[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 13, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2429-S2436]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             SMALL BUSINESS

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are continuing to work on an agreement to 
move ahead on small business. We have three main amendments--I should 
not say ``main,'' but I think they are the ones on which we are 
focused. One is an amendment by Senator Cornyn, one by Senator 
Hutchison, and one by Senator Sanders. There are others who now have 
come into the fray, and it is making it very difficult to get votes on 
these three amendments, but that is where we are.
  It is unfortunate. I think each of these amendments were offered in 
good faith. We should be able to have a vote on them even though they 
have virtually nothing to do with the small business bill, but I am 
going to continue to work to see if I can get universal agreement to 
get these amendments disposed of either by passing or bringing them up 
and moving toward completion of this bill. We should have been able to 
do something in the last 2 days, but that is where we are.
  Overhanging all this is the continuing resolution which we need to 
work on tomorrow. If people have any feelings about that, I wish they 
would come to the Senate floor to discuss it.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I watched with great interest President 
Obama's speech about our spending and debt crisis. That is what I would 
call it. He did not use as stark terms, unfortunately, but it is a 
spending and debt crisis.
  First of all, I am at least a little encouraged that he is finally 
beginning to enter the debate about this crisis. It is headed to a 
crisis. It is the greatest domestic threat we face as a nation. At 
least this speech acknowledges it is a huge threat and that his own 
budget submitted a few months ago was a pass on all of those big issues 
and he needed a redo.
  This is a great threat to all of our futures and prosperity. Let me 
try to put it in a little bit of perspective.
  Borrowing right now is at least 40 cents out of every $1 we spend. So 
for every $1 the Federal Government spends, 40 cents of that--over 40 
cents--is borrowed money. We are spending $3.7 trillion a year, but we 
are only taking in $2.2 trillion. Because of that, we have recently 
been racking up over $4 billion of new debt every day. So every day: 
new debt of $4 billion a day. And a whole lot of that we owe to the 
Chinese, more than $1 trillion. That eventually has very serious 
consequences in terms of our prosperity, our future, the sort of 
country and vision and future we can leave for our kids.
  As interest rates go up--which they inevitably will if we stay on 
this path--that downright costs jobs. When interest rates go up 1 
percent, Federal debt goes up $140 billion because the debt is so much. 
When those interest rates eventually go up, it makes it harder for all 
of us and our families to buy cars and homes, to pay tuition, to create 
jobs if we are a small business.
  ADM Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said:

       Our national debt is our biggest national security threat.

  The highest ranking person in uniform in charge of our national 
security says our biggest security threat is not Iran or North Korea or 
anyone else; it is actually this domestic debt issue. Debt at current 
levels--which is 94 percent of GDP--economists say that is already 
costing us about a million jobs because our debt level is so great.
  Again, at least the President, in his speech today--which is 
essentially a do-over of his budget from a few months ago--at least the 
President is beginning to acknowledge that fundamental threat, and that 
is good. But we need more than a speech, we need more than a vision. We 
need a real action plan, a detailed plan from the President, and we did 
not get that today.
  So my first reaction to the speech was that it was just that: It was 
a speech. It was a nice sounding speech. It had a lot of nice themes. 
But it was a speech. If the President, who is so quick to criticize 
Congressman Paul Ryan's budget--if he wants to enter the debate, he 
needs to enter it on a par with that level of detail, that level of 
specifics that Congressman Ryan and House Republicans gave. So the 
President needs to submit a new budget, a new detailed proposal, not 
just give a speech. Then we need to engage in a real debate and come up 
with a plan, an action plan, to tackle this spending and debt issue. 
And we need to do that before we vote on any debt limit increase.
  Speaking for myself, I am not going to consider increasing the debt 
limit, which the President wants all of us to do, unless and until 
there is tied to it a real plan to deal with this spending and debt 
crisis. So this speech today, perhaps, was a start. But my general 
reaction is, we need more than a speech. We need specifics. We need a 
new budget submission. Then we need to engage in a bipartisan 
discussion and negotiation. But we shouldn't wait until May, as the 
President suggested. That should start immediately--tomorrow--because 
we need to hammer out meaningful details before any proposal comes to 
the floor for votes to increase the debt limit.

  In terms of the general themes the President struck, I have to say I 
was

[[Page S2430]]

disappointed because, to my ears, it was the same-old same-old.
  The first theme was increasing taxes. He has been at that theme over 
and over again, and that was absolutely the first theme he hit in his 
speech--increasing taxes. The problem is, if we look at the level of 
taxation we have, it is not extraordinarily low, it is not somehow way 
below normal historical averages. What is way above normal historical 
averages is spending. So if we just look at the data compared to 
history, we have a runaway spending problem; we don't have a taxation 
problem.
  The second big theme the President hit was cutting defense spending. 
Again, coming from a liberal, this is just the same-old same-old--a 
traditional, predictable theme to cut defense. I don't think that is 
really a new approach or a new discussion from the President.
  The third big theme was to cut tax expenditures. A lot of folks, at 
least in Louisiana, won't know what the heck that means, so let me 
translate. Cutting tax expenditures means increasing taxes. It means 
doing away with certain deductions and certain credits. It means your 
tax bill goes up. I am all for Tax Code simplification. I think we need 
an enormously simplified Tax Code. I do think we need to get rid of a 
lot of deductions and credits, but that should be used to lower the 
overall rate, particularly rates such as the corporate tax rate, which, 
in the United States, is the highest of any industrialized country in 
the world.
  In terms of the theme of real cutting, that theme was very short on 
specifics but very long on general statements, including that 
entitlement spending--things such as Medicare--would not be covered in 
reform in any way.
  So when we look at these broad themes--and that is all there was, 
broad themes, not specifics--it was, quite frankly, sorely 
disappointing. But perhaps at least it is a start. As I said at the 
beginning of my remarks, I hope it is a meaningful start, but to be a 
meaningful start and to produce fruit, we need to go from a very broad, 
very general speech to a detailed submission.
  The President needs to resubmit his entire budget. This is a do-over, 
so he needs to resubmit a detailed budget which matches Congressman 
Ryan's proposal in the level of detail, in the level of specifics the 
Budget Committee chairman in the House has provided. Then we need to 
immediately get to a bipartisan discussion and negotiation. We 
shouldn't wait until May. That should start immediately for one simple 
reason: I don't think there is any chance of passing any increase to 
the debt limit without having attached to it major reform, major 
structural reform that ensures we are on a new path of lowering 
spending and lowering debt. Of course, I can only control one vote, but 
speaking for myself, I will say that I won't even consider those 
proposals to increase the debt limit unless and until there is a 
proposal that passes the Congress to actually decrease the debt.
  Ultimately, the problem isn't the debt limit; the problem is the 
debt. When an individual has a spending problem or a credit card 
problem, the solution isn't getting a higher limit on his credit card; 
the solution is to deal with the spending and the debt problem, which 
is the underlying, core problem. The same here.
  So we need to do that as we move forward in this debt-limit 
discussion. I hope we will all do that. I hope we will come together in 
a meaningful, bipartisan way to do that--to actually attack the 
problem, which is spending, which leads to the second problem, which is 
debt, and actually propose and pass real structural reform before we 
even have any vote on increasing the debt limit. I urge all of my 
colleagues to work constructively in that regard. I hope the 
President's speech is a start toward that, but, of course, time will 
tell, and actions versus words are what ultimately matter.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today more than 47 million Americans rely 
on Medicare for their health care. For more than 45 years, seniors have 
had access to the affordable, dependable health care Medicare provides.
  We all recognize the cost of health care. We know it is growing and 
growing too rapidly. The landmark health reform law we passed recently 
took bold steps to rein in costs, and I am eager to work with my 
colleagues from both sides of the aisle to further reduce health care 
costs, increase efficiency, and root out the fraud and waste.
  Last week, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Congressman 
Paul Ryan, proposed a plan that would end Medicare as we know it. 
Rather than providing affordable health care paid for by Medicare, as 
is the case today, under the Ryan plan, seniors would receive a voucher 
to purchase private health insurance--again, not health care benefits 
provided for under Medicare but, rather, receive a voucher to purchase 
private health insurance from private health insurance companies.
  Unfortunately, this voucher would fall far short of covering health 
care costs for seniors. According to the independent Congressional 
Budget Office, under the Ryan plan, ``Most elderly people would pay 
more''--I might add, much more--``for their health care than they would 
pay under the current Medicare system.'' How much more? CBO says that 
under the Ryan plan, the average 65-year-old would have to pay $12,000 
a year to receive the same level of benefits Medicare offers today--
$12,000 a year. That is more than double what a senior would have to 
pay under today's Medicare. So the Ryan plan would double the payments 
seniors have to make and the benefits would be reduced.
  Under the Ryan plan, there would be no guaranteed benefits, which are 
provided under Medicare today. As a result, private insurance companies 
would dictate what care a senior received, ending the current doctor-
patient relationship.
  Our deficit, of course, is serious. It is very serious. It must be 
addressed. While we need to look for more ways to reduce our deficit, 
we need to do so in a balanced and fair way. For starters, we shouldn't 
balance the budget on the backs of seniors. We will not allow Medicare 
to be dismantled--not on our watch. Yesterday, Senator Bill Nelson and 
I introduced a sense-of-the-Senate resolution stating that ``Medicare 
should not be dismantled and turned into a voucher or premium-support 
program.''
  Deficit reduction should not simply shift costs to seniors, and that 
is exactly what the vouchers in the Ryan budget would do. A voucher 
system does nothing to lower health care costs. It does not guarantee 
the benefits Medicare offers today. It does not provide access to 
affordable health care. Seniors deserve much better.
  I listened closely to my colleague from Louisiana a few moments ago. 
Frankly, I am somewhat heartened. I heard from him that he wants to 
move forward and that he would, he said indirectly, vote to increase 
the debt limit if there is a credible plan to reduce deficits and our 
national debt. I think that is a proposal with which the vast majority 
of Members of this body agree. Of course, the proof is in the pudding. 
It is, what is that credible plan, what is that mechanism, what is that 
assurance that we are going to reduce the budget deficits prior to a 
vote to increase the debt limit?
  It is very important that a vote to increase the debt limit occur 
without brinksmanship. We had far too much brinksmanship in the lead-up 
to the continuing resolution. It was just a matter of $2 billion or $3 
billion in the last eleventh hour.
  The vote to increase the debt limit is a far more important vote. The 
stakes are much, much higher. The dollar amount is much greater. The 
financial markets will be watching very closely. And we, as Members of 
Congress, working with the President, must find a way to get the debt 
limit increased but with assurance that we are going to get deficits 
down and the debt down in a credible way, in a proper period of time so 
we don't have to push up to that final moment, the final minute before 
the vote on the debt limit occurs.
  As I listened to my colleague from Louisiana, I sensed that he wants 
to find some way--and I think we all do; that is our challenge; that is 
our charge over the next couple of months--find that mechanism, find 
that process that is credible, that makes sense, and that both sides 
can buy into, not knowing exactly what the final result will be but 
knowing we are starting down a road to get the budget

[[Page S2431]]

deficit under control in a balanced and fair way.
  I do not mean to sound critical, but I don't think the Ryan budget 
proposal is balanced. I don't think it is fair. But I do think the vast 
majority of the Members of the Senate do want to find a fair and 
balanced solution, and it is up to us to find that before a vote on the 
debt limit occurs.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, this afternoon, after a few days of 
great anticipation, the President laid out his version for long-term 
deficit reduction and dealing with our long-term debt. Now that we have 
heard from him, I am afraid we are left with more questions than 
answers.
  Let me be clear. I welcome the President to the debate. I think it is 
a positive sign. There is no more pressing issue for us to address than 
our dire fiscal situation and our economic challenges; both are 
intertwined. We are not going to be able to move the economy until we 
deal with our impending debt crisis, and we cannot deal with fiscal 
problems without growing the economy.
  There has been a lot of good discussion about the unique dangers we 
face if we don't address our massive deficits and our debt which has 
now accumulated to over $14 trillion. That amount, by the way, is equal 
to the entire size of the U.S. economy, making this the first time 
since World War II that we have had a debt of that level. It is also a 
lot different now than it was then.
  During World War II our debt was driven primarily by defense spending 
which would be quickly curtailed. We weren't looking at the incredible 
unfunded obligations, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security 
that we have today. That is an unfunded obligation of over $100 
trillion. So we are in uncharted territory, unprecedented times. It is 
harming our economy today and, of course, it will devastate it in the 
future if we don't take action.
  Economists tell us that with a debt of 90 percent of GDP we will 
typically lose 1 point of economic growth. Again, this year our gross 
debt is 100 percent of our GDP. By the way, a 1-percent reduction in 
our GDP in America means about 1 million jobs. So, already, with a 
gross debt of 100 percent of GDP, we have foregone jobs that we need in 
Ohio and around the country.
  This high indebtedness also comes with significant interest payments. 
Of course, even with interest rates being near zero today, the 
magnitude of the U.S. debt still requires a debt service this year of 
over $200 billion. By the way, under the President's budget that number 
increases to almost $1 trillion 10 years from now based on the CBO 
analysis. That is $1 trillion a year just in interest payments on the 
debt.
  What concerns me is that interest rates could well go up given this 
climate. A 1-percent increase in interest involves another $130 billion 
of interest payments. Think about that. Just a 1-percent increase in 
interest rates means another $130 billion in interest payments. 
Obviously, inflation would be causing additional damage to an already 
precarious budget situation, and that is another great risk that we 
face.
  Our current deficits are also increasingly financed by foreign 
holders of U.S. debt. At present, nearly half of U.S. publicly held 
debt is held by foreign investors. As U.S. deficits are increasingly 
foreign-financed, of course, our interest payments are leaving the 
country. It is estimated that in 2010 interest payments to foreign 
entities and foreign individuals amounted to over $140 billion. That is 
based on the new data from the Department of Commerce. It is not just 
about these high debt payments, it is the fact that a lot of it is 
going overseas.
  Our persistent deficits and pending debt crisis also introduces a lot 
of uncertainty into our economy. Some immediate evidence of this effect 
appears on the balance sheets of America's businesses, which shows $1.9 
trillion in liquid holdings. That means money is sitting on the 
sidelines rather than being invested in jobs, plants, and equipment. 
Resolving the uncertainty surrounding future deficits will induce 
greater investment as companies can plan more effectively.
  We are already seeing these concerns manifest themselves in our 
economy today. Capital markets are responding as investors, such as 
PIMCO, the largest holder of U.S. Treasuries, is out altogether, 
telling us they no longer trust U.S. debt. What will happen if we don't 
address these challenges is even more daunting.
  According to the CBO, assuming the continuation of many current 
policies, debt held by the public as a share of our GDP is projected to 
reach an implausibly high 947 percent of GDP by 2084. Of course, that 
won't happen. The United States will face a debt crisis long before 
that, but that demonstrates the unsustainability of the current fiscal 
situation. No economic model could tell us what the economy would look 
like in the future because by then these models will essentially fall 
apart.
  Over time the accumulation of debt increases the cost of debt 
service, consuming a greater share of revenues, limiting budgetary 
resources for other priorities or for meeting unforeseen emergencies, 
such as a natural disaster or a war.
  As time progresses a fiscal crisis resulting from high indebtedness 
could occur rapidly as investors lose confidence in U.S. Treasuries. 
Absent immediate policy changes, the United States would have to pay 
higher yields on its own debt to roll over existing debt and avoid 
default. We are going to have to pay higher interest rates to attract 
investors to our country. In addition to the cost of an increase in 
interest expense, higher interest rates, of course, would be 
devastating for American families. Think about it. As interest rates go 
up, because Treasury rates go up, this means home mortgages go up. This 
means college loan payments go up. This means interest rates on car 
loans go up and on credit card activity and other loans. The economy is 
tough enough. We don't need higher interest rates, but that is upon us 
unless we act now.
  The magnitude of the debt crisis would escalate as higher interest 
costs require additional borrowing at high rates to continue to make 
interest payments, which would ultimately grind the economy to a halt 
as investors lose confidence in the ability of the United States to 
repay. The global impact of a U.S. debt crisis would be far reaching 
and truly unprecedented. We just went through a tough recession. We 
don't need to relive that.
  All things being equal, debt financing of current consumption 
necessarily imposes future obligations on subsequent generations either 
in the form of higher taxes or reduced consumption of government 
services. To avoid a debt crisis, any policy changes must begin sooner 
rather than later to minimize those effects that are, unfortunately, 
likely to happen even if we act.
  Given the threats and the crisis described, there is no doubt that 
America needs real leadership to address this fiscal threat. While we 
can debate some of the specifics in Congressman Ryan's budget, there is 
no doubt that the House Republican plan demonstrates necessary 
leadership on the severe fiscal challenges our country faces. This is 
in contrast to the plan President Obama sent to the Congress just 2 
months ago. It not only rejects the serious recommendations from his 
own fiscal commission, but, unfortunately, as Erskine Bowles, the 
Democratic cochair of the President's Commission said: ``It goes 
nowhere near where they will have to go to resolve our fiscal 
nightmare.''

  Unfortunately, the President's speech today provides no specifics as 
how to resolve that fiscal nightmare.
  More spending, more borrowing, and more taxes are not a prescription 
for spending constraint and economic growth. Since President Obama took 
office, we have seen trillions in new spending and record deficits. The 
February budget I talked about just locks that new spending in place, 
doing nothing to pull back from this dangerous spiral of debt.
  Let us be clear, this is not just a budget issue, it is an economic 
issue, and it is definitely a jobs issue. Not only will debt and 
deficit have a long-

[[Page S2432]]

term impact on our children and grandchildren who will have to foot the 
bill for today's spending, but we are beginning to see this immediate 
impact on economic stability and job growth as the cost of our debt 
begins to crowd out private sector investment. We have to move quickly 
to substantially reduce the debt and deficit to strengthen our fiscal 
house and, in doing so, foster job creation in States such as mine--
Ohio--and around the country.
  The Commission's plan that the President rejected in December cuts 
deficits by about $4.1 trillion compared to the baseline of current 
policy over a 10-year period. It brings our deficits to 1.2 percent of 
our economy by 2020. Compare that to today, where we are at almost 10 
percent of our economy. So it sets a standard--over $4 trillion in 
reductions in the deficit and an annual deficit that is 1.2 percent, 
which incidentally is where our budget deficit was about 4 years ago. 
Congressman Ryan's budget got there by bringing deficits down by about 
$4.2 trillion by 2021, as compared to a comparable baseline, to the 
Commission's report--so $4.1 trillion, $4.2 trillion--and the deficit 
is about 1.5 percent of GDP.
  The President's own budget, again submitted here to Congress about 2 
months ago, is very different. His budget merely gets one-quarter of 
the way there--$1.1 trillion--and that assumes all the administration's 
claimed savings occur and it assumes, frankly, there is a higher rate 
of economic growth than the Congressional Budget Office thinks there 
will be, which actually wipes out the deficit savings the President 
claims.
  So we have very different visions, don't we? We have the fiscal 
commission on the one hand and the Ryan budget in the $4 trillion range 
and then a plan by the President that does not get us moving forward in 
terms of deficit reduction--in effect, doubles the debt in the next 10 
years.
  Evidently, after seeing Republicans move forward last week and now 
this week in the House and after seeing how, on a bipartisan basis and 
around the country, people reacted to his budget, President Obama has 
realized he needs to move forward with a new proposal. In a sense, he 
is asking for a mulligan, and I think that is good. I think it is good 
he has acknowledged this problem is deeper and more serious than his 
budget proposal indicated, and we need to move forward together.
  Unfortunately, again, the President did not offer specifics today, 
unlike the Ryan budget, which takes some bold and courageous and tough 
steps but does offer specifics. The President chose instead to squander 
his opportunity to offer a real way forward on tackling our structural 
fiscal problems. He did talk about $4 trillion in deficit reduction--
and I appreciate that--but again did not offer a way to get there. The 
national commission he formed, and which reported in December, told the 
President there was a way to get there, and I hope the President will 
relook at his own Commission and other proposals, such as the Ryan 
proposal.
  As the President made clear, we have been debating just 12 percent of 
the budget. He is right about that. There is some defense spending that 
is involved, but for the most part it is a very small part of the 
budget. So what does his proposal do to address these additional 
challenges? I didn't hear anything today about serious proposals to 
address the entitlement programs, which are incredibly important 
programs but on an unsustainable footing.
  On Medicare, the President proposed delegating future unspecified 
savings to a government board--unelected and unaccountable. On 
Medicaid, the President seems to be delegating responsibility to the 
National Governors Association. On Social Security, the President told 
us today it doesn't contribute to our deficit, despite the fact the 
program is in cash deficit this year by $45 billion--$45 billion less 
in payroll taxes than the payments going out.
  The President proposed $4 trillion in deficit reduction. Yet he has 
shrunk, at this point, from the responsibility of telling us how he 
would achieve it, except that he would leave the challenge largely to 
others, while pursuing tax increases that I fear would harm the little 
recovery we see coming out of this deep recession.
  So I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle 
and the President to address the serious challenges we have talked 
about today. I wish we had seen more specifics today, but I am 
encouraged to see that at least the President is engaging in the game. 
I welcome his involvement because it is too important for us not to 
have involvement from both sides of the aisle. Without White House 
leadership, we cannot move forward.
  As the President so often says, let's get focused not on the next 
election but on the next generation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, the Senate will have before it today or 
tomorrow, depending upon the flow around here, two very misguided 
bills. This will come about when we have our budget come up for a vote. 
Under an agreement to get that budget up, we are going to have a vote 
on two separate bills. One bill would totally repeal and defund the 
affordable care act--the health care reform bill we passed--and the 
other one would prevent funding for Planned Parenthood. So I wish to 
take a few minutes on the floor of the Senate to speak about how 
misguided these two bills are.
  First, let me talk about the bill that would defund the affordable 
care act. This bill we will be voting on will prohibit any funds 
appropriated this year and any funds appropriated in any prior year 
from being used to carry out the affordable care act. This would remove 
the engine from health care reform while the train is steaming down the 
track.
  So, again, why are we voting on this? The reason is, Republicans have 
tried a frontal assault on the affordable care act--a debate on the 
merits--and they failed. This body voted down Senator McConnell's 
amendment to the FAA authorization bill that would have repealed health 
reform in its entirety. But I guess what we can't do directly, we try 
to do indirectly. So now the Republicans are trying to undermine health 
reform by other means, such as defunding it.
  Well, this strategy only makes sense if you are absolutely obsessed--
obsessed--with tearing down health care reform. Make no mistake about 
it, this bill is the equivalent of repeal. By depriving the bill of all 
funding, it would turn back the clock on all we have accomplished over 
the past year.

  It would take us back to the bad old days, when insurance companies 
were in the driver's seat, telling us what kinds of health care we are 
entitled to and when we are entitled to it.
  Instead of protecting all Americans against arbitrary limits on 
coverage, repeal would take us back to the days when insurance 
companies could turn off our coverage just when we are the sickest. 
That would hurt families such as the Grasshoffs from Texas, who 
testified before my committee earlier this year. They were unable to 
find coverage that would pay for their son's hemophilia treatment until 
the affordable care act banned lifetime limits.
  Instead of allowing young people starting a new job or a new business 
or going off to school to stay on their parents' insurance until age 
26, repeal would make them fend for themselves in a chaotic market that 
offers too little coverage for too much money. That would hurt folks 
such as Emily Schlichting, who suffers from a rare autoimmune disorder 
that would make her uninsurable in the bad old days. But because of the 
affordable care act, she is able to stay on her parents' policy until 
she is 26. Yet at a HELP Committee hearing in January--this is Emily, a 
wonderful young woman--she said:

       Young people are the future of this country and we are the 
     most affected by the reform--we're the generation that is 
     most uninsured. We need the Affordable Care Act because it is 
     literally an investment in the future of this country.

  It would also hurt folks such as Carol in Ankeny, IA, whose 19-year-
old daughter was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes 9 years ago. Thanks to 
the affordable care act, Carol doesn't have to worry about her 
daughter's preexisting condition, disqualifying her for insurance 
coverage, and she can stay on her parents' health insurance coverage 
after college.
  Carol also doesn't have to worry about the cost of her daughter's 
care running up against the lifetime cap that would be imposed by an 
insurance

[[Page S2433]]

company. Health care reform banned those limits. Carol wrote me a very 
nice letter to say thank you for doing the right thing.
  Instead of protecting nearly half of nonelderly Americans who have 
preexisting conditions--such as high blood pressure, diabetes or heart 
disease--from denial of coverage, repeal would put insurance companies 
back in the driver's seat, picking and choosing whom to cover.
  Instead of helping small businesses, struggling in this recession 
with the cost of insurance premiums, repeal of the affordable care act 
would take away $40 billion in tax credits that reduce premiums for 
small businesses.
  Instead of helping all Americans prevent illness or disease by 
providing free preventive services such as mammograms and 
colonoscopies, repeal would allow insurers to charge expensive copays 
for these important services, thus discouraging people from getting 
their colonoscopies or mammogram screenings.
  If we pass this bill--this bill to defund the affordable care act--
Congress will turn its back on America's seniors, tossing our hard-won 
improvements in Medicare benefits and damaging the program's fiscal 
health. It would reopen the Medicare Part D doughnut hole, exposing 
millions of seniors to the full cost of drugs when they need the most 
assistance. Repealing the affordable care act would increase seniors' 
drug prices, on average, by more than $800 this year and $3,500 over 
the next 10 years.
  Repeal would roll back the unprecedented investment the affordable 
care act makes in Medicare fraud prevention. Turning back the 
affordable care act would hurt seniors' access to health care in rural 
areas by eliminating incentive payments that are in the affordable care 
act paid to rural primary care providers.
  Repealing--or defunding, as this bill would do--the affordable care 
act would roll back improvements to Medicare payment policy, 
coordination, and efficiency that extends the life of the Medicare 
trust fund by a decade. In addition, Secretary Sebelius has informed us 
that payments to Medicare providers would be significantly disrupted by 
this bill, which again will defund the affordable care act.
  Finally, we come to the part of this debate even Alice in Wonderland 
would have a tough time understanding. The House Republicans have 
played the Washington stage for all it is worth over the last few 
weeks, making great solemn speeches to the balconies and to the 
audiences about the deficit and the debt. But as a condition for 
agreeing to fund the government for the remainder of this year, what 
are they demanding? They want to defund and, thus, repeal the 
affordable care act--one of the best and biggest deficit-reducing 
measures in decades.
  The Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit by $210 billion in the 
next 10 years, more than $1 trillion in the next 10 years. Again, here 
is a chart that shows that. In the next 10 years, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office, the Affordable Care Act will reduce the 
deficit by $210 billion. Therefore, if you repeal it you would increase 
the deficit by $210 billion.
  Here is where the real savings come. In the next decade the 
Congressional Budget Office says the Affordable Care Act will reduce 
the deficit by $1 trillion. So if you defund it, as this bill would do, 
you will increase the deficit by $1 trillion. That is what the 
Republicans want, they want to absolutely increase the deficit. They 
must, because they want to do away with the Affordable Care Act.
  Let me get this straight. The Republicans are proposing to reduce the 
deficit by--increasing the deficits? As I said, somehow I have a 
feeling when I hear that, we are not in Kansas any longer. This is 
``Alice in Wonderland'' kind of thinking.
  We have to stop the silly game. This debate is not about deficit 
reduction, it is about tearing down health reform, no matter what. No 
matter if it does increase the deficit, get rid of it, get rid of 
health reform. It is about giving control back to wealthy, powerful 
health insurance companies that can raise your rates, deny you 
benefits, and make increasingly more profit.
  Nothing makes the nature of the agenda of my friends on the 
Republican side more clear than the 2012 proposed budget released by 
the Republican House Budget Committee chairman last week. The 
Republican budget plan is very simple: a massive transfer of wealth 
from low-and middle-income Americans to the wealthiest in our country. 
Two-thirds of the budget savings in the Republican budget proposal come 
from drastically cutting programs that serve those with modest means, 
while permanently extending President Bush's tax cuts for the rich.
  How is this massive wealth shift paid for? They would repeal the 
majority of the Affordable Care Act, taking coverage away from more 
than 32 million Americans who would be covered under current law. 
Starting in 2022, the Republican budget proposal eliminates Medicare as 
we know it, turning over the program to private health insurance 
companies. Instead of enrolling seniors in Medicare, the Republicans' 
plan would give them a voucher to go out and buy private insurance 
coverage on the open market. Since the voucher would not keep up with 
rising medical costs, seniors would fall farther and farther behind.
  The Congressional Budget Office has said this would more than double 
out-of-pocket costs for seniors entering the program in 2022; it would 
triple the costs by 2030. Where would that money go? To the private 
health insurance industry. That sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it?
  The Republicans' obsession with repealing the new health reform law 
is not based on budgetary considerations. It is based strictly on 
ideology. In 1965, President Johnson and this Congress passed Medicare, 
ensuring seniors access to decent health care. Republicans fought it 
bitterly then and 45 years later they are still trying to undo it. Here 
they go again. The choice before us is to go forward or to be dragged 
backward. Let us come together as a united American people, create a 
reformed health care system that works not just for the healthy and the 
wealthy but for all Americans.
  There is a second bill we will be voting on in conjunction with the 
budget. The Republicans insisted on this in order to have a vote on the 
budget. It is equally as misguided and as dangerous, I think, as the 
other bill. This second bill would prohibit a law-abiding and 
extraordinarily successful organization from participating in fair 
competition for Federal funding. This entity would, of course, be 
Planned Parenthood.
  Again, let's be clear what this bill is not about. It is not about 
the need to prevent Federal funds from being used to pay for abortions. 
Longstanding rules under the title X program already strictly prohibit 
the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. What is more, every 
appropriations bill for the last two decades has stated that no funds 
can be used for any abortion.
  This bill is not about abortion. It is about banning a specific 
organization from even competing for Federal funds, simply because some 
people don't agree with that organization. This would create a very 
disturbing and dangerous precedent. When Congress creates a program, it 
typically specifies rules or criteria for participation in that 
program. Anyone who or any organization that agrees to play by these 
rules and criteria is eligible to compete. Planned Parenthood is 
playing by the rules. That is one reason it is one of the most widely 
respected health care providers in the United States.
  Of 5.2 million women served every year by the title X program, 1 out 
of 3, 31 percent, receive care at Planned Parenthood health centers. If 
someone can show me a specific clinic that is not following the rules, 
by all means take away their funding. But that is not what this bill 
does. This bill says Planned Parenthood as an entity would be banned 
from even competing to provide services under title X, despite the fact 
that they conform to all of the rules of the program.
  It doesn't only ban Planned Parenthood from offering family planning 
services. That is one aspect of what Planned Parenthood does. But this 
bill would turn away nearly 1 million women a year who receive cervical 
cancer screenings through Planned Parenthood clinical services, as well 
as 830,000 women every year who get breast exams at Planned Parenthood 
clinical services. They would turn away countless hundreds of thousands

[[Page S2434]]

of women and men who receive physical exams and immunizations at 
Planned Parenthood clinical services.
  My office has been deluged by e-mails and phone calls from Iowans and 
other Americans who oppose this misguided effort to ban Planned 
Parenthood from receiving funding under title X. I stand with them in 
support of the important services these clinics provide to women and 
men throughout the country.
  A constituent of mine writes:

       Dear Senator Harkin,
       I want to let you know that cutting funds to Planned 
     Parenthood will jeopardize the lives of many of the women and 
     some of the men who go there for basic reproductive health 
     screenings. I say this with confidence, as Planned Parenthood 
     was the only clinic I could afford 10 years ago, to obtain 
     yearly Pap smears. It was Planned Parenthood that found my 
     cervical cancer and referred me to a specialist for 
     treatment. Due to the existence and actions of Planned 
     Parenthood, I am alive today as a healthy and contributing 
     member of society. I work with undergraduate and graduate 
     students, and several of them have mentioned that Planned 
     Parenthood was their only option for affordable screenings. . 
     . . Please ensure that government funding will be allocated 
     to Planned Parenthood. Please do not have young or 
     socioeconomically strapped women potentially lose their life 
     over a cancer that is remedied when caught in its early 
     stages.

  That was the end of her letter. We need to listen to voices such as 
this. We need to listen to the women of America who rely on Planned 
Parenthood.
  Finally, I believe this bill goes to the heart of whether we can 
reach common ground on something on which we should all agree, the need 
to find ways to reduce the need for abortions in America. Let me say at 
the outset I strongly believe that we must preserve the right of every 
woman to her own reproductive choices that exist under the Supreme 
Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. But to reduce the number of abortions 
we must prevent unwanted pregnancies, just as we must also support 
women who want to carry their pregnancies to term. That is precisely 
what title X funding accomplishes. Family planning services at title X 
health centers, including Planned Parenthood, prevent an estimated 
973,000 unintended pregnancies a year and this in turn obviates what a 
woman might turn to in desperation, for hundreds of thousands of 
abortions every year.
  Unfortunately, during the debate on Planned Parenthood in recent days 
we have heard many wild and inaccurate claims about the work of this 
dedicated organization. On that score, I have always agreed with my 
former colleague, the late Senator Pat Moynihan, who said, ``People are 
entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own 
facts.'' Last week our distinguished colleague, the junior Senator from 
Arizona, stood here on the floor of the Senate and stated that abortion 
``is well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.'' He stated 
it right here on the Senate floor, the junior Senator from Arizona.
  Of course that is grossly inaccurate. Planned Parenthood spends the 
overwhelming majority of its resources keeping women healthy and 
preventing the need for abortion in the first place. The fact--the 
fact--is that just 3 percent of Planned Parenthood services are related 
to abortion.
  When news organizations asked the office of the Senator from Arizona 
for evidence of his claim, a spokesperson bizarrely stated: ``His 
remark was not intended to be a factual statement.'' What was it 
intended to be? The floor of the Senate is not the place for 
destructive and false assertions, especially when used to argue that an 
organization should be redlined and singled out for discrimination.
  For the record, Planned Parenthood is one of the most respected 
women's health organizations in the United States. It courageously 
defends the right of women in America to make informed, independent 
decisions about their health and family planning. By providing women 
with counsel and contraception, Planned Parenthood prevents countless 
unwanted pregnancies and thereby reduces the number of abortions in 
this country. Lest there be any misunderstanding, I intend this as a 
factual statement.
  Let me conclude by making clear that the one certain impact of this 
bill, if it were passed, would be to increase the number of abortions 
in America. This bill would dramatically erode the effectiveness of 
title X in preventing unintended pregnancies, preventing sexually 
transmitted infections, detecting cancers early, keeping people healthy 
through quality preventive care. It would have this impact because this 
misguided bill would ban an extraordinarily successful organization, 
Planned Parenthood, from providing these services.
  On this bill we have to say no to unintended pregnancies and 
unnecessary abortions; say no to this misguided and counterproductive 
bill.
  We will have this vote on the budget but then we have these two side 
votes, one that would defund the Affordable Care Act and send us back 
to the bad old days of health insurance companies deciding who gets 
what when at insanely big profits to them; second, it would ban Planned 
Parenthood from even applying to be a provider of health resources and 
services to 5.2 million women every year in this country.
  I hope that Congress, the Senate, will rise above these misguided 
bills, will rise above unfactual assertions made on the floor of the 
Senate no matter how they were intended, and that we will make sure 
Planned Parenthood can continue to provide the vital services it does 
in this country.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, after much drama and anticipation late 
last Friday night, literally minutes before the government was 
scheduled to shut down, as we all know, a deal was struck to pass a 
weeklong continuing resolution and keep the government operating. That 
was the seventh continuing resolution we have passed since the start of 
the fiscal year last October.
  Now we are appearing to consider the eighth and final continuing 
resolution to fund the government for the remaining 5 months of the 
fiscal year. Amazing. Eight continuing resolutions were necessary to 
fund the government for 1 year because my friends on the other side of 
the aisle neglected to bring a single one of the annual appropriations 
bills to the floor for consideration last year.
  As my colleagues know, in addition to continued funding for all 
government operations, the measure we will consider tomorrow includes 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the remainder of the 
fiscal year. Unfortunately, on top of the typical run-of-the-mill 
Washington budget gimmickry, this agreement also contains a gross 
misallocation of imperative defense resources.
  The Defense Department funding portion of this bill proposes $513 
billion for the routine operations of the Department of Defense and 
approximately $17 billion in military construction, for a total of $530 
billion. This amount is $19 billion less than the President's fiscal 
year 2011 budget request for the Defense Department and its related 
military construction projects and $10 billion less than the $540 
billion the Secretary of Defense had testified was the minimum amount 
the Department needed to execute its national defense mission.
  In addition, this bill also funds an additional $157.8 billion for 
overseas contingency operations, or war funding, to support our troops 
in combat, consistent with the President's budget request.
  I might add that the amounts Secretary Gates described as essential 
in January did not foresee that the United States would expend more 
than $650 million enforcing the no-fly zone in Libya, an amount that 
will most likely increase over the remaining months of the fiscal year.
  While this may seem like a defense funding level that we can live 
with in a tough fiscal climate bill, the bill is not what it appears to 
be on the surface.
  As the Secretary of Defense pointed out last week, funding to support 
the warfighter is degraded in this bill because billions in the war-
funding accounts--my staff has estimated close to $8 billion--have been 
allocated by the Appropriations Committee for new spending not 
requested by the administration or transferred to pay items

[[Page S2435]]

that were originally requested in the base budget for nonwar-related 
expenses. For instance, the bill shifts $3.2 billion in nonwar funding 
to the war-funding account to artificially lower defense spending for 
day-to-day operations but by doing so reduces funds for the warfighter. 
Here is an example. The appropriators have added $495 million for nine 
additional F-18s and funds them as part of the war-funding budget even 
though we have not lost any F-18s in the current conflicts.
  Additionally, the appropriators added $4.8 billion in unrequested 
funding to the war-funding part of the Defense bill for programs and 
activities that the President and Secretary Gates did not seek. For 
example, $192 million was added for additional missile defense 
interceptors. There was no administration request for these funds. And 
missile defense expenses are in no way related to the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  So this bill uses gimmicks and shell games to artificially lower the 
defense base budget rather than playing by the rules and actually 
demonstrating our commitment to fiscal responsibility. By doing so, it 
takes away billions of dollars that were originally requested for 
ongoing combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to support our troops 
where it is most needed.
  Within the $19 billion lower top line of the base defense budget, 
this bill continues business as usual with cuts exceeding $5 billion to 
the amounts the President and Secretary Gates requested for critical 
defense programs in order to pay for over $3.7 billion in unjustified 
and unexplained increases to other accounts.
  In addition to these shifts away from the Department of Defense 
priorities, this bill also adds over $1.4 billion for projects that 
were not requested by the Department and are not considered core 
activities of the Department of Defense.
  Let me give you examples of those misallocated resources. It includes 
$473 million in non-Department of Defense medical research not 
requested in the President's budget; $227 million in other medical 
research related to Department of Defense fields but not requested by 
the Pentagon; $550 million for local roads and schools not requested by 
the administration. It adds an additional $3.7 billion in program 
increases not justified by an unfunded request by the service chiefs or 
by the administration; adds unrequested funds for the Red Cross, $24 
million; Special Olympics, $1.2 million; youth mentoring programs, $20 
million. These are good programs, but they have no place in the 
Department of Defense. They should be in other areas. It cuts about $1 
billion in military construction requested in the President's budget, 
including $258 million for projects in Bahrain, the headquarters of the 
Navy's Fifth Fleet. It adds a reporting provision designed to be the 
first step in forcing the National Guard to buy firefighting aircraft 
rather than lease commercially available aircraft. It authorizes a 
multiyear procurement of Navy MH-60 helicopters.
  I want to be clear here. I know that cancer research is a popular 
cause on a bipartisan basis and that it has value in the larger scheme 
of things. I am not against funding for medical research to fight the 
scourge of cancer and other diseases. I support funding for these 
programs that are requested by the administration for the Department of 
Health and Human Services. But this sort of general medical research 
funding has no place in a defense bill. Placing it there, which the 
appropriators have done year after year, undercuts the fiscal 
responsibility and prioritization process we expect our Federal 
agencies to undertake when allocating scarce resources.
  So the Department of Defense is not only getting a significantly 
lower amount in its 2011 budget--$19 billion below what it asked for to 
support its routine operations and carry out its day-to-day national 
security mission and $10 billion below what Secretary Gates said in 
January was essential for the Department's ability to continue 
to function, but it is also being directed to spend about $8 billion in 
funding for items that do not directly support the men and women in the 
military.

  Let me point out one more disturbing aspect of the DOD portion of 
this bill. I understand from an exchange between my staff and the staff 
of the Senate Appropriations Committee that the committee is 
appropriating only ``top-line dollar amounts'' in this bill and not 
providing the customary tables, which is the description for each 
account, which outline the specifics of what is being funded. Instead, 
I have learned that the committee plans to communicate directly with 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense on funding levels in specific 
items.
  I do not have a problem with the Appropriations Committee providing a 
top-line dollar amount to the Pentagon and allowing the Secretary of 
Defense to fund our national security priorities as he sees fit. I am 
deeply concerned about the lack of transparency associated with this 
plan. I hope it is not a way to get around the earmark moratorium 
currently in place in both Houses. If a Member of Congress is 
dictating, through the Appropriations Committee, the use of scarce 
defense funds, it is an earmark, even if it was done over the phone. I 
urge the Department of Defense to not view such communications as law 
or a mandate.
  As I noted earlier, in addition to the misallocation of defense 
resources, this so-called deal uses typical Washington smoke-and-mirror 
tactics to achieve savings. According to expert analysis and numerous 
press reports, the agreement reached by negotiators last week used some 
of the same budget tricks and gimmickry that have helped us to 
accumulate our current deficit of $1.4 trillion and a debt of over 
$14.3 trillion.
  Yesterday, in an article by Andrew Taylor of the Associated Press, it 
was reported that details of last week's hard-won agreement to avoid a 
government shutdown and cut Federal spending by $38 billion were 
released Tuesday morning. They reveal that the budget cuts, while 
historic, were significantly eased by pruning money left over from 
previous years using accounting sleight of hand and going after 
programs President Obama had targeted anyway. The article also noted 
that details of the agreement ``reveal a lot of one-time savings and 
cuts that officially score as cuts to pay for spending elsewhere, but 
often have little or no impact on the deficit.''
  Additionally, an editorial appeared in today's Wall Street Journal 
titled ``Spending Cut Hokum: GOP leaders hyped their budget savings.'' 
In part, the editorial states:

       After separating out the accounting gimmicks and one-year 
     savings, the actual cuts look to be closer to $20 billion 
     than to the $38 billion that both sides advertized. But the 
     continuing resolution also saves money on paper through 
     phantom cuts. The whopper is declaring $6.2 billion in 
     savings by not spending money left from the 2010 Census. 
     Congress also cuts $4.9 billion from the Justice Department's 
     Crime Victims Fund, but much of that money was tucked away in 
     a reserve fund that would not have been spent this year in 
     any event.
       The budgeteers claim $630 million in cuts from what are 
     called ``orphan earmarks,'' or construction that never 
     started, and $2 billion more for transportation projects, 
     some of which were likely to be canceled. The Associated 
     Press reports that $350 million in savings comes from a 2009 
     program to pay diary farmers to compensate for low milk 
     prices. Milk prices are higher this year, so some of that 
     money also would never have been spent.
       An estimated $17 billion comes from one-time savings in 
     mandatory programs. The cuts are real, but the funding gets 
     restored by law the next year, which means Republicans will 
     have to refight the same battles. States lose some $3.5 
     billion in bonus money to enroll more kids in the Children's 
     Health Insurance Program, but many states failed to qualify 
     for that extra funding. These cuts don't reduce the spending 
     baseline, so there are no compound savings over time.
       None of this is enough to defeat the budget at this point, 
     but it is infuriating given the GOP leadership's flogging of 
     that $38 billion top-line figure.

  Is that the best we can offer the American people right now? In these 
tough economic times, with record debt and deficits and 8.8 percent 
unemployment, we give them smoke and mirrors, budget gimmickry, and 
accounting sleight of hand. Our government is bloated and precious 
taxpayer dollars are squandered in nearly every agency. You can't pick 
up a newspaper or go online without seeing reports of waste and 
duplication throughout Federal bureaucracies. I am pleased some real 
cuts have been made, but we need to do much more. This deal does little 
to address the very serious fiscal issues we face as a nation.
  I hope as we address the next crisis, which will be, obviously, as we 
reach the debt limit, that we will have more

[[Page S2436]]

serious plans. I also believe it is vitally important, before we raise 
the debt limit, that we can put this Nation on a path to a balanced 
budget. We cannot afford to continue to borrow 40 cents out of every 
dollar we spend in Washington. We cannot afford, as the commercial that 
many of us have seen on television, to have the Chinese own America's 
money, and the United States be in such debt that China has an 
increasing and unhealthy influence on the United States.
  I intend to vote for this agreement. I believe we could have done a 
lot better, but it is a step in the right direction. It is the first 
time we have made serious efforts to reduce spending in quite a number 
of years around here. I hope it will serve as something that the 
American people can support and spur us on to greater efforts in the 
coming weeks and months.
  I notice the presence of the majority leader, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I say to my good friend from Arizona, we 
came to the House of Representatives together, came to the Senate 
together. When we came here, we both had the same service except the 
State of Arizona had more people than the State of Nevada, so he is one 
step ahead of me in seniority. I appreciate my friend's statement.
  Mr. McCAIN. That is in the eye of the beholder. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate my friend's statement. He and I are both going 
to vote for this piece of legislation for different reasons, but as I 
have said publicly and privately, there have been very few people in 
the history of our country who have served our country so valiantly in 
battle and in the government than John McCain. Even though we have 
disagreed on a number of issues over the years, my admiration for him 
will always be there.
  (Mr. WHITEHOUSE assumed the chair.)

                          ____________________