Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 100 (Thursday, July 7, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 100 (Thursday, July 7, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4438-S4446]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SECOND OPINION

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor, as I have week
after week since the health care bill was signed into law, with a
doctor's second opinion about the health care law because the President
repeatedly made promises to the American people as the health care bill
was being debated and even after the health care law was signed. He
promised to improve, not hurt, the quality of medical care in this
country.
We now know the President's health care law actually makes the
problem of health care in this country worse. In fact, since this bill
was signed into law, we have learned that it makes the cost of health
care worse. We know it makes the American's ability to get health care
worse and the ability of individuals to keep the care they like--it
makes their ability to keep that care worse.
Today, I would like to first talk about the cost of care.
President Obama promised American families they would see their
health insurance premiums go down because of the health care law, and
he actually told them they would go down by over $2,000 per family.
Well, now we know that is not the case. In fact, Americans have seen
their premiums increase 19 percent since the time the President signed
his health care bill into law.
I was looking at the front page of the Sheridan Press, Sheridan, WY,
yesterday. Headline, front page:

[[Page S4439]]

Health care premium increase. County administrative
director said the county's cost to provide health care
coverage for its employees will increase by about $360,000
this year.

We are talking about 1 county--1 out of 23 counties in Wyoming,
$360,000 for county employees.
You know, throughout this entire health care debate, the President
promised the American people that if they liked their health care plan,
his health care law would let them keep it--another broken promise.
Employers all across the country have made it clear that the health
care law's mandates are too expensive and threaten their ability to
offer insurance to their employees.
A recent study by McKinsey & Company, which is a reputable national
consulting firm, produced a report entitled ``How U.S. health care
reform will affect employee benefits.'' They surveyed over 1,300
employers across diverse industries, geographies, and employer sizes.
The results confirmed what Republicans and American workers and their
families knew all along, and they knew it long before the President and
Washington Democrats forced this health care law down their throats.
Overall, the report says, 30 percent of employers will probably stop
offering employer-sponsored coverage in the years after 2014 when the
Obama health care law goes fully into effect. Among employers with a
high awareness of the health care reform law and what is specifically
in the law, then the proportion of those who will definitely or
probably stop offering coverage jumps to 50 percent, and upward of 60
percent will pursue other options. So at least 30 percent of employers
would actually gain economically from dropping coverage even if they
completely compensated their employees for the change through other
benefit offerings and higher salaries.
Apparently, the President's promise that ``if you like the health
insurance you have today, you can keep it'' translates into ``you may
very well lose your coverage.''
As former Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Holtz-Eakin's
analysis confirms, if employers decided to drop coverage--which is in
their economic best interest to do in many cases based on their
economic evaluation--the cost of Federal insurance subsidies would
skyrocket.
Remember, the White House and Democrats in Congress met behind closed
doors. They acted swiftly and covertly to pass a law without regard for
how its provisions would impact each and every American family.
Then the question is, Will Americans actually have the ability to get
medical care they need from a doctor they want at a price they can
afford? The President promised that his law would increase access to
affordable care. Some groups tell a different story.
In April 2010, a month after the President signed his health care
plan into law, the Association of American Medical Colleges estimated
that based on graduation and training rates, this country would have a
shortage of 150,000 doctors over the next 15 years. In May of the same
year, the American Medical Association issued the results of its survey
showing the impact of low payment rates and the threat of future
payment cuts on Medicare patients' access to care. The AMA found that
one in five physicians currently restricts the number of Medicare
patients they see. The AMA study shows that nearly one-third of primary
care physicians restrict the number of Medicare patients they take into
their practice.
All any of the Members of the Senate need to do is, at home on the
weekend, talk to someone in your community, someone who is on Medicare,
someone who is trying to find a doctor, a doctor to care for them, and
see how very difficult it is for someone on Medicare to find a doctor
to care for them.
Well, later last year, the Association of American Medical Colleges
related updated physician shortage estimates. The September 2010 study
said that by 2015, doctor shortages will be actually 50 percent worse
than originally projected. By 2020, there will be a shortage of 45,000
primary care physicians and a shortage of 46,000 surgeons and medical
specialists.
So I find it ironic that we have a health care law that is passed
that actually doesn't put money into training doctors to treat you but
puts money in to hire IRS agents to investigate you. Absolutely
astonishing.
These studies clearly demonstrate that the President's health care
law will only make it harder for Americans to see their doctor. In
fact, Washington only expanded the ability for folks to get government-
approved, government-mandated, government-subsidized coverage. They did
not expand the ability for the American people to get actual medical
care. There is a huge difference between medical coverage and medical
care. When you take over $500 billion away from our seniors on Medicare
not to save Medicare but to start a brand new government program for
someone else, well, that is a way to make the problem worse. When you
force 16 million more people onto Medicaid, a program where half of the
doctors in the country won't see those patients, that also makes the
problem worse.
On the front page of yesterday's USA TODAY, Wednesday, July 6, the
headline is ``Medicaid payments go under the knife.'' State cuts could
add to shortage of doctors.
The second paragraph:

Some health care experts say the cuts, most of which went
into effect July 1, or will later this month, could add to a
shortage of physicians and other providers participating in
Medicaid.

The article goes on:

Under the 2010 health care law, more than 16 million
additional people will become eligible starting in 2014.

So already we have a situation where doctors are reluctant to take
care of people on Medicaid. Yet the President's solution to the health
care dilemma in this country is to put more people into a system that
is already broken. We are giving individuals and families an insurance
card but not really giving them access to the care that has been
promised.
Adults are not the only ones waiting in lines to get into doctors
offices as the lines get longer. In fact, children enrolled in Medicaid
have a harder time accessing medical care than children who have
private insurance. Yet that is the President's solution to the needs of
this country.
On January 16 of this year, the New England Journal of Medicine
published a study conducted in Cook County, IL. It is President Obama's
hometown of Chicago. People were calling medical offices asking for
appointments. They were asking for appointments for children with
chronic conditions or acute conditions and telling the offices--these
were kind of secret shoppers--the person had Medicaid or private
insurance. What they found is 66 percent of the time when the
researcher called for an appointment and they mentioned Medicaid, they
were denied an appointment. But only 11 percent of the researchers
calling for appointments who said they had private insurance--only 11
percent would not get an appointment. So there you have 66 percent
denied if they had Medicaid and only 11 percent denied with private
insurance. Those Medicaid patients who did get an appointment, well,
they faced wait times twice as long as kids with private insurance--an
average of about 6 weeks. As one caller was told when asked what kind
of insurance the person had--when that person said Medicaid, the
receptionist at the medical office said: Medicaid is not insurance. Yet
that is what the President and the Democrats base their entire health
care plan on--16 million more on Medicaid.

Here it is over a year after the law has been signed, and the
President's health care law has made health care in America worse.
Premiums are higher, and the lines at doctors offices are longer. It is
more difficult to get a doctor to care for you. This is not what the
President's health care law was supposed to do, and it is not what the
President promised the American people last year. He promised that the
health care law would make health care better for all Americans. Each
week, we learn that the promises are coming up empty and health care in
America under this health care law has been made worse.
That is why week after week I come to the Senate floor as we learn
more things about the health care law that passed the Senate, passed
the House, was signed by the President, and, in my opinion as a doctor
who practiced medicine for 24 years, has actually been bad for
patients, bad for providers

[[Page S4440]]

and nurses and doctors who take care of those patients, and bad for the
taxpayers.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I have two things I would
like to talk about. First, I wish to deal with the resolution we have
on the floor that we had a vote on today, which was this motion to
proceed to S. 1323, a bill to express the sense of the Senate on shared
sacrifice and resolving the budget. I think it is important that we
realize what is in this sense of the Senate. The findings the Congress
makes here are very important, and I would like to read these three
findings.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the median pay for chief
financial officers of the S&P 500 companies increased 19 percent to
$2.9 million last year. And then you compare that with the middle class
over the last 10 years--the median family income has declined by more
than $2,500. Mr. President, 20 percent of all income earned in the
United States is earned by the top 1 percent of individuals. Over the
past quarter century, four-fifths of the income gains accrued to the
top 1 percent of individuals.
So we conclude in this sense of the Senate--it is the sense of the
Senate that any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should require
that those earning $1 million or more per year make a more meaningful
contribution to the deficit reduction effort. And that is what we have
been talking about today; that is what our leaders are doing--meeting
at the White House with the President--is trying to come up with a
budget deal and a resolution to this that involves shared sacrifice and
involves putting us on a path to better budget responsibility, reducing
the national budget deficit. Clearly part of this has to do with
millionaires paying more of their fair share.
Now, we got 74 votes on the motion to proceed, but I heard many
people say--many Senators walked on the floor and said: Well, I am
voting for the motion to proceed, to invoke cloture on the motion to
proceed, but I am not sure I support the bill. But I think the 74 votes
show a little bit of bipartisanship in terms of a mix of revenue and
expenditure cuts. That is the point I wanted to make on this
resolution.
First of all, I hear things from the White House that worry me
because what has been said when we talk about a package--and they are
talking about the overall package--is they say: We are going to have a
ratio of 1 to 3, meaning 75 percent cuts and only 25 percent revenue,
so three-quarters in cuts and one-quarter in revenue.
Now, how does that compare to how we got out of deficit situations in
the past? I think that is one of the most important things to look at
because we were in a big hole in the 1980s. The Reagan administration
took us down that road and President Clinton and President Bush 1 had
to deal with that situation. What did they come up with? They came up
with an agreement which was basically 55 percent revenue and 45 percent
cuts. So it was about a 50-50 situation.
I urge the President to look at the budget. We have only been briefed
in a very cursory way on the budget Kent Conrad has prepared, but it
comes in at about 50-50 in terms of revenue and cuts.
We have to realize we are at the lowest Federal revenue we have seen
in 60 years and the highest Federal expenditures we have seen in 60
years. So we have to work at both sides of this. So that is where I
hope the President comes in with some kind of proposal as he is
negotiating this, and I look forward to him doing that.

New Mexico Wildfires

The other topic I wish to speak about is the wildfires in New Mexico.
I spent the last week in my State of New Mexico. I stayed there. I
started to go to the plane, and I kept hearing the reports from my
staff, and one of the most shocking was the entire community of Los
Alamos--12,000 people--was evacuated because a forest fire was coming
in their direction. As I kept getting the reports and the evacuation
had started to take place, I thought: Well, the best thing to do is to
not fly out but to go back to the community of Los Alamos and the
surrounding communities and try to assist in any way I could.
I want to talk a little bit about that. I think there are some
lessons to be learned in terms of budgets and deficits and how we
should invest. But first I want to thank the Senators who helped me
while I was gone. As the Presiding Officer, Senator Franken, knows, we
are assigned weekly duties in terms of presiding, and I was supposed to
preside last week. So three of my colleagues, Senator Durbin, Senator
Merkley, and my cousin, Senator Mark Udall, stepped up to help me with
presiding time. I had an amendment that was on the floor when we were
dealing with the rules package, and Senator Harkin helped me with that
proposal. So there was a real team effort within our Democratic caucus
to help me to be able to work on the wildfire issue out in New Mexico
and stay there and have my capable staff and the other Senators help
out. I really thank everybody for that team effort.
The wildfires that are raging across New Mexico are not only in New
Mexico. A number of States have been hit: Texas, Arizona, Florida, and
my home State of New Mexico. Generally, what we see in this country is
the fire season starts at the southern part and moves up to the north
as we go through the summer season. In the Southwest, we have had an
extraordinary fire season. I was just briefed by Secretary Vilsack when
I was out there. He spoke in the southwest region about 1,600-plus
fires burning 1.5 million acres. This is still very early in the fire
season. We could see a lot more burning going on. Then, the thing that
really hit me was the fact that we were told this is the driest
recorded summer since the Forest Service has been keeping records. So
it is pretty remarkable we are in this kind of situation where we have
a drought and then we have fires that heat up.
This particular fire, for New Mexico--the name of it is called the
Las Conchas fire right near Los Alamos. As we speak, it is more than
135,000 acres. It is almost three times as big as the previous fire
situation we have seen.
What happens with these forest fires in our dry, arid region is we
get extreme heat within the forest, and we get what are called crown
fires, where the tops of the trees--these trees may be 30 to 50 to 100
feet tall, and the fires burn in the top of the crown. They can spread
when there is a 40- or 50-mile-an-hour wind, as there was in some cases
here. They can be in the crown of the trees and they can jump out a
mile in advance with embers and create additional fire in front of it.
As a result of the heat--very intensive heat; I think close to 1,000
degrees right in the heat of the fire--it makes the soil unable to
absorb water any longer, which is something that creates a situation
when we get our rainy season, which occurs right after the fire season,
we can have serious flood situations. The soil will not absorb water,
so when the rains come all of the soil on the surface washes off. It
washes into the reservoirs. It can fill them up with silt. Some of
those are used for recreation, for fishing; others are used for
drinking water. For example, several of the communities in northern New
Mexico get 40 percent, 50 percent of their drinking water from these
reservoirs. So these kinds of forest fires can be absolutely
devastating to communities.
But the one thing we were thankful for, because of the Federal
firefighters, is the worst case scenarios didn't occur. One of the
things that was expected--and I think many saw this covered on the
national media--is this might get into the National Laboratory, the Los
Alamos National Laboratory; that there was going to be radiation
released and those kinds of things. In fact, we dodged a bullet there.
It didn't go into Los Alamos National Laboratory. The labs and the
residences were protected.
There was another fire burning nearby that threatened the Santa Fe
watershed. The fire changed directions and because of the skillful
firefighting it didn't get into the watershed. So we dodged a bullet.
But many other areas--many other areas--were severely impacted, and
many other groups were.
For example, New Mexico's Indian pueblos--we have 19 pueblos in New
Mexico. Some of them were terribly impacted by this: the Nambe Pueblo,
the Santa Clara Pueblo, San Ildefonso Pueblo, the Ohkay Pueblo, Owingeh

[[Page S4441]]

Pueblo, and many other pueblos. One of the most damaged pueblos was the
Santa Clara Pueblo. The Governor is a gentleman by the name of Walter
Dasheno. He and some of his counselors had come to a meeting. Eighty-
five percent of this Indian reservation has been burned in the last two
big fires. What they said when we were sitting in a room--and these are
the elders from the pueblo who came to talk to us--they said: Our
hearts are in a very sad state. The fire devastated our religious
sites, our sacred sites. We had medicinal plants we would collect in
this area. We can't do that any longer.
With great emotion these elders said: We are never going to see this
forest in the same condition again. So, obviously, the loss was great
at Santa Clara, but it was all across New Mexico, of those pueblos that
I just named, and it is a very significant loss.
The first thing I wish to do in speaking today is to thank all the
firefighters who were involved in this effort. I think we have fighting
just this one fire 2,600 firefighters from all over the Nation--15
different States. It is incredibly tough work--difficult, tough, dirty
work.
I met many of these firefighters out on the front where they were
fighting the fire. Some of them would talk about how they had been away
from their families for 2 weeks. They hadn't had a shower. They were
sleeping in tents. It is a tremendously trying occupation, being a
firefighter, but they believe in it. They show up every day, and they
do an incredible job. They were supported by our National Guard which
guarded the community of Los Alamos while the people were evacuated to
make sure there wasn't any crime going on. The State police patrolled
the roads to try to make sure they could keep order. Local law
enforcement, local firefighters participated, the local fire
departments.
So it was an incredible effort by our community pulling together. One
of the most remarkable things is the expertise at the Federal level in
Federal land management agencies and firefighters. These teams are
headed up--typically, we will have a type 1 and a type 2 team, and the
head of the team called the incident commander will probably have 20,
25, 30 years of experience in fighting fires every summer around the
country. These are career people from the Bureau of Land Management,
the Forest Service, the Park Service, and a variety of other Federal
agencies that step to the plate and help out when we get in these
emergency situations.

As I said, they come from all over the country to work in the States
that are impacted, and then as the fire season spreads north up to
Colorado and Wyoming and Montana, those same firefighters move on to
continue the battle up there.
One of the points I take from this, one of the things I learned from
this--and I think President Lincoln said this very well: Government
does for people what they can't do for themselves. Collectively, we
pull together when we hit situations where if we have an individual who
has a home in Los Alamos, there is not much he can do with a big forest
fire coming in his direction. But we can organize as a governmental
entity to say when we get big catastrophic fires such as this, we are
going to have people who are competent, who are capable, and who have
all of this experience in fighting fires who will come together and
help out. That is something we need to protect.
When we think of debating budgets and deficits and all of that, there
is a very important function that government serves out there, and we
need to protect that safety net function, that collective function
where we help each other. I think this firefighting is a great example
of where government is needed and we could be devastated if we didn't
have the expertise that the government has in terms of fighting fires.
The other thing I saw at these fires--and it was pretty remarkable.
When I have been to tornado sites in New Mexico, when I have been to
some of the flood situations, what stands out for me is how New
Mexicans pull together in this situation--New Mexicans helping New
Mexicans. The pueblos I talked about that were so impacted by the
fires, they actually opened other sites on their reservations so the
evacuees coming out of Los Alamos, the 12,000 people--several of these
pueblos said: We are going to open our convention center and let them
set up cots, and we are going to feed the people. We are going to do
everything we can to help with this situation.
At the same time, their particular pueblo was being devastated by a
forest fire. So there was an extraordinary outpouring of goodwill that
New Mexicans have shown in this kind of emergency situation. It is
remarkable to see in a time of need people pulling together and doing
that in such a way that it brings tears to your eyes.
There was one individual I want to talk about. I was in talking to a
group of people who were training for a charity that was going to help
the evacuees--help them serve meals, help them set up cots, help them
be organized. I got a question from the floor, and the individual said
to me: I have lived in Los Alamos, and I had to come down here. I am an
evacuee, but I found a friend who was able to put me up. I know there
are other people who do not have that situation. So I am out here today
training with the American Red Cross because I want to help the others,
and I want to try to give back.
That is the spirit we have seen in New Mexico, that even if you were
in need and had been driven from your home, you were still trying to
help out. I think it is a pretty remarkable story.
One of the things we are going to have to do as we look across the
country--and we see floods in the Midwest and wildfires in the
Southwest and tornadoes--all of these things require a disaster relief
bill, they require disaster relief funding for agencies that deal with
fires and all these other natural disasters.
These things are very costly for local government. FEMA steps in and
helps out with the Governor making a request. The Forest Service helps
out. There are burn area rehabilitation teams that move in right after
a fire to try to protect the erosion so there are not bad floods.
We have to try to do everything we can to make sure we maintain, once
again, in this deficit situation, that kind of responsibility. The
Federal Government has to help. Even within a deficit situation, we
have to have a disaster relief kind of effort. The idea that we are
going to somehow change the way we do disasters now, that we are going
to take money away from Medicaid in order to put it into disasters, is
I do not think a very good idea. So I think when we talk about how we
do disaster relief, we need to remember we are all in this together,
and when disasters hit, we need to help each other.
To show you the kind of pressure we are under in New Mexico,
Secretary Vilsack, with the Forest Service, was out in New Mexico, and
the one plea he made to the congressional delegation--because we were
talking to him about watersheds that mean clean drinking water and that
kind of situation--the Secretary said: I have a program that is called
the Emergency Watershed Protection Program. It is for all over the
country. It is for when we get into these kinds of wildfires, floods--
whatever the situation is. He said: We have $9 million--$9 million--in
the account. He said: Already, before your requests or any others have
come in from New Mexico and other States--I know there are five fires
down in Florida and fires in Texas and Arizona--we have $45 million in
requests.
So there is $9 million in the account, $45 million in requests. What
we are talking about, when we talk about watersheds, is drinking water
not deteriorating and that kind of thing. So we need to remember there
is a lot the Federal Government does in a shared way with local
communities to protect those communities.
My final note, to talk a little bit about the biggest picture here.
That is about climate change and global warming. We are seeing these
wildfires, droughts, and floods as we have never seen before. I have
seen Senators from all over the country talking about these disaster
situations. The scientists tell us we are putting too much carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere, we are warming the atmosphere. In the
West--what the scientists tell us--it is going to be twice as hot in
the West, the computer models show, than in other places in the
country. While the climate scientists are very cautious with their
modeling and what they say,

[[Page S4442]]

they say: You cannot point to any particular storm. I cannot say that
particular fire that occurred in New Mexico--the Las Conchas fire--was
caused by global warming or climate change.
They also tell us--and this is the part we need to listen to--the
scientists tell us what we are going to see as a result of this is more
severe weather events, meaning more severe: If you get into a drought
situation, it is going to be a more severe drought, which is exactly
what we are seeing in New Mexico right now. When you get floods, you
are going to see a more severe flood. You are going to see more severe
wildfires. These are all what we are seeing today in New Mexico. We are
seeing them across the Nation. We have seen extreme floods in New
Mexico, catastrophic forest fires.
We are seeing droughts we have not seen before. The Forest Service
has been keeping records for 117 years, and they reported to us there
is no record for how dry we are right now. This is the driest year we
have ever had, which laid the groundwork for the wildfires we had with
the wind and all the other things that occurred.
So we cannot put our heads in the sand in terms of climate change, in
terms of global warming. We have to look at these things and realize we
are contributing to them, and we need to put policies in place, solid
policies that put us on a path to reducing that carbon dioxide
pollution that is out there.
With that, I thank the Presiding Officer very much and thank the
Senate for the time and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand before you today to discuss a problem
that is of concern to 300 million Americans. It relates to our national
debt, a debt that will soon cross the $15 trillion threshold.
We have been asked to raise the debt limit, extend the Nation's
credit one more time. This we have the power to do but we have to ask
ourselves the question: Should we exercise that power? Should we incur
additional debt yet again without any plan moving forward to change
fundamentally the way we spend money in Washington, DC?
Our current law requiring us to raise the debt limit periodically
every time our existing line of credit dries up dates back to 1982. We
have raised the debt limit since 1982 nearly 40 times. I fear if we do
it again this time without any permanent binding plan in place, legal
restrictions changing the way Congress spends money, we will be right
back to the same trough a few months later. That is a problem because
as we do this over time we inevitably put pressure on our financial
system, pressure that will soon cause our economy dire circumstances,
pressure that will in time result in excessive job losses, skyrocketing
interest rates, and lots of other economic conditions that would be, to
say the least, unpleasant.
It is for this reason that 100 Senators from around the country have
canceled their plans they previously made to spend time with their
constituents in their respective home States this week. That had been
our plan, to spend time in our home States. We canceled those plans so
we could come back here and have serious, earnest debate and discussion
surrounding the best path forward toward moving in the direction of a
balanced budget, toward figuring out what conditions, if any, would
satisfy the American people who are understandably concerned about the
prospect of yet another knee-jerk reflexive debt limit increase.
The American people understand the fact that if we choose to do
nothing more than say: Well, if we are going to raise the debt limit by
$2 trillion, let's make sure we cut $2 trillion from our anticipated
spending--they understand that kind of promise is one that is not
binding on the Congress if those spending cuts are stretched out over
the course of 10 or 15 years or more, as has been discussed, because we
here in Congress cannot bind the Congress that will be sworn into power
in January of 2013 or January of 2015 or January of 2017. We cannot
bind a future Congress. We can make suggestions they can follow, but we
cannot bind them--unless, of course, we choose to do that, which has
been done only 27 times in our Nation's history, which is, amend the
Constitution. That will bind a future Congress. That, I believe, is
what we have to do in order to change fundamentally the way we spend
money in Washington, to make sure we are not headed back to the same
trough a few months from now to do exactly the same thing, leading us
closer and closer to the dire circumstances I described a few minutes
ago.
While we have been here this week, convening during a week that was
previously scheduled for a recess, we as a group of Senate Republicans
have come together and offered a real meaningful solution. We have
offered to raise the debt limit. We have introduced legislation today
with 21 Republican cosponsors in the Senate which is a piece of
legislation we are calling the Cut-Cap-Balance Act. Here is what it
says. It says we will raise the debt limit. We will do so only under
three circumstances, only after three very specific conditions
precedent have been met.

The first two relate to immediate spending cuts to discretionary
spending, and statutory spending caps making sure we start putting
ourselves right now on a statutorily mandated glidepath toward a
balanced budget.
The third step, which is by far the most important, involves passage
out of both Houses of Congress by the requisite two-thirds margin a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution--one that would cap
spending as a percentage of GDP, and one that would require a two-
thirds supermajority in order to raise taxes. Upon each of those
conditions being met, then the debt limit would be raised, but only
then. We would not raise it without those conditions having been met.
Because if we do not meet those conditions, we will not be able to look
our constituents in the eye and say: We have done what needs to be done
in order to make sure we get to where we need to be, in order to get to
the point at which we will no longer be in a position of having to go
back to the same trough every few months to go through the ceremony of
raising the debt limit yet again.
We have to remember that every time we do this, we run an increased
risk that we will start having to pay higher and higher yields on our
Treasury instruments. Every time that happens, we incur more expenses
that relate to our ability to remain current on our debt interest
payments. Every time interest rates, yields on those debt instruments,
go up by 1 percentage point, we have to spend an additional $150
billion a year in interest once our debt instruments catch up with the
increased rate. That is a lot of money. That means if we were to
return--let's say if interest rates were to go up 3 percent, we can
soon find ourselves in a position in which we might be spending as much
as $700 billion a year on interest. We are currently paying about $250
billion.
Mr. President, $700 billion a year is roughly what we spend on
national defense. It is roughly what we spend on Social Security in an
entire year. It is close to what we pay in Medicare and Medicaid
combined at the Federal level in an entire year. So where is the
difference going to come from when interest rates start to creep up?
Even if they go up 3 percentage points, they would still be below their
historical average. That money has to come from somewhere, and it will.
It will end up coming from the various programs that Americans are most
concerned about.
So whether you are a conservative, and you might be most concerned
about that money coming from our defense budget or, on the other hand,
if you are a liberal, and perhaps you are most concerned about it
coming from entitlements, you ought to be concerned about our practice
of perpetually raising the debt limit and engaging in perpetual deficit
spending, especially when that deficit spending is now in excess of
$1.5 trillion every single year.
This potentially threatens every Federal program out there. It also
interferes with the ability of each American to find the prosperity he
or she seeks, the ability of each American to live his or her life in
the way he or she chooses. That is distressing. It interferes with the
liberty of the individual, which is what we have been elected to
protect.
I am very proud to be part of this 21-Senator coalition consisting of
a group of Senators who are concerned enough about this issue that they
are willing to say: We understand that we cannot just not raise the
debt limit. There are enough people who are concerned enough in this
country about not raising it. The abrupt halt in spending that

[[Page S4443]]

would bring about would create enough uncertainty and chaos that many
are unwilling to face that prospect.
So recognizing that reality, we have taken the bull by the horns and
we are willing to do one difficult thing. In order for us to raise the
debt limit, we have to be willing to set things in motion in such a way
that will solve the underlying problem and will create permanent
structural spending reform within the Congress.
I wish to close by responding to an argument made recently by Timothy
Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, to the effect that we in
Congress are essentially mere surplus when it comes to the debt limit
increase. He argued that, as I understand it, section 4 of the 14th
amendment somehow independently authorizes the executive branch--
perhaps the Treasury Secretary, perhaps just the President--to somehow
raise the debt limit without consulting Congress, without an act of
Congress in place.
That argument is not accurate. That argument is based on an improper
reading of the 14th amendment. The language to which he refers reads,
in part, as follows:

The validity of the public debt of the United States,
authorized by law, shall not be questioned.

Adopted in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, this provision
simply acknowledges the fact that we can't ignore our debt obligations,
that when interest or principal comes due on our national debt, they
have to be honored. You will notice that in the middle of it, set off
by commas, is a phrase that says ``authorized by law.''
To create law in this country, you have to move something through
Congress. That something has to be presented to the President for his
signature or a veto. You cannot make a law in the U.S. Government
without Congress. Article I, section 8, clause 2 makes that point clear
by giving the authority to Congress to incur debt in the name of the
United States.
So, necessarily, by definition and operation of the plain text of the
Constitution, you cannot raise the debt limit without an act of
Congress. If anything, section 4 of the 14th amendment simply makes
clear that which I wish Secretary Geithner would acknowledge--and I
hereby call upon him to acknowledge--which is that he has a legal and a
moral obligation to make sure that if the debt limit is not increased,
during whatever time it remains in limbo, during whatever time we face
the debt limit-induced shortfall, it is his obligation to use the first
tax revenues coming in the door to pay our debt obligations, pay the
interest being accrued on our national debt. It is his obligation not
only as a fiduciary or quasi-fiduciary but also the very provision of
the Constitution, section 4 of the 14th amendment--the same provision
he cites--binds his hands and requires him to make sure that interest
gets paid and prohibits him from bringing about a default on our
national debt, which is what he has been threatening on many occasions.
There is a way forward. The circumstances in which we now find
ourselves are, to be sure, threatening, intimidating and daunting and
they are circumstances that bring about substantial disagreement within
this body and the other body that meets down the hall from us. But
there are answers and solutions to which we can agree.
I believe the Cut-Cap-Balance Act provides the proper solution which
can appeal to liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans
alike. I call on all within the sound of my voice to look at this
legislation and jump on board and become part of the solution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.

Tall Stacks

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a serious public
health issue in Rhode Island and to commend the EPA for its actions to
address it.
Rhode Island has the sixth highest rate of asthma in the country.
According to our Department of Health, more than 25,000 Rhode Island
children or 11 percent of children in our State--more than 1 in every
10 kids--suffer from asthma, and 82,000 adults in Rhode Island, which
is also about 11 percent of our adult population, also suffer from this
chronic disease.
From 2005 to 2009, asthma was the underlying cause or a contributing
cause of death for 240 people in Rhode Island, including 4 children.
In 2009, there were 1,750 hospital discharges in Rhode Island for
asthma cases. Those hospital stays cost about $8 million--in just that
1 year--in direct medical costs, not counting the costs associated with
days of work and school missed or the medication for ongoing treatment.
On a clear summer day in Rhode Island, many of us have had the
experience commuting to work and hearing a warning on drive time radio:
Today is a bad air day in Rhode Island. Infants, senior citizens, and
people with respiratory difficulties should stay indoors today.
In fact, yesterday was just such a day in Rhode Island. An air
quality alert was issued by our State Department of Environmental
Management, warning that ozone was expected to reach dangerous levels
in the southern half of our State by afternoon. They recommended that
all residents limit physical exertion and take refuge in air-
conditioned environments for the better part of the day. In addition,
Rhode Island's public transit operator, RIPTA, offered free bus rides
all day long to keep people out of their cars.
These are real costs--costs paid in freedom, in reduced quality of
life, in medical bills, in burdened public services to respond to the
health risks of dirty air, and in more missed days of work and school.
There is still a lot to learn about the causes and cures of asthma.
But we know air pollution triggers asthma attacks. We know air
pollution is a preventable problem. Armed with this knowledge, Rhode
Island has taken great strides to reduce air pollution.
In 2006, Rhode Island passed a law to prohibit cars and buses from
idling with their engines on.
In 2007, Rhode Island passed a law to retrofit all State school buses
with diesel pollution controls.
In 2010, Rhode Island began requiring heavy-duty vehicles used in
federally funded construction projects to install diesel pollution
controls, adhere to the State anti-idling law, and use only low-sulfur
diesel fuel.
RIPTA has voluntarily retrofitted half its bus fleet with diesel
pollution control equipment.
However, Rhode Island cannot solve its air pollution problem on its
own. We could stop driving entirely and shut down every industry in our
State, and we would still have problems with ground-level ozone and
particulate matter pollution. Why is that? Because, as EPA has
determined, most of the pollution that lands in Rhode Island is sent to
us by other States. Much of that out-of-State pollution comes from
virtually uncontrolled Midwestern coal-fired powerplants that are tied
to excessively tall smokestacks that send pollution hundreds of miles
away from the source.
Last month, at my request, the Government Accountability Office
completed a report about tall smokestacks at coal powerplants. Here is
what the report said: In 1970, the year the Clean Air Act was enacted,
there were two tall stacks--stacks over 500 feet--in the United States.
By 1985, this number of tall stacks had grown from 2 to more than 180.
Utilities and industry literally built their way into compliance with
the Clean Air Act.
The trend continued. As of December 31, 2010, at the end of last
year, 284 tall stacks were operating at 172 coal powerplants in the
United States. These tall smokestacks are associated with 64 percent of
the coal generating capacity in our country. Most of the coal
generating capacity in our country vents its pollution through tall
smokestacks.
Most of the tall stacks--207 of them or nearly three-quarters of
them--are between 500 and 699 feet tall; 63 of them are between 700 and
999 feet tall. The remaining 14 are over 1,000 feet tall. The tallest
stack at a coal powerplant in the United States is 1,038 feet, which is
at the Rockport Powerplant in Indiana. This graphic compares some of
these stacks with some of the well-known landmarks in our country. Here
is the Statue of Liberty, at 305 feet; the Washington Monument, at 555
feet; and here are stacks at 1,000 feet, 1,038, and 12,004 feet--the
Empire State Building in New York and the Willis Tower in Chicago.
As I have noted in previous floor remarks, once a stack gets over
1,000 feet, it has to be actually marked on aviation maps as a hazard
to avoid plane collisions.

[[Page S4444]]

What do I mean when I say the utilities built their way into
compliance with these tall stacks? In the early days of the Clean Air
Act, some States allowed pollution sources to build tall stacks instead
of installing pollution controls. The concept was that pollution sent
high enough into the atmosphere would be sent far away from the source
and it would not contribute to the air pollution problem in that State
and everybody would be happy.
The problem is, this air pollution causes problems downwind in other
States. As the GAO report put it, ``Tall stacks generally disperse
pollutants over greater distances than shorter stacks and provide
pollutants greater time to react in the atmosphere to form ozone and
particulate matter,'' which are the precursors to asthma. Yet public
health policy has not yet caught up with this practice. Rhode Island
pays the price.
Making matters worse, the GAO found that more than half the boilers
attached to these tall stacks at the coal powerplants have no scrubber
to control sulfur dioxide emissions--none. Approximately 85 percent of
these boilers went into service before 1980, so they are antiquated and
dirty and they run the pollution up the tall stack and it ends up being
dumped on Rhode Island instead of cleaned up at the source. Nearly two-
thirds of boilers connected to these tall stacks have no postcombustion
controls for nitrogen oxide--controls that are vastly more effective
than so-called low NOX burners. Again, uncontrolled at the
source, they dump the pollution up the tall stacks, export it
elsewhere, and it is not their problem, but it then lands on Rhode
Island.
Here is a graphic that shows more than 70 coal plants which have tall
stacks at boilers that operate without scrubbers or postcombustion
nitrogen oxide controls. These boilers are sending hundreds of
thousands of tons of unabated pollution up very tall smokestacks, into
the jetstream, and the jetstream delivers it downwind onto States such
as Rhode Island.
As the GAO indicated:

In the Mid-Atlantic United States, the wind generally blows
from west to east during the day . . . ozone can travel
hundreds of miles at night with the help of high-speed winds
known as the low-level jet. This phenomenon typically occurs
at night . . . due to the ground cooling quicker than the
upper atmosphere, which can allow the low-level jet to form
and transport ozone and particulate matter with its high
winds.

The map shows a typical prevailing wind pattern in the spring. Notice
how the prevailing winds send so much of the pollution up and over to
Rhode Island and other States along the eastern seaboard. In fact, five
of the States on this map--Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Illinois,
and North Carolina--have been identified by EPA as contributing
significantly to Rhode Island's pollution problems.
The electricity that comes from these uncontrolled powerplants, which
don't stop the pollution at the start but instead jet it up into this
low-level jet so it gets dumped in other States--the electricity coming
from them might seem cheaper to consumers than electricity from a
pollution-controlled powerplant. But that is not so. That would be
wrong to consider or to conclude. The costs weren't cheaper. The costs
just got shifted. They got shifted from the companies and the consumers
in the polluting States to the lungs of children in Rhode Island and
other downwind States. It is the lungs of children and adults and
seniors in Rhode Island that are actually paying for that cheap
electricity.

Happily, and at last, the EPA has begun to remedy this unfair and
wrongful public health situation by requiring utilities in upwind
States to control their pollution under the good neighbor provision of
the Clean Air Act, because while a tall stack will send uncontrolled
pollution farther than a short stack would, the most effective way to
reduce pollution is to install pollution controls.
Prompted by petitions from our downwind States, the Bush EPA
attempted to set pollution limits for States that contribute to
unhealthy pollution levels outside their borders. However, on review,
the DC Circuit Court of Appeals told them they had not gone far enough.
So the EPA went back to the drawing board and crafted the cross-State
air pollution rule that has been announced today, which will cap the
pollution that can be produced in upwind States, such as Ohio,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Illinois, and North Carolina. Those caps
were designed based on each State's contribution to pollution in States
such as Rhode Island, and it will ratchet down whenever EPA tightens
air quality standards based on the latest and best science.
As I said, that rule was finalized today. So I thank the EPA. I
commend the EPA for finalizing that cross-State air pollution rule. I
also urge EPA to update the national ozone air quality standard based
on the recommendations from the CASAC--the Clean Air Science Advisory
Committee. This will lead to further pollution reductions in States
upwind of Rhode Island and further benefit Rhode Islanders.
These rules will bring us closer to the day when the coal powerplants
on this chart start taking responsibility for their pollution and stop
exporting that pollution into Rhode Island and other States, when they
install pollution control equipment rather than sending their pollution
to where it becomes someone else's problem, and to when Rhode Island
children can play outdoors safely without the risk of an asthma attack.
I am looking forward to that day, and I know the people of Rhode Island
are too.
When you drive in and that morning radio tells you today is another
bad air day and that children and seniors should stay indoors and can't
play, can't take a walk, can't engage in anything that involves any
exertion, it is frustrating when there is nothing you can do about it.
The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management could pass
regulations until it was blue in the face. The Rhode Island General
Assembly could write new laws all day long and it would make no
difference because the bombardment of outside pollution on our State is
what is driving these health problems. That is why EPA is so important.
We would have no voice in this if it were not for a National
Environmental Protection Agency that can look out for small States such
as ours that are on the receiving end of this kind of a pollution dump
from the uncontrolled coal-fired plants in the Midwest.
I thank very much the Presiding Officer, I yield the floor, and I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I would like to add a few words this
afternoon about the ongoing negotiations on the Federal budget and on
our rapidly approaching debt ceiling.
I think we all agree that the situation we face is one of enormous
importance and complexity. I believe every responsible person also
agrees a failure to act would have awful repercussions that would
jeopardize or worsen our fragile and tentative economic recovery. So I
think the responsible view is, it is imperative we act and it is also
clear to do so will require every side to make concessions.
I rise this afternoon, however, because it is my strong belief that
any agreement we reach must be based on real savings and must not be
made at the expense of our most vulnerable citizens. That is why I am
so concerned about reports that Social Security and Medicare have been
raised as possible sources of deficit reduction. Cuts to Social
Security and to Medicare benefits should not be on the table. Social
Security is not the cause of the deficit, never has been the cause of
the deficit, and beneficiaries of Social Security should not be made to
shoulder the burden of deficit reduction.
Social Security is funded through the contributions of our Nation's
workers and businesses. It has an enormous surplus and is projected to
be fully solvent for another quarter century. So while I would agree
with steps to strengthen Social Security, any changes should be
considered independent of our effort to reduce the deficit, and we
should not cut Social Security benefits.
I helped cofound the Senate defending Social Security caucus for this
very reason. The solvency of the Social Security program can be
extended significantly just by applying payroll

[[Page S4445]]

taxes to a greater portion of the earnings of millionaires and
billionaires. What we have seen in this country is a huge shift of
income going more and more to the uppermost economic reaches and less
and less to the middle class. The middle class has actually lost income
in the last decade. So the contributions to Social Security are lower
because there is less income to draw it off of and the income that is
above the $106,000 Social Security cap is where the explosion of income
has been and they contribute not a nickel from that income to Social
Security.
So there is a lot we can do to support Social Security, but what we
should not do is give in to any of the calls to put our seniors'
security at risk in the stock market by privatizing Social Security or
increasing the retirement age so that a construction worker or a
waitress who works on their feet all day long has to put in more years
of service at that age--when their body, frankly, might not be up to it
any longer--or to cut benefits through backdoor methods by lowering the
cost-of-living adjustment.
The Rhode Island seniors I have heard from at my community dinners
and senior centers around the State I have visited are very concerned
what would happen if their benefits were cut.
Audrey, from Middletown, told me that after her husband died, she had
many expenses but, as she said, ``no income except for his Social
Security check which enabled me to go on living--simply but adequately
without being a burden on my sons and losing my dignity as well.''
Two very important points Audrey makes. One is that Social Security
is not just a benefit to Social Security recipients. It is a benefit to
the children of Social Security recipients, on whom their parents might
otherwise be a burden. It is an American value that senior citizens who
have worked hard all their lives, who have played by the rules, who
have built the America we now enjoy should be able to draw on so as not
to lose their dignity at the end of their life.
That is a principle that is worth defending.
Ronald from Cumberland, RI, had been on Social Security for a number
of years. He wrote to say: It seems that it's always the people who
need the help the most who get cut from the Federal Government. Why is
this? No Social Security cost of living adjustment for 2 years, yet
prices for the basic needs still rise. In a country like the United
States of America, this should not happen.
These people who are living on Social Security income are not living
high off the hog, and they should not be the targets of our cost-
cutting zeal.
The threat to the Medicare Program is just as real. Earlier this
year, Republicans over in the House of Representatives passed a budget
that would end the Medicare Program as we have come to know it for
future generations. I can remember being at a senior center in North
Providence, and a gentleman sitting at a table said to me: You know, I
have helped build this country; I have fought in its wars; And I
understand that the Republican proposal will protect Medicare for me;
but I am not willing to let Medicare for my children be thrown under
the bus. That would make me feel awful. It simply isn't right for me to
stay on it and stand for the program to be taken apart and dismembered
for everybody else.
That was a moving statement for me to hear, and we need to honor
that.
Estimates suggest that the House Republicans' proposal would end up
forcing a typical 65-year-old senior to pay, on average, $12,500 each
year in out-of-pocket expenses starting in 2022. That is more than
double what a senior is estimated to pay than if the current system of
Medicare stayed in place.
In Rhode Island, the average senior only gets about $14,200 per year
from Social Security to begin with. So if you are going to ask people
who now have $14,200 a year, who aren't getting cost-of-living
adjustments by 2022 to pay $12,500 for Medicare, that would be a
massive exercise in poverty creation, and what Medicare and Social
Security have done is lifted the burden of poverty from America's
seniors. I think sometimes we are blind to what life might be like
without them, when some of our colleagues so cavalierly suggest that we
should do away with these programs, privatize them, or turn them over
to the insurance industry.
The Republican budget would also reopen the Medicare prescription
drug doughnut hole. We went through a lot of effort to close that
doughnut hole in the Affordable Care Act. That doughnut hole will be
gone in 10 years, thanks to the Affordable Care Act. The Republicans
all voted against the Affordable Care Act. They all voted against
closing the doughnut hole. And now in their budget on the other side
they want to unwind that part of the bill and take away the protections
we have provided for seniors in the doughnut hole. That would cost
millions of dollars to seniors in Rhode Island starting next year if it
were put into law. That is not something off in the future. That is
right now, thousands of Rhode Island seniors having to cough up
millions of dollars because of this Republican House budget plan. That
is something I think we need to defend against. That is the wrong place
to look.
It is especially the wrong place to look as we find our Republican
colleagues fighting so hard to protect tax breaks for millionaires and
billionaires. I have given the speech repeatedly already, so I won't
dwell on it now. But when our Republican colleagues stand and say, We
are against tax hikes, it is important for Americans to look behind the
curtain and see who they are defending, because I will tell you,
everybody in this Chamber, Republican and Democrat alike, believes that
ordinary American families earning ordinary levels of income should be
exempt from any tax hikes. That is not even on the table.
When our Republican colleagues talk about defending against tax
hikes, they are talking about defending the oil industry from having
subsidies they don't need and that taxpayers pay for taken away. They
are talking about protecting the top 400 income earners in the country
who, on average, pay Federal taxes, actually paid in--this isn't a
theory, this isn't a rate; this is what they actually paid in,
according to the IRS--18.2 percent. These are people who made on
average more than $\1/4\ billion, with a B--$1 billion with a B, in 1
year. And God bless them. What a wonderful thing it is to make more
than $\1/4\ billion in 1 year. But they pay taxes at lower rate than a
truckdriver in Rhode Island does on average; the guy who wakes up every
morning and gets into his clothes and puts on his boots and gets in the
truck and goes out there and works all day, pays the same tax rate as
the person earning over $\1/4\ billion.
They can talk about tax hikes until they are blue in the face. It
won't take away the fact that is the way it actually works in this
country, and they are defending that and going after Audrey and the
folks on Medicare in Rhode Island and Ronald from Cumberland. That is
not right, and we need to argue about that and fight back.
We can never overlook what Medicare and Social Security have
contributed to our Nation's prosperity. It is not just the benefit for
the Medicare beneficiary, it is not just the benefit for the Social
Security recipient. It is the freedom we all feel knowing we will have
a dignified old age; that we won't be at the mercy of Wall Street, that
we won't be at the mercy of a private insurance company; that we will
have the efficient and effective services that Medicare and Social
Security deliver. We can know that now and enjoy that. We have more
freedom as Americans now because we can make bolder choices in our
lives knowing that we don't have to defend ourselves against that kind
of poverty and that kind of misery in our old age. Our children can
make bolder choices in their lives knowing that they don't have to
safeguard against a parent's illness ruining their own financial
futures, ruining their family's financial futures.
Imagine how awful it must feel for a parent in that circumstance, if
in your old age you become grievously ill and the only resource you
have is to essentially wipe out your children who feel a moral
obligation to take care of your medical expenses and put themselves
into poverty and misery as a result of your illness. What an awful
human tragedy that is for the people involved. And we don't experience
that tragedy in America. We don't experience it because Medicare and
Social Security are there.
The challenge before us is a formidable one, but I truly believe we
can

[[Page S4446]]

reach an agreement on the deficit and the debt ceiling without
compromising the security and the well-being of our seniors. I believe
the Democratic Budget Committee's proposed budget is a good model for
how we can actually do it, and I look forward to continuing this
discussion. It is not necessary, in order to solve our immediate
deficit problems and to get through this debt limit fight, to take our
seniors and put Social Security and Medicare that they have relied on
at risk; to take this country whose prosperity Social Security and
Medicare do so much to support, and knock that down with a tax on
Social Security and Medicare. It is not right, it is not necessary, and
we should stand against it.
Mr. President, 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________