12% nondiscretionary increase in 2009. 17% increase in spending in 2010. and so, with that and the stimulus spending, it brings us to where we are today, which is this massive expansion of the federal government, $2.5 trillion in new spending for a new entitlement program. now that too is not something that the previous administration is responsible for. that is something that this administration, the majority here in the congress, has decided they want to push through here, they want to finish before the christmas holiday. they want to get it in the rear-view mirror before the american people have a chance to see it, particularly in the hurried rush where we got the 400-page amendment where we have the last-minute deals made to get that elusive 60th vote. now we see $2.5 trillion in new spending is filled with new

goody that's will favor individual senators and states. the american people are starting to react to that, mr. president. the point i want to make about this, is the one thing the president and a lot of our colleagues on the other side have been coming down here and talking about is how this reduces the defendant sit. this saves $132 billion over the next 10 years. just remember that $132 billion over 10 is if you look at what the deficit was for the month of october. mr. president, i would say if any of my colleagues was for the month -- what the defendant sit was for the month of october, one month alone, was $176 billion in one month. and we're talking about, they're crowing about $132 billion in saves over a -- savings over a 10-year period. what's interesting about tha that $132 billion, if you take away all of the gimmicks and peel back the onion and look at the phony accounting to get to that number, it goes down in a

real huh yism for example, as -- hurry for example, the reimbursement issue is a $200,000-plus item. say they have $132 billion in savings over the next 10 year, but you have to deal with th the $200 billion s.g.r., you end up with a negative $68 billion already. you have this class act, anybody who has any sense, any actuary has denounced, including even "the washington post", but if you look at what the class act does, they're using the revenues in the first early years of that that come from the premiums that are paid in, money's going to get spent. when it comes time to pay out benefits, there isn't going to be any money there. but they're showing a $72 billion savings or addition to their so-called savings in that first 10 years from this class act.

now, it should be pointed out that the chairman of the budget committee, kent conrad, from north dakota, a democrat, has called the class act a ponzi scheme of the first order. something that bernie madoff would be proud of. so you take that $72 billion out, if they weren't using that program, which the congressional budget office says is going to add huge deficits in the out years, you back out tha that $72 billion, and you're already at $130 billion deficit. now we haven't even dealt with the fact because of the way that they set this up by front end loading the tax increases and back end loading the spending, and in the first 10 years, if you take the first four years where you have $56 billion of revenue coming in and only $9 billion of spending going out, that's anothe another $47 billion that you could add to the deficit. and so you've gone fro from $132 billion so-called savings, they say it's going to have a positive impacts on the

deficit, to $177 billion deficit. and that's before, mr. president, you even get to the more important issue, which is what the c.b.o. came out with today in response to a question from the senator from alabama, senator sessions, asking about how can you count money that's going to come -- come from the revenue -- these medicare cuts, count that as revenue that's going to save and extend the life of medicare and still spend it for a new entitlement program on health care? and what the c.b.o. basically said, mr. president, is that's double counting. in fact, i want to read what they said here. to describe the full amount of each one -- h.u savings is to improve the government's ability to finance new spending outside of medicare would essentially double count a share of those savings an thus overstate the improvement in government's fiscal position. every american knows you can't spend the same money twice, mr.

president. and that's what this does. they're going to cut a trillion dollars over 10 years when it's fully implemented out of medicare. but then they're going to say we're going to spend that money on a new entitlement program and still count the savings in medicare. you can't have it both ways. the american people have figured this shell game out. so when you take $177 billion deficit after you take out all of these accounting -- accounting gimmicks and all this enron-type akl kting, you're running a significant deficit and when you add in the fact that what the c.b.o. said what most of us believe to be true and have been arguing throughout the course of this dedate and that is that you can't spend the same money twice, you cannot double count the revenue, the medicare trust fund is going to take a significantly big hit. the senator from alabama is going to talk more extensively about that. i want to point that out, mr. president. because we're going into a big debate about raising the debt limit. and, obviously, everybody now

that the horse is out of the barn want to shut the gauge. you can't spend $2.5 trillion on a new entitlement program and claim to be fiscally responsible or say that you're doing something to reduce the deficit. the c.m.s. actuary actually said that the medicare cuts are unlikely to be sustainable on a permanent basis. we all know around here that we're not going to cut a trillion dollars out of medicare when -- over the first 10 years when it's fully implemented. that just doesn't happen here. and so what happens? all that money is going to get borrowed. it's going to get put on the debt or they're going to have to raise taxes to pay for it. you can't have it both ways. as we get into the debate about the debt limit, i think it's important to put things into context. i want to say again $132 billion savings, which is what they're saying they get by this health care reform bill with all of the tax increases and the medicare cuts, is suspicious in the first place given the fact that the

s.g.r. $200 billion isn't included, the $72 billion class act is and the $47 billion they achieve by front end loading the tax increases and back end loading the spending brings you to $177 billion deficit and that doesn't include the funky accounting with the medicare trust fund. we need to defeat this, mr. president. i hope that we'll still seem courage here by a few of my colleagues on the other side to help us take this health care bill down to go back to the drawing board to do it right and to actually put in place solution that's will meaningfu meaningfully reduce the cost of health care for people, not increase premiums and not add to the deficit and saddle future generations with an enormous debt they don't deserve. $176 billion was the deficit in the month of october alone. we're talking about their

numbers, $132 billion in savings over the next 10 years, when you sit down and figure it out, it doesn't add up. mr. president, i yield the balance of my time. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. when the recession hit last fall many americans had been living beyond their means and had to quickly scale back. families all across america have been tightening their belts, foregoing vacations, meals in restaurants, extra christmas presents, cutting back whatever they can. the government needs to take a lesson from those families. it's time that congress and the administration get serious about cutting spending in a meaningful way. spending during president obama's first year in office, to put it charitiably, has not been what most would describe as responsible. government spending grew b by $705 billion in fiscal year 2009. an increase of 24%. and appropriations legislations enacted this year will increase

spending by another 8% in the year 2010. all of this spending, of course, has an impact on both the federal deficit and the federal debt. let me clarify the difference between those two numbers. the deficit is the amount of total spending not covered by revenues in a given year. the debt is the sum of all of the nation's yearly deficits. the 2009 deficit made history and not in a good way. it exceeded $1.4 trillion last fiscal year. that's the highest amount in history. and more than three times as much as the highest deficit during the last administration. the budget president obama submitted to congress doubles the deficit in five years, triples it in 10 years. it also creates more debt than the combined debt under every president since george washington.

that seems almost impossible, but it's true. the president's budget creates more debt than all of the debt ever combined throughout the history of our country, from george washington all the way up through george bush. more debt under president obama's budget than all of that combined. and even the management and budget director, peter orszag, has said that's not sustainable. the debt has reached an almost unimaginable sum of $12 trillion. to pay the federal government's bills for the next two months, tomorrow, we're going to consider passing a roughl roughly $300 billion increase in the allowable u.s. national debt known as the debt ceiling. that means that our debt ceiling now $12.1 trillion will b be $12.4 trillion. after those two months, we'll

need to add anothe another $1.5 trillion to the debt ceiling to pay for the remaining spending in the year 2010. so early next year our debt ceiling will be a whoppin whopping $13.9 trillion. of the massive national debt papered by -- a paper by the national heritage foundation tells us that the excessive spending has called the debt held by the public to grow sharply to 55% of the economy, topping the historic average of 36%. to make matters worse, entitlement programs will double in size over the next few decades and cause the national debt to reach 320% of the economy. end of quote. mr. president, that is obviously unsustainable, that it has to be of great concern of us much it's like the size of a credit card being several times more than our income. such that we can never pay the

debt on the credit card. and that's even to ignore the interest payments. let's not fo forget about that. that's another tab that we've got to pick up. i've only been talking about the principal. in 2009 alone interest payments were $209 billion. by 2019 interest payments are expected to reach $800 billion a year. that's just the interest on the debt. how are we going to afford that? by the way, who do we pay to? we pay it to all the people that borrowed money from. one of whom is the nation of china. chinese officials have indicated that they're nervous about the amount of debt that the united states has taken on. in mid-march chinese premier voiced concerns about u.s. government bond holdings and said this -- quote -- "we've lent huge amounts of money to the united states. of course we're concerned about the safety of our assets. to be honest, i'm a little bit worried and i would like to call

on the united states to honor its word and remain a credible nation and ensure the safety of chinese assets." end of quote. now, what can a lender do when he or a nation becomes concerned that the borrower is going to have trouble paying back when the borrower keeps coming back for more and more lending. what you do is raise the interest rate to reflect the greater risk in the lending of the money. that's what's going to happen to us and that greater interest rate will be manifested in payments that we have to make by our productivity and the taxes we pay. that will decrease our standard of living and create an additional obligation on the american people. president obama has acknowledged the problem. he said and i quote -- "we can't keep on borrowing from china. we have to pay interest on that debt and that means we're mortgaging our children's future with more and more debt."

and he is right. so why does he propose more spending and more borrowing and more than any other president in the history of the world? it's time for words and actions to match. it's time for congress and the president to start reining in this out-of-control spending an debt. i stand with my colleague from alabama in support of his amendment to reinstate statutory spending caps. while this is not a panacea for solving the fiscal problems the nation faces, it is a good way to start on the path to responsibility. yet i'll bet most of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will vote against it. i think it's wrong for them to expect republicans to extend the debt ceiling as long as they're unwilling to do anything to get spending under control. mr. president, americans expect us to get this spending and debt under control. when we return to the senate in january, our first item of business will be a long-term debt ceiling extension.

including consideration of the session's amendment and others. after pushing the stimulus, the auto bailouts, cash for clungers, the massiv massive $2.5 trillion health care bill and others, i would hope that our democratic colleagues are ready to take a breather from their big spending and support a more reasonable course so that we don't have to continue to extend the nation's debt ceiling. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i thank senator kyl for his consistent performance over his entire career in the senate, trying to maintain financial responsibility in this body, and i respect him highly on that and many other issues, and there is so much that we could say at this point on the debt limit which we expect to vote on tomorrow. i am not going to vote on a debt

limit increase until we accompany with it some action that will actually reduce the incredibly irresponsible path we're on. that is going to be one of my positions, and i think others will take the same view. so we have to increase the debt. well, we have to do something about reckless government spending. we really do. we've got to do something about it. and they always say next year. so i say when? so i believe we should condition any increase of the debt limit on the passage of legislation that would renew what has expired, spending caps on the discretionary spending accounts, and i thank senator kyl for supporting the legislation. in other words, we can do that. we did it in the -- in 1990, and

you can see a chart of the declining expenditures, and as a result, those numbers that we passed in 1990 -- and we had those yellow lines represent the deficit up to $300 billion, and it began to shrink, and this is -- in late 2000, 2001, we had surpluses in our accounts. hard to show a surplus below the line but we accomplished that. president clinton liked to claim credit for it, but i have a vague memory that republicans shut the government down to contain president clinton's spending, but there were battles over containing spending and it worked. the big key to it was the spending limits, the spending caps. those expired in 2002, and look, we begin to show the increases in deficits again. so i think as a condition of voting for a debt increase, we should have a fix of the,

restoring of the caps. senator kyl made reference to the fact that under president obama's ten-year budget that he submitted earlier this year, which was scored by the congressional budget office, a nonpartisan group, but the leader is picked by the democratic majority, what would it do to our deficit? i ask, he has a budget for ten year. -- ten years. he shows what he has in revenue during those ten years and what he expects to spend. he does not show, however, what is spent in the health care because that wasn't in law at the time the budget was submitted. so in truth, it will be worse than this, but let's look at this. in 2008, the deficit was was $5.8 trillion. in 2013, it doubles to to $11.8 trillion. and about 2019, it triples to

to $17.3 trillion. that's a stunning tripling of the public debt of the united states of america. it's an unsustainable path, and some of the most grim parts of the scoring of this deficit expansion is that it's not getting better. in year 2008, 2009, 2010, the deficit is going up to almost almost $1 trillion a year, to 2019. going up. and they are not projecting in any of those years any recession. in fact, they projected we would come out of the recession that we are in now faster than we are. the numbers would probably be worse there. this is not made up. this is the president's budget. it is scored by this congress' c.b.o., and it's the best numbers we have, and it is a stunning development. we cannot continue.

that's why people say it is unsustainable. now, senator kyl made reference to this. i made a chart on it some time ago. i could -- i just couldn't believe it. in 2009, the total interest that this government pays on the debt that we owe was $170 billion, and you can see this chart show how the annual interest payments that we make is surging year after year after year. as a result of several things, c.b.o. is cautious, but they are acknowledging that interest rates are going to go up. we have virtually zero interest rates in short-term treasuries today. that's not going to continue. so you have more debt and higher interest rates, you get this surging interest payments. in 2017, we had interest payments over $600 billion.

it goes over in 2019, one year's interest, $799 billion. as i recall, the supplementals that we have used to fund the war in iraq represented about about $70 billion a year. a couple of years ago, our highway spending was about about $40 billion a year. aid to education is about about $100 billion a year. 2019, in one year, we will pay pay $799 billion. i think at a minimum, just in interest. you see how huge those numbers are? it's unsustainable. we cannot continue to do this. the american people understand it. the cnn did a poll last month, and they asked this question of the american people. which of the following comes closer to your view of the

budget deficit? the government should run a deficit if necessary when the run is in a recession and at war, or the government should balance the budget even when the country is in a recession and is at war. what do you favor? 67% say balance the budget. well, what is congress doing? running the most incredible series of deficits we've ever seen, tripling the national debt in ten years, all in furtherance basically of president obama's budget which calls for this. and sure, president bush was not as frugal and fiscally responsible as he should have been. most, however, of his deficit was driven by war costs, but regardless, he could have been more frugal and less expensive, but the deficits he had would

come in at half or less than half of the deficits we're going to see on average over the next ten years. so i just -- i've got to say, we are losing our perspective. now, this health care reform, this is not -- this is a series -- a serious matter. we got a report this morning from the congressional budget office that clarifies what has been pretty obvious to us for some time, but it was difficult to get an official accounting of how these numbers are scored or added up by the budget office, but basically what they say is pretty simple. they are saying that proposals in this bill that raises the payroll tax on medicare and reduces expenditures within

medicare, cutting medicare, saves money. it puts more money in the pot, but it's part of the medicare trust fund pot. that savings, it is said, well, we will just spend it over here and pay for this new health care program that just was voted on earlier today. so we're going to take this saving and increased revenue to medicare and we're going to spend it over here. and this is a chart i just put together to try to show that. so here's medicare. you raise medicare incomes and you -- you cut their costs and you create an extra surplus. we've got some surplus still in medicare. if we don't do something about it, medicare will be in deficit in 2017, eight years. so this transfer of money then goes to the united states treasury, and we have got extra

money. let's spend it on a new health care reform, never before been passed, creating benefits for people who never received this kind of benefits before because we want to be helpful to those people and create more insured people in america. but as the c.b.o. said, you can't count this money twice. what about the people who are paying into medicare, been paying in it 40 years. they have not received a dime of benefits until they get 65. it's their money they are putting into medicare. they are not just giving it over here to the united states treasury. as one of them wrote me, you're taking my money. i pay -- i'm 67, i'm just now beginning to draw medicare. you're taking my money and giving it to somebody else. i've never received any benefits from medicare until now, and you're taking it from me. so as a matter of the way our

accounting occurs, the united states treasury can't take that money just free and clear. it's not extra free money. i see my colleague. i want senator baucus to recognize here that according to the c.b.o. director, he told me last night there are bonds issued. treasury has to give a bond to medicare, a treasury note, an i.o.u., so when medicare starts running in default, as it will within the next 15 years if this bill were to pass, when medicare starts running into default, they're going to have the treasury pay for it. so in effect, this bond coughs -- causes the united states treasury to pay interest to medicare. and during this first ten years, the united states treasury will pay interest to medicare of of $69 billion on the money they

borrow, this i.o.u. here. and then when the -- when it goes into default, this is inevitably heading into default, the treasury will have to pay those bonds. and so it increases the debt, and what c.b.o. says, without any equivocation, is not disputable. the debt of the united states will be increased by this bill, not decreased. it will not be $132 billion surplus in the -- in reality, but will be $170 billion deficit just on that, and then when you get to what senator thune talked about, other gimmicks in the bill, it makes that even worse. you say well, the c.b.o. has a score that said it's it's $132 billion surplus. it reduces our debt debt $132 billion. well, the way they are doing this and the way that accounting

is done with trust funds and nontrust funds and a unified government budget, they don't score this i.o.u.,baugh they -- they seem to think it's all one government, and so what's one is not the other and it's not debt. but it is a debt, and they said it explicitly. you can't count the money over here as adding to the life of medicare and at the same time score this as free money to be spent over here on this program, and president obama monday at a press conference said it's going to increase -- it's going to reduce our deficit $132 billion, and it's going to extend the life of medicare by nine years. well, you can't do both, as they have explicitly stated in the letter that we get from c.b.o., and it's just a matter of absolute fact.

he says -- "to describe the full amount of the h.i. trust fund savings over here in medicare, to describe that full amount as both improving the government's ability to pay medicare benefits and financing new spending programs would essentially double count a large share of those savings." so, mr. president, these kind of gimmicks and manipulations have been done before, but it's time to end it. i think the american people have said in a time of war, in a time of recession, they think we need to get busy about the budget. by a two-thirds vote, they are right. we are going to work our way out of this recession. this american economy will respond sooner or later, and hopefully sooner, to the people

of the united states. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. sessions: thank you. is that the ten minutes on this side? and is there time left on this side? all right. i would ask unanimous consent to have three additional minutes. mr. thune: i think our side has another ten minutes or so which i would perhaps enter into a question -- colloquy with the senator from alabama. i would ask the senator on the point that you made -- and i give you great credit for raising that question to the c.b.o., because i think it's intuitive to most people that you can't spend money twice, that you can't somehow double count it, and that's essentially what the c.b.o. said in their letter, and i think you quoted from it. they went on to say -- "c.b.o. has written that savings to the trust fund was received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future medicare spending and at the same time pay for current spending in other parts of the legislation or on other programs." and that's the argument we have

been making all along, and i guess it's final -- the c.b.o., evidently it dawned on them and it took your question i think to get them to respond this way, but the way that you explained the interaction between government trust funds, the unified budget, and the i.o.u.'s the government writes to itself, perhaps gives some explanation to how they came up with this actually achieving a savings, but you made it very clear clear $170 billion actually to the -- to the detriment, to the deficit, and as i mentioned earlier, the accounting gimmicks that had been used have understated the cost, the ten-y -- the ten-year cost of this. and my off-the-top-of-my-head calculation, it's actually $187 billion. so you add the $187 to the 107 and pretty soon you've got what they're claiming is a $132 billion savings turns into a very sizable deficit. and so i would ask the senator from alabama, again, and i give

him, as i said, great credit for bringing this to light and raising this issue with the c.b.o., what does that mean for this piece of legislation that we're going to be voting on tomorrow? $2.5 trillion expansion of the federal government, financed through tax increases and medicare cuts, and yet even with all of that, the assumption is that this is not going to meet the requirement that the president set out and that is that it doesn't add a single dime to the deficit. what does -- what does that mean to that commitment on behalf of the president and to the -- this legislation's sort of fiscal situation as we move forward and do these negotiations or discussions if this passes tomorrow with the house of representatives? mr. sessions: this is a huge issue. i remember a few months ago in a joint session of congress, president obama spoke to us, he looked out at the crowd and sa said, this bill will not add $1 -- or one dime to the national debt.

it was a firm commitment to all the american people who were listening, all the congressmen and senators in that room, would not add to the debt. and so what we now know is that this bill is going to add to the debt, there is no doubt about it. the debt of the united states will increase. and it is a dangerous trend that happens in a lot of different ways, that's put us on to this course. i think he recognized that you shouldn't increase the debt, he reduced that he's going to create an entirely new health care program over here, it ought to be paid for. and he promised to do that. we've got members of this body, members of the house who supported the bill based on the promise that it would not increase the debt. but we have now i think conclusive proof from any number of different ways but particularly with the c.b.o. that it will increase the debt. so that's a decisive issue as far as i can see.

mr. thune: if the would further yield, in addition to this revolution i think from the c.b.o. which i think does change the game and the whole debate about whether or not this is a budget-bust, which it's been described as, in spite of the fact that our colleagues on the other side have been arguing that extends the life of medicare. i think this -- this sort of statement by the c.b.o. certainly shreds the -- the notion that you can have it both ways, that you can double-count this money, that you can spend it twice. you can't do that. and i think the american people get that, which is why they believe it will add to the deficit as well. but there are other things in this bill. there were eight democratic -- mr. sessions: i would just -- my understanding, having looked at this at some length and giving it thought is the legislation will extend medicare because it increases the medicare tax and that will bring in more money and it pretends that we will

slash provider payments, home health care and others and save money that way. so on paper, it definitely would -- should extend the life of medicare. what do we do with the money? well, the money that's saved does not say in medicare, it's being barred by the united states treasury to spend -- borrowed by the united states treasury to spend on a new program and the u.s. treasury owes it to medicare and we can see in the trends in medicare it won't be too many years and medicare's going to want that money. and that's going to leave us over here and that's why we have a debt. it increases our debt and we're going to have to pay that back, our grandchildren really sooner than that. hopefully it will be -- we'll able to pay that back. so that's the problem we have here, it's misrepresentation to say this creates money that can fund the program on a permanent basis. it does not. it's just a internal debt

situation. mr. thune: well, if the senator would further yield, the -- a couple of other items that are being used to sort of get us to where we are -- where this aringinginging iewment cathearga $236 billion saving and the ma jot also includes the da -- majority also includes an entirely new program. the class act. and eight democratic senators wrote a letter basically asking this not be included in this bill, recognizing what many have, and that is the c.b.o. has recognized that this -- while it may show some savings in the early years when people are paying premiums, that it's like everything else, that money, when it get spends on other things, isn't there to pay out benefits when the time -- spent on other things, isn't there to pay out benefits when the time comes. so you get this artificial $72 billion infusion of cash in the early years which is being

used to understate, again, i think the cost of this and to demonstrate -- or to use to make the argument that there is, in fact, $132 billion in savings here or deficit reduction. there is $72 billion that this class act represents in that first ten-year window which, as i've described earlier, our colleague on the other side has described it as a ponzi scheme. but it does create an entirely new program not unlike some of the entitlement programs that already exist, where payments are coming in now that are being used and spent for other purposes, that someday when the chickens come home to roost, there's going to be a -- you know, another reckoning and i think, again, it's another example of a program -- a way in which this -- this -- the financial picture with regard to this health care bill is understating its true costs and its impact on the deficits in the long-run. and i would ask my colleague from alabama, having looked at that particular program, if he would agree with me that that, too, is something that is going to cost us significantly in the

out-years and whether or not that's something that ought to be included as a -- as a, you know, sort of -- counted toward the whole -- the calculation on deficit reduction in this legislation? mr. sessions: i think, senator thune, your leadership in exposing this, the way i believe this operates -- and you correct me if i'm wrong -- but the way i believe it operates is it would require a certain number of premiums now and the actuaries, who score these things, say that in the years to come, there will be claims on those policies and people will claim more and more as they get older and the years go by and it becomes actuarial unsound. but in the first few years, on paper -- on paper -- for the first two years it looks good. you've got more coming in than going out. and so they're scoring this short-term surplus -- correct me if i'm wrong -- they're scoring

this as an asset, as income to the treasury, when the contracts that people have when they start paying this money in, protects hem for years and years to come and in the future they'll be making more claims than paid out. and that's why it's actuarial unsound -- actuarially unsound and really will increase the debt in the long-run. would the senator describe it that way? mr. thune: well, i think that's exactly how it would work. and, again, it's another gimmick, if you will, another accounting tool to make -- the presiding officer: so it's a dishonest thing, really. when you know a program is not actuarially sound and it's going to take additional federal government revenue to honor the contracts in the years to come, to count that today as an asset is wrong. it's not a -- it's improper to do that, and we ought not to propose a plan that has a ponzi scheme type nature to it. mr. thune: well, i don't disagree and i think that's -- the presiding officer: the time of the senator has expired.

mr. sessions: i thank the chair. mr. baucus: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, this has been an interesting discussion that we've heard in the last 15, 20 minutes. one can do anything with figures, numbers. they're not going to cite the oft used phrase, you know, so many can figure -- some category of people can figure it, other category of people can do something else. but anyway, one can do anything with -- with numbers, anything whatsoever. and, frankly, this is really an effort to confuse by just pulling different figures out from one document to another and concoct what they -- put a board up here. it's -- it's just an effort to confuse. one can do anything with numbers. but the real question is: what are the facts? a senator: would the senator yield? mr. baucus: no, i want to first make a point and i'll yield later to the senator.

the congressional budget office stands by its analysis. i have before me an e-mail sent today dated today's date, 2:56 p.m. and let me read it from the congressional budget office. "the congressional budget office has been -- has asked whether our memo this morning discussing the effect of this legislation incorporating the manager' amendment alters c.b.o.'s earlier findings about the budgetary impact of the legislation. it does not. in particular, as described in our december 19 and december 20 letters to senator reid" -- let me continue reading here and i hope the senators are listening to this because this is a letter today. actually it's an e-mail today at 2:56 p.m. today. "c.b.o. and the staff of the joint committee on taxation estimate that the legislation would reduce the federal budget deficit by $1.32 billion during the ensuing period."

next, "c.b.o. expects that the legislation will reduce federal budget deficits during the decade beyond 2019 relative to those projected under current law with the total effect during that decade in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half of g.d.p." of course, we know that's about $650 billion to $1.3 trillion. that's c.b.o. today. third, "c.b.o. expects the legislation would generate a reduction in the federal budgetary commitment to health care during the decade beyond 2019." so what everyone says -- i might say to my good friend from alabama, part of that chart he had before us today is accurate. i mean, the flow of medicare and the -- the i.o.u.'s and so forth. the part that's inaccurate was saying increase in debt and double accounting part. there's month double accounting here. there are several bookkeeping, there's separate accounting regimes, procedures here that are used for all trust funds, including medicare, and it's --

it's -- you've got the medicare trust fund is not -- it's -- it issued dollars if they're in surplus and i.o.u.'s, as the senator said, then held by the trust fund -- by the trustee. and dollars then used in -- they're used in any way the federal government or -- decides to spend dollars, either pursuant to legislation or -- or maybe the administration may on its own be spending some dollars in one place or another. this is not double accounting. nobody's claimed there's double accounting, and it's just -- it's two different regimes and that's how the senator accurately described how medicare trust fund was accounted for. but it was also true that under the -- our budget rules, we have a unified budget. there's one government, the united states government. it's medicare and the rest of the government. and under that unified budget regime, the c.b.o. still reaches the same conclusion it's always reached and that's -- i would just like that to be on the

record. mr. sessions sessions: mr. chaii would agree that the -- the presiding officer: the senator will address the other senator through the chair. mr. sessions: if the senator would yield for a question? mr. the chair would -- mr. baucus: mr. president, i yield for a question. mr. sessions: i think that c.b.o.'s second statement is correct. i think the statement that they did earlier about the $132 billion surplus or reducing the debt over 10 years is technically accurate. but i think the statement they issued this morning early, that this is -- to count it both -- in both places is a double count of the money and, in effect -- in effect. but my question to you, senator, is that we're going to be talking about voting on the debt limit tomorrow and the debt limit is the gross debt of the country, and isn't it true that

the passage of this health care bill will increase the gross debt of the country, the gross debt being both the public debt and the intergovernmental debt. that's the gross debt and will not the bill -- will not the bill increase the gross debt of the united states? mr. baucus: if -- mr. baucus: if i might respond, c.b.o. says so. c.b.o. says it reduces the deficit. mr. sessions: i'm asking the difference. the question is gross debt. does it reduce or increase the gross debt? mr. baucus: if i might, mr. president, as the senator knows, the debt is accumulation of deficits. and by definition, if the deficit is reduced therefore the national debt is also reduced. that's a mathematical -- that is

a mathematical truism. if the deficit is reduced, automatically the debt is also reduced. if the deficit is reduced, automatically the debt is also reduced. that's mathematics. okay, the next point i want to make there was substantial debate today about the constutionality of this bill. as i discussed before, we have confidence the health care plan we crafted does not violate the 10th amendment. we further believe ample power is available under the taxing and spending power. and i ask consent that two articles by procedures irwin sha r*eu nsky be put in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president, the debt limit sets a ceiling on the

amount of money that the united states treasury can borrow. if we pass this bill, then the treasury can continue to borrow until about february 11 of next year f. we do not pass this bill, then at least two very bad things will happen. first, the united states would default on the interest payments on its debt for the first time in the history of this country. second, the federal government will be unable to borrow the money it needs for all social security benefits the beneficiaries are entitled to receive. the bottom line is we have no choice. we have to approve it. the law limits how much money the treasury can borrow. you might ask, how did we reach the current limit? the answer is simple. and it's, frankly, i'm trying to give a very fair answer, fair to both sides of the aisle here, and not be political about this but just be fair and explain how we got to where we are. the financial crisis and the

deep recession that the new administration inherited have resulted in record borrowing this year. let me be specific. first, the bush administration asked for and then used authority to spend unprecedented sums of money to help banks, auto companies, insurance firms, fannie mae and freddie mac to weather the financial crisis. the prior administration enacted and used these authorities before the current administration even took office. that ran up a huge number, huge addition to our deficits and debt. second, the new administration inherited the great recession. the recession has lowered revenues to compensate for reduced revenues the treasury has had to borrow more. in addition, the recession has increased the need for federal spending on things like unemployment insurance and medicaid costs for folks who can no longer afford health care. to compensate for these increased outlays, treasury has

had to borrow more as well. finally, to keep the recession from becoming a lot worse than it has, the obama administration had no choice but to enact a vigorous stimulus package. the treasury has had to borrow the money to make up for this shortfall as well. but without enactment of this stimulus, the economy would well have descended into a depression. we would have been been in far worse economic shape had not we passed that stimulus legislation. to cover the cost of all these measures, those of the bush administration and those of the obama administration, the treasury department has had to borrow record amounts of money. unfortunately as it is we had to do it. had we not, we'd be in much worse shape today. as a result of this unprecedented borrowing, the treasury is about to reach the current limit. it is clear that we have no choice but to raise the ceiling on the debt that the treasury can borrow. we've spent the money.

we've got to raise the debt limit so that bills can be paid. if we don't, the united states will default on our interest payments for the first time in its 220-year history. we cannot let that happen. and we'll not be able to pay all the monthly social security benefits to which people are entitled. that would be unthinkable. it is true that we have to work harder, mr. president, to reduce these deficits. we have no choice. and, although, therefore to reduce our national debt certainly as a percent of gross domestic product. we have no choice. point is we're beginning to reach a crisis in the accumulation of our deficits and, therefore, our debt. that is clear. we must as a country, as a congress reduce those deficits and our national debt. however, we have to pay our bills. if we don't pay our bills, we default. that would cause catastrophic consequences. to prevent those catastrophic consequences, there thus other

countries having less confidence in the united states government, less confidence in the united states being able to pay its debt, we must increase the treasury's borrowing limit. and for a short period of time that, i think, is appropriate and prudent. so i urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation. there is no way around it. it is a necessity. we simply have no choice. we have to pay our debts. but in the future let's work hard tore get our deficits under control. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. dodd: mr. president, i'm not a member of the finance committee and don't have the responsibility that senator baucus does in dealing with these debt ceiling issues, but let me just corroborate what he has been saying. someone once drew the analogy this is like going out to dinner and enjoying a good meal and refusing to pay the bill at the end of it. we have a meal in front of us. the bill got too large because

the past administration accumulated debt without asking the american people to pay for it and it left us in a hole larger than all previous administrations combined, over 225 years of our history. a remarkable achievement. it's not just the debt of one administration, all 43 previous presidents combined never accumulated the amount of debt that one administration did in eight years. i want to commend my colleague from montana. this is no easy task. it is always a painful vote for anyone to cast but it's obviously critical. this is more than just a vote in this chamber. it goes to the very stability of global, the global economy. and so we have to meet our obligations. i, for one, am certainly glad to cast a vote. i don't think it's a difficult vote. it's a hard vote because of what's at stake. considering the implications of refusing to sport this would be -- to support this would be catastrophic for our country. so i congratulate him and thank him for his comments. we're ten minutes short of 12

hours. we're going to cast our final vote on the national health care proposal. and i've got some closing remarks on this historic debate. but before i do so, i want to thank once again our staffs who have been involved in all of this. i know my dear friend and colleague from iowa will talk about this more specifically. and i've already announced the names of the majority staff who made a contribution to this effort. and i think it's fairly clear that tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. when we cast our votes on this proposal, this is going to be a very divided chamber. sadly, we're going to end up on a very partisan vote. i suspect something along the lines of 60-40 although obviously we need less than 60 votes to pass the bill at this point but i suspect the vote will be something like that. i regret that deeply.

it saddens me that we've come to that moment, but it is what it is. while last evening i mentioned the members of the staff who are part of the majority staff who made such a contribution, and i want to thank them once again for their efforts. i want to also mention the minority staff that served their members well and admirably in this effort. certainly during the markup of our bill in the health, education, labor and pensions committee, that senator kennedy chaired for so many years, that i had the honor of taking over for him during his period of illness, it is now chaired by my friend from iowa, senator harkin. mike enzi is the ranking minority member of that committee, the senator from wyoming. we ultimately had a divided partisan vote in that committee. but as my colleagues have heard me say over and over again during these days and weeks of

debate, a good part of our bill, mr. president, even though it ended up with a partisan vote, included 161 amendments offered by the minority in that markup session. more than half of all the amendments considered were offered by the republicans on that committee, on my committee at the time, that were adopted almost unanimously in most cases. and so i want to mention the minority staff tonight who made that possible, i think strengthened our bill, made it a stronger one. and beginning with frank machioralla, chuck clampton, todd spangler, amy moeg le r. jay closom, patty delaschu.

along with paul williams of senator hatch's staff made a significant contribution to the bill. while again there was division on a partisan basis, i want to thank them for their efforts. they put in long hours as well, and i want to thank them. on that note let me say before getting to the substance of my remarks, i chaired the senate banking, housing and urban affairs committee, and we've been working diligently. in fact, today, mr. president, my good friend and colleague from alabama, richard shell pweurbgs and i spent about -- richard shelby and i spent about an hour or so again and five or six republicans and democrats on that committee spent about an hour together as we have every day over the last several of weeks trying to fashion a bill on services reform that we hope to present to our colleagues here on our return in january and february that will deal with the catastrophe that's occurred economically in our nation. and my hope is as a chamber

here -- i know my colleagues have heard me say this. i arrived in this chamber as an employee of the senate about 50 years ago, and i sat on these steps right over here. lyndon johnson sat in your chair. he was the vice president. john kennedy was the president of the united states. and i was a senate page and listened to the all-night debates in the 1960's on civil rights and got to witness history, watched the members of this chamber, some of the historic figures -- hubert humphrey, lyndon johnson, everett dirksen, just remarkable people. barry goldwater. we served with barry together in this chamber for a period of time because he was here when i arrived in the senate. 35 years ago on january 3 of the next month i arrived as a 30-year-old member of the house of representatives. and six years later arrived here as a freshman senator 30 years ago. going back to the 1960's, i've

had a lot to do with this chamber and watched it over the years. the best moments occur when we work together. this has been a bitter and difficult battle over these last number of months. as someone who takes great, great pride in having been a part of this chamber, as my father was before me, for more than a quarter of the life of our country, i want to see us once again return to the days when we have our partisan debates -- which we should because it's built the country. partisanship, there's nothing wrong with that. it's our ability to act civilly with each other. i've been deeply disturbed by some of the debate i've heard usually from newer members here, the ones that have been here a year or two or three that don't have any appreciation of what this chamber means and how we work together and why we have our differences. the ability to walk away from differences and forge those new relationships the next day is critically important. it always seems to me the newest members who fail to understand

how the senate has worked for more than two centuries. we need to get back to that sense of civility once again. so i hope when we return in january to deal with new issues that we'll get back to that comity that's important. not the disagreements. disagreements are important. but the ability to deal with each other and forge the kind of proposals that serve all of our constituents and serve all of our country is going to be critically important. and so i want to share that thought with my colleagues this evening, as someone who now at the ripe old age of 65 has spent well more than half of my life deeply involved in this institution. and so it saddens me when we end up being divided and engaged in the arguments that i think ridicule the institution, tkhreul pwhr*eul and de -- belittle and demean the contributions each member wants to make. even though we've had very strong disagreements, i've never once in my life in this chamber

questioned the patriotic intentions of any member of this chamber. we may have strong disagreements how best to achieve that more perfect union. but the idea that you challenge another member's patriotism, their honesty, their integrity does a great disservice to this institution, in my view. again, i regret that sometimes it's newer members who fail to understand the importance of maintaining that which our founders envisioned when they created this institution. mr. president, this evening i rise to suppress once -- to express once and for all and lastly in this debate my strong support for this bill, our patient protection and affordable care act of 2009. in a little over a week this decade, the first decade of the 21st century will come to a close, mr. president, and it has been a turbulent one for our country. we've been tested by the acts of god and the acts of evil men in this decade. we've entered two wars and have been through a profound

recession, almost a depression. our financial markets have failed. middle-class families have lost their footing. the american dream is fading for far too many of our families in this nation. we wear these ten years heavily. we have seen tkpaoep division in our country -- deep division in our country, bitter debates within the walls of this chamber in which all of us have been proud to serve. mr. president, we do have the luxury of tackling only one of those challenges that can be solved easily. we do not have the luxury of tackling only those challenges that can be solved easily, but as thomas payne wrote, and i quote him -- "the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph." those words come from a pamphlet called "the american crisis." it was published 233 years ago this very week at another very uncertain moment in american history. that pamphlet begins with these

words -- "these are uncertain -- these are times that try men's souls. the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis shrink for the service of his country, but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman." general george washington outmanned, outgunned and sensing that morale was flagging in light of recent setbacks ordered that this pamphlet and these words be read to his deeply troubled and impoverished troops, and on christmas eve 1776, he gathered his officers at mcconaughey's ferry to plan the crossing of the delaware. this body has been in session on christmas eve only once since 1963, and we will tomorrow when in the wake of president kennedy's assassination, the united states senate met to consider a bill to fund our operations in vietnam.

we'll be in session tomorrow morning, madam president, embroiled again in times that certainly try men's souls. and like general george washington, we have an opportunity to meet history's gaze, to steel ourselves for the difficult work of making our union more perfect. the journey we complete tomorrow has been a long and difficult one, but i for one would not trade it for anything. we who will have the privilege to cast our votes at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow morning for health care reform will never cast a more important vote in our senate careers. history will judge harshly those who have chosen to shrink from this moment, but those of us who stand up to make this country more secure, to make our union more perfect we will never forget this christmas eve, for this christmas eve we have given an incredible gift. we have been granted a rare

opportunity to deliver an enormous victory to the american people for generations to come. we have a chance to alleviate tremendous burdens of anxiety and fear and suffering, to make our country stronger and healthier, to deliver the leadership our constituents have demanded, and rightfully so, and to real and meaningful change that they voted for 13 months ago. and so in the last week of this decade in which so much has been asked of the american people, that is what history now asks of us in this chamber. over the past weeks and months, i've come to this floor to talk about this -- what this bill will do for the citizens of my state and my country. i've talked about how reform will guarantee every american will have access to quality, affordable care when they need it from the doctor that they choose. i've talked about how reform will reduce our national deficit by finally getting health care costs under control. i've talked as others have about

what reform will do for small business, giving them access to health insurance exchanges where they can find the best deals for their workers and a tax credit to help them pay for it. and i've talked, as others have, about how reform will help our older citizens, our seniors, by strengthening medicare, closing the so-called doughnut hole for prescription drugs and creating new, voluntary programs to pay for long-term care. and i along with others have talked about how reform will help doctors and health care providers spend more time caring for their patients which they want to do and less time fit fighting with insurance company bureaucrats. i and so many others have talked about how reform will finally making insurance accessible and affordable for the 350,000 residents of my state and the 31 million people across our nation who today don't have it, whether it's because they can't afford it or because they have been denied coverage due to a

pre-existing condition. and i've also talked, madam president, along with my colleagues about how reform will finally make insurance a buyers' market, ending a wide variety of abuses that the insurance industry has practiced in empowering consumers to make smart decisions. as has been said so many times, madam president, this bill is far from perfect, and we all know that. it represents not the end, but as my friend and colleague from iowa said so many times, the beginning of our work. long after all of us have left this chamber, however we depart, those who come after us will work on our product. they'll make it better, they'll make it stronger, they'll find our shortcomes in this bill. they'll add to it, they will subtract from it, but they can never engage in those efforts if we do not do the job that i'm confident we'll do tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. on christmas eve, and that is to renew the american dream to revive our middle class and rebuild the foundation upon which future generations will

stand. but i'm very proud of this legislation with all of its shortcomings. i'm proud to have had a role in bringing it to a vote, an accidental role as all of us know. i wouldn't be standing here other than as a member of this chamber talking about it in this context were it not for the tragic death of my great friend and colleague from massachusetts. president teddy roosevelt famously said, madam president, and let me quote him here -- "it's not the critic who counts, not the man or woman who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. the credit belongs to the man or woman who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood who strives valiantly, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without shortcoming, but it does actually strive to do the deeds,

who knows great thiewsms, the great devotions, who spends himself or herself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at worse if he achieves fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his or her place shall never be for those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." end of quote. so we happy few, the 60 of us here who stand in the arena today who have fought and argued and compromised and organized so that we might cast this historic vote at 7:00 a.m. on christmas eve, we would not trade this opportunity for anything. this also year has proven that progress is not easy. tomorrow will prove that it's not impossible. may the next decade in our country's history be shaped by that spirit, by the promise of a brighter tomorrow, by the unshakable desire to rise to the challenges that fate places in our path, by the quest to make our great nation a more perfect

one, and i yield the floor. mr. harkin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the time used on the bill for today be for debate only. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: madam president, first of all, before he leaves the floor, i just want to thank my dear friend, my colleague, my classmate from 1975 for all of his great leadership on this bill. we were all saddened by the fact that our leader, senator kennedy, could not be with us over the last year to guide and direct and see his lifetime dream of -- fulfilled of health care reform, but it fell upon chris dodd's shoulders to take it through, and, madam president, he did it superbly, kept our committee together, and

again i just want to say senator dodd bent over backwards, extended every, every consideration to the other side to amend, to be involved in the shaping of this bill. as my friend said, we adopted 161 of the amendments out of 220 or something that they offered. not all of them were accepted. not all the democratic amendments were accepted, by the way, in committee. and so i thought we -- i thought senator dodd went the extra mile to accommodate the other side. he did. i'm just sorry that not one republican saw fit to support the bill when it came out of committee, but so be it. and -- but because of his dedication and his leadership, we have a great bill here today. and you know, most of the

things, i have been watching the debate, and most of the things that people are talking about are items that came in the bill that senator dodd crafted. things that are going to make a big difference in people's lives. i'm going to talk about a few of those in my normal remarks. but things like doing away with pre-existing conditions, stopping rescissions where they cut you off your policy when you get sick, keeping kids under parents' policies longer. all of the things that we fought so hard for for prevention and wellness and stuff, all of this is in our bill. it's in the bill that senator dodd brought forward out of our committee. and so i'm just proud to have him not only as a friend but as our great leader on this -- on this health care bill, and tomorrow morning when we finally pass it, it will be in no small part because of the great, great

leadership of senator dodd, and i just wanted to thank him here on the floor before he leaves -- before he leaves and goes home to his two great kids and his wonderful wife. appreciate it very much, chris. mr. dodd: mr. president, i thank my colleague from iowa, and we couldn't have done it without him as well. mr. harkin: thank you very much, senator dodd. and madam president, i also want to thank my good friend from illinois, senator burris, for allowing me to go first here in front of him. and you know, i was kind of feeling bad for myself because i didn't know if i was going to make christmas eve with my wife and family for the first time in 41 years, but i think because of the moving up of the vote to 7:00, i might be able to do that. but now i just found out that today is senator burris' 48th wedding anniversary. congratulations, senator burris. and here he's here today and his lovely wife is out in illinois.

but he sent her flowers today, so i am sure she appreciated that, but she would much rather be with roland on this day. 48 years, my goodness. in this day and age, it's hard to find people that have been married that long, so i just -- i just congratulate you for that, senator burris. a great friend of mine personally and a valuable member of the u.s. senate. i think it just shows what -- what people are giving up here to make sure they are here to get health reform passed. senator burris would give up being with his spouse of 48 years, that's quite a sacrifice. thank you very much, senator burris. madam president, as we approach the final vote, again, i want to thank both senator dodd and senator baucus for a masterful job of shepherding this legislation through the health and finance committees. there is no way we would be here

today without the great work of our majority leader. to put it in biblical terms, leader reid has the patience of job, the wisdom of solomon, and the stamina of sampson. senator reid is on the verge of achieving what majority leaders going back nearly a century have failed to accomplish. make no mistake about it. when this final vote is cast tomorrow morning, majority leader reid has earned his place in the senate's history. madam president, as we approach the final vote, we have reached a momentous crossroads just as senators did in 1935 when they passed the social security act, and in 1965 when they created medicare. each of those bills marked a giant step forward for the american people. each was industry dentally opposed by defenders of the status quo. but in the end, madam president, a critical mass of senators rose to the historic occasion. they voted their hopes, not their fears. as we know now in retrospect,

they passed laws that transformed america in profoundly positive ways. the senate has arrived now at another one of those rare, historic crossroads. this time we are going to pass comprehensive health reform, a great goal that has eluded congresses and presidents going back to theodore roosevelt. i make no bones about my enthusiasm for the great reforms in this bill. is it perfect? is it what i would write if i could dictate everything? no. there have been genuine compromises made, and that's the art of legislation. there is a lot of things that are not in this bill that i fought very hard for, like a public option, or getting medicare buy-in at age 55, but i understand the art of compromise. beyond that, this bill will be the biggest expansion of health coverage since the creation of medicare. it cracks down on abusive practices by health insurance companies, abuses that currently leave most americans just one serious illness away from

bankruptcy. it includes a whole array of provisions promoting wellness and prevention and public health. our aim in this bill is to change our current sick care system to a true health care system, one that keeps people out of the hospital in the first place. madam president, i was struck y something the distinguished minority leader, senator mcconnell, said early friday morning just prior to the first critical cloture vote. addressing democratic senators, he turned and faced us and said, "it is not too late. all it takes is just one, just one," gesturing to this side of the aisle, he said, "one can stop this bill. one can stop it or every single one will own it." well, he was talking about democrats. well, madam president, i say to the minority leader, we democrats are proud to own this bill, just as we are proud of our ownership of social security and medicare and the elementary

and secondary education exact so many other reforms -- education act, and so many other reforms, progressive reforms, that has made america the great nation we are today. for the record, let me point out exactly what it is that democrats will own by passing this bill. we will own the fact that this bill is fully paid for. indeed, this bill will reduce the federal debt by $132 billion in the first decade and by at least $650 billion in the second decade. we will own the fact that some 30 million additional americans will in coming years have access to quality, affordable health care. and let me mention just a few of the things in the bill that democrats will own next year, as soon as president obama signs this into law. we will own the fact that next year insurance companies will be required to cover the preexisting conditions of children. we'll own that. think about that. and there will be a program to extend coverage to uninsured americans with preexisting conditions later.

we will own the fact that this bill provides immediate support to health coverage for early retirees. we will own the fact that this bill will madely shrink the size of the doughnut hole by raising the ceiling on the initial coverage period by $500 next year. we will own the immediate guarantee in this bill of 50% price discounts on brand-name drugs and biologics purchased by low- and mid-income medicare beneficiaries who are in the doughnut hole. we will own the fact that this bill will provide tax credits to small businesses to make employee coverage more affordable, tax credits of up to 35% of the cost of premiums will be available to small businesses next year. in addition, we will own the fact that this bill requires health insurance companies to allow children to stay on their family's policies until they're age 26. democrats will own the fact that this bill prohibits health

insurers from imposing lifetime limits on the benefits consumers believe they're paying for and it will tightly restrict the use of any annual limits. and let me mention one other extremely important thing that, in the minority leader's words, democrats will own. our bill immediately will stop insurers from the devastating practice of rescinding or canceling health insurance coverage when a policyholder is seriously ill. all of those things i mentioned will happen right away, madam president, as soon as the bill is signed into law. taken together, madam president, this is a breathtaking catalog of reforms that will benefit the american people immediately. so we democrats are very proud, i say to the minority leader, to own this reforms. we had hoped that our republican colleagues would also be proud to own them. but let us remember williams f.

buckley's conservative motto. will ym f. buckley is sort -- william f. buckley is sort of the father of the conservative movement in marry. hin america. he said "the role of conservatives is" -- quote -- "to stand athwart history yelling 'stop.'" that is exactly what our republican colleagues have been doing by filibustering and trying to kill health reform. they are a thwart history yelling "stop." but my friends on the republican side are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of reform and the wrong side of progress. madam president, i've been saying that this bill, the patient protection and affordable care act, is like a starter home. it's not the mansion of our dreams, it doesn't have every bell and whistle we'd awl all -l like, but it has a solid foundation, giving every american access to quality,

affordable coverage. it has an excellent protective roof which will shelter americans from the worst abuses of the health insurance companies. and this starter home has plenty of room for additions and improvements. madam president, we democratic senators are proud to own this starter home and we are proud of the fact that this starter home is fully paid for. it is a starter home without a mortgage. indeed, as i said earlier, this bill will reduce the federal deficit by $132 billion in the first decade and by at least $650 billion in the second decade. and so, madam president, even at this late date, before the vote tomorrow morning, i say to our republican colleagues, democrats are proud to own this legislation and this starter home. we are proud to own the many reforms and benefits in this bill. and we would be very pleased to share ownership with as many of

our republican colleagues who care to join us. with all due respect to william f. buckley, it is not written in stone that conservatives have to say no to history. i urge every senator to say yes. madam president, this bill has many authors but in a very real sense, this is senator ted kennedy's bill and our late beloved colleague would be so proud to see the senate on the cusp of passing landmark health care reform. for decades, from his first days in this senate, this was his highest priority and fondest wish. as his friends on both sides of the aisle know very well, senator kennedy's great dream was of an american where quality, affordable care is a right, not a privilege for every citizen. today we're on the verge of making that dream a reality. so often senator kennedy talked about the moral imperative of health reform.

too often in the debates of recent weeks, we have lost sense of this moral imperative. we've heard speeches, we've had charts back and forth and back and forth on really some of the small stuff. who wins, who loses because of this or that minor provision in the bill. today, on the eve of this historic vote, we should refocus on the big stuff, the moral imperative that drove senator kennedy. with this bill, we will get rid of a shameful dividing line that has excluded millions of americans for too long. for too long, tens of millions of americans have been on the wrong side of that divide, without health insurance, without regular medical care for their children, just one serious illness away from bankruptcy. with this landmark legislation, we erase that shameful divide within our american family. with this bill, we say that for every american, for every member

of our american family, access to quality, affordable care will be a right, not a privilege. the a monumental achievement and i urge all of our colleagues to vote yes on this bill. now, madam president, a lot has been said about those of us who have been in the leadership on this bill, senator reid, senator balk, senator dodd, myself, so many others, but i think it is important to etch in history in our "congressional record" the names of those individuals on our staffs who have done so much to get us to this point. i said earlier that there's an old saying that -- that senators are a constitutional impediment to the smooth functioning of staff. and we kind of laugh at that but we kind of know there's a grain of truth to that. and were it not for the staff who spent so many hours and so

much time away from their families, we would not be here. i will start with senator reid's office, kate leone, who did a magnificent job of leading us. carolyn gluck. jacqueline lampert. bruce king. david chrone. rodell sm malino, and randy devault. senator dodd's staff: jim fenton. timar margaret horrow, jeremy sharpe, monica feit, brian deangeles. senator baucus' staff, liz fowler and russ sullivan and john sullivan, scott mulhauser, kathy koch, yvvette touch. &oon our "help" committee, michael meyers, our great staff director who for more than a decade has

led this staff and for almost 20 years has worked for senator kennedy. as we all know, we're all sorry that senator kennedy could not be here for this, but i can say honestly that michael meyers carried on the torch as his staff director. did a magnificent job of getting us through this. and david bowen. david bowen. if there's one person that knows more about what this -- is in this bill than anyone else, it's david bowen. i can honestly say i've never asked him about something in this bill that he didn't know where it was and what it did. and he has been at every meeting, i don't care how early in the morning, how late at night. and i know he's been apart from his family and his children and i -- i just wish david the best in terms of being with his family tomorrow and over christmas. but david bowen has just done such a magnificent job of guiding and directing this bill and making sure it was all put

together. connie gardner, portia wu -- connie gardner, who worked so hard to get the class act through. so hard. john mcdunn that, stacy sacks, tom krauss, terry roney, increase martinez, karen morrisey, andrea harris, sarah selgrade, dan stevens, caroline fichtenberg, lori yuden, evan griffith. and now i want to mention one other person who's been on my staff but is now on the "help" committee some o staff, gentleml knell -- janelle kristinverde. i have been advocating for many years that we have to change our focus in america from a sick care society to health care. i mentioned that earlier. and this bill contains more for wellness and prevention and public health than any bill ever passed by congress.

ever passed. and it's not talked about much. you don't hear too much debate about it. but it is significant that we are going to change this paradigm, we're going to start putting more upfront, keeping people healthy in the first place. one person who's done more than anyone else to make this happen is janelle kristinverde and i want to thank her for the last couple of years or so just focusing laser-like on this and making sure that this became a big part of our health care reform bill. on my personal staff, jim whitmeyer, beth stein, jenny wing, rosemary gutierrez, lee percy. and let me mention about lee. lee does all my work on disability issues. and as many people know, it's my name on the americans with disabilities act.

19 years ago, now that i think about it, 19 years ago we passed that. lee percy does all my work on disability issues, and there's another part of this bill that not too many people talk about but it is so profoundly important to people with disabilities. in this bill, there is a provision that will have the federal government give a 6% increase in the fmap. that's the amount of money that the federal government gives to a state for medicaid. 6% increase for a state that will -- that will enact legislation to -- to put in place the provisions of the olmstead decision by the supreme court over ten years and that is that -- that every person with a disability has a right to the least restrictive environment. that means living in their own communities, in their own homes with personal assistant services, support so they can live at home rather than going to a nursing home.

this has been a dream of the disability community since we passed the americans with disabilities act in 1990. we've never been able to get it done. now we have it in this bill. not talked about much, didn't hear much about it, but this will have more of a profound affect on people with disabilities than any other single thing in this bill. or anything that we have done literally since 1990. now people with disabilities are able to live at home, live in their own communities and the state will get money from the federal government to enable them to get that. thank you very much, lee. kate s*e ral on my staff and dan goldberg. and the senate legislative counsel, special thanks to bill baird along with stacy, present throughout the entire "help" committee. they've gone above and beyond. to all of the floor staff here too. we forget about what they've done. mike spawn and stacy rich and

tim engell and lula davis, wonderful floor staff to get to us point where we have a vote tomorrow morning. i want to mention these individuals. in many ways they are the unsung heroes and heroines of what we've done here. they can be content in knowing as they go through life that they did a big thing here. they did something so important which helped transform our society. and i personally want to thank each and every one of them, wish them the best of the holiday season and christmas and new year, and we'll come back next year, and we'll start implementing this bill. and as the chairman of the "help" committee, we'll start looking at building those additions and those expansions. madam president, with that, i yield the floor. again, i thank my friend from illinois for letting me go.

mr. burris: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from i will tphoeufplt. mr. burris: thank you,. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. burris: thank you, madam president. how much time do i have? the presiding officer: the senator has six minutes. mr. burris: the united states senate has long been a forum for great debate. this institution is equipped to handle the most difficult questions our nation faces. and since we took up the issue of health care reform, the debate has been fierce and our differences of opinion have played out in dramatic fashion on the national scene. over the last several months i've said time and again that this health care reform bill must accomplish the three distinct goals of a public option in order to win my support. it must create real competition in a health care system. it must provide sufficient cost

savings to the american people. and it must restore accountability to the insurance industry. madam president, for months i told my colleagues that i would not be able to support a bill that failed to meet these three goals. i believe that there's -- that the keys to a comprehensive health care reform in america, and without them our legislation would be ineffective and incomplete. i expressed my concern about the compromise bill and i asked tough questions. i reviewed the c.b.o. score and the final legislative language as soon as it became available. madam president, i believe the way forward is clear. this bill is not perfect. thisthis does not include everyg i had hoped for. but i am convinced that it can meet the three goals of a public option, and i believe it represents a monumental step forward, a strong foundation we

can improve upon in the months and years to come. this is not the end of health care reform in america. this is the beginning. and that's why we need to take the next step in this process. though it is not a bill that i had hoped i might be voting on, i'm confident enough to pass this legislation on the next step. let us send the patients protection and affordable care act to a conference committee where it will be merged with the house bill, where i have every hope that the conferees will have the opportunity to strengthen some of these provisions and make this legislation better. we must not let the perfect stand in the way of the good. madam president, while it is not everything i had hoped it would be, it is far more than we have now. and while this bill will not

satisfy many of us, it would be a mistake to overlook all the good it will do for tens of millions of americans. so let me explain exactly why i'm convinced that this bill will satisfy the three goals of a public option. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, the exchanges will be created under this legislation will dramatically enhance competition in the insurance market. this will drive premiums down, according to -- allowing consumers to shop around for the plan that's best for them, their families, and their small businesses. c.b.o.'s projections show that this would force providers to compete for the first time in many years, reducing costs and bringing everyone's premiums under control. as a result, many more people would be able to get better coverage for less money. this bill will enhance the choices that are available for

individuals and small businesses. everyone will have the choice to keep their current insurance coverage if they're happy with it. but if they're not, they will have the real option for the first time in many years. madam president, this bill will give consumers the tools they need to hold insurance companies accountable. it includes strong consumer protection, many of which take effect immediately. and it contains significant insurance reforms designed to put ordinary folks back in the driver's seat. this bill will eliminate annual and lifetime caps on coverage, prohibit companies from dropping patients who get sick and prevent discrimination against people who have had preexisting conditions. it will also require insurance providers to cover essential health benefits and recommend preventive care. based on these provisions, madam president, it is quite clear that this measure would provide immediate and lasting

improvements in the health care system for everyone in this country. it will extend quality coverage to 31 million americans who are currently uninsured and increase access to preventive care. this will reduce emergency room visits, allow more people to treat preventible and chronic diseases and help to bring health care costs under control. in fact, the congressional budget office projects in a this legislation will cut the deficit by more than $130 billion in just the first decade and will serve nearly $1 trillion over the next several decades. so, madam president, that is why i'm confident that this bill will meet the three goals of a public option: competition, cost savings, and accountability. it will not be -- it may not be the legislation that i would have written at the beginning of this process, but after nearly a century of debate about health care reform under the leadership of 11 presidents and countless members of congress, this legislation represents a strong

consensus. so it is time to take the next step in this process, to send this bill to conference and keep building up on this foundation. this is not a perfect bill, but it contains a number of fundamental good components. and most importantly, it will ensure that 94% of americans can get the health care coverage they need. and for decades of inaction, the patients protection and affordable care act is a monumental step in the right direction. so, madam president, there were many competing ideas that gave rise to this bill. there are many voices inside the chamber and outside of it shouting to be heard on these issues. there were concessions and compromises but out of a century of dissent, out of decades of discussion and debate, we have arrived at a basis for comprehensive reform. so it is time to put aside our differences and move toward --

forward as one congress and as one nation. there is much work left to do on this and a host of other issues. but in the messy process of debate and compromise along the path that has led us to this point this, body has reaffirmed the enduring truth of the model inscribed on this chamber just above the vice president's chair and where the madam is sitting. e pluribus unum. that means out of many one. it's there, madam president, right above your head. for this entire history, it has been the creed that binds us to one another and in our common identity as americans. it is the principle that drives us to the assembly of this august chamber to debate the toughest issues we will ever face. though we come from every

section of this country and every state, we are one country, and together we can create a health care system that will be worthy of the people we represent. madam president, it is time to make good on the promise of the last century and move forward with the patients protection and affordable care act. let us take the next step. let us send this bill to congress. with that, madam president, i thank you, and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that marcus chavez be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today's session. the presiding officer: without

objection. khaeup khaeup thank you, madam president. madam president -- mr. crapo: thank you, madam president. madam president, as we approach the vote tomorrow morning, i know a lot of people are calling it an historic vote, and in some context i guess it is. however, many of us are concerned that it is an historic mistake rather than a history-making opportunity. we've had a lot of debate about whether this legislation is the right or the wrong way to improve health care for all americans. we've had hours and hours, in fact days and weeks of committee hearings and meetings with good bipartisan discussion on options and ways to accomplish this. but now apparently we have a mandate by the majority that are demanding that we have the final vote in the senate before christmas. while we debate this, let me say i believe we need to hear more from the people who are going to be most affected: the american people. because the final details of this bill were not crafted in front of the american public. i think most people in america today know that the president pledged that this legislation would be crafted in a table that

was -- around a table that is public, where in fact he said the c-span cameras could be present. and so in his words so, that people could see the deals people were making and who was working for the american people and who was cutting deals. well, the c-span camera was not present, the table was not open, the room was closed and the bill was negotiated in secret. but we are starting to find out what are the deals were, and the deals are outraging the american people as they see specific exemptions from certain burdens in the bill being given to certain states in order to get the votes from the senators for those states. we've heard about different proposals dealing with the state of louisiana, the state of florida, the state of connecticut, the state of nebraska. and the list is growing as we have an opportunity to delve into the bill and determine just exactly what is in it. but we won't have time to know all of the details of these

deals. we won't have time to even know all the details and how the bill works because this 2,700-page bill, 400 pages of which were only disclosed last saturday, will be voted on at 7:00 in the morning. three days ago i asked idahoans who like most americans, in fact all americans, want health care reform to sign a petition on the internet ask the senate to defeat h.r. 3590 because we need reform that will lower costs while increasing quality and keeping health care decisions between a patient and their doctor. the response to this request has been remarkable. in fact, i suspect that as i'm speaking, we've already gotten over 20,000 signatures on the petition on the internet. i ask people to go to my internet site, mikecrapo.com and

simply sign the petition. here is a partial stack. we're system printing out the rest of the names of the people who have signed the petition. somewhere between 19,000 and 20,000 and growing people have signed the petition. here's the remarkable thing about it: when i asked the people of idaho to sign this petition, i asked them to do two things. i asked them first to go to the web site and sign the petition. and then secondly, i asked them to contact everyone within their circle of influence, people on their christmas card list, people on their e-mail contacts list, people on their facebook -- of their facebook friends. and ever who is within their circle of influence and ask them to also sign the petition. and if they didn't live in idaho, to contact their senator. and encourage their senator to oppose this legislation if they agreed with me that it is not the path that our nation should follow.

remarkably, more than half of the people who have so far signed the petition did not get that information from me. they got the request or encouragement to sign the petition from a friend or relat. and a huge proportion of them don't live in idaho. in fact, we've had people from all over america in every one of the 50 states sign this petition. why is this happening? by the way, as i said, the number is growing. it's happening because the more americans know about this bill, the more they know that it's not the path they want us to take for health care reform. health care is personal, private, and a sensitive matter among individuals and their doctors and their family. this bill makes health care a public policy decision controlled by the government bureaucracies. -- government bureaucracy.

americans don't want that kind of government control over our health care economy. instead, americans see an administration and a congressional majority forcing this bill down their throats in a rush to pass it before public opposition legitimately overwhelms this wrong-headed monstrosity. thousands are signing this petition because they desperate ly want congress to listen, but they know that their collective voice has been ignored. the petition is one way that they can make themselves heard in hopes that this congress will pass needed and sensible reform, but not this bill. in fact, another point about this petition is in addition to getting on the website and signing the petition, individuals are calling my offices and saying thank you for giving us an avenue to try to reach out to the senate and tell the senate to stop. i think thousands of idahons and home from all over america are

eager to have an avenue to speak out, and we need to stop and listen, and i think the thousands of idahoans and americans from across this country for being willing to get involved as citizens and petition their government to respect our rights and to honor our values and to reform health care sensibly. the national polls indicate people oppose this bill. they want common sense, lower cost action that will reduce the cost of premiums and their doctor visits. this legislation instead raises taxes on the middle class, increases premium costs for many people now carrying insurance, cuts senior programs and fails to lower health care costs. simply put, there has not been a piece of legislation this decade that has come forward to meet more opposition than this health care reform bill. the more that idahoans and americans know about the bill, the more they dislike it. health care is a personal, private, and sensitive matter, and this bill goes the opposite

direction. but the majority is moving full steam ahead in hope that they can pass it before the public can understand what it is and register their opposition. if we'll take the time, we can improve the health care system. without the tax increases, without the massive increase in the growth of government, without the pork-barrel spending and the sweetheart deals, without the medicare cuts and the unconstitutional burdens on state governments that this bill presents. among the steps that many of us are trying to see enacted are things like allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, allowing small businesses to band together to negotiate group rates for insurance, requiring pricing disclosures from health care providers to promote a competitive consumer-driven health care market, and offering incentives for patients and their private sector to create wellness programs and other efficiencies in health care

delivery. in fact, when a bill similar to this was presented as the republican alternative in the house, with the provisions that the house republicans proposed, it was scored, contrary to the bill we're going to be voting on, to be able -- it was scored by c.b.o. that it would actually reduce the costs of health care in america by significant percentages. and yet, we are now continuing to plow full steam ahead with a vote at 7:00 in the morning on a bill that will increase the cost of health care. madam president, the petition that i brought forward asks congress to listen. it registers the fears of many americans that they are being ignored by the administration and by the majority in congress. and i'm going to continue to aggressively push for their wishes here on the floor of the united states senate. and i'd like to take an opportunity now to go ahead and just get into a little bit more of the detail that we do know about this bill. why do i say that it is the wrong direction for america?

well, to start out, let's ask what americans want in health care reform. if you ask most americans -- and there have actually been a number of polls on this that have shown this. do they want health care reform, they say yes. when they are asked what they mean by that and what they want, the overwhelming answer is that they want to stop the skyrocketing increases in the cost of their health care insurance, that they want to control the skyrocketing increases in their medical care. they also say that they want to see increased access for those who don't now have access to quality insurance. both because they are compassionate and want to see that kind of health care for everyone and because they know that they're paying for it in their insurance premiums, those who have insurance, and in their taxes, those who pay taxes. and they want to assure that we continue to have the highest quality of health care possible. that's what we are supposed to be doing. that's what this bill should be

working on. that is the objective we should be achieving. and yet, what are we achieving? in an earlier discussion of the house bill, i believe it was "the wall street journal" said it was the worst bill ever. we now have a different bill here in the senate, but it's -- it still, in my opinion, falls into the same category, and why? because it drives up the cost of health care, not down. it raises taxes hundreds of billions of dollars. it cuts medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars. it grows the government by by $2.5 trillion. forces the needy uninsured not into a program where most of them can get insurance, but into a failing and less robust medical system, medicaid. and that imposes damaging unfunded mandates on our state governments that are already sharing the burden of medicaid and facing difficult troubled economic times. it means increased taxes, not

just at the federal level but at the state level with these unfunded mandates. it leaves millions of americans uninsured, and it establishes massive government controls over our health care economy. let me go through just a few of those and give more specifics. first, i don't think most americans when they talk about health care reform think that that means we need to grow the size of our government by by $2.5 trillion. that's right. although there are some smoke and mirrors in the way that this bill is put together because the first four years of its costs are not started until four years into the bill, and so when you try to count the first ten years, you only see a smaller number, but when you take the first true ten years of spending in this bill, it increases the cost of this government's health care expenditures by by $2.5 trillion. as you can see here on this

chart, look here at the first four years. the spending is basically deferred. now, why would that happen? i'm going to explain that a little bit further in a minute when i talk about the deficit issues, but what it does is it hides the true cost of the bill. if you measure the true cost of the bill in the first full ten years of spending, it's it's $2.5 trillion rather than the $1.2 trillion that it would be if you counted it otherwise. and so what we see is a massive growth of the federal government. that's not what people were asking for, and, frankly, it makes them kind of do a double take when you explain to them that we are increasing the size of our government by such massive amounts with health care reform. and those proposing that we adopt this bill often say, you know, our objective and what the american people want is to drive the cost curve down. well, i often ask what cost

curve are they talking about? if they're talking about the cost of health care or the cost of health care premiums, they're going up. if they're talking about the size of the federal government and the level of federal government spending, that's going up. there's one that they talk about. it's called the deficit. that is whether we are spending more than we are taxing and cutting. and they argue that the deficit is going down. there's only one way that you can argue that this bill does not increase the deficit, and that is if you assume that we don't have nearly hafts of medicare cuts, that we don't have hafts worth of taxes in the first year and $1.28 trillion of

taxes in the first full ten years of implementation, and that we don't have several budget gimmicks. now, what are the budget gimmicks? the first and biggest budget gimmick is the one i just showed on the previous chart. they don't count the first four years of spending. they stop the spending and don't let it start happening for four years so we have ten years of taxes, ten years of medicare cuts, and six years of spending. and when you balance that out, you can claim that it doesn't increase the deficit because you don't have a full ten years of spending. there are other budget gimmicks. we have something called the s.g.r. fix or the increases or adjustments in the compensation rates for physicians that we all know on both sides of the aisle that we must do. we must keep the physician compensation comparable and moving up with inflation. that's going to cost cost $245 billion, approximately, over the next ten years. that $245 billion cost to reform

and adjust the medicare compensation system is absent from the bill. why? because they're going to do it in a separate bill and probably not pay for it. in other words, not have offsets, but we'll see whether they have offsets. but it's not in this bill, and if it were, it would drive the deficit numbers by $245 billion in the bad direction. there are other types of gimmicks. for example, there is double accounting of the medicare cuts. the c.b.o. came out with a report just today that said if you cut medicare by by $465 billion, claiming that you're going to use that that $465 billion to help make the financial situation for medicare more stable, that you can't then take that same same $465 billion and use it to establish a massive new government program. another, yet a third major government health care

entitlement system. you can't spend it on a new one and claim that you're saving one that's already facing fiscal collapse. it's these kinds of budget gimmicks that make many of us object to the bill. if you didn't have those budget gimmicks, if you didn't have those tax increases, if you didn't have those medicare cuts, there is no way you could say this bill is deficit neutral. one of the things that c.b.o. does report -- i want to move to the question of the cost of insurance. exo, -- c.b.o., which is the congressional budget office, reports that the premiums in the individual market will go up, not down. now, what does that mean? c.b.o. breaks the market, the insurance market into three categories -- the individual market, the small group market and the large group market. the individual market is the one that's primarily there for small

businesses that don't have a large or a small group opportunity or individuals who don't get their insurance through their employer. it represents about 17% or almost one in five of all insured people in the country. their insurance rates under this bill, 17% of all americans, are going to go up, and the amount by which they are going to go up is about 10% to 13%, according to c.b.o. the next group is the small group market. they represent about another 13%. and again, c.b.o. says under this bill their rates are going to go up. not quite as badly. about between 1% and 3%, but up, not down. and that brings us to the large group market. the large group market actually fares a little better. this is the remaining 70% of the insurance -- of those insured in the united states, and basically

the c.b.o. report says that for them there is a chance theirs may go down by a percent or two, but it's basically -- it could be stable at a zero percent change as well, because the individuals in the large group market, those who get their insurance from larger employers, have less liability of a harmful impact because they have that large group that can continue to negotiate to control their health care costs. so what do they say? even under the best scenario, there have been nine or ten studies of this, and the c.b.o. report is the one that is the most favorable toward the bill. most of the other reports said that the rates are going to go up for everybody. even if you take c.b.o.'s numbers, 30% of the people in this country are going to see their insurance rates go up, not down. the other 70% can expect basically the status quo. in other words, not any change at all except maybe a slight decrease. is that what americans are

asking for in a robust health care system? no. americans are asking for true, solid, significant control of the costs of their premiums and their health care costs. i'd like to move next to the question of taxes. as i have indicated previously, this bill increases taxes by -- i think i used the number of about half a trillion dollars. the president has pledged that he wouldn't sign a bill that involved tax increases on the middle class, and he defined tax increases -- the middle class to be people who were as individuals making less than than $200,000 a year or as a family or as a couple making less than $250,000 a year, and here's the president's pledge. i can make a firm pledge. no family making less than than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. and he was pushed on this pledge, and he clarified it. he said not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of

your taxes. you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime. that's the president's pledge. but what do we have? in the first ten years, years, $493 billion in new taxes. now, the question is do those taxes all fall on the so-called wealthy? those making more than $250,000? well, c.b.o. and the joint tax committee hav analyzed it, and the answer is clearly, clearly no. but before i get to that, let's see what the taxes do in the first full ten years of implementation. remember the first four years are kind of a slow start with the spending, but if you compare the taxes and the spending, count the total amount of taxes starting on the day when the spending really kicks into gear, it's not $493 billion, or whatever the number was, it's $1.28 trillion in new taxes. now, that is not what the american people are asking for.

the next question you might ask yourself is, okay, how much of those taxes are going to be paid by the people who the president pledged would not be hit? well, the joint tax committee has analyzed the bill and by 2019 -- and the reason they use the year 2019 is that is the end of the first full ten years of implementation -- by the year 2019, at least 73 million american households erpg below $200,000 will face a tax increase. and that's not just people making $200,000. that's everybody who pays taxes, who makes any kind of income less than $200,000 in america. 73 million not individuals, households, will pay taxes under this bill. let's go to the -- now, one of the things that's interesting is in response to this argument, some of my colleagues on the other side have said, well, wait a minute, that's not true, this is actually -- this bill is actually a tax cut.

now, wait a minute, you've got me saying this bill increases taxes and someone on the other side saying this bill cuts taxes. how could that be? well, there is a subsidy in this bill for those who are at lower income categories and are provided government dollars or subsidies in order to purchase insurance. the ones who are fortunate enough not to have been pushed into the medicaid system. that subsidy is about $400 billion or $500 billion in the bill. and it's administered by the i.r.s. and so it is claimed to be a tax cut. and if you offset that subsidy against the tax increases in other parts of the bill, then you can say, well, there's a tax cut in this bill. well, first of all, that's not what the president said. the president did not say, i won't increase your taxes more than i will cut somebody else's taxes. that's not what he said. what he said was, your taxes won't go up if you are under -- making under $250,000 as a couple or $200,000 as an

individual. but even if you accept that argument, 75% -- or 73% or $288 billion of this tax subsidy goes to taxpayers who don't pay any taxes. their income levels are so low that they are -- they don't hit the thresholds for incurring a tax liability. they get a pure, straightforward subsidy. the congressional budget office acknowledges this and scores it as federal spending, not as tax relief. but either way you want to look at it, let's say you agree that that's a tax cut and agree to offset it, which i think is wrong. you still come up with 42 million americans -- american households earning less than $200,000 a year that will face a net tax increase. and the tax increases are not small for these families. well, the bill grows the federal government, it pushes up every

cost curve you could think of, it increases taxes, it increases the cost of health insurance, it increases the cost of health care. what does it do to med care of? -- to medicare? it cuts medicare by $465 billion in the first year, and, again, if you want to look at the first full 10 years, by $953 billion in medicare cuts. and basically what we have here in this part of the bill is an absolute transfer -- an absolute transfer from america's senior citizens right over to the new government entitlement program and a redistribution of that wealth to other people. senior citizens, who have throughout their life paid into the -- paid the medicare tax, the medicare payroll tax, and will now see the medicare that they thought they were going to get cut. and what kind of -- what kind of cuts are we talking about that we -- we may be dealing with here? the biggest one is the medicare

advantage, $120 billion of cuts. about one in four american seniors has medicare advantage insurance. this is insurance that was provided in a contract relationship with the private sector. in other words, it was an experiment to see if we could let the private sector deliver medicare and how they would do that. and what they found is that they can actually through the medicare advantage program increase the benefits that seniors get. this is probably the most popular part of the medicare program. it's growing rapidly. the reason it's growing rapidly is because it provides better coverage. and those in the medicare advantage program are going to see their benefits cut. another pledge the president made was if you like what you have, you can keep it. well, not if you have medicare advantage. it's also not true about a lot of people who have their insurance through their employers these days because that's going to be lost to millions of americans too. but in addition to the medicare advantage cuts, you're going to see hospital reimbursements,

skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies, hospice and others cut to the tune of $465 billion in the first ten years. and the experts have all told us that what that's going to do is to make it possible -- not impossible for many health care providers in these categories to keep their doors open, or it will cause them to reduce the amount and quality of services they provide. so senior citizens are going to see their medicare -- excuse me, their medicare, particularly their medicare advantage, benefits cut and their access to care restricted and reduced under this bill. well, mr. president, in summary, there's been a lot of talk, again, about how americans want health care reform but we need to do it in a smart and sensible way. many have argued that there are no alternatives being put forward by our side. as i indicated earlier in my remarks, that's simply not true. in fact, the alternative that

was put forward in the house and the alternative that many of us have been talking about here have been scored to actually achieve the results that americans are asking for. we don't need to rush this bill through in a claim that we are making history but in a way that will be a huge historical mistake. the american people in huge numbers are asking us to slow down and stop it and start working together in ways that don't create a government takeover of insurance -- of health care, that don't drive up the size and reach of the federal government, that don't drive up taxes but instead provide the right kind of approaches to medicare savings -- medical savings, that don't slash medicare benefits to our seniors, that don't put massive burdens on our states, and that don't force the neediest of our uninsured into a failing health care system,

medicaid. we're simply going to have to be back at this in the future if we don't get it right now. only then we'll be facing much worse fiscal circumstances and very difficult problems with sustaining the fiscal stability of the two programs that we are now dealing with trying to sustain, medicare and medicaid. mr. president, i urge my colleagues to listen to the people who signed this petition. people all across this nation in every one of the 50 states who are saying wait, don't do this now. do some sensible reform but don't make this mistake. i encourage all my colleagues, as we are literally on the eve of the vote that will determine whether this bill makes it through the senate, to step back and take a deep breath and evaluate whether it would not be better for all of america for us to move a little slower and start trying to build a bipartisan solution that can

have true benefits for the american people. and with that, mr. president, i yield the balance of my time. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. and it's truly my honor to be here on this historic evening and speak in support of the bill which we will vote on early

tomorrow morning, christmas eve morning. it's an honor because anyone who looks at this country knows the problems we have and that two problems caused by the health care system are at the top of the list. and one represents a more conservative point of view and one represents a more liberal point of view, but i'm proud to say the bill that we will pass tomorrow morning, god willing, deals with both of them. the more conservative issue is controlling costs. the health care system costs this country a whole lot of money. by and large, we get good health care. not everybody but most people. but it is so expensive, and that's been documented. and what does that mean? it means small businesses can't grow and actually have less money to pay for wages. it means that our large businesses are less competitive globally.

we've seen that in the auto industry. it means that individuals often have to pay a fortune for health care. and it means that our government runs deficits that are perilous to the economy. health care costs are more the cause of our deficit than anything else. on the other hand, we run a real problem because many people are not covered or covered adequately, and the heart wrenching stories told by our fine leader -- and i cannot give him enough kudos for the job he has done here. i'll talk about that in a minute. but the people who are not covered or covered poorly suffer in many ways. they become not only less happy citizens -- that's most important -- but less productive citizens. and the heartwrenching stories of people who don't have coverage for them or their children, we all know about. it also, by the way, increases

costs, because when people delay coverage when they're ill, it inevitably costs more. this bill addresses both and i'd like to in my brief amount of time here -- and i don't know how much time i have -- addresses both. i'd like to talk on the cost side first. why are health care costs so much -- why do they go up so much more than any other product? two main reasons. first, we don't have perfect knowledge, as the economists would say. we basically don't know what we're buying. when we go to the bock at the and the bock at the says -- when we go to the doctor and the doctor says, "you need this test," we don't know it if we need it or not. is the doctor genuinely prescribing a test we need or is there some element that he makes enough money on this test that, why not, it can't hurt because we're not -- because we don't need it. my family, my relatives have all

had prostate cancer and i watch very carefully. but when give to the doctor and he says i need this kind of test or this kind of scan, i say, of course. if it were a car or a house, i might investigate to see if i needed it. the second reason costs are so expensive is because fundamentally, health care deals with god's most precious gift to us, which is life. who wouldn't beg, borrow or steal to find $100,000, who wouldn't give their right arm if we were told our husband, our wife, our mother, our father, our son, our daughter was was l and $100,000 would give them a 25% greater chance of living better, of healing. we'd do it. but because most of us don't have that $100,000, we buy insurance. that's the reason there's health care insurance. theefers not -- it's not because -- that's not -- it's not because it's inexpensive.

it's because so it's vital. and so we're willing to pay $5,000 a year so that, god forbid, when that time comes we need that $100,000 we need to care for a loved ones, it's there, it's insurance. so when i go to a doctor and he says i need this special test, special can, special procedure, not only do i not know whether i need it -- because the training is difficult and you -- you can go on-line but you can't really figure these things out -- but, second, i'm not paying for it. you put those things together and the costs go through the roof. we've tried in this bill to finally get a handle on the cost. most other countries have. defensemen and communicate a lot because that's where the sabers get a lot of their goals in the cycle situations, either side of the goal. >> joe: neuvirth covers here. washington on top 1-0 and doing so in the game first's minute. it is the sixth time this year the capitals have scored in the game's first two minutes as they're working against the longest tenured coach in the

business. an ice call in the city of the buffalo of new york. he played there. he was a captain. he played forward and defense. his longest tenured, as you mentioned, joe, getting the bench position back in 1997. the next guy closest to him is barry truce, the former captain in his own right. >> joe: doing a wonderful in the music city. karl alzner to key it u up for washington. we're nearing the five-minute mark on comcast sportsnet. we're thrilled to be in hd tonight. and backstrom. the unsuspecting ovechkin had that one go off of his boot. flipped back to center. alzner rams it in. and the capitals tag up and there is no off sides and montador waits. >> craig: and just to get back to your thought about nashville and the job that he is doing, you see a lot of similarities between these two teams. and buffalo and nashville. they get a lot of their success about the team first defense. there's a lot of structure, and there's a lot of discipline for

both of those teams. >> joe: and semin fires and it is blocked, and a hard-working gaustad getting back as well. >> craig: a good crisscross there by the caps' trio of backstrom, semin and alex ovechkin causing problems for

[ car starting ] >> allen iverson! >> i'm so far different from the guys. i'm very brief. >> you look at allen. you say, hey, there's a free- spirit guy. >> iverson. >> allen's life is a dream come true. . >> where i go, i hear about it the next day, like anywhere! >> a think a big part of al is he doesn't try to appeal to anybody. he does what he does. >> i heard the legend of bubba chuck. >> one of the best that ever played basketball. >> what's up? i'm allen iverson and we're in here talking. this is my life, 365.

when you talk about allen iverson it's better to talk negative. ♪ >> i took the team and gave it back to the fans. >> i put it in back. catch him again. >> people that don't understand -- i guess -- they probably understand it but they try not to understand it because, you know, when you talk about allen iverson, it's better to talk about something negatively. more headlines and bold print like allen iverson having a dispute with a coach or missing practice -- that's the big headline. but i understand it. i accept it. a person has a perception of you -- that's what you're going to be and my whole thing is not trying to convince somebody i'm

a good person, that i care. i care about if people think a good guy -- i would be lying if i said i want everybody to think i am the devil. >> right. >> but i don't go out of my way to prove that i am. >> right. >> you know, a good person. >> being a role model is not something that -- you can choose. you're chosen. >> yeah. >> you're chosen to be that. what i hear you saying is that as you have grown, you have kind of realized that a little bit. >> i'm 33 -- i don't do the same things i did, you know, when i was 23. >> right. you would be a fool if you did. >> stone cold fool. i don't do those things no more. i still make mistakes. still human. i still look back on things that -- damn, i wish i didn't do it that way. i wish i did it another way. >> as it stand, allen iverson is a convicted man, required by law to be in jail. >> that time was very southwesting.

you talk about time where it was a situation happening in a bowling alley and you know allen with his friend. and that bowling alley situation there -- he had one of the biggest problems you could have. he had a problem -- a situation was a fight and now the fight -- it was a racial fight. >> i've seen young people convicted for crimes they have not commit over and over again. >> they charged allen. that was an count that -- 50 years ago. >> maiming by mob. >> back in the day, they had mentioned it went back and they looked at this maiming by mob. >> what us the climate like when allen gets sentenced to now he has to do jail time? what was the climate like in

that time period? >> tense. i mean, i don't know how else -- tense. the system and incarcerated this young, ambulance male. >> what was it like when you saw him walking out in handcuffs? >> one of the worst days in my life. i felt so betrayed. by our city government. that certified charges. against -- four young men who -- i fell, they knew were not guilty of what they had been charged with. >> never been in trouble. no priors. and he walks out with 15 years and had to serve five.

and it just -- went away in handcuffs. you would say it's over. at that time you would say no way. never come back from this. >> what was going on when you were in there? >> scary. that's -- that's what comes in my mind off the top when i think of that situation -- square where. not scared of another inmate or another man or any cos. scared of not having another opportunity to accomplish my goal. being a professional athlete. you know, i thought it was taken away from me and it was tough. just hoping for an opportunity -- i was in there for almost four months and for the first month, you know, my lawyers had me thinking i was going to come

home every single day for a month, like, tomorrow -- i think it will be the day. you're coming home. that day go by. then the next day -- and it went on for a month. >> how did doug wilder impact your life? >> [ sighs ] he kept me out of jail. he got me out of jail. state of clemency. that's important, too, because he still had that on the record. i think he looked at the case, you know, saw all the inconsistencies. the unfair treatment. and he made a decision based on what he felt was right. >> did he make you promise him anything when you get out? >> no. you know what? he did by letting me out. i felt that he fell that by

letting me out i would make the best of my situation. i'm pretty sure he knew what type of athlete i was and that i had a chance to do something positive with my god-given aibilityd. >> announcer: coming up -- >> this is an educational institution and religious institution. if education and religious john can't give a person another can't give a person another chance, whwhwhwhwhwhwhwhwhwhwhwh there's no way. i just can't swing a vacation. someone needs to lighten up. ( women sing ) ♪ priceline negotiator! ( coughs ) - no vacation? - ( laughing ) i can't afford it. you can if you name your own price. - i don't know how. - it's easy. priceline has insider deals-- empty hotel rooms, open plane seats. ( laughing ) you can save up to half off! that's a great deal! saving money is no laughing matter. ( laughs )

>> describe your cause --

>> someone that actually saved my life. we wouldn't be in here doing this interview if it weren't for john thompson. wouldn't be no all- star games. wouldn't be no millions of dollars. wouldn't be no nba finals, first team all- nba scoring titles. first pick. wouldn't have been -- none of that. >> explain how he saved your life. >> because he gave me an opportunity when everybody turned it back on me. >> how did allen get to georgetown? was it a recruiting process? >> what happened is that a committee of people from the area contacted me through boo williams and said they wanted to come up and talk to me about allen iverson. this i talked personally with some colleges at that time and big name coaches said, i cannot take him. because my president would not let him in. >> i was recruited by everybody.

in the country. everybody. in both sports -- every single school in the country. and football and basketball. when i got in my situation, in high school, it was over. nobody else -- every single school. every single school. stopped writing, stopped calls. only a couple colleges we could think of -- and it was more than colleges but people. you had john thompson and you had john cheney. you had to have somebody strong enough -- first of all, they will come after you, the media. >> they were worried about his well-being and, you know, really, his safety because when they came up to visit me, there was an interesting thing that happened. i was not showing as much interest, obviously, as she would have liked me -- mrs. iverson -- would have liked me to have shown and asked the

other people to get out of the room. they asked them would they leave. i would like to talk with coach. when they left, she said that, you know, they're gonna hurt my kid. i don't think she meant in the literal sense somebody would shoot or attack him in that matter but i think she meant it was her life saving thing she was trying to pursue for her son and was in tears. >> my mom came up here to d.c. and met with them and -- you know, after that, you know, i had another opportunity in life. i think god put him into my life. >> people deserve a chance, as long as they take advantage of it. that's one of the things i said to allen. i'm willing to go along with this but you've got to respond. i'm not going to compromise the school. i'm not going to compromise myself if you don't do the

things you're supposed to do. >> mike, how much of a risk was it for georgetown, given everything that allen had been through, to take allen? >> i remember thinking at the time, you know, it is a risk. yet, yet i know from talking to coach it wasn't as much of a risk as for some places. it wasn't as big a risk for a state system. private schools have the support. >> once your dad made a judgment -- this was a young man we were willing to give an opportunity to and to have a say in his development, we were prepare to take on that challenge. >> to see him sign at georgetown and go play basketball for coach thompson was one of the most happiest days of my life. because i knew then that he

would be okay. >> what adjustment did you have to make from a coaching standpoint, coaching someone like allen iverson? >> i had to consider his well- being a person, how he played as a basketball player. because allen is a guy who is so talented you got to give him the opportunity to express his ability. >> he put me in a position to be on the basketball court, you know, before then talk about georgetown being a big man at school and a guard, you know, playing in thatel is. i was successful in that system. so obviously he knew what he was doing. ♪ >> whoa! >> smooth! >> iverson, reverse lay-up. >> iverson has it. >> you're older now and

obviously you still have a relationship. you done talk as much. do you miss him? >> i feel like it's better when i don't talk to him because when i do, i miss him more and when i see him, i miss him that much more. because, you know, i know you know, but what people that see him from afar -- all they see is, from coaching basketball, is big john. big dude. he yelling and this, that, and the third. just him being so authentic, real, bill from a different cloth like telling you the way i is. >> sometimes what you say doesn't sound right. sometimes it doesn't fit into today's society because everybody in today's society are not going to be the first pick in the draft. they're not going to be a millionaire. so i couldn't afford to let him think that if he slacked back

some that i was going to understand that. >> he would talk -- straight face -- you up here. eating three times a day. you sleeping in your warm room. you got a light. warm water. >> your mom is down there in tidewater wondering where the next meal is coming from and where the heat bill coming from. >> they might not eat today. they don't have lights or warm water. >> this lady who loves you dearly is down there suffering a hell of a lot of hardships than you are so don't bring that [ bleep ] in here to me. >> you want to ruin your opportunity? you know, and right there i was -- you know, i was about bawling because it was reality. if you mess this situation up, after she came up here and she didn't come up here, you wouldn't be in this situation but you going toes me this opportunity up to be able to take care of them --

while you up here living it up and not doing what you supposed to do -- it's like that. i can get myself right on that straight line. >> announcer: coming up -- >> i worked real hard to get here. contribute to coach thompson, my family and friend. without them i wouldn't be here.

>> the first pick in the 1996 nba pick, the philadelphia 76ers select allen iverson from georgetown university. >> i see how excited fans get all over the world. nothing like philly. that's what sports is about. when you think of sports, you think of philadelphia fans. all fans should be like philly fans. as far as their dedication and how they feel about their sport -- they love their sport and stick with their team till the end. >> you coach two number one

picks in the draft, two guys that were multiall- stars in that league. that has to make you proud. >> well, it makes me real proud because i think a lot of the thicks you do are segmented. you want people to graduate and be good students and decent human beings but successful in the profession they're in. >> the people that play in philadelphia should cherish that, man, and should really feel good about the sport they have. it's definitely thick in that gym. i had my ups and downs towards the end. i really think after all those years, you know, some of the ones that loved me to death were getting fed up with all the bull that was going on involving me, you know. i think some my fall. >> i have been through too much to let somebody with a pen

and paperer and a microphone and a camera kill me or dry allen iverson crazy. >> some people in the organization. >> if allen feels you know, he doesn't want to practice and wants to play, it just doesn't work any longer. >> i think the toughest thing for a black man to do is think before he reacts. think when he angry. that's what the whole practice thing came from. in here talking about practice. i mean, listen. we talking about practice. not a game. not a game. not a game. we talking about practice. instead of me, you know, calming down -- >> right. >> -- and before i do the press conference i will go in the press conference young and crazy and just rant. >> you reacted. >> react. and now it's so different. when i'm involve in a situation, i make sure that i know they're coming for me and

they will ask questions that will make me mad but it's about being intelligent enough and experienced enough to know how to handle the situation and do it the right way without making one story bigger because of how you reacted to, you know, the situation. >> announcer: coming up -- >> visit authenticness -- there's an authenticity about allen that really catches people.

>> allen iverson! >> getting traded is part of being in the nba. when you got traded, talk a little bit about the transition

and how that experience. >> i thought i would be a sixer for the rest of my career. and this is my -- you know, second stop after that. the first time it was rough. it was rough. just for the fact that my kids had been accustomed to being -- my two older kids -- had been accustomed to philly. that's all they ever knew. and this time it was even tougher. on me, it was tougher on my kids. after awhile, they had got accustomed to being in denver but for me as a player quick always look at it like, you know, the team that trades for you, they want you. >> right. >> no better feeling to have an organization that wants you. and 20,000 more fan that embrace you.

it was cool to leave but as far as my family, my kids, they struggled with it. my wife was cool with it. and after awhile, once my kids got better, i'm cool with it. >> the point guard position in basketball is a tough position. how has it been leaving point guard system and set of place you have to run in denver to now detroit? >> when i got here, i played point guard in the beginning. now that's going to change. a different situation. i'm usually having the ball and bringing it up in the fourth quarter and not so much the first, second, and third. it's just different. it's hard. you have to be accountable for everybody else. and two, two guards both score. that's something i know i can do. >> gives a great appreciation for the game and other that come before him and he is somebody i admire on the court and off the court.

as a player, man of heart. as teammate, you know, does what it takes to win. and as a person, you know, a good all- around cat, you know. most people would have got conceited but he a regular everyday cat. >> 15 year ago to when i met you now you never care what had people's perception are of you. did that hurt you you have not tried to mold people into thinking or believing you're a certain way? >> my friend, the fans that are real, true, live allen iverson fans take the time to analyze and understand and realize that i'm a human. i make mistakes. >> there's an authenticness, an authenticity, about allen that really catches people. it really attracts them. it's not, you know, a singular

appeal. it doesn't appear to one type of person. you can't just say, allen iverson appeals to the hip hop community. that's wrong. has people's tastes and sensibility change and tolerance changes, the appeal became this guy plays 100 miles per hour every night and brings joy although he is not smiling irvine johnson so there's an appeal at different levels and he became a pied piper. >> you have a scholarship program where you have endowments set up with colleges and also you have given over hundreds of thousands of dollars to the gun buyback program in newport news, virginia. people don't always want to know that aspect of allen iverson. >> i have a chance to make a difference. if i changed one life, i didding many. if i put somebody in school, help themselves and their

family and buying a gun back and get a gun off the street, $100,000, $100 a gun, you can get a lot off the streets. >> once he turned professional, okay, one things he wanted to give other kids was the mind set they could dream as well. that was the first thing and the first celebrity that we did. it was very easy for us to come up with our slogan -- developing the dreams of tomorrow. i know allen wanted kids to think more. when you hear him talk about young people, when you hear him talk about kids, who wants to be the next allen iverson -- he want them to be better than allen iverson. >> just for the fact i'm able to do that, you know, for somebody else, and there's a

big thing for me. i don't need a write up in the paper or anything. just a thank you from them or not even that -- just knowing they appreciate because it's helping them. >> it make you feel damn good. you sit and say, uh-huh. look at that rebound and him run that court. look at allen drop 40 on them suckers. >> i just carry it out to the fullest. >> practice? what? [ laughter ] we talking about practice? >> when you saw isaiah take 80 stitches from the head from karl malone and he played next week, you knew. >> you have to look at somebody in your family and the mistakes they made -- look at the mistake you made in your life and look in the mirror and say,

south africa, an 8-year-old boy picked up the game of golf from his father. by the age of 9, he was already outplaying him. the odds of this gentle lad winning the junior world golf championships at the age of 14? 1 in 16 million. the odds of that same boy then making it to the u.s. and european pro-golf tours? 1 in 7 million. the odds of the "big easy" winning the open championship once and the u.s. open championship twice? 1 in 780 million. the odds of this professional golfer having a child diagnosed with autism? 1 in 150. ernie els encourages you to learn the signs of autism at autismspeaks.org.