400 flying 
hours in a single year. My colleague from Arizona pointed out that 
equipment is being worn out quickly in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is no 
doubt true. But one key piece of our equipment there is our heavy 
airlift capability. The heavy usage, in addition to the growth of the 
Army and Marine Corps, the logistics difficulty of getting supplies 
into Afghanistan, and the need for increased humanitarian/smart power 
missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the world are all 
reasons why I urge my Senate colleagues to support the provision in the 
bill that would add the long lead time purchase we need right now to 
make sure we can continue to purchase the C-17s as the needs develop.
  Some opponents may argue that the Department of Defense and the 
President don't want more, that they have enough C-17s and C-5s to do 
the job. However, with a 50-percent readiness level, a per hour 
operating cost of $29,000, and 40 maintenance man-hours per 1 hour of 
flight, the C-5A represents ineffective and costly iron.
  By replacing these obsolete, ineffective, and costly C-5As with new 
C-17s, which this Congress has allowed the Department of Defense to do 
by lifting a truly special legislative interest prohibition, saying in 
the past they could not retire them, we could save money, provide a 
more reliable capability for our warfighter, and preserve industrial 
capability for the future.

  I have talked about the importance of investing in our airlift 
capability for our warfighter and our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. 
But as America's only large airlift production line, the C-17 
production line, if ended, would put at risk our Nation's long-term 
security. Eliminating the only large airlift production line in the 
United States would demonstrate a lack of understanding and 
appreciation for the skill sets and efforts needed to build these 
aircraft.
  Without a follow-on program, and because we have already shrunk our 
aerospace defense industrial base to such a low level, once these 
skilled workers, the engineers, designers, and their expertise are 
gone, we do not get them back.
  If we lose the skilled engineers, designers, and dedicated workers, 
we could be forced to turn to Europe or Russia for our future large 
airlift needs. More and more, this national talent and industrial 
workforce, which manufactures the critical and unique equipment that 
helps us fight and win our wars, is being eviscerated.
  Without additional funding, our aerospace engineering, design, and 
manufacturing base will atrophy.
  This will put at risk our competitiveness on the global market, our 
ability to address future airlift requirements, and put at risk 30,000 
American jobs stretched across 43 States.
  This isn't about preserving jobs in tough economic times, although I 
believe the administration certainly missed a big opportunity in the 
stimulus bill to recommend stimulating the economy in defense 
production. They

[[Page S9909]]

didn't put a single dollar in defense production needs, which is where 
we have tremendous needs.
  The C-17 addresses a shortsighted decision on the part of the 
administration. That decision took for granted the capacity and 
innovation of our defense industrial base, but we cannot afford to let 
that wither because their proposal put out of work the people who have 
designed these aircraft. We have found, in the past, when we have shut 
down acquisition lines, the skilled engineers leave. One example is 
they went to work at Disney. That is great. That is good work, but it 
is not protecting our national defense.
  After the draconian defense cuts during the Clinton administration, 
the arsenal of democracy consolidated and shrank to a point where any 
further consolidation will result in an irreversible loss in 
competition, innovation, and industrial capacity.
  C-17 production will shut down in 2010 without these 10 aircraft, and 
restarting production would be incredibly difficult and expensive--
according to the GAO, up to $1 billion.
  The GAO study further noted that ``careful planning is needed to 
ensure the C-17 production line is not ended prematurely and later 
restarted at substantial cost.''
  Additionally, the GAO found that ``both the manufacturer and Air 
Force agree that shutting down and restarting production would not be 
feasible or cost-effective.''
  Keeping the C-17 line open is critical not only for our national 
defense but for thousands of American workers who rely on this aircraft 
for their livelihood.
  With the waning demand for commercial aircraft and a lull in military 
fighter jet production, it is more critical than ever to maintain the 
aerospace industrial base that runs the only remaining wide-body 
assembly line in the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to exercise their constitutional authority and 
not go along with what I believe will be shown very shortly, if we make 
the decision, to have been very shortsighted. This is a decision that 
we, in our constitutional responsibility, can and must make.
  We cannot afford disastrous defense cuts coming out of the OMB, which 
is why we fought and won the effort in committee earlier. It is 
critical--and that colleagues join with me in supporting the managers 
on the floor to fight a shortsighted attempt to eviscerate our 
warfighter's airlift capability and our Nation's industrial base. Both 
are critical elements for the long-term security and future of our 
country.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the McCain amendment.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for about 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Health Care

  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, many have come to this Chamber and have 
talked about their constituents and the concerns that have been 
expressed to us about health care and how their families would be 
directly impacted. The frustration driving many of those individuals 
who have written to us, picked up the phone, attended a townhall 
meeting continues. They worry we are not listening.
  The biggest misconception is that those who are raising concerns 
about the President's health care proposals believe that somehow they 
are defending the status quo. That could not be further from the truth.
  We can all agree that health care costs are rising at rates that 
create hardships across our country. They impact families and 
businesses, and ultimately they are not sustainable for Federal and 
State budgets.
  There are many things I believe upon which there would be very 
universal agreement. For example, I support insurance market reforms 
that increase access to insurance for people who have preexisting 
conditions. Many of us do in the Senate. I support allowing small 
businesses to band together to bring down health insurance premiums. 
Many here do. I support subsidies for those who truly cannot afford 
insurance to help them buy down their premiums, their deductibles or 
copays. Again, many here could. I support real malpractice reform that 
would curb costs by reducing defensive medicine. Again, many here do.
  These commonsense reforms and others we could mention could be the 
cornerstone of what I believe would be a truly bipartisan solution to 
our health care crisis. But I believe the current proposals have veered 
in a very different direction. I cannot support so-called reform that 
lowers the quality of our health care, compromises the doctor-patient 
relationship, and drastically increases costs for Americans. Yet I 
worry that the provisions working their way through the Senate Finance 
Committee appear to do precisely that--increase costs and jeopardize 
quality. I do not believe it is the kind of health care reform 
Americans have sent us to Washington to enact.
  In our current economic crisis, the last thing American families need 
is to see more of their paychecks going to pay taxes. This legislation 
presents a ``darned if you do, darned if you don't'' scenario. It taxes 
you if you have insurance and it taxes you if you don't.
  People who depend on medical devices will see prices rise. So will 
individuals who take prescription drugs. States will have to raise 
money to pay for what I regard as an unfair unfunded Medicare mandate. 
Having been a Governor, I can tell you there are limited choices in 
State budgets, and State budgets are in crisis today. They are either 
going to have to raise taxes to somehow find the revenue to deal with 
that mandate, or they are going to have to do something equally 
unpleasant; that is, cut programs. Which State programs do you think 
Americans will want to sacrifice so Washington can have its way with 
the States in the Medicaid unfunded mandate?
  I can tell you from experience, cutting programs is an impossible 
decision. So is raising taxes. States should not be put in a difficult 
position again and again by an overreaching Federal Government. 
Employers will be taxed in order to pay for required health care 
insurance for their employees. These taxes will create financial 
heartburn that no doctor's prescription can ease.
  This legislation will require every American to have health 
insurance, with limited exceptions, and not just any health insurance. 
It requires health insurance that meets specific qualifications the 
bureaucracy in Washington will dictate.
  The Finance Committee bill would require you to spend a certain share 
of your income before becoming eligible for health insurance subsidies. 
Under the original Finance Committee proposal, the Congressional Budget 
Office estimated that an individual who makes $32,400 a year--not a lot 
of money--would be required to pay $4,100 in health care insurance 
premiums before becoming eligible for a subsidy. That individual would 
also be required to pay, on average, $1,600 in copayments and 
deductibles. These individuals would be required, through the 
government mandate, again, to spend 18 percent of their income on 
health insurance. Surprisingly, the cheaper catastrophic coverage some 
would prefer would not be considered a so-called qualified plan; 
therefore, not an option.
  Furthermore, if you choose not to have health insurance that meets 
these qualifications, you could be forced to pay out as much as $1,900 
in additional taxes per family.
  The Internal Revenue Service will be knocking on your door to make 
sure you literally buy into federally dictated health care reform 
efforts.
  I have heard from many Nebraskans who feel as if this individual 
mandate is a direct assault on their freedom. Most people do not like 
the notion that Washington tells them how to live their lives. Imposing 
an individual mandate tax rubs Americans the wrong way. Not only are we 
telling them they must buy insurance, but we are telling them what kind 
of insurance they must buy.
  I know some, including our President, argue this is not a tax; 
rather, it is simply a shared responsibility. The very language in the 
Finance Committee plan clearly states this is a tax,

[[Page S9910]]

and it brings in about $20 billion. Where is the President's promise 
that he would not raise taxes on individuals who make under $250,000 a 
year? Well, it is nonexistent. Last week, this was made clear during 
the Finance Committee markup. When asked about the effect of this 
individual mandate tax on the middle class, the chief of staff for the 
Joint Committee on Taxation responded:

       We would expect that some people paying would make less 
     than $250,000.

  For hard-working families, the individual mandates will load them up 
with a fancy benefit plan covering services they may not want or need. 
They will be required to buy it or their government will penalize them.
  This is a complex and a fundamental shift in how we approach health 
care in our great country, indeed, in how much the government dictates 
the health care decisions of each and every American.
  Furthermore, this legislation raises money by taxing insurance 
companies, medical device manufacturers, and prescription drug 
manufacturers. Does anybody doubt for a minute that will be passed on 
to the average guy? There is little doubt that these increased taxes 
will lead to higher premiums, more expensive medical equipment, and 
higher drug prices for Americans. These industries will compensate for 
the added tax by raising prices, ultimately raising the cost of health 
care in this country.
  Additionally, this plan is likely to decrease research and 
development in the health care sector, which has been a major driver of 
innovation and improvement in health care quality. Creating policy that 
decreases the quality of our health care makes no sense. It is 
counterproductive. Requiring employers to provide health insurance to 
their employees or be fined or taxed does not make sense. The Finance 
Committee proposal is expected to collect $27 billion worth of those 
fines or taxes. In tough economic times, with unemployment almost in 
double digits and forecasts to go into double digits, putting more 
requirements and mandates on job creators and job sustainers is 
counterproductive. Employers will think twice about hiring more 
workers.
  There is little doubt that these increased taxes will lead to higher 
insurance premiums, more expensive medical equipment, and higher drug 
prices for Americans. These industries will compensate by raising their 
prices. They simply will.
  I fear low-income Americans will suffer the most. They need those 
jobs. We must carefully evaluate the details of this legislation and 
ensure that our attempts to make things better, which I believe we can 
do in a bipartisan way, do not ultimately make things worse. I suggest 
that in tough economic times, creating legislation that increases the 
cost of health care, that raises taxes is not true health care reform.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________