[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 23]
[Senate]
[Pages 30909-30938]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
              APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to the conference report 
to accompany H.R. 3288, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to proceed for a moment here prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my good friend the majority 
leader, we have been anxious to have health care votes since Tuesday, 
and we have had the Crapo amendment pending since Tuesday. You have 
said repeatedly, and I agree with you, that the health care issue is 
extraordinarily important and that we should be dealing with it and 
debating it.
  So it is my hope that somehow, through our discussions both on and 
off the floor, we can get back to a process of facilitating the 
offering of amendments on both sides of the aisle at the earliest 
possible time and we can get back to the health care bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am happy to respond through the Chair to 
my distinguished colleague.
  I think it is pretty evident to everyone here not only what has 
happened here on the Senate floor but the statements that have been 
made publicly and privately. And certainly I am not going to discuss 
any private conversations I have had, but based on Rush Limbaugh and 
Glenn Beck, which is on all the news today, they are upset at Senator 
McConnell because he is not opposing the health care bill enough--that 
in a reasonable process on this, there are no efforts being made to 
improve this bill, only to kill this bill.
  I think the debate has come to a point that I have rarely seen in the 
Senate. In fact, I have never seen it. To have my friends on the other 
side of the aisle come to the floor and in some way try to embarrass or 
denigrate me by virtue of the fact that--in fact, trying to embarrass 
me. What they should understand is that any events I had scheduled for 
this weekend have been canceled. Events I had last weekend had been 
canceled--four or five of them. To say the least, I would never, ever 
intentionally come to the floor and try to talk to somebody about 
having had a fundraiser and that is why they are trying to get out of 
here.
  The reason I laid out to the Senate what I thought was a reasonable 
schedule is because, procedurally, we are where we are. The rules of 
the Senate are such that once cloture is invoked, that is what you stay 
with. I thought it would be appropriate, because we have worked pretty 
hard here, to have a day or two off. Anything that was reasonable, I 
would be happy to deal with everyone. But there was no result from 
this. Everything that can be done to stall and to divert attention from 
this bill is being done. And that is too bad, because it is important 
legislation.
  Today, 14,000 Americans will lose their health insurance. Between now 
and 3:30, a number of people will die as a result of having no health 
insurance. So we are engaged in some important stuff; as pundits have 
said, some of the most important legislation that has ever been in this 
body.
  So I am going to proceed to follow the rules of the Senate, and I am 
sorry we haven't been able to work with the Republicans in a 
constructive fashion on this health care bill, but it is obvious we 
haven't.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to 
respond briefly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I reiterate to my good friend from 
Nevada, all I said was the Crapo amendment has been pending since 
Tuesday. We would like to vote on amendments. There has been some 
difficulty, apparently, in coming up with a side by side to the Crapo 
amendment. I understand that. But I am perplexed that it would take 2 
days to come up with a side by side.
  This, as has been stated by my good friend the majority leader, is 
the most important issue--some have said in history. It has been 
equated with a variety of different monumentally important pieces of 
legislation in American history. All we are asking is the opportunity 
to offer amendments and get votes. I said it in a most respectful way

[[Page 30910]]

and meant it in a most respectful way. I think it is pretty hard to 
argue with a straight face that we are not trying to proceed to amend 
and have votes on this bill. That is what we desire to do.
  The majority leader certainly has the right to move to the conference 
report. He has now done that--or we are about to vote on doing that. 
All I suggested was we would like to get back on the health care bill 
as soon as we can, resume the debate process on what has been described 
on an issue of historic importance, and let Senators vote, which is 
what we do here in this body.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Kentucky that I have 
an event I am going to now. I will vote and come back, and I will see 
if we can work something out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 371 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                               NAYS -- 43

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
       Byrd
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. AKAKA. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. 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. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, it is my understanding we are now on the 
fiscal year 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act. I will have a lot to 
say about this 3,000-page omnibus appropriations bill, but I would 
point out to my colleagues that it is loaded down with 4,752 earmarks, 
totaling $3.7 billion; six bills, totaling $450 billion; 1,351 pages 
long, with 409 pages of earmarks. Spending on domestic programs is 
increased by 14 percent. Veterans spending is increased by 5 percent. 
That shows the priorities around here. Let me repeat that. Domestic 
spending programs are increased by 14 percent. Military construction 
and veterans spending is increased by only 5 percent.
  Here we go again. Just a matter of months ago, in March, the Senate 
passed a monstrous $410 billion, 3,000-page omnibus appropriations bill 
that was loaded up with over 9,000 earmarks. At that time, those of us 
who complained about the ridiculous amount of waste were ignored. In 
fact, the President's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 
Peter Orszag, said in an interview that ``this is last year's business. 
. . . We want to just move on''--a truly remarkable statement coming 
from the man the President put in charge of the government's budget.
  In March, the majority leader placed the blame for the omnibus 
spending bill at the feet of President Bush. Senator Reid said:

       . . . we have a lot of issues we need to get to after we 
     fund the Government--something we should have done last year 
     but we could not because of the difficulty we had working 
     with President Bush.

  So what is the excuse this time? Where will the blame be placed now? 
Is the majority leader having difficulty working with President Obama? 
We have had all year to work on 12 annual spending bills, and we only 
enacted 5 of them through the regular order, and 1 of those 5 was 
passed and sent to the President before the new fiscal year began.
  We should be embarrassed by this process. Here we go again--faced 
with a whopping 1,350-page omnibus appropriations conference report, 
which contains six bills, spends $450 billion, and is loaded up with 
4,752 earmarks, totaling $3.7 billion. Meanwhile, people are out of 
jobs, they are out of their homes, unemployment in my home State is 17 
percent, and we are going to spend money on things such as $2.7 
million--get this; I am not making it up--$2.7 million for supporting 
surgical operations in outer space--supporting surgical operations in 
outer space--at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE; 
$30,000 for Woodstock Film Festival Youth Initiative; $13.9 million for 
fisheries in Hawaii--the list goes on and on and on and on--$200,000 to 
renovate and construct the Laredo Little Theatre.
  We should not be spending American taxpayer dollars to replace worn 
auditorium seating and soundproofing materials. The list goes on and on 
and on: $800,000 for jazz at the Lincoln Center; $3.4 million for a 
rural bus program in Hawaii--you will note that Hawaii pops up all the 
time here--$1.6 million to build a tram between the Huntsville 
Botanical Garden and the Marshall Flight Center in Alabama; $750,000 
for the design and fabrication of exhibits to be placed in the World 
Food Prize Hall of Laureates in Iowa.
  I am not making these up. This is the same party and President that 
promised to scrub each one of these appropriations bills and get rid of 
the unnecessary ones.
  So we will be talking a lot about this bill. But I want to point out 
again what is before us to the American people: six bills--not one--six 
bills, totaling $450 billion; 409 pages of earmarks, 4,752 earmarks, 
totaling $3.7 billion; and spending on domestic programs is increased 
by 14 percent; MILCON and veterans spending is increased by 5 percent.
  I have met recently with the Governor of my State. We are suffering 
under incredible economic difficulties. We are having the greatest 
financial crisis in the history of my State. Couldn't they use some of 
this $3.7 billion in earmarks to pay for some of the essential services 
that are having to be cut back, not only in my State but all over 
America? No. The beat goes on. It is business as usual here in 
Washington.
  And do not be surprised at the anger of the American people over this 
way of doing business--bills 1,351 pages long, filled with earmarks and 
pork that have nothing to do with the betterment of our Nation.
  So we will be talking a lot more about many of these porkbarrel 
amendments that are in it. But it is awful: $200,000 for ``design and 
construction of the Garapan Public Market'' in the Northern Mariana 
Islands. We will be hearing a lot more about it.
  Mr. THUNE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. THUNE. The Senator mentioned that for these seven bills, the 
year-over-year increase in spending is 12 percent. Does the Senator 
from Arizona know what the CPI this last year was?
  Mr. McCAIN. The CPI was minus 1.3 percent, not to mention 10 percent 
unemployment in America, not to mention people not being able to stay 
in

[[Page 30911]]

their homes, not to mention the hardest economic conditions in history, 
certainly, since the Great Depression.
  Spending on domestic programs is increased by 14 percent. What brings 
that down to 12 percent is they only increased veterans spending--
veterans spending--by 5 percent. But opera houses, rural bus programs, 
music programs--$300,000 for music programs at Carnegie Hall. Do you 
think Carnegie Hall needs $300,000 for music programs?
  Mr. THUNE. If the Senator will yield for another question, do any of 
these numbers the Senator is talking about--this 12-percent increase in 
spending in these seven appropriations bills over the previous year, at 
a time when families across this country are being asked to tighten 
their belts, small businesses are tightening their belts; as the 
Senator said, we have record unemployment--do these numbers include the 
almost $1 trillion that was spent earlier this year in the stimulus 
bill?
  Mr. McCAIN. The stimulus bill has nothing to do with that, I would 
say to my colleague, and we all know that. This is entirely new, six 
appropriations bills, totaling nearly $450 billion which, by the way, 
the majority leader wanted to pass by unanimous consent. Remarkable.
  Mr. THUNE. I say to my colleague and friend from Arizona, that is a 
12-percent year-over-year increase and the five bills that have already 
passed had increases that were in the teens in terms of the year-over-
year increases too. I do not know how, when you pass a $1 trillion 
stimulus bill, much of which was distributed to Federal agencies that 
are also going to get these year-over-year 12-percent, 14-percent, 15-
percent increases in spending, we can justify that to the American 
taxpayer or to hard-working Americans who are struggling right now to 
make ends meet and have to balance their family budgets. States are 
struggling to balance their budgets. But here in Washington, it seems 
as though it is spend, spend, spend.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would also respond to my friend, it has to be in the 
context of a revision over 10 years, recently, by the Office of 
Management and Budget from a $10 trillion to a $12 trillion deficit. 
The deficit for this year is $1.4 trillion, and I am not sure what it 
is next year. But they could not have known that in the Appropriations 
Committee when they passed spending measures such as this.
  The point is, in the face of massive, unprecedented deficits, 
unfunded liabilities in Social Security and Medicare, where we are 
asking Americans all over to tighten their belts--in my State essential 
services are being cut because they do not have enough money--this is 
the same business as usual that we have seen for years.
  I saw a poll yesterday--it was in a Hotline poll or one of those--
that the approval rating of Members of Congress is below that of used 
car salesmen. I have not met those who express their approval. So we 
should not be surprised at some very interesting things that may take 
place in the elections coming up this November. But it is unfortunate, 
that is all.
  Mr. THUNE. I say to the Senator, one final point I would make is, of 
all that spending the Senator mentioned--and again the $1 trillion in 
stimulus money was all borrowed money; that was all added to the debt, 
will be added to the debt, and is going to be paid for by our children 
and grandchildren, but the $1.4 trillion the Senator mentioned that 
last year constituted the Federal deficit means that out of every 
dollar the Federal Government spent last year, 43 cents was borrowed.
  Mr. McCAIN. Forty-three cents. And do you know who they borrowed it 
against? Our kids and our grandkids. They are the ones who are going to 
have to pay for it. I do not think I will. It is our kids and our 
grandkids whom we are laying it on. This is a colossal act of 
generational theft that we have committed. And believe it or not, the 
American people have figured it out.
  Mr. THUNE. There is no question. The one thing that I guess is 
bothersome is most generations of Americans--your generation, 
obviously--worked hard, sacrificed so the next generation could have a 
better life. What we are basically doing is borrowing from the next 
generation because we have not been able to live within our means. That 
turns on its head one of the great ethics of America that has served 
this country so well for generations. Washington, DC, has not learned 
the lesson that when you borrow money, it has to be paid back, and that 
you cannot spend more than you take in. Forty-three cents out of every 
dollar last year was borrowed--all to be put on the bills of our 
children and grandchildren.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator is correct.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the conference report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     3288), making appropriations for the Departments of 
     Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and 
     for other purposes, having met, have agreed that the House 
     recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate 
     and agree to the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree 
     to the same, signed by a majority of the conferees on the 
     part of the two Houses.

  (The conference report is printed in the Record of December 8, 2009, 
beginning at page 29920.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I know we have moved to the Omnibus 
appropriations bill to continue government, and the time is running out 
for the current authorization bill, and this brings us back to the 
authorization of spending, but it also takes us away from health care 
reform.
  On this side of the aisle, we have been waiting for a long period of 
time to vote on some amendments that are now before the Senate, such as 
the Crapo motion which would send the bill back to committee to take 
out the tax increases that are in it. Then we also have the Dorgan 
amendment. I can understand why maybe the majority does not want to 
vote on Republican amendments, but I sure don't understand why they 
would object to voting on Senator Dorgan's amendment, a Democratic 
amendment, because there have always been more Democrats than 
Republicans for the Dorgan amendment, and quite frankly, I am in a 
position where I agree with that amendment. I am a cosponsor of it. I 
think we would have a great deal of bipartisan support for the Dorgan 
amendment. But now we are just automatically away from the health care 
debate and those amendments.
  So I am wondering why we had to do this appropriations bill right 
now. I think there is growing realization that maybe public reaction, 
negative reaction to the legislation before us--remember that 2,074-
page bill that is before us--the public is getting wise to what is in 
that bill and there is objection to it, and maybe now the majority 
party would like to have a little respite from that debate. So I 
thought I would come back to not the substance of the health care 
reform bill debate but to a lot of organizations that oppose it and why 
they oppose it, just to keep the public's attention that we on this 
side of the aisle feel the health care issue is very important.
  As I travel around Iowa, I hear a lot of concern about out-of-control 
government spending. People are worried about all of the bailouts, the 
banks, and the automakers, the automakers such as General Motors being 
nationalized. They are worried about the rising rate of unemployment, 
which is 10 percent now. They don't see how we will ever dig ourselves 
out of the deficit hole we are in, a deficit that has been increased by 
$1.3 trillion since President Obama's inauguration.
  As Senator McCain just pointed out, the bill that has now come before 
the

[[Page 30912]]

Senate to fully fund the Federal Government has 12.5-percent increases 
in it. From that standpoint, it seems to me we are getting away from a 
commonsense principle that we ought to use around here on spending, and 
that is that spending shouldn't eat up any more than the economic 
growth of the tax base that is coming into the Federal Treasury to 
support that spending. Quite obviously, you can't have 12.5 percent 
increases in appropriations this year over last year, and last year was 
9 percent over the previous year. You just can't sustain that. Common 
sense dictates against it. But what rules here in Washington is just a 
lot of nonsense.
  So our constituents are confused. They are confused as to why, in the 
face of all these fiscal problems, some in Congress are now proposing 
$500 billion in tax increases. Tax increases are very bad for the 
economy. It is more difficult to get out of the recession as you 
increase expenditures. They don't understand why some are proposing the 
largest Medicaid expansion since the program's creation. They want to 
know why they are proposing $500 billion in Medicare cuts to create an 
entirely new entitlement program that this country can't afford.
  Nowhere are these worries and this confusion more evident than among 
business leaders of America because business is where jobs are created. 
Government does not produce wealth; government consumes wealth. So if 
you want to expand the economy, you do it through the private sector. 
That is where the resources of government come from. That is where the 
resources that sustain our people come from.
  So whether it is a small business owner on Main Street or a CEO on 
Wall Street, the message is clear: Stop spending, get the economy back 
on track, and get people back to work.
  Unfortunately, the health reform bill will not address any of these 
goals. In fact, it may just do the opposite. Don't take my word for it. 
Let's take a look at what the groups that represent American businesses 
are saying.
  Let's start with the Chamber of Commerce representing 3 million 
American businesses. In a press release distributed November 19, 1 day 
after the release of the Senate bill, the Chamber called the Senate 
bill a ``Missed Opportunity to Enact Meaningful Reform.'' That was 
their title.
  Let me go to a specific quote:

       This bill still contains a government-run plan and an 
     onerous employer mandate, it taxes working Americans, slashes 
     Medicare, spends over a trillion dollars--and after all 
     this--CBO tells us 24 million Americans will still not have 
     health insurance.

  That doesn't sound like the kind of reform that is going to help get 
the chamber members back on track hiring more workers so we can get 
this unemployment down. It sounds as though they will end up being 
forced to pay higher taxes and cut jobs. I am not an economist, but 
that certainly doesn't sound like a formula for getting this country 
out of the recession.
  In fact, the chamber's press release says:

       The Chamber believes the path to a healthier economy is to 
     cut taxes, not to raise them by $500 billion.

  They go on to ask a question for which I still can't find an answer:

       Why is there still no meaningful medical liability reform? 
     Is currying favor with the trial lawyers worth passing up $50 
     billion in CBO verified savings?

  I think it is pretty clear that the Chamber of Commerce doesn't think 
this $2.5 trillion bill will cure what ails the U.S. economy.
  Let's see what some other business groups have to say. The National 
Association of Manufacturers put out a press release the same day as 
the Chamber of Commerce, November 19. The National Association of 
Manufacturers is the Nation's largest industrial trade association. 
Their members build the machines that keep America running, so they 
should know a little bit about how to get our economy running again. 
Unfortunately, they see Senator Reid's bill as a step in the wrong 
direction. Like the Chamber and like pretty much every other business 
group, the National Association of Manufacturers has announced that 
they cannot support the pending bill.
  I find it hard to believe that some Senators who claim to be 
probusiness can support a bill that is opposed by almost the entire 
business community--or am I missing something? How can some Democrats 
who claim to want to get people back to work support a bill that 
economists from the far right to the far left say will reduce wages and 
increase unemployment? It just doesn't seem to make sense.
  Like other business groups, the National Association of Manufacturers 
is in favor of reform. Manufacturers realize that we need health reform 
to lower costs, increase access, and improve quality. But according to 
their press release, they cannot support a bill that will--this is 
their quote--``add massive financial burdens to businesses that are 
already struggling in this recession.'' They go on to express deep 
concern about huge tax increases that will hurt small business 
manufacturers, and they are worried that both the so-called public 
option and the massive Medicaid expansion will just end up shifting 
more costs and higher premiums to private businesses.
  The National Association of Manufacturers ends their press release by 
saying:

       Oppose the majority leader's bill and urge Senators to do 
     the same as it raises costs and ultimately will destroy jobs.

  Again, I find myself asking how someone can claim to be probusiness 
but support a bill that is so strongly opposed by the business 
community.
  Let's take a look at what small businesses have to say. Maybe that is 
where the answer is. You have to remember that small businesses create 
70 percent of the net new jobs in America. In fact, it was Christina 
Romer, the President's top economic adviser, who said in a recent 
Webcast that health care reform will ``benefit small business--not 
burden it.''
  Unfortunately, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the 
voice of small businesses, doesn't seem to agree. After the release of 
Senator Reid's bill, the National Federation of Independent Businesses 
said this:

       This kind of reform is not what we need to encourage small 
     business to thrive. We oppose the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act due to the amount of new taxes, the 
     creation of new mandates, and the establishment of new 
     entitlement programs.

  Like the chamber and the National Association of Manufacturers, small 
businesses want and need reform, probably more so than even chamber 
members and the National Association of Manufacturers. But it doesn't 
sound as though the pending bill actually addresses the problems of 
small business. In fact, it sounds as though the pending bill simply 
creates a host of new problems--problems at a time when this country is 
coming back from the brink of the greatest economic downturn since the 
Depression.
  The National Federation of Independent Businesses goes on to say:

       There is no doubt all of these burdens will be paid for on 
     the backs of small businesses.

  Over the coming weeks, I am sure some Senators are going to come down 
here and talk about all of the benefits for small businesses that are 
in this bill. But in the interest of honest debate, I hope they will at 
least mention in their remarks that despite all of the so-called 
benefits, this bill is still opposed by the voices of America's small 
businesses. It is still opposed by the National Federation of 
Independent Businesses. I could go on and list about half a dozen other 
business groups that oppose this bill. The Associated Builders and 
Contractors, the Independent Electrical Contractors, the International 
Franchise Association, the National Association of Wholesalers, the 
Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, and the International Food 
Service Distribution Association--all of these groups recognize the 
devastating impact this bill will have on our economy.
  We are facing the highest unemployment rate in 26 years. We have 
already seen the national debt increase by $1.3 trillion since 
inauguration or per household $11,535. The pending bill misses the mark 
on business' top priority, and that is lowering costs. Don't take my 
word for it. The Congressional Budget Office says the Reid bill bends

[[Page 30913]]

the Federal spending curve further upward by a net of $160 billion 
between 2010 and 2019.
  For these reasons, the pending bill is opposed by these organizations 
I have quoted: the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber 
of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, as well 
as almost every other business group based in Washington, DC, or maybe, 
for all I know, they are based in other parts of the country, but they 
still follow legislation here in this city, in the Congress.
  The business community has spoken, and their message is loud and 
clear. For Senators who want to bend the growth curve down--and that is 
what we all set out to do, but we don't have a bill before us that does 
it--this bill is not the answer. For those Senators who want to get 
people back to work, this bill is not the answer.
  For those Senators who want to get this country's economy back on 
track, this bill is not the answer.
  If you support American businesses--and American businesses are what 
provide the income into the Federal Treasury, whether it is corporate 
tax or income tax--it seems to me that if you have pride in American 
businesses and the jobs they create, you cannot support this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Washington 
is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to speak about 
the Transportation-Housing title of the bill now before the Senate. 
This is a bill that has broad bipartisan support because it addresses 
the very real housing and transportation needs of American families 
across the Nation.
  There is a lot to be proud of in this conference report, and I am 
pleased with what we have been able to accomplish working with my 
colleague from across the aisle, Senator Bond, Chairman Olver on the 
House side, and Congressman Latham and all their staffs.
  This bill makes needed investments in our transportation 
infrastructure, creating critical jobs, while also supporting housing 
and services for our Nation's most vulnerable.
  It ensures that two critical Federal agencies--departments that 
communities across the country depend on--have the resources they need 
to keep our commuters safe and our communities moving and prospering.
  The bill before us touches the lives of Americans in ways they can 
appreciate each day. Because we are talking about transportation 
projects and housing assistance, we are also talking about jobs and 
stemming a housing crisis that has contributed to our current economic 
troubles.
  Whether it is the parent who commutes every day and needs safe roads 
or new public transportation options so they can spend more time with 
their families or a business that depends on solid infrastructure to 
move goods and attract customers or the young family searching for a 
safe and affordable community in which to raise their children or the 
recently laid-off worker who needs help to keep his or her family in 
their home, this omnibus bill before us has a real impact on Americans 
who are struggling in these troubling economic times.
  Our bill takes a balanced approach that addresses the most critical 
needs we face in both transportation and housing, while remaining 
financially responsible and staying within the constraints of the 
budget resolution.
  I am especially pleased that the bill provides over $10.3 billion to 
support and expand public transit, which continues to see record growth 
in ridership.
  The bill also includes $600 million for the competitive multimodal 
surface transportation grant program, which supports projects making a 
significant impact on communities and regions--in addition to the over 
$41.8 billion included for our Nation's roads and bridges, which will 
support good-paying construction jobs and lead to safer and more 
reliable infrastructure.
  These transportation investments are critical to supporting our 
Nation's economy and creating good-paying jobs.
  In addition to these important investments in transportation, the 
bill represents a firm commitment to provide critical housing and 
supportive services to families most impacted by the economic crisis.
  This bill includes increased funding for the section 8 program, which 
provides housing for low-income families across the country. In 
addition, the bill increases housing programs for some of our Nation's 
most underserved populations, such as the elderly, the disabled, and 
Native American communities.
  Senator Bond and I are particularly proud that this bill includes $75 
million for vouchers for the joint HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive 
Housing Program. That program will provide an additional 10,000 
homeless veterans and their families housing and supportive services. 
We should all be very proud of the inclusion of that in the bill.
  I am also pleased the bill includes more than $150 million for 
housing counseling programs to help families avoid scams and stay in 
their homes, instead of facing foreclosure.
  Our bill provides assistance to those who need it most, and it 
directs resources in a responsible and fiscally prudent way.
  It addresses the needs of families and businesses in every region of 
the country--families who are looking for the Federal Government to 
step up and provide solutions to everything from congestion solutions 
to transportation safety, to foreclosure assistance, to affordable 
housing.
  This bill helps our commuters, homeowners, and the most vulnerable in 
society. Most important, it will create jobs and support the continued 
recovery of our national economy.
  I hope we can get past the differences we have and move quickly to 
send this bill to the President's desk.
  Before I close, I thank all our Senate staff who worked extremely 
hard over this past year to move this bill forward to our subcommittee, 
through full committee, to the floor of the Senate, through conference 
committee, and now here at its final stop before it reaches the 
President's desk. They have worked many weekends and evenings putting 
this together. These staff members are: Matt McCardle, John Kamarck, 
Ellen Beares, Joanne Waszczak, Travis Lumpkin, Grant Lahmann, Michael 
Bain, Dedra Goodman and Alex Keenan and especially Meaghan McCarathy 
and Rachel Milberg for their outstanding efforts to help us get this 
bill to the floor today. We are the ones who stand before everybody and 
take credit for these bills, but it is our staffs who have helped us 
get here. I thank the staffs on both sides of the aisle for getting us 
here today.
  I urge our colleagues to get past our differences and move the bill 
quickly to the President's desk.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I wish to speak on the Omnibus 
appropriations bills, to which we just moved, as well as to return and 
make some comments on the health care legislation from which we just 
retreated.
  First, regarding the Omnibus appropriations bill, I am very concerned 
about the fact that, as my motion is pending on the health care bill, 
dealing with one of the more important issues; namely--the President's 
pledge to make sure no one in America who makes less than $250,000 as a 
couple or $200,000 as an individual will be required to pay for the 
unbelievably high cost of this bill.
  While we were facing that amendment, the majority has decided they 
will shift from the bill--I understand that is a tough vote to take 
because the bill contains so many hundreds of billions of dollars of 
new tax increases that the American people squarely in the middle class 
will be called upon to share. We should not have shifted from the 
health care debate to move to the Omnibus appropriations bill, not only 
because of the importance of the issues we are dealing with on the 
health care legislation but because of the Omnibus appropriations bill 
itself.
  This Congress cannot control its appetite for spending. The 
appropriations

[[Page 30914]]

bill we see before us now is called omnibus because it packages 
together seven of the original appropriations bills this Congress has 
been working on--and we are studying them to find out the details. But 
from the information I have received, the average rate of growth in 
spending in this bill overall--over those seven bills--is somewhere 
between 12 percent and 14 percent growth in
  Federal spending.
  This Congress has generated a $1.4 trillion deficit in less than 12 
months. For next year, we want to see Federal Government grow by 
another 12 to 14 percent. That doesn't count the new stimulus package 
spending that is being talked about, and it doesn't count the 
spending--that almost $2.5 trillion in new spending--contemplated in 
the health care legislation, and any number of other pieces of 
legislation waiting in the queue to come before the Congress.
  At some point, fiscal restraint has to return to Washington, DC. We 
have not seen it here for far too long. I know it is very tempting to 
just say we can pile the debt on our children and grandchildren and 
spend what we want to spend today. There are those who say the only way 
we can have a strong economy is to spend ourselves into prosperity. Yet 
it is not the government that creates jobs. It is the formation of 
capital, the investment by small businesses and entrepreneurs in new 
ideas and products, and the expansion of business in the United States 
that will allow us to sustain a strong, healthy growth in our economy.
  If we continue to rely on borrowing money from the future in order to 
spend ourselves into prosperity, we will continue to see our national 
debt mount to a point where it cannot be sustained. We are already at a 
$12 trillion national debt, a national debt that is projected to double 
over the next 10 years to $24 trillion. I object to moving off the 
health care bill, where we had such critical amendments and motions 
pending. I object to moving to a bill that will now increase the 
spending of the Federal Government by 12 to 14 percent.
  Let me shift for a moment and talk more about the health care bill. 
The motion I had brought--the pending motion before the Senate--or it 
was before we shifted off the health care bill--was a simple motion 
that would have required the bill to be committed to the Finance 
Committee, with instructions to the Finance Committee to take out those 
parts of the bill that impose a tax increase on people in the United 
States who earn less than $250,000 as a couple or $200,000 as 
individuals.
  Very straightforward, it is exactly what the President pledged he 
would do, on multiple occasions, to the American people. Yet we have 
shown there are almost $500 billion of taxes in the first 10 years of 
this bill. If you look at the real first 10 years after the spending 
has kicked in--the 2014 to 2023 time period--it is almost $1.2 trillion 
in new taxes, a huge portion of which falls on the middle class. The 
response has been that actually this bill is a net tax cut. How can 
that be? The only way it can be claimed to be a tax cut is if you take 
the subsidies in the bill--about $400 billion worth of them--which are 
used to provide people at lower income categories, who don't have 
adequate access to insurance, with a subsidy toward the purchase of 
insurance and if you call that a tax cut. In the bill, it is actually 
called a renewable tax credit--even though $300 billion of the $400 
billion goes to individuals who do not pay taxes, do not have a tax 
liability, and it is scored by the CBO as spending, not tax relief. 
Even if you were willing to count that money as tax relief, then you 
would have a situation in which 7 percent of the Americans would be 
receiving these government subsidies, while the remainder would be 
paying the price--paying the taxes.
  To put some numbers on that, out of 282 million Americans who have 
insurance in America today--or will have in 2019--only 19 million would 
receive this tax credit being talked about. Remember, the vast majority 
of them get what is called a tax credit, but it is a government subsidy 
going to those who have not generated a tax liability, and 157 million 
of the 282 million would be people who get health insurance through 
their employer and will not be eligible for that health insurance.
  After you do all the numbers and take out the taxpayers who make less 
than $250,000 a year as a couple or $200,000 as an individual, the 
bottom line is, after all those who are subsidized are taken out, there 
are still 42 million Americans in the middle class, as defined by the 
President, who will pay hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes.
  My amendment would simply require that those taxes be taken out of 
the bill, the President's pledge be honored in the bill, and the bill 
then be put into a posture to return to the floor for further debate.
  There is one other item I would like to talk about. One of the things 
that is often said by the opponents of my amendment is that this bill 
actually drives down the spending curve.
  When they say that, I wonder what curve they are talking about. Are 
they talking about the size of government? No. The size of government 
under this bill grows up by $2.5 trillion. Are they talking about the 
cost of health care? No. The CBO study indicated very clearly that at 
best Americans will not see the cost of their health care go down. For 
those in the most needy categories, the 17 percent of Americans who are 
in the individual market, their health insurance will actually go up by 
10 to 13 percent.
  Are they talking about the Federal deficit? Actually, CBO says the 
deficit will go down. That is not the size of the government, but that 
is the size of the debt or spending each year. But how does it go down? 
It goes down only if you use the budget gimmicks that I will outline in 
just a minute or if you include all the taxes, the hundreds of billions 
of dollars of taxes that are in the bill, and if you count the Medicare 
cuts that are in the bill.
  Take out any one of those--the nearly $500 billion of Medicare cuts, 
the nearly $500 billion of taxes, or the budget gimmicks--and this bill 
does not drive the deficit curve down.
  What are the budget gimmicks--and I will close with this--what are 
the budget gimmicks about which I am talking? There are a number of 
them. The biggest is that the proponents of the bill do not count the 
first 4 years of spending. If you look at the 10-year spending cycle of 
the first 10 years of the first part of this bill, the taxes go into 
effect on the first day the bill is law, on January 1 of next year. The 
spending does not start until the year 2014.
  So we have 10 years of taxes, 10 years of Medicare cuts, and 6 years 
of spending. That is how they are able to say it balances out. If they 
started the spending and the taxing on the same day and did not give 
themselves a 4-year run of tax collection until they start the actual 
implementation of the spending part of the bill, it would drive the 
deficit down also.
  All we need to do in this Senate is to slow down, refer the bill back 
to committee, have them fix the provisions on taxes, and then work on 
some of the common ground we know we have that will help bend the 
spending curve down and will help improve the situation for Americans 
across this country who are calling for us to control the skyrocketing 
costs of health care.
  It is my hope that as the Senate goes through the next few weeks of 
debate on this legislation, as well as the other legislation we bring 
before us, we will remember our children and our grandchildren and all 
Americans today who are calling for the kind of true health care reform 
that will truly address the kind of fiscal responsibility and the kind 
of cost containment that we should be seeking in this Chamber.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Madam President, I rise to reiterate exactly what my 
colleague just said, that transparency with the American people on the 
cost of this plan is absolutely essential. If you are going to tax the 
American people, tell them what you are going to tax. If you are going 
to cut their benefits, tell them what you are going to cut. Do not use 
smoke and mirrors to create a panacea for the people down the road to

[[Page 30915]]

find out they have been sold a pig in a poke.
  I want to talk about not what has been introduced but what has been 
reported in the press as to where we may go on this bill.
  As many know, the bill that is under consideration that is supposed 
to reform health care is a bill that was crafted in a back office in 
the Capitol where very few people participated, and those who did 
participate were only Democrats. It was not until it was rolled out on 
the Senate floor that many of us had an opportunity to read the 2,074 
pages. If the American people are like I am, we are still working our 
way through section by section trying to figure out exactly what it 
says and, more importantly, exactly what it means and, even more 
important than that, how does it affect me? How does it affect my 
family?
  You see, health care is a very personal issue for everybody in this 
country. It is important that we display the honesty they expect from 
us. If, in fact, we are going to reform health care, then let's reform 
it. If we are going to do what we have done over the past several 
weeks, which is have a debate about coverage expansion, then let's be 
honest with the American people. Who is going to pay for it?
  We know how CBO looked at the bill and how it was designed by the 
majority leader. They are going to steal $464 billion from Medicare. 
That is a fact. Nobody disagrees with that. Madam President, $464 
billion would be stolen from Medicare which the Medicare trustees say 
will be insolvent in 2017, a mere 8 years from now. I am not sure that 
is fiscal responsibility, but it is in the bill.
  In the last 24 hours, the press reports the majority leader has sent 
a new proposal to CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, because he is 
seeking to find out what that new proposal will cost. If the reports 
are correct, he has decided to drop the public option and to craft a 
new coverage plan for some segment of the American people. Again, by 
news accounts only, that would be an expansion of coverage for 
individuals in this country 55 to 64. I do not know whether that is the 
entirety of the group. That is 24 million to 30 million people. The 
likelihood is if it were opened to any segment, it would be like a 
magnet to those who probably had some type of health condition because 
if you do not have a health condition, the likelihood is, in the open 
marketplace through your employer, if you are employed, you can find a 
reasonably priced plan. Automatically, the way we have designed it is 
we are going to attract the sickest of that population.
  In the process of doing that, we have to pause for a moment and 
realize that we have over 40 million seniors and disabled already in 
Medicare. It is a system that does not reimburse for 100 percent of the 
services provided. In other words, for Medicare, we reimburse a doctor 
and a hospital less than it costs them to deliver the service. 
Nationally, we have accepted that because in that system, when a senior 
goes in under Medicare and gets a service, what is not reimbursed is 
then shifted over to the private sector side. It is shifted over to 
people who pay out of pocket. It is shifted over to people who have 
private insurance.
  Doctors and hospitals have been successful at managing their payer 
mix. A lot of doctors have X amount of Medicare, X amount of Medicaid, 
and X amount of private pay. When they put them all together, they find 
a way to stay in business.
  I think it is safe to say if you change the doctors' payer mix or you 
change the hospitals' payer mix, you could take a provider and move 
them from slightly profitable, enabling them to practice, over to 
losing money based upon how the payer mix reimburses them.
  My point is, as you take people out of private pay, which is coverage 
by their employer under a health care plan, payment out of pocket or 
purchase of health insurance, where that health insurance pays at 100-
plus percent of the cost of a service provided, we are basically 
putting 24 million possibly new additional covered lives into Medicare 
under Medicare reimbursements. Through that, we automatically change 
the payer mix of every potential provider in America. We put in 
jeopardy the doctor. We put in jeopardy the hospital. We put in 
jeopardy anybody who provides a service under Medicare.
  What is the doctor going to do? The doctor can look at it and say: I 
can absorb the reduction and the change in the payer mix or the doctor 
may look at it and say: I cannot add any more Medicare beneficiaries. I 
am sorry, I saw you before when you were on private insurance, but I 
cannot continue to see you because now I do not get reimbursed 
sufficiently. So you are going to have to find another doctor.
  Now we have gotten into the core pledges of the President where he 
said: If you like your plan, you get to keep it; if you like your 
doctor, you can continue with him. We are putting a burden on the 
doctor or the hospital to make a determination as to how they monitor 
and control their payer mix by one simple change: by increasing the 
opportunity for people to participate in a program that up to this time 
has been sacred and, I might also add, is a program that every 
participant has paid in their lifetime to be enrolled in.
  Medicare is a trust fund. I think we forgot that, when we arbitrarily 
said we can take $464 billion and steal it out of Medicare and use it 
to fund this new entitlement. This is not our money to steal. This is 
the beneficiaries' money that they have paid taxes on their entire life 
to fund their Medicare benefits.
  I am not sure why we believe we have the right to go in and move that 
money from one account to another, where, in essence, we are moving it 
from one account and using it for somebody totally different. It is 
unfair to those who planned a lifetime for this.
  Let me go back to the payer mix. As you increase the rolls of 
Medicare beneficiaries, you affect the viability of every outlet of 
medical services--hospitals, doctors, this could also affect 
pharmacists. It is important that we realize we have already increased 
in this bill the number of individuals who will be covered under 
Medicaid. The majority leader's original bill mandates that every State 
will now raise their limit on Medicaid participation from 100 percent 
of poverty to 133 percent of poverty. Medicaid reimburses at about 72 
cents of every dollar of service provided. When you do that, you have 
now enrolled between 11 million and 15 million new covered lives under 
Medicaid.
  So every provider in the system is already looking at what has been 
proposed--until the press accounts of the last 24 hours--and said: I am 
going to have 11 million to 15 million more people. I am being 
reimbursed 72 cents of every dollar provided. It is hard to stay in 
business when it costs you a dollar to deliver a service and you get 72 
cents back as payment.
  They are already trying to figure out how they are going to adjust 
their payer mix to meet the demands when all of a sudden we come out 
with a new proposal that the press accounts say we could enroll 24 
million people in, that further contributes to cost shift.
  Let me say to my colleagues, I was in full agreement with the 
President when he came out and said: Here are our goals. We have to 
reform health care. We have to focus on making sure every American has 
access and affordable options to health care. We have to make sure it 
is fiscally sustainable.
  Why, in the 21st century, would we design a health care system that 
we could not be certain was financially sound for generations to come?
  The truth is, by every account, in a real 10-year period, 10 years of 
taxes and 10 years of benefits going out, this bill before the revision 
yesterday is a $2.5 trillion bill. It will contribute to the debt. It 
will borrow money that our children will be obligated to pay interest 
on and pay back.
  This just compounds the problem, a breakthrough. This is not about 
policy; this is about in a back room in Washington in the U.S. Capitol, 
where the majority leader was trying to get to 60 votes. It is real 
simple.
  Listen to the American people and we would start over and we would 
start over with the principles of the President: Make sure what you do 
reforms

[[Page 30916]]

health care, attracts 100 percent of the American people because of 
access and affordability, and it is fiscally sustainable for 
generations to come.
  The truth is, we have been on the Senate floor for 2 weeks. We have 
debated a bill that does coverage expansion. I admit openly, it covers 
3l million more Americans. But it misses the mark of doing any health 
care reform because, you see, the bill, before the press accounts of 
the last 24 hours, assured every American that if they had private 
insurance or they paid out of pocket, their health care costs were 
going up. There is no way they could not.
  Now what we have done is we have shifted and said we are going to 
increase the amount of the cost shift. Let me explain for just a minute 
what a cost shift is. Cost shift is when somebody goes in and is 
provided a medical service, and if they do not pay for that service or 
they do not pay the entire cost of that service, what is left over is 
shifted somewhere in the system. Well, somewhere in the system is the 
next person who walks in with insurance or who pays out of pocket. 
Because of the blend they have to meet, they pick up the difference.
  Why has health care had such a phenomenal increase in cost? It is 
because as we increased the rolls of Medicaid, as we had more seniors 
go into Medicare, we had more costs that were shifted. Up to this 
point, the President, the Congress, and others were only focused on the 
uninsured and the underinsured. Well, they are a contributor to the 
cost shift, there is no question. But let me suggest to you that if we 
provide insurance--and we should provide access and affordability for 
every American. By putting people into Medicaid, all you are doing is 
exacerbating the cost shift. If, in fact, you create a health care 
system that has an incentive for an individual not to purchase their 
own health care because it is cheaper to pay the fine, all you are 
doing is exacerbating the problem of cost shift.
  Health care reform is about changing the health system so that cost 
shift is eliminated. Quite frankly, it starts with making sure we pay 
100 percent of what the cost of the services are. But we are not having 
that debate. This debate on the Senate floor right now, 2 weeks before 
Christmas, is about coverage expansion. It is not about health care 
reform. If it were about health care reform, we would be talking about 
how we create an incentive for private companies to create products 
that allow an individual to construct their health insurance so that it 
matches their age, their income, and their health condition. That is 
not what we are doing. We are sitting in Washington, creating a one-
size-fits-all program and saying: You know what, if this doesn't fit, 
well, we are going to create a government option for you, and we will 
subsidize you and put you in the government option. Where is that fair 
to the American taxpayer?
  That is why Senator Crapo's motion is so important. Refer it back to 
committee. Start over. We have our priorities wrong as it relates to 
our ability to dip into the American people's pockets and use their 
money to fund something that is not going to benefit them one bit. This 
would be a different debate if we could look at the people who are not 
covered and say: We have fiscally maximized our ability to provide you 
health care but not necessarily abused the American people's pockets to 
do it.
  America is the most compassionate country in the world. But when we 
debate things such as this, we are also the most foolish country in the 
world because it is irresponsible on our part to abuse the power of 
this government to spend money like this without the benefits that we 
set out to achieve.
  So it is my hope that as we go through the weekend, we will have an 
opportunity to see what the new proposal is that is laid down on the 
table. Again, I have to go by what I read, and that is not always 
accurate in this town.
  The CBO has stated that a similar proposal, which was a proposal for 
a buy-in at the age of 62, would result in an adverse selection in the 
Medicare Program and would drive up premiums. Let me quote CBO because 
I don't want it just to be me. This is what the CBO said:

       A potential problem with this option is that the amount of 
     adverse selection that the program experienced could be 
     greater than anticipated, which would put upward pressure on 
     premiums.

  CBO is the entity that is evaluating the cost of the current 
proposal, which nobody knows what is in it. But this was a proposal 
that was sent to them some time ago that had the buy-in starting at 62, 
not 55, and their assessment of it, with a buy-in of 62, is that the 
adverse selection--meaning more sick people were going to migrate to 
this new option--would cause upward pressure on Medicare premiums and 
upward pressure on premiums across the board.
  So it is my hope that we will have an opportunity very soon to know 
what is in the proposal and to be able to debate the facts versus just 
trying to educate ourselves based on the leaks from the media. But 
there is one thing for certain: The American people have voiced their 
position on health care reform. They do not see it as reform. They do 
not see it as positively affecting themselves. They see it as too 
expensive, they see it as a breach of trust on a plan that seniors have 
become 100 percent reliant on because they paid into it.
  This path has a lot of problems. It is not just the new proposals, it 
is the proposal that has been on the table for some time. It is my hope 
that we will continue this debate as long as it takes to make sure that 
at the end of the day we do what is right for the American people and 
not necessarily what is expeditious for Members who would like to be 
home for the holidays.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, earlier today I explained to my fellow 
Senators, and hopefully to my friends in the media, that the Reid bill 
does not provide a net tax cut for Americans. Contrary to the 
Democrats' claims, that seems to be the situation. They claim there is 
a net tax cut. I hope I proved earlier today that it does not have a 
net tax cut. Some Americans are cut, but don't forget that some 
Americans have increases in taxes. I pointed directly to this data, as 
prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation, to show that a group of 
middle-income taxpayers will see their taxes go up under the Reid bill, 
and that would be this class of taxpayers right here. I don't disagree 
with Democrats saying there is $40,786 million of tax cuts, but there 
are also tax increases for a large share of Americans.
  I want to now build on those earlier remarks. As I stated, there is 
clearly a group of individuals and families who benefit from the 
government subsidy for health care. However, that group is relatively 
small. Another much larger group would see their taxes go up. So I want 
to take a minute to provide some statistics that we pulled from the 
data of the Joint Committee on Taxation looking at both the winners and 
the losers under the bill.
  For the benefit of the public, the Joint Committee on Taxation is an 
intellectually honest group of professionals who are nonpartisan, and 
they give Congress information on the impact of policies we make here 
in our various committees or as individuals or the Senate as a whole.
  According to this professional group, the Joint Committee on 
Taxation, out of those individuals and families affected by four major 
tax provisions under the Reid bill, individuals earning more than 
$50,000 and families earning more than $75,000 would see, on average, 
their taxes going up. Only individuals with incomes below $50,000 and 
families with incomes below $75,000 would, on average, see some tax 
relief on account of receiving subsidies for health insurance.
  The data of the Joint Committee on Taxation indicates that in 2019, 
individuals earning less than $50,000 would, on average, receive tax 
relief through this subsidy equal to $875. Families earning less than 
$75,000 would, on average, receive tax relief equal to $2,031

[[Page 30917]]

from the subsidy. This so-called tax relief, however, is in the form of 
an advance refundable tax credit that is delivered directly to the 
insurance company providing health insurance coverage, not to the 
individual but signed, sealed, and delivered directly to the insurance 
company--100 percent of it. I repeat: not to the individual but to the 
insurance company. Clearly, this group is a winner under the Reid bill. 
But the same data from the Joint Committee on Taxation indicates that 
in 2019, individuals earning between $50,000 and $200,000 would, on 
average, see a tax increase of $593. That is for individuals. Now, 
let's go to families earning between $75,000 and $200,000. They would, 
on average, see a tax increase of $670.
  So what does all this mean? This means the Reid bill does not cut 
taxes for all Americans. To the contrary, the Reid bill breaks Obama's 
promise not to tax individuals making less than $200,000 and families 
making less than $250,000 a year. And you just can't know how many 
times President Obama, during his Presidential campaign--whether in 
debates or in individual appearances when he was a candidate--made it 
very clear that nobody with under $200,000 a year in income was going 
to see a tax increase. To the contrary, the Reid bill breaks President 
Obama's pledge not to tax individuals making less than $200,000, and 
then a higher figure for families making less than $250,000.
  Does the tax relief provided to individuals earning less than $50,000 
and families making less than $75,000 represent a tax cut? Generally, 
no, because based upon the report of the Joint Committee on Taxation, 
of the $395 billion the government will spend on tax credits for health 
insurance--or subsidies for health insurance--$288 billion will be 
refundable, meaning individuals and families who have no tax liability 
will still receive the full benefit. The Joint Committee on Taxation 
tells us that the remaining $106 billion will go toward reducing real 
tax liability.
  The Congressional Budget Office classifies a benefit provided to tax 
filers with no tax liability as government spending, not as a tax 
decrease. This is compared to a tax benefit that actually will reduce a 
taxpayer's tax liability. This means the $288 billion of government 
spending through the Tax Code cannot be considered a true tax 
reduction.
  The Democrats count the $288 billion in government spending when 
claiming the Reid bill provides a tax cut. And the reason is if the 
Democrats do not count this government spending as a tax cut, they 
could not hide the fact that the Reid bill increases taxes.
  Bottom line: The Reid bill does not provide a net tax cut. Instead, 
the bill raises taxes and it raises taxes on individuals and families 
earning less than $250,000, contrary to Candidate Obama's presentation 
during the campaign that nobody below that figure would get a tax 
increase.
  Check the data. No one can dispute it. It is right here in these 
figures. Everybody in the United States is represented by these figures 
here highlighted. They are the ones who are going to get a tax 
increase. That is the rest of the story.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, we are on the floor today, as we have 
been for many days and weeks now, discussing health care. One thing I 
think is undeniably clear is that there is a basic divide in the Senate 
on health care. That is not news to most people. But I believe on this 
side of the aisle there is a great deal of consensus about what health 
care reform should be about.
  We have been trying throughout this debate to make it very clear that 
we are not only concerned about the tens of millions of Americans who 
do not have any insurance at all--that is obviously a focus of our work 
and focus of the debate--but we are also concerned at the same time, as 
we must be, with those who have insurance--with families with 
insurance, families who believe they have the security of insurance 
but, unfortunately, under our system many of them don't.
  Many families, in fact millions of families, over the last couple of 
years have had a member of their family denied coverage because of a 
preexisting condition. That should be illegal. In this legislation we 
deal with that directly for the first time ever.
  We also provide other protections. When you say ``consumer 
protections,'' that is a nice sounding phrase but in some ways it does 
not describe what we are trying to do. We are trying to prevent people 
from being denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. We are 
trying to make sure that other families don't have a tragedy such as 
the family I have spoken on before on this floor, the Ritter family in 
Manheim, PA. They had the tragedy of finding out a number of years ago 
that their two 4-year-old daughters, twins, had leukemia but also the 
insult and the outrage of our system saying to them: Your daughters 
have leukemia, we can treat them, we have a lot of experts and 
knowledge and technology to help them, but we are going to limit their 
care.
  That is an outrage. The first provision in this bill says we are not 
going to put caps on treatment for people who are very sick.
  We also recognize that, as President Obama said a number of months 
ago, if you get sick, you shouldn't go bankrupt. But that is happening 
more and more in America. It is an outrage and we should not allow it 
to go on any longer.
  We are trying also to keep premiums affordable. Fortunately, the 
Congressional Budget Office helped us make that argument. In their own 
way they weighed in on that question and talked about the fact that so 
many American families will have their premiums reduced if not kept 
level.
  We are obviously trying to enhance quality and prevention. All of 
these strategies that we know work, the research is irrefutable, but we 
talk about them as a way of a good example instead of talking about 
them as something we ought to put in the law and make part of our 
system. Why should we have all of those prevention strategies and then 
throw up our hands and say that would be nice if insurance companies 
did that in their policies instead of make it part of the law. And we 
will, both in terms of prevention strategies as well as quality.
  Finally, as a quick summary of what we are trying to do, we are 
trying to control costs. I think this bill does that. We still have a 
bill to do and amendments to make. It also cuts the deficit by $130 
billion over 10 years, and much more, several hundred billion, in the 
years after that.
  One fundamental recognition, I guess, in this debate--at least on 
this side of the aisle--is that our system has left people out. In some 
cases it has left them out in a very tragic way when they are denied 
coverage because of a preexisting condition. Our health care system has 
left out others in different ways, and I rise today to speak about an 
amendment I filed, along with Senator Klobuchar, my cosponsor on this 
amendment, that seeks to address a group of Americans who have been 
left out of our health care system and forgotten at a very difficult 
time in their lives. The name of the amendment is the Pregnant and 
Parenting Teens and Women Amendment. It recognizes what I believe to be 
a fundamental reality in America. I will describe two scenarios--one 
that so many of us have had the opportunity to experience as parents 
but especially those in this Chamber and those who are listening to 
this debate who are women who become pregnant.
  For many women that moment when they find out they are pregnant is a 
moment of joy. It is the miracle of pregnancy. They feel that joy and 
they share it with their family and their friends. It is a time of real 
happiness. Many of these women in that first scenario do not need help 
beyond what their families provide or what they might receive by way of 
adequate support within our existing framework of programs and 
services--whether that is government help or private sector or 
nonprofit help. That is wonderful and we hope that becomes more and 
more the case.

[[Page 30918]]

  But there is a second scenario in America, a second category where a 
woman finds out she is pregnant and that moment of discovery is not a 
moment of joy. For her, it is a moment of terror or panic or even 
shame. She may be in a doctor's office or she may be at home--she may 
be in a number of places--but for her that moment begins with a crisis 
in which she feels overwhelmingly and perhaps unbearably alone, all 
alone. She could be wealthy, middle income, or poor--but most likely, 
if that pregnancy is a crisis, she is poor. Whatever her income, she 
feels very simply all alone.
  A pregnant woman who is facing those horrific circumstances may be a 
woman who has an abusive spouse or boyfriend who is tormenting her. She 
is all alone in many instances.
  Another pregnant woman may believe that she cannot support or care 
for her new baby at this point in her life. She is all alone.
  Another woman might believe that her financial situation is so 
precarious that she cannot care for or raise a child. She may feel all 
alone and helpless. If she decides to bear a child, she needs our help. 
She needs our help to walk with her along that difficult journey--not 
only through the 9 months of her pregnancy but also through the early 
months and years of that child's life.
  I believe that is an obligation we have. I know some may not agree 
with that, but it is important that we are honest about where we stand.
  We understand that many women face that reality. So what do we do 
about it? Do we say: That is too bad and that is kind of their problem 
and let them find their own way or there is a little program down the 
street that might help them or there might be a little government 
program over here or there might be some charity that will help them. 
They will do fine. Don't worry about them.
  This country has shown a capacity to reach out and help people who 
are in crisis, to try to give people a sense that they are not all 
alone, that there are lots of ways to help. Unfortunately, neither 
political party has adequately met this challenge, in my judgment. We 
hear a lot of discussion about it. We hear a lot of sentiment about it. 
But we do not do nearly enough about it.
  Here is what the amendment will do. First, it will provide assistance 
and support for pregnant and parenting college students. Second, it 
will provide assistance and support for pregnant and parenting teens. 
Third, it will improve services for pregnant women who are victims of 
domestic violence, sexual violence, and stalking. And fourth, it will 
increase public awareness of the resources available to pregnant or 
parenting teens and women.
  Let me give some examples of these services. First, funding for 
colleges to provide pregnant and parenting resources located on campus 
or within the local community and improve such resources, including: 
the inclusion of maternity coverage, which a lot of insurance companies 
do not provide now, unfortunately and insultingly, in my judgment; make 
available riders for coverage for additional family members in student 
health care on a college campus; make sure that woman, if she has 
chosen to bear a child, gets housing and childcare and flexible or 
alternative academic scheduling to allow her to remain in school; 
education to improve her parenting skills; maternity and baby clothing, 
baby food, baby furniture--all of the things some of us take for 
granted in our families prior to or upon the birth of a child.
  The other part of this is funding for programs that help pregnant and 
parenting teens stay in or complete high school and prepare for college 
or vocational education, by providing resources and assistance.
  Next, assistance to States in providing intervention services, 
accompaniment and supportive social services for pregnant victims of 
domestic violence and other kinds of violence as well, to start.
  Finally, making people aware, providing public awareness and outreach 
so that pregnant and parenting teens and women are aware of the 
services available to them.
  We cannot stand here on the floor and say we care about these folks 
and we want to help them if we are not willing to make good on that 
promise. It is not enough to have good intentions. It is not enough to 
say there might be a program out there. We know for sure that at least 
these three categories--maybe others could add to it, maybe others may 
not, but these three categories of pregnant women are in many cases all 
alone. Neither political party nor our Government--and I would argue 
other parts of our society--are doing enough. It is time as we debate 
health care that we say one part of our health care system is going to 
be made much better.
  In addition to the substantial changes on protecting families from 
the ravages of what insurance companies have done to some families, 
protecting them at long last, those with insurance, ensuring 30 million 
Americans, cutting the deficit, having prevention strategies, 
controlling chronic disease and making it something we can manage 
better, and save money--all of that is important. But I do not think in 
the debate here we should leave out those who are asking for a little 
bit of the help we are not giving them.
  We should never ask a pregnant woman to walk that journey all alone. 
I think that is the least we can do in this Chamber, in this debate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, my friends on the other side of the 
aisle have taken to the floor to make the argument in favor of the Reid 
bill that it eliminates a so-called hidden tax. What is this so-called 
hidden tax? The other party argues that there is a hidden health tax 
that families pay in increased premium costs to cover the costs of 
caring for the uninsured. In short, when doctors and hospitals provide 
treatment to the uninsured they are forced to compensate for this 
``uncompensated care'' and do so by charging more to private health 
insurers. The cost of this care that is shifted to the insurers is then 
passed on to health care consumers in the form of higher health 
insurance premiums. Unfortunately, this so-called hidden tax is often 
overstated.
  Families USA conducted a study attempting to quantify the cost shift 
associated with uncompensated care. According to this study, about $43 
billion in uncompensated care is shifted to private health insurance 
which led Families USA to conclude that there is a hidden tax of about 
$1,100 that families pay in increased premiums. A Kaiser Family 
Foundation study dissected the Families USA numbers and estimated that 
the total amount of uncompensated care shifted to private insurers was 
closer to $11 billion, making the so-called hidden tax around $200 for 
a family, compared to the $1,100 that Families USA said. Let me give 
some ground to my friends on the other side and assume that the hidden 
tax does equal that higher figure, $1,100, as compared to the Kaiser 
Family Foundation figure of $200.
  The Democrats' bill does not get rid of the hidden tax entirely. 
Actually, this bill makes it worse. How? First, the Democrats' health 
care reform bill still leaves a large number of Americans uninsured. 
Specifically, the Reid bill leaves 23 million out of 54 million still 
without health insurance at the end of this decade, remembering that 
this bill does not actually take effect until 2014. So between 2014 and 
at the end of the budget window, we still have 23 million people 
without health insurance. At best, the reform in this 2,074-page 
Democratic bill cut the hidden tax in half; in this case, to about $500 
for a family.
  The Reid bill adds, however, new hidden taxes. These impose $67 
billion worth of so-called fees on health insurance companies and self-
insured arrangements beginning in 2010. The Congressional Budget 
Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan experts and 
official congressional scorekeepers have testified that these fees will 
be passed on to health care consumers.
  The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation 
have

[[Page 30919]]

further testified that this will result in higher insurance premiums 
for all Americans. The actuaries at Oliver-Wyman estimate that the fees 
imposed on health insurers would add $488 to the cost of the average 
family health insurance policy. A new hidden tax is also created as a 
result of the Medicaid expansion and Medicare cuts. The major cost 
shift in health care derives from the government programs, Medicare and 
Medicaid, which reimburse providers at rates roughly 20 percent to 40 
percent lower than what private providers pay to the same doctors and 
hospitals.
  President Obama understands that paying doctors below market rates 
leads to a cost shift. After all, in a townhall on health care reform, 
the President said:

       If they're only collecting 80 cents on the dollar, they've 
     got to make it up somewhere, and they end up getting it from 
     people who have private insurance.

  The Medicare and Medicaid cost shift will be increased significantly 
under the Democrats' health care reform bill. According to CBO's 
estimate, Medicaid will be increased by more than 40 percent, from 35 
million to 50 million people by the end of the budget window in 2019. 
Additionally, the bill includes almost $\1/2\ trillion in Medicare cuts 
which will result in lower payments to providers.
  The actuaries at Milliman Consulting studied the current cost 
shifting resulting from Medicare and Medicaid underpaying providers and 
found that this cost shift for Medicare and Medicaid totaled almost $89 
billion per year, adding $1,788 to the current family health insurance 
policy. Increasing the current Medicare and Medicaid cost shift, as a 
result of this 2,074-page health reform bill before us, would add even 
more cost to a family health insurance policy.
  The easier cost shift to address would be the $1,700 cost shift from 
defensive medicine. The Democrats do not address cost shift from 
defensive medicine which Dr. Mark McClellan, former head of CMS, and 
Daniel Kessler estimated adds $1,700 in additional cost per average 
family. Addressing this reform alone could save more than covering all 
of the uninsured.
  So you see, the Democrats say their bill will eliminate the so-called 
hidden tax. My friends seem to come up short on that one. Also, my 
friends add new hidden taxes that will burden middle-class Americans.
  I ask my friends to be transparent when they are talking about 
getting rid of the hidden tax. The Democratic health reform bill 
actually makes things worse.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Last night, I held a telephone townhall meeting. As 
usual, because we get over 10,000 people on the telephone townhall 
talking to us, I said: This is a meeting that is open to any subject 
you can talk about.
  Overwhelmingly, they all wanted to talk about health care. I had one 
call where the fellow said he liked this health care bill. He was a 
small businessman. He said: This will help me as a small businessman, 
and why are you opposed to it?
  I said to him: I have been a small businessman, and I would like to 
point out to you that NFIB, the organization that helps small business, 
is opposed to it. And I went through some of the reasons. Then I told 
him of other small- or medium-size businessmen in Utah who have said to 
me: If this bill passes, we are out of here. We could do our 
manufacturing overseas. We could send our product to South America and 
have it made there. We have stayed in Utah more out of patriotism than 
money. But if this bill passes, the impact on us in small business will 
be sufficiently great that we will leave Utah. We will leave America. 
We will take all of these jobs and go overseas.
  That was that one discussion with the one caller. Every other caller 
talked about the health care bill and said: Don't pass it. Every other 
caller was opposed. There was only the one who made comments in favor 
of it, comments on which I think I was able to dissuade him.
  Every other one came up: Do you want to talk about Afghanistan?
  No, we want to talk about health care. We are opposed to this bill.
  Do you want to talk about some other aspects of what is going on in 
Washington?
  No, we want to talk about health care, and we are opposed to this 
bill.
  Over and over, the only other subject that came up that I can recall 
with any regularity--there were several calls that talked about cap and 
trade and expressed their opposition to that. But, overwhelmingly, the 
entire hour was people who were saying: We are opposed to this bill.
  I want to share with the Members some aspects of the reaction of 
Utahns to the campaigns that have been mounted by various groups in 
favor of this bill. Let's go to the campaign that has been mounted by 
the AARP. AARP is one of the strongest lobbying organizations in the 
country. Indeed, there are those who say it is the most powerful 
lobbying organization. AARP, in an effort to make sure this bill gets 
passed, has prepared preprinted petitions and sent them out to their 
members. Here is a copy of one. It is addressed directly to me and was 
sent to people in the State of Utah: ``Petition to Senator Robert F. 
Bennett. Dear Senator Robert F. Bennett, As one of your constituents . 
. . '' so on and so forth.
  Then all the AARP member has to do is sign it and send it to me. This 
one was sent to me. But as we can see, he didn't just sign it, instead 
he wrote on it. This is what it says in handwriting:

       Absolutely not! Please vote against current legislation 
     being proposed by the current administration and endorsed by 
     the AARP.
  The ``not'' is underlined. He signed his name. I have taken it off 
this facsimile to protect the man's privacy, but he made it clear that 
he was not in favor of what the AARP was saying and doing in this 
situation. We have others who have said the same kind of thing.
  Here is a letter I will quote from:

       Senator Bennett, please do not vote to pass the health care 
     bill that contains a public option. The present medical is 
     broken and surely needs fixing. However, it should be done in 
     ways that do not bankrupt the country, close hospitals and 
     doctors offices.

  Who is saying this? He says:

       I will probably withdraw from AARP since they support the 
     present health care proposals. Several of my doctor friends 
     have withdrawn from the AMA due to its support of these 
     proposals.

  Then he signed his name, and his initials make it clear he, too, is a 
physician, a member of AARP who clearly wants to drop out of AARP, and 
a member of AMA who supports those who drop out of the AMA.
  Let me quote from another physician who wrote a lengthier letter, 
more analytical. I will quote from parts of the letter. He starts out:

       As a practicing Utah physician, I see and treat patients 
     every day. I try to accurately diagnose what their troubles 
     are and offer an incremental plan for their recovery. I am 
     thorough, methodical and exacting in my plan, purposely first 
     doing no harm, as my Hippocratic oath reads, not making the 
     situation worse, not causing more pain or suffering. The 
     Senate bill before you will make America more ill, with 
     increased pain and suffering. I plead with you to first do no 
     harm. Please do not make the situation worse as with the 
     current bill. It is beyond repair. Please recognize that the 
     Senate plan will add to America's ills.

  Then he goes on later in the letter to make this comment:

       Patients ask me why the AMA appears to support this bill. 
     They sense that the AMA is not looking out for patients and 
     doctors. I agree that the AMA is misdirected and explained 
     that the AMA represents fewer than one in five U.S. doctors 
     and has compromised its mission.

  I find that interesting. I didn't realize that the AMA membership had 
dropped so low. When I first became interested in politics, the AMA 
represented virtually every doctor in the country. Not anymore.
  I tell my patients about the multitude of other medical organizations 
of which I am a member, state medical organizations, speciality groups, 
and the Coalition to Protect Patients Rights, representing thousands of 
doctors who actively oppose the Senate bill in its entirety and are 
fighting for patients and the right fixes for affordable, quality care.

[[Page 30920]]

  Well, as I found out in my telephone town meeting, which covered the 
entire State--and with no filtering on the part of my staff as to who 
could get in and who could not--this is, indeed, very clearly the 
majority opinion for members of the State, seniors who presumably 
belong to AARP, and physicians who either used to belong to the AMA or 
understand the AMA.
  Here is an e-mail from a doctor. I cannot pronounce the specialty he 
is in. He says:

       As a constituent and practicing--

  And then he goes on to say whatever kind of ``ologist'' he is--

       I strongly urge you to oppose the passage of the current 
     Senate healthcare reform legislation. . . . Although our 
     nation would benefit from targeted healthcare reform, the 
     proposed legislation is not the answer and will harm, not 
     help, healthcare delivery in our nation. . . .
       As surgeons, we take pride in our work and strive to 
     provide the best patient care possible. We will support 
     reform efforts that truly preserve access to high qualify 
     specialty care without jeopardizing the physician-patient 
     relationship. As such, I oppose the ``Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Healthcare Act'' as it has the potential to 
     seriously compromise the delivery of healthcare in the United 
     States by creating additional pressures on an already 
     overburdened healthcare system.

  Well, I have a number more. I will not go into all of them; I will 
just pick a few from the stack I brought with me.
  Here is one:

       I am a Surgeon who has been practicing for about 30 years. 
     I am against the total overhaul of the health care system. 
     All entitlement programs are not cost effective and all are 
     in danger of bankrupting the U.S.

  Here is one, who is a retiree, who says:

       Please vote against these healthcare ``reforms'' that will 
     limit options, cost us all more and reduce our freedoms. We 
     need real change: portability, tort reform, and less 
     government control.

  Back to the doctors. He says:

       Dear Mr. Bennett,
       I am a pediatrician in Utah and met you at the hospital in 
     Orem. Thank you for your opposition to the current process 
     happening in Washington. We do not need to rush through and 
     push the American people into government run health care and 
     more red tape. Medicaid is already my biggest head ache in my 
     practice.

  And so on and so forth, as I say.
  I want to make this other point with respect to all of these people 
who are so concerned that we will have an immediate bad impact if this 
bill passes. They do not realize--and I did my best to point this out 
to those who were on the telephone townhall meeting last night--that 
this bill will not fully take effect--indeed, most of the aspects of 
this bill will not take effect--until January of 2014. That is correct, 
January of 2014--4 years away.
  Here we are meeting on weekends, coming in here on Sunday, driving to 
get this done by Christmas because it is so pressing that we have to do 
it, and, by the way, we are not going to start, really, any of these 
reforms for 4 years. So these people who are writing me, these doctors 
who are complaining about AMA's endorsement, these people who are 
complaining about AARP not representing them, are worried about an 
immediate impact.
  Let me tell you what the immediate impact of this bill will be. The 
immediate impact of the bill will be financial. The taxes will take 
place immediately upon passage. The increase in premiums will begin to 
start on passage, as the pressure on the insurance companies, the 
pressure on manufacturers, the pressure on pharmaceutical companies 
will all begin with the passage of this bill. But all of the wonderful 
things we are being promised as benefits from this bill will be delayed 
for 4 years. Why? There is only one reason why: in order to use smoke 
and mirrors in the budgetary process to make it look as if this is 
cheaper than it really is. If you get the money coming in for 10 years 
but the expenses only going out for 6 years in your calculation, it 
looks as if it is a whole lot cheaper than it really is.
  The only honest way to score this is to say the expenses start the 
same day the taxes start, the expenses going out start the same day the 
revenue coming in starts. Then you get an accurate description of how 
much this costs.
  I cannot imagine any businessman going before his board of directors 
and saying: I have a new program I want to institute in this company, 
and it is going to cost X, and here is how I have calculated it is 
going to cost X. I am calculating the revenue from the sales of the 
product over a 10-year period, but the actual sales will only occur in 
the last 6 years.
  His board of directors would take one look at him and say: There is 
no way we can make a strategic plan based on that kind of smoke and 
mirrors. What in the world is wrong with you to do accounting of that 
kind?
  He will say: That is the kind of accounting I learned from the U.S. 
Senate--start counting the revenues immediately, but don't count the 
expenses until 4 years later.
  Well, let's look at the impact of that 4-year gap and tie it to the 
messages I am receiving from my constituents, and I think we will see 
something very interesting happen. Between now and the time the 
benefits of this bill begin to take hold, there will be three or four 
open seasons of people who will look at their health care plan and be 
allowed to make changes in it. They will see the costs go up, and they 
will say: Wait a minute, what is happening here? The costs are going 
up, but there are no changes coming from this bill the Senate passed 
back in 2009--or 2010, if we push it until next year. What is 
happening?
  Well, your costs are going up in anticipation of the costs of this 
bill that will take hold in January of 2014.
  At that point, the anger we are seeing from constituents now will get 
worse. The anger we are seeing in the e-mails and letters I am 
receiving now will get more intense, and people will start to say: You 
mean I am being forced to pay extra premiums in 2010 because the 
government needs to accumulate cash against the time when these great 
changes hit us in 2014? When they start writing me that kind of 
complaint, I will say: That is exactly what I mean. The government is 
going to start taxing you in 2010, but they are not going to do this 
program until 2014--at which point, the outcry from constituents will 
be: Well, let's stop the taxes and let's kill the effective date of 
2014.
  I am not sure I can predict that with certainty, but I can go back in 
history and remember the catastrophic bill that was passed with respect 
to Medicare, and the senior citizens suddenly discovered how much it 
was costing them. The outcry was so overwhelming that the Congress, 
within a matter of 6 months of the passage of the bill, repealed the 
bill. I remember the pictures that appeared in national magazines of 
Congressmen Rostenkowski, who was at the time the chairman of the Ways 
and Means Committee, being accosted physically when he went home to 
Chicago by seniors who would stand in front of his car and not allow 
him to move, who would sit on the hood of his car to block his way in 
every conceivable way. The outcry was enormous when they saw this 
increased cost for something where they did not see a corresponding 
benefit, and Congress responded to that outcry and repealed that bill.
  In this case, there will be a 4-year period for the outcry to build 
before they start to see the benefits, if, indeed, the bill does confer 
benefits. There will be a 4-year period with that many open seasons for 
people to look at their programs and see their premiums go up and see 
their plans change and see the adjustments made in preparation for 
this, adjustments they will not want; 4 years in which they will see 
the statement of the President of the United States, that ``if you like 
your plan, you don't have to lose it,'' prove not to be the case.
  In that 4-year period, it is entirely possible that the outcry from 
constituents, like the ones who are complaining now, will have 
tremendously more impact and more force. I hope that is, indeed, the 
case, if we pass this bill. I hope that in that 4-year period, before 
we start to see the wonderful things we are being promised from the 
other side of the aisle come to pass--the increased premiums, the 
increased taxes, and the increased costs will be with us--the people of 
this country will

[[Page 30921]]

rise up and say: We want this bill repealed. They have 4 years in which 
to do it, 4 years in which to think about it, 4 years in which to 
experience it.
  Why are we rushing to get this done before Christmas when we have 4 
years before the thing finally kicks in? Let's take the time to do it 
right. Let's take the time to listen to our constituents. Let's take 
the time to listen to the American people who are examining this bill 
and, by ever-increasing margins, telling us again and again that they 
do not like it.
  We have heard from many people the reactions of the polls. The 
Quinnipiac Poll made the comment: It is a good thing the Senate is not 
letting the American people vote on this bill because the American 
people are against it. We have seen the Gallup Poll show a tremendous 
swing, as their people are against it. The more they know about it, the 
less they like it. Yet we are trying to rush it through in the holiday 
season to get it done before Christmas even though it is 4 years away 
before all of the wonderful things that are being promised will 
surface.
  Mr. President, I think my constituents have it right. I think those 
people who belong to AARP who are saying they are going to drop out 
because of AARP's endorsement are right. I think those physicians who 
say they are either not members of the AMA or they are going to drop 
out from the AMA because of the AMA's position are right. And I think 
if we cram this thing through in a sense of urgency, even though it is 
4 years from implementation, we will see an outcry in the intervening 4 
years from the American people that will cause Members of the Senate to 
wish they had taken more time to examine it all, to do it right, and 
not to panic over pressure from various special interest groups that 
see ways in which they can profit from this.
  The American people, the American physicians, the American patients 
all see ways in which they will be hurt, and I speak for them, as they 
say: Slow this down. Do this thing right. Do not panic under pressure 
of an artificial time deadline.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                        In Praise of Wendy Tada

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak today about my great 
Federal employee of the week who works at the Department of Education.
  Whenever I enter this hallowed Chamber, I never fail to notice the 
inspirational words written on each wall above the doors. Above the 
east door is inscribed the Latin phrase ``Annuit Coeptis,'' or 
``Fortune favored Us in Our Beginnings.'' This refers to our Founders' 
belief that Providence looked kindly upon our Republic during its 
earliest days.
  In that time, ours was mostly an agrarian society. Town life centered 
on planting seeds and harvesting crops. Children worked alongside their 
parents in the field, and when it came to their education, 
homeschooling or learning to read and add in a one-room schoolhouse was 
the norm.
  Thomas Jefferson wrote, some years after his Presidency, that 
``Science is more important in a republic than in any other 
government.'' It was this belief in the importance of knowledge and 
reason--including political and historical literacy--that led education 
pioneers such as Horace Mann to promote universal schooling in the 
early part of the 19th century.
  Shortly before the Civil War, access to compulsory and free public 
education spread across the country as States passed laws inspired by 
this principle. The Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act provided for the 
construction of some of our Nation's greatest colleges and universities 
in the late 1800s. In the early years of the 20th century, States 
increased access by expanding free, compulsory education to include 
high school. The last 60 years saw dramatic advances in this area, with 
the legal desegregation of schools and the passage of critical 
legislation such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
  I am proud to have been serving in the Senate earlier this year when 
we passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That legislation 
sent much needed funding to fix schools, make student loans more 
readily available, and to keep teachers in the classroom. The Recovery 
Act so far saved over 230 teaching jobs in my home State of Delaware 
alone.
  In 1980, the U.S. Department of Education was created, and its 
employees have been working tirelessly to make sure students from all 
50 States, including Delaware and Rhode Island, receive the same strong 
support. They oversee the Federal loan programs that enable tens of 
millions of Americans to afford college and postcollege studies. They 
help develop policies to ensure that Americans with physical and 
intellectual disabilities have education programs in their communities 
and can pursue a full range of opportunities.
  Wendy Tada, who has worked at the Department of Education for 9 
years, is one of those outstanding employees. When she arrived at the 
Department in 2000, Wendy already had a great deal of experience 
working to expand opportunities for rural special needs students in 
Hawaii and Alaska.
  Wendy, who is a lifelong learner herself, holds a bachelor's degree 
in psychology from Seattle University, a master's in physical therapy 
from Stanford, and a master's in public health from San Diego State. 
She also earned a doctorate in developmental psychology from the 
University of California in San Diego.
  Wendy's experience includes working at the State and local levels. 
She provided physical therapy to disabled students in Washington State, 
developed an education curriculum for special needs children in Hawaii 
and its remote Pacific Islands, and evaluated health and education 
services in Native Alaskan villages.
  Wendy has taught college and graduate courses in education and public 
health at the University of Washington and the University of Hawaii.
  Her first job with the Department of Education was as a research 
analyst in the Office of Special Education Programs. Wendy's talents 
and experience led to a promotion within a year, when she became Chief 
of Staff to the Assistant Secretary overseeing that office. She 
continued as his top adviser when he was appointed to serve as 
Assistant Secretary for the Office of Vocational and Adult Education. 
In 2006, Wendy became the Chief of Staff to the Deputy Secretary of 
Education.
  This January, after a brief stint as an education analyst for the 
Office of Management and Budget, she was asked by the Deputy Secretary 
of Education to serve as senior adviser for policy and programs.
  During her years in the Department, Wendy has been instrumental in 
developing important regulations and guidance documents relating to 
IDEA and title I of the ESEA. Today, her time is spent in developing 
and putting into practice education programs funded by the Recovery 
Act.
  One of the central programs under the Recovery Act is the new Race to 
the Top Fund. This initiative represents the largest Federal 
competitive investment in elementary and secondary education in our 
history. It will offer over $4 billion--that is billion--in grants to 
States to develop comprehensive education reform plans. This will help 
all States, including Delaware, save even more teaching jobs and add 
new resources for schools.
  Wendy's work and that of her colleagues throughout the Department of 
Education continue to benefit American students nationwide. They ensure 
that all our children are favored in their beginnings so they may 
pursue the opportunities they deserve. Education is, without a doubt, 
the most important investment our Nation can make, for its dividends 
are our future prosperity and global leadership.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Wendy Tada and all the 
hard-working employees of the Department of Education for their service 
to this country. Our future is in their hands.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about the 
legislation which is pending before us, which is the Omnibus 
appropriations bill. It is a bill

[[Page 30922]]

that will substantially add to our national debt and substantially 
increase spending and I think it is worthwhile to point out some of the 
features of this bill, since presumably we will be voting on it 
sometime this weekend.
  I would start by pointing out that our national deficit for the past 
fiscal year now stands at $1.4 trillion. So the fiscal year which just 
concluded added $1.4 trillion to the national debt. That is the largest 
deficit we have ever had, by far. It is about three times as much as 
the largest deficit under the Bush administration. Our current 
unemployment level is at 10 percent, despite the administration's 
insistence earlier this year that Congress pass a $1 trillion-plus 
stimulus package that was supposed to reduce unemployment. The Senate 
is currently in the middle of a debate on a health care bill that has a 
10-year implementation cost of $2.5 trillion. Sometime in the next 
month we will be forced to raise the Nation's debt ceiling for the 
second time this year to a level that exceeds the current ceiling of 
$12.1 trillion.
  If all that were not enough, we are now presented with this Omnibus 
appropriations bill that costs nearly $500 billion more; to be exact, 
$446.8 billion. This is simply irresponsible. When is it going to end? 
We are piling spending bill on spending bill and debt on debt. At a 
time when many Americans are being forced to get by on less, the 
majority has crafted a bill that uses the government's credit card to 
increase spending on the six appropriations bills that make up this 
package--by how much? By 12 percent total.
  For perspective, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 
consumer price index, the CPI, the measurement of inflation over the 
past 12 months, was .2 percent. So the cost of living is going up by .2 
percent. Yet we are giving these government agencies 12 percent more 
money for next year. Let me give some examples.
  The Transportation-HUD bill receives a 23-percent increase over last 
year. Has anybody had their income go up by 23 percent over last year? 
Well, if you are in the Federal Government, you can make it happen. 
That is not responsible.
  How about the State-Foreign Operations bill, a 33-percent increase, a 
third over last year--a 33-percent increase. Included in that is a 24-
percent increase for the State Department's salaries and operations 
account. That is not responsible.
  The Commerce, Justice, and Science bill receives a 12-percent 
increase over last year. At least that is the average of the six bills 
in total.
  How about earmarks? Well, they are in here, big time. According to 
Taxpayers for Common Sense, this bill is larded up with 5,224 
earmarks--5,224 earmarks--that total $3.8 billion. That is not 
responsible.
  Some examples include $600,000 for a streetscape beautification in 
California and $300,000 for Carnegie Hall music and education programs 
in New York City. In the current economic environment, that doesn't 
seem to be the most responsible use of Federal taxpayer dollars.
  If the irresponsible levels of spending were not bad enough, the bill 
makes a number of significant policy changes as well. Ordinarily, we 
are not supposed to have policy changes in an appropriations bill, but 
when you lump them all together in a take-it-or-leave-it form, such as 
this omnibus, well, if you are the majority, you think you can get away 
with it. Here are 134 examples.
  With respect to the fairness doctrine, this omnibus does not include 
the fiscal year 2008 ban on Federal funds being used to enforce or 
implement the so-called fairness doctrine--so nothing to implement or 
enforce the so-called fairness doctrine.
  The bill makes some changes to several longstanding policy provisions 
contained in the financial services bill and specifically the District 
of Columbia section dealing with abortion, medical marijuana, needle 
exchange, domestic partners, and the DC Opportunity Scholarship 
Program. That program has been enormously popular and enormously 
successful. Yet this bill provides only enough money--$13.2 million--to 
allow the currently enrolled students in this popular program, the DC 
Opportunity Scholarship Program, ultimately leading to the termination 
of the program. I have met with some of these students and their 
parents. They are doing very well because of the environment in which 
they are finally able to study and learn and be safe. This program is 
so popular that people have lined up in long queues to take advantage 
of it. Yet we are going to terminate the program as a result of 
language in this bill.
  Well, it is a cross between irresponsible policy and spending.
  The bill reduces funding for the Office of Labor Management standards 
at the Department of Labor by 10 percent. This is the office that 
investigates union activity and the use of membership dues. Since 
fiscal year 1998, it has secured 1,400 convictions, resulting in the 
return of $106 million in embezzled funds to union workers. So where 
are our priorities? The only place where we see cuts in this bill are 
in areas where, in this case, the Department of Labor has been 
enforcing labor law and getting convictions for embezzlement of 
workers' funds. This is not an area where we want to cut, unless, of 
course, you are trying to do the bidding of the labor unions who don't 
like to be called to account for embezzlement of trust fund moneys of 
their members.
  Well, what is missing from this bill? Despite spending nearly $500 
billion and covering 6 of the 10 appropriations bills, this bill is 
significant for what it does not include: The fiscal year 2010 Defense 
appropriations bill, arguably the most important bill yet to be acted 
upon. Just shortly after President Obama announced his surge strategy 
for Afghanistan, the majority has decided to play politics on the backs 
of our troops. The majority is holding the Defense bill back from this 
package so it can be used as a vehicle for other purposes; for example, 
to increase our Nation's debt ceiling and potentially push through a 
number of other bills that likely don't have the votes to pass on their 
own. That is wrong. While our commanders in the field and civilians at 
the Pentagon wait, our other less-urgent appropriations priorities will 
receive double-digit spending increases. That is not responsible and it 
is not right.
  Given what I know about this bill--and I haven't had a chance to read 
it all yet--I would echo my friend in the House, Republican leader John 
Boehner, who requested the President uphold his campaign promise to go 
through the budget, line by line, and eliminate irresponsible and 
wasteful spending.
  I can assure my colleagues, we will go through this and we will 
identify those earmarks and we will bring them to the attention of our 
colleagues, and we will, undoubtedly, because of these spending 
increases and earmarks and bad policy, attempt to defeat this 
legislation.
  Finally, I wish to make reference to some comments I saw delivered by 
Dr. Christina Romer, Chair of the White House Council of Economic 
Advisers, as I was drinking my coffee and watching TV a couple days 
ago. This was on CNN's ``American Morning'' program on December 8. I 
was rather startled because she said she was getting rid of the jobs 
deficit and dealing with the budget deficit, two big problems we 
inherited and absolutely have to deal with.
  Well, it is true, on January 20 of this year when President Obama 
took office, we had a deficit and we also had a problem with 
unemployment. The problem is in inferring they are doing something 
about it, whereas the Bush administration created the problem, I think 
they create a misimpression. So I asked my staff to get just two 
numbers. What was the national debt the last day of President Bush's 
second term and what is it today--or actually December 7 is the date we 
got the number for, the 322nd day of President Obama's term. In other 
words, Dr. Christina Romer was saying these are big problems we 
inherited and we have to deal with them. So how have they dealt with 
them? Well, it turns out the national debt the last day of President 
Bush's second term was $10.6 trillion. What is it today, 322 days 
later? It is $12 trillion. That is some way to fix that problem.

[[Page 30923]]

  If they are going to complain about the national debt, then get it 
reduced instead of increased in less than a year--it has gone from 
$10.6 trillion to $12 trillion; that is $4.5 billion in new debt every 
single day. These are not my numbers, these are the official statistics 
of the Bureau of the Public Debt.
  The other statistic was unemployment. ``We inherited unemployment.'' 
That is true. I don't know the average, but I think it is somewhere 
around 4 or 5 percent in our country. On the last day President Bush 
was in office, unemployment stood at 7.6 percent. I thought, given the 
stimulus package, surely we have reduced unemployment. What is the 
unemployment number today? It is 10 percent--after nearly a year of 
President Obama's failed $1 trillion stimulus experience.
  When Dr. Romer said ``we inherited this problem,'' my immediate 
reaction is that the President has been in office for a year. What has 
he done about it? Answer: It has gotten worse. We have added well over 
$1 trillion to the national debt, and unemployment is now up to 10 
percent from 7.6 percent under President Bush.
  Some fixing of the problem. I suggest that President Obama and his 
White House officials and staff stop trying to blame President Bush for 
everything. If the President has been in office long enough to get the 
Nobel Peace Prize, presumably he has been in office long enough to do 
something about the public debt or unemployment.
  He has done something about it all right: Unemployment is up from 7.6 
percent to 10 percent, and the national debt is up from $10.6 trillion 
to $12 trillion.
  In view of these facts, it doesn't make sense to me to pass a nearly 
$500 billion omnibus appropriations bill, with departments of this 
government receiving 26, 30, and 33 percent increases in their budget, 
when the CPI has only gone up .2 percent this year, and when Americans 
are scrimping and saving and trying to get by with less. It makes no 
sense at all.
  I hope my colleagues, as we consider this omnibus appropriations bill 
before us right now, will take these things into consideration before 
we vote to pile yet more debt on the backs of our taxpaying 
constituents.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes on the 
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies 
appropriations bill. The Senator from Michigan was kind enough to let 
me do this now, even though she had been on the floor.
  I ask unanimous consent that at the end of my comments, the Senator 
from Michigan be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as chairman of the subcommittee on Labor, 
Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, I want to 
take a few minutes to go over the bill we have before us, the so-called 
``minibus.''
  I wish in the beginning the Senate could have debated and voted on 
the Labor-HHS bill individually, rather than having it as part of the 
so-called minibus. Unfortunately, it is now December. We still have to 
complete the health care bill and, frankly, we have run out of time.
  However, I want to assure my colleagues that the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill is a bipartisan bill. We worked closely with 
Senator Cochran and his staff to reflect Democratic and Republican 
priorities alike. That is the tradition in our subcommittee--one we 
take very seriously.
  In fact, the full Appropriations Committee approved our bill by a 
vote of 29 to 1. You cannot do much better than that to accommodate the 
concerns of both parties.
  I also want to assure Senators that this is a fiscally responsible 
bill. Overall, our bill increases discretionary spending by just 2 
percent over the fiscal year 2009 Labor-HHS appropriations bill.
  With money so tight, we had to be selective about which programs 
received increases. One high priority is worker protections. Agencies 
that enforce rules protecting the health, safety, and rights of workers 
have been seriously shortchanged in recent years. This bill adds $121 
million over last year's level and brings staffing levels at the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Employee Benefits 
Administration, and the Employment Standards Administration back to 
where they were in 2001. This means the agencies will have the 
resources they need to prevent wage theft and ensure safe workplaces 
for our Nation's workers.
  The bill also includes a 50-percent increase--a total $1.1 billion--
to reduce improper payments, fraud, and abuse from mandatory benefit 
programs, such as unemployment insurance, Medicare, and Social 
Security. These antifraud, anti-abuse measures could result in over $48 
billion in savings and increased revenues over the next 10 years.
  Another priority we had was getting people back to work. This bill 
provides an increase of $72 million, or 43 percent, for nurse training 
programs, including a new program to train nursing home aides and home 
health aides.
  This bill also provides a major increase--$260 million--for the 
national service programs. This will boost the number of AmeriCorps 
members significantly and create a new social innovation fund that will 
help small nonprofits tackle a host of social programs.
  In the area of education, increases are targeted to programs that are 
designed to reform schools, such as performance-based pay for teachers 
and principals, charter schools, and a comprehensive new literacy 
program.
  Providing increases, such as the ones I have described, meant making 
some tough choices. Our bill eliminated 11 duplicative and ineffective 
programs, and we cut several others. Not everybody will be happy with 
all of those decisions. I may not be happy with all of them, but we did 
the best we could, struck compromises, and I stand by the outcome.
  I also support the other five bills in this minibus, if I might say 
that. I worked closely with our colleagues on the Appropriations 
Committee. I want to particularly thank Senator Murray regarding her 
work to allow fiscal year 2009 Community Development Block Grant funds 
to be used as a match for other Federal programs. The reason this is 
important is because many States and local governments were hard hit by 
both disasters--such as the floods in Iowa--and the poor economy. They 
would have great difficulty providing Federal match requirements 
without this modification. I thank Senator Murray for putting that in 
her bill.
  I also thank Senator Durbin for the inclusion of a provision 
regarding auto dealers. In my State, there are a number of decisions 
that were made by General Motors to close down certain dealerships that 
met the criteria set down by General Motors for staying in business. I 
hope this provision that Senator Durbin put in will allow for needed 
fairness for a number of these family businesses.
  Again, I believe the package of bills we have before us is fiscally 
responsible. They move our country in the right direction, and I hope 
the Senate will approve them as soon as possible so we can send them to 
the President.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, before my good friend from Iowa leaves 
the floor, I thank him for his wonderful leadership on the health care 
reform bill, on the appropriations that he chaired--formerly on 
Agriculture. It has been a pleasure to partner with him on so many 
things.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as 
in morning business for up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to talk about health care. I have 
to say that if 20 percent of what was being said by our Republicans 
friends was true about this bill, I could not vote for it either.
  I keep hearing things described that have no relationship to the 
reality of the bill that I helped to write in the Finance Committee, or 
my friends helped

[[Page 30924]]

to write in the HELP Committee or the bill that is on the floor now. I 
see all kinds of comments that, frankly, concern me because I don't see 
them reflected in the reality of the legislation in front of us.
  I encourage people to take the opportunity to read the bill or the 
summaries. For the people in Michigan, we have had it up on our Web 
site, and we have had every bill, as it is introduced and passed, on 
the Web site, so people will have an opportunity to look at the 
information available.
  I do know this: What we have been hearing from our colleagues is not 
good enough, when we think about the fact that we had a Congress and a 
White House for 6 out of the last 8 years that was controlled the by 
Republican Party and yet nothing was done. Proposals have come forward 
now about all these things that should be done. But they weren't done 
when they were in charge. What we saw was a lot of tax cuts for the 
wealthy people and a lot of no-bid contracts for friends of people in 
the administration. We saw a lot of things that didn't affect people in 
my State very positively and didn't help the working people in my great 
State of Michigan.
  But now, as we are trying to move forward and do something for 
people, for small businesses and large businesses, and bring down costs 
and provide health care for people, there are all kinds of suggestions 
about why we should wait and do it over. What I heard in committee and 
what I am hearing now on the floor, as a proposal--because we don't 
have a Republican bill in front of us or one that has been offered--is 
this: Wait, wait, wait. We don't need to do this. That doesn't have to 
be done right now. There is no sense of urgency. We should wait, wait, 
wait.
  That is what we hear. We hear that business as usual for the 
insurance companies is OK. Let them decide what is covered--if you can 
find insurance--and how much it should cost, whether or not they are 
going to be able to provide a test for you or an operation for you. 
That is OK. Let the insurance companies continue to be the ones between 
you and your doctor. That is what we have seen over and over. We saw it 
in committee. Every time we were trying to lower costs for families and 
small businesses, they were on the side of helping the insurance 
companies. They were willing to take tax cuts we put in the bill, and 
they offered amendment after amendment that would have had higher costs 
for middle-class families and small businesses, in order to help the 
insurance industry.
  I will share a few stories from people who have become part of our 
health care people's lobby through my Web site, who have been willing 
to share stories.
  David is from Sutton's Bay, which is a beautiful part of Michigan. We 
would love to have you come visit. It is a gorgeous part right on the 
water. David says:

       I'm a 61-year-old cancer survivor with diabetes and high 
     blood pressure. I am self-employed, and lately, uninsured. I 
     worked all my life to build a stake here in farm country and 
     almost lost it last fall to foreclosure because of a medical 
     emergency. This farm is all I have . . . the savings and cash 
     are gone. I continue to work with no retirement in sight. I 
     have put everything I had for retirement into my farm. 
     Please, help me keep it.

  I know that David is not saying wait, wait, wait. He wants us to act, 
and to act now, on something that will be meaningful and makes sense to 
bring down costs, to give him a chance to find affordable insurance 
that doesn't bankrupt him and his family.
  I want to share also another story from Jeff from Rockford, MI:

       It has been over five years since death stared me down. I 
     was diagnosed with testicular cancer. Losing my job to a 
     layoff, mortgage to pay, among other things--and my options 
     were minuscule. I had no insurance then because there was 
     none that I could afford.
       I thank God and the staff at Grand Rapids Spectrum Health 
     for my life today. Unfortunately, I am still $25,000 in debt 
     because of lack of coverage.
       I served in the Marines from 1984-1988. One of their mottos 
     is, ``We take care of our own.'' Imagine what this country 
     would be like if we all thought like that.

  Jeff is right. We are in this together and, just as we have 
dramatically increased our support for our veterans and their health 
care, we need to make sure we are taking care of our own American 
families and American businesses.
  Wait, wait, wait? I don't think so. I don't think that is what Jeff 
is asking us to do.
  Jennifer from Hollow, MI:

       I am married and have one beautiful little girl. But about 
     6 months ago, my husband's work informed us they would no 
     longer be able to carry health insurance for their workers.

  A very common story, having to choose between keeping people employed 
and paying for health care.

       We could have gone on COBRA but it would have cost double 
     what we were paying and we couldn't meet that cost.

  Mr. President, as you know, we have worked to lower the cost of 
COBRA, and we hope to be able to continue that lower cost in 
legislation that will be coming up shortly. But it is still very 
expensive.

       We are lucky because Michigan has a program for children, 
     so we didn't have to worry about our daughter's coverage. 
     When we went to look for insurance for my husband and me, the 
     prices were steep or we were denied because of my preexisting 
     condition.

  That is one of the things we are going to change.

       Right now going to the doctor is next to impossible, but to 
     see a specialist is like asking for the Moon. We know that we 
     are highly blessed. My husband has a job. That is more than a 
     lot of people have. We just want affordable health insurance, 
     and we don't mind paying for it. It just doesn't seem like 
     too much to ask, does it?

  No, Jennifer, it is not too much to ask, and that is what we are all 
about. We are all about putting together a plan--and that is what is in 
front of us--that will lower costs, that will save lives, save 
Medicare, that will focus on making sure each American has a health 
care bill of rights, has protections they know will allow them to make 
sure their health insurance will be available if they pay for it; that 
they cannot get dropped because of a technicality; that if they have a 
preexisting condition, they can still find affordable insurance; that 
there will no longer be lifetime caps on insurance policies; that we 
will allow our young people to stay on mom's or dad's insurance until 
age 26.
  We have a number of changes we are making for people in the insurance 
exchange, for policies that take effect after the effective date of 
this act, and it is about making sure people have affordable insurance 
and they are getting what they are paying for. That is what this is 
about.
  What happens if we do nothing--if we do nothing; if we wait, wait, 
wait, like the Republicans are saying? Every single day 14,000 
Americans lose their health insurance; 14,000 people got up today with 
health insurance and they will go to bed without it. That happens every 
single day.
  Insurance rates are going to double in the next few years, by 2016. 
Business costs are going to double. Increased premiums are going to 
cost us, it is expected, 3.5 million more jobs. I don't know about any 
of my colleagues, but we cannot afford to lose any more jobs in 
Michigan. Health care is directly related to jobs and our international 
competitiveness.
  We know incomes of families will be reduced. We know every 5,000 
homes will be foreclosed as a result of a health crisis, and 62 percent 
of the bankruptcies are as a result of a health care crisis.
  Wait, like our Republican colleagues say? No, we cannot wait. The 
families, the people I talked about and read their stories, they cannot 
wait. Families cannot wait. Businesses cannot wait. Small businesses 
that cannot find insurance cannot wait. Large businesses that are 
finding themselves in difficult situations, considering pulling up shop 
and going to another country because of lower health care costs cannot 
wait.
  People expect us to solve this problem. They expect us to come 
together and work together, without all the stalling and the objections 
and the partisan politics. They expect us to come together and solve 
what is a huge American problem by bringing down costs and creating 
access to affordable

[[Page 30925]]

health care where people know that the insurance company will not be 
the one that is standing between them and their doctor.
  This is about saving lives, saving money, saving Medicare. Mr. 
President, 45,000 people will lose their lives in the coming year. And 
45,000 families will have one less chair or an empty chair at the 
holiday dinners that are coming up because 45,000 people could not find 
affordable insurance in this country--Americans, in America.
  Saving money--this is about making sure small businesses get the tax 
cuts they need to help them buy insurance, to make sure that families 
who are buying through the new insurance pool get the tax cuts they 
need to afford to buy insurance.
  This is about making sure large businesses begin to see costs come 
down over time because when they are providing insurance already, they 
are not going to pay the extra costs of folks walking into an emergency 
room uninsured who are treated and then the costs get rolled over on to 
everybody with insurance.
  We as a country are going to save dollars, save money over time for 
taxpayers and strengthen Medicare to bring down costs.
  And, yes, we are going to save Medicare. We are going to lengthen the 
Medicare trust fund solvency. We are going to make sure overpayments to 
for-profit insurance companies are reined in so that the majority of 
seniors do not see their premiums go up under Medicare to pay for those 
excess profits.
  We are going to make sure we are closing that gap in coverage for 
prescription drugs that has now been called the doughnut hole, where 
too many seniors or people with disabilities fall into that hole, 
cannot afford their medicine, and are not able to get the care they 
need.
  We are going to make sure preventive care does not have an extra cost 
of a copay or deduction because we know it saves money and saves lives. 
Under Medicare, we are going to make sure that is there as well.
  That is what this is about. It is not about waiting. It is not about 
all the other stuff we have heard that are scare tactics. This is about 
tackling and solving a problem for the American people that we cannot 
afford to wait to do any longer.
  Coming from Michigan, I have to say everything I do, everything I 
care about is about saving jobs. We know in addition, we truly are 
saving jobs. We are saving jobs for our large employers right now that 
provide insurance, have been doing the right thing for years but have 
seen their costs go up 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent every year 
and cannot sustain it anymore. They are cutting health care benefits, 
raising premiums, or laying people off because they cannot afford it.
  We know our small employers under our package will save 25 percent. I 
believe we are going to be doing even more for small businesses.
  We have tax credits to help companies, and, as I indicated before, 
our plan is going to save 3.5 million jobs that would otherwise be lost 
because of the increased health care costs that cause employees to be 
let go or companies to move overseas.
  We are talking about saving lives, saving money, saving Medicare. We 
are talking about saving jobs.
  What we are not talking about is waiting. We are not talking about 
stall tactics or politics. We are way beyond that. I understand there 
is a big strategy to make sure the President of the United States is 
not successful. There is a big strategy to make sure we are not 
successful in the Senate. We have seen more filibusters and more 
objections than ever before. The vast majority of the days we have been 
in session--I believe it is 39 weeks now--all but 4 of those we have 
seen filibusters. It has never been done before--filibusters and 
objections over and over again.
  We are committed to getting beyond that and focusing on the reality 
of what is happening in people's lives. People are waiting for us to 
step up and to solve this problem and to give them the ability to have 
access to affordable health insurance for themselves and their 
families.
  We are not proposing something radical. We are proposing that we fill 
in the gaps for the folks who do not have insurance today, most of whom 
are in a small business, most of whom are working maybe one, two, three 
part-time jobs but they are working and they don't have access to 
health insurance, or they are self-employed, as the gentleman I talked 
about, David, in Suttons Bay, maybe a farmer, maybe a realtor, maybe 
the next Bill Gates in their garage coming up with the next great 
invention. They don't have access to the same big insurance pool that a 
big business has to bring down costs.
  What we are talking about for those folks who are working or have 
recently been laid off and cannot find insurance is giving them a way, 
a competitive way to buy insurance from an insurance pool.
  I cannot imagine a more important Christmas present to give to 
American families than the ability to know going forward that when they 
lose their job, they are not going to lose their health insurance; that 
they have an opportunity, a way to get affordable insurance, and that 
we have come together as a Senate to focus on saving lives, saving 
money, and saving Medicare.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I would love to interject a question 
to the distinguished Senator from Michigan.
  We are in a situation in which the other side is repeatedly coming to 
the Senate floor to ask us to delay, to stop, to slow down, to start 
over. I am curious, as somebody who has watched this debate very 
closely, what the Senator from Michigan thinks about where we would be 
if we acceded to that wish? Bearing in mind that one of the sort of 
ideological firebrands who seems to be leading a measure of the debate 
on the other side has indicated this is not about health care and 
people; this is about giving President Obama a Waterloo; this is about 
creating a political defeat for the President of the United States on 
their side; it has nothing to do with health care; it is entirely about 
creating a defeat for this new President; when, in the face of all the 
obstruction the distinguished Senator from Michigan described so 
eloquently, this recordbreaking, ``unprecedented in the history of the 
Senate'' obstruction we are seeing, the person whom I think right now 
seems to characterize the leadership of the radicalized rightwing and 
is running the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, is telling the other 
side they have not been obstructive enough.
  So if we were to go back, start all over, and reach out our hands 
again to our friends on the Republican side, is there any reason to 
believe that we would not be just as rebuffed going forward as we have 
been in the long arduous process of negotiation and hearing and public 
meeting and all of the work that has taken us to this point right now?
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Rhode Island for 
the question and for his advocacy and understanding of how we bring 
down costs and what we should be doing in so many areas for families 
and for businesses in the country.
  I will just say that we have, first of all, attempted to get 
something done for years. In the last couple of years, reaching out to 
Republicans in an unprecedented way, our distinguished chairman of the 
Finance Committee, as everyone knows, went to unparalleled lengths in 
reaching out and spending months and months putting together a work 
group of three Democrats and three Republicans to work in good faith to 
get something done.
  We have accepted Republican ideas. I know on the HELP Committee there 
were many amendments accepted from Republican colleagues. We have 
continued to reach out and look for ways to work together.
  But what we are seeing is a lack of desire to work together and more 
than just a lack of desire, as the Senator indicated, but simply to 
attempt to embarrass the President of the United

[[Page 30926]]

States, to stop him from being successful, and to stop us politically, 
when the reality is very serious. This is not about a President. We 
have had 100 years of Presidents trying to do this. This is not a 
particular Senate. We have had Senates for years that have been trying 
to do this. This is about when are we going to get beyond all this? 
When are we going to actually get beyond this and focus on the reality 
of what is going on in people's lives, what is going on in every small 
business that is trying to figure out how to pay the bills and hold it 
together or every manufacturer in my great State that is trying to 
figure out how they are going to hold it together. At one point, the 
American people will have every right to say to us: When are you guys 
going to get beyond this stuff?
  The good news is, we have a President who has said now is when we are 
going to put it behind us and the Senate has said now is the time and 
we will work in good faith with anyone who wants to work with us. But 
we will not wait, which is what we are being asked to do--wait until 
another time, when 45,000 more people will have died next year, when 
another 5,000 people a day will have lost their homes to foreclosure.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. If we were to wait, does the Senator think there is 
any likelihood people on the other side would suddenly want to 
cooperate with President Obama and not hand him a defeat? If Rush 
Limbaugh would say: OK, Republicans in the Senate, go ahead, work with 
the Democrats now; don't just be the party of obstruction and delay but 
try to work cooperatively for the American people, does the Senator 
think there is any likelihood of that happening?
  Ms. STABENOW. I would like to think there would be a likelihood of 
that happening, but I can't imagine it. Frankly, and I think 
unfortunately, they view it in their self-interest, whether it is a 
business decision, as a radio host, or whether it is a decision of the 
other party. I appreciate the fact that it is hard to lose elections. 
We have all been in those situations. I appreciate the fact that folks 
don't want to be in the minority. Most of us have been in that 
situation. So I appreciate that. But I think all of us were hoping this 
year, with two wars, with the deficit we have, with the challenge on 
health care, with the need to create jobs, and with the financial 
crisis we are in, that somehow it would be different for a while.
  I would ask my colleague if he had the same sense of hope coming in; 
that this year maybe there would be a moratorium on the partisanship; 
that we could actually come together in the interest of the country and 
solve problems before going back to the elections. I would ask my 
friend if he was as surprised as I was that there was not only no 
stopping after the election but that the same folks who led things 
during the election are leading them right here on the floor.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I share the disappointment of the Senator from 
Michigan; that the promise and the outreached hands have been rejected 
and rebuffed; that this place has become so bitterly partisan. This is 
my first time in the Senate with a Democratic President, and I have 
been surprised at the tone of the debate, at the lack of truth of a 
great many of the arguments, of the very apparent motivation.
  I have spoken to members of our caucus who I think are probably 
viewed as some of the most moderate when it comes to seeking 
bipartisanship, who are calm and respected Members of the Senate and 
who have been here a long time, and I have asked them how this compares 
to their long years of experience in the Senate. One of them said he 
has literally never seen anything like it in all the years he has been 
in the Senate. He has never seen anything like it. They are always on 
message, he said, but I have never seen them so off truth.
  I think it is regrettable, but if your mission is to destroy a strong 
and important piece of legislation, not because it is bad legislation 
but because you can't stand having this new President win a political 
victory, are you going to go out and disclose that is your motivation? 
No, you are going to come up with a bunch of other cockamamie arguments 
to paper that over. You will talk about death panels and you will go 
through all the nonsense we have seen and it is regrettable.
  Ms. STABENOW. If I might interject with my friend, I have been handed 
a note that says, in fact, there have been over 150 amendments offered 
by Republicans, and so our attempts have been ongoing to reach out.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I think those were the Republican amendments that 
were accepted into the HELP Committee bill. In fact, I think there were 
161, if I remember correctly from my time sitting on the committee. We 
took Republican amendment after Republican amendment after Republican 
amendment trying to reach out to them.
  Ms. STABENOW. So we have over 300 pages of the bill which contain 
Republican amendments, and that is fine. There is no ownership in the 
sense of who has the better ideas. In fact, what I find interesting is 
the insurance exchange we have in the bill for small businesses--which 
is at the heart of coverage of small businesses and individuals--has 
been offered by Republicans and Democrats. I believe distinguished 
former Senator Bob Dole offered some form of an exchange back during 
the debate when President Clinton was in office.
  So we are not trying to claim a corner on ideas. There are many ideas 
that have been available and talked about for years. It is a matter of 
having the will, the commitment to actually do the hard work people 
expect us to do in order to get this done. I think that is what is so 
important about this time, when the average family is finding 
themselves unraveling, with not knowing if their job is going to 
continue to be available or if there will be a cut in wages. They are 
paying more out of pocket for everything under the Sun and then 
worrying if the employer is thinking: Well, you can have your job or 
your health insurance because the employer can't keep both going.
  The fact is, we have lost so many middle-class jobs--and I will spend 
another time talking about the loss of manufacturing jobs in this 
country. We have lost a lot of our middle class in terms of good-paying 
jobs. So people are now saying: Wait a minute, just being the party of 
no, that is not going to be enough. That is not good enough--just 
saying no for political reasons. That is not enough. We want to know 
what you are going to say yes to. We want to know how you are going to 
work together. We want to know how are you going to actually solve a 
problem.
  When someone such as Joe, from Rockford, MI, says he served in the 
Marines for 4 years and their motto is: ``We take care of our own,'' my 
question is: When are we going to come together and take care of our 
own Americans? I don't mean literally taking care of every person but 
creating opportunity for people, creating the climate for people to 
have a job, to have health insurance, to send the kids to college, to 
be able to afford to keep their lights on, and to be able to know that 
their country is on their side. That is what this is about. They do not 
want us to wait more, they want us to move quickly--move quickly on 
health care and jobs and all the other issues that are so important to 
their families.
  So I thank my friend from Rhode Island for joining me, because there 
is a sense of urgency that people have, and we need to have that sense 
of urgency to get things done--to work together and to get things done. 
Frankly, one of the things our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have successfully done is united our caucus in its determination 
to not let this kind of stalling and objections and tactics, which are 
slowing things down, stop us from actually solving a huge problem that 
has gone too long unsolved for the American people.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are considering the omnibus bill. 
Once again, I have to say that we are heading recklessly, at a high 
rate of speed,

[[Page 30927]]

toward the most reckless spending this Nation has ever seen. We saw 
some big spending during World War II but nothing like this, in the 
kind of environment we are in today. Plus, then we had the whole Nation 
working to win that life-and-death struggle.
  I will just say a few things about this omnibus bill. First, I don't 
think any of us should support it. Why? It is unacceptable. Why? It is 
the kind of spending that has caused the American people to be outraged 
and to go out in the streets. People told me they had never been to a 
rally before in their lives, but they went out because they are afraid 
for their country.
  Look at the package of spending that is in this legislation--the 
Commerce, Justice, and Science bill has been cobbled together with the 
others. There are 6 of the 13 appropriations bills all packaged 
together into 1 to see if they can't ram it through during the last 
days before Christmas so nobody will have the gumption to cause a fuss 
about it and so we can just get this done. What is it that is contained 
in the legislation that causes such angst on my part and on the part of 
others? I will explain it for you.
  Here are the numbers. The Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations 
bill contains $64 billion in spending. The percent of growth over last 
year's spending is 12 percent. Just to recall for my colleagues, if you 
know the rule of seven, which you learn in accounting: at a 7-percent 
growth rate--or if you have an interest rate of 7 percent--your money 
will double in value in 10 years. Here we have a 12-percent increase. 
That means the expenditure line of Commerce, Justice, and Science 
increases at 12 percent, which would double that whole amount in about 
7 years. Do you think that is what the American people want? This does 
not count the stimulus package we passed earlier this year. My wife 
says: Quit saying we passed, when you voted against it. I didn't vote 
for it. It was $800 billion, and $15 billion went into Commerce, 
Justice, and Science appropriations. So we go from $64 billion in this 
bill and add $15 billion on top of that amount, which is already being 
spent.
  What about a second one--financial services. It has a 7-percent 
increase. The rate of inflation is what, 1 percent? On top of this 
bill, we add about a $7 billion infusion in financial services from the 
stimulus package. Last year, the spending was $22 billion; this year, 
it is $24 billion. Add $6.9 billion on top of that and you have about 
$31 billion, which is a massive increase.
  Labor, HHS, and Education also increased at 7 percent, and it 
received $72 billion extra from the stimulus package. I am not counting 
the stimulus when I say it is a 7-percent increase. I am talking about 
the baseline budget. Military Construction and Veterans Affairs is 
oddly the lowest. It only received a 5-percent raise. Well, 5 percent 
is still a big increase when the inflation rate is below 2, and it 
received $4 billion from the stimulus, which is not much. The stimulus 
gave very little to military matters.
  What about the State Department and Foreign Operations? How much did 
that budget line increase over last year? Thirty-three percent. We 
don't have to increase State and Foreign Operations 33 percent. This is 
beyond a reasonable amount by any stretch of the imagination, and it 
also received an increase in the stimulus package.
  What about Transportation and Housing and Urban Development? What 
kind of increase did they get in this year's budget, in a time when the 
American people are having to cut their budgets, when they try to save 
more than they ever saved before, trying to find work if they or family 
members are losing jobs, when they are not getting overtime like they 
did before, when other things are tightening them up and the fear of 
unemployment is out there; what does Transportation and HUD get in the 
baseline budget? Not counting the stimulus money: 23 percent increase. 
With a 23-percent increase you double the whole Transportation-HUD 
budget in 4 years. This is not responsible.
  By the way, the baseline Transportation-HUD budget in 2009 was $54 
billion. It was $54 billion, and the stimulus package added $61.8 
billion on top of that.
  The omnibus bill in all of the spending lines amounts to an increase 
of 12 percent. This is unsustainable, and the 12 percent does not 
include the huge amount of money that was funded through the stimulus 
package.
  I see my colleague here, one of our stalwart Members of this Senate. 
I will yield to him, but I just want to be on record saying I would 
love to vote for these bills. I voted for many of these funding bills 
in years past, but I am not going to vote for a package that increases 
spending of the Federal Government at 12 percent when the average 
American is lucky to have a job and inflation in this country is 1 or 2 
percent. This makes no sense to me.
  Remember, this spending is in addition to the amount of money 
approved in the stimulus package--$800 billion.
  If you would like to know how much money $800 billion amounts to, the 
general fund budget in my State of Alabama--we are an average size 
State--is less than $2 billion. The entire total spending of these six 
bills in this omnibus package is $445 billion, and we spent in 
February--this Congress approved without my support $800 billion extra 
to try to stimulate the economy. Unfortunately, it has been frittered 
away without the kind of impact we need.
  I am worried what we are doing. I appreciate having this opportunity 
to share those comments, and I will speak more about it in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's great remarks. 
I rise today to discuss an important aspect of this multifaceted health 
care reform bill that is now pending on the Senate floor. It is tax 
increases and who will bear the burden of those tax increases. I have 
actually heard some stand on the Senate floor and say there are tax 
reductions. Who are they kidding? The gargantuan piece of legislation 
laying before us provides plenty of fodder for debate and discussion. 
This debate and discussion is taking place all over the country among 
Americans everywhere: over the family breakfast table, during breaks at 
work around the water cooler, in corporate boardrooms, and bowling 
alleys, and during Christmas shopping trips.
  Of course, right here in the Senate we have already had many hours of 
debate about the health care bill, with many more likely to come. As 
one peruses the 2,074 pages that comprise the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act--this bill--it quickly becomes obvious that this 
bill encompasses many topics and touches on a comprehensive array of 
issues dealing with our health care system.
  However, it is not until near the very end of the bill, starting on 
page 1,979, that we find title IX, which deals with revenue offset 
provisions. Perhaps it is because this title is near the end of this 
seemingly endless bill that we have heard relatively little discussion 
about the new taxes it creates or perhaps it is because the tax title 
is relatively short, a mere 67 pages.
  No matter the reason, I believe it is vital that the American people 
understand something about these new taxes before we are asked to vote 
on this legislation, this gargantuan legislation.
  Before I get into the specifics of the new taxes and tax increases in 
this bill, I need to inform my Utahns and Americans everywhere that 
they are being sold a bill of goods when it comes to these taxes.
  Based on what President Obama promised during his campaign last year, 
every individual American taxpayer earning less than $200,000 per year, 
and every family making less than $250,000 per year is justified in 
believing that this health care bill, which has been endorsed by the 
President, would not raise their taxes. Here is the direct quote from 
candidate Barack Obama in New Hampshire on September 12, 2008:

       I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan no family making 
     less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.

  Unfortunately, this bill places the cost of health care reform 
squarely on the backs of the taxpayers and mostly

[[Page 30928]]

on the 98 percent of Americans the President promised to protect from 
new taxes. That is what it said. President Obama's exact words were:

       I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making 
     less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.

  The President went on to promise:

       Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital 
     gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

  However, when one looks at the list of revenue offsets beginning on 
page 1,979, we see all but 5 of the 14 revenue raisers included there 
would hit families making less than $250,000.
  There is a cornucopia of new taxes on middle-income Americans in this 
legislation: a limitation on itemized medical expense deductions for 
medical expenses; an excise tax on the high-cost health insurance 
plans; a new tax on medical devices such as wheelchairs, breast pumps, 
and syringes used by diabetics for insulin injections; a limit on 
contributions to flexible spending accounts; an increase on the penalty 
for unqualified distributions from a health savings account; an 
increase in the payroll tax, and on and on.
  Look at all these taxes: itemized medical expense deduction, fees on 
drug manufacturers, high-cost plan tax--by the way those are passed on 
to you and me and every other consumer, most of whom are less than 
$250,000-a-year earners--fees on health insurers, nonqualified HSA 
distribution from 10 percent to 20 percent, fees on medical device 
manufacturers, fees on FSAs--a $2,500 cap on FSAs--people who have 
suffered from disabilities and other problems, they can't live with 
that kind of cap--and an individual mandate penalty excise tax, all of 
those. That is just mentioning a few of them. It goes on and on.
  Some of these would directly hit many taxpayers who make less than 
$200,000, such as this 5 percent excise tax on cosmetic surgery, while 
others would in the form of higher fees and penalties that would 
ultimately be passed on to the consumer.
  This is certainly the indication with the new ``industry fees'' that 
would be assessed on several sectors of the health care industry.
  Who do they think is going to pay for those? It is you and me and 
everybody else. Look at this chart, the biggest single tax increase in 
this health care bill is also one of the most insidious. This is the 
40-percent excise tax on high-cost insurance.
  By 2019, 88 percent, or $30.5 billion will be borne by individual 
taxpayers. Eighty-four percent of those will be individuals who make 
less than $200,000 or families who make less than $250,000. That is 
according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, upon which I sit. It is a 
nonpartisan committee.
  This is the 40-percent excise tax on health insurance coverage that 
exceeds $8,500 for single families or $23,500 for families.
  The unions in this country are going crazy over that, and with good 
reason.
  The proponents of this idea tell us it is necessary in order to 
``bend the cost curve'' downward and get the cost of health care under 
control. However, in reality, this is simply a bastardized version of 
the concept that might have been effective in discouraging employees 
from bargaining for too much insurance because it is a tax-free 
benefit; that is, for corporations that provide it, a cap on the value 
of tax-free, employer-provided health insurance.
  The original concept, which was discussed at length in the finance 
committee earlier in the process of developing health care reform 
legislation this year, has merit if done correctly. By providing a 
direct disincentive to the very individuals who would suffer the tax 
increase, this original idea would have discouraged purchasing or 
bargaining for higher cost insurance simply because of the tax benefit.
  However, this bill and the one approved by the Finance Committee does 
not take this route. Instead, it takes the cowardly approach and 
applies the tax increase at the insurer level.
  Why is this a bad idea? For one thing, the tax increase occurs at a 
level two steps removed from the individual employee, which is where 
the decision to buy a less costly plan is made. Rather, the tax is 
assessed on the insurance company which has no choice but to pass the 
cost of the tax on to the employer and the employee who, together, pay 
the cost of the policy.
  Instead of providing a disincentive for purchasing more health 
insurance than is necessary, applying the tax at the insurer level 
simply increases the cost of insurance without the employer and 
employee necessarily even knowing why the cost has gone up.
  You wonder why insurance costs go up?
  So for the sake of avoiding what appears to be a direct tax increase 
on workers, this approach loses the benefit of the original idea of 
bending down the cost curve by providing a disincentive. But make no 
mistake, this increased cost of these insurance plans will be passed on 
to the employees.
  ``Forty percent excise tax on high-cost insurance''--which most 
people will have. This is not even--

       . . . by 2019, 88 percent or $30.5 billion will be borne by 
     individual taxpayers; 84 percent of those will be individuals 
     who make less than $200,000 or families who make less than 
     $250,000. The Joint Tax Committee.

  My gosh, when does it end?
  Moreover this tax burden would not be just on those whom the 
President says he wants to target for tax increases, those making over 
$200,000 per year as individuals or $250,000 per year for families. Far 
from it.
  Data from the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation showed that 
only 16 percent of the $30.5 billion borne by individual taxpayers in 
2019 would be paid by those making over $200,000 per year. This means 
that 84 percent or almost $26 billion for this 1 year only would be 
paid by those whom the President promised to protect against tax 
increases.
  Unfortunately, the excise tax on high-cost insurance policies is not 
the only way the health care bill would increase the cost of health 
insurance. To add insult to injury, the bill also includes a $6 billion 
annual fee assessed on providers of health insurance.
  I have heard the other side just condemn health insurers, day in and 
day out. Yet they are adding all these costs to the health insurers 
that have to pass them on to the individual citizens, or insurees.
  As I understand it, the rationale behind this misguided idea is that 
health insurance companies will be enjoying a windfall from this bill 
in that millions of new customers will become insured for the first 
time. Therefore, the reasoning goes, the health insurance industry will 
be earning billions of dollars that they would not have otherwise made, 
all because of the beneficial aspects of this health reform bill.
  Therefore, since these companies will be reaping all of this extra 
profit, why should we not tax them on this windfall in the form of this 
annual fee as though those costs are not going to be passed on? This is 
a bad idea on so many levels. First, it assumes that the insurance 
companies will actually be gaining all of these new customers. 
Secondly, it assumes that the insurance companies will be making money 
from these new customers if they indeed gain them. Keep in mind, they 
are talking now in the back rooms. Nobody knows what they have 
concluded. They are talking about putting people into Medicare from 55 
years old on, where today you have to be 65 years of age to be able to 
qualify for Medicare. Now they want to do that at 55. What does that 
mean? That means the sickest of the sick will go into Medicare. People 
are going to push them out of regular policies and others will go into 
Medicare, so these insurance companies aren't going to make all the 
money the Democrats say they are.
  The third assumption is the most troubling. That is that it would be 
the insurance companies themselves that would bear the burden of these 
fees. These are all dangerous assumptions. The third one is downright 
fallacious. It assumes that corporations suffer the incidence of 
taxation. As anyone with a modicum of economic training knows, 
corporations do not bear the burden of taxes, people do. Specifically, 
it is the people who work for the corporation, who own the corporation, 
and who are the customers of the corporation who ultimately pay the 
tax. They are passed right on to the people. This is

[[Page 30929]]

not the only dangerous new excise tax in this bill. We have a whole 
passel of them. A new excise tax on health insurance providers. Look at 
this, excise taxes in the health care bill, excise tax on health 
insurance providers, new tax on pharmaceuticals, a new tax on medical 
devices, a new tax on high-cost insurance plans, and a new tax on 
cosmetic surgery. In the case of competitive markets, an excise tax is 
generally borne by consumers in the form of higher prices in the long 
term. At least this is what the staff of the Joint Committee on 
Taxation said to me in a letter on these insurance industry fees, dated 
October 28, 2009. Why in the world would we want to add a fee to the 
health insurance industry when we know it will be passed right on to 
consumers of the health insurance in the form of higher insurance 
costs? That means you and me. That means the employee. That means the 
person who bears the burden. I thought the purpose of this health 
reform bill was to rein in health care costs.
  How much does this so-called health care reform bill harm taxpayers 
and violate President Obama's promise not to raise taxes on the middle 
class? Let me tell you about one of the most egregious tax increases in 
this bill. I have always believed that one of the major purposes of 
health care reform is to lower the cost of medical expenses to American 
families and especially to vulnerable American families. Therefore, it 
makes no sense to me that this bill should include this next tax 
increase which would largely hit the sickest Americans. This proposal 
would increase the threshold for deducting medical expenses from 
today's level of 7.5 percent to 10 percent of adjusted gross income. 
This seemingly small change is projected by the Joint Committee on 
Taxation to cost taxpayers over $15 billion over 10 years. Which 
taxpayers would suffer this tax increase? The ones earning more than 
$250,000 per year that President Obama pledged would be the only 
Americans to be saddled with a tax hike under his administration? 
Hardly. Of the many millions of families affected by this change, only 
a few thousand have incomes over $200,000. Think about that. The vast 
majority of the victims of this tax hit would be below that figure, 
with many of them being far from wealthy. In fact, a high percentage of 
the taxpayers affected by this change make less than $75,000 per year.
  Look at this. If your income equals $100,000, then you need to incur 
$10,000 worth of medical expenses before you become eligible for the 
deduction. Millions of taxpayers making less than $200,000 will be 
affected. The deduction for medical expenses has been in the Tax Code 
for decades. Its purpose is to provide relief to Americans who face 
catastrophic medical expenses in relation to the size of their income. 
It is designed so that an average or usual amount of health care costs 
will not trigger the relief. Like I say, a family earning $100,000 this 
year would have to have medical expenses exceeding $7,500 before the 
deduction kicks in. This does not count what insurance pays but only 
what the family would fork over in out-of-pocket costs.
  Even for those with the most basic health insurance, 7.5 percent of 
family income spent for medical expenses is a large amount. In many 
cases, this much medical cost relative to income is caused by chronic 
health conditions or serious accidents or injuries, and this is exactly 
the point. The current tax law rightly says that if a family has to pay 
catastrophic or near catastrophic amounts for health care during the 
year, relief is available. By design this deduction is there only for 
those who need it. So the big question is: Why we would want to 
increase taxes on those with already high medical expenses by making it 
tougher for them to get relief from catastrophic medical expenses. But 
the real conundrum is why would we do this as part of a bill that is 
supposed to rein in health care costs.
  It is no wonder my fellow Utahns and Americans everywhere are 
questioning the wisdom of this bill. As with so many other features of 
this so-called health reform plan, this doesn't make sense.
  There is much more I want to say about the tax increases in this 
bill. American taxpayers need to know the truth about what is about to 
hit them, if the majority has its way. I have not yet mentioned the new 
industry fee on medical device companies. Because my home State of Utah 
has many such companies, I plan to address this new fee in a separate 
floor statement as this debate progresses.
  Let me summarize by reminding my colleagues that the tax increases in 
this bill fly in the face of the promises made by the President, the 
leader of the majority party in Congress who has explicitly endorsed 
this legislation. The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation recently 
conducted a distributional analysis of how four of these tax increase 
provisions affect American taxpayers. Under that analysis, in 2019, 
individuals making over $75,000 and families making over $75,000 will 
see their taxes increase under this bill. That is equal to 42 million 
middle-income taxpayers. Think about that: 42 million middle-income 
taxpayers all making less than $200,000 per year and all of them, told 
by the President that they would be protected from tax increases, will 
be hit and hit hard by this bill. This is after taking into account the 
tax effects of the advanced refundable tax credit for health insurance.
  Think about this: Millions more middle-income taxpayers will be hit 
by indirect tax increases from the health industry segment fees 
included in this bill. There is no question that these fees and other 
excise taxes will be passed through to the individuals who are 
consumers of the health care products that are being passed. As we 
debate this health care bill, it is imperative that the American people 
know what is in the legislation and how it will affect them. It would 
be a travesty for us to vote on this before these things are fully 
understood and debated. This is one of those few bills that come along 
only once in a generation or so. It is one of those bills that has the 
potential to change our country forever, for good or bad. In this case, 
it is not for good.
  The tax increases in this bill are unprecedented in many ways and not 
well thought out. They will have a devastating effect on the people the 
President has promised to protect. The tax increase aspect alone of 
this leviathan is enough to demand its defeat here in the Senate. But 
there are so many more ill-advised provisions in the other 2,007 pages 
as well.
  I urge my colleagues to take a good and honest look at these tax 
increases and make sure they are ready to face the vast majority of 
their unsuspecting constituents once they discover what has been done 
to them with this bill, should it pass.
  I am very concerned about this bill. The American people are very 
concerned about this bill. Polls show they don't support this bill. I 
can't believe my colleagues on the other side are trying to present it 
as though it is a tax deduction bill when, in fact, it raises taxes in 
billions and billions of dollars, most of which go to the middle class 
or lower in transferred payments, and causes other problems added to 
their woes in health care and their very lives, as we go through all of 
our lives here in the United States. I am very concerned about it. I 
think everybody ought to be concerned about it. This is one-sixth of 
the American economy. If we can't get 75 to 80 votes in a bipartisan 
way, you know it is a lousy bill. This is a lousy bill. From what I 
have heard of the one that even Democrats don't know what form it will 
be in, it is going to be even more lousy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, pending before us now is an omnibus bill 
which contains six different appropriations bills. It was not our 
intention to call this omnibus bill but to call each one of the 
appropriation bills. Unfortunately, it has been impossible to reach 
that goal because of a strategy that has been employed by the 
Republican side of the aisle to slow down any debate on any topic as 
much as possible, to challenge us with filibusters and force cloture 
votes and make the Senate go into interminable quorum calls.

[[Page 30930]]

So many times we have called bills that came out of the Appropriations 
Committee with overwhelmingly positive votes only to run into 
roadblocks on the floor. And then after weeks and weeks and weeks of 
procedural problems tossed our way by the Republican side of the aisle, 
the bill is finally called and passes by an overwhelming margin. The 
strategy is clear.
  It is as clear on the health care bill as it is on the appropriations 
bills that the Republican side of the aisle doesn't want us to 
complete. So we are attempting to do our best by consolidating into one 
appropriations bill six different appropriations bills that passed with 
overwhelmingly positive margins out of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee. There were three bills that received 30 to nothing votes in 
the Appropriations Committee and three others that were reported out 29 
to 1, to give an idea of the kind of support they had. We brought up 
the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill on October 6. It took 
us a month to finish that bill because of the delay tactics of the 
other side. That is the reality of what we face. We have run ourselves 
into the ground day after day, week after week with amendments relating 
to things of little or no consequence. I cannot count how many ACORN 
amendments we voted on. It would be a forest of oak trees if those 
acorns were planted. But we voted on them regularly, religiously. We 
made sure we took care of ACORN, but we didn't take care of the 
people's business because those amendments wasted our time.
  These appropriations bills have taken longer and longer because the 
minority will not agree to reasonable time agreements to consider 
amendments and finish debate.
  Instead, we found ourselves consistently sidetracked by the minority, 
spending hours on the floor taking the same votes on keeping ACORN from 
receiving money from different Federal agencies like the Interior 
Department.
  So, here we are. We have 21 days before the end of the calendar year 
and we need to finish the business of the Congress.
  To do so, we engaged Republican members of the Appropriations 
Committee and worked on reasonable compromises to the differing bills 
in the House and Senate.
  This package of appropriations bills is the result of a truly 
bicameral and bipartisan effort.
  This package represents the priorities of the American people. The 
conference report invests in students, veterans and law enforcement.
  The bill before us makes college education more affordable for 
students by increasing Pell grants to $5,500.
  This will help all students, whether they are going to college for 
the first time or going back to acquire new skills, get the college 
education necessary to compete in the global economy.
  The conference report also helps local governments fight crime and 
puts more police on our streets.
  We have increased grants for State and local law enforcement by $480 
million over last year.
  These grant programs were cut by almost $2 billion during the last 
administration.
  This conference report sets the right priorities by increasing 
funding essential to helping our States and local police departments 
fight crime.
  We also help local law enforcement with hiring and training by 
including $298 million for the Community Oriented Policing Services or 
COPS program to put more cops on the beat.
  This funding will help hire or retain approximately 1,400 police 
officers.
  The COPS program has helped train nearly 500,000 law enforcement 
personnel and put over 121,500 additional officers on the beat 
nationwide.
  This conference report also helps keep our promise to our Nation's 
veterans by increasing funding for the Veterans Affairs Department by 
$5.3 billion above last year's level.
  This funding will increase access to quality health care for our 
veterans. In particular, the conference report increases discretionary 
spending at the VA by more than $5 billion to help the VA care for the 
more than 6.1 million veterans they expect to see in 2010.
  As chairman of the subcommittee responsible for Division C of this 
consolidated appropriations bill, I would like to take the next few 
minutes to describe the key components of that portion of this bill.
  Before doing so, I want to recognize and commend my ranking member, 
Senator Collins, for her helpful counsel, input, and support in 
crafting the bill. It has been a privilege and pleasure to collaborate 
with her in addressing the needs of the agencies and programs dependent 
on funding under our division of this conference agreement. I am proud 
that we have produced a truly bipartisan product.
  This conference agreement allocates budgetary resources totaling 
$46.3 billion. This consists of $24.2 billion in discretionary spending 
and $22.1 billion in mandatory spending for financial services and 
general government accounts. The discretionary funds are $1.6 billion 
above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $40 million less than the 
President's request.
  Our work has provided a valuable opportunity to evaluate the 
responsibilities, functions, and budgetary needs of the diverse 
agencies and programs under our jurisdiction. Our challenge has been 
deliberating carefully to make tough decisions within our conference 
funding allocation to address many worthy requests.
  The bill provides resources for the Department of the Treasury, the 
Executive Office of the President and White House operations, the 
Federal judiciary, and the District of Columbia.
  In addition, the bill funds over two dozen independent and vital, but 
often obscure, Federal agencies responsible for a wide array of 
critical functions in the delivery of public services.
  I would like to share some of the highlights of the bill:
  My top priority this year was to continue to address the resource 
needs of two of our Nation's premier regulatory agencies: the 
Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission. These two agencies occupy pivotal positions at the 
forefront of stimulating and sustaining economic growth and prosperity 
in our country.
  The CFTC received its fiscal 2010 funding as part of the Agriculture 
appropriations bill, signed into law in September. I am pleased to have 
played a role in providing that agency with $168.8 million, a 16-
percent boost above last year.
  For the Securities and Exchange Commission, this bill includes 
$1,111,000,000, an increase of $85 million above the President's budget 
request and $151 million more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.
  The SEC is the investor's advocate. I want to make certain that the 
SEC has the necessary resources to effectively fulfill its singular 
obligation: protecting shareholders.
  SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro has charted an aggressive new course to 
strengthen SEC vigilance by recruiting professional expertise and 
investing in enhanced technology. The $85 million increase in this bill 
will support 420 additional investigators, attorneys, and analysts to 
expand significantly the SEC's enforcement, examination, risk 
assessment, and market oversight functions.
  In addition, the SEC will be able to accelerate investments in 
several key information technology projects, including installing and 
launching a new system to track tips and complaints.
  The conference bill supports community and small business development 
at a time when these investments are more crucial than ever. With the 
economy struggling, economic development must be a top priority.
  Treasury's Community Development Financial Institutions Fund 
program--CDFI--helps finance community development projects throughout 
the country and supports basic financial services for underserved 
communities. The bill provides $166.8 million for CDFIs to provide 
financing for projects such as day care centers, community centers, and 
affordable housing projects in America's underserved neighborhoods.
  Through the Small Business Administration, the bill provides over 
$824

[[Page 30931]]

million to promote the development of America's small businesses. The 
bill supports $28 billion in new lending to small businesses, providing 
financing opportunities for small businesses at a time when private 
sector credit is difficult, if not impossible, to access. The bill also 
provides $22 million for microloan technical assistance grants and 
supports $25 million in microlending.
  Funding also supports SBA's partners, including Small Business 
Development Centers, Women's Business Centers, and Veterans Business 
Outreach Centers. These partners form a foundation of support to help 
America's small businesses weather the economic downturn and assist 
newly unemployed Americans seeking advice on starting a small business 
as a new career path.
  As we have done in the past few years, this bill provides a 
significant funding increase for the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission. To help keep CPSC on track to meet its new responsibilities 
under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, the bill provides 
$118.2 million, an increase of $13 million above last year's level and 
$11 million above the budget request.
  These funds will help expand the import safety initiative, which puts 
CPSC inspectors at key U.S. ports, and to further investigate suspected 
problems with imported drywall from China. With these resources, the 
CPSC can provide the nation with a robust safety program and protect 
the public against unreasonable risk of injury associated with consumer 
products.
  For the Internal Revenue Service, the bill provides $12.2 billion. Of 
this, $7 billion is for tax law enforcement, $387 million more than 
last year, to help advance the administration's initiative to target 
wealthy individuals and businesses who avoid U.S. taxes by sheltering 
money in overseas tax havens.
  The bill provides nearly $6.4 billion to enable the Federal judiciary 
to carry out constitutional responsibilities to administer justice and 
resolve disputes impartially under the rule of law.
  Of the $752 million in Federal funding for the District in this bill, 
the largest portion, $563 million, is designated for the local courts 
and criminal justice system including public defender services and 
pretrial and postconviction offender supervision.
  In addition, the bill provides a total of $186 million in Federal 
funds for local District of Columbia activities under the control of 
the mayor. Of this amount, $110 million is for education-related 
functions, specifically support for local school improvement and post-
secondary tuition assistance.
  This $110 million continues our commitment to improving the quality 
of education for children in the District of Columbia. I convened two 
hearings this fall to assess the Federal investment in school 
improvement over the past 5 years. To date, including this bill, 
Congress has provided $348 million since fiscal year 2004 as special 
payments to help the District address long-standing deficiencies in its 
education system.
  This conference agreement provides $75.4 million for school 
improvement in the District in three sectors: $42.2 million for public 
schools, $20 million for charter schools, and $13.2 million for 
opportunity scholarships. The bill also includes $35.1 million to 
continue the District of Columbia resident tuition assistance grant 
program which permits eligible District residents to attend out-of-
state colleges and universities at in-state tuition rates.
  Finally, just a few words about earmarks. This is a very transparent 
appropriations bill shining a light on requests from Senators, House 
Members, and the Obama administration. Quite frankly, that is the way 
it should be.
  Nothing is buried or disguised. The name of every Member who has 
asked for anything in the House or Senate bill that has been included 
in this conference agreement is disclosed in the explanatory statement. 
Every Member has to stand by every request he or she makes, and it is 
printed right there for the world to see.
  After the document went to print, Senator Schumer submitted a letter 
to the committee conveying his support for several items included in 
the bill at the request of House members.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the text of Senator Schumer's letter 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, December 7, 2009.
     Hon. Richard Durbin,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Financial Services and General 
         Government, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Financial Services and 
         General Government, Senate Committee on Appropriations, 
         Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member Collins: As your 
     Subcommittee works toward a conference with the House of 
     Representatives on the Fiscal Year 2010 Financial Services 
     and General Government Appropriations bill, I respectfully 
     request your support for several projects that are important 
     to the state of New York, as well as to our nation.
       I urge the Senate Conferees to fully fund my priority 
     project included in the FY10 Senate version of the Financial 
     Services Appropriations bill:
       Support the Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) addition 
     of $117,500 for the City of Buffalo for the Buffalo Clean 
     Energy Incubator, in the Small Business Administration 
     account;
       Support the SAC addition of $117,500 for the Community 
     Service Society of New York for a financial education 
     project, in the Small Business Administration account;
       Support the SAC addition of $117,500 for the Greater 
     Syracuse Chamber of Commerce for the Space Alliance 
     Technology Outreach Program, in the Small Business 
     Administration account.
       In addition to my Senate priorities, I also offer my 
     support for the following projects included in the House 
     version of the bill:
       Support the House Appropriations Committee (HAC) addition 
     of $17,500,000 for National Archives and Records 
     Administration, Washington, D.C., for FDR Presidential 
     Library, New York, in the National Archives and Records 
     Administration account;
       Support the HAC addition of $150,000 for Agudath Israel of 
     America, New York, NY, for Mentoring and training services, 
     in the Salaries and Expense account;
       Support the HAC addition of $250,000 for the Buffalo 
     Niagara International Trade Foundation, Buffalo, NY, to 
     support small businesses, in the Salaries and Expenses 
     account;
       Support the HAC addition of $150,000 for the Center for 
     Economic Growth, Albany, for Watervliet Innovation Center, in 
     the Salaries and Expenses account;
       Support the HAC addition of $150,000 for the Consortium for 
     Worker Education, New York, NY, for Financial training and 
     guidance programs, in the Salaries and Expenses account;
       Support the HAC addition of $151,000 for Girl Scouts of the 
     USA, New York, NY, for a national program to improve 
     financial literacy, in the Salaries and Expenses account;
       Support the HAC addition of $200,000 for Greater Syracuse 
     Chamber of Commerce, Syracuse, NY, for Clean Tech Startup 
     Camp, in the Salaries and Expenses account;
       Support the HAC addition of $350,000 for Hudson Valley 
     Agribusiness Development Corporation, Hudson, NY, for Hudson 
     Valley Food Processing Incubator Facility, in the Salaries 
     and Expenses account;
       Support the HAC addition of $75,000 for Hunter College, New 
     York, NY, for the Roosevelt House Institute Public Policy 
     Institute, Financial Literacy Project, in the Salaries and 
     Expenses account;
       Support the HAC addition of $150,000 for Metropolitan 
     Council on Jewish Poverty, New York, NY, for Employment and 
     training programs, in the Salaries and Expenses account;
       Support the HAC addition of $100,000 for New York College 
     of Environmental Science & Forestry, Syracuse, NY, for the 
     New York Forest Community Economic Assistance Program, in the 
     Salaries and Expenses account;
       Support the HAC addition of $125,000 for Pace University 
     Lienhard School of Nursing, White Plains, NY, for nursing 
     workforce education and training initiative, in the Salaries 
     and Expenses account;
       Support the HAC addition of $85,000 for Pratt Institute, 
     Brooklyn, NY, for Green Community Career & Business Training 
     Center, in the Salaries and Expenses account;
       Support the HAC addition of $150,000 for SUNY Fredonia, 
     Fredonia, NY, for Small business incubator, in the Salaries 
     and Expenses account;
       Support the HAC addition of $100,000 for YMCA of Long 
     Island, Inc., Holtsville, NY, for Diversity Training Program 
     at the Brookhaven-Roe YMCA, in the Salaries and Expenses 
     account.
       I certify that to the extent of my knowledge neither I nor 
     my immediate family has a pecuniary interest, consistent with 
     the requirements of Paragraph 9 of Rule XLIV of

[[Page 30932]]

     the Standing Rules of the Senate, in any congressional 
     directed spending item that I requested as reported by the 
     Committee on Appropriations.
       I thank you for your consideration of these important 
     requests.
           Sincerely,
                                       Senator Charles E. Schumer.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are here at 7 o'clock. My friend--I want 
to make sure the Record reflects that he is my friend--the Republican 
leader, we scuffle and argue out here, but we have done a lot of things 
together over the years. But I do have a direct quote from my friend 
just this afternoon:

       We have been anxious to have health care votes since 
     Tuesday and we have had the Crapo amendment pending since 
     Tuesday. We would like to vote on amendments. All we are 
     asking is an opportunity to offer amendments and get votes.

  That is what we have been trying to do now for the last several 
hours. First of all, I have a cloture motion at the desk with respect 
to the conference report to accompany H.R. 3288.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the conference 
     report to accompany H.R. 3288, the Transportation, HUD, 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
         Daniel K. Inouye, Al Franken, Jon Tester, Paul G. Kirk, 
           Jr., Roland W. Burris, Edward E. Kaufman, Jack Reed, 
           Daniel K. Akaka, Mark Begich, Patty Murray, Jeff 
           Bingaman, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Sherrod Brown, Thomas 
           R. Carper, Byron L. Dorgan, Richard J. Durbin, Harry 
           Reid.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3590

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
resume consideration of H.R. 3590, the health care bill, for the 
purposes of considering the pending Crapo motion to commit and the 
Dorgan amendment No. 2739, as modified; that Senator Baucus be 
recognized to call up his side-by-side amendment to the Crapo motion; 
that once that amendment has been reported by number, Senator 
Lautenberg be recognized to call up his side-by-side amendment to the 
Dorgan amendment, as modified; that prior to each of the votes 
specified in this agreement, there be 5 minutes of debate equally 
divided and controlled in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding 
back of the time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the 
Lautenberg amendment; that upon disposition of the Lautenberg 
amendment, the Senate then proceed to vote in relation to the Dorgan 
amendment; that upon disposition of that amendment, the Senate proceed 
to vote in relation to the Baucus amendment; that upon disposition of 
that amendment, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Crapo 
motion to commit; that no other amendments be in order during the 
pendency of this agreement; that the above-referenced amendments and 
motion to commit be subject to an affirmative 60-vote threshold and 
that if they achieve that threshold, then they be agreed to and the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that if they do not 
achieve that threshold, then they be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. As I stated earlier today, and as the majority leader 
has indicated, we have waited since Tuesday to vote on additional 
health care amendments, including the pending Crapo motion to commit on 
taxes. Finally, tonight the other side gave us language on their 
alternative to Senator Crapo's motion.
  Senator Crapo's motion would ensure that the bill does not raise 
taxes on the middle class. I understand that their alternative is 
sense-of-the-Senate language on that subject. This consent request now 
has us voting on two drug reimportation amendments from the other 
side--not one but two on the Democratic side--one of which we just 
received less than an hour ago and is 100 pages long.
  We are prepared to return to the health care bill and proceed to the 
two tax-related votes tonight. After those votes, I would suggest we 
continue to work on the bill and other amendments. I assume there could 
be votes on the drug reimportation issue and a whole host of other 
amendments we have all been anxious to offer at a later time. But at 
this stage, regretfully, I object and propound the following 
alternative.
  Is my objection registered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend, the majority leader, could 
we just get in the queue the Crapo amendment and the, I believe, Baucus 
side by side to the Crapo amendment? I ask unanimous consent that we do 
that, which would give us a way to go forward on two measures that both 
sides seem to want to vote on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Just this afternoon, my friend, the Republican leader, 
said--and I quote--``I think it is pretty hard to argue with a straight 
face that we're''--``we'' meaning Republicans--"not trying to proceed 
to amend and have votes on this bill. That's what we desire to do.''
  Mr. President, it is obvious the Republicans have said privately to 
their friends and publicly here and in the media that this is a bill 
they want to kill. To think they are interested in doing something that 
is positive about this stretches the imagination.
  Also, let me just say this. I did not come to this body yesterday. I 
am not the expert with procedures in the Senate, but I am pretty good. 
I want everyone to understand this is a ploy procedurally to stop us 
from completing this bill. We are not going to have a bunch of 
amendments stacked up. Amendments have been offered. We are agreeing to 
vote on the amendments. We know the drug importation is a difficult 
vote for the Republicans; it is a difficult vote for the Democrats. But 
that is what we do around here.
  Every amendment we have had so far has been 60-vote margins. This 
should not be any different. So I want the Record to reflect that we 
are ready to vote. He keeps talking about ``since Tuesday.'' There have 
been quite a few things going on around here since Tuesday. It is not 
as if we have been sitting around staring in space. There has been good 
debate on the Senate floor. It is just that we have amendments that 
would--if we move off the motion they have filed, it creates a 
procedural issue that we would have difficulty getting out of. That is 
why they are wanting to do that. We have to clear the deck, continue 
offering amendments, as we have. I think that is the right way to do 
it.
  So, Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, could I just say, at the risk of being 
redundant--and I do not want to get into a spirited debate with my 
friend and colleague over this--the facts are we were just handed a 
100-page Lautenberg amendment about an hour ago. I have 39 Members 
here, all interested in that issue. It is simply impossible for me to 
clear voting on an amendment of 100 pages in duration that I just got 
an hour ago.
  The reason I had suggested--and I was hopeful that maybe it would be 
a good way forward--we vote on the Crapo amendment, which everybody 
understands has been out there since Tuesday, and a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution that is fairly brief, I assume--a very brief sense of the 
Senate that Senator Baucus was going to offer--is because both sides 
fully understand those two measures. They are not 100

[[Page 30933]]

pages long and enormously complicated. We did not just receive them.
  So I do not want to get into an extensive back and forth with the 
majority leader, but I would say to him through the Chair, sincerely, 
it strikes me a good way to just get started would be to vote on these 
two issues, the Crapo motion and the Baucus amendment that both sides 
fully understand.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is no sucker punch the Democrats have 
just leveled to the Republicans. This amendment was previously offered 
by Senator Cochran, a Republican, that Senator Lautenberg is offering. 
This is something people have known about for a long time. So I 
understand people may have forgotten what was in that. They can have 
the evening to look it over. But I will renew my request tomorrow. We 
are ready to legislate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I guess I will have to prolong it just 
a little bit further.
  I just learned something from the majority leader, that in fact this 
is an amendment that has been around before. We just learned that from 
his comments, having just received it a short time ago. Nevertheless, 
we will continue to talk and see if we cannot move forward and make 
progress and give both sides votes they are clearly interested in 
having.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the attitude of the Republican 
leader. I think it is fair to have a chance to look at that amendment. 
We will be here in the morning and try to work through this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The omnibus conference report.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise to speak about the omnibus conference bill 
before the Senate and specifically about provisions on Cuba that have 
not passed the Senate and have not been subjected to debate by this 
body. These provisions would undo current law where the Castro regime 
would have to pay in advance of shipment for goods being sold to them 
because of their terrible credit history.
  Yes, Cuba's credit history is horrible. The Paris Club of creditor 
nations recently announced that Cuba has failed to pay almost $30 
billion in debt. Among poor nations that is the worst credit record in 
the world.
  So I ask: If the Cuban Government has put off paying those to whom it 
already owes $30 billion, why does anyone think it would meet new 
financial obligations to American farmers?
  Considering the serious economic crisis we are facing right now, we 
need to focus on solutions for hard-working Americans, not subsidies 
for a brutal dictatorship. We should evaluate how to encourage the 
regime to allow a legitimate opening--not in terms of cell phones and 
hotel rooms that Cubans cannot afford but in terms of the right to 
organize, the right to think and speak what they believe.
  However, what we are doing with this omnibus bill is far from that 
evaluation, and the process by which these changes have been forced 
upon this body is so deeply offensive to me and so deeply undemocratic 
that I have no intention--no intention--of continuing to vote for 
Omnibus appropriations bills if they are going to jam foreign policy 
changes down throats of Members in what some consider ``must-pass'' 
bills.
  I am putting my colleagues on notice: You may have the wherewithal to 
do that because you have a committee perch or an opportunity to stick 
something in that has not been debated on the floor of the Senate in 
what you think is a must-pass bill, but do not expect me to cast 
critical votes to pass that bill.
  An example of the danger of what we are doing by changing the 
definition that is now being changed in this omnibus bill of what we 
call ``cash in advance'' is exhibited by a Europapress report. I want 
to quote from that press report: ``During a trade fair this month in 
Havana, Germany's Ambassador to Cuba, Claude Robert Ellner, told German 
businessmen that Cuba's debt to the German government had been 
forgiven''--forgiven--``in the hopes that Cuba will meet its debt 
obligations to them''--meaning to the businessmen.
  In other words, German taxpayers will now be responsible for bailing 
out its private sector and, by implication, the Castro regime.
  Thanks to the U.S. policy we have had up to now, of requiring the 
Castro regime to pay ``cash in advance'' for its purchases of 
agricultural products, U.S. taxpayers could rest assured that the same 
would not happen to them--that we would not have to forgive any debt or 
obligations in order to make sure private businesspeople got paid by 
the regime because, otherwise, they would be left defaulted.
  The Castro regime has mastered the art of making some European 
Governments acquiesce to its every whim, even if it means a free pass 
for its daunting repression.
  So how do they do it? It is rather simple. They give European 
countries a choice: either you do what we say or we will freeze your 
nationals' bank accounts and default on any debts. To me, that is also 
known as blackmail.
  Let's take Spain, for example. Recently, European news services 
reported that Spain has begun a diplomatic offensive to convince the 
Castro regime to unblock nearly 266 million euros--or the equivalent of 
about 400 million United States dollars--in funds that have been frozen 
by the Castro regime of over 300 Spanish companies in Cuba. These are 
Spanish companies doing business in Cuba and now cannot get access to 
their money.
  So what does the Spanish Government do? Not coincidentally, the 
Spanish Government announced that upon assuming the Presidency of the 
European Union in 2010, it would enter into a new bilateral agreement 
with the Castro regime that would replace the current European Union 
policy which contains diplomatic sanctions for human rights violations.
  The Castro regime had made it clear to Spain that the current 
European Union policy was an ``insurmountable obstacle'' to normal 
relations and, I might add, for Spanish nationals and companies to get 
their money back. Therefore, the Spanish Government immediately 
responded to what I consider to be blackmail.
  On a recent visit to Cuba, Spain's Foreign Minister, Miguel Angle 
Moratinos, met for 3 hours with Raul Castro. He did not get one 
concession--not one--on human rights. But he did get $300 million that 
Cuba owed to Spanish companies that do business inside of Cuba.
  Is that what the United States of America intends to do?
  So the lesson for dictators is, go ahead and freeze the bank accounts 
of other countries' companies and create debt you do not intend to pay 
for and you get a free pass for repression.
  Look at another article. A recent Reuters article highlights that 
Cuba continues to block access to foreign business bank accounts. Let 
me quote from that article:

       Many foreign suppliers and investors in Cuba are still 
     unable to repatriate hundreds of millions of dollars from 
     local accounts almost a year after Cuban authorities blocked 
     them because of the financial crisis, foreign diplomats and 
     businessmen said.

  It goes on to say in the article:

       The businessmen, who asked not to be identified--

  Because they are fearful if they are--

     said they were increasingly frustrated because the Communist 
     authorities refused to offer explanations or solutions for 
     the situation, which stems from a cash crunch in the Cuban 
     economy triggered by the global downturn and heavy hurricane 
     damage last year.

  This is a quote from one of those people. He says:

       I have repeatedly e-mailed, visited the offices and sent my 
     representative to the offices of a company I did business 
     with for years and which owes me money, and they simply 
     refuse to talk to me.

  That is what a Canadian businessman told Reuters.

[[Page 30934]]

  The article goes on:

       Delegations from foreign banks and investor funds holding 
     commercial paper from Cuba's State banks have repeatedly 
     traveled to Cuba this year seeking answers from the Central 
     Bank or other authorities--without success.
       Representatives of some companies with investment or joint 
     ventures on the island say they were bracing for the 
     possibility of not being able to repatriate year-end 
     dividends paid to their accounts in Cuba.

  Now, let's remember that some 90 percent of the country's economic 
activity is in the regime's hands, in the state's hands.

       Foreign economic attaches and commercial representatives in 
     Cuba said most of their nationals doing business with the 
     Caribbean island still face payment problems.

  That is all from that article. These are all those who are doing 
business with Cuba now finding themselves and their money trapped.
  Last week, the Russian Federation's Audit Chamber revealed that the 
Cuban regime failed on three occasions to pay installments on the 
equivalent of $355 million in a credit deal it signed with Russia in 
September of 2006. That is just the latest episode in a saga that in 
2009 alone includes, first, reports by Mexico's La Jornada and Spain's 
El Pais newspapers that hundreds of foreign companies that transact 
business with the Cuban regime's authorities have had their accounts 
frozen--frozen--since January of 2009 by the regime-owned bank that is 
solely empowered to conduct commercial banking operations in that 
country.
  Second, a June 9, 2009, Reuters article said:

       Cuba has rolled over 200 million Euros in bond issues that 
     were due in May, as the country's central bank asked for 
     another year to repay foreign holders of the debt, financial 
     sources in London and Havana said this week.

  Those are direct quotes from those articles.
  As a reminder, in Castro's Cuba, you can only do business with the 
regime because private business activity is strictly restricted.
  So the real reason so many whose work is often subsidized by business 
interests advocate Cuba policy changes is about money and commerce, not 
about freedom and democracy. It makes me wonder why those who spend 
hours and hours in Havana listening to Castro's soliloquies cannot find 
minutes--minutes--for human rights and democracy activists. It makes me 
wonder why those who go and enjoy the Sun of Cuba will not shine the 
light of freedom on its jails full of political prisoners. They 
advocate for labor rights in the United States, but they are willing to 
accept forced labor inside of Cuba. They talk about democracy in Burma, 
but they are willing to sip the rum with Cuba's dictators.
  Which takes me to a place in Cuba called Placetas. Placetas is a city 
in the Villa Clara Province in the center of Cuba, in the heart of the 
island, in the center of Cuba. In other words, it is not a beachside 
resort frequented by Canadian and European tourists.
  Placetas is also the home of this couple. It is the home of Cuban 
political prisoner and prodemocracy leader Jorge Luis Garcia Perez 
Antunez, generally known as Antunez. On March 15 of 1990, a then-25-
year-old Antunez stood at the center square of Placetas listening to 
the government's official radio transmission calling for the Fourth 
Congress of the Communist Party. He spontaneously began to shout: 
``What we want and what we need are reforms like the ones performed in 
Eastern Europe.'' Immediately, he was beaten by state security agents, 
charged with ``oral enemy propaganda,'' and imprisoned. That would 
begin a 17-year prison term, which is about half of his current life 
that he spent in prison. His crime? Saying: We need the types of 
changes that took place in Eastern Europe. For that, 17 years in 
prison. He was not released until 2007. He is now 45 years old, 
hopefully with an entire life ahead of him.
  The Castro regime would love for Mr. Antunez and his wife, who is 
also a prodemocracy activist--this says in Spanish, ``we are all the 
resistance'' and ``long live human rights.'' They would love for him to 
leave the island permanently, but he refuses to do so. He has decided 
to stay in Cuba and demand that the human and civil rights of the Cuban 
people be respected. For this, he has been rearrested over 30 times 
since 2007.
  Last week, at that same center in that small town of Placetas where 
he had been originally arrested simply for saying that: What we need is 
a change as we saw in Eastern Europe, Antunez and other local 
prodemocracy leaders gathered to honor Cuba's current political 
prisoners, people who simply, through peaceful means, try to create 
changes for democracy and human rights inside of their country and get 
arrested and languish in jail.
  Antunez and his colleagues were not ``educated'' on the importance of 
human rights and civil disobedience by foreign tourists, as some of my 
colleagues suggest would happen--that we need to send foreign tourists 
to educate the Cubans about human rights and civil disobedience. He and 
all of those who are languishing in Castro's jails understand about 
human rights and civil disobedience in a way to try to capture your 
rights. Unwittingly, though, foreign tourists have financed their 
repression. They give money to the regime that ultimately gives them 
the state security forces that throw people such as Antunez in jail.
  Let me read an open letter that just came out by Mr. Antunez that was 
sent to Cuba's dictator Raul Castro. I am going to quote from an 
English translation.
  It says:

       Mr. Raul Castro--

  This is Mr. Antunez speaking now--

       My name is Jorge Luis Garcia Perez Antunez--a former 
     political prisoner--and I am writing to you again not because 
     I pretend to make you aware of something that, far from 
     alien, is commonplace in Cuba due to the nature and politics 
     of your government. For several months now my spouse Yris 
     Tamara Perez Aguilera and I find ourselves under forced house 
     arrest by your political police. The week before the Juanes 
     concert--

  That is the concert of the famous Colombian singer Juanes--

     a high ranking State security official upon arresting me 
     informed me that there had been an order for my arrest 
     throughout the island of Cuba, wherever I might be found. He 
     emphasized that they were going to be watching every step I 
     take. Since that date I have lost count of how many times I 
     have been arrested, the majority of times with violence.
       Mr. Dictator--allow me a few questions that may help you 
     clarify some doubts amongst those compatriots of mine who are 
     hopeful that your government would diminish repression or 
     that even Democratic openings could be made.

  He poses this question:

       With what right do the authorities, without a prior crime 
     being committed, detain and impede the free movement of their 
     citizens in violation of a universally recognized right? What 
     feelings could move a man like Captain Idel Gonzalez Morfi to 
     beat my wife, a defenseless woman, so brutally, causing 
     lasting effects to her bones for the sole act of arriving at 
     a radio station to denounce with evidence the torture that 
     her brother received in a Cuban prison. Or is it that for you 
     there are only five families that exist in our country that 
     have the right to protest and demand justice for their jailed 
     relatives? Should you not be ashamed that your corpulent 
     police officers remain stationed for days at the corner of my 
     home to impede us from leaving our house and monitoring our 
     movements in our own city?
       Where is the professionalism and ethics of your 
     subordinates that with their ridiculous operations provoke 
     the mockery of the populace towards these persons on almost a 
     daily basis? How do you feel when you encourage or allow 
     these persons who call themselves men to beat and drag women 
     through the streets such as: Damaris Moya Portieles, Marta 
     Diaz, Ana Alfonso Arteaga, Sara Marta Fonseca, Yris Perez, 
     and most recently--

  The well-known blogger, Yoani Sanchez. I am adding for the record 
``the well-known blogger.'' He doesn't say that, but she is a well-
known blogger, internationally known, recently beaten simply as she was 
trying to go to a place of civil disobedience.

       How can you and your subordinates sleep calmly after 
     deliberately and maliciously physically knocking down on more 
     than one occasion Idania Yanez Contreras who is several 
     months pregnant? How can you and your government speak about 
     the battle of ideas when you are constantly repressing ideas 
     through beatings, arrests, and years of incarceration?

[[Page 30935]]

       Maybe your followers cannot find or even attempt to find a 
     response. However, I find myself in the long list of persons 
     that are not afraid to respond.
       You act this way because you are a cruel man, and 
     insensible to the pain and suffering of others. You act this 
     way because you are faithful to your anti Democratic and 
     dictatorial vocation, because you are convinced that 
     dictatorships like the one you preside over can only be 
     maintained through terror and torture, and because the most 
     minimal opening can lead to the loss of the one thing that 
     you are interested in--which is maintaining yourself in 
     power.
       Lastly, returning to my case in particular, I will respond 
     without even asking you beforehand the concrete motives of 
     your continued repression against my person. Your government 
     and your servants in the repressive corps cannot forgive my 
     two biggest and only ``crimes.'' First, that despite almost 
     two decades of torture and cruel and inhuman punishment 
     during my unjust and severe sanction, you could not break my 
     dignity and my position as a political prisoner. And second, 
     because even though I am accosted and brutalized and above 
     all risk returning to prison, I have taken the decision not 
     to leave my country in which I will continue struggling for a 
     change that I believe is both necessary and inevitable.

  The letter is signed: From Placetas, Jorge Luis Garcia Perez Antunez, 
December 2009.
  This is the voice of those who languish under Castro's brutal 
dictatorship. As you can see, Mr. Antunez is an Afro-Cuban, not part of 
the White elite of the regime's dictatorship; not what the regime tells 
the world, that Cubans who are all White seek to oppose the 
dictatorship. Most of the movement for democracy inside of Cuba are 
Afro-Cubans. Inside of Cuba, they are subjected to a citizenship status 
that is less than any human being should be subjected to.
  Antunez's voice rings in my head. It tugs at my conscience.
  His words:

       Despite almost two decades of torture and cruel and inhuman 
     punishment during my unjust and severe sanction, you could 
     not break my dignity and my position as a political prisoner, 
     because even though I am accosted and brutalized and above 
     all risk returning to prison, I have taken the decision not 
     to leave my country in which I will continue struggling for a 
     change I believe is both necessary and inevitable.

  Antunez is right. Change in Cuba is inevitable, but the United States 
needs to be a catalyst of that change. It does not need to be a 
sustainer of that dictatorship. It does not need to create an infusion 
of money that only goes to a regime that ultimately uses it not to put 
more food on the plates of Cuban families but to arrest and brutalize 
people such as Mr. Antunez.
  These are the human rights activists on whom some would turn their 
backs for the sake of doing business. I guess the only thing they can 
see is the color of money. Well, not me, not now, and not ever.
  Thank you, Mr. President. With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I don't rise to add to what the Senator 
from New Jersey said. I just wish to take this opportunity to tell him 
I agree with him, and I appreciate his leadership on this issue over 
several years--even the years before he came to the Senate.
  Often, I am asked in my State, because we can export so much 
agricultural stuff, if I would vote to open trade with Cuba. I said I 
am willing to open trade for Cuba when they give political freedom and 
economic freedom to the people of that country because this dictator 
has run Cuba into the most impoverished country in the world. Before he 
took over, they had a very viable middle class and they were a 
prosperous country.
  I stand ready to help the Senator on what he is trying to do in that 
area.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. If the Senator will yield, I thank the distinguished 
Senator from Iowa for his comments and for the position he has taken 
over a long period of time. It may not be the easiest, but I believe it 
is the one that is morally correct. Most important, on that day--which 
I believe is sooner rather than later--in which Cubans are free, they 
will remember who stood with them in the midst of this. That will make 
all the difference in the world. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor at this point to 
give some breadth to a statement that was made on the floor earlier 
today. It was made by my friend, Senator Baucus. I don't take offense 
to what he said because I sensed a great deal of frustration in his 
statement. I will read what he said so you know what I am reacting to. 
The reason I don't take offense to what he said is because he and I 
have worked so closely together over 10 years, with one or the other of 
us being chairman of the Finance Committee, that we have such an 
understanding of each other.
  Just prior to the remarks I am going to read, he had spoken 
positively about Senator Enzi and me. So I want my colleagues to know 
this statement is not made out of anger that I am going to give a 
rebuttal to.

       Well, we kept working bipartisan--working together, for 
     days and days, hours and hours, and then, fortunately, Mr. 
     President, it got to the point where I'm just calling it as I 
     see it. I can't--I--one of my feelings is I'm too honest 
     about things. And it's--the Republicans started to walk away. 
     They pulled away from the table. They had to leave.
       I ask you why? Why did that happen? And the answer is, to 
     be totally fair and above board, is--and above board, is 
     because their leadership asked them to. Their leadership 
     asked them to become disengaged from the process. I know that 
     to be a fact. Why did their leadership ask Republicans to 
     leave and become disengaged from the process? To be totally 
     candid, they wanted to score political points by just 
     attacking this bill. They were not here to help--help be 
     constructive, to find bipartisan solutions. They were for a 
     while, then when the rubber started to meet the road and it 
     came time to try to make some decisions, they left and began 
     to attack--and began to attack.

  I wish to take a few minutes to respond to these remarks that I read. 
It was asserted, through these remarks on the floor, that some 
Republicans in the so-called Gang of 6 were directed by the Senate 
Republican leadership to cease participating in bipartisan talks. The 
Gang of 6 referred to the six bipartisan members of the Senate Finance 
Committee. On the Democratic side, the members were my friends, three 
chairmen, including Senator Baucus, Budget Committee chairman; Senator 
Conrad; and Energy Committee chairman, Senator Bingaman. All are senior 
members of the Democratic Caucus. On the Republican side, the three 
members included Senator Snowe, ranking member of the Small Business 
Committee; Senator Enzi, ranking member of the Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions Committee; and this Senator. Senators Snowe and 
Enzi are senior Members of the Republican caucus.
  Chairman Baucus convened this working group with a singular goal of a 
bipartisan health care reform bill. We met for several weeks up in the 
Montana Room of Chairman Baucus's office. I would agree with the way 
participating Members have described these discussions. They were well 
informed, thoughtful, provocative, challenging, and frustrating all at 
the same time. But I would say that in the months we negotiated, there 
was never once that anyone walked away from the table. There was never 
once that there were any harsh words.
  While we were engaged in those discussions, there was constant 
pressure from folks outside the room for us to reach a quick deal. That 
pressure came from the White House, it came from the Democratic 
leadership, it came from advocacy groups outside, and it came from many 
media folks covering the day-by-day meetings. To be fair, the Senate 
Republican leadership was very concerned about some of the directions 
the policy discussions were taking in the Gang of 6. That concern grew, 
particularly after the very partisan HELP Committee markup occurred. 
Senator Hatch left the original Gang of 7 because of the character and 
result of the HELP Committee markup.
  Most important, the Senate Republican leadership was concerned that a 
bipartisan Finance Committee bill would be co-opted into a partisan 
floor bill, when the Democratic leadership merged the bills. Senators 
Snowe, Enzi, and I anticipated that concern.
  To be fair to Senator Baucus, as he was negotiating with us, he tried 
to convince us that we would be very much a part of those merging of 
the bills. He offered that in good faith. I

[[Page 30936]]

believe him. I even believe him today saying that. But seeing how 
neither the HELP Committee nor the Finance Committee was as involved as 
they should have been in what Senator Reid put together in this 2,074-
page bill, I wonder whether Senator Baucus could have, if we had a 
bipartisan agreement, actually carried out that guarantee.
  From the get-go, we Republican members of the Gang of 6, to make sure 
we were a part of the process that I described, as Senator Baucus told 
us we would be, asked for assurances from the White House and from the 
Senate Democratic leadership on the next step in the legislative 
process, if we, in fact, did arrive at a bipartisan agreement.
  I also found that many in the broader group of Republicans, who 
provided the bipartisan glue for the CHIP bill of 2008, had similar 
concerns. All Republicans had process concerns, such as where would it 
go once it left the Senate Finance Committee.
  We wanted assurances, and here is what we wanted. The assurances 
requested boiled down to a good-faith promise that the bipartisan 
Finance Committee health care bill would not morph into a partisan 
health care reform bill when Majority Leader Reid merged the two 
committee bills. We wanted to make sure the bipartisan character of a 
bipartisan Finance Committee bill was going to be retained through 
these next steps. To do otherwise would be akin to getting on a bus and 
not knowing where the bus was going or how much the bus ticket would 
cost. Assurances were also requested with respect to a conference 
between the House and Senate. The assurances were similar to assurances 
requested by Senator Reid and made by the then-majority Republican 
leadership during the period of 2005 and 2006. The Democratic minority 
leader, at that time, made these assurances a condition to letting 
major regular order Finance Committee bills even go to conference.
  As an example, take a look at the Congressional Record, and you will 
see the assurances made by then-Majority Leader Frist to then-Minority 
Leader Reid. These requests were made repeatedly to the Democratic 
leadership, publicly and privately, about how the postcommittee action 
of the bipartisan group would be handled in the merger with the HELP 
Committee bill. It was a focus of a July 8 lunchtime, face-to-face 
meeting at the majority leader's office, with Senators Reid, Baucus, 
Conrad, Bingaman, Snowe, Enzi, and myself. The bottom-line response 
from Senator Reid at that meeting was he needed 60 votes.
  I guess, the implication was, despite the fact that the Democratic 
caucus contained 60 members then and now, Senator Reid didn't think it 
was possible to secure the votes of all members of his caucus. A 
restatement of the reality of the Senate rules was not the assurances 
the three Republican Senators--this one included--sought from Senator 
Reid.
  Senator Reid, himself, recognized the validity of this request in an 
August 8 Washington Post article. I ask unanimous consent to have that 
article printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Aug. 3, 2009]

 Democrats Find Rallying Points on Health Reform, but Splinters Remain

                   (By Shailagh Murray and Paul Kane)

       Democrats leave town for the August recess with frayed 
     nerves and fragile agreements on health-care reform, and a 
     new bogeyman to fire up their constituents: the insurance 
     industry.
       With the House already gone and the Senate set to clear out 
     by Friday, the terms of the recess battle are becoming clear. 
     Republicans will assail the government coverage plan that 
     Democrats and President Obama are advocating as a recklessly 
     expensive federal takeover of health care. And Democrats will 
     counter that GOP opposition represents a de facto endorsement 
     of insurance industry abuses.
       ``We know what we're up against,'' House Speaker Nancy 
     Pelosi (Calif.) told reporters on Friday. ``Carpet-bombing, 
     slash and burn, shock and awe--anything you want to say to 
     describe what the insurance companies will do to hold on to 
     their special advantage.''
       Although Pelosi won a significant victory last week when 
     the Energy and Commerce Committee approved the House bill, 
     setting up a floor debate after Labor Day, conservative 
     Democrats were able to demand that negotiators weaken the 
     government-plan provision. The uprising, which lasted for 
     several days, suggested that the public option is growing 
     increasingly vulnerable even as a consensus forms around 
     other reform policies.
       Republican leaders have pledged to use town halls, ads and 
     other forums to intensify their assault on the Democratic-led 
     reform effort. ``I think it's safe to say that, over the 
     August recess, as more Americans learn more about 
     [Democrats'] plan, they're likely to have a very, very hot 
     summer,'' House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) 
     said.
       In the Senate, a bipartisan coalition of Finance Committee 
     lawmakers is backing a member-run cooperative model as an 
     alternative to the public option. But Republicans are 
     beginning to push back against that cooperative approach, 
     too.
       The latest critic is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who on 
     Sunday compared insurance co-ops to Fannie Mae and Freddie 
     Mac, the government-backed mortgage giants that played 
     prominent roles in the housing crisis. ``I have not seen a 
     public option that, in my view, meets the test of what would 
     really not eventually lead to a government takeover,'' McCain 
     said on CNN's ``State of the Union.''
       Pelosi and other Democrats have countered that Republicans 
     are seeking to protect a health insurance industry that is 
     their business ally, not so much from a government insurance 
     option, but from the broad industry reforms that enjoy public 
     support, including the elimination of coverage caps and the 
     practice of denying coverage to those with pre-existing 
     conditions. The White House also wants to steer the debate 
     toward insurance reform, as it is easier to digest than long-
     term cost control, which is another chief objective.
       ``How you regulate the insurance industry is as important 
     to health-care reform as controlling costs,'' said White 
     House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. The public plan, he said, 
     is one of an array of measures intended to change industry 
     behavior.
       As the rhetoric against the industry heated up, the leading 
     insurance trade group issued a statement Thursday calling for 
     lawmakers to cool down their criticisms and redouble efforts 
     toward ``bipartisan health-care reform.'' Robert Zirkelbach, 
     spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, defended his 
     industry, saying it had already proposed many of the changes 
     that Congress is seeking, including those involving pre-
     existing conditions and ratings based on health status and 
     gender.
       Despite the sparring, House and Senate Democrats and three 
     GOP Senate negotiators have reached broad consensus on the 
     outlines of reform. Lawmakers generally agree that 
     individuals must be required to buy health insurance, that 
     Medicaid should be significantly expanded, and that tax 
     increases, in some form, will be required. The final bill 
     also could bring about some of the most significant changes 
     to Medicare since the program was created in 1965.
       But the rebellion from fiscal conservatives on the Energy 
     and Commerce Committee last week served as a political wake-
     up call for Democratic leaders. With enough votes on the 
     panel and on the floor to sink reform legislation, the Blue 
     Dog Coalition forced Pelosi and Emanuel into concessions that 
     made the government plan similar to private health insurance, 
     sparking a new fight with House liberals.
       Sensing that the Blue Dogs had dug in for a prolonged 
     fight, Pelosi and Emanuel gave in to most demands in order to 
     get the legislation moving again. They essentially decided 
     that it was better to pick a fight with their liberal flank, 
     where Pelosi remains popular and where loyalty to Obama is 
     strongest, particularly in the Congressional Black Caucus.
       Despite threats from almost 60 progressive House 
     Democrats--who outnumber the Blue Dogs--Pelosi defended the 
     compromise, saying it was similar to one backed by Sen. 
     Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). Pelosi predicted that the 
     liberal wing would fall in line because the legislation is so 
     important to them.
       ``Are you asking me, `Are the progressives going to take 
     down universal, quality, affordable health care for all 
     Americans?' I don't think so,'' Pelosi told reporters Friday, 
     breaking into laughter at the question.
       Just as troublesome as the internal House divisions is the 
     burgeoning distrust among House Democrats, their Senate 
     counterparts and the White House.
       Pelosi acknowledged that ``there are concerns'' in her 
     caucus that the White House, namely their former colleague 
     Emanuel, takes House Democrats for granted. House lawmakers 
     are being encouraged to pass the most liberal bill possible, 
     she said, while the White House works on a bipartisan 
     compromise with a select group of senators.
       ``It's no secret,'' Pelosi said, ``that members sometimes 
     think: `Why do I always read in the paper that they're 
     checking with the Finance Committee all the time? What does 
     that mean, that they just want to know what's happened with 
     the Finance Committee? What about the [Senate health] 
     committee? What about our committees over here?'''

[[Page 30937]]

       The six Senate Finance Committee negotiators have burrowed 
     in for another six weeks of talks, having set a Sept. 15 
     deadline for producing a bill. The group includes an array of 
     small-state senators with little national prominence who have 
     proven surprisingly resistant to pressure from their party 
     leaders and the White House.
       Although the House bill and the Senate Health Committee 
     version have attracted no Republican support, the Senate 
     Finance Committee coalition includes Sens. Mike Enzi (Wyo.) 
     and Charles Grassley (Iowa), both Republicans, along with 
     moderate GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine). And the lead 
     Democratic negotiator, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus 
     (Mont.), is a moderate who has broken with his party on 
     numerous bills co-authored with Grassley.
       The closer these negotiators move to striking a deal, the 
     more fraught the discussions become by issues of trust and 
     political will. Among Republicans, the pressure is especially 
     acute. All three GOP senators fear they will be sidelined 
     once the bill is approved at the committee level, with their 
     names invoked to demonstrate bipartisanship even as they're 
     left with no say over the final product as it is meshed with 
     the Senate health panel's version and then ultimately with 
     the House bill.
       For Republicans, a prime concern is that Senate Majority 
     Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) will abandon the Finance Committee 
     bill and force legislation to the Senate floor using budget 
     rules that would protect against a Republican filibuster. 
     Even advocates concede that the option is highly risky and 
     that it would vastly limit the policy scope of the bill. For 
     instance, Senate budget experts say most insurance reforms 
     would have to be sidelined.
       Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said Sunday that the 
     administration would consider all options. ``Ideally, you 
     want to do this with as broad a base of consensus as 
     possible,'' he said in an interview on ABC's ``This Week.'' 
     ``But people on the Hill are going to have to make that 
     choice: Do they want to help shape this and be part of it, or 
     do they want this country, the United States of America, to 
     go another several decades [without reform]?''
       Reid said he already provided the Republicans with some 
     assurances, and added, ``I'll do more if necessary.'' He said 
     of GOP concerns, ``I don't blame them.'' And he added that, 
     considering the political realities of the Senate, with its 
     large number of moderate Democrats, health-care reform would 
     have to gain significant bipartisan support to cross the 
     finish line.
       ``I sure hope we can get a bipartisan bill; it makes it 
     easier for me to go home,'' moderate Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-
     La.) told the Democratic caucus last week, according to Reid.
       ``We all feel that way,'' Reid added.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will quote, in part, from the article:

       The closer these negotiators move to striking a deal, the 
     more fraught the discussions become by issues of trust and 
     political will. Among Republicans, the pressure is especially 
     acute. All three GOP senators fear they will be sidelined 
     once the bill is approved at the committee level, with their 
     names invoked to demonstrate bipartisanship even as they're 
     left with no say over the final product as it is meshed with 
     the Senate health panel's version and then ultimately with 
     the House bill.

  Republicans were also worried that the bipartisan product could be 
lifted into a partisan reconciliation bill. I quote further from that 
same Post article:

       Reid said he already provided the Republicans with some 
     assurances, and added, ``I'll do more if necessary.''

  Continuing to quote from the Post article:

       He said of GOP concerns, ``I don't blame them.'' And he 
     added that, considering the political realities of the 
     Senate, with its large number of moderate Democrats, health-
     care reform would have to gain significant bipartisan support 
     to cross the finish line.

  President Obama and the Senate Democratic leadership set a deadline 
of September 15 for the bipartisan Gang of 6 to produce a proposal. If 
the proposal were not available by then, the President and Senate 
Democratic leadership made it clear the plug would be pulled on further 
bipartisan talks.
  I point that out because that is very significant. A powerful member 
of the Senate Democratic leadership, the senior Senator from New York, 
made it crystal clear the Senate Democratic leadership would pull the 
plug. That member, who is very smart and articulate, made it as 
transparent as possible that the September 15 deadline was more 
important than a bipartisan deal.
  I ask you to go back and look at the media reports. The Gang of 6 was 
unable to reach a deal on contentious issues such as abortion, the 
individual mandate, and financing issues by White House/Democratic 
leadership's deadline.
  Chairman Baucus had to move forward. I respect the pressure my friend 
from Montana was under. I have been there myself. But the record needs 
to be correctly made that the September 15 deadline was not a 
Republican deadline. It was a deadline imposed by the White House and 
the Senate Democratic leadership. I might say that wasn't just the GOP 
deadline--it wasn't a deadline for the Gang of 6 either. I didn't 
sense, from the three Democratic members, that they agreed with that.
  So the Senate Democratic leadership pulled the plug on the talks. 
Again, go check the public comments and press reports. They pulled the 
plug. Senator Enzi and I could not agree to the product at that point 
because of substantive issues that were resolved against us and the 
failure of the White House or Senate Democratic leadership to deliver 
on those process assurances that we asked for.
  Senator Snowe did have substantive issues resolved sufficiently at 
the Finance Committee markup so that she could support the bill.
  I might note today that I heard Senator Snowe caution the Democrats 
as she gave them the boost from her vote in the Finance Committee--that 
was right after the bill passed--she made it clear that her vote for 
later stages would depend in part on data on the key question of 
whether the product makes health care more affordable. Her letter to 
CBO dated December 3 lays out the issues in precision.
  At the next stage of the process, the merged-bill stage, all of the 
Senate Republicans' worst fears were confirmed, but it was especially 
telling to Senator Enzi and me. My sense is Senator Snowe appreciated 
it more than any other member of our conference. The bottom line was 
that the majority leader's merged bill was constructed in such a 
partisan way that Senator Snowe's input was cast aside.
  Let's be clear. Senate Republicans did not set deadlines. Senate 
Republicans did not threaten to go their own way if the deadlines were 
not met. Even today, the pending motion from this side of the aisle 
puts the question to the Senate this way: Take the bill back to the 
Finance Committee.
  As the old saying goes, hindsight is 20/20. As I look back on the 
process, I make these observations: There was an uncanny disconnect 
between those inside and outside the room. Many on the outside, mainly 
from the left side of the political spectrum, seemed to want a reform 
deal just to have a deal. They did not seem to be that curious about 
the contents. Perhaps for some of those folks, it was a bit of an 
imperative to draw on the good will that any President has in the first 
few months of office.
  For those of us in the room--meaning the room where the negotiations 
were going on--there was a realization that we were tackling, as 
Chairman Baucus has described it, an extremely complex set of issues. 
We learned very quickly that closing the loop on the policy issues, let 
alone finding political consensus, was not easy.
  The pressure to close a deal by the July 4 recess was overwhelming. 
My friend, the chairman, wisely pushed back and said we would get a 
deal when we reached a bipartisan deal. The Group of 6 was unable to 
reach a deal on contentious issues such as abortion, individual 
mandate, and financing issues faced by the White House-Democratic 
leadership deadline. Chairman Baucus had to move. In my heart, I feel 
he would rather not have had that sort of pressure or make that 
decision. But that was not our deadline. It was a deadline imposed by 
the White House and the Senate Democratic leadership. They pulled the 
plug on the talks. Go check the public comments and the press reports. 
They pulled the plug. Senator Enzi and I could not agree to a product 
at that point because of the substantive issues that were very much 
involved.
  I want to make it very clear, for this Senator, of the three 
Republicans who were negotiating, kind of in summary, that the 
Republican leadership, I think, had questions about a lot of

[[Page 30938]]

things that were going on in those negotiations. But never once did 
Senator McConnell, my leader, say to me: Get out of there.
  That is the impression that was left this morning.
  I can only say that I think I have established a reputation in the 
Senate, particularly while I was chairman of the Senate Finance 
Committee, that I did not listen to either the White House or people in 
leadership necessarily when I thought a bipartisan compromise was the 
only way to get things done. I suppose there is a whole long list of 
things that I ought to write down before I make this statement, but I 
can only think of two or three right now that I can be sure of that I 
can say in an intellectually honest way that I stood up to the Bush 
White House when I was chairman of the committee.
  They came out immediately for a $1.7 trillion tax cut in 2001. I made 
a decision early on that it was not good for the economy and it was not 
politically possible. So we passed a much smaller, in a bipartisan way, 
tax bill for that year. And yet it was the biggest tax cut in the 
history of the country.
  In 2003, when the White House and House Republicans in the majority 
at that time said we had to have a $700 billion tax cut in addition to 
the tax cut that was passed in 2001, there were not votes in the Senate 
among just Republicans to get it done. To secure the votes to get it 
done, we had to limit it to half that amount of money, or just a little 
bit more than half that amount of money. And in order to get those 
votes, contrary to the $700 billion tax cut that the Bush White House 
wanted and the House Republicans wanted that we could not get through 
here, I said I will not come out of conference with a tax cut more than 
that amount of roughly $300 billion.
  We got that done by just the bare majority to get it done. But I 
stood up to the White House, I stood up to the House Republican 
leadership who thought we should not be doing anything that was short 
of that full $700 billion.
  There have been other health care bills very recently where I stood 
up against the White House and against our Republican leadership.
  I think I have developed a reputation where I am going to do what is 
right for the State of Iowa and for our country. And I am going to try 
to represent a Republican point of view as best I can, considering 
first the country and my own constituency.
  Then when it comes to whether people in this body or outside of this 
body might think that for the whole months of May, June, and July, and 
through August, with a couple meetings we had during the month of 
August, that we were dragging our feet to kill a health care reform 
bill, I want to ask people if they would think I wouldn't have better 
things to do with my time than to have 24 different meetings, one on 
one with Chairman Baucus, or that I wouldn't have more than something 
else to do than have 31 meetings with the Group of 6. These were not 
just short meetings. These were meetings that lasted hours. There was 
another group of people--Grassley, Baucus, and others, sometimes that 
included people from the HELP Committee and the Budget Committee. But 
we had 25 meetings like that. I wonder if people think we would just be 
meeting and spending all those hours to make sure that nothing happened 
around here. No. Every one of the 100 Senators in this body, if you 
were to ask them, would suggest changes in health care that need to be 
made. Even in that 2,074-page bill, there are some things that most 
conservative people in this country would think ought to be done.
  We all know to some extent something has to be done about this 
system. We worked for a long period of time, thinking we could have 
something bipartisan. But it did not work out that way, and now we are 
at a point where we have a partisan bill.
  That is not the way you should handle an issue such as health care 
reform. Just think of the word ``health,'' ``health care.'' It deals 
with the life and death of 306 million Americans. Just think, you are 
restructuring one-sixth of the economy.
  Senator Baucus and I started out in January and February saying to 
everybody we met, every group we talked to, that something this 
momentous ought to be passing with 75 or 80 votes, not just 60 votes. 
Maybe one of the times the White House decided to pull the plug on 
September 15 may have come on August 5 when the Group of 6 had our last 
meeting with President Obama. He was the only one from the White House 
there and the six of us. It was a very casual discussion.
  I said this before so I am not saying something that has not been 
said. But President Obama made one request of me and I asked him a 
question. For my part, I said: You know, it would make it a heck of a 
lot easier to get a bipartisan agreement if you would just say you 
could sign a bill without a public option. That is no different than 
what I said to him on March 5 when I was down at the White House, that 
the public option was a major impediment to getting a bipartisan 
agreement. Then he asked me would I be willing to be one of three 
Republicans, along with the rest of the Democrats, to provide 60 votes. 
My answer was upfront: No. As I told him, you can clarify with Senator 
Baucus sitting right here beside you, that 4 or 5 months before that, I 
told Senator Baucus: Don't plan on three Republicans providing the 
margin, that we were here to help get a broad-based consensus, as 
Senator Baucus and I said early on this year, that something this 
massive ought to pass with a wide bipartisan majority.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I need to correct the Record. In the 
part of my statement where I refer to the July 8 meeting with Senator 
Reid, it was only Snowe, Grassley, and Enzi, not the other Senators I 
named. So I wish to correct that for the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois.

                          ____________________