get at this point but it is infuriating given the g.o.p. leadership's flogging of that $38 billion top-line figure. is that the best we can offer the american people right now? in these tough economic times with record debt, deficits and 8.8% unemployment we give them smoke and mirrors budget gimmickry and accounting sleight of hand. our government is bloated and precious taxpayers' dollars are squandered in nearly every agency. you can't pick up a newspaper or go on-line without seeing reports of waste and duplication throughout federal bureaucracies.i'm pleased some real cuts have been made, but we need to do much more. this deal does not a lot to address the very serious fiscal issues we face as a nation. so i hope that, as we address the next crisis, which will be obviously the -- as we reach the

debt limit that we will have more serious plans and i also believe it is vitally important before we raise the debt limit that we can put this nation on a path to a balanced budget. we cannot afford to continue to borrow 40 cents out of every dollar we spend here in washington. we cannot afford, as the commercial that many of us have seen on television have the chinese own america's money. and our united states of america be in such debt that china has an increasing and unhealthy influence on the united states of america. so, madam president, i intend to vote for this agreement. i believe we could have don't know lot better, but, at the same time, its a a step in the right direction. it's the first time that we have made serious efforts to reduce spending in quite a number of

years around here, and i hope it will serve as something that the american people can support and spur us on to greater efforts in the coming weeks and months. madam president i notice the presence of the majority leader. i yield the floor. mr. reid: madam president? sneer sneer the majority leader. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i say to my good friend from arizona, who we came to the house of representatives together came to the senate together and, madam president when we came here in determining seniority, we both had the same service except the state of arizona had more people than the state of nevada, so he's one step ahead of of me. and i appreciate my friend's statement, madam president. mr. mccain: may i say to my friend, that's in the eye of the beholder. i thank the senator. mr. reid: i appreciate my friend's statement. he and i are both going to vote for this piece of legislation for different reasons but i am

-- as i've said publicly and privately, there have been very few people in the history of our country who have served our country so valiantly in battle and in the government as john mccain. even though we disagree on a number of issues over the years my admiration for him will automobiles there. madam president -- we've got a change -- just a second ago there was a woman there. so mr. president -- the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: as the country learned today and certainly we learned in nevada, there was a terrifying close call last night. it is a miracle that everyone is okay today. we're grateful that they are. this is what happened. only one air traffic croarl was in the tower during last night's overnight shift. the medical aircraft carrying a critically ill passenger couldn't land because the controller fell asleep.

he fell asleep on the job. we now know that the pilot circled several times. we now know that he tried to call the tower not once, not twice but seven times. the controller slept through every one of these calls. he slept through the circling of the aircraft. more than 15 minutes later with the passenger critically ill in the airplane minutes during which no one could reach the air traffic controller, while this critically ill passenger suffered in that aircraft, the pilot landed without any guidance from the aimplet now -- from the airport. now, mr. president, the reno airport is swatted right below -- swatted right below the sierra nevada, mountains. we all know who terribly rough it is many times coming out of

there with the winds coming off of the sierras. to think that this pilot was forced to land without any controls on the land is very scary. this shouldn't happen in nevada. it shouldn't happen anywhere in our country. it shouldn't happen in any airplane. and it certainly shouldn't happen in an air ambulance -- or to an air ambulance. i spoke just a short time ago with secretary of transportation ray lahood. i'm very happy that he's acting and acting quickly to make sure this never happens again in reno or anier else in the country. we know we had an experience here a few weeks ago right here in washington, d.c., the same type of situation. why did it happen? reno was one of 27 airports across the country that sometimes had only one air traffic controller on the overnight shift. because of secretary lahood's quick action, there will now be zero. effectively immediately every airport will have at least two air traffic controllers in the

tower at any given time. as indicated, i have flown into that airport and out of that airport many, many times. in october i was there for a celebration. we're opening a new control tower. it was very badly needed. the old ones you couldn't see parts of the runways. when reno's old control tower was built -- device eisenhower, mr. president, and the dodgers were in brooklyn -- in the half-century since then shall the area's population has more than tripled. so it was fitting that the airport open a control tower three times the size of the old one. last night's tragedy shows us that the best technology works only as we will as the people operating them. these people fall asleep on the job literally. they risk the lives of millions of americans that fly into and out of airports in america every day. secretary lahood and randy

babbitt are doing their jobs. i appreciate their responsiveness and share their outrage that this has ever happened. mr. president, congress also has a key role to play. we have to do our jobs. the senate passed a bill in february two months ago to modernize america's air travel. we save and create with that legislation 280,000 jobs. it would improve aviation safety and protect treaferls. it would even help reduce delays improve access to rural communities and would do all of this while creating jobs. the republican house also passed a companion bill just a few days ago. but the house bill is almost the opposite of ours. it's dangerous. it doesn't protect passengers. it imperils passengers. the republican bill -- we got it from the house -- would cut the modern navigation systems at our nation's airports. it is hard to comprehend, the

f.a.a. bill that we've had to give short extensions to, like 14 dinner times now we're going to try to pass a bill that doesn't modernize or navigation systems? that would be wrong. the f.a.a. said that the house bill would force it to furlough safety-related employees. not just any employee, those whose primary yob is keeping air travel safe. that doesn't make any sense. it also would keep airports from make the infrastructure improvements they need and would completely end the program that ensures rural communities of air service. the senate-passed bill and the house-passed bill are now in conference to work out the differences. clearly, there are a lot of differences in and the crveees have some choices to make, and they're important choices. they need to make them quickly so that both houses can pass this bill and send it to the

president. and do it quickly. mr. president, this bill passed here on a huge bipartisan vote. so again we're grateful that everyone in reno was okay. but the next time we may not be so fortunate. let's make our airports and travel as safe as possible as soon as possible so that next time we don't have to rely on luck. and that's what it was. mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

i ask that the calling of the quorum be -- mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. grassley: i suppose i and a

lot of my colleagues had a chance to hear the president speak this afternoon it's very nice that the president is being engaged for the first time in the budget debate and the long-term fiscal problems of this country and the deficit problems of this country. it's good that he is following on with some of the recommendations of his own deficit reduction commission. you have to remember a little less than a year ago he appointed a deficit reduction commission. they reported on december the 5th. it seems that they had broad bipartisan support because the four senators that were on there, two democrats and two republicans and probably very different political philosophies of the two of the four, they have endorsed it. and then all of a sudden since

december 5th until today there's just been a lot of quiet on the part of the president of the united states about whether or not he likes what his deficit reduction commission suggested. and i don't know the details of his -- where he's coming from, whether he agrees with every detail that's in the deficit reduction commission recommendations, but at least he is getting on board along the lines of what 64 senators, 32 republicans and 32 democrats said in the letter about a month ago to the president we're ready to start tackling some of these big problems. we need leadership. and maybe this speech today is an answer to that leadership or if i want to be cynical maybe the president gave his speech today because of the very positive comments that congressman and chairman paul

ryan got for his budget ideas that he released last week. but the president also took advantage to renew the class warfare the demagoguery of -- of taxing the wealthy. that doesn't contribute much to the debate. in fact, i think it makes it very doift difficult to bring people together. or if i want to be cynical i might say this is the president's first speech about his reelection. either way, i think there's analysis of this that we've got look at very carefully and see does it really do the economic good that is intended in the speech even though it's welcomed that the president is being engaged at this time. so i would give some reaction to some of the things that the president said, but i want this as background. from world war ii through 2009

every dollar of new federal tax revenue coming into this treasury resulted in $1.17 of new spending. now just think of that. every new dollar coming in wasn't a dollar that reduced the deficit. it was a dollar that resulted in in $1.17 of additional spending. that's like a dog chasing its tail and never catches it. and so we are sending a new dollar to washington to do something about the budget deficit and nothing really happens as a result of that. -- of that except more deficit. the president made the point that tax reductions in 2001 and 2003 added tremendously to the deficit that he inherited or

part of the deficit that now exists. but, in fact, the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003 resulted in more revenue to the federal treasury. the expanding economy spurred by this tax relief act of 2001 and 2003 helped to reduce the annual budget deficit from $412 billion in 2004 to $160 billion in 2007. not because we taxed more, but because we taxed less and we had more economic activity as a result of it. which brings me around to the principle of deficit reduction. obviously when i use the word that a dollar of additional taxes doesn't go to the bottom line that -- that doesn't do anything about the deficit.

but on the expenditure side reducing that and the economic growth that comes from it is what reduces the deficit. more economic activity. event most sincere arguments that raising taxes would reduce the deficit and the debt doesn't have history to back it up. outside of washington it's obvious to people that the problem isn't what -- isn't that people are undertaxed, but washington overspends. the voters said this so loud and clear in the last election. and elections are supposed to have consequences. and i think the budget agreement of midnight friday night is evidence of words from the grassroots of america getting through to washington d.c., which i think most people at the

grassroots were cynical would ever happen and i suppose we've got to do a lot more to prove to them that there might be a different day in washington. but it was pretty loud and clear in the last election and the message sent to washington. government spending increased by 22% during the last two years an unsustainable level of increased expenditures. if we follow the budget proposed this year by president obama we would have had another another $13 trillion to our national debt over the next decade. this decade -- this debt gets in the way of economic activity that creates jobs and it's a terrible burden to leave to future generations. we talked dollars an cents -- and cents when we talk about the deficit and the debt. but it's a moral issue of whether or not those of us of our generation ought to live high on the hog and leave the --

the bill to young people like these pages here that have to pick up for it. it's -- it's a moral issue as much as it is an economic issue. this trillions of dollars of debt gets in the way of the economic activity that creates jobs and it's a terrible burden on future generations. washington needs to get behind policies that clamp down on spending and as a result we will grow the economy. increased economic activity increases revenue to the federal treasury enabling deficit and debt reduction. and we know that from a fact because from 1997 until the year 2000, we actually, because of the growth of the economy paid down $500 -- i believe it was was $568 billion on the national debt during that period of time.

the answer is not defending ways to grow government. grow the economy but you don't grow the economy by growing government. getting back to the issue of the president making a big deal in his speech about the 2001 tax cuts being a major cause of the budget deficit and probably the implication of the unfairness of it because there wasn't higher taxes on higher-income people, i would suggest that the president is wrong in both regards. in 2001 tax cuts included an across the board income tax reduction and reduced the tax rates on the lowest income people from 15% to 10%.

and -- and it resulted in removing millions of low-income people from the federal income tax rolls entirely. it increased the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000. the legislation included marriage penalty relief and the first ever tax deduction for tuition. two years later after 9/11, the 2003 dividends and capital gains tax rate cuts spurred economic growth and created jobs. the result was more revenue to the federal treasury, not less. the expanding economy helped reduce the annual budget deficit -- and i'm repeating these numbers because they're significant -- from $412 billion in 2005 to $160 billion in 2007. i know it's counterintuitive to a lot of people to hear a member

of the senate say you reduce marginal tax rates you're going to bring revenue into the federal treasury, because the obvious common sense tells people that if you increase taxes, you're going to bring in more revenue but as i said earlier in a speech today it doesn't work out that way because there's some people in this country can decide, you know i'm paid enough taxes i'm not going to pay anymore. so they are disincentivizeed to be productive. probably do leash -- leisure or invest in nonproductive activity. and your lower marginal tax rates, it encourages those people to be productive and away from being productive, at the same time creating jobs, growing the economy bringing more money into the federal treasury.

when you look at the sources of the deficit contrary to the president's claims, tax relief has been a small part. unprecedented spending contributed much more to the deficit than the tax relief did and particularly in the last two years, a 22% increase in expenditures on top of the the $814 billion deficit -- i mean $814 billion stimulus. now here's something that's probably counterintuitive as well and probably something the president -- the president misses from his analysis in 2001 and 2003 tax relief bills that he blames the big budget deficit on. the tax rates those reductions, actually ended up with taxes

being more progressive. the effective federal tax rate on the top 1% of the households is more than seven times the rate paid by the bottom 20% of the households and that's up from less than five times as much in the year 1979. if tax relief enacted since 2001 is allowed to expire in a little more than a year and a half, because last december we only extended the existing tax policies until december 31, 2012, at that time, if that happens, a family of four with two kids who earn $50,000 today would see a $2,155 increase in its tax bill. more than six million low-income people who currently have no federal income tax liability would be subject to the individual income tax and that would be at a rate of 15%

instead of now 10%. washington needs to learn that leaving more money in the pockets of the taxpayers unleashes a positive chain reaction in our economy. on the other hand, government spending doesn't create wealth because government is not an institution that can create wealth. government's an institution that can only provide an environment for people outside of the government to create wealth. and, in fact, what the government does is it consumes wealth and as a result doesn't generate a stronger economy. instead of growing the government, washington needs to focus on helping create private sector jobs. the president's new plan will reduce the deficit by by $4 trillion over 12 years. he does that by reducing

spending by $2 trillion but raising taxes by $1 trillion. and thus lowering interest payments by $1 trillion. the president again failed to realize that we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. now, at least a couple times since i have been in the united states senate, i've heard this argument well, let's increase taxes $1 and we'll reduce expenditures $2 or $3 or $4. sometimes it's $2 sometimes it's $3, sometimes it's $4 behind those ideas. now, that sounds very good, doesn't it? but here's why it doesn't work and why bringing in $1 of new taxes actually leads to the spending of $1.17 as professor

vedder of ohio university has studied this, because you increase taxes for a long, long period of time. in fact, you increase taxes until you decide to do something else with the taxes. but appropriations are reviewed annually and for some reason or other, after that first year, appropriations tend to creep up and creep up and creep up, and consequently, the well-intentioned of raising taxes $1 and reducing expenditures by $3 or $4 as well intended as it is, you just gradually -- it just gradually is eroding on the expenditures side. that's that half of that proposition so that you raise -- you end up not reducing expenditures as you had originally indicated.

i yield the floor mr. president, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

overnment, and once it's passed both houses -- which we anticipate tomorrow -- then it will be signed into law by the president and avert the shutdown.

but, mr. president had there been a shutdown or in the alternative had a law proposed in the house of representatives appropriations h.r. 1 been law, what we would have seen is a number of the hunger programs would have been savaged. there would have been a huge savaging of the feeding programs around the world by usaid an arm of the state department which saves untold thousands if not millions of lives particularly of children. they have a program right now in africa, for example of just providing mosquito netting that

cuts malaria by 30%. but also usaid uses a lot of american agriculture to help feed hungry starvation populations, and those programs would have been cut significantly had h.r. 1 the house of representatives appropriations bill, been the final decision. fortunately, it wasn't and fortunately for the hunger programs both abroad and at home the least among us will not have to suffer those cutbacks to the budget for the duration of this fiscal year for the next six months. but even so, there were some significant cuts in what has

been agreed to in the funding for hunger programs here in america. there was a $500 million cut of women, infant and children's program, otherwise known as w.i.c. the federal health and nutrition programs for women infants and children. and we will just have to deal with this as we are now putting together the mathematics in building the next budget for the year 2012. mr. president, i decided to come over here and talk because i want to talk about one of my

closest personal friends former congressman and former ambassador tony hall of ohio who started a fast 16 days ago. that fast he is going to continue only having water and he is going all the way through easter, which is another week and a half away. so the duration of that fast will be somewhere around a month, and you can imagine what happens to your body when you don't take in any nourishment other than water for 30 days. that's what tony hall is doing. it's very interesting that people are joining him.

some 35,000 people nationwide have joined tony in a fast. it may not be a complete fast like he is doing with only water, and it may be just that they are doing a fast one day a week. it's interesting that 30 members of the house of representatives have joined their former colleague, congressman tony hall in this fast, and that includes just announced 14 women u.s. lawmakers plan to add to protest the deep cuts in the program that help the poor that battle hunger in the u.s. and overseas. and, mr. president i would just say that in conclusion you can tell about a great nation about

how it takes care of the least of those among us. it is certainly a part of our judeo-christian heritage throughout the hebron row scriptures and the new testament that over and over the most referenced part of the scriptures is the obligation of a society to take care of the least privileged among us. back in the old days, some 2,000 years ago and even before, they had a social security system in that agricultural economy of the time called gleaning. for those who owned the wheat fields would go in and reap the wheat, but it was the standard practice of the day that they would leave enough wheat on the stalks so that the poor could

come in and glean the fields in order that they would have sustenance. that was their social security system of the day. our systems of aiding the poor are much more sophisticated and include the programs of usaid and here at home a lot through the department of agriculture. but as we have to cut the budget we must constantly remind ourselves as ambassador tony hall is reminding us right now with his fast for a month that it is an obligation of all of us to take care of the least among us. i will close by quoting that passage from matthew 25.

"when did you it for the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it for me." mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: before my friend leaves the floor i had the good fortune to serve in the house with as my friend did with tony hall. a very dedicated thoughtful man. and i wasn't aware of his doing this fast. that's -- that's a real fast and it shows how strongly he feels and has felt for many years about this. so it's nice that my friend from florida brought this to the attention of the american people. mr. president, i ask consent that the period of morning business for debate -- be for debate only and that be extended until 7:00 p.m. tonight senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. at 7:00 p.m., i again be recognized. the presiding officer: is there

objection? without objection. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: reid: i ask unanimous consent that on thursday, april 14 following any leader remarks, the senate proceed to a period of morning business for debate only with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each until the senate receives the papers from the house with respect to the following items: h.r. 1473 the department of defense and full-year continuing appropriations act h. con. res. 35, a correcting resolution relative to the prohibition of federal funds for health care reform and h. con. res. 36, the correcting resolution relative to a proasks federal funds -- prohibition for federal funds for planned parenthood, when the senate received the papers from the house, the senate proceed to votes on the two concurrent resolutions and passage of the bill in the following order h. con. res. 35, h. con. res. 36, h.r. 1473, that there be two minutes divided prior to each vote that there nobody amendments in order to each bill or the concurrent resolutions

prior to the votes that the motions to reare be considered made and laid upon the table that the correcting resolutions and the bills be subject to a 60-point threshold. that the only points of order be budget points of order and the appear cable motions to waive. furthered, that the secretary of the senate immediately notify the house of representatives of the result's of the senate's action -- results of the senate's action on the house measures. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. reid: i withhold that, mr. president. my friend from rhode island is here and i apologize. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you mr. president. later this week we will consider a spending measure to fund the united states government through the remaining six months of this fiscal.

while the majority leader so the floor, i want to thank him as well as appropriations chairman inouye and senator patty murray for their hard work in negotiating an end to the budget stalemate and preventing the threatened government shutdown. the battle over that spending measure brightly illuminated the contrast between the priorities of the two parties. the priority of the house republicans, i believe are completely upside-down. in the debate over the spending bill they fought to cut programs that help the middle class and for extreme tea party policy riders that had nothing to do with the budget. these included a prohibition on funding for women's health and

eliminating the environmental protection agency's ability to protect us against carbon and other pollution. at the same time, the house republicans refused even to consider raising revenue by closing tax loopholes, for instance. not one. they refused to entertain ending one corporate tax giveaway or one special treatment for wealthy taxpayers. if that debate didn't make the contrast between the two parties crystal clear, the house republican budget for 2012 the so-called ryan budget sure did. in his budget congressman ryan proposes privatizing medicare and requiring seniors to pay the majority of their health expenses with their own money. they would get a voucher which

actually would go to the insurance company and the difference would be up to them. in the same document in which congressman ryan would decimate medicare, he would cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires by trillions of dollars. now, one major factor that contributed to our budget deficits is the economic crisis that we recently weathered. it is amazing the amnesia we can have here in washington. we're not even through recession that has been so painful for so many families in rhode island and yet we seem to have forgotten that economic crisis. well, those of us who were here ought to remember the desperate

urgency that was displayed by treasury secretary hank paulson and federal reserve chairman ben bernanke as they, having looked into the economic abyss came to this building, to the l.b.j. room right here in the senate to plead with us for help to save the world economy. these are not two easy men to frighten and they were very, very frightened. we are now past the worst depths of the financial and economic crises, and as this chart shows the economic recovery measured in jobs is proceeding. although all too tentatively and all too slowly. in rhode island, we're still at

12% unemployment in the providence metropolitan area and over 11% statewide. now that we are finally finally creating jobs -- but very few compared to the job losses of the crisis -- now that we're finally at least on the good side of the equation here, house republicans have proposed yanking government support for the recovery and jeopardizing many of the jobs that are on this chart. their spending proposal, h.r. 1 would have cut spending so severely that former mccain presidential campaign economic advisor mark zandi estimated it would cost as many as 700,000 jobs. well look at our job gains for february. 22,000. for january 68,000. february 222,000.

for january 68,000. december 167,000. for november, 128,000. we would wipe out months and months of job gains with a 700,000-job loss. goldman sachs, the wall street investment bank said that this bill h.r. 1 could reduce the growth in our annual gross domestic product by two full percentage points over the rest of the year. now, we were only expecting about three percentage points of growth so to knock off two of them is a big hit on jobs. so i'll begin by pointing out that as we deal with the debt and the deficit we cannot forget about jobs. it is growth ultimately and a recovering economy that will help reduce our national debt. now, as you'll recall the

republicans also resisted any efforts to close any corporate tax loopholes. corporations, our republican friends contend are overtaxed and any closing of the loophole would amount to an unacceptable tax hike. so let's look for a minute at the actual state. let's look at the facts for a minute. the actual state of corporate tax payments in america n.1935 n.1935 -- tax payments in america. in 1935, for every dollar an american individual contributed to our revenues, corporate america, american corporations also contributed $1. well by 1948 american individuals were contributing $2 for every $1 that corporate america contributed. by 1971 it broke through 3:1.

in 1981, it broke through 4:1. and in 2009, we broke through 6:1 with american individual taxpayers contributing every year to our annual revenues six times as much as american corporations. so we've gone in a lot of people's lifetimes -- you'd have to be pretty old but there are plenty of people who remember 1935 -- from basically even steven between corporate america and individual america to individual americans carrying six times the tax burden of corporate america. so when people say how overtaxed corporate america is, it is really worth looking at this history of ever-diminishing corporate contribution to our nation's revenues.

let's look now at one of the factors that is driving the erosion of corporate tax revenues. this is an interesting house a building located down in the cayman islands. not particularly large kind of nondescript. our budget committee chairman, kent conrad uses this photograph quite often. this building may not look like a beehive of economic activity but over 18,000 corporations claim that they are doing business in this building. 18,000 corporations claim to be doing business in that little building. gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "small business," when you think of trying to pack 18,000 corporations into that little structure. well as chairman conrad has

pointed out the only business being done in that building is funny business, monkey business with the tax code tax gimmickry. and this nonsense is estimated to cost america as much as $100 billion every year. for every one of those dollars lost to the tax cheaters honest tax-paying americans and honest tax-paying corporations have to pay an extra dollar or more to make up the difference. let go to another building that has a tax story to tell. this is the helmsley building in new york city, and it's a nice-looking place. the building is big enough to have its own zip code.

that means that the i.r.s. reports of tax information by zip code can tell us a lot about this building. and here is what this building tells us from actual tax filings and actual tax payments. the well-off and very successful successful indeed, admirable occupants of that building paid a lower tax rate than the average new york city janitor. the average tax rate of a new york city janitor is 24.9%. the average tax rate of a new york city security guard -- i'm sure the helmsley building has security guards -- is 23.8%. but the average tax rate actually paid by the occupants

the successful, capable but well-compensated occupants of that building? 14.7%. about what, three-fifths of the rate that their janitors and security guards are likely paying. so that seems as though it must be extraordinary s. but believe it or not, that is no fluke. the i.r.s. reports the tax rate that is actually paid by the highest-earning 400 americans. they have to go back a few years to do the calculations, but here's their most recent information, and the story is the same. the highest-earning 400 americans each earned on average

more than $344 million. more than a third of a billion dollars in one year. and the average tax rate that those 400 high-income earners actually paid was 16.7%. now i applaud their success. it is the american dream writ large when somebody can make a third of a billion dollars in a single year. but when they only pay 16.7% it makes you wonder. you might wonder, for instance, at what wage level does a regular single working person start paying 16.7% in total federal taxes. if you're a single filer without

deductions you hit 16.7% of your salary going to the federal government in taxes at $28,650 in salary. so what does that equate to for jobs? well the bureau of labor statistics calculates that in my home state, in the providence labor market, a hospital orderly is paid on average $29,000 a year. a hospital orderly paying 16.7%. now that means that the 400 biggest income earners in america each earning on average a third of a billion dollars is paying the same tax rate as the

hospital orderly pushing that cart down the linoleum hallways of the rhode island hospital at 2:00 in the morning. that's the way the code actually works. now there are a lot of people in between making what a hospital orderly makes and they pay a lot more in taxes than 16.7%. but when you get to the very high end when you get to the occupants of the helmsley building when you get to the people making a third of a billion dollars a year, those tax rates actually paid go down to the point where they're paying the same rate as the janitor -- less than the janitor and the same rate as the hospital orderly. so i've heard my colleagues say that rates go up the higher

income you pay and nominally they do. but when you look at what is actually paid, when you look at what goes through our contorted tax code system, out the back end come these extraordinarily low actual tax payment rates for the most well-off and well-compensated americans. if you go to the corporate tax code that makes little more sense. decades of lobbyists have carved our corporate tax code into a swiss cheese of tax loopholes of tax earmarks for the rich and powerful. the result, we have a nominal corporate tax rate of 35%. but here's what the "new york times" reported recently. general electric, one of the nation's largest corporations, made profits of over $14 billion last year and paid no u.s.

taxes. none. indeed it actually received a $3.2 billion refund from the american taxpayer. i read recently that goldman sachs in 2008 reportedly paid income tax federal tax of 1%. now maybe those were one-year anomalies. but if you look at a previous analysis by "the new york times" of five years of corporate tax returns consolidated, that analysis found that prudential financial only paid 7.6%, less than our hospital orderly. yahoo, 7%. southwest airlines, 6.3%.

boeing 4.5%. and what looks to be our tax avoidance champion on $11.3 billion of income, the carnival cruise corporation paid less than 1.1% in federal taxes averaged over those five years. one recent paper actually calculated carnival cruise lines cash effective carburet at 0 -- cash rate at 0.7% on $11.3 billion in income. mr. president, carnival lines doesn't just take you for a cruise. they're taking all of us for a ride. good honest cvs a corporation in my home state pays full freight. why should they pay 30 times the tax rate of carnival cruise

lines? it makes no sense. but wait, there's more. don't forget that we make the american taxpayer subsidize big oil to the tune of at least $3 billion a year. and big oil has made $1 trillion in profits this decade. they hardly need to raid the pockets of the american taxpayer. but on an effective tax rate basis, the petroleum gas industry pays the lowest rate of any industry. i think that these are all noteworthy landmarks of where we are in our budget and debt and deficit discussion. but the big landmark, what i call the mount everest of landmarks that casts its shadow over the entire budget discussion is health care. representative ryan's health care budget proposal is radical and would create terrible harm

for seniors. but i do agree with representative ryan on his statement that says the following: "if you want to be honest with the fiscal problem and the debt, it really is a health care problem." he is right. and the landmark feature of this landmark problem is this: the health care cost problem is a health care system problem. our national health care costs are exploding. the health care system is driving up the costs of medicare. the health care system is driving up the costs of medicaid. the health care system is driving up the costs of private insurance, of blue cross of united. the health care system is driving the cost of the military's tricare system and the v.a. system. no one is exempt.

it doesn't matter who your insurer is. the health care system is what is driving the costs in public and in private programs alike. so we have to address the health care system problem if we're going to get our health care costs under control. simply going after one manner of payment like the medicare system misses the real target and will cause us to fail at our endeavor instead of tackling this vital problem of the underlying growth in health care costs the ryan budget would end medicare as we know it. and just look at these numbers. i was born in 1955. there was a $12 billion program the entire national health care system. by 1979, up to $219 billion. by 1987, $512 billion.

by 1992, $849 billion. and from 1992 to 2009, it has soared to $2.5 trillion. this is a rocket that every insurer is on, and you can't just throw the medicare people off of their health care and pretend you're going to do anything about bringing down that accelerating curve. but instead of tackling the underlying growth, the ryan budget would end medicare as we know it. that would be a tragedy and a mistake. medicare along with social security is one of the most successful programs for human well-being in the history of the world. it allows tens of millions of older americans to enjoy their golden years with minimal concern about paying for health care. paired with social security, medicare guarantees american seniors the freedom to retire

without fear of privation or destitution. as with social security, american workers pay for this privilege through payroll taxes and they have a right to the retirement benefits that they have been promised and that they have earned. the house republican budget drafted by mr. ryan would break our pledge with americans who have been paying medicare payroll taxes by ending medicare as we know it and replacing the single-payer system with vouchers for private care that will not come close to paying the full cost of insurance. indeed that may be an understatement. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, the ryan plan would leave the average senior with over $12,500 in out-of-pocket expenditures that they would have to pay by 2022. that more than the average rhode islander gets from social

security now. and the current medicare system is projected to cover 68% of a senior's health care costs in 2012 and the ryan plan would only cover 25%. three-quarters of a senior's health care responsibility would be on them. and medicare would only pick up 25%. that is an unaffordable and an indefensible burden that destroys the freedom and the security that medicare provides to seniors and provides to their children as well. don't forget that we all enjoy the freedom of knowing that our parents will be taken care of no matter how dread the disease they suffer. and we don't have to compromise our choices in life in order to hedge against the fear that our parents will suffer such an indignity, such a terrible result. it helps all americans to have

that freedom in our seniors' hands, to have that fear lifted from their and our hearts. the ryan plan is 180 degrees from where we should be on health care reform. it would greatly increase costs. costs go up because of how inefficient private insurance is. for the average senior from a projected $14,770 under current policy to $20,510 a 39% increase in the underlying cost. in other words a huge giveaway to the private health insurance industry that would get these vouchers. it would ignore the potential for tremendous savings in delivery system reform and saddle seniors with enormous out-of-pocket expenses. as i said, rising medicare costs are not driven by medicare.

every insurer has their cost going up like a rocket on that chart that i showed. we have to get at the problem of the underlying costs. how do we do this? well we actually have a pretty good health care toolbox that has five major tools in it. one is quality improvement. quality improvement saves the cost of errors, of misdiagnosis, of disjointed care and so forth. for example hospital-acquired infections alone cost about $2.5 billion every year. and they are virtually entirely avoidable. they should be and could be never event. that alone would save $2.5 billion, and quality improvement can extend far beyond just the realm of hospital-acquired infections. two is prevention programs. prevention programs avoid the costs of getting sick in the first place. more than 90% of cervical cancer

is curable if the disease is detected early through pap smears. three, you pay doctors for better outcomes rather than for ordering more and more tests and procedures. that will save money while improving outcomes for americans. four is a robust health information infrastructure which will save billions of dollars a year and open exciting new industries once it takes life. we are approaching that tipping point now i'm glad to say. finally, five, the administrative costs of our health care system are gross. the insurance has a bureaucracy to delay payments to doctors and hospitals. doctors and hospitals have had to hire rain that own billing -- hired their own billing departments. i visited our cranston, rhode island community health center and they told me half of their staff is dedicated not for

health care but fighting to get paid. on top of dedicating 50% their staff to try get paid, they have to spend another $200,000 a year on fancy consultants. all of that, the entire war over payment between insurers an hospitals adds -- and hospitals adds zero health care value. we heard on the private insurance side anywhere from 15% to 30% of the health insurance dollar gets burned up in administrative costs. we know we can do better because the cost of administering medicare are close to 2% of program expenditures. so you add all this up, all those five strategies and the numbers are enormous. the president's council of economic advisers has stated that 5% of g.d.p. can be taken out of our health care system cost without hurting the health care we receive. that's about $700 billion a year. the new england health care institute says it's $850 billion a year.

the well-regarded lewin group estimated the probable savings at $1 trillion a year, a figure that is echoed by former bush treasury secretary o'neil. those are very big numbers. not only are they big numbers but they represent a win-win. remember the five strategies, higher quality care with less errors and infections, prevented illnesses so you don't get sick in the first place. secure, complete health records that are there when you need them electronically so your doctors, your lab your pharmacy, your hospital, your specialist all know what everybody else is doing. payment to doctors and hospitals based on keeping you well and getting you well rather than on giving you more procedures and more tests. and, finally not so much of that infuriating insurance company bureaucracy hassling both patients and doctors. those are not bad outcomes even

without the savings. so what do we draw from this if we keep all these landmarks in mind? landmarks of where we are as we approach this budget debate? well our colleagues on the other side, particularly our house republican colleagues, say they are determined to reduce our annual deficit on our national debt. that that is their top priority. but they only want to seem to address 12% of the budget, the nonsecurity discretionary spending and exam no savings at all on the revenue side. if we are really serious about deficit and debt reduction why risk destroying 700,000 jobs when job destruction only adds to the deficit and to our debt through lost economic activity and lost revenue? if we're really serious about deficit and debt reduction why is there not one corporate tax

loophole? not one on the chopping block. why is the entire tax code off limits in this discussion as it burns up $6 -- 6 billion hours that americans spend every year. six billion hours that americans spend every year complying with its contorted requirements. why must that hospital orderly pushing his or her cart down the linoleum hallway at midnight pay a higher tax rate than some of the most fortunate an able americans making hundreds of millions of dollars each in a single year? if we're really serious about this if deficits and debt are really the most important thing we face, why no discussion of corporate america's ever diminishing contribution as a share of our nation's revenue?

shouldn't that be something we at least consider? if we're really serious why is there no plan for even one of the 18,000 corporations in that phony baloney headquarters in the cayman islands to pay its proper taxes? if we're really serious why is there so much pure political nonsense about obamacare and socialized medicine instead of a mature discussion about using an improving the tools in the health care bill to address our grave national health care system problem? and why has representative ryan proposed take a sledgehammer to medicare instead of making thoughtful an efficient in -- and efficient investments to improve the way we deliver health care?

it just seems to me until one corporate tax loophole is on the table, until one subsidy to bigging ary business -- agribusiness son the table until we -- is on the table until we talk about billionaires contributing beyond the share that hospital orderlies contribute until we're not so casual about 700,000 jobs and and $20 billion in tax-related revenue that that job loss would cause, until then it's still politics as usual and it's not a sincere desire to tackle our debt. i've always found that you get read looking at what people actually do rather than just believing whatever they say. if you look at what republicans made their priorities on the c.r. debate and in the ryan budget, look at what they do.

it is the same old republican agenda. attacking programs that help the poor attacking women's right to choose attacking national voluntary service helping polluters get around public health measures, reducing the share of revenues paid by corporations and very high-income individuals. it is the same old song. and most important the problem is that if you go that road, it's just not adequate to meet the serious problems at hand. we need to look throughout the budget and across all of our opportunities to bring down our nation's dif sits and to -- deficits and to bring down our nation's debt. everyone needs to participate including our corporate community, including our

wealthiest most talented and most fortunate everyone. we cannot -- we simply won't get out of the deficit and debt problem that we have if we put the whole load of that on the backs of the american middle class. i look forward in the months ahead to a serious fair and sensible discussion, a mature discussion of how to reduce our deficits and our debt. i thank the chair. i thank my colleagues, and i yield the floor. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: may i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you mr. president. we appear to have come to the end of our day so i now ask unanimous consent that the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to senate resolution 1356789. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 1 35rbgs remembering the -- 135 remembering the one-year anniversary of the april 10, 2010 claiming the lives of -- plane crash claiming the lives of the president of poland and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection the committee is discharged and the senate will

proceed to the measure. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president i now ask unanimous consent that when the committee on finance reports the nomination of david cohen to serve as undersecretary for terrorism and financial crimes u.s. department of the treasury the nomination be referred to the committee on banking, housing and urban affairs. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on thursday, april 14th, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved until later in the day and the senate proceed to a period of morning business with the time until 2:00 p.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with

all other provisions under the previous order remaining in effect. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president i'm informed that we will debate the long-term c.r. tomorrow morning and vote as soon as we receive the papers from the house. there will be three votes which will be in relation to the two correcting resolutions regarding health care reform and planned parenthood and passage of the long-term c.r. we hope the votes will be sometime in the afternoon. mr. president, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned

>> congress is poised to pass a measure to keep the federal government running through the fiscal year 2011. as part of the agreement to cut spending, the senate is picking up a bill to block the measures on the health care bill. we heard from the democratic women senators on their oppositions to the measures. this is 45 minutes. >> i want to talk about is consequences of what they are talking about. the right wing is trying to

change the conversation from how do we create jobs in the country, how do we reduce deficit and debt into socially provocative wires that literally wage war against women. now, the extreme wing campaigned against the health care. they said they were going to repeal and replace. all they want to do is repeal. they have no idea for replacing. well let's talk about what they want to appeal. let's talk about the war they are waging against women. if you repeal or repair health care it will have draconian impacts on men and realm, make no mistake about it. in the bill, we ended gender discrimination in health insurance. no longer could insurance companies charge 40% more for men for the same coverage for

the equal age in health status. the other thing we ended is denying women health care on the basis of a preexisting condition. we were horrified to learn that in eight states women were denied health care access and insurance access simply because they were a victim of domestic violence. they were beaten up in their home beaten up by insurance companies, and now they want to beat them up on the senate floor and beat them up in the senate budget. well we're going to stand up. we're not going to tolerate women being pushed around and made targets of this war. no longer can women be denied coverage because they had a session or because they had a premature baby. then we fought from preventative services. we fought for mammograms and pap

smears, but not only for ourselves, but men too. if you defund health care make no mistake in every woman in america should know they're going to take the funding for mammograms away from you. they're going to take away the preventative health amendment that gives you access and screening at no additional copays or deductibles. do we realliment that? oh sure you can have your mammogram, but you're going to dig deep in your pocket, and then we also allowed to end gender discrimination and end practices against women with preexisting conditions, and we also wanted to have preventative care and one of the best

preventative care agencies is planned parenthood. it's one of the sing the most important health care providers to particularly young women in america. 8,000 maryland women if we lose planned parenthood we're going to -- maryland -- 8,000 maryland women lose pap smears others lose access to breast care examines. many lose access to health care generally. now, just because the republicans are in the dark ages doesn't mean american women want to go back toe them. that's why we, the democratic women will be voting against these two writers. women must be clear in defending this amendment is a way to end the war against women. there will be many fights ahead of us. we are under attack. we women are under attack at all ages.

the paul ryan budget particularly attacks senior women. we're going to fight in. we squired up, and, mr. president, this is not about gender. this is about an american agenda and we will fight and make our fight to the victory. i yield the floor. >> mr. president, i want to thank all my democratic women colleagues for coming today and speaking so passionally. you'll hear from all of us because we are outrageous that the price tag for a vote on continuing resolution is two attack votes on women's health, and i yield to the senator from california for five minutes. >> i want to thank, mr. president, senators mikalsky and stabbennow, and lan drew.

they have been unbelievable and since the beginning of this budget bat battle our republican friends in the house insisted that this debate is about spending. well, i got to tell you, we went all the way to them about 70%-plus on spending cuts. we understand we have to cut, but we're not going to cut foolishly. we're not going to cut into the heart and soul of our country, and that includes women health programs. women's health programs, mr. president, title 10, planned parenthood funding for every tax dollar they fund $4. that's how great the prevention is and yet still what do they want to do? you see these two writers these two votes we have to have until

it would allow us to have a vote on keeping the government open, they pounded the table and said we have to have two writers. what was it? was it some big budgetary item that maybe we overlooked? was it some not paying taxes due like some of the big corporate giants that hire enough lawyers they don't pay? no it wasn't about that. was it about some scandal that they uncovered that they said could save us money? no. the two votes they want are about giving the shaft to women women and their families. the two votes are about health care which primarily impact women, and by the way also men but primarily impact women so if that's the kind of budget war they are engaminged in -- engaged in they have met us on

the battlefield, and we have decided that we will remain on that battlefield which is this senate floor as long as we have to go to the galleries to press, as long as we have to, we'll fight it in our states cities in our counties; we will fight it. we believe at the end of the day the people will see who is fighting for them. who is fighting for them? i just want to read a couple of letters from my state. my state is the largest state in the union and planned parenthood provides care for 750,000 women. listen to these women. planned parenthood is the only health care i've ever used, ever, she said. i don't have health insurance so when i get sick, i get over it as soon as possible so i can go back to work. planned parenthood provided me with the only health care coverage i can afford pelvic

examines std testing, birth control. it isn't much she writes, but can you imagine the millions of people who rely on planned parenthood suddenly living their lives without these basic services? she answers her own question. it's shameful. it's shameful. that's a letter from sonya. i have other letters, mr. president. letters from women in my great state, three million americans get planned parent hoot. three quarter of them have incomes lower than the 150% of the poverty level. they rely on planned parenthood. more than half of them do as their only health care and by the way, the other writers that we have to vote on is to defend health care. my colleagues have said it. senators who worked night and

day with the late and great and extraordinary ted kennedy to get us to the point where final lee we tell the insurance company, no no, no, you can't charge women three or five times more for the same coverage as men. if you had a c-section, you can't deny them health care, and if you're a victim of domestic violence, that's not a preexisting condition. that's what we repaired in the bill in addition to many other things that we did. they want to put the shaft to women and their families, and we're not going to stand for it. barbara wrote to me saying she was a student and while a student she had limited funds and she was denied health insurance because of her preexisting condition. when she needed cancer

screenings planned parenthood was there. she said, "please, please, don't cut any funding to plans parenthood because without them she wouldn't have the coverage to health care." let's be clear, these services have nothing to do with abortion. they do not use a dime. it is illegal. it has never happened. for that 3%, that's private funding, so don't stand up and say this is about abortion. that has nothing to do with it. as a matter of fact, if they had their way and this is a fact, mr. president, and women don't get birth control, we will see more unintended preeing nanties and more abortions. that's just the fact. anyone who votes to defund planned parenthood a they deny essential health care services to women and their families, and b, the policy leads to more

unintended pregnancies and more abortion. yes, we stand here strong and maybe some of us are five feet or under even in a couple cases but that's is our determination and our strength and we stand here united, and we say to the people of this country you can count on us because we will be here as long as it takes to protect women and their families and we will not allow women and their families to be held hostage. it's over. it's over. thank you very, very much. i yield the for. >> senator from washington. >> i want to thank my colleague from california for her great statement. senator from maryland and you will hear more of us because frankly, mr. president we are here today because we are outraged. we strongly oppose the resolutions on the floor that flush health care for women and girls and middle class families and i have to say as a woman and

as a mother, i am really angry that women's health care is even up for debate right now. middle class families in this country are struggling. when i go home to my home state of washington, i hear about people who are worried about getting a pink slip or putting food on the table, whether their job will be there for them and whether our economy is working for them and their children. that's what i hear about. i do not hear about when are you going to flush health care for women. not once. mr. president, there's been a smoke screen, and that's why we're here. last week under the continuing resolution negotiated between the house and the senate and the white house one remaining open item eliminating title 10 funding for women's health care. it wasn't about budget deficits. it wasn't about the debt. it wasn't about jobs or the economy. it was about an ideological driven attack on women's health

care. we were able to keep that out of the continuing resolution that we will vote on tomorrow, but the price tag that the republicans in the house gave us to get to a vote to keep government open and to move our country forward is two votes. one that defunds planned parenthood, and one that defunds health care. both of those are extreme taxes on women's health care. my colleagues spoke about planned parenthood. this is not about abortion. federal funds cannot go to abortion. we're frankly tired of having to correct the untruths that continually come out about the funding, but we're not going to give up, keep fights, and we'll keep correcting them. planned parenthood is about providing federal funds for care like mammograms and cervical cancer screens prenatal care, family support and counseling. mr. president, this is about

preventive health care services for women and this is a direct attack on every woman in the country and her ability to get the health care that she needs and the second vote is an attack to dismantle health care. let's see why health care was an issue that we were strong enough to deal with in this country. i'll tell you why. because women finally said we've had enough. let's face it. witch are the -- women are the ones who take to the kids to the doctors see the bills coming in, and fight payments. we passed health care in a way to protect women. it was women denied health care coverage because of preexisting conditions time and time again. we said no more. now they want to vote tomorrow to put that into effect. we heard from women who were denied coverage for health care because they were victim of domestic violence. we said no more and now thigh attacked that again.

mr. president there are so many reasons why this is the wrong approach, but i will let all of our creeings know we're going to defeat these amendments tomorrow. we're going to move on but the democratic women of the senate are now vigilant, and we are here, and we are not going to allow the 2012 budget or further discussions as we go along with a smoke screen to cover up a real agenda which is to take away the access for health care and basic rights that women have worked long and hard and fought for in this country. thank you, mr. president, and i want you to know you'll hear more from us, but we're not going away. we'll defeat the amendments tomorrow and we're here to fight them until they stop being offered. thank you, mr. president i yield the president to my colleague from michigan. >> senator from michigan. >> thank you, mr. president. it's my pleasure and honor to be here with my friends and colleagues who have all fought so long and hard to make sure that women's voices and

experiences are represented in the decisions that we make here in the united states ?ats and in washington on behalf of all the families that we represent. i have to say that people in michigan my family, friends, everybody across michigan shaking their head now trying to figure out what the heck is going on. all of this really is a diversion from what we want to talk about and doing something about and that's jobs, putting people back to work making sure people have money in their pocket to be able to pay their bills and that they can tackle their house that very well may be underwater right now and having to pay for gas prices going through the roof, and how they will be able to take care of their kids and make sure that they can have the opportunities to go to college that they want for them, all the things that we all want for our families. that's what familiesment us to be -- families want us to be talking

about right now, and i also have to say that the people in my state are funding that the dollars they earn right now are hard to come come by. these dollars are precious, and we need to be holding every program accountable. we need to get results for every dollar they send and make decisions if something doesn't work, we need to stop doing it and focus on things that do, and we know that the whole deficit discussion is very critical for us and that we need to be senator about the way we do things. that's really not what this debate is about at the moment, certainly not on women's health care but we understand that we need to be serious about this and certainly in my role as chairing the agriculture nutrition forrest ri committee we take that very seriously and we'll do that in our responsibilities moving tabored, but i also know and the people in michigan understand more than i think anybody educational

across the -- else across the country that we'll never get out of debt with more than 15 million people out of work which is why we want to focus on jobs. they also know that women of all ages seniors middle class families, didn't cause the deficit hole that we're in, and they should not be responsible for the sacrifice and burdens on their backs only in order to move us higher deficit, and we certainly are not going to allow a thinly vailed threat to women in general to become part of a debate about -- about how we balance the budget and eliminate the deficit which is a very real issue. the fact of the matter is that in order to get the budget completed for this year, women,

women's health care, was held hostage. now, we were able to separate that because the women came together in the senate and said there's no way that we are going to allow this whole debate to become a political debate whether women should get breast cancer screenings or cervical screenings or blood pressure tests, and so we've separated that now from the agreement for the rest of the year and i'm proud to stand with women from all over this country to say no we're not going to let you play politics with the women of this country in our health care, but now we have in front of us two different votes. this was the price we had to pay, and we're willing to stand here and make the case for why it's -- why people need to vote no but it's also deeply concerning that we have to be in a situation to debate whether or

not women should get breast cancer screenings and cervical cancer screenings and whether or not we should have access to health care as part of the price to be able to come together on a budget agreement and that's exactly where we are. you know in 2009, we had women from all over michigan. we had the majority of the funds for what's called title 9 for preventive care going to health departments by right. i helped to be able to support when i was a county commissioner years ago the em county health department setting up their preventive care center for women all across michigan, 70%. funds go to health departments. there's a small amount of that going to planned parenthood, and that's being a very big

politicized now because of the other sides wish to politicize women's health care, but in 2009, the cementers provided 55,000 cancer screenings and we had almost 4,000 women who got back an abnormal result on a cancer screening. because they had a chance to get that screening, they then had the opportunity to do something about it and lives were saved. moms are alive today to be able to care for their children and watch them grow up because they found out they had breast cancer early. grandmas are alive and well today to be able to play with their grand kids and great grandkids today combos they found out early that they had breast cancer or cervical cancer

or some other health care challenge. i think we ought to celebrate that at the depth of who we are and our values in this country. the other piece that we have in front of us will be to defund health care in general and we know first of all that women are health care consumers usually in families, making the decisions about health insurance if you are able to have health insurance, how to purchase it or what's covered and certainly caring about our families, and we usually are the last ones to take care of ourselves and i certainly can speak to that myself as maybe other colleagues can that we tepid to make the -- tend to make the decisions first for our children and our families, and not take care of ourselves as we should, but we made a very strong statement and i think a value statement in health care reform to say that we want to make sure that women have cancer access to health

care and that they can afford to get it and that they're not penalized as women and that we're not going to have to pay more. right now, prior to health care reform any woman purchasing health insurance on her own was paying more, sometimes up to 50% more or more for the same health insurance as a man or even less health insurance because she was a woman, because she may be a childbearing years, because of whatever the reason. women have traditionally paid more for the same insurance. that's no longer the case. now, for the same coverage that the -- the same medical circumstances, women can want be discriminated against. that's a good thing. i think that's something we should be proud of that we've been able to do to ensure they cannot charge more just because they are women. we made clear that preventative

care is a essential part of basic health care, and i'll always remember the debate i had as a member of the finance committee with a colleague on the other side of the aisle over whether or not maternity care is a basic part of health insurance and health care. of course, i think it's hard for people in michigan to understand why we have to have that debate because prenatal care maternity care certainly is a basic, not just for the woman involved but for the baby, for the family but we stood together, and we said we're going to make sure that maternity care is part of the definition of basic health care. there were a number of things that we did tog, the women of the senate to make sure that over half the population, the women of this country have access to quality, affordable health care for themselves so they can continue to care for their families and be a very important part of who we are in

contributing to america. we're here because tomorrow the question will be should women's preventative health care services be allowed to continue as part of our framework in terms of health care funding both broadly in health care reform and narrowly under title 10 and family planning for the country. we will say no to the efforts to defund women's health care. i hope going forward as we tackle huge issues for the country around bringing down the debt and balancing the budget and growing the economy and creating jobs and looking to the future that we will not see once again something as important as women health care put on the

chopping block as part of the debate. that's really the message that all of us have and the message that we will be sending tomorrow that women across the country need to know that they are valued, that we want them to be healthy, we want them to be able to afford to find health insurance, we want them to get those cancer screenings and that we value their lives and that we don't believe folks should continue to play politics with their health care. thank you, mr. president. >> mr. president? >> senator from new hampshire. >> thank you, mr. president, and i want to thank senators murray for gathering us here today and all my colleagues here. i'm proud to be able to join them. tomorrow, we're expect the to be voting on house proposals to defund planned parenthood and the affordable care act. these resolutions have been

offered not because any one argues that they create jobs or improve health care, but because house republicans were willing to shut down the federal government if they did not receive a vote on planned parenthood and health care, so that's right even though shutting down the government would have meant furloughing 800,000 people including members of the military they were willing to shut county the government. this kind of a threat especially in a recession is irresponsible. planned parenthood is a critical provider of women's health care especially to low-income individuals. 1.4 million medicaid patients around the country, mostly women, but not all women, depend upon planned parenthood as their main source of primary and preventative health care. they depend on planned parenthood for contra

contraceptives, for training, for sexually transmitted diseases and screenings. in my home state of new hampshire, planned parenthood is the only provider of preventative services for low-income women serving almost 16,000 patients annually. in a time of economic hardship we should not be taking steps to reduce access to health care, and let's be clear, this vote has nothing to do with abortion. by law, planned parenthood cannot, that is cannot use federal funds for abortion moreover planned parenthood provides family planning services that growthly reduce the recurrence of unplanned pregnancies. it's iranic that many of the most arguing opponents of

abortion are the very people who want to shut down the family planning services that prevent unplanned pregnancies. this vote is also not about deficit reduction. despite what some members of the senate have claimed, 97% of the reproductive health services provided by planned parenthood in new hampshire and throughout most of the country are preventative care. over 90% are for preventative care, and as we all know, preventative health care lowers health care costs and it saves lives. detecting cancer early through regular screenings greatly increases the patient's quality of life and her chances of survival, and in the long run it's vastly cheaper for patients in the health care system and the federal government for diseases to be prevented or treated early. one of my constituents from

rochester, a mother of two told me about her oldest daughter working for a restaurant. her daughter can't afford health insurance, and it's not provided through where she works. for her regular checkups and regular care, she relies on planned parent hood. because of the history of cervical cancer in her family she was regularly screened. it was planned parenthood that first diagnosed her daughter with cervical cancer, and because of that early diagnosis, her daughter was able to obtain successful life saving treatments. there are countless stories like this. we heard some of them on the floor this afternoon. mr. president, i also want to address the other proposal that we've been talking about this afternoon. it's a proposal that would also hurt women's health care and that's the pending resolution to

deny funding for health care reform. already, the affordable care act is working for women across the country. as of last year it's illegal for insurance companies to require women to obtain preauthorizations or referrals to access ob/gyn care but there's still a lot of work that has to be done. currently women in the individual health care market pay up to 48% more in premiums than men and beginning in 2014 this kind of discrimination because it's the new health care law will be outlawed. issuers will be banned from issueing discriminatory writings to women with predominantly female work forces more for the same coverage. in the same year 2014, health care reform also makes it illegal for insurers to deny health care coverage on the basis of preexisting

conditions. designations which have often been used to discriminate against women. many women across the country today are denied coverage for preexisting conditions. having had a c-section or just being pregnant, some women were denied coverage for having sought out medical care for domestic or sexual violence. it's important that women have access to health care in these difficult times and we ensure all women have access to health care. i hurnlg my -- urge my colleagues to vote against the provisions tomorrow. these ideological attacks on health care. let's get back to the business of creating jobs and dealing with this country's debt and deficit. thank you very much, mr. president. >> mr. president? >> senator from washington is recognized. >> mr. president, i join my colleagues to come to the floor

this afternoon and talk about tomorrow's votes on two different amendments and to say that i'm proud to join my female senate democratic colleagues in this effort and to speak out about this important issue. to me, the american people sent us a clear message to focus on job creation, on innovation, and putting americans back to work but tomorrow we're trying to defend access to health care for women. we'll vote tomorrow on whether to defund planned parenthood, an agency that serves hundreds of thousands of people in my state on important examines such as breast examinations and helping to prevent infections and various things and just a few weeks ago i talked about one of our constituents, a 22-year-old woman from seattle diagnosed with an abnormal growth on her cervix from planned parenthood

and received life saving treatment from them. she was uninsured, and wut planned parenthood, she could not have got that treatment and certainly her health would have been in major danger in the future. i tell her story to emphasize the importance of planned parenthood on prevention and that they are centers of prfs for many many women who have no other access to health care, and so we can want jeopardize the access to that preventative health care at a time when it's so important for us to reduce long term costs. in fact even in the investment area every dollar invested in family planning and publicly funded family planning clinics saves about 4.2 dollars in medicaid costs alone. prevention of health care is good for us in saving dollars, and it's certainly good for the

individual constituents who have a lack of access to health care. that's why i'm so disappointed, and the situation that we're having now where our colleagues are saying to us, you can get a budget deal, but you have to defund women's health care access to do so. the avoidance of a government shutdown also brought on, i think, a challenge on the backs of women in the district of columbia because it included a provision denying dc leaders the option of using locally raised funds to provide abortion services to low-income women. for those against big government, this is a contradiction because this is a real imposition on the ability of elected officials in the distributes of columbia to decide what to do with their locally raised funds. i know because i'm in the heart building, what the mayor and others on the counsel had to say about this. this is an imposition on the health services of low welcome women in the district of

columbia and certainly has been unnoticed in the 11th hour and sets a precedent for a dangerous slippery slope by what we are telling local governments to do. mr. president, it is time for us to focus on our budget living within our means and getting back to work, but certainly not to try to do all of that on the backs of women, and it is not time to shut down access to women's health care. republicans in the house have decided to wage war and to say women should be a bargaining chip. well, i think american people have sent us a clear message. they want us to get back to work and they support planned parenthood in the efforts of planned parenthood on preventive health care and delivery services. a recent cnn poll showed 65% of americans polled support continued funding of planned parenthood, and i know my colleagues on the other side of

the aisle would like to say that these funds are used in funding organizations that may be involved in doing full reproductive choice services but i ask them to think about that issue and logic. where will they stop? it's planned parenthood today, but will they stop every institution in america from receiving federal dollars? it is illegal for planned parenthood to use federal dollars for the full reproductive choice including abortion. it is illegal. you cannot use those funds and yet, the other side would like to say that this is an issue where they want to stop planned parenthood today, and they'll try to stop other organizations in the future. it's time to say no to this amendment tomorrow and say no on trying to full back from the full health care funding bill at a time when we need to implement the reforms to keep costs down and to increase access for those

who currently don't have access to health care and come back to the system with much more expensive health care needs in the future. so, mr. president i'm very disappointed that at the 11th hour of a budget debate that is about living within our means about how we take the limited recovery we've had and move it forward economically, instead we are saying that we can't move forward on a budget and a recovery until we take everything that we can away from women and access to women's health care. we will fight this tomorrow, and i'm proud to be here with my colleagues saying we will be the last line of defense for women in america who are going about their busy lives right now, taking their kids to school trying to juggle many things at home and work and they are every day as the budget people within their own homes trying to figure out how to live within their means and the national

government debate broke to this point. we can only have a budget agreement if you defund women's full access to health care? that is wrong, mr. president and we will be here tomorrow to fight this battle and speak up for women. i just want to point out to my colleague here on the floor from new york that i remember in 1993 in the year of the women where so many women got elected to congress. we had a woman on every single committee, and the end result of that is we had an increase in funding for women's health research. so much of the research had been up until this point focused on men. why? because there wasn't anybody on the committee to speak up about how women had uniquely different health care needs and deserved to have a bigger share of funding for health care needs of women than were currently being funded. that's what you get when you get representation and the women senators will be here tomorrow to fight to say women deserve to

have access to health care planned parenthood, and title 10, and please for the working moms out there juggling, dealing with children and child care, dealing with their job dealing with pay equity at work, dealing with all the issues women struggle with that they are not a pawn in the debate on the budget, that there are people who believe just like the majority of americans do, that we should move forward with this kind of preventive health care for women in america. i thank the president, and i yield the floor. i see my colleague from new york who has been a staunch supporter of planned parenthood and women's health care choices, and i thank her for that leadership. >> thank you. mr. president? >> senator from new york is recognized. >> while i commend my colleague for her extraordinary remarks and leadership on fighting these issues, it's a privilege to be here in the senate today to listen to the remarks of the women colleagues who care deeply

about women in america and how they are literally used as a pawn in the debate about the budget. these women drew a line in the sand about we will not let you cross. you may not balance the budget on the backs of women period. it's very simple. the election last november was not about a mandate for these social issues. it was about the economy. it was about how are we going to create jobs? how do we get a body of representatives to come together work together across lines to come up with solutions? that's what the election was about. the american people voted overwhelmingly for a vote and a institution of issues relating to jobs. how do we create jobs? how do we create the atmosphere and landscape so our small businesses can grow? that's not what the house of representatives is focused on. no, they created an entire agenda around an assault on women, women safety nets,

women's health care, protections for women and children early childhood education, prenatal care paps smears you maim it, this is what they are focusing their attention on. millions of americans depend on reproductive services. millions of women depend on prenatal care, early cancer screenings breast exams all the types of preventive health care that families rely on. in fact in new york, there are over 200,000 new yorkers that rely on this preventive care. for my friends. and colleagues, this is a factual statement. current law already prevents federal money from paying for abortions. this has been the law of the land for over 30 years. shutting down the government to fight a political argument is not only outray gas --

outrageous, but it is irresponsible. the price of keeping the government open is assault on women, assault to access to care. women shoulder the worst of cost including outrageous processes that we worked so hard in health care reform to fix. the national women's law center tells us under the previous health care system a 25-year-old woman has to pay 45% more just to get basic health care than a male her same age. some of the most certainly services required by women for their basic health were not covered by many insurance plans like prenatal care mammograms or preventative screenings including postpartum depression, domestic violence or family planning. discrimination in the health care system is wrong, and it's attacks on women and their families. what we did with health care reform was begin to address these issues to make sure the

inadequate sighs of these were addresses safeguarding women's health and making sure this discrimination no longer exists. yesterday was equal payday. women all across america earned .78 cents compared to their male colleagues. yesterday was the day women earned exactly what that male colleague earned. who does that affect? it affects every family in america with a working money who brings money home to pay for her children, for her family, for their well being. while we should be talking about the economy and equal pay in the country, the republican house is talking about how to continue this rhetoric and assault and negative affects on women and their families and what they need to protect themselves. the votes that we're going to

have tomorrow to defund planned parenthood to appeal health care american women, make no mistake about it, this is an attack on you. this is an attack on every preventative health service every safety net everything you care about whether it's early childhood education mammograms, whether it's prenatal care when you're pregnant, that is what their efforts are all about and you should just know that you have women of the senate who will stand by you. we have drawn this line in the sand, and we will not allow them to cross it. we are your voice in washington. we are your voice in congress and we will protect you and the basic safety nets and equality you should expect out of the u.s. government. i will suggest the absence of a quorum. . .

president obama's speech about fiscal policy. we will watch this until our live coverage. >> after much from trauma andate anticipation late last friday before t night, literally minutes beforeown, as the government was scheduled tol know, shut down as we all know a deal week-ng conti was nustruck to pass a real long continuing resolution and keep was t the government operating. passed s itin was the seventh continuing

resolution we passed since the start of the fiscal gear last csider october.ighth now we are appearing to consider fund t he the eighth and final continuing remaining resolution to fund the fisl government for the remaining five months of the fiscal year. gove continuing resolutions were necessary to fund the government th for one year because my friends on the other side of the oglesing neglected tole bring a single one bill to t floor of the annual appropriations bill to the floor for consideration last year.ng as my colleagues know in addition to continuing funding for all government operations the measure we will consider t tomorrow includes appropriationser of from the department of defense for the remainder of the fiscal ty year. unfortunately on top of the typical run-of-the-milleement als washington budget this also contains a gross misallocation of imperative defense resources. bill the defense department fundingses portion of the bill proposese depa

$513 billion for the routine operations in the department of defense and approximately a $17 billion in military construction. the total $530 billion.on less this amount is $19 billion less than the president's fiscal yearent 2011 budget request for thets defense department and it's less really did a military construction projects and $10 billion less than these h $540 billion to secretary defense who testified was the to minimum amount the department needed to execute its nationalfunds an defense mission. in addition, this bill also funds an additional $157.8 billion for overseas contingencyfu operations for war combat funding to support the troops in combat consistent with the t president's budget request.y gatesescribed i might add the amount secretary gates described is the central foreth in january didn't perceive the united states would have expanded more than $650 million

enforcing the no-fly zone inrease libya, and another will most likely increase over the remaining months of the fiscal years.n while this may seem like a family can live with in a tough ars to fiscal climate is not what it appears to be on the surface. suppo as the secateurs defense pointed out last week funding to supporthter the war fighter is degraded in this bill because billions in -- the war funding accounts myesti staff has estimated post b $8 billion of allocated by the new appropriations committee for new spending not requested by the administration are transferred to pay out originally requested related in the base budget for them on ins war relatedta expenses. for instance the bill shifts $3.2 billion to artificially low were the defense spending for day-to-day operations, but by

doing s o reduces funds for the war fighter. here's an example. the appropriators have added $495 million for the ninear additional fet teens and fund them as a part of the war not funding budget even though we've not lost any in the current conflicts. additionally the appropriators fu added $4.8 billion in on the request of funding to the war funding part of the defense bill.ha programs and activities that the seek president and secretary gates didn't seek. for example $192 million was inter added force additional military defense interceptors. there was no evin a strachanses request for these funds and missile defense expenses are in no way related to the war and aye in afghanistan.lames as of this bill uses genex and base gains to artificially low or the defense base budget rather than trying to be complete by the rules and actually demonstrate

our commitment to fiscal responsibility.larshat by doing so it takes away billions of dollars that were often originally requested for sup operations in iraq and o afghanistan to support the n troops where it is most needed. base defen budget within the lower top line of the base defense budget this bill continues business as usual with the cuts exceeding $5 billion to the amount the president and secretary gates requested for a critical defense programs in order to pay over $3.7 billion in the unjustified and unexplained increases to other accounts. in add in addition to the shift away from the department of defensedds priorities this bill also ads over $1.4 billion for projectsy that were not requested by the not department and are notidered ce activi considered core activities of the departmenten of defense.cated r mcginn six of the misallocated $3

mill resources. in it inputs for under $70 million in the non-department of defenset's medical research not requested in the president's budgetedic al $227 million in other medicalse research related to the department of defense fields but p not requested by the pentagon, $550 million for the local roads and schools not requested by the administration. it adds another and program by an increases not justified by an unfunded request by the service admin chiefs or by theis administration. the request of the red cross $24 million, special olympics, $1.2 million, youth mentoringhey ha programs $20 million but they have no place in the department of defense. the should be in other areas.

miry const kutz about $1 billion in military construction requested in the president's budgetrain the including $250 million foravy's projects in bahrain headquarterst. in the navy's fleet. it adds the reporting provisionforcing the designed to be the first step in forcing the national guard to by availabl firefighting aircraft rather than lease commercially available aircraft. it authorizes a multi-year procurement of the navy m h60 helicopters. i want to be clear here i know cancer research is a popular it cause in a bipartisan basis and se that it has value in the largerst scheme of things.rc i'm not against funding forancer and medical research to fight theport scourge of cancer and otherhese diseases.pr i support funding for thesedepartme programs requested by the administration for the department of health and human services. fundi but thisng so hrt of general medical

research funding has no place in it the defense bill. ap placing it there which the year,ndercu appropriators have done year f after year undercut the fiscal responsibility and the process we expect our federal agenciesating to undertake when allocating scarce resources so thehe president of the department ofwer amou defense isn't only getting a significantly lower amount and its 2011 budget, $19 billion it below what it asked for toupportts support its routine operations and carry out its day-to-daycurity national security mission and $10 billion about below what t secretary gates said in januarye was essential for the department ability to continue to function but it's also been directed toillion in spend about $8 billion in funding for items that did notomen in t directlyhe support the men and women in the military. the let me point out one more aspect of the portion of this bill.e

i and a stand from an exchange between my staff and the staff t of the senate appropriationspropriatingnly -- committee the committee is "t-line appropriating only the top line dollar amounts in this bill and not providing the customary tables which is the descriptionh for each account which outlines is bei the specifics of what is beinge plans fun tded. i learned the committee plans toffic e communicate directly with the on office of the secretary defense spe on funding levels and specific items. i don't have a problem with the appropriations committee providing a top line dollar amount to the pentagon and 11 the secretary defense to fundas the national security priorities as he sees fit.f i am deeply concerned about theted lack of transparency associated with this plan and i hope it's not a way to get around thein place in earmark moratorium currently inif a m of place in both houses. if a member of congress is dictating from the appropriations committee the use of scarce defense on this is an

earmark even if it was done over the phone. by rich the purpose of the sense to notom use such communications as law or a mandate. addit as i noted earlier, in addition to the misapplication of defense resources, the so-called typical mirror washington smoking your tactics to achieve savings.g to expt according to the expert analysis and numerous press reports the every night reached by the negotiators last week used some used so of of the same budget tricks andame gimmickry that have helped us ao complete the current deficit of and 1.4 trillion in the debt of over tayr of 14.3 trillion. yesterday in an article by ander tayler of the associated press it was reported the details of last week had won agreement to avoid a government shutdown to cut federal spending by 30 billion will released tuesday theudget morning they reveal the budget cuts while historic are

significantly eased by money left over from previous years a using andccounting sleight of handpr and going after programsanyway. president obama targeted any agreeme- way. the article also noted the lot details of the agreement reveal a lot of one time savings ands cuts that officially score to oft pay for spending elsewhere but often have little or no impactt on the deficit.led -- today's wall street journal cut entitled quote, spending cut gop leaders like the budget savings and of quote in part the states article editorial states after separating the accounting gimmicks and one-year savings actua the alctual cuts look to be closer to $20 billion to the 38 billion both sides advertisedey o but the continuing resolution also saves money on paperhopper through the phantom cuts. the water is declaring 6.2 billion insp savings by not spending money left for the 2010

census. from the j congress also cut $4.9 billion from the justice department'sway i prime victim fonds but much of resee fund that was tucked away in the in a reserve fund that wouldn't have event been spent this year in anythe event. the budgeteers claimts fro $630 million in cuts and what are called or some earmarks or started construction that never started.tation and $2 billion more foryo transportation projects some of which were likely to be the sociat canceled. the associated press reports that three injured $50 million in savings comes from a 2009 program to pay the dairy farmers to compensate for low prices. some o milk pricesf are higher this year said it would have never been spent. an estimated 17 billion comesthe c from one time savings and mandatory programs and the funding is restored by the law the next year which means

republicans have to fight the same battles. money the of 3.5 million in bonuss money to enroll more kids in the children's health insuranceualify program but many states fail to qualify for the extra funding. the cuts don't reduce the savingsver spending baseline so there are enougho d no compound savings over time. none of this is enough to defeat the budget at this point, but it is infuriating and given the gop leadership fogging of the 30 billion-dollar toplineht n figure. is that the best we can offer in t the amheerican people right now? in these tough economic times8.8%nemploym the recorden deficits of 8.8% unemployment we give them mmickry smoking mirrors budget ou gimmickry and accounting sleight of hand to record of it is sq loaded in precious taxpayer dollars are squandered in theyou ca near termn' and agency.n-line we can't pick up the newspapernd ogle on line without seeing thro reports of waste and duplication

throughout federal bureaucracies.uts ha dalia least some real cuts have been made but we need to do this deal much more. this deal doesn't allow to address the very serious fiscal issues we face as a nation. a so, i hope that as we address will the next crisis, which will be bt obviously the debt limit that welans and will have more serious plans,ally and i also believe it is vitally debt important before we raise the path debt limit that we can put this budget. nation on a path to a balanced budget. we cannot afford to continue to dollarsp borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend here in washington. we cannot afford as the seenn commercial many of us have seen on television have the chinese american money and in america be in such debt that china has anuence

o the u increasing and unhealthy influence on the united states of a america. so madame president, i intend to believe vote for this agreement. l i believe we could have done a lot better, but at the same time ght it is a step in the rightit's t first direction. it's the first time that we have made serious efforts to reduce spending and quite a number of years are not here and i hope ithe will serve as something that theupport and american people can support and disburse greater efforts in themadam coming weeks and months.f madam president i see a notice the presence of the majority leader i yield the floor.ed. >> i suppose on and a lot of our i colleagues have an opportunityf m to hear the president's speech this afternoon. k it's t very nice that the president is being engaged fortheudget the first time in the budgetf

debate in the long-term fiscal problems of the country and the country deficit problems of this country it's good that he is falling on his with some of the recommendations of his own deficit-reductionave commission. we have to remember a littleappoind less than a year ago he appointed deficit-reduction. th commission. they reported on december 5th broad will it seems they had a broad bipartisan support because the four senators that were on their and two democrats and two republicans and probably very p different political philosophies of the two of the four they have a endorsed it and then all of a since sudden since december 5th untils just bee a today, there's just been a lot of quiet on the part of the th president of the united statese about whether or not he likes h what his deficit reductionnow

commission suggested. and i don't know the details of wit where he's coming from whether detail tt's in he agrees with every detail that is in the deficit reduction at commission recommendations, but at least he is getting on board along the lines with 64 democts senators, 32 republicans and the 32 democrats said in the letter pre si about on the go to the presidentacklin we are ready to start tacklingems. some of these problems where we and need leadership. today i and maybe the speech today is an answer to that leadership or ifp or i want to be cynical about it iynical maybe could say maybe the president gave his speech today because of cments t lubber very positive comments the congressman and chairman that paul ryan got for his budget ideas he released last week. but the president also took to the vantage to renew the classhe

warfare, the demagoguery of taxing the wealthy. it doesn't contribute much tot the debate. in fact i think it makes it difficult to bring people together. or if i want to be cynical i could say this is maybe thehis i president's first speech about his reelection. but either way i think there's an analysis of this that we've got to look at very carefully and see does it really do the economic good that is in the speech even though it's welcomed the president isth being engaged at this time.ould so i would give some reaction tof the t some of the things the president said. bac but i want this as background from world war ii through 2009 every dollar of new federal tax revenue coming into this treasury resulted in $1.17 ofnk of

new spending. new d just think that every new dollar coming in wasn't a dollar that reduced the deficit.d it was a dollar that resulted in of aitional the $1.17 of additional spending. ta pale.everatches it never catches it.d and so we are sending a new dollar to washington to do nothing something about the budget deficit and nothing really happens as a result of that. d except more deficits. point the president made the point that tax reductions in 2001 and in 2003 added tremendously to defi the deficit that he inherited orrt of the the part of the deficit that no success so. but in fact the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003 resulted in

more revenue.nomy the expanding economy spurred by the tax relief act of 2001 and 2003 to reduce the annual budget deficit from four injured 4 billion in 2004 to $160 billion in 2007. cause we not because we tax more, but because we tax less and have more economic activity as a result of it which brings me around to the principal of deficit-reduction. obviously when i use the word ofr that a dollar additional taxes bottom doesn't go to the bottom line the that doesn't do anything thatditure s deficit. but on the expenditure side fro m reducing fat and the economic growth that comes from it is what reduces the deficit..

more economic activity. even the most sincere argumentsefic that raising taxes would reduce d the deficit and the debt doesn't have history to back it up.o outside of washington is obvious to people that the problem isn't what is it that people areon oversnds. undertaxed but washington overhis spends.oud the voters said this so loud andn. clear in the last election theysequences. are supposed to have consequences. and i think the budget agreementht of midnight friday night is evidence of words from the grassroots of america getting through to washington, d.c. which i think most people let the grassroots are cynical and i mor suppose we have toe do more there there might might be a different day in washington but the message sent

to washington. government spending increased by 22% during the last two years onevel the non-sustainable level of increased expenditures. pposed if we follow the budget proposed this year by president obama we would add another 13 trillion of the national debt over the next decade. this decade or this debt gets in the way of economic activity that creates jobs and it's a future terrible burden to leave to the future generations. we talk dollars and cents when we talk about the deficit and the debt. but it's a moral issue of of whether or not those of us oferation our generation of to livehe -- audience hall the bill like the it. speeches here that have to pick up for it. an it's a moral issue as much as it

is an economic issue. wayf this trillion dollars of debt gets in the way of the economic activity that creates jobs and it's a terrible burden on future generations. washington needs to get behind policies that clicked on grow the spending and as a result the economy increased economic activity, increase revenue to enaing the federal enabling deficit andnow that debt reduction and we know that from the fact because from 97 to the year 2000 we actually eco because of the growth of the economy p.m. 500i believe it wasf $560 billion on the national debt during that period of times ways the answer is not defending ways to grow government, grow thevernment economy but you don't grow the economy by growing thehe government.

the tax cuts in being a major cause of the budget deficit who im and what the implication of the unfairness of it because there wasn't higher taxes on higher-income people. i would suggest that the president is wrong in both tax regards. includ in 2001, the tax cut included intes on the across-the-board reduction and reduced the tax rates on lowest. income from 15% to 10%, and m resulted in her free living millions of low-income people rolls from the federal income tax rolls and entirely. cred itit increased the child tax credit from 500 to $1000.

the legislation include marriageion. penalty relief in the taxo years reduction. later two years later after 9/11 the 2003 dividends and capital gains tax cuts spur economic growth and created jobs. the the result was more revenue to the federal treasury not less. the expanding economy helped reduce the annual budget deficit thes and then repeating these numbers because there is significant in from 412 billion in 2005 to 160 billion in 2007. i know it's counterintuitive to a lot of people to hear a member of the senate say reduce r marginal tax rates you're going to bring revenue into the federal treasury because the you obvious tells people if you

increase taxes you're going to bring in more revenue and in the speech it doesn't work out that cou way. to this incentivize to be productive probably due leisure - hoard invest in the activity as the marginal tax rates encourages people to be productive in the way of being productive to the same time creating jobs growing the economy and bringing more money more into the federal treasury. d when you look at theef sources of pres the deficit contrary to the tax relief president's claim, the track relief has been a small part.unprecente unprecedented spending contbuted m contributed much more to the

deficit and the tax relief in particularly the last two yearsitures o and of the expenditures on top of the 814 billion-dollar deficit, i mean $814 billion stimulus. now here's something counterintuitive owls well and something the president missed his from his analysis of the 2001-2003 tax relief bills that he blames the big budget deficit on. theax tax rates -- those u reductions actually ended up with taxes being moree on progressive. top the federal tax rate on the top 1% of households is more than seven times the rate paid by theouseho bottom 20% ofld households and

that is up from less than five times as much in the year 1979. if tax relief enacted since 2001 a is allowed to explore your and a little more than a last decber year-and-a-half because last the december we only extended the uil tax policy to december 31st 2012 at that time if that happens a family of four withtwo two kids 450 valverde dollars today s would see the 2,155-dollar increase in its tax bill. people more than 6 million low-income no people who currently have no federal tax liability would beax and t subject to the individual income of tax and that would be a rate of 1 15% instead of now 10%.ing washington needs to learn that the leading more money in the pockets of the tax payers on in leashes a positive chain

reaction in the economy. hd, on the other hand government spending doesn't create wealth because government is not an institution that can create wealth. a government is an institution that can only provide an fo environment for people outsideo of the government to create does wealth and in fact what the government does is it consumes wealth and as a result doesn't generate a e stronger economy. the instead of growing then government, washington needs to focus on helping to create private sector jobs. new the president's new plan will reduce the deficit by for ar trillion dollars over 12 years. he does that by reducing by by $12 trillion raising taxes byhus $1 trillion. and that is lowering interest $1 trilli. payments by $1 tril