which is what the constitution expects the federal government to do. but even there, under this administration, we're not doing as well as we should, although i commend the president for deciding to send the people to afghanistan and for standing up on these issues. once he saw the -- the intelligence and the other information, that brought reality. i give him credit. i'm one who believes that he deserves great credit for the decision that he made. but even in that decision he had to be very careful about how he characterized when we're going to leave. he did leave it flexible. and that alone, he deserves a lot of credit for, because he knows that there may not be enough time to really do all that we have to do, to create the police and security forces

that are necessary to keep afghanistan free and to keep the world from allowing the taliban and al qaeda to obtain nuclear weapons. well, that's another subject for another day. i just want to end by saying that i don't -- i don't believe anybody on the other side is an evil person or a person that doesn't have -- doesn't believe they're acting in the best interest of the country, but i don't see how -- i just don't see how they can continue to push what they're trying to push. i think to the detriment of this country. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas is recognized. mr. brownback: h mr. president, before my colleague from utah leaves the floor, i'd like to ask him a question or two. he's been involved in most of the major health issues that passed this body over the last 15 years. what was the vote margin in the senate on some of those bills,

on the hatch-kennedy, hatch-waxman bills? how many votes roughly. i'm asking to you pull that up from memory, and that may not be fair to do. but as i recall, a number of people on both sides of the aisle ended up supporting those bills. mr. hatch: on the chip bill, i can't recall the exact number, it was between 70 and 80 votes. it was a bipartisan vote. in fact, on the finance committee, when i brought it up at the last minute in the back room of the finance committee, before we went out to debate it, only two senators voted against it. it was like 19-2. mr. brownback: in the finance committee? mr. hatch: right. every republican except two and every democrat -- mr. brownback: and hatch-waxman? mr. hatch: hatch-waxman, that was unanimous. as i recall it correctly, i think it was a unanimous consent. mr. brownback: and i believe you did a major health care bill

with senator dodd from connecticut? mr. hatch: yes. mr. brownback: do you recall any -- mr. hatch: they were all bipartisan. and that's what gets me, because people know that people like myself, like the distinguished senator from kansas, we're willing to work on it with them. we know we can't get everything we want. our colleagues have different viewpoints than we do. but tell me -- tell me that i'm wrong. i know you can't. the "help" committee bill was done solely between few people at the white house and the kennedy staff really and basically a few democrats. that was it. no republicans. the house bill -- i'd like to ask the senator, do you know if any republican was asked to participate in helping to develop that monstrosity they call the house bill? mr. brownback: if i could respond to my colleague, no, i don't know of any. i don't know of any that were even asked. i know of some that were told

you can join this bill, or asked that, okay, you can join our bill, but you don't have any input. mr. hatch: after they came up with t. how about the reid bill? do you know of any republicans asked to participate in that bill during the discussions? mr. brownback: none. mr. hatch: none were involved. after they get it, they say "we want to work with you." after they get it done in ways that i don't think any republican can support, then they'll say, "yeah, we'd like to be bipartisan." have you seen any acceptance of amendments on the floor? mr. brownback: i haven't seen any at all, and particularly even when tried to work in a bipartisan fashion to add hyde language into the bill. that was defeated, not accepted. my point is something i've seen you say in a quote. a good health care bill should have 70 votes, because it's

major legislation that affects everybody in the united states. it has huge costs associated with it. and so it's not something that you do on a single-party basis. it's something that you work extensively over a long period of time. i would ask my colleague again, probably over how many years you worked with senator kennedy on getting the hatch-kennedy bill or waxman. my guess is those are lengthy pieces of negotiations that take a period of time to get something that has bipartisan support. mr. hatch: well, that's right. one thing i appreciated very much about senator kennedy is as liberal as he was -- the leading liberal lion in the senate, in the whole congress, in my opinion -- was that he knew unless we could get together in a bipartisan way, we couldn't get the job done. and this involves one-sixth of the american economy. one-sixth. and we're just being told take it or leave it.

that's what i call an arrogance of power. i don't want to be mean to my colleagues. i think many of them are very sincere. but it's an arrogance of power to not deal with the other side and to not even talk to us about it until after you've done what you want to do. i've got to say this is the worst i've seen it in the whole 33 years i've been in the senate. mr. brownback: if i could ask one more question before my colleague leaves, and also comment that i like your tie. nice bright colors on a saturday session. mr. hatch: it's a western tie. i thought i'd wear it out of loudness today. mr. brownback: what do you think you could do of getting bipartisan -- how many total votes could you get for a bipartisan health care bill along the lines which a number of people on our side have discussed, where you expand access, you try to bend the cost curve down, you try to give more access to individuals, low-income individuals? do you think you could craft a

bipartisan bill that could get well over 60 votes on health care reform? mr. hatch: i believe that we could craft a bill that would get almost 100 votes. i think we'd certainly get between 70 and 80 votes and probably more if we worked together to do it. i don't think there is any question we can do that. we all want prevention. we want maintenance. we all want to cover as many people as we possibly can. we all want to correct some of the deficiencies that are in these bills. we all want to take care of people with preexisting condition illnesses. i mean, i could go on and on. those are things we could build upon in ways that would work. this bill isn't going to work very well. but we could build upon bipartisan-wise and build a complete bill. now, we republicans wouldn't get everything we want, but i think there are democrats who believe

that we ought to use the principles of federalism, have 50 state laboratories out there, let them work on their own problems in accordance with their own demographics. i know that kansas is not new jersey. neither is utah. and new jersey is not kansas or utah, just to pick three states. you can do that with any states. but we know one thing, that if we follow the principles of federalism -- and that's what we did in chip. and chip worked well by anybody's measure. if we follow the principles of federalism, we would be able to look and pick and choose from the various states what works and what doesn't. you'd have the usual, usually big democrat states that probably wouldn't function no matter what you do. even they would benefit. even they would benefit from looking at the other states and saying will that work in our state? frankly, that's what made this country great. there are friends on the other

side who just don't agree with me on that, but there are friends over there who do agree with me on that. as you can see, getting 70, 80 votes on the chip bill. and there are other bills put through by unanimous consent that -- because people recognized they were well-intentioned, well-written, had bipartisan support. and nobody wanted to vote against them. mr. brownback: i said i'd only ask you one more question, but i've got one more. my guess is too you didn't do those bills on the fly, where you were just amending them saying okay, we can't find 60, let's go back to a closed room and let's rebuild the bill. you built them over a long period of time. you did a good job of working the problems out together. then you built as it went along. you didn't on the fly say let's change this, let's change that. you built a solid piece of legislation and you moved forward, and not changing it at the 11th hour like we're

seeing taking place right now. mr. hatch: when senator kennedy and i did the chip bill, as an illustration, we had to go up and down this country giving speeches everywhere, building constituencies, working very, very hard together. it's no secret in the end it wasn't what -- it wasn't everything he wanted. it wasn't everything i wanted either. he wanted the federal government in control of t. i wanted the states to be in control of it. but in the end i happen to know that, as one of the dear friends of senator kennedy, with all the differences we had -- and we had plenty. we fought each other most of the time. but in the end, he was as proud of that bill as any bill he passed or he worked on, even though it was put together in a way that brought a great number of republicans on board. and frankly, that could be done here. i have no doubt it could be done

here. i look at the distinguished senator in the chair, he's one of the brightest guys in the senate. he has a lot of experience in this area. i personally believe that people like the senator from rhode island, the senator from kansas, myself, we got together and we could do theupbgdz that our respective states would be proud of and would be placed to work on. even though there would be some give-and-take. that's what we need to do. i just point out one more time, the "help" bill was totally democrat, not one republican until they brought the bill to the committee. the house bill totally democrat, not one be republican even asked to give input. and this bill, not one republican. in fact, not many democrats. i just made the point here a few minutes ago that most of the democrats don't know what's in the bill that was submitted to the congressional budget office you heard the very competent

majority whip, the senator from illinois, say that he didn't know what was in the bill either. when the minority -- excuse me -- majority -- i have that in my mind, i think. if the majority whip didn't know, how in the world are we republicans going to know? and how in the world are the rest of the democrats going to know? these are things that really worry me and bother me. i really believe they felt with president obama's aura, with his strength in politics, with all of us wanting to help him and with their distinct skwreuf 6 -- distinctive 60-person majority that they could pull over whatever they wanted to, and this was opportunity to go to a single-payer system, or at least to move the whole thing much farther over to a single-payer system even where it is today.

these things bother me a great deal. frankly, i hope we can get our colleagues to sit down and work with us. both sides would have to give. both sides would have to get together. but at least one-sixth of the american economy would be treated with respect rather than with one side arrogantly saying take it or leave it. mr. brownback: i want to thank my colleague from utah for the service he's given. i haven't always agreed with my colleague from utah. i've always found him sound in his thinking. particularly when you're talking about health care. these are bipartisan issues in and of themselves and they need to be in this body. he also talked about the principles of federalism, which i think we've deviated from and what we see in this bill. i'd like to read from the constitution, article 1, section 8. that's the piece that i would like to focus on here for a minute about the constitutional question involved in this health care bill. article 1, section 8 reads simply this way: "that the

congress shall have" -- and then it lists a series of enumerated power. "power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the indian tribes." that is our ability to regulate commerce is with foreign nations, among the several states, and with the indian tribes. there have been a number of people who have raised the question about whether or not you can constitutionally everybody in the united states by virtue of their citizenship or status within the united states to have health insurance. i think it is highly questionable. it appears to me from several legal scholars that this is unconstitutional for us to do. it is a major plank in the health care legislation that's been brought forward by the democrat majority, and i don't believe it's going to stand constitutional challenge. i want to develop that for my colleagues here today. the congressional budget office said this about the constitutional question here: it said, "forcing individuals to

buy insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action." that's big words in a time where we're seeing a lot of what i think are unprecedented federal actions. going on to say -- quote -- "the government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the united states." so you would be requiring as a condition for lawful residence in the united states, the purchasing of a good or service, in this case health insurance. that's what would be required. the congressional budget office does not know of any time where a person in the united states has been required to buy any good or service as a condition simply of lawful residence in the united states. i think it raises significant constitutional questions, and you got to remember, as everybody does -- but i think we've got remind ourselves -- that the federal government is a constitutional government of

limited powers, limited powers. james madison in his federalist papers, quoted often but it bears repeating because it is one of the fowptional issues for us, in the first place is to remember that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. its jurisdiction is limited. to certain enumerated objects, like what i just read in article 1, section 8. chief justice john marshall, the very famous marbury v. madison stated, "the powers of the legislature are defined and limited and that those limits may nolt be mistaken or forgotten. the constitution is written." it is written. it is written in the constitution that that's the case. and we can't violate that. the federal government limited and enumerated powers granded by the stuvment the founding

fathers, who drafted and ratified the u.s. constitution, were unwavering in their desire to restrict the powers of states and limit the powers of congress. to achieve their goal, they created a system that splits state and federal authority so that one government, federal or state, does not maintain too much power over the liberty of the american people. therefore, the framers created a system with a legislature of limited and enumerated powers -- that's the congress -- to enact laws that shall be necessary and proper for the excuse of powers. one of them is the commerce clause that i just read to you, which grants congress the authority to regulate commerce to foreign nations, among the several states -- international state commerce -- and with the indian tribes. now, many have used the commerce clause to justify the implementation of this unconstitutional mandate. those individuals often cite a case wickard v. filburn, a 1942 case. a u.s. supreme court decision

found that a law limiting a commerce farmer growing an additional acre of imheet to feed his chickens beyond the limited imposed by the federal government was constitutional and fell under the enumerated powers granded by the commerce clause. filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine to the government for being too productive. the supreme court, interpreting the united states constitution commerce clause, decided that because filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he was buy for chicken feed on the open market and affected ifnlts state commerce and shall -- and affected interstate commerce. that does not expand the powers of this body under the commerce clause to impose a monetary fine or penalty upon a citizen who fails to purchase or enter in a a private contract for health insurance. that doesn't expand our authority under the commerce clause. it doesn't change the commerce

clause for us to require now somebody to do something simply as a status of citizenship. congressional research service says this. "despite the breadth of powers that have been exercised under the commerce clause, it is unclear whether the clause would provide a solid constitutional foundation for legislation containing a requirement to have health insurance, or that such a requirement would be constitutional under the commerce clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or a service." mr. president, to think that the federal government can compel any individual to purchase -- to purchase -- a commodity because that individual is alive and breathing is, i believe, u unconstitutional and is at least a novel issue that this $2.5 trillion proposal is built around. now, should we be doing this major change in health care,

$2.5 trillion in spending, half a trillion in reduction in medicare, half a trillion raising taxes, off of a novel constitutional question involved in the inherent piece of that that being to require everybody to have health insurance? i think not, along with all the other problems with it, i think has an enormous constitutional question right in the middle of it. and what wit if you pull that ot and the supreme court says you can't do that then you've done half a trillion dollars in medicare cuts cuts, and its thee part of it is pulled out. then the whole house of cards falls apart. another popular argument for forcing citizens to purchase health insurance under penalty of slaw that sphaits require people to buy car insurance. well, this argument is not only constitutionally flawed but also

an underwhelming argument that in many respects hardly deserves comment and adds throil this debate. it is recognized that states maintain inherent police powers to regulate behaviors and inforce order within its borders to promote public welfare, security, health, and safety, much broader statements that that enumerated power on commerce between countries, between states, and indian tribes. but this is a much broader granting of dorse genetics to the states. that is-- --but this is a much broader granting of jurisdiction to the states. state insurance laws are laws implemented sphwaits and are generally derived from state constitutions, not the federal constitution under which this body operates. furthermore, these laws require an individual who voluntarily participates in the use of to the use of a vehicle. it isn't a right of citizenship for a kansan that you have to

buy auto insurance. but if you want to operate a car on our roads, you have to have car insurance. we're thrirg as an article of citizenship. novel and enormously expansive role of the federal government. the federal mangeds on the purchase of health insurance forces individuals to purchase a commodity -- health insurance -- not because they choose to participate in an economic or commercial activity such as what one would think would be covered under a commerce clause. but forces an individual to purchase a product simply because that person exists. this mandate i believe is an abuse of a power granted to this congress by the constitution. now, mr. president, last night i spent some time developing another thought that i think is an important oner for us to consider -- important one for us to consider. but it is one that this body has spent some time dealing with. that's the removal of the marriage penalty from our codes,

tax code, welfare. we haven't gotten very far in doing that. but getting the marriage penalty out. the that you that marriage is a good institution -- the thought that marriage is a good institution, it is a fabulous institution in this country for the formation of family. it is something that has an enormous role in our cul our cud society. coo t. should not be rewarded and taxed. if you less of something, subsidize it. in the health care bill are marriage penalties on lo low-income. under the principle if you are going to tax is you will get less of something. this has marriage penalty taxes built in it. i want to go through a series of these. the high-cost plans tax. this is the cadillac insurance plans. under the married couples -- under this bill that harry reid

has put forward, married couples are hit hard on the high cost plans tax. the number of married tax filers is equal but married taxpayers pay more than twice as much as singles as a percent of new tax revenue in this bill. so if you're a married filer jointly, you will pay 62%. single file,25%. in this bill. now, is that something we want to do? do wet to say, if you're married, you're going to pay more of the tax? most people would say, no, we want to encourage marriage and the formation of family around major. what we should do is have these at least equal or maybe even tax on the other end. but most would say, let's have these equal. instead you're having a huge increase in the amount of money that married filers will have to pie. consequently, you encourage people to say, let's not get married because we don't want to pay the increase in the taxes. that is built into the cadillac plan's tax.

married couples will -- it will hit married couple households more severely than it will hit single filers, even though the number of married filers and single filers is roughly equal. the number is roughly equal. the high-cost tax will implement the total cost of married couples more severely. 25% of the revenue will be from single filers. 62% of the bill will go to married filers. one thing is certain, 62% of married couple households don't make more than $250,000. so not only is this unfair to married households. it is a direct contradiction of the president's promise that you wouldn't pay more taxes if you were below -- if you were making below $250,000. in this case you do. under the cadillac insurance plan proposal or piece in this proposal. i want to look at another chart on this. if we want to talk about -- if we want to talk about factors that impact an individual's

decision to enter the work force or invest in a birks an important factor is the marginal tax rated they will face for the next dollar they earn. basically it is a question of whether or not it's worth the effort and/or risk to work. what's my marginal tax? if i work longer and to make another $100, how much do i get to keep? it is an especially important factor for low-income households, people that don't have much marginal income to work off of they need every dlag they are gevment if you are bag to tax more their marginal rairkts they're looking at this saying i don't want to get in that category. i want to hold back from getting in that category. we have tried to help the less economically fortunate with tanf, food stamps, the earned-income tax credit, the additional child tax credit to name just a few. low-income families already face high marginal tax rates as a result of the phase-outs of their benefits. tax rates here, i mean by the

loss of benefits they get under tanf, food stamps, earned-income tax credit, housing assistance, the welfare nag we put together for low-income individuals. low-income families already face high marginal tax rates as a result of the phase-out of their benefits and these phase outouts already impose significant barriers to marriage. in other words, whenever you get then a combined income of a low-income couple, you lose more of these benefits. and consequently people don't get married because they look at it and, i'm going to lose my health benefits if i get married. i'm going to lose my medical benefits, i'm going to lose my housing benefits, i may lose my food stamps. i'm not going to get married. and yet you look at the chances for children in that situation to get out of poverty, their best chance is to have a stable mom and dad and a stable marriage environment providing for the comfort and support of those children. yet our incentives are

disincentives towards marriage. in this situation -- and they're built even more significantly into this health care bill. as an example, let's take two individuals at 150% of the poverty level. after the new subsidies proposed in this legislation are taken into account, these two individuals would pay $1,478 for their health insurance. but if they get married, their bill will increase to $2,308, a marriage penalty of $830 if you are at the 150% of poverty level or below. now, if you are at 150% of poverty or below, you don't have marginal income to mess around with. you've got -- i need everything i've got just to provide the basics. so if you're looking at this increase of a marriage penalty of $830, you're saying, we can't afford to get married. is that the signal that we want to see from the federal government? no. almost everybody in this body would say that. but let's take a pair of individuals earning 250% of the

poverty level. one has no children, the other has two children. unmarried, they will -- subsidies pay $5,865 for thehea. but if they decide to form a family marriages they'll pace a penalty of $2,050. let's turn to the new medicare tax that will go into effect in 2013. the tax will apply to wage and salary income as well as certain business income for individuals. the tax will apply to income of that type for above $200 thundershower for individuals and $250,000 for joint filers. the penalty here is obvious on its face. let's take an example. two unmarried individuals earn $200,000 each. their total medicare taxes would be $11,600. if they get married, the penalty for doing so is $750, or take two i had individual whose make -- one making $150,000 and the other $200,000. single their medicare taxes total $10,1506789 if they get married they'll pay an

additional $500. this is an top of the marriage penalties that two earners face under current law. marriage penalty is there. i don't think it's as significant as for the low-income individuals, but it's here as well. my point in saying this is with why on earth would that be built into the base of bill and particular on the low-income couples? why on earth would you build in a marriage penalty on people that can't afford it? you're saying okay, if combined income is over $250,000, you can afford another $500. you can afford this. i'm willing to agree with that. but not this couple that's making 150% of poverty or 250% of poverty, one with two kids. you can't afford that. and why on earth would you build it into that? this is ridiculous that it be placed in the proposal. it makes no sense. created expanding on the penalties for marriage makes zero sense. families are critical of the

well-being of our society. family structure has an effect on the social fabric of this nation as positive. it is fundamental law when you tax something, you get less of it. why would we tax marriage, particularly for low-income individuals, when it's the best chance for those children involved in this couple to have a stable environment if they form a solid marriage unit? and we're going to tax it and discourage it. that's wrong. that's wrong as a policy matter. mr. president, there are a number of other problems i've had with this overall bill. this piece of it absolutely makes no sense to me why we would do something like this. i would urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, to take these sort of things out, take them out of the base law enforcement unfortunately in the united states today, this is actually -- this is just kind of repeating what already takes place in food stamps, what takes place in health benefits for

low-income individuals right now. they can't afford to get married or they lose their benefits. it is ridiculous. we ought to give people bonuses for getting married, not penalties for getting married. now we're going to add to it but putting it in this health insurance bill. it's wrong and it's bad policy. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. begich: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak

for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. begich: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate kpwhraoets its business kpwhraoets its business it adjourn until sunday, 1 paofplt p.m., the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and the senate resume consideration of the conference report accompanying h.r. 3288, consolidated appropriations provided for under the previous order, that following -- and that following any leader remarks that until 2:00 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. begich: mr. president, at 2:00 p.m. the senate will proceed to a roll call vote on adoption of the conference report to accompany h.r. 3288. finally i ask that the following remarks of senator enzi and thune that the senate adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i wanted to address the issue of health care reform, of course, which is the main reason that congress is here this weekend and how it was here last weekend and in all likelihood how it will be here next weekend. i think it is important we put these things in overall context and take a look at the bill we are voting on right now. we're going to have a final vote on final passage tomorrow. we had a cloture vote this morning on a spending bill. and the spending bill, which represents six, i think, appropriations bill that didn't get done earlier this year represents a package of spending that overall increases by 12% over last year. now, that's an interesting, i think, number given the fact that the consumer price index, which is the sort of, if you will, conduit to which a lot of these decisions are made around

here is tied. in other words, the c.p.i. is what we view to be inflation. sometimes when we say we mark bills up inflation, or inflation plus this or inflation plus that. where the c.p.i. is, beginning in september or october 1 of this year, was about .2 -- or i should say .2% but in the negative column. but you've got a c.p.i. that's actually negative, an inflation index that's actually negative for most americans. again, this is representative, i think, of the totality of our economy and what things cost. that's a lot of times how appropriations bills are measured. you've got a c.p.i., consumer price index, that is running in the negative. yet, you have appropriations bill, this one being, representing again, as i said earlier, six appropriations bill, individual bills that didn't get done earlier packaged into one big spending bill that is a 12% increase over the previous year.

how, mr. president, can we go to the american people and justify year-over-year spending increases that are 12% when they're having to balance their budgets and tighten their belts and live in an economy -- some people losing their jobs, but certainly everybody struggling to survive out there. that's true for small business is. that's true for families. that's true for, i think, pretty much everybody, it seems like except the united states congress. here in washington, d.c. we seem not to be listening to what's happening in america, because marking spending bills up at 12% over last year's level at a time when the c.p.i. is actually running in the negative -- you've got negative cost-of-living increase -- and yet we are marking up appropriations bills that represent a 12% increase over last year's spending level? and you put that on top of a stimulus bill that passed earlier this year that with interest is a $1 trillion

spending bill. so you have a $1 trillion spending bill with interest passed earlier this year, much of which went to the very same federal agencies that are going to benefit from this 12% increase over last year in annual appropriations. so you put $1 trillion stimulus bill, you look at appropriations bill -- and, again, this being representative of most of the bills this year, that year-over-year increase at 12%, at a time when most americans are having to tighten their belts. we hear that. we also hear that the tarp program is now going to be used as a slush fund, so to speak, to pay for all kinds of other government spending. in other words, they have decided, at least, i think the administration has, to use the tarp fund as sort of a pay-for for lots of things that they want to do. most of us know that the tarp fund was created specifically to stabilize our financial markets, to prevent what we thought at the time was going to be an

imminent financial collapse. that purpose has been served. i have a bill that would end the tarp program at the end of this year, on december 31. if it isn't allowed to expire, if it's extended, it goes well into next year and can be used, as i said, for all these other things that politicians have designs on doing. my legislation would end it at december 31 of this year, as was intended, and make sure that any funds that are paid back in from loans that have been made or assets that have been acquired actually go back to the treasury to pay down the federal debt, because that is, mr. president, what in fact the tarp program was intended to do. once the job was accomplished, it wasn't to become a grab bag and found money for congress to use for all these other things. and so you've got the tarp fund now being morphing and evolving into sort of this political slush fund to be used for all these other spending priorities. you have this $1 trillion stimulus bill out there.

you have this appropriations bill at 12% year-over-year increase that we -- over last year's level. and on top of all that, we pile a $2.5 trillion expansion of the federal government in washington to pay for a new entitlement program with the health care reform bill that is being debated in the senate in the last week and into the week to come. so at some point you have to say -- around i think the american people look at us and say enough already. and i think that's what they're saying. i think the reason that w*er seeing these -- we're seeing these public opinion polls that are turning a thumbs down on this massive expansion of the federal government here in washington to fund health care is because the american public is becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the idea that the federal government continues to run the credit card up. the stimulus money was all borrowed money. the tarp money is borrowed money. the appropriations bill for the most part this year are for -- or for a large part at least is

borrowed money. 43 cents out of every dollar, mr. president, that the congress will spend, or spent last year, i should say, in the last year which ended, fiscal year ended september 30, was borrowed money. we continue to borrow and borrow and borrow and pass on the debt to future generations. we cannot continue to do that and expect to have a future that enjoys the same level of prosperity and the same level of economic growth and vitality we've experienced in the past. you cannot continue to pile up these massive amounts of debt. the federal debt is going 20 double if five years, it's going to triple in ten if we continue on this current path. right now i don't see anything that is going to put any brakes on this. the capacity and the appetite and the willingness and the inclination of washington, d.c. and politicians here to continue to spend and spend and spend seems to be unlimited. at some point we've got to put the brakes on. we have people who have on -- a

foot on the pedal. we've got the democrat majority in the house of representatives, the democrat majority in the senate, the white house all have their foot on the accelerator. somebody has to put on the brake, and that's what we're trying to do. that's why it's important that we end the tarp program before it gets misused and why it's important we rein in these appropriations bill. we're doing everything we can to stop this appropriations bill from being passed at 12% increase over last year's level. we're doing everything we can, mr. president, i would say to stop this massive expansion. $2.5 trillion expansion of the federal government to fund a new health care entitlement at a time we have all these other debt problems and deficits as far as the eye can see. and so i wanted to, in shifting gears, i want to paint that sort of as the context in which this whole health care debate is occurring. but i wanted to shift, if i could, to some of the more recent developments with regard to the debate over health care. i think there are a couple of things that, to me, are game

khaerpbgz in terms of this -- changers in terms of of this debate. one of those is the study that came out yesterday from the c.m.s. or center for medicare services actuary that points out that the health care reform bill that's currently before the senate will not drive health care costs down; will in fact increase health care costs by $234 billion, and that today about one-sixth of every dollar that we spend in this country is spent on health care, that ten years from now, in 2019, that will be almost 21%. that's what the c.m.s. actuary said, that the total amount that we spend on health care in this country, which today is about 17%, ten years from now will be almost 21%. so the amount spent on health care as a percentage of our gross domestic product goes dramatically up, not down. and $234 billion is what the c.m.s. actuary said health care costs would go up by in the next ten years. and of course, we had previously the c.b.o. essentially saying the same thing.

the congressional budget office, for those who live outside of washington, is sort of what the nonpartisan estimator, if you will, of what a lot of these federal programs are going to cost. the congressional budget office said that under the bill put forward by the senate majority here, the democratic leadership in the senate, it would increase health care spending by $160 billion over the next ten years. again, bending the health care cost curve up, not down. and so now you have the experts, the congressional budget office, the center for medicare services actuary, all saying health care costs are going to go up, not down, and significantly up. you have the small business organizations out there saying -- the national federation of independent business, the chamber of commerce, the national association of wholesaleer distributors, and i might add there's another group that's been formed called the small business coalition for affordable health care, which represents 50 different business

organizations, all saying that this health care reform bill will increase the cost of doing business in this country and will drive health care costs up. and so they've come out in opposition to it, as have all the other business organizations i just mentioned. for the same reason. they realize that health care reform ought to be about getting their costs down and their ability to create jobs. by the way, two-thirds to three-quarters of all the jobs in our economy are created by small businesses. so what are we going to do to small businesses? pile on a whole bunch of new taxes to pay for this expansion, this $2.5 trillion expansion of the federal government in the form of this new health care entitlement all for what? so that they can see their health care costs continue to go up. so you pile -- you pile the new taxes, you cut medicare to all the providers out there. and i want to draw them into this too because not only have the small businesses said this is going to drive health care costs up, and they've come out opposed to it, not only has the

congressional budget office said that, not only has the center for medicare services actuary said that, you've got academics saying that, but now you also have the providers saying that. hospitals, physicians groups, are coming out and saying this latest proposal by the democrat majority to expand medicare will put hospitals out of the business because hospitals get underreimbursed by medicare and so do physicians. what do they do? this shift tkofts private payers -- costs over to private payers. it shrinks the number of private payers, expands the number of government payers. for those hospitals in places like south dakota -- aeupbd see my colleague from -- and i see my colleague from wyoming on the floor, who are very dependent on medicare, they're going to see less and less reimbursement coming into their facilities which doesn't cover their costs and very soon you'll have a lot of hospitals, particularly in rural areas, going out of business. and that's been stated.

the chairman of the senate budget committee, senator conrad from north dakota, came out and said that basically this latest proposal would bankrupt a lot of the hospitals in his state. i think that's true for a lot of states, and particularly in rural states, in a state like my and the senator from wyoming's. you have the providers saying this is really a bad deal. you have the small businesses saying we can't sustain these increases. we think this is a really bad deal. you've got the experts, the analysts, the congressional budget office and the center for medicare services saying this increases costs for health care in this country. and now, mr. president, you have the american people weighing in and saying, we think this is a bad deal, we think it's going to increase our health care costs. the cnn poll that came out two days ago said 61% of americans oppose the health care reform bill that's pending right now in the united states senate. other polls show similar resul results. and so you have a very sizable majority of the american people who have now weighed in and sa

said, this is a bad deal because it cuts medicare, it raises taxes, and at the end of the day, it raises premiums. so who's for this? who thinks this is a good thing? well, apparently a number of democrats here in the united states senate, but that's an increasingly shrinking universe of people. the american people have said it's a bad deal. the experts say it's a bad deal, small businesses say it's a bad deal, providers say it's a bad deal. what's left? well, i'm helping to that there are a couple of courageous democrats who are going to step forward, agree with the american people, say we are listen to the american people, we are listening to the experts, we are listening to small businesses that create two-thirds or three-quarters of the jobs in our economy, and we agree we are going to stop this train wreck from happening, sit down, start over, do this right, work with republicans to write a bill that actually does constrain costs, that drives the cost curve down

and can -- provides access to more americans. mr. president, i hope that there are a few democrats out there who will do that. because i think on our side, we've all -- we've concluded,based on what we hear from the american people, what we hear from the experts, what we hear from the business community, what we hear from the provider community, the hospitals and the physicians, that this is a really bad deal. because at the end of the day, after all this new spending, after all the new taxes, after all the medicare cuts, what are you left with? what everybody says they want out of health care reform is something that lowers costs. i have our colleagues on the other side come down here repeatedly and say we've got to do something about the cost of health care. people in this country are struggling with health care costs. absolutely. we could not agree more. and what they will do with this bill if it passes is make matters worse, not better, by increasing costs for most americans. and i want to show you exactly what i mean. if you are a family of four --

and this is, again, according to the congressional budget office, which looked at this and analyzed these bills and said if you're in the small group market or the large group market, you're going to see year-over-year increases in your health care costs that are somewhere between 5.5% and 6%, which is what we are seeing today. and by the way, that's twice the rate of inflation historically. but 5% to 6% increase in your health care premiums, if you're in the individual marketplace, you're going to see your people premiums go up anywhere from 10% to 3013% beyond that. so if you're in the individual market, it gets much worse. but if you're in the small group or large group market, here's what it says. that if you are a family of four today and you're receiving your insurance through your employer and they're getting their insurance in the large group market, you're paying about $14,000 a year, if that's -- if that's what you're paying today. in 2016, seven years from now, you're going to be paying

$20,000 -- over $20,000 a year for health insurance coverage. and so your health insurance coverage is going to go up under this bill, not down, according to the congressional budget office. and it's going to go up at a rate that's double the rate of inflation. and, again, this is for people who get their insurance in the small -- in the large and small group market. the yellow line represents the large group market. the red line represents the small group market. but the result's the same. it's an upward trajectory, it's a spike up in the cost of -- cost of health insurance for people who get their coverage in -- health insurance in one of those two markets. and again, as i said before, if you're in the individual marketplace, you could spike this thing like this because their costs are going to be 10% to 13% above and beyond what you're seeing here in the large group market. that, mr. president, according to the congressional budget office. so 90% of americans, according to the congressional budget office, are going to see their health insurance premiums stay the same. and by stay the same, i mean go

up by twice the rate of inflation,, in other words, locking in the status quo, or, worse yet, if you're in the individual marketplace, going up 10% to 13%. and so all this talk about lowering the cost of health care and not settling for the status quo is -- is -- it may sound good, it's great rhetoric, but it is absolutely factually inaccurate. and so our colleagues that come down here day after day talking about how this health care reform bill is going to drive down the costs of health care, are not listening. they're not listening to the american people, they're not listening to the experts, they're not listening to the small business community, they're not listening to the provider community. and i have to say, even -- even the academic community has weighed in on this particular issue, mr. president, as well. and i want to read for you something that was said here recently by the dean of the harvard medical school. speeches and news reports can

lead you to believe the proposed congressional legislation would tackle the problems of cost, access and quality but that's not true. the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform. i find near unanimity of opinion that whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from congress will markedly accelerate national health care spending rather than restrain it. this will make an eventual solution even more difficult." that from the dean of the harvard medical school. and so, mr. president, i hope that before this debate concludes -- the push is to get it done by the he happened of the year. i'm not -- by the end of the year. i'm shiewrn not sure why. it seems to me this should need no hurry. 17% of owr g.d.p., we spend about $2.5 trillion a year on health care. we ought to get this right. but there is an intent on the other side to jam this through

sometime next week. well, i hope that we can put the brakes on this. and i hope there are a couple of courageous democrats, at least one, but two would be better, maybe even more, who will step forward and say, we are going to listen to the american people, we are going to listen the providers out there, the hospitals and physicians, we are going to listen to the spet exp, we are going to listen to the small business community that creates the jobs, and we are not going to blindly follow the leader and take this country over the cliff when it comes to health care delivery and when it comes to our economy. and the one final point i'll make, mr. president, about that, because i thought this was a remarkable finding by the c.m.s. in their study. but they essentially said that the savings that are proposed in medicare, the new federal spending that relies on medicare cuts which are unlikely to be sustainable on a permanent bas basis. we all over here agree with

that. the appetite for the congress, the willingness for the congress to cut reimbursements to hospitals and to nursing homes and to home health agencies and to hospices i find very suspect. and so at the end of the day, if you cannot sustain those -- and let's say, for example, for a minute that you can. let's say that these medicare cuts take effect. if they take effect and if the democrats have their way and they expand medicare, you're going to put more and more people on to a sinking ship because you've got a program that's going to be bankrupt in 2017, we're told by the actuaries, you're going to cut a trillion dollars out of it over the next ten years that it's fully implemented, and you're going to put more people on to it. and so medicare, mr. president, if those cuts occur, you're going to have more and more hospitals going out of business because they flat aren't going to be able to make ends meet. and so you -- and that's the other thing, by the way, the c.m.s. actuary found in their study. but they said they don't believe that you can sustain these medicare cuts on a permanent basis, meaning had?

meaning that the cost of this program, $2.5 trillion over ten years, is going to fall on the backs of future generations because it will be borrowed, it will be added to the debt, which is growing at a trillion dollars a year. as i said earlier, we're going to have a vote, if you can believe that, here in the very near future to actually raise the debt ceiling by $2 trillion over and above what it is today, which is $12 trillion. i mean, this debt situation is probably the most serious crisis and challenge facing this country going forward. and it just seems like there is an endless, limitless appetite for spending and borrowing around here. and at some point, the chickens come home to roost and the bills have to be paid, mr. president. you can't continue to sustain the level of borrowing. and if these medicare cuts are unsustainable, which is what the c.m.s. actuary says, that means that a lot of the cost of this new program is going to be

financed partly by tax increases, which, as i said, are harmful to small businesses, but secondly, by more and more borrowing, more and more, more and more future generations, younger americans being faced with the smaifs -- massive amount of federal debt because we weren't able to make the hard choices to be able to live within our means. so, mr. president, i hope when it's all said and done, there will be some people who will step forward, have the courage tonight blindly follow the leader but to say with the american people, with the experts, with the small business community, with the provider community, with even some of the academic, this does nothing to constrain or lower health care costs. the emperor has no clothes. and if they do that, mr. president, we can sit down. we're not here for a minute to suggest that we shouldn't have health care reform. all we're they're suggest is it ought to be done in the right way. it ought to be done on a

bipartisan basis. it ought to be to b done whethey that actual bends the cost curve down and not raise it and not cost us $2.5 trillion, financed with cuts to medicare, which is going to impact a lot of seniors, tax increases, which is going to crush small businesses, or debt, which is going to punish future generations. that's what this debate is about. it is a consequential debate for america's future. the stakes are very high, and i hope the american people will be engaged in it, and i hope again, mr. president, that we'll be able to find some bipartisan support for defeating this really bad idea and moving and pivoting to something that actually will make a difference, that will restrain costs, and that that will provide health insurance reform -- and that will provide health insurance reform that is meaningful reform and that doesn't bankrupt us, doesn't bankrupt hospitals, doesn't bankrupt future generations, doesn't cost us jobs by putting new taxes on small businesses, and actually bends the cost curve down. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president, i want to thank the senator from south dakota for his enthusiasm and passion and ability to explain things. the passion that you've seen throughout the day from the republicans that have spoken is a reflection of the passion that we're hearing in our television calls and our e-mails and our letters. our volume is much higher than the 61% that the cnn poll says. of course, we wouldn't expect the cnn poll to necessarily reflect our constituents. but that enthusiasm across america, that passion, that concern subreflected in this chamber. i -- should be reflected this this chamber. i get a lot of mail and even phone calls from other states, and they say, "how come my senator isn't listening to city in how come he's not listening

to all of my friends? thank you for what you're doing on health care." and what we're doing on health care, of course, is asking that it be done step by step so that we can get the confidence of the american people, not do something grandiose that can't be well-thought-out because it is so big. i spent time as the ranking member of the health, education, labor and pensions committee in an extensive markup on a bill that we had no input into writing. the other side says that we had input into the amendments and we did do some amendments and some were accepted. there are even some that were fairly significant that were accepted. of course, that was what was disa-- what was disappointing was after the august recess -- they didn't print it before the august recess because they didn't want people to know what was actually in it at that time -- but following the august recess, when they finally printed it, we found out that provisions that we had put in there by agreement had been ripped out. never have h