[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7794-7796]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, on February 14 President Obama 
delivered his budget to the Congress. I often describe to my 
constituents that Washington is an island surrounded by reality. 
Nowhere is this more apparent than with President Obama's February 14 
budget. In presenting and defending his budget, President Obama and his 
staff have said his budget ``lives within our means'' and that ``it 
will not add to the debt,'' and that ``we are not going to spend any 
more money than we are taking in.''
  Obviously all you have to do is study the budget and you come to the 
conclusion that these astonishing statements do not equal the facts. 
The Congressional Budget Office recently projected the deficit for 
fiscal year 2011, the year we are in, will exceed $1.5 trillion. This 
is on top of a $1 trillion-plus deficit in 2009 and 2010. Today, of 
every dollar spent, more than 40 cents is borrowed. Our country is on 
an unsustainable path. But you would not realize that by looking at the 
President's budget proposal. It does not recognize the serious fiscal 
crisis our country faces. What it represents is the status quo.
  Over the 10-year period, President Obama's budget adds more than $10 
trillion in publicly held debt and $14 trillion in gross debt. Does 
that sound like on February 14 he put before us a budget such that we 
are going to live within our means and not spend any more than we take 
in?
  During this period of time, going up to 2021, debt held by the public 
would reach 87 percent of GDP, compared to a 50-year average of 35 
percent. According to the Congressional Budget Office, ``If those 
trends were continued beyond 2021, the resulting path of the Federal 
debt would be unsustainable.''
  In fact, CBO estimated that by the year 2040, under President Obama's 
budget, debt held by the public would be 117 percent. Is this the 
budget the Senate Democrats will support? Is this the fiscal path we 
are going to endorse? While President Obama claims we are living within 
our means, the smallest annual deficit will be $748 billion. His budget 
does not even begin to put our country on the right path. The final 3 
years of his budget have annual deficits totaling over $1 trillion.
  As former Comptroller General David Walker has stated, our country 
was founded on principles such as limited government, individual 
liberty, and fiscal responsibility.
  The President's budget falls short on each of these three principles. 
It increases spending. It grows government as a percentage of our 
economy. It is clearly fiscally irresponsible, and because of the 
legacy of deficits and debt it creates, it will undoubtedly infringe 
upon the liberties of future generations.
  In 2006, then-Senator Obama argued against raising the debt limit. He 
believed, at that time, the very need to raise the debt limit was a 
sign of leadership failure. By his own standard then, President Obama 
is not living up to his standard. So is that leadership failure? Would 
he admit that today? His ``no'' vote in that year was to make a point 
about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline. We are in the 
third year of President Obama's Presidency. We are in the midst of the 
third consecutive year of $1 trillion of annual deficit. Deficits have 
gotten larger, not smaller.
  Of course, I recognize many of my Democratic colleagues will come to 
the floor and argue they support the policies President Obama put forth 
in a speech later on--I guess in April--at George Washington 
University. Unfortunately, for the Democrats, the leader of their party 
doesn't deliver speeches in legislative text. Speeches alone aren't 
going to solve the big problems we face in this Nation. We need serious 
solutions to our country's very serious problems. We need real 
leadership. The future generations of this country deserve no less, and 
that is what House budget Chairman Ryan has offered. That is what our 
colleagues on our side of the aisle, such as Senator Toomey and Senator 
Paul, are going to offer to the Senate.
  What have the Democrats offered to address the looming fiscal crisis? 
The answer is no resolution at all. So I have a blank page, 
representing the fact that they have no plan whatsoever. Are they going 
to allow a debate so they can offer their ideas to address our fiscal 
calamities? We just heard the Senator from Nebraska postulate that is 
not going to happen; that we are having a series of votes, but they are 
for show, not for real. The American people have sent 53 Democratic 
Senators to Washington. A budget can pass the Senate with just 51 
votes. It doesn't take the supermajority 60 votes that so many issues 
on the floor require if we are going to get to finality. So far, we can 
see they have shirked their responsibility--nothing.
  It has been more than 750 days since Senate Democrats offered a 
budget. What is the delay? I want to ask them: Where is your budget? I 
suppose they will argue that our Nation's fiscal situation doesn't 
require a budget or, perhaps, they have simply run out of ideas to 
address our deficits and our debt.
  ADM Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said 
earlier this year that our debt--meaning our national debt, our 
accumulative debt--is the greatest threat to our national security. 
Surely, the Senate Democratic leadership would want to put an honest 
plan forward to address that threat. They don't even want to debate a 
budget.
  This exercise is on a motion to proceed to a number of budgets, none 
of which were written by the Democratic majority. I guess they intend 
to vote against proceeding. They don't even

[[Page 7795]]

want to debate a budget. Well, by this time, most of the time in the 
last 35 years, we have had a budget through the Senate. Instead of 
leading, they would rather demagogue the serious efforts put forth by 
Republicans. They are not going to stand and defend the defenseless 
budget their President submitted to Congress just 3 months ago. They 
are not going to write their own budget. It is still blank. They are 
not even going to vote to allow debate on budgets that were drafted by 
others. So are we witnessing a leadership failure similar to the one 
Senator Obama referred to in 2006, in his speech on the Senate floor? 
The Democratic majority would rather demagogue Medicare than produce 
and defend their own budget.
  I presume there will be a lot of speeches in this town today, with 
Democrats hitting their chests saying: We ran an election in New York 
State yesterday based upon the fact that Republicans want to kill 
Medicare. Well, I wish to put forth the fact that if we do nothing, as 
the trustees have said recently, there isn't going to be any Medicare 
in 9 years. I can put forth ample evidence that ObamaCare puts Medicare 
on a path to the rationing of care and reducing the number of doctors 
who are going to take Medicare patients. Already, Medicare is on a path 
to destruction if we don't intervene and do something about it. The 
sooner we intervene, the better. We ought to be intervening now in a 
bipartisan way instead of all the talk about partisanship and 
destroying it. There are some people in this Congress who know Medicare 
is a problem and the sooner we deal with it, the easier it will be to 
deal with it.
  Medicare is a very important part of America's social fabric. It was 
intended to be that in 1966, and it is still that today. I intend to 
work to make sure it stays as a part of our social fabric. It is a 
commitment made to seniors today, and it is a commitment made to people 
who are not yet seniors today. It is a commitment made to all for the 
future. So it is very important that we, as stewards of the Medicare 
Program, take serious our charge to make sure it remains for future 
seniors.
  With that in mind, I come to the floor to call out the most dangerous 
threat to the Medicare Program we face on the floor this week. Let's be 
clear. It is not the budget resolution authored by Congressman Paul 
Ryan and passed by the House of Representatives. The most serious 
threat to the Medicare Program this week is those who propose to do 
nothing or offer no plan whatsoever for saving Medicare. Doing nothing 
is the most serious threat to Medicare. For all the talk about killing 
Medicare as we know it, the Democrats' do-nothing budget I have held up 
so often--the do-nothing budget--is the surest way to kill Medicare as 
we know it.
  The folks coming to the Senate floor with nothing in their hands but 
criticism of these budget resolutions are irresponsible. By attacking 
the House budget resolution while proposing absolutely nothing, the 
Democrats are plunging their collective heads into the sand such as 
these ostriches sometimes are described as doing--ostriches acting as 
though everything with Medicare is fine and that doing nothing is a 
viable option.
  Let's look at the facts. Last week, the CMS Actuary--and this is a 
professional person. He is not a political person but the President's 
Actuary--submitted his annual report on the fiscal health of the 
Medicare Program. Frankly, his conclusions are very disturbing. The 
Actuary confirms that the Medicare Program is already contributing to 
the Federal deficit. It is spending more than it takes in, and it will 
continue to do so throughout the coming decade. The Actuary found--this 
professional person, this person that is the President's Actuary--found 
that Medicare will run out of money by the year 2024--5 years faster 
than his projection last year. For the sixth straight year, the report 
issued a funding warning showing that the Medicare Program is taking a 
disproportionate share of its funding from general revenue, thus 
crowding out programs such as defense and education. The situation is 
only going to get worse.
  In 1965, when Medicare was created, baby boomers retiring today were 
then just teenagers. Today, we have 10,000 baby boomers retiring every 
day, with fewer and fewer workers paying into Medicare to support these 
additional retirees. The average couple turning 65 today paid over 
$109,000 into Medicare over their lifetime but will receive over 
$343,000 in benefits. Stop to think of that. Everybody wonders why 
Medicare might be in trouble today. The average person retiring today 
has paid in $109,000 but will receive about $343,000 in benefits. That 
just does not add up as a sustainable program. Anybody who says we 
don't have to do anything about Medicare and it will take care of 
itself--well, we can see how misleading that is.
  When Medicare was created in 1966, the average American lived to be 
age 70. Today, thanks to incredible advances in medical care, the 
average American lives to be 79. These are the facts. So now, knowing 
these facts, is the time for Congress to recognize the reality of 
Medicare's fiscal crisis--and not just recognize it but recognize it 
and then do something about it.
  Put simply, Medicare is unsustainable without serious, thoughtful 
action. This blank sheet of paper, a budget not being offered, is not a 
serious, thoughtful action. To say otherwise is to ignore the facts and 
to stick your head in the sand.
  The Ryan budget, as it relates to Medicare, has had much discussion 
lately. It is simply a blueprint. Even if this page were filled in, a 
budget never becomes law; it never goes to the President of the United 
States. It is a discipline for the Congress of the United States. It 
does not become law. So anybody who says voting for a budget is voting 
to do something to Medicare is crazy. Actual policy, as we know, is 
going to be determined by other committees, other than the Budget 
Committee. In the House, it is most often the Ways and Means Committee. 
In the Senate, it is the Senate Finance Committee. Those are the 
committees that write the bill and that can say what is happening or 
not happening to Medicare. Anyone telling the public that if this 
budget blueprint is adopted, it will be a law doesn't understand how 
the legislative process works.
  But this vote isn't even about a budget blueprint. The debate we are 
having is about a simple motion on whether we ought to even debate a 
budget. If the Democrats were willing to proceed to an honest and open 
debate, we could talk about where we want to go with the Medicare 
Program at that time. If the Democrats were willing to proceed to an 
honest and open debate, we could debate steps to save the program. If 
the Democrats were willing to proceed to an honest and open debate, we 
could have amendments to improve the resolution as offered. Of course, 
the Democrats are not willing to proceed to an open and honest debate.
  I agree that changing the nature of Medicare is a significant step. 
Requiring people who are 10 years away from retirement to expect to pay 
more for their health care in retirement is a significant change in 
policy. It should be thoughtfully considered, however, in the context 
of Medicare's serious fiscal difficulties. They aren't going to go 
away.
  Describing this policy as ending Medicare for seniors is 
irresponsible and factually false. People who engage in this type of 
demagoguery are endangering coverage for the very people whom they 
claim to support because they continue to propose nothing. Where is the 
Democrats' bill? So far, this is it: a blank piece of paper, producing 
nothing.
  I have great respect for the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. 
I know he has tried to produce a budget. But, apparently, his 
leadership thinks that demagoguing Republican budgets is far more 
politically profitable than standing behind one of their own plans, so 
they have squashed all his efforts to produce a budget. Even though we 
know the Democrats have turned into ostriches when it comes to saving 
Medicare, we are fortunate to have a record over the past several years 
to examine.
  So let's look at ObamaCare, passed solely in a partisan vote in 2010. 
It took a little more than $500 billion right out

[[Page 7796]]

of the Medicare Program to fund a new entitlement. So Medicare is in 
trouble. Take away $500 billion from it, and start up a new program. 
Does that sound fiscally responsible? I have no doubt some folks may 
come to the floor to argue that the Medicare savings extended the life 
of the Medicare Program. But every reputable source that has analyzed 
that claim has appropriately tagged it as double counting.
  The CMS Actuary, whom I referred to in the past, today continues to 
call some of the productivity cuts made by the Democrats in their 
health care reform bill unsustainable and unrealistic. And I say--he 
does not say it--I say it is going to bring rationing. So down the 
road, what sort of health care are seniors going to have? It is not 
going to be what they know today.
  Of course, we all know the Democrats failed to resolve the 
sustainable growth rate problem, which is a formula for doctors' 
reimbursement, so the problem of physician payments continues to haunt 
the fiscal future of Medicare. If we do not do anything this year, 
Medicare physicians will face a 30-percent pay cut. Imagine that. Today 
many Medicare patients already are being denied the care and personal 
choice they deserve because the AMA, the American Medical Association, 
has said one in three primary doctors is limiting Medicare patients, 
and more than one in eight of those doctors is forced to deny Medicare 
patients altogether.
  Our seniors already face the pain of a broken Medicare system. Yet 
the Democrats remain ostriches with their heads in the sand because 
they have no Medicare solutions they want to offer.
  Perhaps I am being too hard on the Democrats. President Obama--
perhaps speaking for the Democrats or perhaps not--has put an option on 
the table for addressing Medicare spending. He did it in a speech at 
George Washington University on December 13. Of course, we will not be 
able to vote on that here today because, as Senator McConnell said 
yesterday, you cannot vote for a speech. But at least we should 
consider the option the President put on the table.
  In his speech, President Obama suggested we should control costs in 
Medicare by tasking the Independent Payment Advisory Board that was set 
up under ObamaCare to do even more than what we proposed a year and a 
half ago when the bill was passed.
  You might ask, What is the Independent Payment Advisory Board in 
ObamaCare? Well, it was created by the Democrats' health care bill. It 
is a 15-member panel of unelected advisers who would make binding 
recommendations on how to reduce Medicare spending when spending is 
projected to exceed a certain level. Effectively, their recommendations 
have the force of law without congressional intervention to replace the 
cuts they might suggest and that under the law would take a 60-percent 
majority. And you know it is very difficult to get 60 votes in this 
body for any one thing.
  That law says the board cannot make decisions that directly relate to 
premiums, deductibles, or copayments that Medicare beneficiaries pay. 
It says the board cannot change the eligibility criteria for Medicare 
benefits. So then, what can the board do, you may ask? Well, it is 
going to zero in on provider payments, doctor payments.
  I want to repeat a statistic I quoted earlier because after the 
payment review board gets done, you are going to have more than the one 
in three primary doctors not taking Medicare patients that presently is 
the situation. We have one out of eight doctors denying Medicare 
patients altogether. In other words, they are not going to see Medicare 
patients; and that is today. It is going to get worse when this payment 
review board gets done.
  According to the Joint Economic Committee, today Medicare allows 
medical providers to collect 89 percent of the cost of services 
provided to seniors. Under the President's proposal, by 2022, Medicare 
providers will only be allowed to collect 66 percent of the cost of 
services provided to seniors. Reductions will clearly restrict seniors' 
access to quality health care.
  Let me sum up what we do know about the Democrats' actions on 
Medicare because it is already on a path to destruction. So, of course, 
I get a little bit upset when I hear people on the other side of the 
aisle saying Republicans want to do away with Medicare, when it is part 
of the social fabric of America and we want to keep it as part of the 
social fabric of America and we want to do it not only because it is a 
Federal program, but we want to do it because it is tied in with a lot 
of corporate retirement health plans where it becomes a primary payer 
and the corporate health plan becomes a secondary or additional payer.
  I sum up by saying, they have enacted already $500 billion worth of 
cuts to fund a new entitlement called ObamaCare. Many of those cuts are 
described by the independent CMS Actuary as unsustainable. They have 
yet to find a way to fix the doctor reimbursement formula called the 
sustainable growth rate. And still, the President has proposed further 
reducing payments to providers.
  Of course, what is that going to do for seniors in America? It is 
going to reduce access. This will make it harder for seniors to find 
providers willing to treat them. This will drive some providers out of 
the business of providing services to seniors. In other words, they 
cannot afford it.
  There is one simple word to describe this approach, and it is a word 
I do not take lightly. The word is ``rationing'' of health care for 
seniors in America. It may not be direct overt rationing, but you have 
to have your head buried very deeply in the sand not to realize that is 
going to be the outcome of policies already put in place by this 
President through ObamaCare. And then they want to accuse us of 
destroying Medicare?
  So I get back to what today's debate is all about. I think we ought 
to seriously be having a legitimate floor debate rather than a series 
of political show votes today. I will vote for the Senate to begin 
debate on the Ryan budget and the other Republican budgets as they are 
offered because I do not have a chance to vote on anything from that 
side of the aisle because, see, it is a blank sheet of paper. There is 
nothing there that the majority party--not the minority party; they are 
the majority party--has suggested. I will vote to begin debate, not 
that I support any of their budgets in their entirety. I will vote to 
begin debate because our fiscal situation demands serious efforts or 
giving serious considerations, and in no area, as I have made clear in 
my remarks today, is this more critical than in Medicare because 
Medicare is on a path to bankruptcy.
  People who support the Medicare Program and care about those who will 
count on that program today and for many years to come are willing to 
put serious plans on the table for debate. It is our responsibility to 
ensure Medicare's survival for future seniors. Doing nothing is worse 
for Medicare. The surest way to kill Medicare as we know it is the 
Democrats' do-nothing plan. Demagoguery is irresponsible. So I would 
suggest: Pull your head out of the sand and join a real debate to save 
Medicare for the future.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
following my remarks, Senator McCaskill be recognized to speak for up 
to 15 minutes, and following her remarks Senator Sessions be recognized 
to speak for up to 20 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________