we are continuing this kind of obscene process, which not only -- which not only is wrong on its face but breeds corruption here in washington. madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that the yahoo story by a.p. story "senate set to advance $1.1 trillion spending bill" be included. the abc news story and the fox news story "watchdogs cry foul over thousands of earmarks in spending bill" be included in the record at this time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: madam president, i -- i'm sorry to be repetitive, and i know my colleague is waiting so i'll end with this. this is wrong. we all know it's wrong. the american people know it's wrong. people who vote for this kind of pork-barrel spending are going to be punished by the voters,

and we're going to end this obscene process and we're going to end it soon, as early as the next election. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, we are now considering a bill that represents the dramatic expansion in government spending. as the senator from arizona has so eloquently stated, this omnibus appropriation bill represents a 12% increase over last year, a fiscal year that ended with the largest deficit in american history of of $1.4 trillion. i don't know of any other area in the economy where people are spending 12% over what they spent last year. no family in america, no business in america is spending 12% more this year than they did last year. while we see 10% of our people

unemployed. millions of families across the country and small businesses are, in fact, tightening their budgets. but the budgets of these federal agencies, and of the federal government itself, keeps expanding. 33% increase of spending for foreign operations. a 23% increase in transportation, housing, and urban development. one of the worst things that this spending is doing is creating tremendous uncertainty, both here at home and other places like china, which are buying our debt, about whether we are ever going to get serious about our fiscal responsibility. the president asked last week why job creators were not stepping up and creating jobs. well, the fact of the matter is people are watching what we're doing here in congress, and they don't know what the rules will be six months from now or a year

from now or whether congress will ever recover from this binge its been on when it comes to spending. but it's clear we cannot spend -- we cannot spend our way out of this recession. job creators are scared. they're scared. and they're sitting on the sidelines because all of the spending, all of the tax increases, all of the government takeovers coming out of washington, d.c., these days, leave them with the answer is that they don't know what the rules are going to be and why in the world would you want to create a job, expand your business or make an investment when the very premise upon which you did so would change because of all the chaos here in washington. the facts of our debt crisis are not in dispute. the total public debt stands at about $12 trillion. we have in 2009, a $1.4 trillion

fiscal deficit. in other words, we spent more than $1.4 million than the treasury brought in in fiscal year 2009. and then we're accumulating dent even faster during this year than we did last. according to the treasury department, the deficit for the first two months -- two months of the new fiscal year was almost $300 billion. $300 billion for two months. a total larger than the full year deficits in 2002, 2006, or 2007. so in two months the deficit is worse than the entire years of 2002, 2006, and 2007. our deficits will average nearly $1 trillion every year for the next decade. $1 trillion every year for the next decade according to the administration. and this ought to be a shot,

this week's moody's investor service said its debt rating on u.s. treasury securities -- quote -- "may test the triple a boundaries." now the translation of that is that they are beginning to doubt whether -- at some point whether the united states government will be able to pay its bills or will default on those bills at some point. hopefully not any time soon. but this is the sort of pressure we are putting on -- not only on our ability to create jobs, but on our future and particularly on our children's future if we cause moody's investor service and others to rate u.s. treasury securities less than triple a rated. we know soon our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to have congress lift to -- lift the debt ceiling. this is like the credit limit on your credit card. once congress is bumped up

against that $12 trillion debt ceiling, congress is going to have a vote on whether to ask the american people, and people buying our debt, whether we can increase the limits of our credit card because we maxed it out. media reports indicate that the majority intends to slip this provision into a bill on funding our troops in afganistan. because, frankly, they're embarrassed to have a stand alone vote on raising the debt ceiling. especially because they know that there are many of us here on both sides of the aisle that will insist on some measure to affect some discipline on this spending binge as a condition to voting on the debt ceiling. but whatever the vehicle that the majority leader decides upon, they cannot hide the fact that we are borrowing money so fast that we'll have to raise the debt ceiling another 15%. conveniently this increase will get the government through the next mid-term elections, it's

reported, according to some experts. not a coincidence. no one, particularly those in control of the congress, want to have another vote on lifting the debt ceiling or asking the american people to raise the credit card limit before the next election. because they know the american people are increasingly angry and frightened by the spending binge that they see here and particularly the accumulating debt. that's not even getting to the financial crisis that entitlement programs are facing, like medicare and social security. we know that medicare, that its unfunded liabilities are rough roughly $38 trillion. now, i realize that number is so big that there are perhaps none of us that can fully comprehend how much money that is. but $38 trillion in unfunded liabilities for medicare alone. and, yet, the proposed medicare compromise, among 10 democrats, would roughly double the burden

of medicare and not fix it, but actually make things worse. well, madam president, i want to mention one other item of fiscal irresponsibility that i witnessed. i think we need to cancel one of the credit cards that been used by the administration, not just this it administration, but the past administration, and congress for purposes that congress never intended it when it authorized this program. the troubled asset relief program or tarp. and i know the senator from south dakota's on the floor. he's been one of the leaders in this effort because he believes, as i -- i think as i do that we can't mend it, so we need to end it. we need to cut out this revolving credit account that's being used for inappropriate purposes known as tarp, the troubled asset relief program. now, let's go back and look at why tarp was authorized by

congress in october of 2008. it's important to remember what the situation was at this time. treasury secretary henry paulson, and federal reserve chairman ben bernanke, had many conversations with legislators on both end of the capitol on both sides of the aisle. they said on their public on september 23, secretary paulson said that congress must act -- quote -- "in order to avoid a continuing series of financial institution failures an frozen credit markets that threaten the very health of our economy." in private the diagnosis was even more dire. we were told that we're literally days away from a complete financial meltdown in the united states unless congress act to authorize the troubled asset relief program. now, madam president, many of us, including myself, voted for tarp because we were told by the

-- the smartest people on the planet that unless we did this, our economy would suffer an economic meltdown. but i must tell you that i'm extremely disappointed when the very nature of the program was changed after congress authorized it. for example, we were told by secretary paulson, and others, that the money would be used for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to purchase toxic assets. well, you know, there's a saying that says, fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me. and we were fooled into believing that the tarp would be used to purchase these toxic assets and get them off the books as a way of protecting pensions, savings, and investments in hard-working american taxpayers. unfortunately, the very people who promised us and told us what

purpose the tarp would be used for misled us. because two administrations now, the previous administration and this administration, have used tarp as if it were a big government slush fund. they ignored the clear language of the tarp legislation and they have repeatedly defied the will of congress. now, let me briefly mention how the tarp funds have been used in a way that congress never authorized and never intended. only weeks after tarp was enacted the bush administration abandoned this stated goal of purchasing toxic assets. instead the administration fundle -- funneled billions of dollars directly into some of the nation's largest financial institutions, making huge purchases of stocks and warrants of some of the nation's largest financial institutions. the federal government, in other words, began acquiring ownership, stakes in banks,

financial intiewkses, and -- institutions, and, yes, car manufacturers, with the full support of the obama administration. in fact, the obama administration has even gone so far as to use tarp to set executive pay in several companies and during the reorganization of general motors, the obama administration has used that leverage to benefit its union allies over the rights of secured bondholders who had loaned their money to these companies. now, madam president, i have been a -- been a vocal opponent of this misuse of tarp by both administrations. in december of 2008, i joined my colleagues in voting against the government bailout of the american auto industry, ignored by the previous administration an current administration. earlier this year i supported a tarp disapproval resolution that would have stopped the program dead in its tracks because of this misrepresentation of the purpose for which these funds would be used.

i also supported several initiatives that would have increased tarp transparency and congressional oversight. then in september i joined many of our colleagues in sending a letter to secretary tim geithner, of treasury, asking him not to extend his tarp authority beyond the end of this year. as the law allows thim to do. this -- allows him to do. this would have eliminated the need for the government to borrow more money. secretary geithner notified congress that he has extended tarp authority through october. now the -- reusing tarp funds, that is money loaned to the financial institutions, that is now being repaid, that treasury anticipates using this for a second stimulus plan. well, i guess that's because they think the first stimulus plan worked so well. you'll recall it was -- the

stated objective was to hold unemployment below 8%. it has gone above 10%. we need to learn from our mistakes as well as things we have done right. it would be a mistake to put more money, particularly tarp money, into a new stimulus plan and have it work so ineffectively as the first stimulus plan did madam president, repaid tarp dollars cannot pay for anything. tarp is let a credit card. every dollar spent is a borrowed dollar, adding up additional deficits, additional debt. using tarp on new spending would break the promise that the president made when he voted for tarp in this very chamber. at that time then senator obama said -- quote -- "if american taxpayers are financing this solution, then they have to be treated like investors. they should get every penny of their tax dollars back once the economy recovers." that was then senator obama, now

president of the united states. now, madam president, i would just conclude by saying congress should help the president keep his promises, even when it seems as he's changed his mind now by suggesting that we extend tarp and use tarp on a purpose that congress has never authorized or never intended. it seems like one -- like the bad ideas never end when it comes to spending and debt out of washington, d.c. these days. we know in addition to all of these other problems that i mentioned that i really haven't talked about, this health care bill which would exacerbate and makes much worse the deficits and debt situation and not make it better, all the time while not benning the cost curve down -- not bending the cost curve down but making it worse, raising premiums, raising taxes, cutting medicare. madam president, we need to end the tarp program because,

frankly, it is being misused in ways that congress has never authorized and never intended, and indeed over the very objections of congress. and we need to learn from our mistakes, and, frankly, the stimulus spending which i voted against because i thought it was based on an academic theory which had not been proven which was that the american people -- that congress knew better than the american people how to get the economy working again by direct spending, by spending borrowed money, the the $1.1 trillion in the stimulus plan. we need to end these free-spending ways and to show some fiscal responsibility. and the best way we could do that, in my opinion, would be to end this tarp program which has been the subject of so much abuse and misuse. i yield the floor. mr. nelson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida.

mr. nelson: madam president, do i need to request permission to speak as if in morning business or can i speak even though the the -- the appropriations bills are on the floor? madam president, i ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: madam president, we here have in front of us appropriations bills. we have heavy matters of the deficit. we have heavy matters of how that we're going to get the united states government to bring its fiscal house in order. i remind the senate that it was the last time that we have had a

surplus was in 2001, and if we had been wise and had not cut the revenue of this country so significantly, we could have been good stewards of that healthy surplus and we could have paid off the national debt over a 12-year period, and we wouldn't be where we are today, but we are, and in these matters that are weighing heavily on us, it seems that our attention is being continuously diverted to other things, such as white house party crashers and the unfortunate circumstances that one of the most famous athletes finds himself in, tiger woods. we have a debate about the

health care bill, and it seems like that in the course of last summer that the whole health care was about one subject, and that was the question of a public option. and we now know that all the experts are telling us that if we have a public option, that will be a part of this health insurance exchange, the exchange itself will only cover something like 15% to 20% max of the people, and the public option would only include something like four million or five million people, and that we're talking about like 1.5% of the total folks in the country. and yet, the debate raged all summer as if that were the only

issue about the health reform. and so here we find ourselves trying to pass a health reform bill with so much attention diverted elsewhere with people pushing and pulling and tugging, all the special interests, how in the world do you bring this together? how do you bring it together so that we can get the high threshold of 60 votes in the united states senate? on the one hand, there are the insurance companies. the insurance companies have a huge steak and now the -- huge stake and now the insurance companies are running tv ads all

over the country trying to kill this bill because they realize there is going to be a limitation on their ability to do everything that they want to do and to charge what they want to do and to cancel at will and to have frivolous reasons such as a skin rash as a pre-existing condition and therefore we're not going to insure you. and that is what has led to us getting to the point of saying enough. we're going to pass a health insurance reform bill. and then, of course, what comes to light is suddenly in this package that was not in the package that came out of the senate finance committee but is in this package, that there is actually a nod to the insurance industry that there is a limitation on the amount of payments that could be made on

anyone's insurance policy in one year. well, there again is a lot of opportunity for mischief and abuse, and we've got to correct things like that. is there anyone that doubts that we don't need health insurance reform and health care reform even though you're getting the opposite messages from the insurance companies? that you're getting the opposite messages from anybody that is a special interest that doesn't get entirely what they want? what are some of those? hospitals, doctors, all kind of health care providers, medical device manufacturers, and all

the various interests of patients. but if you really look at it, you can't get all that you want, mr. special interest, and instead keep in mind the goal that we're trying to achieve, and that is take a system that is near tilt and get it on the road to reform. there's another part of this reform that we have to do, and that is that the united states government cannot afford the cost escalation that is going on in its payment of medicare and medicaid. and so there are reforms that we can enact, many of which are in this bill, such as accountable

care organizations that will follow the patient, electronic records that will modernize so that any doctor or health care provider that sees the patient will know up to date what has been the care so that records are not lost. emphasis on a primary care physician that can do a lot of preventable care before the emergency ever gets there. and then, of course, utilizing a lot of the miracles of modern medicine, including the pharmaceuticals to hold off so that we don't get to that emergency, so that if you are not insured, you end up at the emergency room, or even if you are insured, you end up at the emergency room, which is the most expensive place to get care. is there a lot that we can do? yes. and it is what we must do.

and with the hurdle in this united states senate being so high that we have to get 60 votes to close off debate, we have to be successful. it will not be pretty, and it will not be perfect, but it will be a step in the right direction, and there are portions of this proposed law that will take effect not immediately but a year or two or three down the road, and if we have made mistakes, we can correct those mistakes, but we must be successful. for us to turn back now, no matter who is arguing against it, for us to protect a special

interest, no matter who is arguing for that, at the expense of the greater good of remark would be a drastic mistake. and not one of us could be happy going home to our families for christmas if we don't enact this, and it's because of that that i have -- that i feel very strongly that we will be successful, as difficult and astor trust -- and astor tourous as this -- and as torturous as this process is, and this senator will keep pressing for it until we get that final passage. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa.

mr. grassley: madam president, i understand that maybe i will have my speech broken up by a unanimous consent request of the leadership, so i ask if that happens that my remarks be continuous throughout the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: there has been a lot of talk over the past few days about senator reid's so-called compromise. although he said he has broad agreement, i have yet to see any specific details. in fact, it sounds like members of his very own caucus, the democratic caucus, aren't really aware of these details either. now, i find it quite hard to understand how there can be -- quote -- unquote -- "broad

agreement" on something when they don't know what's in it. and, of course, i hope that we'll see details very soon. something like health care reform affecting 306 million americans and restructuring 1/6 of our economy is something that should not be done in secret, and when so-called compromises come out, i would expect we would have the same 72 hours on the internet for the public and the 99 members of this body other than the leader to review them in the totally transparent way that we have always been promised. and as this 2,074-page bill has been transparent as well as all of the amendments, because this is one of the biggest and most important pieces of legislation that i have worked in -- worked on in all my years in the

congress. so i hope that senator reid is not planning to keep the details of his compromise under wraps and then ask us to vote on it. this piece of legislation is going to touch the lives of every single american from the cradle to the grave, so we owe it to our constituents to make sure that we have sufficient time to study any changes to the underlying bill. we all need to remember that it's their money, the taxpayers' money that is being spent on this bill, not ours. but as i have said, so far senator reid is keeping this broad argument and broad agreement under wraps. so today, i can only talk about what i have heard from my

colleagues or read in the newspaper, and who knows whether the newspaper or our colleagues in surmising what this compromise might be actually is. i've heard the majority leader is planning to expand the already unsustainable medicare program. the idea has been met with, of course, strong opposition, as you'd expect from hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers. particularly from rural america. because expanding medicare to people ages 55 to 64 and paying medicare rates is going to make it even more difficult for our hospitals to survive because the federal government only reimburses 80% of costs. now, today, with people over 65,

the government not paying more than 80%, it can be offset by private sector charges by the hospitals to a greater amount to make it up. but if you load another tens of millions of people on medicare, and it's just about broke anyway, you can see that these -- that this deficit of our hospitals is going to be greater and it's going to be even more difficult to makeup because there's going to be less private paid people to make up the deficit. now, i said the hospitals, doctors and health care providers are bringing strong opposition to this idea of expanding the medicare program, because they fear that the

largest expansion of medicaid in history and an expansion of medicare to peoples aged 55-64 will drive providers out of business, then what, of course, does that do for our seniors? it makes it even harder for low-income americans under medicaid and seniors under medicare to have access to care. and what are the promises of the federal government in medicare worth if you don't have doctors to provide the services to the seniors when they get sick? i've already spoken over the last few days about why i agree with these providers and why i oppose that part of senator reid's so-called compromise. but of course now we have the

administration's own chief actuary confirming that the medicare cuts already in this bill -- in other words, the 2,074-page bill without even considering the so-called reid compromise that we don't know what it is, the chief actuary has confirmed that medicare cuts already in the bill are so severe that providers might even now end their participation in the program, even before you add on all the people 55-64. so if the compromise expands medicare even further, then this is going to make this problem even worse. i also find it curious that some would even consider this a compromise. for instance, speaker pelosi

couldn't convince house democrats to support a medicare plan paying medicare rates. but that's exactly what senator reid compromise is proposing, i've been told. which doesn't sound like much of a compromise to me. in fact, let me quote another congressman, congressman wiener of new york. doesn't see it as a compromise either. in fact, he sees it as a big step toward their ultimate goal of a single-payer health plan where government's going to run everything and you've got one choice, the government plan, you don't have choices like we have in america today. and congressman wiener said th this: "this expansion would perhaps get us on the path to a single-payer model." so i don't see this as a compromise to a government-run plan. in fact, in some ways it's

worse, because this could harm seniors' access to care starting not down the road but on day o one. but i don't want to spend too much time today talking about medicare expansion. i think that i've made my feelings on this idea pretty clear. instead, i'd like to focus on another aspect of the supposed new reid compromise that we're hearing about. this is what we're hearing abo about, that the newest reid proposal would have the office of personnel management operate a national health insurance plan. this may sound pretty harmless at first glance, especially since senator reid has refused to release any details, but there are some very big problems with the proposal, like having the office of personnel

management take over. we use the terms around here, o.p.m. for the office of personnel management. it is the office in charge of the federal government's 2 million-person work force. one could consider o.p.m. as the human resource agency or department for all of the federal government. dealing with everything from salaries to the operation of the federal employees health benefit programs. which i think is the reason that senator reid thinks that this would be -- this agency would be well-equipped to run the largest insurance company in the country. unfortunately, a former director of o.m.b. -- o.p.m. disagrees. he was asked about giving new responsibilities to the office

personnel management and this former director, linda springer, she said this -- quote -- "i flat-outthink that o.p.m. doesn't have the capacity to do this type of role." federal employees have also expressed concern and people in this body, particularly the other party, ought to be listening to the national treasury employees union or the national active and retired federal employees association. they have come out in opposition to this proposal of o.p.m. running a national health insurance company. in "the washington post" story highlighting union opposition, the author writes that unions raise these concerns. quote -- "legitimate concerns about expanding the size and

scope of o.p.m. beyond its capacity." so there are already concerns from a former director and more than 5 mil million federal work, retirees and dependents that o.p.m. is not equipped to handle this new responsibility. that alone should make any member pause before signing on to this so-called broad agreement. but i also think that it's important that members are aware of some of the challenges the office of personnel management faces with its current responsibilities, without loading it down with a lot more. because being human resources department for the federal government is obviously no easy task. in fact, i would imagine it's a

pretty thankless job that entails a lot of long hours. so, please don't misconstrue any comments as an attack on o.p.m., its director or any of its employees. they do the best job they can under difficult circumstances. but they're going to have real problems if senator reid's compromise does include a government-run insurance plan operated by o.p.m. if he's going to come out of nowhere with a new proposal to haisly hand the american health insurance system over to this government agency, i think it's important for the american people to know what they're getting into. we need to be asking some hard questions. is this expansion of the federal government necessary?

we're about to vote to raise the debt ceiling by $1.8 trillion because the national credit card has maxed out, and some members of the senate seem intent about increasing the size of the federal government even more. a second question beyond just the generic one "can you afford to expand the federal government role and the expenditures." second: should the office of personnel management, a government agency, be handed the keys to the largest health insurance plan in the entire country. i don't know that the current o.p.m. director, and i would imagine that he was a very nice person. since i don't know him, i don't want him to take offense to what i say but i think it's fair to point out that his position just prior to taking over at o.p.m. was running the national zoo.

does this really mean that we should put him in charge of the national health insurance plan? the office of personnel management has consistently been criticized for being out of date and being inefficient on everything from processing national security projects to administering federal benefits. and we've all heard about the massive backlog in people waiting for social security disability benefits. some 833,000 americans get it. 833,000 americans are currently on a waiting list to see if they calqualify for government disability benefits and some members blame o.p.m. for this backlog. so i'm going to put a chart up here from a person that i trust in the house of representatives,

representative earl pomeroy, because i think he does very excellent work. and he heard about this backlog, so he made some comments about o.p.m. congressman pomeroy is a democrat from north dakota and a member of the very powerful house ways and means committee. he said -- and the quote is up here -- "the office of personnel management is fiddling around, years go by before they can even get around to all the things they have to get around to." this seems to reinforce what the government unions and the former director have expressed about o.p.m.'s ability to handle this new responsibility. and i want to to to continue toe

congressman pomeroy. "people are being hurt. some of the most vulnerable people in this country are being hurt every day because of bureaucratic bunning bling at o.p.m." again, senator reid hasn't provided enough details but congressman pomeroy's comments certainly raise concerns. undermining the ability -- or the availability of disability benefits is bad enough, but do my colleagues want to also be responsible for setting up an unworkable system that leaves hundreds of thousands of americans on the waiting list for their health care benefits? government agencies, whether it's the office of personnel management or some other agency, do not have an impeccable track record. as president reagan often said,

the nine most terrifying words in the english language are, "i'm from the government and i'm here to help." think of a health care system with the responsiveness of hurricane katrina or think of the efficiency of the internal revenue service offer customer service at the department of motor vehicles. that doesn't sound like a recipe for real health reform to me. the office of personnel management has also taken considerable criticism for its handling of retiree benefits. the agency's own 2008 financial report stated -- and i quote -- "the office of personnel management had increased difficulty keeping up with

retirement claims and had to decrease -- had a decrease in the number of customers satisfied with their own servi services." that's coming directly from the agency saying how it's coming up short performing to the needs of the american people and particularly government employees before we're talking about adding a new government health insurance program to the responsibilities of o.p.m. now, "the hill" newspaper wrote this last week -- and i quote -- "watchdogs maintain the program is riddled with inefficiencies that ultimately cost both the agency and the federal government money." so i think that there are legitimate concerns about whether this federal agency is even equipped to take on the additional responsibilities of a whole new government countrywide

program that is obviously a massive undertaking. but i also wonder why this proposal is even necessary. the bill already sets up government-run exchanges that would offer a choice of competing for profit or not-for-profit plans. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have compared this system to the federal employee health benefit plan. this bill already has provisions that encourage national health plans. this leads me to ask the question: why does this bill need another layer of bureaucracy to create a national plan run by a government agency? some have suggested that this is just another backdoor attempt to end up with a government-run plan. another detail that has been reported supports this claim.

we have been told that if not enough, not for profit plans agreed to contract with the office of personnel management or if they don't meet certain affordability standards, the office of personnel management will have the authority to establish its own government-run plan. now, with some of the other provisions that are in this bill, this trigger approach seems to be rigged. there are at least two reasons why this is the case. first, the first undermines any ably to avoid -- ability to avoid the first government plan trigger to make health coverage more affordable. the bill puts in place a bunch of new regulatory reforms, a bunch of fees, and a lot of taxes that will drive up

premiums, making it impossible for health plans to meet new affordability requirements. now, again, you're going to say you question this senator's judgment saying that. but don't take my word for it because we have the nonpartisan congressional budget office. a group of professionals that don't care about politics predicts premiums will be 10% to 13% more expensive as a result of this bill. then, of course, we have the second government plan trigger, which gives the office of personnel management the authority to create a government-run plan if not enough not-for-profit national plans contract with o.p.m. well, what senator reid has failed to mention -- what he

failed to mention in announcing his broad agreement is that there is not one national plan in existence today for profit or not for profit. not one national plan. that is offered in all 50 states. it just doesn't exist. so, once again, it sounds to me like this so-called trigger is being rigged to shoot. i can only assume that this backdoor attempt to shoehorn in a government-run plan at the last minute, has to be an act of desperation. senator reid and his colleagues have seen the facts. you've heard them from our distinguished republican leader. according to cnn poll from december 2 and december 3, 61% of the americans oppose this

2,074-page bill. and at a time when the democratic leadership is pushing a 1.8% increase in the deficit, we learned from the actuaries that this $2.5 trillion -- this 2,074-page bill bill bends the cost curve up by increasing health care spending. whereas if you go back to day one of -- of this year when we first started talking about health care reform, one of the overriding goals was to bend that cost curve down. now, after 11 months of activity we got a bill with that cost curve going up. not one of the major goals that we set out to do. -- to do 11 months ago. this bill is also under pressure

from opposition by the national federation of independent businesses speaking for the small businesses of america. the ones that do 70% of the net hiring also opposed by the national association of manufacturers, the chamber of commerce, the national retail federation, and almost every other business group across the country. and because of this last-minute desperate attempt to apiece the far left -- appease the far left, this rumored new compromise is being opposed by doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers. and these people were on board through most of these 11 months promising their support and now they see it going in the wrong direction. with all those factors, i don't see how anyone, let alone 60

senators, can vote for this bi bill. this last-minute desperate attempt to expand medicare and hand over private health insurance systems over to a federal agency, office of personnel management has this step, if it materializes, has made a bad bill even worse. i have another part of a bill that i want to speak to, and this -- we have this 2,074-page bill bill before us, and -- before us and i want to refer to page 2,034, way at the tail end of the bill. section 90-12 of the reid bill. only takes up eight lines. but it could have a major impact

on millions of retirees and even on the entire u.s. economy. in fact, listen to this, we've got the afl-cio, we've got the americans benefit council, and we've got the business roundtable, have all joined together in opposition to this provision, section 9012. now how often do you have the afl-cio, the american benefits council, and the business roundtable -- that roundtable's the big corporations in america -- joining together in opposition to anything? but they're in opposition to section 9012 of the bill. now, this would prohibit businesses from fully deducting a subsidy they receive to maintain retiree drug coverage.

medicare modernization act of 2003 created this subsidy to encourage businesses to keep offering retiree drug coverage once the part-d benefit was established. because back in 2003, our goal in passing the prescription drug bill for seniors was not to disturb people that already had drug coverage and they liked what they had and they wanted to keep it. we didn't want these big corporations dumping these people off into something that they were unfamiliar with. so we helped to encourage companies and save the taxpayers money, and i'll refer to those specific dollar figures in just a minute. now, in federal tax policy, it's very unusual to provide a deduction for a business expense like retiree health costs if

that expense is subsidized by a federal program. but in this case, the conferees decided to provide this unusual tax treatment for compelling health policy purposes. some that i've already referred to. that we ought to -- if people are satisfied with what they have, we shouldn't pass a bill pushing people out of a plan of something they like. but it was also to save taxpayers dollars. because the rationale was that it was cheaper to pay a $600 subsidy than to have these people forced out of their corporate plan and then to have the taxpayers pay an age o of $1,100 that it would cost if the retiree joined the part-d government plan. you know what? after six years so far it has worked. millions of seniors have been able to keep their retiree

coverage as a result of this subsidy. and the part-d program continues to come in under budget and also to receive high marks from our senior citizens. but the provision tucked away in this 2,074-page bill on gauge 2,034 -- on page 2,034 could change all of that and, in fact, have severe consequences, and let me say, unintended consequences. not just on those retirees, but for the entire u.s. economy. in an effort to pay for this massive expansion of a government-run health plan, the reid bill proposes to eliminate the tax deductibility of this provision. this could cause employers all across the country to drop retiree coverage. this will not only break the

president's promise by preventing millions of seniors from keeping what they have -- remember that promise during the campaign? it will also cause the cost of the part-d program to go up. in addition, accounting rules for retiree benefits will require that the businesses that do keep offering plans -- offering these benefits -- will have to report the total revised cost on the day the bill becomes law. so we have this opt he'd written in the wall street -- opt ed written in "the wall street journal," written about this. this could cause businesses to post millions of dollars in losses and significantly impact an already struggling economy. is this something that you want to do when we still have 10% unemployment? i think that the majority ought to give second thought to that. a letter sent on december 11th, from the chief

financial officers of some of the largest employers in the country stated -- quote -- "the impact of the proposed medicare part-d changes would be felt throughout the overall u.s. economy as corporate entities an investors would be -- and investors would be forced to act." another letter signed by the afl-cio stated that this provision would -- quote -- "unnecessarily destabilize employer-sponsored benefits for millions of retirees." now, once again, how often do you get these large corporations in the afl-cio singing off the same song sheet? this simple provision tucked away on page 2,034 is just one more in a long list of policies that could have serious, unintended consequences for american businesses and retirees.

at this point it appears the majority is so determined to get a bill at any cost that they will place -- put in place bad policies and promises to somehow clean up the mess later on. that's not the way to write legislation. that is not what the american people were hoping for when they were told congress was going to fix the health care system. this provision is just one more reason that we need to scrap this product and go away to -- to the drawing board. i think in finishing, i'll just say what i probably said two or three times before, we're trying to fix the health care system. health care reform. the word reform implies all of that. if you were having a coffee clatch in rural iowa this v