[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 55 (Thursday, April 14, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2463-S2468]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONTINUING RESOLUTION
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to explain why I am voting no
on the budget deal later this afternoon.
First and foremost, I am voting no because I do not think this is a
meaningful, substantial start to getting our hands around what is the
biggest threat and potential crisis we face as a nation--out-of-control
spending and debt. I suppose $38 billion is more of a cut than we have
ever done. But if we put it in any other context, it is very modest
indeed.
Take a look at the 8 days leading up to the announcement of this deal
and those 8 days alone--barely more than a week. We as a nation racked
up $54 billion of brandnew debt, way more than the $38 billion of cuts
in just 8 days. That gives some perspective on exactly how modest and
how limited in meaning this is.
When you dig a little deeper to look at the details of the cuts, I am
afraid the picture gets even worse. A lot of these cuts are paper cuts
only--only cuts on paper that do not have a meaningful impact in the
real world. There has been significant reporting about this. The
Justice Department fund and other examples--that probably accounts for
$12 billion or $13 billion of the cuts.
In addition, yesterday the CBO issued a report that said only 1
percent of those cuts--$350 million or so--would have an impact this
fiscal year. All the rest is pushed off well into the future. Because
of that, I am voting no. I think we need a much stronger start to
getting our fiscal house in order.
In addition, I am very concerned about what this budget deal
continues to fund in terms of policy, in terms of impact on Americans'
lives. The clearest example of that for me is the continuing funding of
Planned Parenthood. I believe it is morally wrong to end an innocent
human life. I also believe it is morally reprehensible to take tax
dollars of millions of pro-life Americans in order to fund
organizations that do just that. Americans should not be forced to
subsidize abortions, much less fund our Nation's largest abortion
provider. That is what Planned Parenthood is, pure and simple.
Opponents of defunding Planned Parenthood have argued in the news and
even on the Senate floor that the organization provides many other
health care services other than abortions, such as mammograms. We have
seen recently that is a big fiction. Planned Parenthood's CEO repeated
this assertion recently on news shows. She claimed:
If this bill ever becomes law--
Meaning the defunding of Planned Parenthood--
millions of women in this country are going to lose their
healthcare access--not to abortion services--to basic family
planning, you know, mammograms.
As I said, in recent days, this has been shown to be a huge fiction.
Live Action, which is a pro-life group, recorded calls in the last
several days to 30 Planned Parenthood clinics in 27 States. In each
conversation, a woman calls in and asks if she can schedule an
appointment for a mammogram. And in each conversation, without
exception, the Planned Parenthood representative tells her they do not
provide mammograms. Period. One staffer admits:
We do not provide those services whatsoever.
Another explains:
We actually don't have a mammogram machine at our clinics.
The staffer at Planned Parenthood in DC was perhaps clearest. She
said:
We do not provide mammograms . . . we don't deal with the
health side of it so much. We're mostly a surgical facility.
By the way, surgery means one thing: abortion.
This Planned Parenthood staffer is exactly right: 98 percent of their
services to pregnant women constitute abortions--98 percent.
This chart lays this out very clearly. This pie chart represents 2009
Planned Parenthood services to pregnant women. The universe of services
to pregnant women, abortions is in dark red, 98 percent. Adoption
referrals is in blue. I apologize if you cannot see that. The sliver is
that tiny. You have to be up close. And all other prenatal care is in
green. That is the reality of Planned Parenthood.
We have also seen a recent onslaught of ads that claim Planned
Parenthood is simply a leading provider of women health services, but
abortion accounts for roughly one-third of the $1 billion generated by
its clinics. In fact, Planned Parenthood's annual report acknowledges
it provides primary care to 19,700 of its 3 million clients. Number of
clients: 3 million; those to whom it provided primary health care:
19,700.
The provision to cut title X funding for health services, such as
breast cancer screenings, HIV testing, counseling, and other valuable
family planning services, would not block funding for those services at
nonabortion providers. It would simply block funds from subsidizing
America's largest abortion provider, and abortion is almost everything
Planned Parenthood does.
Furthermore, Medicaid spends $1.4 billion on family planning each
year. Not $1 of those funds would be affected by this resolution and
this proposal. The question we face today is not if family planning and
women's health services will be provided but, instead, if we are going
to use that as an excuse to fund the biggest abortion provider in the
country which does little else.
Although I personally believe abortion is not a right guaranteed by
the Constitution, I recognize the sad reality that abortion on demand
is legal in this country. Again, this debate is not about that. It is
not about whether Planned Parenthood has the right to perform
abortions, and it is not about funding true health care services. The
question before us is whether millions of pro-life taxpayers have to
fund this entity.
Every year since 2000, the government has increased its funding of
Planned Parenthood on average $22.2 million per year. As a direct
reflection of that, the number of abortions they perform has
dramatically increased, even though the overall abortion rate, thank
God, in the United States has declined until 2008.
This chart lays out the situation clearly. What is in green
represents government grants and contracts to Planned Parenthood. It
has consistently gone up and up, a significant increase virtually every
year. What is in red represents abortions by Planned Parenthood. Very
interesting. There is
[[Page S2464]]
virtually the same slope of an increase, while at the same time for
this entire period until 2008 abortions nationwide were actually going
down.
I do not understand how anyone can look at this and say there is not
a connection, say we are not using taxpayer dollars to promote and fund
abortion. This notion that it is not used directly for abortion
services is a convenient fiction because it is a shell game, because
it, in fact, funds Planned Parenthood, and 98 percent of what they do
is about abortion.
According to their latest annual report, Planned Parenthood boasted
more than $363 million in taxpayer funding, the same year it performed
an unprecedented 324,000 abortions.
Planned Parenthood's abortion rate massively outpaces its adoption
referrals in particular. In 2008, a woman entering a Planned Parenthood
clinic was 134 times more likely to have an abortion than to be
referred for an adoption.
In fact, this final chart shows that as Planned Parenthood's abortion
rate steadily increased to that staggering number of 332,000 in 2009,
its adoption referrals actually decreased to 977 that same year. So
again, abortions are in deep red, adoption referrals are in blue, and
all other prenatal care is in green. What is the reality, what is the
history, what are the facts? Abortions go up dramatically in Planned
Parenthood, prenatal services go down, and adoption services go down as
abortions go up.
Planned Parenthood has made a profit every year since 1987, including
a $63.4 million return in 2009. There is no justification for
subsidizing Planned Parenthood's profitable venture with taxpayer
dollars, particularly when roughly half or more of those taxpayers
deeply disagree with abortion. The sanctity of human life is a
principle Congress should proclaim at every opportunity, and the time
has come to respect the wishes of so many millions of Americans who
have adamantly opposed using taxpayer dollars for abortions by denying
all Federal funding to this abortion machine.
This is a social issue, of course. It is also a fiscal issue. Our
Federal budget is out of control. We are facing unsustainable debt. So
given that, in particular, isn't it time to stop funding an
organization that millions of Americans have fundamental problems with?
If our Federal Government has any hope of regaining fiscal restraint,
we have to make significant cuts--more significant than are being
proposed in the deal before us today.
I refuse to believe that Planned Parenthood is the one sacred cow
that should stand untouched and be untouchable. The time has come to
change this situation and to respect the wishes of the huge majority of
Americans who, whether they are pro-life or prochoice, think taxpayer
dollars should not subsidize abortion. And that is clearly what is
going on with Planned Parenthood.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am so amazed that the lies that have
been stated about Planned Parenthood on this floor have been repeated
again and again. You know, it gets pretty bad when you are so
outrageous that Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart start to look at what
you are saying on the Senate floor. That is a rarity.
This all started when Senator Kyl took to the floor and said that 90
percent of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions. Well, that was a
little bit wrong. Ninety percent of what Planned Parenthood does is
health care--no abortions. As a matter of fact, it is 97 percent. And
every dollar of Federal funds that goes to health care may not, since
the 1970s--not one slim dime--go toward abortion.
Senator Vitter upped that just now and says that 98 percent of what
Planned Parenthood does is abortion. I don't know what he is thinking.
But let me reiterate, Planned Parenthood is a nonprofit organization.
He says they make a profit. You could say anything, but that doesn't
make it true.
I think it is interesting that in the 1960s and 1970s Planned
Parenthood, which has become the prime target of the rightwing of
Republicans, drew the support of prominent members of the GOP. Richard
Nixon signed family planning legislation that authorized Federal
funding for groups such as Planned Parenthood. Former Senator Barry
Goldwater's wife Peggy was a founding member of Planned Parenthood in
Arizona, and former President George Herbert Walker Bush, as a
Republican Congressman from Houston, spoke frequently on the House
floor about the issue. So it is astounding how the rightwing of the
Republican Party has walked so far away from their most revered
leaders. That is their choice. But it is also our choice as to whether
we are going to stand here and take it or come here and rebut what they
are saying.
So count me in and count the Democratic women and many men on this
side of the aisle who have stood sentry on this and told the truth
about this. And the truth is we are in a budget debate. Everything the
Republicans have said is that we have to close the deficit gap, we have
to cut spending, cut spending, cut spending. And we said: Okay, we will
join you, but where were you during George Bush's day? You never said a
word. But putting that aside, we will meet you. When we had the
majority and Bill Clinton was the President, we were the only ones who
did get a balanced budget and 23 million jobs. So we know how to do it,
and of course we are going to work with our colleagues. We met them
over 70 percent of the way on spending cuts. But guess what. They are
so ideological and so extreme that what we heard from Senator Vitter
today is not a discussion about the budget deficit and the fact that we
have to get on top of it and get that budget balanced, as we did under
the Clinton administration. We heard about abortion, abortion,
abortion, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Because, as I
said, not one slim dime of Federal money has been able to be used for
abortion since the 1970s, and 97 percent of what Planned Parenthood
does is health care, not abortion.
We know the real priority of these Republicans in Congress. We know
the real priority. We know what it is. It is an ideological agenda
that, frankly, puts women's health and women's lives at risk. Here we
had this huge debate over the budget--tough, getting down where we were
all sweating it out to within an hour of the moment the government
would shut down--and the two things the Republicans insisted on voting
on, on a budget bill, have nothing to do with the budget.
For every dollar that Planned Parenthood gets to help them do cancer
screenings for women, Pap smears, breast cancer screenings, STDs--and
they do for men as well--HIV testing, blood pressure checks, diabetes
checks, they charge a sliding scale. You walk in there, you have no
insurance, you have no money, you get the services for free. If you
have some, you pay some.
The bottom line is, this is what they are holding up this agreement
over, and they are forcing us to vote on Planned Parenthood and
repealing health care reform. I say that is extraordinary, because we
met them on the numbers. But in order to appease their rightwing
agenda, they are forcing these votes. If these bills were to pass, who
gets hurt? Women and their families.
I have some letters I have received from Californians, because
750,000 women are served by Planned Parenthood clinics in California--
750,000 women. That is actually more than some States have. I am going
to share a letter. I have shared a few of them, but I got this one
today.
Dear Senator Boxer, I don't write to you often because you
already stand up and fight for everything I believe in. I
heard you on NPR this morning talking about women's health
and the cuts the Republicans want to make to Planned
Parenthood.
I'm a 42 year old married professional. My husband and I
aren't in the highest bracket, but our combined income puts
us in the $170,000 year range. Frankly, we're happy, more
than happy to pay our fair share of taxes for the things that
will help our society as a whole.
We are appalled by the budget discussions. If you really
want to cut spending, do so where it is really outrageous . .
. defense and military. There's 60 percent right there.
However, what has me outraged right now is . . .
[[Page S2465]]
The Republican Party is.
. . . willing to shut down the government over a few
dollars for Planned Parenthood.
If you really cared about limiting abortion funding, family
planning is the first step. When I was 20 years old, I was
working my way through school. I was a sophomore in college
with limited income, no parental support, no health
insurance. The one thing I did have access to medically was
Planned Parenthood. The services were on a sliding scale, so
at my income of $850 a month, a gynecological exam was $10.
This meant that I went.
. . . I also got birth control pills there . . . However,
probably the most significant cross road in my life came
about because of Planned Parenthood. My family has a history
of female cancers. I had a Pap smear come back abnormal when
I was 21.
1). Had it not been for Planned Parenthood, I would not
have been able to afford the annual Pap smear.
2). Planned Parenthood did a biopsy on the ``abnormality.''
Again, it was a sliding scale and while I can't recall
exactly how much this was, it was something I could manage .
. .
3). Biopsy showed that it was a potentially very dangerous
pre-cancerous growth that needed to be removed.
4). I did eat beans and rice for the next 2 months to pay
my share to Planned Parenthood for removing this growth.
5). I had to have Paps 2 times a year for the next several
years . . . Again, all I could afford was Planned Parenthood.
Frankly, if it wasn't for Planned Parenthood, there's a
pretty good chance I wouldn't be here today. It's not about
abortion, it's about women's health.
I have to say, these are the letters I have been getting day after
day after day, and I am very proud of the people who have stood up and
told the truth to counter the lies I have heard, frankly from Members
of Congress. This woman's name is Heather Jones from Costa Mesa.
The bottom line is, if you turn and look at the two votes we are
going to have today, they both hurt women disproportionately. This
isn't about the budget. If it were about a budget, they would give more
money to the Title X program because for every dollar we invest, we
save $4 on the other side. What would have happened if Heather hadn't
found out she had a dangerous precancerous growth? That would have gone
forward, she would have gotten cancer, and Lord knows what it would
have cost. She didn't make any money at that time, so she would have
had to have help from her county. It would have cost taxpayers. She
would have been ill and gone through hell and back fighting this, and
who knows if she would have made it.
The second vote we are having has to do with rolling back health care
reform--another attack on women. It is an attack on everyone, but I
want to look at what it does to women. I know the Presiding Officer
knows this, because he has been a leader on this issue, but before we
passed our health reform law, being a woman was a preexisting
condition.
If you were the victim of domestic violence and you were a woman,
they wouldn't insure you. They would say: You have a preexisting
condition. What is that? Well, your husband beat you. And guess what.
He could do it again, so you are a high risk. Goodbye. We said no. No,
that can't happen. If you had a cesarean section and you tried to get
insurance, they would say: No, no. Since you had a cesarean section,
you could have another one. It is too expensive. Bye.
We said, no; you can't do that. You can't turn away people simply
because they were the victim of domestic violence or had a Caesarean.
You cannot turn away a person because she is a woman. In 2014,
insurance companies will not be able to deny anyone coverage because of
a preexisting condition.
Another issue my colleague fought hard on, along with all of us, is
gender rating. Insurance companies charge women in California nearly 40
percent more than men for similar coverage. Can you imagine? So when
they say let's repeal health reform, who are they hurting?
Disproportionately women. When they say no more funding for Planned
Parenthood to continue their great work on basic health care, who are
they hurting disproportionately? Women.
Preventive care was a key in that health reform. I thank the
Presiding Officer. He served on the appropriate committee that made
that decision. I will tell you, right now women delay or avoid getting
preventive care, but once health reform goes into place we know there
will be preventive health care services such as mammograms without a
copay or a deductible. So when you repeal the health reform and
everything we did for the people, who do you hurt? Women. Who is going
to get sick more than any other group? Women.
Maternity care is not covered by many insurance companies. We changed
all that. By 2014 insurance will be required to cover maternity care
services.
Let's look at Medicare. We made many reforms in health care dealing
with Medicare. More than half of the people who depend on Medicare are
women; 56 percent of Medicare recipients are women. When you end
Medicare, as Mr. Ryan does in his so-called Ryan budget where he ends
Medicare--let's call it what it is--you are throwing women under the
bus. This time it is elderly women. How proud are you of that, Mr.
Ryan? I am not proud that kind of proposal would come out, and it is
starting here today, when we vote to repeal health care reform.
Health care reform extended the life of the Medicare trust fund by 12
years, to 2037. Why on Earth would the Republicans want to repeal a law
that strengthens Medicare and makes it viable until 2037?
Let me tell you what else would be repealed if they have their way
today. Every senior on Medicare is going to get a free annual wellness
exam. Let me repeat that. Every person on Medicare is going to get a
free annual wellness exam. It will get them access to preventive health
services such as vaccinations and cancer screenings with no copay and
no deductible. Why did we do that? First and foremost, we did it
because it is the right thing to do, but it saves money at the end of
the day when we invest up front in prevention.
That is why the Congressional Budget Office said our bill saves
billions of dollars over time. Investing in prevention--just like
Planned Parenthood did with my constituent, Heather, where a cancer was
discovered early--means that an individual will get the care early,
will get on top of this and will not have to spend a lot of money on it
and will be spared the pain and suffering and all the rest that goes
with cancer.
There is one more thing that they repeal. I didn't see this one. If
they get their way today, seniors are not going to see that infamous
doughnut hole that they fall into on their prescription drugs closed.
They are not going to see that closed. Right now it happens after they
pay a certain amount of money for their prescription drugs, a couple of
thousand dollars. Then they say Medicare prescription drug coverage is
not going to cover them. So they fall into that doughnut hole. We close
that forever by 2020. They want to cancel that so seniors are going to
have to pay more for their prescription drugs.
We live in the greatest country in the world, and we have access to
so many wonderful health advances--be they medical devices, be they
prescription drugs. But what good does it do if we cannot get those
things?
By repealing health care reform--which our Republican friends want to
do, and today we have a vote to do it--seniors, women, and their
families will lose access to lifesaving drugs. They will lose access to
preventive care. They will lose access to fair insurance coverage.
Again, disproportionately it impacts women. That is just the way the
demographics are because 56 percent of Medicare recipients are women.
Let's be very clear. Let's send a strong message tonight, or whatever
time it is that we vote on these two amendments, that we are standing
strong--if we vote them down--we are standing strong for women, we are
standing strong for their families, we are standing strong for
Americans. Anyone who would take these important reforms away, anyone
who would say we do not care about the 3 million people who get their
health care from Planned Parenthood, are saying they do not care much
about those people.
By the way, there was some news program that said: What do you need
Planned Parenthood for? You can go to Walgreens and get all those
services? Somebody said. I never heard of getting a Pap smear at
Walgreens or a breast cancer screening, that doesn't come to mind. So
Walgreens actually had to put out a press release stating they do not
do those things.
[[Page S2466]]
Let's start talking the truth on the floor of the Senate. The truth
is, there is an ideological agenda around this place, and it is
crystallizing. My Republican friends have gone a bridge too far. People
are catching on because now it is starting to affect them. They are
Republicans, they are Independents, they are Democrats. This is not
about party. I can assure you, the people who are writing me who go to
Planned Parenthood to get their health care, their preventive care,
their blood pressure checked, their diabetes checked, they come from
every political party.
The Title X program, in the beginning, and when it was formed, had
the strongest support from Republicans. That is how it was. But these
Republicans today have walked so far away from their own party that
they are looking at a bill signed by Richard Nixon, voted for by George
Herbert Walker Bush, and saying: No, we are not interested in family
planning. They are distorting the debate.
If people want fewer abortions there is one place we can all walk
together; that is, prevention of unwanted pregnancies, birth control,
contraception. They do not even want that. They do not even want that.
They have just overreached.
I am a person who says I respect you know matter what your views are.
I would stand in front of a truck to protect your right to state your
views, whatever they are. I do not tell people what to think about
issues. I think they should be respected for what they decide. But big
government should not be telling people what to think about the most
personal decisions. That is not what America is about.
We have, over the years, crafted some good compromises in the area of
reproductive health care. We have said people have a right to choose in
the early stages of a pregnancy. That is what the Supreme Court has
said. It has been upheld since the 1970s. In the beginning of a
pregnancy, a woman and her family and her doctor and her God, that is
who will be consulted. It is up to her to make that decision, early in
the pregnancy.
As the pregnancy moves on, the State has an interest in the decision
on this issue. As the pregnancy moves on--but always her life and
health must be protected. That is the law. Not one penny of Federal
funds can be used for abortion except in the case of rape, incest, life
of the mother.
I happen to be the one who carried that amendment on rape and incest
because before that, we did not have that amendment. That was over on
the House side many years ago. We have a compromise. I would say to my
friends, if you do not like that compromise then come on the Senate
floor and make a woman a criminal and make a doctor a criminal--
introduce your legislation. We will fight it out and the people will
weigh in. What the people will say is: Compromise. Compromise is fair.
It is not perfect, but it is fair. But, no, that is not what they will
do because they know if they say a woman is a criminal, it is a bridge
too far.
So what they try to do is vilify an organization that has been in
place for 95 years, Planned Parenthood. They will vilify an
organization when 97 percent of their work goes to basic health care
and family planning. It is really sad. It is wrong. I am here to say
every time it comes up--the women Democrats, we have been on the Senate
floor already. We are going to continue this battle with our male
friends because nobody can tell me they care about women when they are
about to vote to deny women basic health care. No one can tell me they
care about families when they are about to deny families basic health
care. No one can tell me they care about families when they want to
repeal a law that outlaws gender discrimination, that outlaws the
ability of an insurance company to turn you away if you were the victim
of domestic violence or had a Cesarean section.
Nobody can tell me you care about seniors when you embrace the Ryan
budget that ends Medicare. No one can tell me you care about seniors
when, today, you are going to have a vote to repeal health care reform
that gives them more funding for their prescription drugs, that gives
them free wellness checks without a copay or deductible.
We always say around here: Whose side are you on? Are you on the side
of the people, or are you on the side of the insurance companies? Are
you on the side of the people, or are you more interested in scoring
political, ideological points with the extreme wing of your party?
Those are the questions. I think the answer is going to come back
tonight. I think we are going to defeat these two radical amendments. I
hope it will send a message to our House friends who are going to have
a radical budget that the experts tell us is going to lose hundreds of
thousands of jobs--I correct myself, the experts tell us the Ryan
budget would lead to the loss of 2.2 million jobs. Can you imagine?
The only beneficiary of that budget is billionaires and
multimillionaires. I am happy to be in the Senate at this moment in
history because, to me, these are the issues. I have to say, these are
the issues I had in my campaign, and they were very direct.
I thank the people of California for sending me back here. We have 38
million people, the largest State in the Union. Every time you take
away something from a Planned Parenthood or another health care center,
you hurt more of my people than anybody else because we are such a
large State. Today we start the votes, and I am grateful I could stand
up and speak out against both of these radical amendments--one to
defund an organization that is helping 3 million people a year in
America, and, second, repeal of health care reform that does so much
good. I think we are going to win those votes, and I certainly hope so.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we as a country are in a very serious
financial situation. We all know we have to reduce spending. This year
we will spend $3.7 trillion but take in only $2.2 trillion--40 cents of
every $1 is borrowed.
The President has acknowledged a stunning revelation, that under his
budget he submitted 2 months ago, something I repeatedly have talked
about--in the 10th year, the amount of interest on our debt will be
almost $1 trillion. This is fact.
We are on an unsustainable course. As every witness to come before
the Budget Committee has told us: You have to do better. You cannot
continue in this fashion any longer. The President's debt commission
Chairmen, Mr. Erskine Bowles and former Senator Alan Simpson, told us
we are facing the most predictable debt crisis in our history if we do
not change.
They did not say it could happen to our children and grandchildren,
they said it could happen in 2 years. Mr. Bowles said maybe earlier
than 2 years, maybe some time after that. Senator Simpson said, I think
we can have a debt crisis in 1 year. Hopefully, this will not happen.
But we have to get spending under control. There are two ways to do
it. One is to work hard, do what we are paid to do as legislators and
identify the less-productive, less-defensible spending programs and
eliminate them and try to protect as much as we can the programs that
are more productive and doing good for America.
Another way to do it is reduce everything across the board and just
cut it all by a certain percentage, and reduce spending that way. You
could do either. I think most people would say, we should eliminate the
programs that are least defensible first, before we have to reduce
spending in programs that are more justified.
So, regardless, how do we make the decision?
I have heard the debate about Planned Parenthood and the money they
get. I have not been particularly knowledgeable about it until
recently. I serve as ranking member of the Budget Committee, so I know
something about the debt crisis we are in. So the question is, Is
Planned Parenthood a program that is less defensible and ought to have
its funding eliminated or reduced significantly so other programs that
are more defensible do not have to be cut?
Looking at the facts, I find that Planned Parenthood has far more
difficulty defending its legitimacy as a Federal recipient of millions
of dollars than other institutions. This is a private group that sets
about to do all kinds of things. One of the largest things it does is
provide abortions. They have a very strong ideological agenda that a
lot of the American people do not agree with. Why should we
[[Page S2467]]
fund it? There are many other organizations out there, all over
America, that do what they think to be good things and are not funded
by the U.S. Government.
So let's just look at it a little bit. I was sort of surprised
actually. In 2009, the last year we have gotten a report, Planned
Parenthood reported providing 332,278 abortions in the United States. I
didn't know that--332,000. This is the highest total ever recorded, and
the 15th consecutive year that the number of abortions they have
provided has increased.
Overall, though, abortions in the United States are going down. You
see that sonogram and you see that unborn child and the American people
are getting a lot more uneasy about this idea taking an unborn life.
Overall, abortions have decreased by almost 25 percent in the past
two decades nationwide, voluntarily reduced by individual decisions by
Americans. Yet during that same time, Planned Parenthood abortions have
doubled.
Planned Parenthood consistently claims that abortions account for
only 3 percent of their services; 97 percent is spent on other
projects, they say. But yet in that same fact sheet on which they make
that assertion, they state that 12 percent--that is more than in 1 in
10--of their health care patients receive an abortion.
That is a surprise to me. Think about that. They state that 12
percent--that is more than the 1 in 10--of their health care patients
who come in to Planned Parenthood receive an abortion. So what about
the other solutions? Are there not other solutions to pregnancies other
than abortion?
In 2009, their report indicates that Planned Parenthood made 1
adoption referral for every 340 abortions performed. They made a scant
977 adoption referrals compared to over 330,000 abortions. That is a
decline of almost 60 percent from 2008. In 2008, they did 60 percent
more referrals when it made 2,400 adoption referrals. So this is a
major change in what is going on at Planned Parenthood.
It appears this is an advocacy organization that is committed to one
solution for people struggling with pregnancies. I tell you, I have a
letter here, I will not quote it, but I have a letter from a woman in
Alabama who had an abortion who still feels pain about that and wrote
me saying not to fund this. I just say that because my colleague
suggested only men would favor reducing this funding.
I tell you another thing that I did not know and was very surprised
about: the amount of Federal money that they receive. No wonder there
is a big brouhaha here, because this is a lot of money. Congress is
providing $363 million a year to Planned Parenthood. That is a lot.
Over 10 years--as we have been scoring everything here over a 10-year
budget--that is $4 billion--quite a lot of money.
Many people in the country feel strongly that, OK, they say the
Supreme Court has ruled on this. They have said that under the
Constitution abortions under some circumstances cannot be prohibited.
But they are saying the Federal Government does not have to pay for it,
does not have to fund it, and should not use taxpayer money to do so.
So my colleagues say: Well, we agree with that principle and Planned
Parenthood money does not directly fund abortions. We are giving the
money to Planned Parenthood, but they are not able to use it for
abortions. But if 12 percent of their patients are obtaining abortions,
and they are getting $363 million per year, I think it is a fact that
the Federal funding furthers their ability to grow and expand their
lead as the No. 1 abortion provider in the country.
I think, all in all, we do not have enough money to do a lot of good
things. We have, some people forget, rural health clinics and urban
health clinics that are funded and organized by the government to meet
health needs of the poor. We do not have to use money to help fund this
private entity that has an agenda. I do not believe it is radical to
say this is one place we could save money. I do not think it is
extreme.
My best judgment tells me that if we do not have enough money, and 40
percent of what we spend is borrowed, we shouldn't borrow $363 million
this year to fund a program like Planned Parenthood. This is one
program that we could legitimately say does not have to have taxpayers'
money and should have its funding terminated.
I also would support the resolution concerning the health care bill.
It is clearly a piece of legislation that costs the taxpayers large
sums of money. It is not a piece of legislation that adds money to the
Treasury, as has been suggested. The Congressional Budget Office has
written a letter to me that stated explicitly that the administration
is double-counting money to claim savings. If they were not double-
counting the money they took from Medicare to fund this new program,
then the health care bill would score to be a clear drain on the
Treasury.
They have to use a gimmick of double accounting to justify that. It
is not the right way to do it and is the reason the country is going
broke.
So, while today's vote may largely be symbolic, it is a crucial step
in showing the necessity of eliminating this intrusive and costly
healthcare law and replacing it with reforms that will provide
Americans with access to quality, affordable health care, reduce
skyrocketing health care costs and put our Nation on a more sustainable
fiscal path.
The Democrats' health legislation was sold as a package that would
reduce insurance premiums by $2,500 per family, trim the Federal
deficit, and immediately create 400,000 new jobs. Sadly, none of these
promises have been met.
Instead, the new health care law will cause health care spending to
surge over the next decade, and Americans will see dramatic increases
in their premiums, and many of them already have. Half of those
recently polled in a Kaiser Family Foundation poll claim that their
premiums have gone up recently. The Federal deficit will increase by an
additional $700 billion, and the law's expensive mandates, penalties,
and tax hikes will lead to job losses and persistent economic
uncertainty, as many small business owners have told me.
As our Nation's reckless fiscal policy brings us ever closer to a
tipping point, respected economists across the country have stressed
the need for Congress to reduce Federal spending and contain our
mounting health costs.
Rather than tackle these problems that threaten the long-term
stability of our Nation, the new health care law exacerbates our fiscal
crisis by creating an open-ended entitlement and introducing $2.6
trillion in new Federal spending.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the new health care law
will cause insurance premiums in the individual market to soar by 10 to
13 percent for American families, translating to a $2,100 increase for
families purchasing their own health care coverage by 2016.
Total health care spending in the U.S. already consumes 17.3 percent
of GDP, the largest of any industrialized nation. Under the new law,
national health care spending will approach 20 percent of GDP by the
end of the decade.
Sadly, many supporters of the health care law continue to perpetuate
the myth that it will not increase the deficit. A thorough examination
of the law pulls back the curtain to expose the deceptive budget
gimmicks and reveal its true cost.
When the bill was first introduced, the Democrats sold the plan to
Americans by double-counting $398 billion in Medicare cuts and taxes,
$29 billion in Social Security taxes, and $70 billion in new long-term
care premiums to pay for the new health care spending. This is
according to a CBO report I requested. This double accounting was
stunning and existed to justify the claim that the law will reduce
costs.
Additionally, since CBO reports evaluate legislative proposals over a
10-year budget window, the new law was written to delay most of the new
spending until 2014, while immediately implementing the program cuts
and tax increases to allow 10 years of offsets to pay for only 6 years
of spending. In order to convince Americans of the plan's merits, which
they failed to do, they had to use accounting gimmicks that hide the
true long-term costs of this monstrous law.
Only in Washington will people claim that spending $2.6 trillion and
dramatically expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government is
good for our Nation's fiscal health.
[[Page S2468]]
Former Director of the Congressional Budget Office Douglas Holz-
Eakin, an economist who understands the budget gimmicks used in
Washington, cowrote an article in the Wall Street Journal in January
that eliminates any confusion about the law's impact. This article
titled ``Health Care Repeal Won't Add to the Deficit'' clearly refutes
the law's supporters:
Repeal is the logical first step toward restoring fiscal
sanity. . . . How, then, does the Affordable Care Act
magically convert $1 trillion in new spending into painless
deficit reduction? It's all about budget gimmicks, deceptive
accounting, and implausible assumptions used to create the
false impression of fiscal discipline . . . Repeal isn't a
budget buster; keeping the Affordable Care Act is.
A poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University
conducted around the same time that this article was written revealed
that the American people are seeing through these ploys: 60 percent of
the country believes the health care law will increase the deficit over
the next 10 years, while only 11 percent thinks it will lower the
deficit.
Once again, the America people prove that they are wiser than
Washington. The final point I wish to make about the health care law is
its debilitating impact on jobs and our economic recovery. In meeting
with many small businesses, they are passionate on this point.
The expensive mandates and penalties included in the health care law
coupled with the rising costs of insurance facing families and
businesses have enveloped our economy in a cloud of uncertainty.
Already, over 6,000 pages of new health care regulations have been
written by the Obama administration, burdening employers of all sizes
as they make strategic decisions about business expansion, hiring
additional employees, and long-term investments, three keys to the
private sector recovery essential to getting Americans back to work.
Economic estimates indicate that repealing the health care law that
threatens our economic recovery would save 700,000 American jobs.
It is imperative that Congress repeal this law that is burdening
employers and stifling economic growth, and replace it with solutions
that will lower health costs and avert the mounting fiscal crisis
facing our Republic.
During the recent election, the American public rebelled against the
unchecked spending and unprecedented government expansion that threaten
our children's future. Their message to Congress was clear: adopt
policies to change our unsustainable trajectory and rein in the cost
and size of the government. Congressman Paul Ryan has submitted a
budget for 2012 that is responsible, honest, and straightforward in the
way that it deals with the debt problem facing our children and
grandchildren. Repealing this flawed and fiscally unsustainable health
care law, which is an important part of his plan, would be another step
in the right direction and would help to change the devastating
trajectory that we are on.
I urge my colleagues to heed the public's call and repeal this
legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
____________________