Floor Statements

Madam President, today is April 15, perhaps the most dread day of the year for the American taxpayer. At some point today, millions of people will engage in a painful, complicated, and uniquely American exercise: filing their Federal tax returns.

According to the Tax Foundation, Americans worked well over 3 months this year--over 3 months; from January 1 to April 9--before they had earned enough money to pay this year's tax obligations at the Federal, State, and local levels. Congress has succeeded in establishing a pattern of taxing and spending to the point that the average American must work a full 99 days of the year just to pay their taxes.

Sadly, while we continue to spend and spend and spend here in our Nation's capital, the tax burden carried by the average American gets heavier and heavier and heavier.

On September 12, 2008, in Dover, NH, then-candidate Obama said this:

I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making

less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.

Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital

gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

Another interesting quote from then-candidate Obama.

According to data released yesterday by the House Ways and Means Committee, since January of 2009, President Obama and the congressional Democrats have enacted into law gross tax increases totaling more than $670 billion or more than $2,100 for every man, woman, and child in the United States of America. A list of tax increases includes at least 14 violations of the President's pledge not to raise taxes on Americans earning less than $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for married couples.

For example, there is a new tax on individuals who don't purchase government-approved health insurance. There is a new tax on employers who fail to fully comply with government health insurance mandates. There is a new 40-percent excise tax on certain high-cost health plans. There is a new ban on the purchase of over-the-counter drugs using funds from FSAs, HSAs, and HRAs. There is an increase from 7.5 percent to 10 percent of income, the threshold after which individuals can deduct out-of-pocket medical expenses. There is a new $2,500 annual cap on FSA contributions. There is a new annual tax on health insurance. There is a new annual tax on brand-name pharmaceuticals. There is a new 2.3-percent excise tax on certain medical devices. There is a new 10- percent tax on indoor UV--ultraviolet--tanning services. There is a new tax on insured and self-insured health plans, and it is double the penalty for nonqualified health savings accounts distributions. There is a tobacco tax increase. There are Federal unemployment surtaxes which have been extended through 2011, and there are more and more on the list.

In addition to the financial burden associated with all of the tax increases heaped upon the American people in the past year, taxpayers face the added anxiety of a complicated, antiquated, and oversized Tax Code. Let's look at what Americans go through every year in order to meet the April 15 deadline as reported by National Review Online.

As April 15 approaches like an incoming monsoon, millions

of Americans brace for the pain of writing checks to the IRS.

Even worse, this annual discomfort begins even earlier, as

taxpayers generate a cyclone of documents just to calculate

their tax liability. America's excruciatingly complex tax-

compliance regime deepens the aggravation of sending hard-

earned cash to Washington for virtual incineration by

Congress.

Completing tax reforms required 7.75 billion hours of human labor in the 2008 fiscal year, according to the latest reginfo.gov data. That roughly equals 3.7 million people--or everyone in Los Angeles--filling out IRS forms for 40 hours every week, all year, without vacations.

That involves more workers than those at the Fortune 500's

five biggest employers--

The National Taxpayers Union's David Keating concludes in a forthcoming report--

more than everybody at Wal-Mart, UPS, McDonald's, IBM and

Citigroup combined.

Keating also found that:

Individual taxpayers would devote some 2.3 billion hours

grappling with the income tax in 2010 at an equivalent labor

cost of $71.4 billion. Add to this the $31.5 billion that

individual taxpayers will cough up for tax software,

accounting services, photocopying, and other compliance-

related expenses. All told, individual taxpayers will spend

$103 billion to determine how much more money they must pump

into the Beltway.

Meanwhile, the IRS Web site now offers 1,909 different

documents, which is up from 1,770 last year. These include

the riveting form 8833: Treaty-Based Return Position

Disclosure Under Section 6114, or 7701(b). And don't miss

Form 990-W: Estimated Tax on Unrelated Business Taxable

Income for Tax-Exempt Organizations. This year's basic 1040

tax return includes 76 lines and 174 pages of instructions,

up from 68 lines and 52 pages in 1985.

Last year, the National Taxpayers Union calculated that

U.S. corporations spent $159.4 billion on tax compliance,

equal to 54 percent of corporate income tax revenue. In 2008,

General Electric's tax returns droned on for some 24,000

pages.

It is abundantly clear we are on a path to fiscal disaster. David Walker, the former head of the Government Accountability Office and current president and CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation and one of the most respected budget experts in the Nation, recently said:

The financial condition of the United States has

deteriorated dramatically in recent years. Importantly, our

primary fiscal threat is not today's deficit and debt levels,

but the structural deficits and escalating debt burdens that

will occur after the economy has recovered, unemployment is

down, the ``wars'' are over, and the recent crises have

passed. These large and growing structural deficits and the

tens of trillions in unfunded federal government promises

that drive them serve to threaten the future of our country

and our families. We must begin to take steps now to put our

Federal financial house in order. In addition, we must

achieve some meaningful reforms within the next three years

in order to help avoid a ``crisis of confidence'' that could

have much worse economic consequences for America, Americans,

and the world than the recent housing and financial crisis.

Today, all over America, there will be people demonstrating at tea parties, at gatherings, at organizations, at coffee shops, at restaurants, at places of business at the water cooler. People all over America will be talking today about this incredible, complex, difficult, burdensome system we have laid on the American people. It is fundamentally unfair and fundamentally incomprehensible to average citizens.

Most citizens, after they file their tax returns, will now live in some concern, if not grave concern, that they may have made a mistake because of this incredibly complex document from the agency we call the IRS and the tax bills we have. These American citizens can't be positive--even if they have gone to an accountant--that they will not be audited and then subject to further penalties.

We need to clean up the Tax Code. We need to stop the spending. We need to restore the confidence of the American people. There is a veritable uprising going on out there. It is a peaceful one. It is all over America. On a day like today, when they see their taxes have increased by some $670 billion just in the last year, this will fuel the fire that is spreading across America and will culminate this coming November.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I just wanted to congratulate my three colleagues for taking that trip. It is of the utmost importance that my colleagues are able to see the situation on the ground, meet with our leaders, meet with the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and meet with the men and women who are serving in the military.

One thing I know is, the word spreads. The word spreads throughout the men and women of our military that Senators took time from their schedules, from our recess, to be with the men and women who are serving. There is no better way to express our appreciation, but also it is very much noticed by the men and women serving over there.

I know my colleagues come back better informed. Also, as the situation in Afghanistan continues to evolve, we will be much more qualified and informed as we engage in what is appropriate for the Senate to engage in--discussion and debate over our strategy and our goals in Afghanistan.

So I thank my colleagues for going. I thank them for their service. The Senator from Delaware has proven that even a former Navy person can understand the issues that confront the Army and the Marine Corps.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3724 and that it be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. President, as my colleagues well know--today is tax day. Earlier today I came to the floor to speak about the enormous burden Americans bear every year in order to comply with today's deadline for filing their Federal tax returns. We have a complex, antiquated and oversized Tax Code that wreaks havoc on American taxpayers and, according to the National Taxpayers Union, will require them to spend $103 billion this year in compliance-related expenses. When we have a 2,000-plus page Tax Code which requires over $100 billion in compliance costs--something is clearly wrong. So what is the answer? Amazingly--instead of offering proposals to reform the system and ease the burden on our citizens--some are suggesting creative ways to impose new taxes on Americans and even further complicate our Tax Code.

According to this morning's Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration and its allies have floated the idea of imposing value added tax--a sales tax imposed on each stage of production, on each firm's value added with the actual cost ultimately hidden from the end user with the final bill being paid by the consumer at the cash register. This type of tax has been widely imposed throughout Europe. This morning, in an editorial titled ``Europe's VAT Lessons,'' the Wall Street Journal stated:

As Americans rush to complete their annual tax returns

today, there is still some consolation in knowing that it

could be worse: Like Europeans, we could pay both income

taxes and a value-added tax, or VAT. And maybe we soon will.

Paul Volcker, Nancy Pelosi, John Podesta and other allies of

the Obama Administration have already floated the idea of an

American VAT, so we thought you might like to know how it has

worked in Europe.

VATs were sold in Europe as a way to tax consumption, which

in principle does less economic harm than taxing income,

savings or investment. This sounds good, but in practice the

VAT has rarely replaced the income tax, or even resulted in a

lower income-tax rate. The top individual income tax rate

remains very high in Europe despite the VAT, with an average

on the continent of about 46%. . . .

In the U.S., VAT proponents aren't calling for a repeal of

the 16th Amendment that allowed the income tax--and, in fact,

they want income tax rates to rise. The White House has

promised to let the top individual rate increase in January

to 39.6% from 35% as the Bush tax cuts expire, while the

dividend rate will go to 39.6% from 15% and the capital gains

rate to 20% next year and 23.8% in 2013 under the health

bill, from 15% today. Even with these higher rates, or

because of them, revenues won't come close to paying for the

Obama Administration's new spending--which is why it is also

eyeing a VAT.

Thanks to the recession and the stimulus, U.S. federal debt

held by the public has now reached about 63% of GDP and is

headed higher, but the OECD forecasts that the 30 wealthiest

nations will see debt burdens ``exceed 100% of gross domestic

product in 2011.'' Debt levels in France, Germany, Spain and

Italy are expected to have increased by 30 percentage points

of GDP from 2008 to 2011. Greece has a VAT rate of 21%, but

its debt as a share of GDP is 113%.

The very efficiency of the VAT means that it throws off

huge amounts of revenue that politicians eagerly spend. The

VAT thus becomes an engine of even greater public spending.

In Europe, average government spending was about 30.2% of GDP

when VATs began to spread in the late 1960s. Today, those

governments are more than 50% larger, with spending of 47.1%

of GDP on average. By contrast, U.S. government spending

(federal and state) rose to 35.3% from 28.3% as a share of

GDP in the same period.

It is precisely this revenue-generating ability that makes

the VAT so appealing to liberal intellectuals and

politicians. Even liberals understand that at some point high

income tax rates stop yielding much more revenue as the rich

change their behavior or exploit loopholes. The middle-class

is where the real money is, and the only way to get more of

it with the least political pain is through a broad-based

consumption tax such as a VAT.

And one more point: In Europe, this heavier spending and

tax burden has also meant lower levels of income growth and

job creation. From 1982 to 2007, the U.S. created 45 million

new jobs, compared to fewer than 10 million in Europe, and

U.S. economic growth was more than one-third faster over the

last two decades, according to the Bureau of Labor

Statistics.

In 2008, the average resident of West Virginia, one of the

poorest American states, had an income $2,000 a year higher

than the average resident of the European Union, according to

economist Mark Perry of the University of Michigan, Flint.

The price of a much higher tax burden to finance a cradle-to-

grave entitlement state in Europe has been a lower standard

of living. VAT supporters should explain why the same won't

be true in America.

One trait of European VATs is that while their rates often

start low, they rarely stay that way. Of the 10 major OECD

nations with VATs or national sales taxes, only Canada has

lowered its rate. Denmark has gone to 25% from 9%, Germany to

19% from 10%, and Italy to 20% from 12%. The nonpartisan Tax

Foundation recently calculated that to balance the U.S.

federal budget with a VAT would require a rate of at least

18%.

Proponents also argue that a VAT would result in less

federal government borrowing. But that, too, has rarely been

true in Europe. From the 1980s through 2005, deficits were by

and large higher in Europe than in the U.S. By 2005, debt

averaged 50% of GDP in Europe, according to OECD data,

compared to under 40% in the U.S.

While there is no official proposal to impose the VAT--I think it is necessary for my colleagues to be on record on this onerous new tax. Therefore, I am offering this very simple sense of the Senate amendment which

calls the VAT exactly what it is--a massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed incomes and only further push back America's economic recovery.

Daniel Mitchell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute recently wrote:

The VAT--on top of all the other taxes Washington imposes--

is a terrible idea. Imposing it would pretty well finish the

transformation of our country into a European-style slow-

growth nation. The right way to close Uncle Sam's gaping

deficits is to reverse the continued explosion of federal

spending.

The real-world evidence shows that VATs are strongly linked

with both higher overall tax burdens and more government

spending. In 1965, before the VAT swept across Europe, the

average tax burden for advanced European economies (the EU-

15) was 27.7 percent of economic output, versus 24.7 percent

of GDP in the United States.

Taxes on income and profits consumed 8.8 percent of GDP in

Europe in 1965--below the US level of 11.9 percent. By 2006,

the European burden had climbed to 13.8 percent of GDP,

slightly higher than the 13.5 percent US figure. (The same

trend holds for corporate-tax data.)

Today's income-tax system is a nightmarish combination of

class warfare and corrupt loopholes. But adding a VAT solves

none of those problems, it merely gives politicians more

money to spend and a chance to auction off a new set of tax

breaks to interest groups. That's good for Washington, but

bad for America.

J.D. Foster, a senior economics fellow with the Heritage Foundation, wrote:

It comes as no surprise that attention is now turning

toward the VAT as the liberal solution for unsustainable

deficits that threaten the stability and very future of our

economy. Having hiked spending dramatically and then doubling

down with his Obamacare, the nation now faces unprecedented

near-term debts as the clock ticks toward the long-recognized

entitlements time bomb. If there's one thing conservatives

and liberals agree on completely, it's that deficits of this

magnitude cannot persist. Credit markets won't allow it. Some

fundamental course correction is certain. The massive amount

of revenue a VAT could raise is the only acceptable solution

left for most liberals since they steadfastly refuse to

reverse course on their recently enacted spending binge.

Why is the VAT the darling of the left? Because it can

raise vast new revenues without the taxpayers being really

sure who took their money. Consumers would pay the tax when

they purchase goods and services. Buy a car, pay the tax. Buy

groceries, pay the tax. Buy chemotherapy drugs, pay the tax.

In this way, taxpayers would only be aware of a bit of their

tax bite with each purchase. And unless the tax is printed on

the receipt and they look for it, consumers would have no

idea how much tax they paid on a particular transaction.

Today's deficits, and tomorrow's, result from too much

spending, not too little revenue. Reverse the massive Obama

spending surge (and the Bush surge before that) and the

deficits would quickly fall to sustainable levels. Instead,

Paul Volcker has done the nation a great service in telling

us what Obama and his congressional allies are planning. If

that is not the case, if the President and the democratic

leadership in Congress really are not planning a VAT attack,

let them declare their opposition to a VAT plainly. Every

current and would-be member of Congress should say where they

stand on the VAT. And unless they favor a huge government,

much higher taxes, and less transparency from government,

they will stand against it.

I agree with Mr. Foster--every current Member of Congress should say where they stand on the VAT. With this amendment I am giving Members of the Senate that opportunity.

Several of my colleagues have explained that they would support a VAT if it was replacing the Federal income tax or the current corporate tax structure. I say to those colleagues that I have not seen a shred of evidence from the administration or anyone in Congress that the VAT would be used as a replacement tax. I am supremely confident that--if and when it is offered--the VAT will be an additional tax on the American people. And that is the last thing the American people need right now. The solution to America's worsening government fiscal outlook is not to increase taxes--it is to cut spending. Congress could get America's economy back on track by focusing on tax relief and simplification, liability reform, regulatory reform, health care security, and energy independence--not on imposing a new, massive tax increase that will cripple middle- and low-income families and delay America's economic recovery.

The solution to America's worsening government fiscal outlook is not to increase taxes, it is to cut spending. Congress could get America's economy back on track by focusing on tax relief and simplification, liability reform, regulatory reform, health care security and energy independence, not on imposing a new massive tax increase that will cripple middle- and low-income families and delay America's economic recovery.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, it is tax day. Americans are overburdened and taxed by an antiquated, complex, and oversized Tax Code. This year they will spend $100 billion in compliance-related expenses. Instead of offering proposals to reform the system, some are suggesting a new value-added tax which would increase taxes on average Americans and even further complicate our Tax Code. I believe it is an opportunity, with a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, for Members of Congress to say where they stand. This is their opportunity.

I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Oklahoma, the Senator from Florida, and myself.

Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment. Let me also just for a moment point out where we are.

Where are we now that all the champagne has been drunk and all the celebration has gone on; the inside-the-beltway excitement has subsided along with the adoring media? Here we are: We have a budget deficit that is still $1.4 trillion. We still have 9.7 percent unemployment. Beginning right away we have $\1/2\ trillion worth of Medicare cuts that will take place over the next 10 years--$\1/2\ trillion beginning right away, $\1/2\ trillion worth of tax increases over the next 10 years.

Beginning in 4 years, $2.5 trillion in new health care entitlements spending begin. The plan still puts government in control. It still mandates that every American must purchase a government designed and approved health policy. It still mandates that employers have to provide health insurance or pay a fee, and 330,000 Medicare Advantage members in my State are going to be exposed to drastic cuts.

Fortunately, we took out one of the sweetheart deals so that now, at least the 800,000 who were carved out before in Florida will be subject to the same cuts. No one, no one, no one believes--the so-called doc fix--that the 21-percent cut in physicians payments for treatment of Medicare patients is going to happen.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but this is still a pig. I noticed the Senator from Illinois came to the floor this morning and said how great this is and how there is going to be real reductions in the deficit as a result of this legislation. I wonder what his response has been to one of the biggest corporations in the State of Illinois, Caterpillar, who sent him a letter saying:

In our fragile economy, we can ill afford increases that

place us at a disadvantage versus global competitors that are

not similarly burdened.

They state:

Elements of the legislation would drive up Caterpillar's

health care costs by more than 20 percent, over $100 million.

The Senator from Illinois is sponsoring legislation that increases costs for one of the largest manufacturers and exporters in America that is going to increase their cost by $100 million. I wonder when he is going to go out and visit headquarters out there in Peoria. I hope it is soon.

The fact is, there are things in this legislation that are wrong, and there are things that are left out of this legislation that are wrong, including $100 billion a year that could be saved by medical malpractice reform. Is there anything in those 2,073 pages that have anything to do with medical malpractice reform? That is the dirty little secret. The dirty little secret in this body is that trial lawyers control the agenda, certainly as far as this legislation is concerned.

The State of Texas has reduced costs, has reduced premiums, and has increased the number of people who have been able to--lawsuit filings are down from defensive medicine increases for annual costs by 10 percent. Physician recruitment is up. The largest malpractice insurance company in the State has sliced its premiums by 35 percent, saving doctors some $217 million over 4 years in the State of Texas. And I would like to ask my friend from Oklahoma why in the world we would not enact medical malpractice reform if we are truly interested in reducing the cost of health care in America.

The Senator from Oklahoma and our other doctor in the Senate, Senator Barrasso from Wyoming, can testify because of their experience of the requirement to practice defensive medicine, which could be as much as $100 billion a year. So here we are, looking at dramatic increases in cost, and the President is going around the country saying that insurance premiums will go down. Individual premiums will go up between 10 and 13 percent. You know, facts are stubborn things.

So I would ask my friend from Oklahoma if he might talk a little bit about not only what is in this bill but what is not in this bill, and medical malpractice reform is certainly something that anyone would logically assume would be part of any real reform if you are interested in reducing cost.

If you are interested in increasing government bureaucracy, I hear this bill could mean the employment or hiring of some 16,500 new IRS agents. We are trying to track down the facts behind that. So we are now embarked on one of the greatest expansions of government in the history of this country.

May I ask the opinion of the Senator from Oklahoma as to why he thinks there is no address of medical malpractice reform whatsoever in this legislation that has the slightest impact on reducing health care costs?

I thank my friend from Florida. The fact is, Medicare Advantage is a program that provides seniors with choices. That is one of the reasons it is a major target of the other side--because it doesn't fit in, then, with the government mandates this whole bill embodies. So I am worried about the 11 million Americans who have the Medicare Advantage Program.

I would like to refer my colleagues to an article--I know the Senator from Utah is waiting, if he would just give me another minute or so here--today in the Wall Street Journal titled ``Now, Can We Have Health-Care Reform?'' And I want to quote from part of it, as follows:

Health insurers, and indeed Corporate America as a whole,

are like monkeys who are caught by staking a glass jar to the

ground with a shiny trinket inside. They won't let go so they

can't get their hands out of the jar. That trinket is the

ruinous and regressive $250 billion-a-year tax benefit for

employer-provided insurance.

That is the elephant in the room, my friends.

Corporate America isn't brave enough to argue against a

direct subsidy to its employment costs, no matter how

perverse its impact in insulating consumers from the true

cost of their health care choices. Insurers are not brave

enough to say: Give us a tax code that lets us go back to

being insurers rather than a tax laundromat for the middle

class's health care spending.

Almost any bill would have been worth having that

fundamentally fixed this tax distortion, regardless of its

other elements.

We say this because any bill, including the one signed by

the President yesterday, will be revisited many times in the

future. Millions of pages of rules will be written by

regulators before we see how it really works. Congress itself

will return in predictable ways: It will reverse the proposed

Medicare cuts that created ObamaCare's illusion of fiscal

probity. It will tighten the mandate that requires insurers

to cover the sick at favorable prices. It will not tighten

the requirement that the young and healthy buy insurance at

prices that subsidize the old and unhealthy.

More and more tax money will have to be found to keep the

jalopy on the road. More and more administrative controls on

medicine will attempt vainly to keep the jalopy from

bankrupting the Nation.

Under the law just signed, employers have even more

incentive than they did yesterday to lavish excessive health

insurance on their high-end employees.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this entire Wall Street Journal article.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Utah for his indulgence.

The other side is going around the country right now telling the American people things that simply are not correct, including the fact that these budget projections we know are patently false, not because CBO gave us false numbers but because the assumptions were wrong. One of the biggest assumptions--and we will be talking about this more--is the so-called doc fix. Is there anyone who believes we are going to have a 21-percent cut in Medicare physician payments this fall?

I would ask my friend, the Senator from Utah, who is very familiar with this issue--I know he has an amendment, but this is one of the reasons Americans are so angry. They know they are not going to cut doctors' payments from Medicare by 21 percent, and that is a fundamental part of the assessments as to the cost by CBO. It is a sham perpetrated on the American people.

So I would say to my friend from Florida and my friend from Utah, we will be back on the floor probably this fall sometime or early next year, and we will be talking about the fact that this doc fix--the doctor payments provision of health care for Medicare enrollees--was not cut 21 percent, as the other side is telling the American people that it will be. It is not fair to the American people, I would say to my friend from Utah.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be included in the colloquy.

I would say to the Senator from New Hampshire that there is some recent information that I find hard to believe, but apparently it may be the case. As we go through this 2,733-page piece of legislation, the IRS may need up to $10 billion to administer the new health care program this decade, and it may need to hire as many as 16,500 additional auditors, agents, and other employees to investigate and collect billions of new taxes from Americans. Is that possible, in this legislation, I would ask the Senator from New Hampshire?

At $10 billion to administer. That is probably believable, given what is in 2,733 pages.

I would also finally add that perhaps we could get some indication--I think we should before we vote on passage of this bill-- as to how many new bureaucrats and bureaucracies there are going to be with 193 new boards and commissions and other layers of bureaucracy. I think the American people are owed at least a round figure as to how many new bureaucrats there are going to be to administer this program.

I see the Senator from Montana, and I don't want to impede on what has been the agreed-upon rule here, but I did want to continue and say to my friends very quickly that I think there are several myths here that have to be refuted by the facts.

One is that this legislation will result in a tax cut for the American people. I would say to my friend from New Hampshire, we have to rebut that in the next hour.

The next myth is that the health care bill won't increase taxes on individuals with incomes under $250,000. The fact is, millions of Americans with incomes below $250,000 will pay higher taxes.

Another myth: The legislation will reduce the growth of health costs--President Obama's stated goal for health reform--and premiums will go down. The fact is, national health expenditures and premiums will increase.

Another myth: The legislation is deficit neutral. The fact is, commitment to health care spending under existing obligations increases the deficit.

Myth: ``If you like the plan you have, you can keep it.'' Fact: Millions of Americans with coverage will lose their current coverage, including 330,000 citizens of my State who have the Medicare Advantage Program.

Finally, the myth is that the law will provide immediate coverage for children with preexisting conditions. The fact is, children are not necessarily protected against discrimination for preexisting conditions.

So I hope we have a chance, I would say to my friend from New Hampshire, to address the allegations about this legislation, and perhaps the first one is that legislation will result in a tax cut for the American people when the fact is that taxes will increase for millions of Americans.

I would yield to my colleague from New Hampshire.

Well, I just wanted to throw in here that perhaps one of the most egregious statements, and it is worth repeating, is this so- called doc fix. They are using an assumption that we will cut physicians' fees by 21 percent sometime this fall in order to make up-- and please correct me if I am wrong--some $281 billion over 10 years, which we know is not going to happen. And the reason it is not going to happen is because doctors would refuse to take Medicare patients if they cut their reimbursement by some 21 percent.

So this is one of the fundamental assumptions they are selling this on, is that it is deficit neutral when it is not.

The CEO of Caterpillar wrote a letter saying that the taxes for Caterpillar would go up by $100 million next year. What does that do to Caterpillar? It obviously makes them either not hire or lay off individuals as they pay an additional $100 million. And I might point out, as we all know, Caterpillar's headquarters is in Peoria, IL.

So, again, I would ask the Senator from New Hampshire, is this legislation deficit neutral?

Isn't that another of the great scams, that for 4 years the benefits are cut and the taxes are increased, and for most--not all but most--of this bill, none of the benefits really kick in until after 4 years?

So when you score it, that is the way you make it deficit neutral over 10 years?

I ask the Senator from New Hampshire, while the Senator from Montana is here, maybe it is a legitimate question. Does the Senator from Montana believe that the assumption given to the Congressional Budget Office that the so-called doc fix, reimbursement for physicians who treat Medicare patients, will be cut by 21 percent? The Senator from Montana knows full well the AMA has been told in no uncertain terms it will be fixed between now and when it is supposed to take effect because the fact is, as the Senator from Montana knows, you can cut Medicare physician reimbursement. Then doctors will not treat Medicare patients. So maybe the Senator from Montana would tell us if that was a valid assumption given to the CBO, that there would be some $281 billion that would be accrued because physicians' payments would be reduced by some 21 percent?

I appreciate very much the acknowledgment, on the part of the manager of the bill, that the assumption that provides us with deficit neutrality is not valid. That is the point we have been trying to make. It is based on false assumptions. The assumption that doctors--I am very happy to hear the Senator from Montana state unequivocally what was given and assumed by the CBO when they gave us our numbers is not true. So we will be voting, in a short period of time, on a piece of legislation which is based on false assumptions. I think that is an unfortunate circumstance.

Mr. President, I read a lot about what has been going on in the

health care debate, and all of us have. Americans are very aware of it. I keep hearing the word ``historic'' this, ``historic'' that, ``historic.'' I agree. It is historic. This is a historic vote, and I think we are pretty aware of what the outcome will be sometime tonight, tomorrow, or the next day. It is the first time in history, the history of this country, that a major reform has been enacted on a purely partisan basis, the first time.

Every major reform throughout history has had significant--you can go down the list--bipartisanship votes. In the 1970s--this one, purely partisan, rammed through from beginning to whatever this end is.

It is historic, and it is the first time that a process called reconciliation has ever been used to affect one-sixth of the gross national product. I know the response will be: Well, Republicans did it--et cetera, et cetera. It will be the first time that 51 votes has been the measure of a decision on so-called reconciliation. Now, that is historic. That is historic because we have basically broken down the 60-vote tradition of the Senate when we address it in this fashion--an issue of this magnitude.

Let me tell you, when the President of the United States was still a Senator--another time we were doing reconciliation--what he said:

You know, the Founders designed this system, as frustrating

[as] it is, to make sure that there's a broad consensus

before the country moves forward. . . . And what we have now

is a president----

He was referring to former President Bush--

who . . . [h]asn't gotten his way. And that is now prompting,

you know, a change in the Senate rules that really I think

would change the character of the Senate forever. . . . And

what I worry about would be you essentially have still two

chambers--the House and the Senate--but you have simply

majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that's just

not what the founders intended.

That is what Barack Obama, the Senator from Illinois, said.

So here we are. Yes, it is historic. It is historic. And it is historic what we have seen take place from the beginning. We have seen the special interests. We have seen the votes, the provisions in these bills that carve out special deals for special interests and special States, such as the ``Louisiana purchase,'' the $100 million inserted in this 2,733-page document that builds a hospital in Connecticut. Why Connecticut? Why $100 million? Why is it that there are these special provisions for certain locations in the country?

It is historic in the special deals that have been cut--for PhRMA, for the American Medical Association, for the hospital association, for the unions in the taxation of Cadillac plans. Everybody has a deal but the American citizen--the average American.

How many Americans, how many ordinary Americans who are, say, enrollees in Medicare Advantage in my State, who are going to see the Medicare Advantage program cut drastically--how many of them were allowed in the majority leader's office? How many of them were allowed in the Speaker's office? How many of them were allowed in the White House as the special interests' representatives went in and out?

So there are winners and losers. That is what is being judged. The winners will be those who live in favored States who will have special deals. There will be those who are winners--PhRMA, the hospital association, the unions. Again, my congratulations to PhRMA. They are running $100 million-some worth of ads favoring this deal because they got a deal that is worth billions--worth billions.

As I have quoted on the floor several times, their head lobbyists, or $2 million-a-year lobbyists, said: A deal is a deal. We expect the White House to keep it.

So who are the losers? Who are the losers? Well, the first loser is the Senate because, as I said before, this reconciliation, requiring only 51 votes, is a radical departure from anything we have done in the past. I do not accept the statement that it has been done in the past-- not when it affects one-sixth of the gross national product, and as a direct result of the vote in the State of Massachusetts that gave this side 41 votes. If they still had 60 votes, we would not be doing this on reconciliation. We would be doing it in the regular way we address legislation--legislation through the House, legislation through the Senate, a conference committee, and then, obviously, a final vote. But they cannot afford a final vote because there are 41 votes now, not 60. So the Senate is a major casualty of this process.

But the biggest losers probably are average citizens--average citizens who were told the Congressional Budget Office judged this to be deficit-neutral, and it would not cost the taxpayers additional money. I just had a conversation with the Senator from Montana who said clearly we are not going to cut physician payments by 21 percent; so, therefore, the assumption they gave the Congressional Budget Office is false--is false. So before we go any further, it is already a $150 billion deficit because everybody knows we are not going to cut physicians' payments by 21 percent.

So the American people are the ones who never had access to get a special deal. And 330,000 citizens of my State who have enjoyed and chosen the Medicare Advantage program are now going to see those benefits slashed. But the average citizen who thinks today there is a huge disconnect between their lives and that of the life that is led here and the way we do business here--last Saturday, I was in my own home State of Arizona. I did two townhall meetings, one in Prescott and one in East Valley Phoenix, and people are hurting. People are hurting, people are angry, they are frustrated, and they feel there is a huge disconnect between themselves and Washington. I come back the next day, and they are drinking champagne in celebration of a ``historic'' victory. Americans do not get it. Americans do not get it. They are angry. They are frustrated.

I want to assure them--I want to assure them--this fight is not over. We will take it, as I mentioned before, to the towns and cities of America. We will have townhall meetings all over the country. We will register voters. We will urge them to turn out. We will urge them to take part in one of the most seismic elections in the history of this country.

I know the liberal media is saying: The American people are going to move on. Well, they are not going to move on. They are not going to move on because they are sick and tired of the spending and the generational theft we have committed on future generations of Americans. This is only one part of their frustration. It is a big part, but it is only one part.

So I know I speak for my colleagues when I say this fight is far from over. This struggle to regain control of this body and this institution in Washington, DC, and give it back to the people of this country will go on.

I have great faith in this country and its future. That is why I am confident that over time, sooner or later, we will be back and we will repeal and we will replace--we will replace--this huge government takeover with medical malpractice reform, with going across State lines to get insurance of your choice, to reward wellness and fitness, to establish risk pools that insurance companies will bid on in order to treat people with preexisting conditions. We have a long list we will replace this mortgaging of America's future with that will be what all Americans want; that is, to maintain the quality of health care in America and, at the same time, bring costs under control.

I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for his leadership. I thank the Senator from Montana for his courtesy during this debate over these days and weeks and even months, on days and nights and weekends. I want to assure my colleagues this debate is far from over.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the amendment removes the following items from the legislation: additional Medicaid funding for Hawaii hospitals; additional Medicaid funding for Tennessee hospitals; provides special Medicaid funding for Louisiana; special Medicaid funding primarily for reclassified hospitals in Michigan and Connecticut; $100 million for a Connecticut hospital; frontier funding provision provided in new Medicare money for

Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming; a provision allowing for certain residents in Libby, MT.

I do not argue whether these are worthwhile or needed projects. I do argue the method in which they were inserted in this legislation--the one for Tennessee being as recently as yesterday or the day before--is the wrong process.

I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business for approximately 10 minutes, not more than 10 minutes.

I come to the floor to obviously comment on the events of the last couple of days in the other body. The Nation watched as the process went forward and the votes were

cast. My understanding is, according to the media reports, champagne was poured and the celebration went on inside the beltway.

Outside the beltway, in the homes and offices and all of the residences and places where people gather across the country, there is a sense of outrage, and a sense of betrayal because, for the first time in history, we have enacted a major reform on a strictly partisan basis about which the process has angered the American people as much as the product.

The deals that were made behind closed doors for individuals, the names of which we have all become familiar with--the ``Cornhusker kickback,'' the ``Louisiana purchase,'' the ``Gator aid,'' and also the purchases made of the various entities in the health care industry in America--most egregious probably is that of Pharma, but the list goes on, the AMA, the Hospital Association, it goes on and on.

Americans are disillusioned and are angry and Americans are not going to forget it. There seems to be an inside-the-beltway liberal media view that, well, it is done, the American people will forget about it; they will appreciate it; and what a magnificent victory this is. It may be in the view of some a victory for the President of the United States. What it is is a defeat of the American people, because the overwhelming majority of American people, by 2-to-1 margins, said stop and start over. They said they did not want this and they did not like this process. They do not like the behind-the-closed doors foolishness that went on, that, in many peoples' minds represented an unsavory sausage-making process.

This morning's Wall Street Journal opinion is entitled: ``Inside the Pelosi Sausage Factory'' and ``Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak Sold His Anti- abortion Soul For a Toothless Executive Order.''

Never before has the average American been treated to such

a live-action view of the sordid politics necessary to push a

deeply flawed bill to completion. It was dirty deals, open

threats, broken promises and disregard for democracy that

pulled ObamaCare to this point, and yesterday the same

machinations pushed it across the finish line.

Then this same article goes on to describe how.

For those who needed more persuasion: California Rep. Jim

Costa bragged publicly that during his meeting in the Oval

Office, he'd demanded the administration increase water to

his Central Valley district.

By the way, a move that I strongly favored.

On Tuesday, Interior pushed up its announcement giving the

Central Valley farmers 25 percent of water supplies, rather

than the expected 5 percent allocation. Mr. Costa, who denies

there was a quid pro quo, on Saturday said he'd flip to a

yes.

Florida Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (whose district is home to the

Kennedy Space Center) admitted that in her own Thursday

meeting with the president, she'd brought up the need for

more NASA funding. On Friday she flipped to a yes. So watch

the NASA budget.

Democrats inserted a new provision providing $100 million in extra Medicaid money for Tennessee. Retiring Tennessee Rep. Bart Gordon flipped to a yes vote on Thursday.

The list goes on and on. And those are the ones we know about. Those are the ones that have been publicized. We know about Pharma. We know about the deal they got and about $100 million or so that they have spent on advertisements and paid ads touting this legislation, which will get them billions of dollars in profits, the same Pharma that changed the administration position on reimportation of drugs from Canada that is in direct contradiction of the position that then- Senator Obama had, that we should be able to reimport drugs from Canada, the same administration that supported competition amongst pharmaceutical companies for Medicare enrollees and now changed that position as well. There will be months, even years, where we will find out what went on behind closed doors, either in the majority leader's office, the Speaker's office, or the White House.

There are those who believe the attention span of the American people is rather short. I disagree. I was back in my home State of Arizona on Saturday, two townhall meetings, hundreds of people packed into the townhall meetings.

Every one of them is angry about what this will do, what this will do to companies and corporations such as Caterpillar that announced it would cost them, in only 1 year, $100 million in additional taxes.

People have figured out the gimmickry of imposing taxes and cutting benefits for 4 years before a single beneficiary receives any help, the myth that we will actually cut 21 percent from doctors' payments for treating Medicare enrollees that will take place this fall. Is there anyone who believes we are going to cut doctors' payments by 21 percent? If so, I would like to meet them and hear from them. We are not. The word is out: Don't worry. We will fix it. And they will fix it because we can't do that to physicians. But yet they use that $271 billion reduction in physicians' payments for treatment of Medicare enrollees as a way to disguise the true deficit. In fact, that alone would show that this legislation would have resulted in an increase in cost rather than a decrease.

I haven't got that much time except to say that I want to make clear that the people I represent in Arizona are not going to sit still for this. They are going to want this repealed. We will challenge this in the courts. We will challenge this in the towns. We will challenge this in the cities. We will challenge this on the farms. We will challenge this all over America. The will of the people will be heard. They do not like this process, and they do not like this product. We will prevail over time. I am confident of that.

I yield the floor.

(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries)

Mr. President, I ask my friend from North Dakota, I intended to speak in morning business as well, if he has no objection.

I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. President, there is a lot of excitement and interest, obviously, around the country about the impending, possibly, vote in the other body, perhaps as early as Sunday. I think it is time we talked a little bit about reality as well. I would like to mention one item.

I read from an article from the Dow Jones Newswires:

Caterpillar, Inc., said the health care overhaul

legislation being considered by the U.S. House would increase

the company's health care costs by more than $100 million in

the first year alone.

In a letter Thursday to [House] Speaker Nancy Pelosi and

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio, Caterpillar

urged lawmakers to vote against the plan ``because of the

substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders,

employees and retirees.''

Caterpillar, the world's largest construction machinery

manufacturer by sales, said it's particularly opposed to

provisions in the bill that would expand Medicare taxes and

mandate insurance coverage. The legislation would require

nearly all companies to provide health insurance for their

employees.

I would point out to my colleagues that this is one of the largest exporters the United States of America has.

Continuing to quote:

Caterpillar noted that the company supports efforts to

increase the quality and value of health care for patients .

. . unfortunately, neither the current legislation in the

House and Senate, nor the President's proposal, meets these

goals.

Most telling, perhaps, is the comment of the vice president, who said this:

We can ill-afford cost increases that place us at a

disadvantage versus our global competitors.

So here we are with a huge trade deficit of almost unprecedented proportions. We owe the Chinese $850 billion, or some huge amount, and more every day, so Caterpillar is going to have their expenses increased in 1 year by $100 million or more. How in the world are they going to be competitive?

I probably should have begun with this. Yesterday, in my home State of Arizona, almost an unprecedented event took place. The Governor of the State of Arizona, Governor Jan Brewer, the majority leader of the senate, and the speaker of the house, held a press conference in which they talked about a letter they sent to the President of the United States. I want to quote from the letter:

Dear Mr. President: We share common ground in that we both

have been called to lead during some of the most difficult

times our Nation has faced. Like you, I hear painful stories

on a regular basis from people who are struggling to survive.

Yet in their time of need, our State government is on the

brink of insolvency.

During this downturn, Arizona has lost the largest

percentage of jobs in the United States. The flagging economy

has resulted in a loss of State revenues in excess of 30

percent, placing tremendous pressures on our State budget.

Today, Arizona faces one of the largest deficits of any

State.

There is no doubt that this fiscal calamity has been

compounded by the enormous spending increases we are facing

as a result of our Medicaid, which has seen population growth

of almost 20 percent in the past 12 months. It is for that

reason I write to you today.

You have repeated on several occasions that the debate on

health care reform has consumed the past year and you most

recently called on Congress to vote the measure ``up or

down.'' As the governor of a State that is bleeding red ink,

I am imploring our congressional delegation to vote against

your proposal to expand government health care and to help

vote it down.

The reason for my position is simple: We cannot afford it.

And based on our State's own experience with government

health care expansion, we doubt the rest of America can

either.

Then the Governor of the State of Arizona, Jan Brewer, along with the

other legislative leaders, goes on to explain why this would cause such devastating harm to the State of Arizona, which is already suffering under unprecedented fiscal difficulties.

As the Governor pointed out in her letter, Medicaid has seen population growth of almost 20 percent in the last 12 months. All over America, Governors are saying: Don't do this to us. They are saying: Don't mandate this dramatic increase in our Medicaid expenses. Governors and legislatures and citizens all over the country are enacting laws and proposing constitutional amendments that say: You cannot force us to buy health insurance.

I want to congratulate the Governor of the State of Arizona and our legislative leaders for their courage in standing up and telling the American people and the President of the United States the reality of what they are facing.

I guess a lot of this may be coming to a head in some respects, although there still seems to be some speculation as to what ``reconciliation'' will take place over here, exactly what form that will take, and exactly what the rulings of the Parliamentarians and others will be to what sounds like arcane procedures and how they will unfold. But I think it is very clear that we are facing, possibly for the first time in our history, a major reform in the face of overwhelming opposition to it on the part of the American people.

This morning's Wall Street Journal has an interesting lead editorial entitled: ``March Madness.'' ``Scenes from a devolution as Democrats writhe towards 216 votes.'' I want to quote from the editorial of this morning:

Has there ever been a political spectacle like the final

throes of Obama care? We can't recall one outside of a banana

republic, or, more accurately, Woody Allen's 1971 classic

``Bananas.'' Capitol Hill resembles nothing so much as that

movie's farcical coup d'etat in San Marcos, as Democrats try

to assemble a partisan minimum of 216 votes--if only for an

hour or so at some point on Sunday--and no bribe is too

costly, no deal too cynical, no last-minute rewrite too

blatant.

That pretty much sums it up. One of the issues is, what are the tax increases in this? When do they kick in? How is it that the Congressional Budget Office can come up with such estimates, as they have? Well, the first principle, my friends, is: Garbage in, garbage out. If you give the Congressional Budget Office certain assumptions, they will have to give estimates based on those assumptions, even if those assumptions are totally out of the realm of possibility, such as cuts of $\1/2\ trillion in Medicare, such as saying that we will have a so-called ``doc fix''--a reduction in doctors' payments of some $217 billion. We know that is not going to happen. We know that is not going to happen.

Let me quote again from the Wall Street Journal article:

Also yesterday the white smoke rose up from the

Congressional Budget Office, which released its cost

estimates for the ``reconciliation bill'' and the sundry

fixes without which Ms. Pelosi can't deem the Senate bill

passed. Democrats preemptively released the topline numbers,

which by themselves took weeks of tweaking to game the CBO's

accounting conventions and officially stay under $1 trillion

in spending for 10 years. The real cost over a decade, once

all the spending kicks in, is $2.4 trillion.

Why is that? It is obvious that the first 4 years the taxes are raised and the benefits are cut, and it is only after 4 years that you begin to see benefits. That is a classic example of budget gimmickry.

Once again quoting from the article:

CBO Director Doug Elmendorf was thus obliged to release a

``preliminary estimate,'' having ``not thoroughly examined

the legislative language.'' Mr. Elmendorf said at a hearing

that his health-care staff members were close to burning out

under ``the almost round-the-clock schedule'' of unrelenting

Democratic demands about the budgetary effects of this or

that provision. And all for a bill whose subsidies don't

begin until 2014.

By the way, to make the deficit numbers ``work,'' Democrats

decided at the 11th hour to increase their new tax on

investment income to 3.8 percent from 2.9 percent.

Congratulations. White House budget director Peter Orszag

quickly declared that ``the CBO score today should leave no

doubt that we are operating in a new fiscal era.''

We certainly are.

One thing the score also made clear, however, is that Mrs.

Pelosi's reconciliation fixes could easily be blown to pieces

in the Senate. While the Democratic strategy is already a

wholesale abuse of the traditional reconciliation process, it

now bids to violate the actual rules of the reconciliation as

well.

In a carom shot if there ever was one, excise tax on gold-

plated health coverage has received one last tweak. It is

expected to fund ObamaCare as employees take more of their

compensation in wages rather than health insurance, thus

exposing more income to ordinary taxes. The House demand

to delay that tax until 2018--

And does anybody believe we are going to impose taxes in 2018?

--from 2013 in the Senate bill--to appease the likes of AFL-

CIO president Richard Trumka, who met one-on-one with Mr.

Obama on Wednesday--therefore reduces Social Security payroll

tax revenues. But reconciliation expressly forbids such

changes.

The reconciliation rules forbid changes to Social Security.

And CBO says this change will drain some $53 billion from

the program's trust fund.

Senate Republicans will therefore be entitled to raise a

budget ``point of order'' against the entire reconciliation

bill if it does arrive in the upper chamber.

North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad admitted the risks

yesterday, asking rhetorically if he expected that some GOP

``challenges will be upheld? Yeah, I do.'' By the way, Mr.

Conrad and his House North Dakota colleague Earl Pomeroy are

getting a special provision that exempts a state-owned North

Dakota bank from the unrelated private student loan takeover

that Democrats have included as part of ObamaCare. That

multibillion-dollar baby was added to further rig the budget

numbers and win over conflicted Members.

I understand that my colleague Senator Conrad has now said he does not wish for that exemption to be in legislation.

I want to point out that there are new taxes--even more tax increases in this bill--more than $560 billion in taxes on Medicare patients, private health insurance plans, medical device manufacturers, small businesses, and much more, including Caterpillar's estimate, as I mentioned, of $100 million more in cost. There is more than $200 billion in taxes on individuals and small businesses; Medicare hospital insurance tax, $210 billion; penalty payments by employers--these are penalty payments in taxes on employers that will be enacted between 2010 and 2019.

In other words, the assumption in this legislation is that we will plan on penalizing employers some $52 billion over 10 years. I think employers might be interested in hearing that. Then, more than $30 billion in taxes on private health insurance plans--$32 billion--nearly $20 billion in taxes on uninsured Americans, and $20 billion in taxes on medical device manufacturers.

I want spend a minute on that--$20 billion in taxes on medical device manufacturers. The excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices, $20 billion. Impose a 2.9-percent excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices from 2010 to 2019, which will then count as $20 billion in revenue.

Who pays? Who then pays when we raise taxes on the manufacturers of medical devices? Who at the end of the day is going to pay for that? We know who is going to pay for it. We know it will be the person who purchases these medical devices because the companies, obviously, cannot stay in business at a loss.

I note the presence of my colleague and friend from Arizona. I would bring this to his attention.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from Arizona.

I mentioned earlier, I say to my friend, Senator Kyl, the letter and press conference of our, I think very courageous, Governor and a speaker of our Arizona House and Senate. They held a press conference yesterday and announced the letter they were sending to the President of the United States. I think she graphically demonstrates not only the incredible burden this lays on our home State of Arizona but on States all over America.

Isn't it true, I ask my colleague from Arizona, that not only has the State of Arizona warned of the consequences of this legislation, in the State of Arizona we may have on our ballot a statement included in our State constitution that no one should be forced to buy health insurance. Isn't it true that other States both have enacted legislation and are working on their own State constitutions to prevent this mandatory health insurance purchase and the included tax increases and costs on their States?

I had it printed in the Record, and also I highlighted the comments the Governor said, ``imploring our Congressional delegation to vote against your proposal. . . .'' Therefore, ``the reason for my position is simple: we cannot afford it.''

I would like to bring to my colleague's attention--one of the major health care providers in our home State of Arizona and across the country is Banner Health, as my colleague knows. There is a letter.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letter from Peter Fine, CEO of Banner Health in Phoenix be printed in the Record.

His letter states:

The President has called on Congress to pass H.R. 3590. . .

.

This legislation would greatly expand Medicaid at a

tremendous cost to Arizona. Our state cannot afford its

current Medicaid program and your support for H.R. 3590 would

be fiscally irresponsible. . . .

Despite these and other drastic program cuts, Arizona's

budget still has a $2.5 billion structural deficit--the

difference between on-going expenditures and on-going

revenues. . . .

Arizona has run a budget deficit in eight of the last ten

years.

Banner Health, Arizona's largest provider of health care

services, supports expanded access to health care services

for the uninsured but not as an unfunded mandate. According

to the AHCCS Administration--

That is our State's version of Medicaid--

the Medicaid expansion in H.R. 3590 will cost Arizona $3.9

billion, from 2014 through 2020. The state simply cannot

afford this expansion. The State cannot financially support

the first dollar to gain the federal match and if the

legislation calls for expanded Medicare coverage, the Federal

Government will have to financially support it in total.

While the legislation has many good things that could still

be put in place by going after them individually rather than

in a large complex bill, the negative impact of the unfunded

mandate associated with the expansion of Medicaid will

devastate Arizona.

Also, I am very interested. I said earlier, before my colleague came to the floor, that the announcement this morning that Caterpillar has announced the health care bill would cost the company $100 million more in the first year--$100 million more, just Caterpillar, in the first year alone.

The hour is late. But what I think maybe my colleague and I should do is ask people from Raytheon and Boeing and other major manufacturing companies--by the way, many of them are export driven, Intel and others, that are located in our State--what the cost to them would be. If Caterpillar says it is $100 million more in 1 year, I can imagine what the costs are going to be to the major manufacturers that are located in the State of Arizona as well.

Again, I want to repeat--I know Senator Kyl agrees with me--I would like to congratulate our Governor for standing up for the people of Arizona, for the courage she has shown more than once in her press conference. The statement she, joined by the members of the legislature, made is an important aspect of this debate. We should know in Washington what our actions will do to the people of the States we represent.

As Senator Kyl mentioned, 38 States are taking some kind of action or another to prevent this piece of legislation from--however it comes out, certainly in its present form, which we know will not change very much if it is passed--wanting us to stop and start over.

I hope our colleagues will recognize if this legislation passes through this weekend, through the House of Representatives, that the fight will then come back to the floor of the Senate. If in the worst case scenario this legislation is passed by the Senate and signed into law by the President of the United States, there will be a movement throughout the country that will be entitled ``Repeal Now'' or something like that, which will argue strenuously through demonstrations, at the ballot booth, and at tea parties and gatherings all over America that we will repeal this legislation.

Back in the 1990s there was a piece of legislation called catastrophic health care. We passed it through the Congress. The President signed it. The American people said no.

This fight goes on. All of us want to fix the health care system. All of us want to bring health care costs down. This is not the way to do it. It is certainly not the way to do it, which would be done strictly on a partisan basis for the first time in history that legislation of this magnitude is passed without a broad, bipartisan basis for it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise in support of amendment No. 3475, which I have introduced. As I have stated several times already, the amendment is very simple. It would place a moratorium on all earmarks in years in which there is a deficit. I am joined in this effort by my good friend from Indiana, Senator Bayh, and I again thank him for his leadership and courage on this issue.

Last year, I reminded my colleagues about the current fiscal situation. I think it is important to again review the facts. The Treasury Department, a week ago, announced the government racked up a record-high monthly deficit of $220.9 billion. We now have a deficit of over $1.4 trillion and a debt of $12.5 trillion, and unemployment remains at close to 10 percent. The list goes on and on.

On Tuesday, the Senate rejected an amendment offered by Senator DeMint. This amendment called for a moratorium on all earmarks for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. There wasn't anything earth-shattering about that amendment. It wouldn't have shaken the foundations of our democracy. It is simply the political equivalent of calling a timeout. Yet, sadly, 68 Senators voted against this modest proposal, including 15 from my own party.

So I have no illusions about the outcome of this amendment. I have been around here long enough to see what goes on. But it doesn't mean I will quit fighting, nor does it mean the American people will quit fighting to eliminate the waste and abuse of this system, and indeed the corruption that is part of this earmarking.

I have listened to the arguments some of my colleagues continue to state; that eliminating the earmarks isn't necessary because they account for such a small part of our annual budget. Is that a reason to continue this practice?

I am aware that earmarks consume a small percentage of a budget measured in the trillions, but given the seriousness of our current situation and the problems that are confronting American families who wake up every morning wondering if they are going to lose their job or their house, or if they will still be able to afford their children's education, it is deeply offensive to them. It is deeply offensive that we in Congress can't exercise some fiscal discipline. It is all the more offensive given that we have had in recent times all the evidence we should require to understand that earmarks are so closely tied to acts of official corruption.

In a report entitled ``Why Earmarks Matter,'' the Heritage Foundation wrote:

They Invite Corruption: Congress does have a proper role in

determining the rules, eligibility and benefit criteria for

Federal grant programs. However, allowing lawmakers to select

exactly who receives government grants invites corruption.

Instead of entering a competitive application process within

a Federal agency, grant-seekers now often have to hire a

lobbyist to win the earmark auction. Encouraged by lobbyists

who saw a growth industry in the making, local governments

have become hooked on the earmark process for funding

improvement projects.

They Encourage Spending: While there may not be a causal

relationship between the two, the number of earmarks approved

each year tracks closely with growth in Federal spending.

They Distort Priorities: Many earmarks do not add new

spending by themselves, but instead redirect funds already

slated to be spent through competitive grant programs or by

States into specific projects favored by an individual

member. So, for example, if a member of the Nevada delegation

succeeded in getting a $2 million earmark to build a bicycle

trail in Elko in 2005, then that $2 million would be taken

out of the $254 million allocated to the Nevada Department of

Transportation for that year. So if Nevada had wanted to

spend that money fixing a highway and rapidly expanding Las

Vegas, thanks to the earmark, they would now be out of luck.

On March 17, a Roll Call editorial, ``Earmark Action,'' stated the following:

Even though they represent just a small fraction of Federal

spending, earmarks have accounted for an outsized proportion

of Congressional embarrassment over recent years, so we are

pleased to see House Democrats and Republicans moving to

limit them. But until the Senate goes along, or until

President Barack Obama determines to veto earmarks when they

come his way, the spectacle of special interest spending

won't stop--nor, with it, the public's suspicion that many

earmark projects are bought with campaign contributions.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the editorial from Roll Call from which I just quoted.

Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following articles: the article in the Wall Street Journal of March 17 entitled ``Earmarks in Reverse,'' the Washington Post article of March 12 entitled ``All Earmarks Should Be Banned in the House and Senate,'' the Steven and Cokie Roberts article entitled ``A Bribe By Any Other Name,'' the editorial of the Las Vegas Review-Journal entitled ``Going All In,'' and finally, the article of Matthew Bandyk of March 15, 2010, entitled ``Why Earmark Reform Has Not Changed Much In Congress.''

The reason I add those to the Record is because it isn't just my opinion, it is the opinion of the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and many other periodicals to this effect.

Also, we perhaps in the Congress might pay attention to the fact that a poll in the last couple of days shows a 17-percent approval of Congress. Our approval ratings are at an all-time low. There are a variety of reasons. It isn't all because of earmarks. It is because of the economic situation, it is because of the frustration, it is because of the belief by many Americans that we are not responsive to their problems and challenges they face, which are unprecedented in these days, especially when we are spending $1 million to rehabilitate a bathhouse at Hot Springs, AR, $1 million for a waterless urinal initiative, $250,000 for turf grass research, $500,000 for a teapot museum in North Carolina, $2 million for the Vulcan monument in Alabama or $556,000 for the Montana Sheep Institute.

Some may argue these are small amounts of money. But Americans don't understand when they can't stay in their homes or educate their kids or they can't keep their jobs, why Congress continues to engage in this practice.

Let me just say, in the interest of full disclosure, this problem was exacerbated when Republicans took control of both Houses of Congress. The Wall Street Journal says:

The reluctance to change is rooted in the Congressional

belief that earmarks are the main guarantee of incumbency.

Earmarks were relatively rare until the rise of the Tom DeLay

Republicans in the late 1990s. By 2005, the high-water mark

of the earmark craze, both parties had linked arms to add

13,500 pet projects to spending bills. Legislators crow about

their largesse and use it to land campaign money from earmark

recipients. This cash-for-votes mentality has become a symbol

of everything Americans hate about Washington. The recent

decision by the House ethics committee to put aside

allegations that seven House Members awarded earmarks in

order to secure campaign donations was another sign that

Congress wasn't serious about changing this culture of

special favors.

So I think, Madam President, we could take a major step in the direction of restoring confidence in us if we would just stop using the earmark process until the deficit is erased. I urge my colleagues to consider this proposal and to reconsider their opposition to it.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, this is a very complicated and complex, difficult amendment to understand. It would place a moratorium on all earmarks on years in which there is a deficit.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. President, before I get into the main topic, I obviously appreciate the passion of the Senator from Louisiana. It is unfortunate that she and the majority on the other side refuse to vote for the most important thing we could have done immediately for small business; that is, give them payroll tax relief and take the money out of the stimulus package, so much of which is being wasted on issues such as Davis-Bacon and environmental impact statements. We ought to give small businesses payroll tax relief immediately.

Now I wish to take this opportunity to speak about the ongoing cause of human rights and democracy in Russia. These are not issues we hear much about from the current Russian Government, unfortunately, unless it is to denounce those Russian citizens who aspire to these universal values.

I had an opportunity the other week to meet with one of these brave Russian champions of human rights, human dignity, and freedom--a man by the name of Boris Nemtsov. I know several other people and other Members of Congress had a similar opportunity to speak with him. Mr. Nemtsov is but one of the many Russians who believe their country deserves a government that enhances and enshrines the human rights of its people in an inviolable rule of law, that allows citizens to hold their leaders accountable through a real Democratic process. This Saturday, March 20, many Russian human rights activists are planning public demonstrations all across their great country--I might add at great risk, since there is very little doubt that the Russian Government may even forcibly repress some of these public demonstrations, which will be peaceful. I asked Mr. Nemtsov what we in Washington could do to support the cause of human rights in Russia, and he simply said: ``Speak up for it. Speak up for us.''

It is my pleasure to do that today.

The Russian Government will surely take whatever I say here and similar things said by others and try to paint Russia's champions of human rights and democracy as puppets and proxies of the United States. Of course, they would say and do the exact same thing even if no Americans spoke up for the human rights of Russia's citizens. So we should refrain from internalizing the Kremlin's talking points, especially when Russians themselves are requesting our moral support for their cause. Because the fact is, this isn't about particular individuals or particular demonstrations held this week or any week in Russia. This is about universal values--values that we in the United States embody but do not own, values that should shape the conduct of every government, be it ours or Russia's or any other country's. When we see citizens of conviction seeking to hold their governments to the higher standard of human rights, we should speak up for them.

This is all the more necessary when we realize the obstacles those citizens face, especially in Russia. I wish to read a passage from the 2009 Country Report on Human Rights Practices, which was recently released by our State Department. Here is how they described the human rights situation in Russia:

Direct and indirect government interference in local and

regional elections restricted the ability of citizens to

change their government through free and fair elections.

During the year, there were a number of high-profile killings

of human rights activists by unknown persons, apparently for

reasons related to their professional activities. There were

numerous credible reports that law enforcement personnel

engaged in physical abuse of subjects. Prison conditions were

harsh and could be life threatening. Eight journalists, many

of whom reported critically on the government, were killed

during the year. With one exception the government failed to

identify, arrest, or prosecute any suspects. Beating and

intimidation of journalists remained a problem. The

government limited freedom of assembly, and

police sometimes used violence to prevent groups from

engaging in peaceful protest.

It will be very interesting to see how the police and the government treat these demonstrations that will take place across Russia on March 20. These conditions would be intolerable in any country, and this conduct would be unacceptable for any government. Clearly, Russia today is not the Soviet Union, neither in its treatment of Russia's people nor in its foreign policy. But I fear that may be damning with faint praise, and Russians themselves are right to hold their country and their government up to higher standards.

Russia is a great nation, and like all Americans of good will, I want Russia to be strong and successful. I want Russia's economy to be a vibrant source of wealth and opportunity for all Russians. I want Russia to play a proud and responsible role in world affairs. I will continue to affirm in public and in private that the best way for Russians to secure what they say they care about most--reduced corruption, a strengthened and equitable rule of law, economic modernization--is by nurturing a pluralistic and free civil society, by building independent and sustainable institutions of democracy, and by respecting the human rights of all.

I was happy to see that Russian political parties not aligned with the Kremlin actually won more seats in regional parliamentary elections this week. Perhaps this signals a growing recognition among Russians that the authoritarian tendencies of the Kremlin need to be rolled back through popular opposition. Perhaps the Russian Government could allow future elections at all levels to be freer and fairer. Perhaps. But there is still a long way to go for the cause of democracy in Russia, and I hope these small electoral gains only embolden democracy's defenders.

As we speak up for the rights of Russia's dissidents, we must do the same for the rights of Russia's neighbors as well--neighbors such as the country of Georgia. I visited Georgia in January, and I had a chance to travel to the so-called ``administrative boundary line'' with the breakaway region of Abkhazia. On the other side of that boundary line is sovereign Georgian territory occupied by Russian troops, as it has been since the 2008 invasion. When I was in Munich last month for an annual security conference, I heard several Russian officials speaking from the same script, alleging acts of aggression by Georgian forces against Russian peacekeepers--the same kind of rhetoric we heard before the 2008 invasion. This should give us all pause. I know Washington has a lot of foreign policy challenges at the moment, but we cannot forget Georgia and the support it deserves amid a continuing threat from its neighbor to the north.

A Russian government that better protects the human dignity of its people would be more inclined to deal with its neighbors in peace and mutual respect. That is why we should all say a silent prayer and a public word of support for Russia's courageous human rights activists, as they make their voices heard this Saturday. These brave men and women want the best for their country. They want a government that is not only strong but just, peaceful, inclusive, and democratic. I urge Russia's leaders to recognize that peaceful champions of universal values are not a threat to Russia, and that groups such as this should not face the kinds of violence, repression, and intimidation that Russian authorities have used against similar demonstrators in the past. The eyes of the world will be watching.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, earlier today the senior Senator from Oklahoma incorrectly claimed that an article entitled, ``McCain Breaks Own Pork Rule'' that ran in Roll Call on November 6, 2003, proved that I had broken my pledge against requesting earmarks. However, the Senator failed to mention that Roll Call subsequently ran a correction to this article on November 17, 2003, stating that, ``the article inaccurately stated that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) violated his own rules against so-called ``pork barrel'' spending.'' I ask unanimous consent that the entirety of the original story and, more importantly, the correction published in Roll Call be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and that I be allowed to call up four amendments that are at the desk. They are amendment No. 3472, Amendment No. 3475, an amendment that has been at the desk on FAA reauthorization and--they are all at the desk--and the fourth concerns the Federal Aviation Administration finance proposal for development and implementation of technology for the Next Generation Air Transportation System.

Is amendment No. 3528 on the Grand Canyon National Park?

I would like to discuss all four amendments briefly. The first is the prohibition on earmarks in years in which there is a deficit. I have been pleased and somewhat surprised over the past week to hear about the renewed bipartisan interest in banning earmarks. I am thankful for the attention and I welcome the House Democratic leadership to the fight against earmarks.

According to last Thursday's Washington Post:

Facing an election year backlash over runaway spending and

ethics scandals, House Democrats moved Wednesday to ban

earmarks for private companies, sparking a war between the

parties over which would embrace the most dramatic steps to

change the way business is done in Washington.

I was pleased to see that the Speaker of the House and the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee have recognized earmarks for what they are: a corrupting influence that should not be tolerated in these times of fiscal crisis.

I applaud my Republican colleagues in the House and Senate, especially Senators Coburn and DeMint, who have called for a year-long moratorium on all earmarks. I fully support and join them in those efforts, but I think we need to do more.

We need a complete ban on earmarks until our budget is balanced and we have eliminated our massive deficit. This amendment promises to do just that. I encourage my colleagues to join

me in this effort. It is what the American people want. We have an obligation to give it to them.

I am pleased to be joined by my good friend from Indiana, Senator Bayh.

Amendment No. 3472

The next amendment I would like to discuss very quickly is that no funds from the passenger facility fee could be used to construct bike storage facilities at airports.

As many know, the passenger facility fee is assessed on every ticket for any flight. Currently, this fee is $4.50 per flight. During these very difficult economic times for most Americans, the bill from the House raises this fee to $7 and indexes it to inflation. It is frustrating, but it is more frustrating that taxes and fees make up as much as 25 percent of every passenger's airline ticket.

I think most airline passengers would agree with me that they would rather see more improvements to ensure faster travel times and safer departures and arrivals.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported earlier this year, on January 14, 2010, that $1.5 million of passenger facility fees were used for a ``function art project of glass panels laminated with patterns of tree bark.''

It sounds beautiful, but I know most Americans want these excessive fees and charges to be used effectively and for the goal that Congress intended: to improve safety and performance.

Amendment No. 3527

On the issue of the amendment concerning moving Next Generation air traffic control forward, this amendment would require the FAA to report back to Congress in 90 days with proposals for innovative financing mechanisms to further the deployment and implementation of a modernized air traffic control system known as NextGen.

Specifically, the report requires these innovative financing proposals to not increase our Federal deficit and consider public- private partnerships. As the distinguished chairman of the committee knows all so well, modernizing our outdated air traffic control system will positively impact all Americans by decreasing airport delays, improving the flow of commerce, and advancing our Nation's air quality by reducing aircraft carbon emissions.

Every day Americans sit on a runway and miss meetings, children's soccer games, family dinners, and other important events due to air traffic delays that could have been avoided if our Nation had a modernized air traffic control system.

Thousands of goods are delayed for delivery each year due to air traffic delays which results in more than $40 billion in costs each year that are passed on to consumers, according to the Joint Economic Committee.

The Government Accountability Office estimates that one in every four flights in the United States of America is delayed. The airlines have called our air traffic control system ``an outdated World War II radar system.''

The FAA's Next Generation Air Transportation System, NextGen, will transform the current ground-based radar air traffic control system to one that uses precision satellites, digital network communications, and an integrated weather system.

Moving from a ground-based to a satellite-based system will enable more flights to occupy the same airspace, meaning the ontime performance improvements would be a reality, and would triple the aircraft capacity according to airlines. However, the administration and Congress have not provided adequate funding toward air traffic control modernization, and instead continue to fund billions of dollars of earmarks. The FAA estimates it will cost up to $42 billion to implement a modern air traffic control system.

Congress appropriated $188 million for air traffic control modernization in 2008, and $638 million in 2009, then another $358 million in the fiscal year 2010 Department of Transportation appropriations bill. However, that same bill dedicated $1.7 billion on transportation earmarks. We have to stop spending billions of dollars and instead cut spending or at least spend taxpayers' dollars on worthy projects.

Again, I would like to thank the chairman of the committee for his efforts over many years on FAA modernization. There is no doubt the airlines are right when they describe our air traffic control system as ``an outdated World War II radar system.''

It is a shame that all of these years we have had attempts that failed and wasted billions of dollars in our efforts to modernize the air traffic control system, and we have failed. But we have to redouble our efforts.

As we expect the economy to recover, there will be more aircraft flying in crowded airspace. There will be a more dangerous situation unless we modernize our air traffic control system.

Amendment No. 3528

The final amendment I have is to provide standards for determining whether the substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the Grand Canyon National Park has been achieved, and to clarify regulatory authority with respect to commercial air tours operating over the park.

I see my colleagues waiting, and I will not take a lot of time on this amendment. But I would like to mention to my colleagues that it was approximately 25 years ago that I proposed legislation to restore natural quiet in the great experience over the Grand Canyon National Park.

All of these years have intervened and there still have not been regulations written to implement that legislation. All of us share the same goal. We have been able to sit down, with the help of the majority leader's office, Senator Ensign's office, Senator Kyl's office, and others to try to make progress on this important issue.

I think we have brought all parties together. I think there is consensus. So I am hoping that we will be able to adopt this amendment without further disagreement. It is important that we restore the natural quiet and experience of the Grand Canyon National Park. At the same time, it is also very important that people from all over the world have the opportunity to enjoy one of the great and magnificent experiences that any person can have; that is, to view the Grand Canyon from the air as well as from the ground.

I think this legislation represents that careful balance. I thank Senator Reid and Senator Ensign and Senator Kyl for their efforts in crafting this legislation. It is time we acted. I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am proud to introduce an amendment along with Senators Reid, Ensign and Kyl to clarify the Grand Canyon Overflights Act of 1987 that sought to restore the natural quiet of the canyon from commercial air tour overflights. After 23 years of numerous rulemakings by the National Park Service and the Federal Aviation Administration, and a lawsuit in 2002, it is now time to move forward to ensure that the 5 million visitors to the Grand Canyon can enjoy its majestic beauty by air or by foot without excessive noise from commercial air tour operators.

Specifically, this amendment would set forth in statute the ``substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the Grand Canyon'' is achieved if for at least 75 percent of each day-- between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m--50 percent of the park is free from the sound produced by commercial air tour operations. Additionally, the amendment provides curfews for overflights, particularly during the peak visitor season, so many visitors can enjoy the grand sunset at the Grand Canyon relatively free from overflight noise.

The amendment also sets forth curfews and reduced flight allocations for specific parts of the canyon that are particularly special for many visitors, including the Dragon Corridor on the west rim in the vicinity of Hermits Rest and Dripping Spring, the Zuni Point Corridor that includes the area known as ``Snoopy's Nose,'' and Marble Canyon. I have many fond memories of hiking the canyon with my sons, most recently just last year, and I hope all Americans are able to enjoy the beauty of the canyon without the interference of excessive noise from air tours. I believe this amendment allows without waiting another 23 years for progress.

Over the past few years, there have been strong improvements in quiet technology for aircraft. I am pleased that several of the air tour operators that provide air tours at the Grand Canyon have migrated to quiet technology aircraft. This amendment would mandate the conversion to quiet technology for all air tour operations within 15 years of enactment. Additionally, this amendment provides numerous incentives for operators to convert to quiet technology, including a reduced park entrance fee and increased flight allocations for aircraft that utilize quiet technology.

Lastly, this amendment requires the FAA to review flight allocations for air tour operators serving the Grand Canyon. These allocations have not been reviewed since 2001 and are based on 1990s data. Tourism is essential to Arizona's economic recovery. Over 37 million visitors came to Arizona in 2008 generating over $2.5 billion in tax revenues. There are over 300,000 jobs in Arizona that are tied to tourism in Arizona, and we must ensure that these jobs continue to exist and grow.

Over 5 million tourists, hikers and adventure seekers visited the Grand Canyon in 2008. These visitors have also contributed millions of dollars to the great States of Arizona and Nevada, in addition to the local communities surrounding the Grand Canyon. We must ensure that these visitors have the ability to view the canyon by air if they wish to do so, but in a manner that maintains ``natural quite'' for those visiting the canyon by foot. I think this amendment achieves that goal.

Again, I am proud to have the support of Senators Reid, Ensign, and Kyl who share my commitment to continuing the progress that has been made toward establishing ``natural quiet'' at the Grand Canyon, while continuing to ensure that its majesty is available to be viewed by air for those who wish to do so. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. President, I say to my friend, I know he has been observing in the last few days the events that have transpired in regard to the situation in Israel and the reaction of the United States to the announcement that there would be additional housing construction in areas the Israelis believe are within the boundaries that will exist once peace is settled, and that the Palestinians are of the view that it is their area--as there are many territorial disputes between the Palestinians and the Israelis, which is one of the reasons there is a compelling argument for a peace process.

I know my friend from Connecticut is disturbed, as I am, about the level of tension in the public discourse that has been going on, which cannot only not be helpful to Israeli-U.S. relations but also to the ability of Israel to deal with other tensions in the region and the existential threats they face from their neighbors who have threatened their extinction.

So I have had the great pleasure and honor of travelling to Israel on numerous occasions with my friend from Connecticut. I would state for the record that no one has a closer relationship and a better understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian situation and the urgency of the peace process.

I would just ask my friend, doesn't he think if we want the Israeli Government to act in a way that would be more in keeping with our objectives, that it does not help them to have public disparagement by the Secretary of State, by the President's political adviser on the Sunday shows? On the contrary, shouldn't we lower the dialog, talk quietly among friends, and work together toward the mutual goals we share?

Could I ask my colleague, shouldn't we be emphasizing what I very much appreciated? Vice President Biden--and I quote him-- said:

In my experience one necessary precondition for progress

[toward peace in the Middle East] is that every time progress

is made, it's made when the rest of the world knows there is

absolutely no space between the United States and Israel when

it comes to security, none.

I thought the Vice President had it exactly right, and as the Senator says: Look, mistakes are made. It is a government in Israel which is sometimes interesting to watch, particularly when you watch the proceedings in the Knesset, the parliamentary proceedings.

But somehow it seems that the rhetoric has escalated and maybe given the impression to the wrong people--the neighbors of Israel who have stated time after time they are bent on Israel's extinction; the statements by Ahmadinejad that he wants to ``wipe Israel off the map''--and that perhaps there may be sufficient space, as the Vice President pointed out, that they could exploit that in a way that would be harmful to the State of Israel. I know that was not the intention of the President's political adviser on Sunday, and it is not the intention of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State knows the Israelis very well. She has had dealings with all of the countries in the region. She is very knowledgeable and experienced.

I hope all of us would realize, let's lower the rhetoric. Let's try and fix the problems that exist amongst the close friends we are rather than escalate the tensions that exist in a very dangerous time.

The Senator from Connecticut and I were recently briefed about perhaps increased tensions in southern Lebanon, the possibility of attacks from southern Lebanon into Israel, the continued nuclear buildup on the part of the Iranians, the continued statements of assertiveness by the President of Syria, al-Assad.

There are increased tensions in the region, and this is not the time--certainly, most importantly, not the time--that we give the impression that there is such differences between ourselves and Israel that it could be exploited by Israel's enemies.

Mr. President, wouldn't my colleague agree that the original purpose of the Vice President's trip, as I understand it, was a precursor or even an announcement of indirect talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis, using the good auspices of Senator George Mitchell? So the trip was a signal to the world that the process of peace between Israelis and the Palestinians was on track, and a beginning, albeit a modest one, was taking place.

So it might be good if our friends in the administration--and other places in the United States--could start refocusing our efforts on the peace process, which came very close to the beginning--again, modest, indirect but still beginning--of peace talks and emphasize the need to commence those, assure our Arab friends in the region of our commitment to the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks, and move forward in that direction. We need to understand that the Prime Minister of Israel has apologized and is trying, as the Senator from Connecticut pointed out, to put a mechanism in place to make sure that an incident of this nature would not arise again.

So we could go back--I will not--and be very critical of the Obama administration's initial demand of a complete freeze of settlements which was, in my view, an unnecessary precondition and an impediment, but that is done also. So now we have had our spat, we have had our family fight, and it is time for us to now stop. We have to get our eye back on the goal, which is the commencement of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, and move forward with that--and I know the Senator from Connecticut shares my view--particularly with the leadership we are seeing on the Palestinian side. The chances for fruitful negotiations are better than they have been since the time the Senator from Connecticut cited back when President Clinton had Arafat and Ehud Barak to Camp David.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Connecticut.

I rise today to address the very concerning, and unfortunately very public, tensions that have broken out recently between the governments of the United States and Israel. I am not here to take sides or to call out one party at the expense of the other. There have been enough accusations, recriminations, and bad blood.

I certainly understand the anger felt by members of the U.S. administration that the announcement of new settlement construction in East Jerusalem by Israel's Interior Ministry simply seemed intended to embarrass Vice President Biden in the middle of his visit. I can also understand the anger felt by Israelis that the U.S. reaction to this announcement has been out of step with the announcement itself. At this point, there is little to be gained by either side by focusing on their anger, however justified they feel it is. It is now time to focus on what matters most: the common interests we share, the urgent need for cooperation between us, and the large capacity within our alliance to move beyond differences and work together.

Vice President Biden spoke to exactly these themes in his excellent speech in Tel Aviv during his recent visit to Israel--a speech, I would add, that was delivered 2 days after the Interior Ministry's announcement. Perhaps the most correct and important thing the Vice President said was this: ``In my experience one necessary precondition for progress toward peace in the Middle East is that every time progress is made, it's made when the rest of the world knows there is absolutely no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to security, none.'' This is absolutely correct, and we all need to remember it right now.

We now have a conservative Israeli leader who is committed to the goal of two States for two peoples, living side by side in peace and security. We have a leadership in the Palestinian Authority that is committed to beginning negotiations while also building the institutions of a democratic Palestinian state, including effective security forces that can enforce the rule of law and fight terrorism. We have a U.S. administration, and U.S. Congress, that is committed to being engaged in and supportive of the pursuit of peace in the Middle East.

So let us focus on the opportunity we have, the United States and Israel together, as historic allies, to achieve goals that serve both our interests. The United States is completely committed to Israel's security, so Israel can feel totally confident in taking on the large and difficult decisions that peace requires. As the Vice President said, there should be no space between these allies--none.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I say to my friend, obviously, the answer to that question is, they continue to go back to the Congressional Budget Office with different assumptions in order to get the answers they want when the American people have figured it out.

Again, I know my friend from Tennessee saw yesterday's news, which has to be considered in the context of the cost of this bill, which Congressman Ryan estimates at around $2.5 trillion with true budgeting over 10 years. But we cannot ignore the fundamental fact that ``the government ran up''--this is an AP article yesterday:

The government ran up the largest monthly deficit in

history in February, keeping the flood of red ink on track to

top last year's record for the full year.

The Treasury Department said Wednesday that the February deficit totaled $220.9 billion, 14 percent higher than the previous record set in February of last year.

The deficit through the first 5 months of this budget year

totals $651.6 billion, 10.5 percent higher than a year ago.

The Obama administration is projecting that the deficit for

the 2010 budget year will hit an all-time high of $1.56

trillion, surpassing last year's of $1.4 trillion total.

I say to my friend from Tennessee, these are numbers that in our younger years we would not believe. We would not believe we could be running up these kinds of deficits. Yet we hear from the President and from the administration that things are getting better--certainly not from the debt we are laying onto future generations of Americans.

May I mention also in this context--I wonder if my friend from Tennessee will agree with me that there is so much anger out there over porkbarrel spending and earmark spending that the Speaker of the House said they are going to ban earmarks in the other body for for-profit companies. I think that is a step forward. Why not ban them all? Immediately they would set up shadow outfits.

Chairman Obey says that would be 1,000 earmarks. In one bill last year, there were 9,000 earmarks. So why don't we take the final step and put a moratorium on earmarks until we have a balanced budget, until there is no more deficit? I think that is what the American people wanted to get rid of--this corruption that continues there.

But I would also mention to my friend from Tennessee very briefly that the President, when he and I sat next to each other at Blair House, and I talked about the special deals for the special interests and the unsavory deal that was cut with PhRMA and how the American people are as angry about the process as the product, the President's response to me was--and there is a certain accuracy associated with it--the campaign is over.

Well, I would remind my friend that before the campaign--even before the campaign--when the President was still a Senator, he said this about reconciliation:

You know, the Founders designed this system, as frustrating

[as] it is, to make sure that there's a broad consensus

before the country moves forward. . . . And what we have now

is a president who--

And there he was referring to President Bush--

hasn't gotten his way. And that is now prompting, you know, a

change in the Senate rules that really I think would change

the character of the Senate forever. . . . And what I worry

about would be you essentially have still two chambers--the

House and the Senate--but you have simply majoritarian

absolute power on either side, and that's just not what the

founders intended.

That was a statement by then-Senator Barack Obama. Then he went on to say:

I would try to get a unified effort saying this is a

national emergency to do something about this. We need the

Republicans, we need the Democrats.

Just yesterday, of course, at rallies around the country, he said: It is time to vote.

It is time to vote, is his message, which certainly is attractive. We will be glad to vote. But we want to vote preserving the institution of the Senate and the 60-vote rule.

In the interest of full disclosure, Republicans, when they were in the majority, tried to change it, as the Senator from Tennessee remembers. But the fact is, if we take away the 60-vote majority that has characterized the way this body has proceeded, we would then have just what then-Senator Obama said:

You essentially have still two Chambers--the House and the

Senate--but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on

either side, and that's just not what the founders intended.

I wonder if my colleague from Tennessee would like to comment on whether the President still believes that is not what the Founders intended.

I would also remind my friend from Tennessee of Senator Byrd's comments regarding reconciliation and health care reform.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Senator Robert Byrd's statement on the floor of the Senate from April of 2001.

Let me explain his objection to using reconciliation to pass controversial health care legislation by quoting from Senator Robert Byrd:

The Democratic leadership pleaded with me at length to

agree to support the idea that the Clinton health care bill

should be included in that year's reconciliation package.

President Clinton got on the phone and called me also and

pressed me to allow his massive health care bill to be

insulated by reconciliation's protection. I felt that changes

as dramatic as the Clinton health care package, which would

affect every man, woman child in the United States would be

subject to scrutiny.

I said, Mr. President, I cannot in good conscience turn my

face the other way. That's why we have a Senate. To amend and

debate freely. And that health bill, as important as it is,

is so complex, so far-reaching that the people of this

country need to know what's in it.

Let me note here what the Speaker of the House said on March 9:

We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is

in it.

Now, continuing to quote from Senator Robert Byrd:

And, moreover, Mr. President, we Senators need to know

what's in it before we vote. And he accepted that. He

accepted that. Thanked me and said good bye.

I could not, I would not, and I did not allow that package

to be handled in such a cavalier manner. It was the threat of

the use of the Byrd rule. Reconciliation was never, never,

never intended to be a shield, to be used as a shield for

controversial legislation.

I might also point out that the Senator from Tennessee mentioned the process. I don't think the American people understand that if the House passes the Senate bill, every one of these sweetheart deals that were included behind closed-door negotiations in the majority leader's office and in the White House will remain in that bill. We Republicans have all signed a letter, 41 votes, that we will not accept any change or amendment, whether it is good or bad, because we oppose the use of reconciliation, as Robert Byrd did so eloquently back in 2001.

Will the C-SPAN cameras be in those meetings, I would ask my friend?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article entitled ``Health-Care Reform's Sickeningly Sweet Deals'' by Kathleen Parker, which appeared in the Washington Post on Wednesday, March 10.

I think Kathleen Parker says it best, and let me quote from her article:

Skipping through the Candy Land of the health-care bill,

one is tempted to hum a few bars of ``Let Me Call You

Sweetheart.'' What a deal. For dealmakers, that is. Not so

much for American taxpayers, who have been misled into

thinking the sweetheart deals have been excised.

That is why I say to my friend from Tennessee, it is important the American people understand that the Senate bill cannot be changed without coming back to the Senate. Therefore, all these deals they have pledged to remove will be in the bill that will be voted on by the other body--the ``Cornhusker kickback,'' which, by the way, had to secure 100 percent Federal funding for Nebraska's Medicaid expansion in perpetuity, among other hidden prizes to benefit locally based insurance companies. When other States complained about the unfair treatment, President Obama and Congress fixed it by increasing the Federal share of Medicaid to all States through 2017, after which all amounts are supposed to decrease. But they didn't fix it.

Anyway, I think it is important for us to understand that these sweetheart deals have not been removed and that we are in opposition to this entire reconciliation which would lead to the erosion and eventual destruction of the 60-vote procedure that has characterized the way the Senate has operated.

I have been in the majority, and I have been in the minority, and when I have been in the majority, we have been frustrated by the 60- vote rule and vice versa. Some of the people who are doing the greatest complaining and arguing about the fact that we have a 60-vote rule are the same ones who were the most steadfast defenders of it in past years when they were in the minority. That alone is enough argument for us to leave the process alone.

I believe historians will show that there are times where the 60-vote rule, because of the exigency of the moment, averted us from taking actions; and later on, in perhaps calmer times, we were glad that we did not act at that time.

Madam President, may I ask the Senator from Wyoming if is he aware of a letter written to House leadership, representing, I believe, 85,000 physicians who oppose this legislation?

Let me quote a little for my colleague, Dr. Barrasso:

The undersigned state and national specialty medical

societies--representing more than 85,000 physicians and the

millions of patients they serve--are writing to oppose

passage of the ``Patient Protection and Affordable Care

Act.'' The changes that were recently proposed by President

Obama do not address our many concerns with this legislation,

and we therefore urge you to draft a more patient-centered

bill that will reform the country's flawed system for

financing healthcare, while preserving the best healthcare in

the world.

At this point, I want to ask my friend, the doctor, isn't it true that included in this legislation remains the so-called doc fix, and that there will be a 21-percent cut in doctors payments for treatment of Medicare enrollees? There is no one in America who believes that cut will actually be enacted, which then makes the comments by supporters of this bill false on their face--just that alone. I believe that is $371 billion; is that correct?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3475.

I understand that is the process right now. However, I will discuss the amendment. It is very simple. It would place a moratorium on all earmarks in years in which there is a deficit. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my good friend from Indiana Senator Bayh. I thank him for his leadership and courage.

I am sure I don't need to remind my colleagues about our Nation's fiscal situation. But let's review the facts anyway. This morning the Treasury Department announced that the government racked up a record high monthly budget deficit of $220.9 billion last month. We now have a deficit of over $1.4 trillion and a debt of over $12.5 trillion. I recently have seen a bumper sticker in Arizona that says: Please don't tell the President what comes after a trillion.

Unemployment remains close to 10 percent. According to Forbes.com, a record 2.8 million American households were threatened with foreclosure last year. That number is expected to rise to well over 3 million homes this year. Even with all of this, we continue to spend and spend and spend. Every time we pass an appropriations bill with increased spending loaded up with earmarks, we are robbing future generations of their ability to obtain the American dream. I believe that is immoral. That is why I have been pleased and somewhat surprised over the last several days to hear about the renewed bipartisan interest in banning earmarks. I am thankful for the attention. I welcome the Democratic House leadership to the fight against earmarks.

According to today's Washington Post:

Facing an election year backlash over runaway spending and

ethics scandals, House Democrats moved Wednesday to ban

earmarks for private companies, sparking a war between the

parties over which would embrace the most dramatic steps to

change the way business is done in Washington.

I applaud the Democrats in the other body for this step. It is a small step, but it is a step in the right direction. As House Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey pointed out, the fiscal year 2010 budget included more than 1,000 earmarks for private companies. So the effect of the moratorium proposed by the other body would be a reduction of about 1,000 earmarks. The problem with this is that there were over 9,000 earmarks loaded onto just one of the bills we passed last year.

According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, last year's earmarks funded by Congress but not requested by the administration totaled $15.9 billion. So we spent $15.9 billion on earmarks while we are facing the highest national debt in history. Additionally, according to today's Congressional Quarterly, ``there are several significant catches'' to the House Democrats' earmark moratorium. They note:

If a program is not formally considered an earmark,

according to congressional rules, for instance, it could

escape any ban. Billions of dollars in spending for the

defense industry could end up slipping through that caveat

alone, analysts say.

So why am I not surprised. Thankfully, the House Republican caucus recognized the fact that the Speaker's proposal did little to seriously address the problem so they upped the ante and voted unanimously to impose an across-the-board earmark ban on their conference. I congratulate Mr. Boehner and especially Congressman Flake of Arizona for taking this bold step. It was the right thing to do.

Unfortunately, this newfound zeal for attacking earmarks is not shared by their Senate counterparts. According to today's Congressional Quarterly:

Senate Democrats signal that they would not follow suit,

even as senior House Republicans responded that all earmarks

should be banned.

Congressional Quarterly also noted:

It is not clear where Majority Leader Harry Reid stands.

His office declined to comment on the House appropriations

move. But the Senate appropriators' opposition does not bode

well for a ban's prospects in that body.

Again, I am not surprised. The Washington Post article I cited earlier also noted that:

The latest earmark reform efforts follow a wave of

investigations focusing on House appropriators' actions. The

Justice Department has looked into the earmarking activities

of several lawmakers and, relying on public documents, the

House Ethics Committee investigated five Democrats and two

Republicans on the Appropriations defense subcommittee,

finding that the lawmakers steered more than $245 million to

clients of a lobbying firm under federal criminal

investigation.

The lawmakers collected more than $840,000 in political

contributions from the firm's lobbyists and clients in a

little more than two years.

The battle over earmarks has been waged over many years--I have been engaged in it for 20 years--and I am under no illusions that it will end anytime soon. I was encouraged in January 2007 when the Senate passed, by a vote of 96 to 2, an ethics and lobbying reform package which contained, meaningful earmark reforms. I believed that at last we would finally enact some effective reforms. Unfortunately, that victory was short lived.

In August 2007--some 8 months later--we were presented with a bill containing very watered-down earmark provisions and doing far too little to rein in wasteful earmarks and porkbarrel spending. I find myself encouraged by what I have heard over the last several days, but I have been around here long enough to know not to get my hopes up. I do not look at this as being cynical, just practical.

Let's take a look at some of the things we have spent hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars on over the last several years: $165,000 for maple syrup research in Vermont; $150,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Honolulu; $250,000 for turtle observer funding; $500,000 for the Bellevue Arts Museum in Washington; $2 million for the algae research in Washington; $500,000--one of my all-time favorites; it comes back all the time--to the National Wild Turkey Federation in Nebraska; $799,000 for soybean research; $349,000 for pig waste management in North Carolina; $819,000 for catfish genome research in Alabama; $250,000 for gypsy moth research in New Jersey; $1 million for potato research at Oregon State University--and the list goes on--a $250,000 earmark for the Iowa Vitality Center at Iowa State University. The list goes on and on.

For over 20 years, I have fought vigorously against the wasteful practice of earmarking. The fight has been a lonely one and has not won me friends in this town over the years. But it is an important fight, and I am confident that, in the end, the opponents of this practice will be victorious. The corruption which stems from earmarking has resulted in current and former Members of both the House and the Senate

either under investigation, under indictment, or in prison.

Again, I was pleased to see that the Speaker of the House and the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee have recognized earmarks for what they are: a corrupting influence that should not be tolerated in these times of fiscal crisis--or ever. I applaud my Republican colleagues in the House and Senate, especially Senators Coburn and DeMint, who have called for a yearlong moratorium on all earmarks. I fully support and join them in those efforts.

But I also think we need to do more. We need a complete ban on earmarks until our budget is balanced and we have eliminated our massive deficit. This amendment, if considered--and I will make it considered at one point or another--will have a proposal to do just that, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort. It is what the American people want, and we have an obligation to give it to them.

We, as Members of Congress, owe it to the American people to conduct ourselves in a way that reinforces, rather than diminishes, the public's faith and confidence in Congress. An informed citizenry is essential to a thriving democracy, and a democratic government operates best in the disinfecting light of the public eye. By seriously addressing the corrupting influence of earmarks, we will allow Members to legislate with the imperative that our government must be free from corrupting influences, both real and perceived. We must act now to ensure that the erosion we see today in the public's confidence in Congress does not become a complete collapse of faith in our institutions. We can and we must end the practice of earmarking.

I have traveled around the country and all around my home State of Arizona. I have seen the Tea Party participants. I have met citizens in my State who have never ever been involved in the political process before. They are angry, they are frustrated, and they want change. They want the change that was promised them last November, which they have not gotten. They want us to act as careful stewards of their tax dollars.

Just the other night, my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, and I were on a teleconference call to the citizens of our State, and many thousands of them were on the call, and we responded to their questions. A guy on the phone--he was from Thatcher, AZ--said: I've never been involved nor cared much about politics before. But you have gotten me off the couch.

``You have gotten me off the couch.'' We have lots of people ``off the couch'' because they are saying: Enough. They are saying: Enough of a $1.4 trillion debt this year and an increase in that debt for next year of some $1.5 trillion and an accumulated debt of $12.5 trillion. They believe we have spent too much and we have taxed too much.

So I hope we can send a message by completely banning earmarks and go through the appropriate process for the funding of sometimes much needed projects; that is, the authorization and then appropriation route. Many people believe I am saying--I and those of us who oppose earmarks--that we are against any projects for anyone's State or much needed help.

It is not the case. What we are saying is that we want any project and expenditure of taxpayers' dollars authorized and then appropriated. That way, by authorizing, the authorizing committees can compare all the virtues or the necessities of every project and match them up against one another rather than an appropriation being added in the middle of the night that is directly related to a position on the Appropriations Committee or a position of influence rather than merit. We cannot afford to continue that practice which has led to the anger and cynicism of the American people, and also has led over time to the investigation, sometimes indictment, and even incarceration of Members of Congress in Federal prison.

So I urge my colleagues to now stand up and do the right thing; that is, to ban the earmarks, at least until we can tell the American people we have eliminated this debt we have laid on our children and our grandchildren.

I say to the distinguished chairman of the committee, I did have an amendment on bicycle storage facilities, and one other. Perhaps at the appropriate time--I will be glad to brief the chairman and his staff-- it would be appropriately in order.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.