[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 87 (Thursday, June 16, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3874-S3878]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REVITALIZATION BILL

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I want to thank the Senator from Nevada, 
my friend, the majority leader, Senator Reid, for his remarks, And I 
want to thank him for filing cloture on the EDA bill. He said the 
Economic Development Administration was started by Richard Nixon. 
Actually it was continued by Richard Nixon. It was started by Lyndon 
Johnson in 1965 and supported by Presidents whether they were 
Republican, Democrat, liberal, moderate, or conservative.
  Congress has supported this legislation. The last time the EDA was 
authorized, it was authorized by a voice vote in the Senate when George 
W. Bush was President and he signed it into law.
  So one has to ask one's self: Why do we find ourselves in the middle 
of a filibuster? Why do we find ourselves with 91 amendments filed to 
this little bill that takes a $500 million authorization and, because 
of the effect it has on the private sector, draws in private sector 
matching funds 7 to 1 and means it is a $3 billion a year, basically, 
jobs bill? This is a jobs bill. Every Republican and every Democrat I 
know around here says: jobs, jobs, jobs. But they are killing another 
jobs bill. I think the American people have to understand, this list of 
amendments that has been filed--Senator Reid went through a few of 
them. There is even one that relates to the prairie chicken. With all 
due respect, there may be a lot of issues surrounding the prairie 
chicken, but it has nothing to do with an Economic Development Act 
bill.
  It goes on and on. It talks about protecting free choice for workers 
to refrain from participating in labor unions. This sounds familiar 
from a Governor from the Midwest. It talks about amending the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act.
  Let's face it, we were not born yesterday. I wish I were, but I was 
not. The fact is--the print on this list is too small to even show up 
on the screen--we have a three-page list of amendments. We have 91 
amendments filed to this bill--which is a jobs bill, which is a simple 
bill to reauthorize the Economic Development Administration's programs.
  EDA is a great job creator. In our committee, every single Democrat 
and Republican, save one individual, voted for this bill. So it is 
bipartisan. It has been supported by Presidents since Lyndon Johnson. 
It has created, over time, millions of jobs. We know this particular 
bill, at its current funding level, would support up to 200,000 jobs a 
year or up to a million jobs over 5 years. And they are good jobs.
  How does that happen? Because the EDA goes into local communities 
that have high unemployment rates. They bring together the local 
governments,

[[Page S3875]]

the State government, the private sector, the nonprofits, and they say: 
What do you want to do here to attract industry, to attract consumers 
here? What do you want to do to rehabilitate this community?
  Sometimes they say: We need a new road. We need a new water project. 
We want to build an industrial park for new businesses. And this is 
what EDA does. So they are locally controlled ideas and a coming 
together of the Federal Government, the local government, the State 
government, and the nonprofits in a beautiful package that has resulted 
in millions of jobs over time since it started.
  Here is what I want to say today as I go through my statement. The 
first thing I want to say is, we know what the other side is doing. 
They are killing these jobs bills by a frivolous list of amendment 
after amendment after amendment that has nothing to do with the bill.
  This is not the first time. In this very spot, a few weeks ago, stood 
another Senator with a southern accent, Mary Landrieu from Louisiana. 
She is the chairman of the Small Business Committee. She had a 
fantastic bill called SBIR. It is a small business innovation research 
program that has been in place since the 1980s, brought to us by a 
Republican Senator named Warren Rudman.
  Again, it is a bill that has always been without controversy. What 
did they do to that bill, my Republican friends? Death by filibuster, 
death by amendment, kill that jobs bill right here on the floor.
  If you put that in the context of everything the Republicans have 
done since they picked up more seats around here, and they took over 
the House, here is the list: They still have not appointed conferees to 
the FAA, Federal Aviation Administration, bill conference. That bill 
will create 280,000 jobs. It modernizes our airports. It gets rid of 
the old ways we track planes and brings our air traffic control system 
into the 21st century.
  Senator Rockefeller has worked so hard. It is sitting over there 
waiting for conferees. I am a conferee here on this side. I am waiting 
to go get this bill done. It is essential. It has a passenger bill of 
rights attached to it, which is so important. It will make sure our 
systems work properly. It will put in place safety features. Jobs, 
jobs, and jobs. They have not done a thing.
  The patent bill. I had some problems with the patent bill because I 
did not like one or two provisions. But the bottom line is, the patent 
bill is expected to create 300,000 jobs. It is sitting over in the 
House. No action. So since they took over, they have passed a bill to 
destroy Medicare, destroy education--it is known as their budget. But 
when it comes to jobs, there is no beef. And we are perplexed.
  This bill has attached to it--the EDA bill--now an ending of the 
ethanol subsidy. I happened to vote for that. The fact of the matter 
is, whether you supported it or you did not, it is going to save 
billions. So now the EDA bill is not only a jobs bill that leverages 
billions of dollars to create jobs from the private sector, but it 
reduces the deficit because it has this amendment on ethanol.
  I would say to my friends who may be listening from their offices, 
when we come back next week, vote ``yes'' to cut off debate and get 
this bill done. Get this bill done.
  I have talked about the fact that Senate Republicans have supported 
this program continually. I wish to tell you some of the things they 
have said about the EDA. Remember, I am quoting Senate Republicans who 
are trying to kill this bill by loading it up and filibustering it.
  Twenty-six of the current Republican Senators have made positive 
statements about EDA or put out great press releases in their States, 
and I agree with what they said.
  For example, Senator Cochran of Mississippi praised the EDA grant 
intended to help spur economic development in northeast Mississippi. He 
said:

       This region has suffered during the economic downturn, but 
     the Three Rivers has been diligent about working to help 
     create jobs. . . .

  This is what he said about an EDA grant.
  Senator Cornyn of Texas said a $2 million EDA grant for a water tower 
will ``pave the way for creation of new jobs and business 
opportunities'' in Palestine, TX.
  But they are filibustering this bill.
  Senator Crapo says EDA business grants will help ``keep Idaho firms 
on the cutting edge in various fields. . . .'' He says:

       This can make Idaho firms successful, which translates into 
     more jobs and revenue in Idaho.

  So my Republican friends, while they are trying to kill this bill by 
filibuster, have said laudatory things about the EDA. You explain it to 
me. I think I have an answer as to why they are doing it. But I will 
continue.
  Let's see what Senator Wicker said when he got a grant:

       These federal dollars will fund rail improvements and help 
     bring new jobs and economic growth. . . . I am glad the 
     federal government has taken this step to continue its 
     investment in South Mississippi's recovery.

  These are all the Republicans who are killing this bill with a 
filibuster.
  Senator Collins--a $1.1 million grant to fund renovations at Loring 
Development Authority. She and Senator Snowe praised the EDA. They 
said:

       This investment by EDA will allow for improvements and 
     upgrades . . . which in turn, will help encourage further 
     business growth. Loring will continue to be an economic 
     driver for the region, creating good jobs in Aroostook 
     County.

  This is just a small sample of more than 26 Republican Senators who 
have praised the EDA. Yet each one of them seems to be supporting 
endless debate, amendments that have nothing to do with the bill. But 
they all have a chance to do the right thing on Tuesday and vote to cut 
off debate.
  We have had some tough amendments to this bill already. It has gone a 
couple of weeks. It is time we had a clean vote because--guess what--
jobs are what it is all about.
  I am going to not go on too much longer, but I felt it is important 
to explain to the American people--who, by the way, give Congress an 
18-percent positive rating. Hello. Is it no wonder? We are doing 
nothing about jobs. Every time we try to do something, it is stymied.
  I laid out what they have done, the Republicans. End Medicare as we 
know it. By the way, pass a slew of abortion bills. It is unbelievable 
to me. And these straightforward jobs bills go nowhere. So do not tell 
me you are for jobs and then come down to this floor and offer 
amendment after amendment on the prairie chicken, on the border fence, 
on issue after issue that has nothing to do with this EDA bill.
  EDA creates a job for every $3,000 invested. That is incredibly good. 
We invest $3,000 and a good-paying job comes about. Why? Because the 
matching funds come in.
  This is the time we have a chance to create 200,000 jobs a year over 
the 5 years of this bill. So here is the thing. Again, we need, in 
these tough times, as we are going to get our arms around this 
deficit--and here is the thing I find interesting: There is lots of 
talk about how to cure the deficit from the other side. But they forget 
some of the easiest ways to do it. One is, say to billionaires: Thank 
you very much. You have gotten millions back a year. Let's go back to 
your rate that you had when Bill Clinton was President. You made a 
fortune then. You will still make a fortune and help out with this 
deficit, millionaires and billionaires.
  Oh, they do not want to do that, our friends on the other side. They 
want to destroy the EPA. They want to destroy the Department of Energy. 
They want to destroy the Department of Education. They want to destroy 
Medicare. That is their answer. Why? To pay for tax cuts for the 
richest of the richest of the richest. Explain to me how that helps the 
middle class in this great Nation.
  Another way. You want to cure the deficit and the debt? End the wars. 
End the combat mission. Bring home the troops. Let's work 
diplomatically in Iraq and Afghanistan. I met with the Afghanistan 
women who are struggling there. They do not want combat troops. They 
want help to get a peace and reconciliation process going. It is time 
to end the wars.
  Our highway trust fund, which is so critical, is short $6 billion. 
And it is difficult. That is the trust fund that pays for the highways, 
for the bridges that are falling down, for the infrastructure 
improvements for our transportation system. And I know it is hard to 
find $6 billion.

[[Page S3876]]

  But we are spending $12 billion a month on the wars in Afghanistan 
and Iraq. Bring the money home. It is time we spend it in this country 
for our people. We are not going to walk away from our responsibility. 
We are still going to have the counterterrorism going on. We are still 
going to protect our personnel who are there. We are still going to 
work for peace and reconciliation.
  But you want to talk about the ways to cure this deficit, it is not 
that hard. We did it before, we can do it again. The Democrats balanced 
the budget under Bill Clinton--the only time it was done in recent 
history--and we created 23 million jobs, not by threatening Medicare 
and Social Security, and the Department of Education, and the EPA, and 
the Clean Air Act, and all of the things they are going after here, but 
by doing the right thing by our children and our grandchildren and 
making the right investment, to become energy independent.
  So for me, the argument of not being able to do anything because of 
the deficit, something is wrong with that. You have to cure the deficit 
problem and make the investments that make sense. Here is an investment 
that makes sense. For every dollar of EDA investment, you get $7 in 
private sector investment. That is what we ought to be doing.
  I said this before, I will say it again: For every one job we create, 
it costs us approximately $3,000 per job. These are good jobs. It is a 
smart program for us. That is why it has lasted since the 1960s. I said 
before, up to 200,000 jobs a year could be created here, 1 million jobs 
over the life of this bill. What are we doing loading down a beautiful 
bill such as this with all of these extraneous amendments?
  We will look at a couple more charts. If you want to know how many 
jobs were created between 2005 and 2010, 450,000 jobs, and 85,000 jobs 
were saved. So we are not talking about some ethereal idea of a new 
jobs bill. This is a jobs bill that has worked, and it is a jobs bill 
that should not be filibustered. It should not be stalled. It should 
not be loaded up with things that have nothing to do with it while the 
American people worry and give us an 18-percent approval rating. I am 
surprised it is that high at the rate we are going.
  Look at some of the folks who support this: the United States 
Conference of Mayors, the American Public Works Association, the 
National Association of Counties, the AFL-CIO, the Council on 
Competitiveness, the Association of University Research Parks, the 
National Association of Development Organizations, the National 
Business Incubation Association, the State Science and Technology 
Institute, and an arm of the Chamber of Commerce has come in with a 
letter.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     June 7, 2011.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senator, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: I am writing to share with you the U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce Business Civic Leadership Center (BCLC)'s 
     positive experience in working with the Economic Development 
     Administration (EDA). BCLC has worked with EDA on numerous 
     projects over the past ten years to help local communities 
     with their economic development, regional sustainability, and 
     disaster recovery initiatives. EDA has served as a valuable 
     partner in many communities that BCLC has worked in 
     including: San Jose, CA, Seattle, WA, Cedar Rapids, IA, 
     Mobile, AL, New Orleans, LA, Atlanta, GA, Boca Raton, FL, 
     Minneapolis, MN, Newark, NJ and many others.
       We have worked with EDA on projects including:
       Conducting regional forums designed to bring corporate 
     contributions professionals together with economic 
     development experts and civic sector innovators to discuss 
     how businesses' corporate citizenship practices can advance 
     the competitiveness and long-term development of their 
     communities.
       Providing opportunities to build up relationships between 
     and among companies and government agencies at the local and 
     national levels.
       Developing a report that maps how and why companies invest 
     in communities across the United States.
       Writing a report on economic recovery and rebuilding in 
     Cedar Rapids after the flooding in 2008.
       Sending economic development teams to cities across the 
     Gulf Coast to provide valuable oil spill recovery resources 
     and information.
       Working with local chambers of commerce in disaster 
     affected areas regions to provide local recovery grants.
       BCLC is the corporate citizenship arm of the U.S. Chamber 
     of Commerce, and in this capacity we work with thousands of 
     businesses and local chambers of commerce on community 
     development and disaster recovery issues across the country. 
     These local chambers and businesses are consistently looking 
     for national best practices, lessons learned, technical 
     assistance, planning and strategy support, and other 
     insights, tools, and techniques to make their communities as 
     economically competitive as possible.
       In our experience, EDA staff members have displayed a high 
     degree of professionalism and technical expertise. They have 
     engaged with us on multiple levels, from consultations at the 
     national level, to sharing valuable field experience at the 
     state and local levels.
       We have canvassed many businesses and local chambers about 
     their community development needs, and they almost 
     unanimously tell us that some of their highest local 
     priorities include business recruitment and retention, and 
     helping small and medium-sized businesses grow. They also 
     tell us that support for regional economic development 
     planning that transcends municipal boundaries is an 
     increasing area of interest, and that this is a unique 
     capability that EDA can and does support.
       As you consider EDA's future roles and responsibilities, we 
     would be happy to share with you our experiences and lessons 
     learned in working with the agency, and to provide you with 
     additional information upon request.
           Sincerely,

                                               Stephen Jordan,

                                               Executive Director,
                                 Business Civic Leadership Center.

  Mrs. BOXER. It is a letter from an arm of the Chamber of Commerce. I 
will tell you, it is rare when you get the AFL-CIO and an arm of the 
Chamber of Commerce singing from the same book. They do not want to see 
filibusters. They want to see jobs. They do not want to see 
filibusters. They want to see progress. They want to see us work across 
party lines.
  So I kept asking during my remarks, why would they do this to us? Why 
would they do this to the American people? I have an answer. I wish 
this were not true, but it has been stated by some of the Republican 
Presidential candidates and it has been stated by the Republican leader 
here: Their priority is defeating Barack Obama. Their priority is 
defeating our President. Their priority is not job creation, it is not 
business creation, it is not fair tax policy, it is defeating this 
President. When you look as it through that lens, then you say to 
yourself, wait a minute. If we got something done around here and the 
President had a signing ceremony--as we used to do in the good old days 
when we worked together--and he had a Republican here, a Democrat here, 
and an Independent there, and we all came together as we always have--
unanimous consent. We passed this in 2004 by unanimous consent. They 
are afraid if we did that, the President would take out his pen and he 
would sign this bill and we would create jobs. I hate to say it, but I 
am not making it up. That is what they have said. I hope over this 
weekend when we go home and we meet with our people, and they say, 
Senators, you have got to do something about jobs, I hope the public 
will say to us, be we Democrats or Republicans: Do not filibuster jobs 
bills. We cannot afford to lose more jobs. We need to create jobs.
  The EDA bill is a jobs bill. It was created as a jobs bill. It has 
been a jobs bill since 1965, signed by Presidents, passed by Congress, 
never loaded down with amendment after amendment that is not germane, 
that weighs it down. I hope the people at home will pay attention to 
this.
  I will say this: There is a pattern. This is not the first bill. I 
told you about the small business bill, same thing; FAA bill, sitting 
over there, no conferees; patent bill, sitting over there, no action. 
And millions of jobs are at stake.
  I just found this out about the small business bill that they killed 
here a few weeks ago. Each year that bill provides support for 6,000 
businesses, and over the lifetime of the program it has provided almost 
26,000 awards to firms in California to help them get started. That 
bill was filibustered to death. I do not get it, except if what I say 
is true and that is what the motivation is, and

[[Page S3877]]

all I can come up with. I have looked into the hearts of my friends and 
wondered how could they do this. They voted for this bill in committee. 
Why would they load it up like this and put all of these amendments on 
it? There is only one reason, to not make progress. And who gets hurt 
by that? They think the President.
  But I have news for them. America is going to wake up, because I am 
going to be here every day talking about this. I know my colleagues are 
going to be here talking about it. Jobs, jobs, and jobs. I hope this 
bill gets cloture and we can move on with it on Tuesday. That would be 
a wonderful thing, if we do that. That is a change in the atmosphere. 
Then we can pass this bill and get on with the next jobs bill and pass 
that bill and get on to the next jobs bill, and the spirits of the 
people will be lifted. Look, we know government does not create the 
jobs. The private sector creates most of the jobs. But the beauty of 
bills such as the SBA bill, that small business bill, is private sector 
jobs. The beauty of this bill? Private sector jobs. So it would lift 
the spirits of the people instead of having them watch this, watch me, 
and think: They will never get together and do anything. Then I will 
not be shocked if our ratings--the Congress--hit the bottom of the 
barrel. They are already close. I hope the people will insist on our 
passing these jobs bills. Things are tough out there. People are 
unemployed, they are underemployed. Businesses are sitting on mounds of 
cash. They have learned to be able to be profitable without hiring more 
people.
  Things are shifting. The sands are shifting between the middle class. 
Thank God this President rescued the auto industry and that we had a 
majority here to stand with him to do that. Thank goodness we took some 
of the steps that we took to get banks lending again when credit was 
frozen. But you know what. Our progress is being stymied because 
partisanship has taken over the process. Partisanship means when you 
get bills out of a committee, people who voted for them suddenly 
disappear. They are nowhere in sight, and they file all of these 
amendments to bring down the bill.
  We can only hope that when we come back next week there will be a 
change of heart. I certainly hope so. I have been here a long time. I 
have been in the House 10 years, here a lot of years, since 1993. I 
have served with Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. But I 
want to say this. I fought hard when election time came. I just had 
one. It was tough. You know that, Madam President, 2010 was tough. 
Every time we have elections they are tough. That is the time that 
politics is in your blood, it is in your veins. You are out there, you 
are working hard, you are fighting for your life.
  But when we are here, we have to do the people's business. And 
however we feel about who we want to be President, who we admire, who 
we did not admire, that ought to be left somewhere else. I hope it will 
be left somewhere else. I hope that on Tuesday we vote for cloture on 
this EDA bill. I would hate to see this die. I would hate to see this 
die. Because when you deal a death blow to the EDA, you deal a death 
blow to 1 million jobs.
  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.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Second Opinion

  Mr. BARRASSO. I come to the floor today, as I do each week, as a 
doctor who practiced medicine in Wyoming for 25 years, as someone who 
has taken care of families all around the State of Wyoming, as a doctor 
who has great concerns about what has happened to the American health 
care system, and will continue to happen under the health care law that 
has been passed by this body and signed into law at the insistence of 
this President.
  I come as a doctor giving a second opinion, because I have great 
concerns about this health care law. In talking with patients, in 
talking with doctors, and from my own personal knowledge, I believe 
this health care law is going to be bad for patients, bad for 
providers--the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients--
and bad for the payers, the taxpayers of this country who are going to 
be left to pay the bill.
  Recently my friends on the other side of the aisle have been using 
what I believe to be significant scare tactics about my party and 
Medicare.
  Medicare is the program for our senior citizens. I believe it is 
important that the American people receive the truth. They deserve to 
have the truth about the future of Medicare, not scare tactics.
  The fact is, unless Congress takes action, Medicare will go broke in 
13 years. Again, in 13 years, Medicare will go broke. Today, more money 
is going out than is coming in. A bankrupt Medicare equals no Medicare 
for our seniors. These are people who have paid into Medicare, but a 
bankrupt Medicare means no Medicare.
  If Washington doesn't show leadership now--today, this year--this 
program will run out of money and Medicare patients will run out of 
care. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to 
ignore the ticking clock and ignore reality.
  Let's take a look at some of the reality the other side is ignoring. 
They are ignoring the fact that the life expectancy in the United 
States has risen significantly since Medicare was signed into law. When 
Medicare became law, in 1965, the average life expectancy was about 70. 
So, on average, you are talking about people being on Medicare for a 
certain number of years. Now, with the advances of medicine, the life 
expectancy is almost 80--the high seventies for men, but the low 
eighties for women. People are living about 10 years longer now, on 
average, than at the time Medicare was signed into law in 1965. It is 
an undeniable fact.
  Another fact is that there are about 10,000 new Medicare recipients 
adding to the rolls every day as the baby boomers turn 65. An entire 
generation of baby boomers is retiring. The other side seems to ignore 
the fact that there are far more retirees today than ever before, and 
they are getting more money paid out of the program than they ever put 
in. I have townhall meetings and I travel around my State of Wyoming. 
People say: I paid into Medicare. They are absolutely right. On 
average, a couple who is retiring this week has paid into Medicare 
about $110,000--that is over a lifetime of working. That is significant 
money they have paid in. What kinds of services will they receive over 
the remainder of their lifetime, adjusted for today's dollars? It is 
$343,000. So you are talking about $109,000 that they paid into the 
system, and they are taking out $343,000.
  American seniors know Medicare is in trouble. They understand the 
math doesn't add up, that this $3 coming out for every $1 paid in 
cannot work forever and ever. My friends on the other side, who attack 
Republicans for wanting to address this problem in a responsible way, 
tend to want to ignore this reality.
  To make matters worse, Members on the other side actually voted for a 
health care law that puts Medicare on an even faster track to 
bankruptcy. In fact, the President's health care law cuts $500 billion 
from Medicare--not to save or strengthen or secure Medicare for the 
next generation. No, they took $500 billion from our seniors on 
Medicare to start a whole new government program for someone else. So 
it was no surprise to me when I read recently that those folks who look 
at the numbers, who work for the government, say Medicare is going to 
be broke 5 years sooner than even they had anticipated. It is odd how 
Democrats never even mention this when they attack Republican plans to 
save Medicare. Well, when they run advertisements and hold press 
conferences focused on scare tactics, why don't they ever explain their 
own $500 billion cut to Medicare?
  It is also odd to me that the Democrats never talk about the other 
very significant piece of the President's health care law that attacks 
our seniors on Medicare. Hidden away in the bill is the President's 
Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB. As a doctor who practiced 
medicine for 25 years in Casper, WY, I can tell you what this board is. 
It is a rationing board--a board to ration the health care of our 
seniors.
  Rationing, some may say, is a very strong word. But that is exactly 
what

[[Page S3878]]

it is. The President's health care law puts Medicare on the road to 
rationing. This health care law creates an unelected, unaccountable 
board of Washington bureaucrats, who will decide how much Medicare pays 
for certain Medicare services.
  Starting in 2014, after the next Presidential election, members of 
the board will decide how much they will reimburse hospitals and 
doctors for taking care of Medicare patients. Then providers all across 
this country will have to decide whether they can continue to care for 
American seniors.
  Let's face it, even today doctors are running away from taking care 
of patients on Medicare. According to the American Medical Association, 
one in three primary care doctors already limits how many Medicare 
patients they are willing to see. According to the same survey of the 
American Medical Association, 60 percent of doctors say they are 
looking for ways to get out of Medicare completely.
  Even more providers are going to stop seeing Medicare patients, and 
this situation will continue to get worse. If you don't believe me, ask 
seniors in your own community what happens when their doctor retires. 
Ask somebody on Medicare how easy it is for them to find a doctor to 
take care of them. If they happen to be with a doctor, and they turn 
65, ask if they are allowed to stay with that doctor or if they move to 
another community to be closer to their children and grandchildren, ask 
them how difficult it is for those on Medicare to find a doctor. The 
reason is, of course, because Medicare pays a lot less than the going 
rate.
  Yet, the Democrats' and the President's solution is to pay even a 
lower amount and continue to ration and ratchet down that amount, 
resulting significantly in additional rationing of care as our seniors 
find it harder and harder to find physicians and nurses to take care of 
them.
  The other thing about this rationing board is that it gets worse when 
you look at the details. It will be practically impossible for this 
Congress--or any Congress--to overturn the rationing board's 
recommendations.
  Again, to me it seems very odd that my friends on the other side 
don't talk about this rationing board when they hold their Medicare 
events. But as Nancy Pelosi said, first you have to pass it before you 
get to find out what is in it. The American people continue to find out 
what is in this health care law, and they continue to oppose it. I say 
to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you are so proud of 
the work you have done on Medicare, then you should stand and defend 
this rationing board. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
should explain to American seniors how it will work and how it will 
impact their care. America deserves a thorough and honest debate about 
the future of Medicare, how we got to this point, and how we can, in a 
responsible way, strengthen and secure Medicare for those on Medicare 
and for the next generation.
  I bring this to you today because today a new study came out in the 
New England Journal of Medicine. It has to do not with Medicare--a 
program for our seniors--but with Medicaid, a program for low-income 
people--specifically, in many cases, for children. The study from the 
New England Journal of Medicine today talks about how very difficult it 
is for people--specifically children--on Medicaid to even get an 
appointment to see a doctor.
  During the health care debate over the last year, I have come to the 
floor continuously and talked about the fact that many physicians 
refuse to take patients on Medicaid, because the reimbursement from the 
government is lower than the cost of actually even treating the 
patient--considering rent, office expenses, and other costs.
  This study out today in the New England Journal of Medicine talks 
about researchers in Chicago who called a number of doctors' offices 
with an identical voice, the same person calling--actually, the same 
office--a month apart with the same symptoms, whether it was for asthma 
or different conditions such as diabetes, for the child's care, and the 
question came: Do you have insurance or are you on Medicaid?
  What they found is that for 89 percent of those with insurance, they 
were able to get an appointment--regular insurance. Of those saying, 
no, we have Medicaid--and they called hundreds and hundreds of offices 
and clinics--only one in three was able to get an appointment. Think 
about that. It is something for our seniors to think about, as well as 
the President's rationing board. It pays less and less for a visit to a 
doctor.
  We have talked about the fact that Medicare rates, as a result of the 
$500 billion cut from Medicare, will be in many places similar to 
Medicaid rates. So I would assume that at some point soon seniors will 
have the exact same amount of trouble getting an appointment to see a 
physician, as the New England Journal of Medicine found today, for 
children on Medicaid.
  With that, I say that I will continue to come to the Senate floor 
week after week with a doctor's second opinion about the health care 
law, because week after week we see new information, new relevant 
information about how the impact of this broad, sweeping law, 
significant changes for the health care of all Americans--how it is, in 
my opinion, bad for patients, bad for providers, the nurses and doctors 
who take care of them, and bad for taxpayers.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________