To increase transparency regarding debt instruments of the United States held by foreign governments, to assess the risks to the United States of such holdings, and for other purposes.

AMERICAN JOBS AND CLOSING TAX LOOPHOLES ACT OF 2010--Continued

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, 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. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama took issue with
the use of an emergency designation in the substitute before us. Let me
take a moment to explain why that use of the emergency designation is
entirely appropriate.
First, the concluding section of the amendment designates two items
as emergency items. Those items are unemployment insurance and
additional payments to States under Medicaid. Both of these items are
directly related to the economic emergency that we find ourselves in;
namely, the great recession.
From the beginning of emergency designations, with the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990, Congress has recognized periods of recession
as true emergencies, and that makes good economic sense as well. It
makes good sense to allow automatic stabilizers such as unemployment
insurance and Medicaid to spend more when the economy is in rough
shape. Programs such as unemployment insurance and Medicaid help to
cushion the blow for those hurt by bad economic times. Programs such as
unemployment insurance and Medicaid help to increase economic demand,
and that helps to keep the recession shorter than it otherwise would
be.
That is why the old Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law provided for exceptions
to budget discipline in periods of recession. It is why the Budget
Enforcement Act carried on that policy by allowing exceptions for
budget emergencies, and budget resolutions have carried that policy
further to the current day.
The Senator from Alabama also took issue with the budgetary treatment
of payments to doctors under Medicare. That provision is in our
amendment, paying doctors at the end of next year. In our amendment,
the provision on doctors' payments simply says this provision will be
accounted for as Congress provided in the Pay-As-You-Go Act. This
provision does not evade the budget law. This provision merely provides
for this bill's treatment in accordance with the budget law. So the
budgetary treatment of this bill is consistent with the budget law and
it is entirely appropriate.
The Senator from Alabama has once again offered his amendment to put
caps on appropriated spending. That is basically the same amendment the
Senate has repeatedly rejected. The Senator from Hawaii, the
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, will no doubt
have more to say about this in due course. At this point let me note
the Sessions amendment violates the Congressional Budget Act and I
expect a point of order to be raised against the Sessions amendment
later today.
Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Sessions
amendment be temporarily laid aside so the Senator from Maryland may
offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Maryland.

Amendment No. 4304 to Amendment No. 4301

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4304.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] proposes an
amendment numbered 4304 to amendment No. 4301.

Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for the extension of dependent coverage under the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ____. EXTENSION OF DEPENDENT COVERAGE UNDER FEHBP.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``FEHBP
Dependent Coverage Extension Act''.
(b) In General.--
(1) Provisions relating to age.--Chapter 89 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in section 8901(5)--
(i) in the matter before subparagraph (A), by striking ``22
years of age'' and inserting ``26 years of age''; and
(ii) in the matter after subparagraph (B), by striking
``age 22'' and inserting ``age 26''; and
(B) in section 8905(c)(2)(B)--
(i) in clause (i), by striking ``22 years of age'' and
inserting ``26 years of age''; and
(ii) in clause (ii), by striking ``age 22'' and inserting
``age 26''.
(2) Provisions relating to marital status.--Chapter 89 of
title 5, United States Code, is further amended--
(A) in section 8901(5) and subsections (b)(2)(A),
(c)(2)(B), (e)(1)(B), and (e)(2)(A) of section 8905a, by
striking ``an unmarried dependent'' each place it appears and
inserting ``a dependent''; and
(B) in section 8905(c)(2)(B), by striking ``unmarried
dependent'' and inserting ``dependent''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall become effective as if included in the enactment of
section 1001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act (Public Law 111-148), except that the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management may implement such amendments
for such periods before the effective date otherwise provided
in section 1004(a) of such Act as the Director may specify.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I took the floor a little earlier today to
explain that this amendment allows the members of the Federal Employees
Health Benefits plan to be able to enroll their children up to age 26
immediately rather than waiting for the beginning of the year, which
would effectively deny those who are graduating from college today, who
may not qualify as being under 22 and single, to be able to stay or
enroll on their parents' Federal Employee Benefits plan. This is an
amendment that the OPM Director supports in that he would like to do
this but can't do it under the current law. It has minimal cost.
Private insurance companies are allowing up to 26-year-olds to enroll
on their parents' policies today. This allows the government workforce
to have those same rights. It would normally take effect at the
beginning of the year. It makes sense to do this now. It is bipartisan.
It is supported by Democratic and Republican Senators. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I rise to speak to the pending bill and a
potential amendment Senator Vitter is preparing and hopes to offer, an
amendment which would make sure that any increase in the trust fund for
oilspills would be spent on cleaning up oilspills. That might seem
rather obvious, but it turns out that the bill before us increases the
required contribution of oil companies to this trust fund to clean up
oilspills from 8 cents to 41 cents per barrel and then spends the money
not to clean up oilspills but, rather, to pay for other items in the
underlying legislation, the so-called extenders bill.

[[Page S4643]]

That is not right. If we are going to increase the money to pay for
oilspills, we ought to spend the money to clean up oilspills.
What the Vitter amendment does is very simple. It says if that is
what we are raising the money to do, then that is what we should spend
it on. I will quote from the amendment:

The revenue resulting from any increase in the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund financing rate under section 4611 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall--
(1) not be counted for purposes of offsetting revenues,
receipts, or discretionary spending under the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 or the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of
2010; and
(2) shall only be used for the purposes of the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund.

It is fairly straightforward.
Why do we have to have this amendment? Because the underlying bill,
the extenders bill, raises the required contribution to the trust fund
and then spends that money not on cleaning up oilspills but to pay for
the extension of benefits under the so-called extenders bill. It
doesn't pay for anything in particular; it is simply used to offset the
$100-plus billion expenses in this legislation.
The particular provision in the underlying bill that raises the
contribution of the oil companies from 8 cents a barrel excise oil tax
to 41 cents is section 431. The House-passed extenders package
increased it to 34 cents a barrel, and then, under the provisions of
this legislation, it is increased to 41 cents a barrel.
Why is this being done? The reason this is being done is to offset
part of the expense of the $100-plus billion of this extenders bill. It
doesn't offset all of the expenses, obviously.
If we are going to raid the oil trust fund, which otherwise would be
used to clean up the oilspill, we better have a very good reason for
doing so, especially since all attention is focused right now on the
very difficult job of dealing with this big disaster. In fact, it has
been described as the biggest disaster of its kind in all of history
for the United States. We are going to need every dime we can get in
order to pay for the oilspill.
What happens? About the time we seek to get the money to deal with
this disaster, whoever is in charge of the money says: We are sorry. It
is all gone. We spent it on the tax extenders bill.
We ask: What does the tax extenders bill have to do with the 41 cents
per barrel collected from the oil companies?
Nothing. But we needed the money, so we spent it instead.
That reminds me of two other examples. We pay into the Social
Security trust fund so that when we retire, the funds are there to pay
us. It turns out that each year more money is paid into the fund than
is necessary to pay out in benefits. As a result, we take that money
and we put it away so we will have it in the future, right? Wrong.
Congress spends it.
So when Social Security needs that money to pay seniors' retirement,
it goes to the bank and says: We need some of that money now.
The bank says: We are sorry. Congress has already spent it all. You
will have to raise taxes on the American public so there is enough
money to pay seniors their retirement.
But didn't seniors already pay into the retirement?
Yes, they did.
What happened to the money?
Congress spent it.
A more recent example is the health care legislation. We decided--not
we; the other side--it would be a good idea to save $500 billion from
Medicare; in other words, to reduce the expenses of Medicare by $\1/2\
trillion over 10 years. Some of us thought it is certainly the case
that the Medicare trust fund is in trouble. There isn't enough money in
the Medicare trust fund to continue to pay benefits for seniors' health
care. At least what they are trying to do will extend the life of
Medicare. In fact, the claim was made by many on this side of the
aisle: This is going to extend the life of Medicare, extend the trust
fund's viability for 17 years. It was either 17 years or until the year
2017--I cannot remember.
Then the Actuary of CMS issued a report and said: Not so fast. It
turns out that money is not going to be used to extend the viability of
Medicare. We are going to spend it on new entitlements in the health
care legislation.
I remember talking to the distinguished chairman of the Finance
Committee at the time in the Chamber. Since the Actuary of CMS says we
can't spend this money twice, we can't spend it both on the new
entitlement in the health care legislation and still count it as
preserving the viability of Medicare, which is it going to be? We never
got an answer. In truth, I suspect it is going to be spent on the new
entitlement and we will not be extending the viability of Medicare. You
can't spend the same dollar twice. That is what the CMS Actuary pointed
out.
Time and time again, when Congress is deceiving the American people
by raising funds for something, a specific purpose--to clean up the
oilspill, to save Medicare, to fund Social Security--we steal that
money from the fund that was created for a specific purpose and spend
it on other things. We should be honest with the American people.
The Vitter amendment will at least make clear that to the extent we
raise money by raising the price per barrel oil companies must pay into
the trust fund, to the extent we collect money from that, we have to
spend it on cleaning up the oilspill, not on the other things in the
bill that is pending.
I hope when the time comes we will be able to consider the Vitter
amendment and we will be honest with the American people and say that
one of the first things we have to do is to make sure we can clean up
the oilspill. And if we think it is a good idea to make the oil
companies spend more money in order to do that, then that is where we
ought to be spending the money, not taking that money and using it to
pay for other things in this legislation. We have already done it with
Social Security. We have already done it with health care. We have done
it with a lot of other things.
The American people are getting sick and tired of this duplicity on
the part of the Congress. All we do is spend around here. Then when it
comes time to pay for it, we say: We are going to pay for it. We are
not going to increase the deficit. We will pay for it by taking it from
some other fund. The money was raised for some other purpose. That is
how we will pay for it. That is as dishonest as not paying for it in
the first instance and instead sending the bill to our kids and
grandkids.
At some point, Congress has to start paying for what we are spending
money on. If we really want to continue to increase spending--and this
bill spends over $100 billion--let's be honest and find sources of
revenue that really reduce spending in some case so that we can then
apply that funding here, or if the other side would like to raise
taxes--and there are certainly a lot of taxes in this legislation,
which I oppose--the other way we can do it is to raise taxes and hurt
businesses so that we don't create as many jobs. That is a great thing
to do in the middle of a recession, but that is another way to do it.
Either reduce spending somewhere else or generate more revenue through
taxes. But don't generate revenue for the oilspill trust fund and then
immediately take that revenue and spend it on this bill. That is not an
honest way to offset spending in the underlying legislation.
This is another example of why the American people are upset with the
Congress.
I would hope that before this legislation is finally disposed of, we
would either drop this provision from the bill, this section 431, or we
would adopt the Vitter amendment which would ensure whatever funds are
collected under that provision are used for the purposes for which they
were collected; namely, to clean up the oilspill, and not to offset
spending in other parts of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). The Senator from Minnesota.

Amendment No. 4311 To Amendment No. 4301

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside and that my amendment No. 4311 be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Franken], for himself, Ms.
Snowe, and Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 4311
to amendment No. 4301.

[[Page S4644]]

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish the Office of the Homeowner Advocate for
purposes of addressing problems with the Home Affordable Modification
Program)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

TITLE __--OFFICE OF THE HOMEOWNER ADVOCATE

SEC. _01. OFFICE OF THE HOMEOWNER ADVOCATE.

(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department
of the Treasury an office to be known as the ``Office of the
Homeowner Advocate'' (in this title referred to as the
``Office'').
(b) Director.--
(1) In general.--The Director of the Office of the
Homeowner Advocate (in this title referred to as the
``Director'') shall report directly to the Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability, and shall
be entitled to compensation at the same rate as the highest
rate of basic pay established for the Senior Executive
Service under section 5382 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Appointment.--The Director shall be appointed by the
Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and without
regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code,
relating to appointments in the competitive service or the
Senior Executive Service.
(3) Qualifications.--An individual appointed under
paragraph (2) shall have--
(A) experience as an advocate for homeowners; and
(B) experience dealing with mortgage servicers.
(4) Restriction on employment.--An individual may be
appointed as Director only if such individual was not an
officer or employee of either a mortgage servicer or the
Department of the Treasury during the 4-year period preceding
the date of such appointment.
(5) Hiring authority.--The Director shall have the
authority to hire staff, obtain support by contract, and
manage the budget of the Office of the Homeowner Advocate.

SEC. _02. FUNCTIONS OF THE OFFICE.

(a) In General.--It shall be the function of the Office--
(1) to assist homeowners, housing counselors, and housing
lawyers in resolving problems with the Home Affordable
Modification Program of the Making Home Affordable initiative
of the Secretary, authorized under the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008 (in this title referred to as the
``Home Affordable Modification Program'');
(2) to identify areas, both individual and systematic, in
which homeowners, housing counselors, and housing lawyers
have problems in dealings with the Home Affordable
Modification Program;
(3) to the extent possible, to propose changes in the
administrative practices of the Home Affordable Modification
Program, to mitigate problems identified under paragraph (2);
(4) to identify potential legislative changes which may be
appropriate to mitigate such problems; and
(5) to implement other programs and initiatives that the
Director deems important to assisting homeowners, housing
counselors, and housing lawyers in resolving problems with
the Home Affordable Modification Program, which may include--
(A) running a triage hotline for homeowners at risk of
foreclosure;
(B) providing homeowners with access to housing counseling
programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
at no cost to the homeowner;
(C) developing Internet tools related to the Home
Affordable Modification Program; and
(D) developing training and educational materials.
(b) Authority.--
(1) In general.--Staff designated by the Director shall
have the authority to implement servicer remedies, on a case-
by-case basis, subject to the approval of the Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability.
(2) Limitations on foreclosures.--No homeowner may be taken
to a foreclosure sale, until the earlier of the date on which
the Office of the Homeowner Advocate case involving the
homeowner is closed, or 60 days since the opening of the
Office of the Homeowner Advocate case involving the homeowner
have passed, except that nothing in this section may be
construed to relieve any loan servicers from any otherwise
applicable rules, directives, or similar guidance under the
Home Affordable Modification Program relating to the
continuation or completion of foreclosure proceedings.
(3) Resolution of homeowner concerns.--The Office shall, to
the extent possible, resolve all homeowner concerns not later
than 30 days after the opening of a case with such homeowner.
(c) Commencement of Operations.--The Office shall commence
its operations, as required by this title, not later than 3
months after the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) Sunset.--The Office shall cease operations as of the
date on which the Home Affordable Modification Program ceases
to operate.

SEC. _03. RELATIONSHIP WITH EXISTING ENTITIES.

(a) Transfer.--The Office shall coordinate and centralize
all complaint escalations relating to the Home Affordable
Modification Program.
(b) Hotline.--The HOPE hotline (or any successor triage
hotline) shall reroute all complaints relating to the Home
Affordable Modification Program to the Office.
(c) Coordination.--The Office shall coordinate with the
compliance office of the Office of Financial Stability of the
Department of the Treasury and the Homeownership Preservation
Office of the Department of the Treasury.

SEC. _04. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) Testimony.--The Director shall be available to testify
before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the
House of Representatives, not less frequently than 4 times a
year, or at any time at the request of the Chairs of either
committee.
(b) Reports.--Once annually, the Director shall provide a
detailed report to Congress on the Home Affordable
Modification Program. Such report shall contain full and
substantive analysis, in addition to statistical information,
including, at a minimum--
(1) data and analysis of the types and volume of complaints
received from homeowners, housing counselors, and housing
lawyers, broken down by category of servicer, except that
servicers may not be identified by name in the report;
(2) a summary of not fewer than 20 of the most serious
problems encountered by Home Affordable Modification Program
participants, including a description of the nature of such
problems;
(3) to the extent known, identification of the 10 most
litigated issues for Home Affordable Modification Program
participants, including recommendations for mitigating such
disputes;
(4) data and analysis on the resolutions of the complaints
received from homeowners, housing counselors, and housing
lawyers;
(5) identification of any programs or initiatives that the
Office has taken to improve the Home Affordable Modification
Program;
(6) recommendations for such administrative and legislative
action as may be appropriate to resolve problems encountered
by Home Affordable Modification Program participants; and
(7) such other information as the Director may deem
advisable.

SEC. _05. FUNDING.

Amounts made available for the costs of administration of
the Home Affordable Modification Program that are not
otherwise obligated shall be available to carry out the
duties of the Office. Funding shall be maintained at levels
adequate to reasonably carry out the functions of the Office.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue I am
very concerned about, and I know every Member of this body is concerned
about: the number of families losing their homes to foreclosure.
When I go back to Minnesota, and I know when the Presiding Officer
goes home to Delaware, we are bombarded by stories from folks in our
States who have worked their entire lives to own a home but who may
lose it. They want to know why this is happening to them after they
have worked so hard and why the government is not doing more to help.
The reality is, the government has done something. The President
created a program called HAMP, which incentivizes mortgage servicers to
modify home loans to keep families in their houses. But while that
program is a good step forward, it has also been plagued by mistakes.
People are losing their homes just because of human error. Let me
repeat that. People are losing their homes simply due to errors.
When I spoke about this previously on the Senate floor, I mentioned a
homeowner named Barbara, who lives in Minneapolis. She fell behind in
mortgage payments because her husband lost his job and her son got
cancer. But when she tried to use the President's mortgage modification
program, her mortgage servicer claimed she was not eligible for a
mortgage modification, and he did so using incorrect information about
her finances. When she pointed out the problem, they claimed there was
nothing she could do because she had already been denied.
Take another woman from Minneapolis. Let's call her Susan. She did
not want me to use her real name. After Susan fell behind in mortgage
payments, she went through HAMP and paid all of her monthly payments on
time. Her mortgage servicer, however, seems unwilling or unable to
decide one way or another if she is eligible for a ``final
modification,'' which would allow her to continue paying a lower amount
on her mortgage and stay in her home.

[[Page S4645]]

In the meantime, the company continues to schedule sheriff sales for
the property, which, in turn, increases the amount that Susan owes in
fees. In other words, because HAMP is not working the way it should,
Susan may owe more money than she would otherwise, and she may be even
more at risk of losing her home.
This is not the way the government is supposed to work. If we are
going to have a government program, let's make sure it operates
effectively. I think we can all agree on that. Let's have good
governance. People should not be losing their homes just because we
cannot get all our ducks in a row.
Today, Senator Snowe and I are offering an amendment to fix the HAMP
appeals process so that homeowners have a place to turn when the system
fails. This amendment would create an Office of the Homeowner Advocate
within Treasury, modeled after the very successful Office of the
Taxpayer Advocate at the IRS, which has worked wonderfully. Homeowners
would be able to call this Treasury office and know that someone has
their back--someone with the authority to actually fix the problem.
Staff at the Office of the Homeowner Advocate would have two
important powers. First, they could make sure servicers actually follow
the rules of the program or suffer the consequences. Secondly, they
would be able to temporarily delay a servicer's ability to sell a
person's home, giving the office time to resolve the problem before it
is too late.
The office would be temporary, lasting only as long as HAMP does.
While it lasts, though, it would make sure that government actually
works the way it is supposed to work. If we are going to set up a
program to help keep people in their homes, let's actually make sure it
keeps people in their homes.
Significantly, this amendment does not authorize any additional
appropriations. Let me repeat that. There are no additional
appropriations. It would be funded by existing HAMP administrative
funds.
Our amendment is supported by a large number of national groups,
including the Center for Responsible Lending, the National Consumer Law
Center, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the
Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America, the Service
Employees International Union, and the National Council of La Raza. I
am happy to say the amendment is supported by over a dozen groups in
Minnesota.
Senator Snowe and I first proposed this amendment during the Wall
Street reform debate. The amendment was supported by the Treasury
Department and made the White House's list of the top 10 amendments
that would improve the bill. But it never received a vote.
Now we are putting it to the Senate again. Let's have an actual vote
on this issue on whether to fix this foreclosure program we have
created. Homeowners in all our States deserve that much.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
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. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Gulf Oilspill

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the
ongoing oil disaster in the gulf. Being from Louisiana, we view this,
correctly, as an ongoing disaster. This is not history. This is not a
past event. This is not just some issue to debate in Washington. It is
an ongoing crisis, an ongoing oil flow that continues to pollute the
gulf and continues to devastate the region economically.
So in that context, there is, perhaps, only one thing that is more
frustrating than an inadequate response from BP or an inadequate
Federal response. The only thing more frustrating than that--in fact,
more infuriating--is when this ongoing crisis and disaster is used and
abused politically for other purposes.
I think that is exactly what is going on in this extenders bill.
Because in this bill there is a huge increase in taxes that go to the
Oil Pollution Act trust fund, but that money is not going to oil
cleanup in the gulf. It is primarily being used to go into the trust
fund to be stolen from it for unrelated spending to mask the deficit
spending in this bill. Quite frankly, when we are going through an
ongoing crisis in the gulf, that is not frustrating, it is outrageous.
What am I talking about exactly? This is what I am talking about:
Right now, under Federal law, there is a tax levied on petroleum
products of 8 cents per barrel. That funds the Oil Pollution Act trust
fund. In this extenders bill, that tax is proposed to be increased by
the majority side from 8 cents to 41 cents--over a fivefold increase.
If that were necessary and crucial to fund cleanup operations in the
gulf, I would be completely open to it. We need to do whatever it
takes. But that is not how that money is being used. It is being used
as a cover to increase taxes and to offset other unrelated spending.
Because in this bill that tax is increased from 8 cents to 41 cents,
and then, just as quickly, that money is stolen from the trust fund to
pay for other unrelated items in the bill.
Put another way, it is double counted. It is used as an offset on
other spending items in the bill that have nothing to do with the oil
disaster, nothing to do with the cleanup. It is double counting. It is
an unfair offset. It is stealing from the trust fund to mask other
spending. Unfortunately, I think this is a classic example of the old
Rahm Emanuel quote from early on during this administration. Around
February of 2009, Rahm Emanuel, the White House Chief of Staff, said:
We are not going to let a good crisis go to waste. At the time, he was
talking about the financial crisis and harnessing that to push forward
the Obama administration's unrelated, left-leaning agenda.
Tragically, exactly the same thing is going on here: We are not going
to let a good crisis go to waste. They are going to use the ongoing oil
disaster in the gulf to help mask runaway Federal spending. Because,
again, they are proposing to increase this tax from 8 cents to 41
cents--over a fivefold increase--but it does not go for gulf cleanup.
It is stolen from there just as quickly as it is levied to pay for
unrelated spending. It is double counted to mask the runaway spending
also in the bill.
Again, that is not just frustrating; as a Member from Louisiana, that
is downright offensive. This is an ongoing crisis. It is an ongoing
challenge and we need to meet it. We need to focus on it. We need to
deal with it. We do not need to use it and abuse it politically to push
forward a preexisting, leftist agenda up here to pay for runaway and
unrelated Federal Government spending.
I will have an amendment on the floor in this debate to address this
issue. I will formally offer it and make it pending tomorrow. But my
amendment, which will be cosponsored by Senator Judd Gregg, the ranking
member of the Budget Committee, is real simple. It is going to say that
whatever Congress does with this new revenue into the OPA trust fund,
it cannot steal that revenue for unrelated spending. It cannot use that
revenue, double count that revenue to mask other unrelated runaway
deficit spending. That is what my amendment is going to say and that is
what my amendment is going to do.

We have a crisis in the gulf. It is ongoing. It is not over yet,
unfortunately, by a long shot, because the flow is ongoing, the
pollution is ongoing, and it is getting worse and worse. We need to
meet that crisis. We need to meet that challenge and do whatever it
takes. We don't need to use and abuse that crisis to push forward other
unrelated agendas here in Washington, DC.
This provision in the extenders package is doing just that. It is
using and abusing that crisis to put money in the OPA trust fund just
to take it out, to steal it for unrelated programs, to double count it,
to mask runaway deficit spending completely unrelated to the oil
disaster. As a Senator from Louisiana, I am crying foul. I am saying
that is not only wrong, it is offensive. We shouldn't use and abuse an
ongoing crisis in the gulf for other unrelated political purposes.
So, again, I will have a very clear amendment. It will say whatever
we do with the OPA trust fund, that money can't be stolen from the
trust fund and used for unrelated purposes. That

[[Page S4646]]

money can't be double counted to help mask runaway government spending
having nothing to do with the ongoing crisis in the gulf. If it is a
trust fund, let's treat it as a trust fund, and that means we take the
revenue and we truly preserve it for that use and that use alone and it
can't be stolen for anything else, and it can't be double counted to
mask other deficit spending.
I think it comes down to a pretty fundamental decision: Are we here
in the Senate going to meet the ongoing crisis in the gulf? Are we
going to meet that challenge? Are we going to come together across
party lines and do the right thing? Or, are some folks here going to
use it and abuse it to advance an unrelated political agenda; to steal
that money for unrelated spending; to double count it and help mask
unrelated, runaway Federal Government spending? We shouldn't do that.
That is rubbing salt in the wound of gulf coast residents. That is
truly offensive and truly wrong.
I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to support
this amendment. I will formally introduce it and make it pending
tomorrow. Again, the idea is very simple. Whatever we do with the OPA
trust fund, it should be to deal with the crisis in the gulf. It should
be to preserve that and protect that in a true trust fund; not to steal
it out of the trust fund to pay for unrelated spending; not to double
count it to mask soaring Federal Government deficits having nothing to
do with our response in the gulf.
Thank you, Mr. President. I look forward to continuing this debate. I
look forward to filing, introducing, and making this amendment pending
tomorrow, and I look forward to a positive vote.
With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am here to speak to this bill we are
considering, the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act. Too many
people in New Hampshire and across this country are still struggling. I
wish to talk today about some of the provisions that are in the
legislation before us, provisions that will create jobs, grow small
businesses, and help unemployed Americans who are still struggling to
get back to work.
As you know, Mr. President, we have been here before. On March 10 of
this year, almost 3 months ago, the Senate took up and passed a bill
that contained most of the provisions we are considering today. That
day, the Senate voted, with bipartisan support, to stand with working
families and extend the safety net legislation and investment
incentives that are helping us get through and out of this recession.
Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to send this bill to
President Obama for his signature. For the last 3 months, we have had
almost weekly standoffs on temporary measures to do what we already
voted to do back in March, which is help people throughout this country
get back to work. This delay has had real consequences. Over the last 6
months, the Federal unemployment program has expired four times--most
recently, over Memorial Day.
Mr. President, you and I know the American people deserve better. The
legislation before us will create jobs, it will increase demand for
goods and services, and it will provide stability for Americans who
have lost their jobs during this recession. In addition to extending
unemployment benefits through November, the bill also renews a tax
credit to support research and development; it waives the fees on
business owners who take out Small Business Administration loans; it
helps municipalities make critical infrastructure improvements; and it
funds a much needed summer youth jobs program.
I know there are some people who think we have done all we should do.
I, too, believe we must get back on a path to a balanced budget, but
the best way to do that is to get this economy moving again. The latest
jobs report from last Friday showed that we still have a lot of ground
to make up. During these very difficult economic times, it is still
necessary for the Federal Government to step up and help stimulate job
creation through investments and tax cuts.
The national unemployment rate is still over 9 percent. In many
communities, it is much higher than that. What is more, nearly 7
million people--nearly half of all Americans collecting unemployment
benefits--have been out of work for 6 months or longer. They have run
out of the benefits provided by their States. These are the workers who
are collecting Federal unemployment benefits, which they are using to
pay the rent, make mortgage payments, buy groceries, and put gas in
their cars to go out and look for the next job. This legislation
extends this vital program until the end of November.
Another group of Americans who are helped by this legislation and who
are hurting right now are teenagers. These young people have an
unemployment rate that is more than double the national average. In
fact, right now young people are having a harder time finding jobs than
at any time since World War II.
Last week, I visited Nashua, NH, and Dover High School in Dover, NH,
where I used to teach school. A lot of the students in both of those
communities are pretty excited about summer beginning. Many of those
students want to work this summer. Many of them need to work to help
save for college, to help their families. Unfortunately, because of the
recession, it is more difficult for a teenager to get a job today than
it has been in a very long time. High unemployment has forced more
adults to compete for every job, and they are often filling jobs that
once went to young people. That is a problem for young people, and it
is a threat to the future of the economy.
Last year, Congress stepped in and created a summer jobs program to
employ tens of thousands of teens, which included over 500 young people
in New Hampshire.
I got to meet two of those students last week. Dawn White, who will
be a senior at Dover High School this fall, talked to me about her
``life-changing summer job experience'' that she had last summer as a
result of the dollars we put in to help fund summer jobs. She worked
setting up exhibits at a local children's museum. Dawn told me that
having that summer job built her confidence and helped her identify a
new goal for the future to work with children. In Nashua, I met
Elizabeth Madol, a senior at Trinity High School in Manchester. She
worked at the public library in Manchester and helped young children
with summer reading and other activities. She told me that this had
been her first job and that because of it she now has the skills and
work experience she needs to get another job this year. Those are just
two stories out of hundreds of young people in New Hampshire and all
across this country. Those are young people who, because of those
summer jobs, have had phenomenal results.
An independent study showed that young people were excited by the
skills they gained through summer work and they left better prepared to
join the workforce. They were exposed to new careers and new
opportunities. They learned about responsibility and developed
professional relationships. Many even left with job offers for after
they graduated. This is particularly important for us because many of
these young people are young people who, without those summer jobs,
would never have a chance to enter the workforce or they would enter at
a time that would leave them behind for years to come.
The legislation before us contains $1 billion to extend the summer
jobs program for another year, creating tens of thousands of jobs and
giving hundreds more young people in New Hampshire and hundreds of
thousands more across this country the chance to work. We can't build a
21st-century economy unless we start building our young workforce. We
need workers with all kinds of skills and interests. By giving
teenagers a foot in the door today, they will give back to our economy
in the future. That is the power of what the funds in this legislation
for summer jobs can do.

[[Page S4647]]

Finally, the legislation we are considering takes away tax breaks
that reward corporations for sending jobs overseas, and it gives tax
incentives to small businesses to create jobs right here in America.
This is a good bill. It is legislation that will make a real
difference in our communities by creating jobs and helping struggling
families. It is an investment in our present, and it is an investment
in our future. I urge my colleagues to once again support the American
Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Health Care Reform

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today because the
President of the United States earlier today had a townhall meeting to
talk about the new health care law, the law he has promoted and talked
about and which has been a major point of discussion, debate, and then
vote in this Chamber over the last year.
I come as someone who has practiced medicine in Casper, WY, since
1983, as an orthopedic surgeon, taking care of families all around the
State of Wyoming, and working on prevention, working on early detection
of medical problems through what is called Wyoming Health Fairs.
I come to the floor today, having watched and read the comments by
the President, to take a look at some of those comments and see what
the American people heard from the President and what I see as my
doctor's second opinion about this health care law. It is a law that I
believe is bad for patients, bad for payers--the American taxpayers--
and bad for our medical providers--our nurses and our doctors--who take
care of those patients. Like most Americans, I believe this is going
to, unfortunately, raise the cost of care for American families and
lower the availability and quality of that care.
I wish to point out a few of the comments the President of the United
States said today, and I want to do that from my perspective as someone
who goes home to Wyoming on weekends and visits with patients. Just a
few minutes ago, earlier today, I visited with a patient, someone I had
operated on, done surgery on her knee about 10 years ago.
One of the things the President talked about today was Medicare
Advantage. Medicare Advantage, in my opinion, is a program that has a
lot of advantages. That is why one out of four Americans on Medicare
signs up for Medicare Advantage. It deals with preventive care. It
deals with coordinating care, so care is coordinated in a way that
patients get better care.
The President said Medicare Advantage benefits will not change. He
said:

First and foremost, what you need to know is that the
guaranteed Medicare benefits that you've earned will not
change, regardless of whether you receive them through
Medicare or Medicare Advantage.

Seniors who know a lot about Medicare Advantage know that is not the
case. You do not have to go very far back to find it. Yesterday's Wall
Street Journal talked about Medicare, and specifically Medicare
Advantage. I will quote from this article. It says:

Dozens of Medicare Advantage providers--

These are the insurance companies that help with Medicare Advantage--

plan to cut back vision, dental and prescription benefits.

``Plan to cut back vision, dental and prescription benefits.''

Some plans are eliminating free teeth cleanings and gym
memberships, and raising fees for hearing aides, eye glasses
and emergency-room visits.

Wait a second. The President of the United States said Medicare
Advantage benefits will not change. This says there are a couple of
reasons why he is wrong. One of the reasons is that the rate the
government will pay private insurers to run the plan is frozen. It is
frozen in 2011 at the 2010 levels, while medical costs are expected to
increase an average of at least 6 percent.
I thought we went into this whole health care debate and discussion
with the idea of getting the costs down. Now what we are seeing is, no,
costs are going to go up in spite of, or perhaps because of, this
legislation. ``Such price increases and benefit cuts will help'' the
companies ``recoup that difference . . . ''--the losses.
Medicare Advantage benefits are certainly going to change, and they
are going to change in a way that is detrimental to the seniors of the
country regardless of what the President said today in his townhall
meeting.
Then he went on and said the health bill ``will actually reduce the
deficit, reduce costs.'' That is what the President said today at his
townhall meeting in Maryland.
It is astonishing because I do not believe any person in this Chamber
believes that. I do not think anyone listening at home or at the
townhall meeting believed it. And the President's Chief Actuary does
not believe it. Actually, the Chief Actuary a month or so after the
bill was passed, after it was signed into law, released projections
that said the health care overhaul will likely cost about $115 billion
more--more--in spending over the next 10 years than the original cost
projections, taking the total estimated costs to above $1 trillion.
The President says this will actually reduce the deficit and reduce
costs. This is at a time of record deficits, when the American people
are very concerned about the deficits and the incredible debt.
From the transcript of the President's speech, as he goes through, he
says:

And finally, we're going to reduce by half the amount of
waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare system. . . .

That is an admirable goal. There is significant waste, fraud, and
abuse in the Medicare system. How much waste, fraud, and abuse is
there? I am not sure anyone knows for sure exactly how much there is,
but the Associated Press, with a lot of study, has said it is about $47
billion a year--$47 billion a year.
What do the budget people who looked at this health care law say
about how good is it going to be, how effective? The President is
talking about cutting it in half from $47 billion. If you can save $23
billion a year, that is an accomplishment. The Congressional Budget
Office estimated that Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health
Program, with the integrity provisions--those are the provisions aimed
at waste, fraud, and abuse--they are thinking that over the next 4
years, they will save about $2.2 billion and over the next 10 years,
they will save almost $7 billion.
Savings are good, but they are going to save $7 billion over 10 years
when, according to the Associated Press, we are losing almost $500
billion over 10 years to waste, fraud, and abuse.
The savings, according to the Congressional Budget Office, are
minuscule, but yet the President today, talking to this crowd, said we
are going to reduce it by half.
I don't know, maybe he is talking about introducing a new law because
it sure is not in the health care bill that was signed into law and
passed with 60 votes in this body.
After the President went through all of these, he then said:

So that's what the law does. Now, having said that, there--
some of the folks who were against health reform in
Congress--

I don't think anybody is actually against health reform. But I will
say there are a lot of people who are against this bill. He said:

In fact, you have an entire party out there that's running
on a platform of repeal.

It is not a party. Sixty percent of the American people are saying we
should repeal and replace this health care law.
The President had this meeting, but there are a lot of things the
President of the United States did not tell the American people. It is
those things--that is the reason 60 percent of the American people are
opposed to this new law.
He did not mention that Medicare cuts will be $550 billion, and those
are cuts to hospitals, cuts to nursing homes, cuts to home health
agencies, cuts to hospice to help people in the final days and hours of
their lives. He did not mention that at all.
He did not mention that the new Medicare Director--someone he
recently named--loves the British health care system and says we are
going to need to ration care. The new Director of Medicare is planning
to ration care. We did not hear that mentioned to the seniors today.
We did not hear him mention the fact that up to $18 million has been
spent

[[Page S4648]]

on a mailer about the new health care law that many have referred to as
propaganda because it fails to clearly and honestly express what is
going to happen to people on Medicare as they cut $550 billion from
their health care over the next years.

I do not think he mentioned that one in six hospitals is going to
find they are in the red living under the new system. That is what the
Chief Actuary has said.
I don't think he mentioned the $25 million plan that was mentioned
yesterday in the New York Times: ``White House and Allies Set to Build
Up Health Law and Democrats Who Backed It.'' It said:

President Obama and his allies, concerned about deep
skepticism over his landmark health care overhaul, are
orchestrating an elaborate campaign to sell the public on the
law, including a new tax-exempt group that will spend
millions of dollars on advertising to beat back attacks on
the measure and Democrats who voted for it.

That is what we hear. We now have a health care law that, as Nancy
Pelosi said, you have to pass before you get to find out what is in it.
The American people are finding out what is in it. Week after week,
they are finding some new unintended consequence, something they do not
want, something they do not think is good for them. That is why week
after week I come back to the floor to talk about a health care law
that failed to pay for doctors who take care of patients, failed to pay
to train doctors, and failed to deal with lawsuit abuse.
It did have money for a lot of new IRS agents to try to enforce the
law that is mandating everyone to buy insurance. But I think if you
talk with people in any of our home States, they are going to say: We
need more new doctors; we don't need more IRS agents.
That is why I come to the floor with my second opinion, an opinion
which says it is time to repeal the legislation and replace it with
legislation that is really a health care system and program that is
patient centered, that will allow Americans to buy insurance across
State lines, that will provide the same tax relief for individuals who
buy their health insurance personally--they would get the same tax
relief that the big companies get--that would provide individual
incentives, such as premium breaks, to encourage healthy behavior, that
would deal with lawsuit abuse, and would allow small businesses to join
together to provide less expensive health insurance for their
employees.
That is why today I offer my second opinion that it is time to repeal
and replace this bill and get patient-centered care for the American
people.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 4302 to Amendment No. 4301

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 4302.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn], for himself and Mr.
Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 4302 to amendment No.
4301.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase transparency regarding debt instruments of the
United States held by foreign governments, to assess the risks to the
United States of such holdings, and for other purposes)

At the appropriate place, add the following:

TITLE __--TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR FOREIGN-HELD DEBT

SEC. _01. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Foreign-Held Debt
Transparency and Threat Assessment Act''.

SEC. _02. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the following:
(A) The Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
Foreign Relations, the Committee on Finance, and the
Committee on the Budget of the Senate.
(B) The Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Ways and Means, and the
Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives.
(2) Debt instruments of the united states.--The term ``debt
instruments of the United States'' means all bills, notes,
and bonds issued or guaranteed by the United States or by an
entity of the United States Government, including any
Government-sponsored enterprise.

SEC. _03. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the growing Federal debt of the United States has the
potential to jeopardize the national security and economic
stability of the United States;
(2) the increasing dependence of the United States on
foreign creditors has the potential to make the United States
vulnerable to undue influence by certain foreign creditors in
national security and economic policymaking;
(3) the People's Republic of China is the largest foreign
creditor of the United States, in terms of its overall
holdings of debt instruments of the United States;
(4) the current level of transparency in the scope and
extent of foreign holdings of debt instruments of the United
States is inadequate and needs to be improved, particularly
regarding the holdings of the People's Republic of China;
(5) through the People's Republic of China's large holdings
of debt instruments of the United States, China has become a
super creditor of the United States;
(6) under certain circumstances, the holdings of the
People's Republic of China could give China a tool with which
China can try to manipulate the domestic and foreign
policymaking of the United States, including the United
States relationship with Taiwan;
(7) under certain circumstances, if the People's Republic
of China were to be displeased with a given United States
policy or action, China could attempt to destabilize the
United States economy by rapidly divesting large portions of
China's holdings of debt instruments of the United States;
and
(8) the People's Republic of China's expansive holdings of
such debt instruments of the United States could potentially
pose a direct threat to the United States economy and to
United States national security. This potential threat is a
significant issue that warrants further analysis and
evaluation.

SEC. _04. QUARTERLY REPORT ON RISKS POSED BY FOREIGN HOLDINGS
OF DEBT INSTRUMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

(a) Quarterly Report.--Not later than March 31, June 30,
September 30, and December 31 of each year, the President
shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
report on the risks posed by foreign holdings of debt
instruments of the United States, in both classified and
unclassified form.
(b) Matters To Be Included.--Each report submitted under
this section shall include the following:
(1) The most recent data available on foreign holdings of
debt instruments of the United States, which data shall not
be older than the date that is 7 months preceding the date of
the report.
(2) The country of domicile of all foreign creditors who
hold debt instruments of the United States.
(3) The total amount of debt instruments of the United
States that are held by the foreign creditors, broken out by
the creditors' country of domicile and by public, quasi-
public, and private creditors.
(4) For each foreign country listed in paragraph (3)--
(A) an analysis of the country's purpose in holding debt
instruments of the United States and long-term intentions
with regard to such debt instruments;
(B) an analysis of the current and foreseeable risks to the
long-term national security and economic stability of the
United States posed by each country's holdings of debt
instruments of the United States; and
(C) a specific determination of whether the level of risk
identified under subparagraph (B) is acceptable or
unacceptable.
(c) Public Availability.--The President shall make each
report required by subsection (a) available, in its
unclassified form, to the public by posting it on the
Internet in a conspicuous manner and location.

SEC. _05. ANNUAL REPORT ON RISKS POSED BY THE FEDERAL DEBT OF
THE UNITED STATES.

(a) In General.--Not later than December 31 of each year,
the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to
the appropriate congressional committees a report on the
risks to the United States posed by the Federal debt of the
United States.
(b) Content of Report.--Each report submitted under this
section shall include the following:
(1) An analysis of the current and foreseeable risks to the
long-term national security and economic stability of the
United States posed by the Federal debt of the United States.
(2) A specific determination of whether the levels of risk
identified under paragraph (1) are sustainable.
(3) If the determination under paragraph (2) is that the
levels of risk are

[[Page S4649]]

unsustainable, specific recommendations for reducing the
levels of risk to sustainable levels, in a manner that
results in a reduction in Federal spending.

SEC. _06. CORRECTIVE ACTION TO ADDRESS UNACCEPTABLE AND
UNSUSTAINABLE RISKS TO UNITED STATES NATIONAL
SECURITY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY.

In any case in which the President determines under section
___04(b)(4)(C) that a foreign country's holdings of debt
instruments of the United States pose an unacceptable risk to
the long-term national security or economic stability of the
United States, or the Comptroller General of the United
States makes a determination under section ___5(b)(3), the
President shall, within 30 days of the determination--
(1) formulate a plan of action to reduce the risk level to
an acceptable and sustainable level, in a manner that results
in a reduction in Federal spending;
(2) submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
report on the plan of action that includes a timeline for the
implementation of the plan and recommendations for any
legislative action that would be required to fully implement
the plan; and
(3) move expeditiously to implement the plan in order to
protect the long-term national security and economic
stability of the United States.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I won't detain the Senate long, but I
did want to call up this important amendment early on in considering
this underlying legislation.
This amendment would improve transparency in reporting of foreign
holdings of our debt, providing taxpayers with more information about
which countries are financing our deficit spending. This amendment is
based on legislation Senator Kyl and I introduced in April called the
Foreign-Held Debt Transparency and Threat Assessment Act. This
legislation would require the President to provide Congress with
quarterly risk assessments on the national security and economic
hazards posed by current levels of foreign holdings of our debt. It
would require the President, in the event that risk level was too high,
to submit a plan of action to the Congress to bring down the risk in a
way that reduces Federal spending.
Regarding the national debt itself, the bill instructs the GAO to
provide Congress with an annual risk assessment on national security
and economic hazards posed by the national debt as well as
recommendations for reducing Federal spending.
We know the President's budget puts this Nation on a roadmap for
doubling the national debt in 5 years and tripling it in 10 years. The
interest payments alone will reach $900 billion in 10 years, which is
more than the United States currently spends on education and national
defense combined. In addition, according to the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office, the pending legislation will add almost
$80 billion to the deficit.
While the President likes to say he inherited the Nation's debt from
his predecessor, the fact is, from the day President Obama took office
until the last day of fiscal year 2010, the debt held by the public
will have grown by $2.3 trillion, according to the White House Office
of Management and Budget.
It is important to note that the explosion in the Nation's debt is
being financed by foreign investors who, unsurprisingly, may not always
have our best interests at heart. The more we need to borrow from
foreign investors, concerns about our Nation's fiscal health increase.
The chairman of the Budget Committee noted at a hearing last February
that last year, 68 percent of the new debt financing came from abroad,
with China now the biggest funder of the United States. We have had the
Chinese warn us publicly and privately that they are increasingly
reluctant to finance that debt.
In fact, it is worse than that. Chinese Government officials have
threatened to use their debt holdings to retaliate against U.S.
policies they oppose. In a recent response to a U.S. decision to sell
defensive weapons to Taiwan, an official of China's People's Liberation
Army warned that China might sanction the United States by dumping U.S.
Government bonds.
Many believe a rapid Chinese divestment of U.S. debt holdings would
have a destabilizing effect on the U.S. economy.
For all these reasons, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, we are on the jobs and tax bill, but we
seem not to be making a lot of progress tonight. Senators are under no
constraint to come to the floor and say what is on their minds about
any subject under the Sun.
I wish to address a couple remarks given by Senators recently.
Most recently, I share the concerns of the Senator from Texas about
the debt that is owned by lots of different folks, not just Americans
but owned by foreigners. He made special reference to China. I think it
would be better if the United States could avoid borrowing so much. It
is unfortunate the United States has borrowed a lot to run its affairs.

So have other countries, I might add. It is not just the United
States. There are many countries, regrettably, that have overborrowed.
Greece comes to mind, as do other European countries: Spain, Portugal,
perhaps even Hungary. It is becoming quite a concern worldwide. It is
one reason we have the Deficit Reduction Commission set up to figure
out the proper way to reduce our deficits, which by definition would
mean that other countries would be borrowing less from other countries.
But I also think we need to act responsibly. The Senator from Texas
sent a resolution--I think it is a resolution--which was pretty
strongly worded in its implied criticism of China. It somewhat reminds
me of the Pogo cartoon: We have met the enemy, and he is us. But, in
any regard, we need to avoid taking actions that might unsettle bond
markets in these very uncertain times. The markets are jittery right
now. So I look forward to working with the Senator from Texas to
improve his amendment. We have to be very responsible on this subject
and not cause a greater problem by acting too precipitously.
On another matter, Madam President, just prior to the Senator from
Texas speaking, the Senator from Wyoming addressed the Senate, and he
delivered a full-throated diatribe against health care reform. He
called his attack ``a second opinion.'' But instead of offering a
second opinion, which he did not do at all, he delivered, frankly, the
same old negative criticisms that many on his side of the aisle have
been delivering since enactment of health care reform. Not one
Republican voted for health care reform--not one--and that bill passed.
We do live in a democracy. The majority vote rules. The President
signed the bill. I would think that issue has been settled. Health care
reform has been enacted into law, signed by the President. So I am a
little confused as to why he still wants to criticize this bill so
much, except he does say: Well, gee, it should be repealed.
The Senator from Wyoming, for example, derided the antifraud
provisions in the health care reform bill. He called them
``miniscule.'' But I might say, as a matter of fact, we advanced every
antifraud provision we could possibly find. In the meantime, working
with the Senator from Florida, Mr. LeMieux, we are also looking to find
other antifraud provisions to cut back waste and get rid of the waste
in our health care system.
But we needed the health care reform law to pass so we can weed out
that waste, get rid of that waste, and to pass these antifraud
provisions. If the Senator has another health care fraud measure, I
sure would like to hear it. It reminds me of that phrase: Where's the
beef. He keeps criticizing, but I hear no solutions. I hear no
alternatives. I am a little surprised at that because he is my
neighbor. We in Montana know a lot of folks in Wyoming, and we like to
think we are people who do not just bellyache and complain but we are,
rather, people who come up with positive solutions, constructive
solutions, as good neighbors do.
The Senator from Wyoming goes on further to say that the President's
nominee to head CMS ``plans to ration care.'' This is simply a libel,
Madam President. If the Senator were not protected by the speech and
debate clause,

[[Page S4650]]

he would be subject to a suit for slander. Certainly truth would not be
a defense. The Senator from Wyoming uttered a slanderous statement. He
is protected by the speech and debate clause of the Constitution of the
United States, and that is about the only place he could make
slanderous statements like that with impunity.
The Senator from Wyoming says his ``second opinion'' is that Congress
should repeal the new health care law--just repeal it. But by calling
for repeal of health care reform, the Senator from Wyoming apparently
seeks to repeal one of the biggest budget reduction measures in the
decade. I say that because the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
tells us that health care reform will reduce the Federal deficit by
one-half of 1 percent of GDP in its second decade. It will reduce the
deficit.
I would think the Senator from Wyoming would like to reduce the
Federal budget deficit. I am quite certain he wants to reduce the
Federal budget deficit. But if he asks for repeal of health care
reform, I guess he no longer cares about reducing our Federal budget
deficit.
By calling for repeal of health care reform, the Senator from Wyoming
seeks to repeal the law that reins in insurance companies. Boy, in the
private market there is just so much abuse of individuals by insurance
companies. By calling for the repeal of health care reform, apparently
the Senator from Wyoming wants to bring back the ability of insurance
companies to discriminate against people who have preexisting
conditions, to discriminate against Americans who are denied insurance
based upon some health care status or to go back and deal with the
rating provisions of States where the States, unfortunately, allowed
insurance companies to take advantage of certain groups of people.
By calling for repeal of health care reform, apparently he seeks to
bring back the doughnut hole and preserve it in the future. He seeks to
continue hardships for seniors who need help paying for their
prescriptions.
Madam President, this health care reform bill closes the doughnut
hole. What is the doughnut hole? That is the dollar amounts above which
and under which people have to pay all their prescription drug
benefits. When they get up to the doughnut hole, they get a certain
break. When they get above the doughnut hole, I guess 90 percent of
their drugs are paid for--something like that.
But within the doughnut hole, if you are a senior, you do not get any
help. Apparently, the Senator from Wyoming says: Oh, that is fine.
Those people don't deserve to get any breaks in their prescription drug
benefits. He wants to repeal health care reform, so the effect of that
would be: Seniors, you are not going to get any help. Sorry. No help in
the doughnut hole.
By calling for repeal of health care reform, the Senator from Wyoming
seeks to eliminate the tax credits that the new law will give Americans
to help them buy insurance. I guess he does not care about that, the
Senator from Wyoming. He does not want to give people tax credits. He
does not want to give people tax credits to help them buy insurance.
And by calling for repeal of health care reform, the Senator seeks
nothing less than the continuation of a system where millions of
Americans struggle, struggle by, struggle without health insurance,
struggle without quality health care. They struggle because of greater
pain and discomfort and greater risk of early death.
I could go on and on and on and on as to the reasons the Senator from
Wyoming's so-called second opinion is defective, to say the least. I
know some on the other side oppose health care reform. But this is, as
I mentioned earlier, a democracy. In our country, the majority
generally determines whether a law passes. Congress and the President
enacted health care reform, and I wish my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle would just stop fighting the last war--stop fighting the
last war. Rather, let us try to find opportunities to work together to
improve the law together. Let's leave behind the politics of
destruction. Let's work together to build a better health care system
for America because, after all, we are here to help the people who sent
us here. The people who sent us here want a better health care system
than they now have.
So let's work together to find that better solution. Let's not forget
that health care is basically indiscriminate. Poor people, wealthy
people get cancer. Women, men get cancer. Cancer strikes anybody. It
does not make a difference whether you are a Republican or a Democrat.
The same thing is true with any other health discomfort or condition.
So I am just beside myself in trying to figure out why it is that the
other side of the aisle just keeps attacking health care reform. The
only conclusion I can come up with is they just want to stir up things.
They want to cast all kinds of doubt and confusion in the minds of
Americans, with respect to perhaps these elections coming up this next
November. That is a conclusion I do not like to reach but, logically,
it is the only one I can possibly come up with.
I will say something else. This health care reform is going to be
relitigated again when we in the Finance Committee take up the
nomination of Don Berwick to be the new CMS Director. I know, as sure
as I am standing here, those who voted against health care reform--and
they all happen to be Republicans--are going to be just relitigating
health care reform. They are going to accuse this administration of
about anything under the Sun, including Don Berwick. It is going to be
very unfortunate. It is my job--it is going to have to be as chairman
of the committee--to try to keep the debate, if you will--it will not
even be a debate; in part, it will be a diatribe in certain
circumstances--to just keep the discussion, the debate on a
constructive level so we can serve our country and serve our
people. But I felt compelled to speak in the wake of the remarks by the
Senator from Wyoming because they deserved a response.

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.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have had an interesting start today on
the jobs-tax bill, but it has been fruitful and productive. We have
four amendments pending. That is progress. Tomorrow, I want to move
ahead and clear out the underbrush, if you will, to get those
amendments disposed of. I have spoken with the leader, and we have
agreed that it makes good sense to get those four amendments processed
tomorrow morning before we do much else and that we go to other
amendments subsequent to that. I hope we can get those amendments
processed so that we can proceed.

____________________