this is the marketing booklet for hudson. see, do we have that up here? page 524. this is what it represented to people who were trying to sell this -- to people it was trying to sell this security to. right in the middle. goldman sachs has aligned incentives with the hudson program by investing in a portion of equity and playing the ongoing role of liquidation agency. agent. so that was their first that we're going to focus on, their first representation to buyers, that they had aligned incentives

with the hudson program because they claim that they had -- and this is in the booklet that they sent out -- that they had invested in a portion of equity. .. now, in other words, their

opposite position was 300 times the size of their aligned position. that's the representation, incentives are aligned, because they had invested in a portion of the equity. then they represent further down on page 524, that the assets were sourced from the street. and that is not true. it was sourced from goldman's own inventory and they laid out the criteria for what would be incorporated in the security. they said it was not a balance sheet cdo. if you look down at the bottom of page 524. it was a balance sheet cdo. it came from their balance sheet, and from their criteria. it referenced and reduced the risk, it took the risk away from their balance sheet and transferred that risk to their clients.

so, the incentives aligned, no, they weren't. three thousands of 1% aligned, 997 thousandths or the opposite. sources from the street, note -- no, they weren't. not a balance sheet. yes, it was. they say they evaluated the assets from the portfolio suitability. yeah, from their own portfolio suitability. i'll get to the liquidation agent in a minute but i want to talk about that word may invest. because they did say in the area of possible conflicts, they said the following, this is in the

middle of page 527, this is in their offering circular describing certain conflicts of interest. here's how they described it. gsi, goldman, or any of its affiliates may invest and/or deal for their own respective accounts, and then they list the things they might invest in. or might invest in, or in credit default swaps quote, whether as protection buyer or seller. this was a fundamental misrepresentation. they had secretly, without disclosure, already purchased 100% of the short side of this

deal. this was not that they might do something, which obviously tells people who read this they may or may not do something contrary to the long position. they already had obtained and committed to keep, because they were trying to go short in this area, and so on page 527 new the top the hudson disclosures, excuse me, goldman was making a proprietary investment in the cdo which placed in a direct adverse position to the investors to whom it was selling the hudson securities and relative to the word may invest , near the bottom of page 527, this disclosure indicates that goldman sachs may invest, and then we say the offering circular misrepresented goldmans

investment plans at the time it was created in december 2006, goldman had already determined to keep 100% of the short side of the cdo and that as the sole counterparty to the investors buying hudson securities, thereby acquiring $2 billion financial interest that was directly adverse to theirs.

there's a section here about goldman acting as the hudson liquidation agent when the security fell through. and on page 575, we find near the top bad in hudson one, goldman's dual roles as liquidation agent and sold short party in the cdo created a direct conflict of interest between goldman and the clients to whom it sold the hudson securities, which goldman exploited by placing its own financial interests ahead of those of its clients. when the liquidation process

took place, there is a fascinating conversation which we've uncovered, and this is close to the end, between goldman and the national australia bank. this is on page 580. now, this comes at a later part of the proceedings. this is after the national australia bank had already purchased the security, and now this is being liquidated by goldman. there is a lot of issues between goldman and others about their

delay and the conflict of interest involved in the delay of liquidation, and i'm not going to go into that again, go into that perhaps with staff if you would like. but here's the part of this that shows how secretive this process was, this short position in hudson, and how goldman was deceiving clients by not only not saying that they had the short side right from the beginning as a proprietary matter, but also that they were going to keep that interest hidden. right through the liquidation. here's the conversation. these are notes that somebody who works for goldman, page 580, mr. case, that's the goldman employee.

here's his note. he said nab sent him an e-mail, this is page 580 near the top, asking if goldman held any of the hudson investments, does goldman sachs hold any of this? there's a direct question from a client. case responded, according to his own notes, that it owns equity in different pieces of various tranches, know exactly but decent size and number of classes on our books, nonresponsive. case did not disclose in addition to the 6 million equity that we've talked about that they held 100% of the short position and that $2 billion the cdo. and that short investment would increase in value as the hudson assets lost value.

now, cases notes go on new the -- near the bottom of page 580. the australia banker replied i asking goldman to provide more specific information about goldmans holdings in the transaction. quote, will you please follow up with what goldman holds? direct question from a client. and then case according to his notes asked the australia bank why does the bank want that information? the bank responds, quote want to make sure you, goldman, are making restructuring decisions for the right reasons. dash, make sure serving the right interests. they want to know whose interests are you serving. and according to his notes, case

replied, again with a non-response, our intended goal of liquidation agent is just for the best interest of the cdo and that is the duty of the liquidation agent. the deception can't get much more clear than that. direct question, nonresponsive. page 602 is the analysis of goldmans 12 conflicts of interest. page 637 lays out the conflict of interest provisions that we were able to include in the dodd-frank bill. to try to get to kind of conflicts of interest which were so rife throughout this story.

right from the beginning with the washington mutual bank, down to the end win, even after the security that they gained $2 billion from on the short side by misleading and misstating their interest, goldman is still hiding the fact that they were the beneficiary of the failure of the hudson cdo. i've gone way over and my staff is still with me. i will turn it over to them. >> senator, one, are you seeking are making any criminal referrals? to, do you consider what you discovered by goldman as a bribe? and three, do you have any comment on the fact that no figure on wall street or bear stearns went to jail and goldman

is currently not being -- >> criminal decisions are not made by us. they are made by the department of justice, enforcement decisions are made by the sec, not by us. so we will be referring this matter to the justice department and to the sec. we, in my judgment, they clearly, goldman clearly misled their clients and they misled the congress. and the third question? >> do you have thoughts about the fact that law enforcement agencies failure to bring -- a giant ponzi scheme on wall street and no one was put in jail? >> my only answer is that there is still time. hope springs eternal. yes?

>> as you know, there's a long list of problems. is there a platform -- [inaudible] but for the failure, is there a but for in this? >> there are three or four but force. but for the greed and deception of a huge bank, and other banks beside washington mutual, that engage in such extreme greed and deceptions. the failure, the pollution of the system upstream would not have occurred. so they were a major factor. but for -- >> upstreamed with the mortgages were signed? >> where they were granted, where they were collateralized in the beginning by banks such as washington mutual.

that's where the pollution began in the system. then you've got another but for. but for the failure of our regulatory agencies. in this case, the office, the office of thrift supervision, because of a failure to supervise the bank after 500 notices of problems, doing nothing until we have the largest bank failure in history, by far. but for that failure, this problem may have been avoided, this collapse of the mortgage market. may have. is a contributing factor. there's not one factor. there's a number of factors. but for the conflicts of interest which caused our standard & poor's and moody's and people rely on when they seek aaa ratings. but for the failures, their conflicts of interest, they're getting into the pressures from wall street banks to give aaa ratings to securities which didn't deserve them, and they knew it. but for that you wouldn't have had the collapse of the

securities. but for the greed, and misrepresentations, the deceptions of banks such as goldman sachs, you would not have had securities which, not only failed, but which shafted their own clients. the failure of those securities, pension funds, municipalities, when they all failed you had a housing market which, whose collapse was just about, i don't want is a total, but was huge. so just in this report you've got four major causes of the economic collapse. and there's others. this did not intend to cover every possible element, but for major causes of financial collapse. for but force. [inaudible]

>> is now my understanding that is the problem at all. that's just one plaintiff, one complainant, one problem. so there's a lot of other possibilities out there. people who have been harmed by the deceptions, and by the misrepresentations to take actions, seek action, and you know, i think sec has been slow to act but hopefully they are going to continue their probes. [inaudible] do you think it could prevent another meltdown? >> dodd-frank surely would have helped avoid it. i can't say with certainty it

would have avoided it. it would have been a heck of a lot less severe. or connections in dodd-frank, we lay those out by the way in each chapter what the legislation did to address as the problems we have identified here. so we do go into that in each chapter. i make some reference to it, so i think it would have avoided if we had that in place. i believe it would have avoided it. i wish i could say that with 100% certainty. >> can you talk a little bit about -- [inaudible] >> there's two parts get one is the proprietary trading which we tried to end in many cases, and at least we kept fully disclose in other cases so we are going to reduce it, tried to make much more safe when it's allowed and not allow it at all and many

other cases. the other part is the conflict of interest which there's not been enough attention paid i don't believe to the fact that we prohibit conflicts of interest in these kind of transactions. we live it up to the regulators, but to specify which complex of interests are going to be prohibited, to flush out those words, that for the first time we have a generic prohibition in conflicts of interest in these kinds of transactions. it's a generic prohibition to conflicts of interest, and as dr. coburn said and as i said and as this report says, that's the thread that runs through all of this, this material. of all of the misrepresentations, all of the failures, the thread is conflict of interest in every case there's a conflict of interest and there's also the extreme greed that accompanies it. yes. >> a couple things you mentioned in your report, one was on the

mortgages. regulars could put out an approval for a down payment. i wonder if you think that's a good idea but and also the credit ratings on regulators, whether there's an alternative entities credit ratings are viable? >> i think we've got to be much more cautious in terms of down payment so i tend to lean to the side of having a significant requirement, a down payment requirement. so i can't tell you a final position on that, but i lean towards going the other direction obviously from what we saw with these mortgages. and the second part of your question was -- [inaudible] the rating agencies. >> we have a new alternative, with a new regulatory authorities they have, the sec we believe has the authority to

rate the rating agencies. just the way you have with automobiles. your entities out there that rate automobiles in terms of the number of repairs that are required. we think that in dodd-frank itself, the authority that we've given to the sec is sufficient, that they can describe the accuracy and measure the accuracy to keep track of the accuracy of these ratings. and thereby have it in their power to rate the accuracy of the rating agencies themselves, to hand out ratings, not at the security, not of the mortgages, but of the rating agencies. [inaudible] >> i think it tried to reduce it a lot. it says we should rely less and

i think that is too. it would help to the extent that will be reliance on the rating agencies, it would help if those agencies were rated by an outside independent objective source. that could be someone who keeps track of the accuracy of the ratings. and we believe the authority exists in dodd-frank to do that. >> senator, i'm curious to know during your investigation if any of your folks came across any memos, e-mails or opinions by deutsche's general counsel speakers will get into deutsche bank after i'm done. okay, so i'm not sure that's not bob? lisa is doing it. [inaudible] >> yeah, but i would rather, my staff is going to cover deutsche bank and answer that. they have the answer. i don't have the answer. ask them. >> senator, a lot of the investors were in asia, europe

and australia. what you think the impact has been on the perception of u.s. and u.s. financial system are broad? >> i think it's negative and understandably so. there will be a negative reaction. there's a number of e-mails in your by the way in this long report which talk about the reactions, the number of clients in other countries of goldman, how upset they are by how quickly the securities that they bought from goldman went under. and so -- and they targeted other countries. they knew that the market here had gone sour so that a very aggressive campaign with a number of these securities, including hudson. they targeted vulnerable potential clients who were vulnerable because they had even

less knowledge, of course these things are so complex, the securities, it's kind of hard for any potential client, even one who is in the united states to be able to pierce through the complexity. but when you're overseas, they targeted clients in other countries, and i think that is a very, very sad that they would do that. i think it's bad for our country, and i would there will be a negative impact. >> you could argue a lots of smart people on wall street said -- >> that's true. they sold i think a billion and a half went to morgan stanley. but they have trouble selling the rest so they sold the morgan stanley peace earlier and then he had trouble selling the rest. and that's where they're very aggressive sales campaign kicked in. and that's where they turned to,

hey, let's go after potential buyers in other countries. [inaudible] would you characterize the role -- do you think they misled congress? >> goldman was i think the only major bank that did well during the recession. it's important we find out how is it they did well in the tactics they use, i thought were disgraceful. and sticking it to their own clients violates their own claim that the clients come first. they have a website, still have a website, which says that the client comes first.

our clients interest always comes first. that is simply not true. not with goldman. i mean, there's just hundreds of pages, thousands of documents which show, hundreds of documents, probably dozens of pages and hundreds of documents, i don't want to exaggerate. it's bad enough. which show clients interest did not come first. very critical ways. so, what was the first -- in terms of misleading the congress, i believe they misled the congress, there's no doubt in their testimony. they claimed they didn't have a short in 2007 come and in so many other ways their testimony was misleading.

i believe in accurate. and what we are going to do with all their testimony is to refer to the department of justice. [inaudible] >> just a referral to the department of justice. from whatever action they might think is appropriate. whether or not that constitutes perjury or not is for somebody else to decide, not for us. but it needs to be decided by an appropriate authority. we are not the appropriate authority. it includes all the testimony. [inaudible] >> i'm going to leave you. i appreciate your staying power. spent i want to get a complement to our staff. this was a superhuman effort over two years. i've never seen anything quite like it.

we're talking millions of documents. so we just hope something real good comes out of this, and this really is a deterrent along with the new legislation to a repeat of this kind of bad conflict. [inaudible conversations] >> we have boiled down the goldman and the deutsche bank, so instead of having to look through all those pages. a few months ago i was able to sign a tax cut for american families because both parties work through their differences and found common ground. now, the same cooperation has

made it possible for us to move forward with the biggest annual spending cut in history. >> watch all the events from the current spending debate and a debate about next years budget as well from capitol hill and the house to the senate floor, to the white house and around washington. online with the c-span video library your search, watch, click and share with everything we've covered since 1987. it's what you want, when you want. >> on this thursday morning, the u.s. senate is about to gavel and to start the day. the senate in a bit of a holding pattern as lawmakers await the 2011 federal spending plan to be passed by the u.s. house. that proposal was hammered out late friday by the white house and house republicans and senate democrats. it would shed about $38 billion from current spending levels. the house is expected to pass the measure today along with additional resolutions. one the ninth funding for the health care law, and another thi

fundinsebefunding planned paren. until that happens lawmakers will give general speeches. and now live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. we offer you ourselves, thanking you for calling us to serve freedom's cause on capitol hill. lord, you provide us with the opportunity to make a positive impact on the lives of millions. we are honored to serve you by serving our country. use our lawmakers, who are people of faith, to do everything with decency, precision, and integrity. remove the barriers that divide us, replacing them with such a

passionate love for you and country that we will continue to find the common ground of progress. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, april 14, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby

appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties f the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: following any leader remarks, the senate will be in morning business until we receive the continuing resolution papers from the house of representatives. therefore, the time until 2:00 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two parties. once the resolution s. arrives, there will be three roll call votes in relation to two correcting resolutions regarding health care and planned parenthood and passage of the long-term continuing resolution. it looks like the house will vote around 4:00 p.m. we thought it would be earlier, but that time has slipped. senators will be notified when we schedule the votes. mr. president, people can come and talk all they want. i'm very appreciative of everybody in the senate, democrats, republicans, that we were able to get the consent agreement to move forward after we get the papers from the house. if there ever was an issue that

had been talked to death, it's this resolution. and i think everyone realized we talked about this long enough. if anyone has anything to say before 2:00 about this or anything ecialtio else, they'ree to come to the senate. these matters will arrive and we'll vote on them as quickly as we can. would the chair announce morning business, please. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in 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 senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. mr. reid: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. reimr. reid: i ask that equal time be charged on the quorum call. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. reid: that, mr. president, will be during the entire time of morning business. if there are quorum calls, it will be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is electric recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: yesterday president obama outline what had he is describing as a responsible approach to our nation's fiscal problems. and my initial response to that characterization that with all due respect, mr. president -- with all due respect -- the american people are not inclined to take advice on fiscal responsibility from an administration whose unprecedented borrowing and spending has done so much to create a mess that we're in. after two years of adding trillions to the debt and ignoring our nation's looming fiscal nightmare, the president may be right in thinking that the politically expedient thing to do is to point the finger at others, but the truly responsible thing would be to admit that his own two-year

experiment in big government has been an unmitigated disaster for the economy and itself a major, major driver of our debt, and that his -- his -- inaction on the latter is the primary reason others have been forced to step forward and offer meaningful solutions -- meaningful solutions -- of their own. and that's what most people already believe anyway. so the president's attempt to stake out the high ground in this debate was, i suspect, hard for many americans to swallow. despite the president's imaginative account of how we arrived at the situation we're in, the american people are well past the point of believing that washington will be able to make good on all its promises if only we let the president and democrats raise taxes. americans know that we face a fiscal crisis not because we tax too little, but because we spend too much.

they do not support the reckless washington spending that has left us with record deficits and debt and they will not support raising taxs to preserve an unsustainable status quo. besides, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have already rejected the kind of tax hike on small business that president obama endorsed again yesterday, so it was counterproductive for him to try to revive it. as for entitlements, the president rightly acknowledged that before we know it, the government will spend every dime it takes in just to cover the costs of medicare, medicaid, social social security and the interest on our debt. what he didn't say is that the health care bill he signed last year takes more than $500 billion out of medicare to pay for an entirely new entitlement that could be just as unsustainable as medicare itself and which forces nearly 20 million more americans into a medicaid program which, as

currently arranged, is bankrupting all of our states. so the president can claim to be a great defender of the social safety net. he may claim to stand for a nobler vision of america than those who disagree with him but the facts speak for themselves. when it comes to preserving the social safety net the president does not address those things that have caused our entitlement programs to be unsustainable in the first place. instead, the president would simply tinker around the edges and leave the hard work for others, passing the buck to future presidents. and that just won't cut it anymore. americans are paying attention. they know the fiscal problems we face will not be solved by continuing the job-destroying policies that got us here. what's more, the centerpiece of the president's proposal, a tax hike on top earners, may sound appealing to those whose primary goal in this debate is to

protect big government. but looking at the most recent data, the "wall street journal" points out this morning, this very morning, that even if we were to lay claim to every taxable dollar -- every taxable dollar -- of every single american who earns more than $100,000 a year, if we laid claim to every taxable dollar of every american who made over $100,000 a year, we still wouldn't raise enough to cover the $1.6 trillion deficit the president's budget gives us this year alone. take all of the tax money from everybody in america who makes over $100,000 a year, take it all, mr. president, and you wouldn't cover the deficit for this year alone. the best way to bring down the debt and to create the climate that will lead to good private-sector jobs and prosperity is not to repeat the policies of the past but to change them. and that means cutting

washington spending, not squeezing family budgets even more. throughout the day today senators will have an opportunity to debate a down payment on those cuts for the rest of the current fiscal year, so i invite them to come to the floor to discuss that proposal. after that, we'll move on to even more far-reaching debate, not about billions but about trillions. that's the debate that will show americans exactly where their elected representatives stand on facing up to the fiscal challenges we face. republicans are looking forward to that debate. and that brings me to a final point. yesterday the president said the debate we've been having in washington about the size and scope of government isn't about numbers on a page. it's about the kind of country we believe in. but he left out an important point, and that is this: that there are a great many people in washington and beyond who agree

with him but who also believe in their core that the approach he's taken over the past two years represents the greatest single threat to the very future he envisions. america will not continue to be a great nation unless we are able to keep our promises to current and future generations and stop spending money we don't have. but the greatest obstacle to that future is not the everyday american who wants washington to balance its checkbook or those who look to where the president's policies have gotten us and map out a different path to the future than he would. the greatest object sta dell we face is the -- the greatest obstacle we face is the crushing burden of our debt as the president now admits. unfortunately, the plan he outlined yesterday does not seriously address it. americans know the stakes in this debate. they know the reason we're in this situation. it's time the president and the democrats in congress

acknowledge it as well. the debate has shifted. and while the president doesn't seem to see that quite yet, we will not solve our problems until he stops campaigning and joins us in a serious bipartisan effort to change not only his tone, but his direction. that's how we'll ensure that the future that he and we envision and want actually comes about. that's the only chance we have. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: sident?

the presiding officer: the

senator from illinois is recognized. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: and consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: a little later today we're going to steve from the house of representatives a spending bill which will if passed fund the government for the remainder of this fiscal year which ends on september 30. included in that vote today are two other votes, separate votes which were insisted on by the house republicans. the first vote will defund planned parenthood across the united states. under title 10, a law which was proposed by president nixon and passed by congress and supported for over 40 years since, we have provided money across america to clinics that take care of women, children, and families who otherwise would have no place to turn. one of the recipients of those funds is planned parenthood. they don't receive all the funds

or even a majority of the funds, but they do receive support through title 10. in my state of illinois, planned parenthood has clinics in many down state communities and as well in the chicago land area. in my hometown of springfield there is a planned harpbthood -- parenthood clinic. it provides services which otherwise people couldn't find or afford. basic examinations by doctors who can screen for forms of cancer, for infectious disease. these are things which many women rely on, and they are valuable services. and yet, the house republicans are determined to take the funding away from planned parenthood. the amendment on the floor will be an amendment that addresses that issue. i will vote against that amendment, and i will vote against it because i understand that closing down planned parenthood as one of the recipients of title 10 funds will mean that literally 69,000 women in the state of illinois

who rely on planned parenthood clinics will then have to struggle to find another source of medical care and it's not always easy to do it. most of these women are uninsured and very few of them have the economic wherewithal to pay for these services. for over 90 years planned parenthood provided comprehensive care to people, primarily uninsured and medicaid recipients. last year 1% of our population relied on planned parenthood's 800 health centers for cancer screening, family planning and annual exams. house republicans are arguing we have to stop funding planned parenthood because that is a way to prevent abortion. well, let me say we have to understand that the law for over 30 years in america has made it clear, an amendment offered by a congressman from illinois, henry hyde, made it clear that no

federal funds can be used for abortion services except in the most extreme and restricted cases. rape, incest or where the mother's life is at stake. that has been the law. it's not been changed. it wasn't changed under this president or previous presidents. that has been since the time of henry hyde the guiding policy of this land and there is no one that suggested it should be changed. every dollar received by planned parenthood from the federal government is carefully restricted so it cannot be used for abortion services. planned parenthood does provide abortion counseling but only for 3% of their activities. 97% of their activities have nothing to do with it and not a penny of the abortion counseling services can come from federal funds except in the most restrictive circumstances under the hyde amendment. 97% of planned parenthood's activities are basically preventive.

if you don't allow women and children access to family planning counseling and services, it means there will be more unintended pregnancies and sadly more abortions. they estimate that if we did not have title 10 funding in illinois, if 2003 didn't provide this kind of assistance for women in lower-income categories, we would have 24% more abortions because of unintended pregnancy. what the house republicans are seek to go do if it is to reduce the number of abortions, they are doing it exactly the wrong way. providing information and counseling to women so they can plan their families and not end up with unintended pregnancies is a good way to reduce the number of abortions. that to me is as clear as possible. yet they seem to be tied in knots and don't understand this basic cause or connection. last year planned parenthood health centers performed 1 million cervical exams.

if planned parenthood is prohibited from receiving federal funding, which is the issue that will be on the floor, most of their health centers would be forced to close and then what happens to the millions of women and others across america who rely on their services? let me tell you one story, mr. president, that i think demonstrates why this is a critical vote. it comes from a planned parenthood clinic in aurora, illinois. the woman's daughter suggested she go to planned parenthood for an annual check scwhrup. a 4 centimeter by 4 centimeter lump was found in her breast. that is a sighsable lump. the providers a planned parenthd connected her with an oncologist. the lump was removed ant woman recovered completely. that woman went back to the clinic to thank them for the care. so when it gets down to this vote, it is a matter of life and

death and i hope that those who feel strongly about one issue or the other will also feel strongly about the right of every american to have access to quality care whether you're rich or poor. planned parenthood provides that care in my state and across the nation. the second amendment, mr. president, also is going to relate to health care. i find it hard to believe that at this moment in tiernlg the republicans are suggesting that we should repeal health care reform. this morning we had a town meeting, and in our town meeting was a group that came from illinois of young people who will are recovering or in treatment for cancer. these are brave young children and young occults who are battling this disease. i said to them when someone suggested repealing health care reform, what they would think about a provision in health care reform which we insisted on, which said that no health insurance company can discriminate against an american under the age of 18 for a preexisting condition.

weller they all cleared because they know -- well, they all cleared because they know, having had cancer in their lives, if they go out on the open market, the cost of their health insurance if they can provide it would be prohibitively expensive. health care reform that we passed here prohibits health insurance companies from discriminating against those children under the age of 18 for preexisting conditions. those who want to repeal it basically want to take away that protection. we also know that many families raising children of college age get worried because the kids may not have health insurance while they're looking for jobs. we extend the family coverage of people up to the age of 27 so that you can stay under your family policy when you get out of college. that could give peace of mind to a lot of families as their young son or daughter is out taking a part-time job, an internship, a trip around the world, that they're going to have health insurance until the age of 27. repealing the law will remove

that protection. also when this comes to medicare, the prescription drug program has a gap in it called the doughnut hole and lot of seniors with expensive prescription drugs find after a few months no coverage from the government. they have to turn around and reach in their savings account and pay out thousands of dollars before that protection coverage resumes. that doughnut hole or gap is being closed by this bill. those who want to repeal health care reform will repeal our efforts to make sure that people have this access to the kind of health care and prescription drugs they need to survive, be strong, and independent. so, mr. president, i think it's a very clear vote. i a said before i am open to revisiting health care reform, reforming health care reform, making sure that it works the way we intended it to work. as i've said before, the only perfect law that i am aware of was written on stone tablets and carried down a mountain by senator moses. every other effort has been a human effort full of frailties

and flawsms the notion of wiping the slate clean and repealing health care reform would be a step backward t would being a acknowledge that the 60 million americans would have their ranks swelled from 0 others who can't atoured to have good-quality health insurance today. i enurge my colleagues to vote "no" on this amendment to repeal health care reform. we don't need to leave so many american families vulnerable and we don't doe need to have protections against health insurance companies which too often discriminate against those who need protection the most. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas is recognized. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you. i am a firm believer that an individual can make a difference. i am a firm believer that what happens in washington, d.c., is important in what goes on in our nation's history and what goes on in the country. but the reality is that we

change the world one person at a time. that individual is how we make life better. earlier this week on tuesday morning i was on the national mall he near the world war ii memorial. and i was there for the dedication of a plague honoring an individual that made a tremendous difference in the lives of many and made a tremendous difference in the life of our nation. it was the moment in which a plaque was unveiled recognize senator bob dole h.r. his contribution, in fact his efforts and leadership in seeing that the world war ii memorial was built. and clear from those who spoke and from what i know of the subject, the world war ii memorial would not be available for us as a nation today in the absence of that individual, bob dole, who led the efforts. there are many things in bob dole's career here in washington, d.c., as a member of this body, of the united states senate, that we can heap

accolades upon him. but certainly one of the things that i know he is most proud of and certainly one of the things that i and the american people are most grateful for is his efforts to recognize the 16 million americans who served their country in world war ii. there are only about 2.5 million americans 0 who served in world war ii now living, and we lose hundreds of them to every day. last week i was at the world war ii memorial with kansas world war ii ven veterans we welcominn honor flight, telling world war ii veterans from my home state, thank you for their service to our country. the world war ii memorial is a magnificent tribute to the sacrifice that many have made before us. i saw the worl world war ii mem. it serves its purpose. i saw it before it was ever dedicated and i put my walking shoes on, walk down to the world war ii memorial a few days

before the official ceremony back in 2004. and i saw the place that says "kansas" and i thought about camp canians. can -- and i thought about kansans. i thought of my own dad. i tell the story because the world war ii memorial served its purpose. i walked away from the memorial, used my cell phone to call my dad back home in plainville, kansas, and to -- from a -- from a son's point of view, i unfortunately got the answer machine and conveyed the emergency to my dad, "dad, i'm at the world war ii member yavment i respect you. i thank you for your srvetion and i love you." it's something that sons don't often say to their parents, but it's something that we as americans, something that the world war ii memorial brings out in us, not just to our parents but to all world war ii

veterans. we respect you, we thank you for your service and we love you. we had the opportunity on tuesday to pay tribute to a special world war ii veteran, bob dole. and one of the things that bob dole's service to his country certainly in the military but here in the senate, here as an american, with aes to take care of those who served with him -- was to take care of those who served with him ir, not only ind war ii, but he has been the caring, compass national guide as we try to take care that no military service goes unrewarded and no commitment is forgotten. i am here today to pay tribute really to all world war ii veterans, to all our military men and women now serving and to those veterans of other wars, but to especially pay tribute to bob dole, who recognized and continues to recognize throughout his life the value of service to country and the value of service to other veterans. that plaque is a special

reminder that bob dole made it possible for all of us as americans to pay tribute to that generation and is a loving reminder for hose who serve that we are a grateful -- who serve that we are a grateful nation. it is important that we never forget those who give us the opportunities to live the lives we live today. and bob dole's life, while there's many things on which we could congratulate and express our gratitude forks i hold minimum in highest esteem for his military service. 66 years ago today, april 14, 1945, young bob dole was wounded in north italy. and he lay on the field in blood and mud for nine hours. he was rescued. he was returned to home. the people of his hometown raised money. i still remember the photograph of the cigar box in the drugstore in which people back in those difficult times put

their dollars and their quarters and pennies to raise money for bob dole's rehabilitation. and he was -- he was able to access the services in battle creek, michigan, of a v.a. hospital. and amazingly to me, three future senators who served in world war ii understanded up in that hospital -- ended up in that hospital at the same time. our colleague, senator inouye, our previous colleague, senator hart, and our previous colleague, senator bob dole were all in the hospital at the same time. so it is today that i recognize and aspect of bob dole's life. most importantly his willingness to sacrifice his life and service to his country as a member of the 10th mountain division, his courage and dedication, his ability to reteach himself, to relearn to write, to bathe, to eat, to become a productive member of our society and to lead our

country in so many ways, and i was honored to be present last tuesday, two days ago in which a grateful nation said, we thank you for your efforts in recognizing other veterans in the creation and development, the efforts to see that the world war ii memorial, so long in waiting, is now on the national mall. tom brokaw, the author of the book, "the greatest generation" was the master of the ceremonies and he concluded his remarks by telling the story of bob dole raising money for the world war ii memorial. there are no public funds, no treasury funds in the building of that memorial. senator dole and others raised the dollars from private sources to build the memorial and he tells the story of bob dole going to california and meeting with a wealthy hollywood mogul asking for money to build the world war ii memorial. and according to tom brokaw, the mogul said, i'm not interested.

i have other priorities. and bob dole's response to the mogul, to the noncontributor was, when i was 22, i had other priorities, too. i went to war. bob dole went to war and served his country every day thereafter. and senator dole in his remarks concluded by saying, i'm the most optimistic man in america today. we ought to be optimistic because we have folks, we have individuals like bob dole who have served our country. and today we recognize that service 66 years ago, april the 14th, 1945, in northern italy. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from virginia is recognized. mr. warner: i ask that the proceedings of the quorumming dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. warner: mr. president, i rise once again today to continue the tradition started in the last congress by our friend and colleague, the senator from delaware, senator kaufman, to once again recognize another great federal employee. i think this particular recognition is critically important, since last week this congress came to the brink, unfortunately, of shutting down the federal government, which would have had a dramatic effect upon literally 800,000 federal employees, many which toil tirelessly oftentimes in the proverbial ial vineyards trying

to make sure they serve the american people. it's my hope that later today the house and we in the senate will pass what perhaps is an imperfect compromise, but as every compromise it is a bit imperfect viewed from one side or the other that will continue the operations of this federal government through the balance of the fiscal year. so it is appropriate that today that we continue this tradition where we single out for recognition on this, the floor of the senate, one of the federal employees that continue to provide service to americans. the exemplary federal worker that i'm referring to this week is keith pruitt. mr. keith pruitt is a 27 year veteran of the united states secret service. he is responsible for overseeing the-day-to-day operations of the secret service including its

6,700 employees with a budget of about $1.5 billion. mr. pruitt also oversees the protection of the president and the vice president of the united states as well as visiting heads of state. he has an impressive resume that includes handling security during three presidential campaigns, two white house details, and overseeing trips protecting american officials in more than 110 countries. mr. pruitt was first drawn to a life of public service when he was in high school in the 1960's in memphis, tennessee. he met a local memphis police officer who encouraged him to obey the city curfew and stay safe and stay out of trouble. mr. pruitt said this police officer inspired him to enter public service. coincidentally, he went on to become a memphis police officer following his graduation from college.

in 1983, the secret service recruited mr. pruitt to serve as a special agent in the memphis field office. over the years he rose through the ranks of the service. he has served both on the front lines and in supervisory positions, which all this experience has led him to his leadership role today. mr. pruitt is regarded by his peers as one of the best in the field. he has been described as a man of high value and honor, who views each day as a training day and is extremely dedicated to his work and loyal to the people that work with him. one of his peers at the national association of black law enforcement officers stated that mr. pruitt -- quote -- "identifies challenges for the organization and seeks to change the status quo to make things better." his tireless efforts to improve the peformance of the secret service have made him a true

asset to the agency, the president and the vice president and to our country. i hope that my colleagues will join me in honoring keith pruitt, a truly great civil servant and all those in the united states secret service for their hard work and dedication to our nation. it's also my hope, mr. president, that we can conclude the budget for the balance of this fiscal year so that we can give mr. pruitt and countless other federal employees and literally the millions of other americans who depend on the ongoing workings of this federal government the confidence they need and the respect they need by passing the continuing resolution for this year before we break for the easter recess. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana is recognized. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to vitiate any quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to

explain why i'm voting "no" on the budget deal later this afternoon. first a and foremost, i am voting "no" because i don't think this is a meaningful, substantial start to getting our hands around what is the biggest potential crisis we face as a nation: out-of-control spending and debt. $38 billion is, i suppose, more of a cut than we've ever done, but if you put it in any other context, any other context, it's very, very modest indeed. take a look at the eight days leading up to the announcement of this deal. in those eight days alone, barely more than a week, we as a nation racked up $54 billion of brand-new debt, way more than the $38 billion of cuts in just eight days. that gives some perspective on

exactly how modest and how limited in meaning this is. when you dig a little deeper to look at details of the cuts, i'm afraid the picture gets even worse. a lot of these cuts are paper cuts only, only cuts on nairp don't have a -- 0 on paper that don't have a meaningful impact oin the real world. there's been significant reporting about this. the justice department fund, other examples -- that probably accounts for $12 billion or $13 billion of the cuts. in addition, just yesterday, the c.b.o. issued a report that said only 1% of those cuts -- $350 million or so -- would have an impact this fiscal year. all of the rest is pushed off well into the future. so because of that, mr. chairman, i'm voting "no." i think we need a much stronger

start to getting our fiscal house in order. in addition, mr. chairman, i'm very concerned about what this budget deal continues to fund in terms of policy, in terms of impact on americans' lives, and the clearest example of that for me is the continuing funding of planned parenthood. i just believe it's morally wrong to end an innocent human life. and i also believe it's morally reprehensible to take tax dollars of millions of pro-life americans in order to fund organizations that do just that. americans shouldn't be forced to subsidize abortions, much less fund our nation's largest abortion provider, and that's what planned parenthood is, pure and simple. now, opponents of defunding planned parenthood had argued in

the news and even on the senate floor that the organization provides many vital health care services 0 other than abortions, such as mammograms. wwell, we've seen recently that that is a big fiction. planned parenthood's c.e.o. repeated this assertion recently. she claimed "if this bill ever becomes law" -- meaning the defunding of planned parenthood. -- "millions of women in this country are going to lose their health care access, not to abortion services, to basic family planning, you know, mammograms." well, as i said, in recent days, this has been shown to be a huge fiction. live action, which is a pro-life group, recorded calls in the last several days to 30 planned parenthood clinics in 27 states. in each conversation, a woman calls in and asks if she can

schedule an appointment for a mammogram, and in each conversation, without exception, the planned parenthood representative tells her that they don't provide mammograms, period. one staffer admits, "we don't provide those services whatsoever." another explains, "we actually don't have a mammogram machine at our clinics." the staffer at planned parenthood here in d.c., it was perhaps clearest. she said, "we do not provide mammograms. we don't deal with the health side of it so much. we're mostly a surgical facility." by the way, "surgery" means one thing: abortion. this planned parenthood staffer is exactly right. 98% of their services to pregnant women constitute abortions, 98%.

this chart lays this out very clearly. this pie chart represents 2009 planned parenthood services to pregnant women. the universe of services to pregnant women, abortions is in dark red, 98%. adoption referrals is in blue. i apologize if you can't see that. the sliver is that tiny. you have to be up close. and all other prenatal care is in green, and that's the reality of planned parenthood. we've also seen a recent onslaught of ads that claims that planned parenthood is simply a leading provider of women's health services, but abortions count for roughly one of this third of the $1 -- one-third of the $1 billion generated by its clinics. planned parenthood's own annual

report acknowledges that it provides primary care to only 19,700 of its 3 million clients. so number of clients: 3 million. those to whom it provided primary health care: 19,700. the provision to cut title 10 funding for health services sufficient as breast cancer screenings, h.i.v. testing, counseling, other valuable family planning services, would not block funding for those services at nonabortion providers. it would simply block funds from subsidizing america's largest abortion provider, and abortion is almost everything planned parenthood does. furthermore, medicaid spends $1.4 billion on family planning each year, not $1 of those funds would be affected by this

resolution and this proposal. society question we face today is not if family planning and women's health services will be provided but if instead we're going to use that as an excuse to fund the biggest abortion provider in the country, which does little else. though i personally don't believe abortion is a right guaranteed by the constitution, i recognize the sad reality that abortion-on-demand is right now legal in this country. but again, this debate isn't about that. it isn't about whether planned parenthood has the right to perform abortions, and it isn't about funding true health care services. the real question before us is whether millions of pro-life taxpayers have to fund this entity. every year since 2000, the government has increased its funding of planned parenthood,

on average $22.2 million a year. as a direct reflection of that the number of abortions they perform has dramatically increased, even though the overall abortion rate, thank god, in the u.s. has declined until 2008. this chart lays out the situation clearly. what is in green represents government grants and contracts to planned parenthood. iit has consistently gone up and up and up and up, a significant increase virtually every year. what is in red represents abortions by planned parenthood. very interesting. virtually the same slope of an increase. while at the same time for this entire period until 2008, abortions nationwide were actually going down.

now, i don't understand how anyone could look at this and say there's not a connection, say that we're not using taxpayer dollars to promote and fund abortion. this notion that it's not used directly for abortion services is a convenient fiction because it's a shell game because it in fact funds planned parenthood and 98% of what they dough is about abortion. according to their latest annual report, planned parenthood boasted more than $363 million in taxpayer funding, the same year it performed an unprecede unprecedented 324,000 abortions. planned parenthood's abortion rate massively outpaces its adoption referrals in particular. in 2008, a woman entering a planned parenthood clinic was 134 times more likely to have an

abortion than to be referred for aan adoption. and in fact this final chart shows that as planned parenthood's abortion rate steadily increased to that staggering number -- 332,000 in 2009 -- its adoption referrals actually decreased to just 977 that same year. so again, aborts are in deep red. adoption referrals are in blue. all other prenatal care is in green. what's the reality? what's the history? what are the facts? abortions go up dramatically and planned parenthood, prenatal services go down. adoption services go down as abortions go up. planned parenthood has made a profit every year since 1987,

including a $63.4 million return in 2009. there is no justification for subsidizing planned parenthood's profitable venture with taxpayer dollars, particularly when roughly half or more of those taxpayers deeply, deeply disagree with abortion. the sanctity of human life is a principle that congress should proclaim at every opportunity, and the time has come to respect the wishes of so many millions of americans who adamantly oppose using taxpayer dollars for abortions by denying all federal funding to this abortion machine. this is a social issue, of course. it's also a fiscal issue. our federal budget is out of control. we're facing unsustainable debt. so given that in particular, isn't it time to stop funding an organization that millions of

americans have fundamental problems with? our federal government -- if our federal government has any hope of regaining fiscal restraint, we have to make significant cuts more significant than are being proposed in the deal put forth today. i refuse to believe that planned parenthood is the one sacred cow that should stand untouched and be untouchable. the time has come to change this situation and to respect the wishes of the huge majority of americans who, whether they're pro-life or pro-choice think taxpayer dollars should not subsidize abortion, and that is clearly, clearly what is going on with planned parenthood. thank you, mr. chairman. with that, i yield back the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: thank you. i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: i am so amazed that the lives that have been stated about planned parenthood on this floor -- that the lies that have been stated about planned parenthood on this floor have been repeated again and again. it gets pretty bad that steven cobert and jon stewart start to look at what you're saying on the senate floor. that's a rarity. it all startd when senator kyl took to the senate floor and said 90% of what planned parenthood does is abortions. well, that was a little bit wrong. 90% of what planned parenthood does is health care. no abortions. as a matter of fact, it's 97%. and every dollar of federal funds goes to health care and may not since the 1970's, not

one slim dime can go toward abortion. now, senator vitter upped this now and now says 98% of what planned parenthood does is abortion. i don't know what he's thinking, but let me reiterate, planned parenthood is a nonprofit organization. he says they make a profit. you can say anything. it doesn't make it true. and i think it's interesting that in the 1960's and 1970's, planned parenthood, which has become the prime target of the right-wing republicans, drew the support of prominent members of the g.o.p. richard nixon signed family planning legislation that authorized federal funding for groups like planned parenthood. former senator barry goldwater's wife peggy was a founding member of planned parenthood in arizona. and former president george

herbert walker bush as a republican congressman from houston spoke frequently on the house floor about the issue. now, it's astounding how the right wing of the republican party has walked so far away from their most revered leaders, but that's their choice. but it is also our choice as to whether we're going to stand here and take it or come here and rebut what they're saying. so count me in and count the democratic women and many men on this side of the aisle who have stood sentry on this taoepbld the true about this. and -- on this and told the truth about this. and the truth is we're in a budget debate, mr. president. everything the republicans said is we've got to close the

deficit gap. we've got to cut spending, cut spending, cut spending. and we said okay, we'll join you, but where were you during george bush's days? you never said a word. we'll put that aside. we'll meet you because when we had the majority and bill clinton was president, we're the only ones that did get a balanced budget and 23 million jobs. we know how to do it, and of course we are going to work with our colleagues. we met them over 70% of the way on spending cuts, but guess what? they are so ideological and so extreme that what you heard from senator vitter today is not discussion about the budget deficit and the fact that we have to get on top of it and get that budget balanced like we did under the clinton days, but you heard about abortion, abortion, abortion, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand, because not one slim dime of

federal money has been able to be used for abortion since the 1970's. and 97% of what planned parenthood does is health care, not abortion. so we know what the real priority of the republicans in congress, we know the real priority. we know what it is. it's an ideological agenda that, frankly, put women's health and women's lives at risk. here we had this huge debate over the budget. tough. getting down, we were all sweating it down within an hour of the day of the moment that the government would shut down, and the two things that the republicans insisted on voting on on a budget bill have nothing to do with the budget, because for every $1 that planned parenthood gets to help them do

cancer screening for women, pap smears, breast cancer screening, s.t.d.'s -- and they do for men as well -- h.i.v./aids testing, blood pressure checks, diabetes checks, and they charge a sliding scale. you walk in there, you have no insurance, you have no money, you get the services for free. if you have some, you pay some. the bottom line is this is what they're holding up this agreement over, and they forced us to vote on planned parenthood and, mr. president, repealing health care reform. now, what i say is extraordinary because we met them on the numbers, but in order to appease their right-wing agenda, they're forcing these votes. and if those votes were to pass,

who gets hurt? women and their families. i have some letters i've received from california because 775,000 women are served by planned parenthood clinics in california. 775,000 women. that's actually more than some states have. and i'm going to share a letter. i've shared a few of them. i just got one today, mr. president. "dear senator boxer: i don't write to you often because you already stand up and fight for everything i believe in. i heard you on npr this morning talking about women's health and the cuts the republicans want to make to planned parenthood. i'm a 42-year-old married professional. my husband and i aren't in the highest bracket, but our combined income puts us in

$170,000-a-year range. frankly we're more than happy to pay our fair share of the taxes for the things for our society. we're appalled by the budget taxes. if you really want to cut spending, do so where it's really outrageous. look at defense, look at the military. there's 60% right there. but what has me outraged right now is the republican party willing to shut down the government over a few dollars for planned parenthood. if you really cared about limiting abortion, funding family planning is the first step." she says, "when i was 20 years old, i was working my way through school. i was a sophomore in college with limited income. no parental support, no health insurance. the one thing i did have access to medically was planned parenthood. the services were on a sliding scale. so at my income of $850 a month,

a gynecological exam was $10. that price meant i went. i also got my pweurbgt control pills -- got my birth control pills there. however, the most significant cross road in my life came about because of planned parenthood. my family has a history of female cancer," she says. "i had a pap smear come back abnormal when i was 21. one, had it not been for planned parenthood, i would not have been able to afford the annual pap smear. two, planned parenthood did a biopsy on the abnormality. again it was a sliding scale, and i don't remember how much it was, but it was something i could manage. three, biopsy showed it was a potentially very dangerous precancerous growth that needed to be removed. four, i did eat beans and rice for the next two months to pay my share for removing this

growth. five, i had to have pap smears twice a year for the next several years. again, all i could afford was planned parenthood. frankly, if it wasn't for planned parenthood, there's a pretty good chance i wouldn't be here today. so this fight," she writes, "is not about abortion. it's about women's health." so, i have to say she is are the letters i've been getting day after day after day. and i am very proud of the people that have stood up and told the truth to counter the lies that i've heard, frankly, from members of congress. this one is named heather jones from costa mesa. the bottom line is if you turn and look at the two votes we're going to have today, they both hurt women disproportionately. this isn't about budget.

if it was about a budget, they'd give more money to planned parenthood because for every dollar that they invest, we save $4 on the other side. what would have happened if heather didn't find out that she had a dangerous precancerous growth? that would have gone forward. she would have gotten cancer. lord knows what it would have cost. she didn't make any money at that time. she would have had to have help from her county. it would have cost taxpayers. she would have been ill, gone through hell and back fighting this, and who knows if she would have made it. now the second vote we're having has to do with rolling back health care reform, another attack on women. it is an attack on everyone, but i want to just look at what it does to women. do you know, mr. president, i know you know this because you've been a leader on this issue, before we passed our

health reform law, being a woman was a preexisting condition. if you were a victim of domestic violence and a woman, they wouldn't insure you. they'd say you have a preexisting condition. what's that? well, your husband beat you, and guess what? he could do it again, so you're a high risk. goodbye. and we said, no, no, it can't happen. if you had a cesarean section and you tried to get insurance, they'd say no, no, no. since you had a cesarean section, you could have another one. it's too expensive. bye. we said no, you can't do that. you can't turn away people simply because they were the victim of domestic violence or had a cesarean. you can't turn away a person because she's a woman. now, in 2014 insurance companies

will not be able to deny anyone coverage because of a preexisting condition. now also, another issue we fought hard on, gender rating. insurance companies charge women in california 40% more than men for similar coverage. can you imagine? so when they say let's repeal health reform, who are they hurting? disproportionately, women. when they say no more funding for planned parenthood to continue their great work on basic health care, who are they hurting tis purport natalie -- disproportionately? women? preventive care was a key in that health reform. and, mr. president, i thank you. you serve on the appropriate committee that made that decision and i will tell you right now women delay or avoid getting preventive care.

but once health reform goes into place, we know there will be preventive health care services like mammogram without a he could prey or deduct -- he could prey or -- copay and deductible. when we repeal health reform, who will you hurt? women? who's going to get sick more than any other group? women. maternity care -- maternity care is not covered by many insurance companies. we changed all of that. and by 2014 insurance will be required to cover maternity care services. and let's look at medicare. we made many reforms in health reform dealing with medicare. more than half of the people who depend on medicare are women. 56% of medicare recipients are women. so when you, as mr. ryan does in his so-called ryan budget where

he ends medicare, let's call it what it is, you're throwing women under the bus. this time it's elderly women. how proud are you of that, mr. ryan? well, i'm not proud that that kind of proposal would come out. and it's starting here today when we vote to repeal health care reform. health care reform extended the life of the medicare trust fund by 12 years to 2027. why on -- 2037. why on earth would the republicans want to repeal a law that strengthens medicare and makes it viable until 2037? let me tell you what else would be repealed if they have their way today: every senior on medicare is going to get a free wellness exam. let me repeat that, every person on medicare is going to get a free annual wellness exam and it will get them access to

preventive health services like vaccination and cancer screenings with no copay and no deductible. why did we do that? first and foremost because it's the right thing to do, but it saves money at the end of the day when we invest up front in prevention. that's why, mr. president, the congressional budget office said that our bill saves billions and billions and billions of dollars over time because investing in prevention, just like planned parenthood did with my constituent, heather, where a -- where a cancer was discovered early means that an individual will get the care early, will get on top of this and will not have to spend a lot of money on it and will be spared the pain and suffering and all the rest that goes with cancer. so i'm here really to say -- oh,

wait. there's one more thing they repeal. i didn't see this one. if they get their way today, mr. president, they're not going to -- seniors are not going to see that infamous doughnut hole that they fall into on their prescription drugs. they're not going to see that close. in other words, right now it happens after you hit a certain amount of money for your prescription drugs. is it -- a couple of thousand dollars. then they say medicare prescription drug is not going to cover you. so you fall into that doughnut hole. we close that forever by 2020. they want to repeal that so seniors are going to have to pay more for their prescription drugs. now, we live in the greatest country in the world and we have access to so many wonderful health advances be they medical

devices, be they prescription drugs, but what good does it do if all of a sudden you can't get those things? so by repealing health care reform, which our republican friends want to do, and today we have a vote to do it, seniors, women, and their families will lose access to lifesaving drugs. they'll lose access to preventive care. they'll lose access to fair insurance coverage and, again, disproportionately it impacts women. it's just the way the demographics are. 56% of medicare recipients are women. so let's be very clear and let's send a strong message tonight whatever time it is we vote on these two amendments.

we are standing strong if we vote them down, we are standing strong for women, we are standing strong for their families, we are standing strong for americans. and anyone that would take these important reforms away, anyone that would say we don't care about the three million people who get their health care from planned parenthood are saying that they don't care much about those people -- by the way -- by the way there was some news program that said, what do you need planned parenthood for? you can go to walgreens and get all those services. so somebody said i never heard of getting a pap smear at walgreens or breast cancer screening. that doesn't come to mind. and so walgreens actually had to put out a press release associating that they don't do

these -- stating that they don't do those things. so let's start talking the truth on the floor and the truth is there's an ideological agenda around this place and it's crystallizing. and my republican friends have gone the bridge too far and people are catching on and it's starting to affect them. they're republicans, independents and democrats. i can assure you the people who are writing me who go to planned parenthood to get their health care, their preventive care, their blood pressure checks, their diabetes checks, they come from every political party. and planned parenthood in the beginning and when it was formed had these -- the strongest support from republicans, that's how it was. but these republicans today have walked so far away from their own party that they are looking at a bill signed by richard

nixon, voted for by george herbert walker bush and saying, no, no, no, we're not interested in family planning and they're distorting the debate. if people want fewer abortions, there is one place we can all walk together and that is prevention of unwanted pregnancies, birth control, contraception. they don't want that. they don't even want that and they've just joaferred reached. and -- overreached and i'm a person who says, i respect you no matter what your views are. i would stand in front of a truck to protect our views whatever they are. i don't tell people what to think about issues. i think they should be respected for what they decide, but big government shouldn't be telling people what to think about the most personal decisions.

that isn't what america is about. you know, we have over the years crafted some good compromises in the area of reproductive health care. we've said people have a right to choose in the early stages of a pregnancy, that's what the supreme court has said. it's been upheld since the 1970's. in the beginning of a pregnancy, a woman, and her doctor, and her family and a god, that's who would be consulted and up to her to make that a decision early in the pregnancy much as the pregnancy moves on, the state has an interest in make and deciding this issue as the pregnancy moves on. but always her life and health must be protected, that's the law. not one penny of federal funds can be used for abortion except in the case of rape, insist, life of the mother. and i happen to be the one who

carried that amendment on rape and insist. because before that, we didn't have that amendment. it was over on the house side many years ago. so we have a compromise. we have a compromise. and i would say to my friends, if you don't like that compromise, then come on the floor and make the woman a criminal and make the doctor a criminal, introduce your legislation, we'll fight it out and the people will weigh in. and what the people will say is, compromise. that compromise is fair. it's not perfect, but it's fair. but, no, that's not what they'll do. because they know if they said a woman is a criminal, it's a bridge too far. so what they try to do is vilify an organization that's been in place for how many years? what? 95 years planned parenthood. 95 years.

vilify an organization. 97% of their work goes to basic health care and family planning. it's really sad. it's wrong. and i'm here to say every time it comes out, the women, democrats, we've already been on the floor. we're just going to continue this battle with our male friends because nobody can tell me they care about women when they're about to vote to deny women basic health care. no one can tell me they care about families when they're about to deny families basic health care. no one can tell me they care about families when they can repeal a law that outlaws gender discrimination, that outlaws the ability of insurance companies to turn you away if you were the

victim of a domestic violence or had a cesarean section. nobody can tell me you care about seniors when you embrace the ryan budget that ends medicare. no one can tell me you care about seniors when today you're going to have a vote to repeal health care reform that gives them more funding for their prescription drugs, that gives them free wellness checks without a h copay or deductible. we always say around here, who's side are you on? are you on the side of the people or on the side of the insurance companies? are you on the side of the people or are you more interested in scoring political ideological points with the extreme wing of your party? those are the questions and i think the answer's going to come back tonight. i think we're going to defeat these two radical amendments. and i hope it will send a message to our house friends over there who are going to have

a radical budge that the experts tell us they're going to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs. i correct myself. the experts tell us the ryan budget would lead to the loss of 2.2 million jobs. can you imagine? can you imagine? the only beneficiary of that budget are billionaires and multimillionaires. so, listen, i'm happy to be in the senate at this moment in history because, to me, these are the issues. these are the issues. and i have to say these are the issues that i had in my campaign. and they were very direct. so i want to thank the people of california for sending me back here. we have 38 million people, the largest state in the union.

every time, you know, you take away something from a planned parenthood or another health care center, you hurt more of my people than anybody else because we're such a large state. today we start the votes and i'm grateful that i can stand up here and speak out against both of these radical amendments. one to defund an organization that's helping three million people a year in america and, second, repeal health care reform that does so much good, so much good and i think we're going to win these votes. i certainly hope so. i thank you very much, mr. president, and i yield the floor. mr. president, i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session. they have the approval of the majority and the minority leaders and i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. president, we, as a country, are in a very, very serious financial circumstance and we all know that we have to reduce spending. this year we will spen spend $3.7 trillion and -- excuse me -- we will -- yes, spend $3.7 trillion but take in only $2.2 trillion, 40 cents of every dollar is borrowed. the president acknowledged a stunning development that under his budget that he submitted two months ago, something i've repeatedly talked about, in the tenth year, the amount of interest on our debt will be almost $1 trillion. this is fact. we are on an unsustainable

course. as every witness has told us, you've got to do better. you cannot continue in this fashion any longer. the president's debt commission chairman, mr. erskine bowles and senator alan simpson, former senator simpson, they have told us that we are facing the most predictable debt crisis in our history if we don't change, and they didn't say it's for our children and grandchildren. they said it could happen in two years. senator -- mr. bowles said earlier than two years, a little later. senator simpson said i think we could have a debt crisis in one year. so i don't know, hopefully this won't happen, but we've got to get spending under control. there are two ways to do it. one is to work really hard, do what we are paid to do, identify a less productive, less defensible spending programs and eliminate them and try to protect as much as we can the programs that are more productive and doing better good for america.

our other way to do it, just sort of take everything across the board, just eliminate everything on a same percentage basis and reduce spending that way. you could do either. i think most people would say we should eliminate the programs that are least defensible first before we have to reduce spending in programs that are more justified. and, of course, none of the proposals that have been made by congressman ryan in the house reduce spending for medicare, social security or medicaid. they reduce the growth in those spending programs, but they don't reduce spending for them. but regardless, how do we make the decision? i've heard the debate about planned parenthood and the moneys they get. i have not been particularly knowledgeable about it. i serve as ranking member of the budget committee, so i know something about the debt crisis

we are in. so the question is is planned parenthood a program that is less defensible and ought to have its funding eliminated or reduced significantly so other programs that are more defensible don't have to be cut? i'm looking at the facts about the situation, and i find that planned parenthood has far more difficulty defending its legitimacy as a federal recipient of millions of dollars than other institutions. this is a private group that sets about to do all kinds of things. one of the largest things it does is provide abortions, and it's an advocacy group. they have very strong agendas that a lot of the american people do not agree with, and why should we fund it?

there are lots of other organizations out here all over america that do what they think to be good things that aren't funded by the united states government. so let's just look at it a little bit. i was sort of surprised, actually. in 2009, the last year we have gotten the report, planned parenthood reported providing 332,278 abortions in the united states. i didn't know that. 332,000? this is the highest total ever recorded, and the 15th consecutive year that the number of abortions they have provided has increased. overall, though, abortions in the united states are going down. you see that sonogram and you see that unborn child and other things, whatever. the mood of the american people are getting a lot more uneasy

about this idea of -- of life and taking of unborn life. so overall, abortions have decreased, decreased by almost 25% in the past two decades nationwide. voluntarily been reduced by individual decisions by americans, yet during that same time, planned parenthood abortions have doubled. and planned parenthood consistently claims that abortions account for only 3% of their services. 97% is on other projects, they say, but yet in that same fact sheet that they make that assertion, they state that 12% -- that's more than one in ten -- of their health care patients receive an abortion.

whoo, that's a surprise to me. think about that. they state that 12% -- that's more than one in ten -- of their health care patients who come in to there receive an abortion. so what about the other solutions? aren't there other solutions to pregnancies that -- other than abortion? in 2009, their report indicates that planned parenthood made one adoption referral for every $340 abortions performed. they made a scant 977 adoption referrals compared to over 330,000 abortions. that's a decline of almost 60% from 2008. so this is a major change in what's going on at planned

parenthood. in 2008, they did 60% more referrals when it made 2,400 adoption referrals. so i just say it appears that this is an advocacy organization that's commited to one solution for people struggling with pregnancies, and i tell you, i've got a letter here -- i won't quote it, but i have a letter from a woman in alabama who had an abortion, who still feels pain about that and wrote me saying not to fund this. i just state that because my colleagues suggested only men would favor this kind of idea. and i tell you another thing that i did not know and was very

surprised about, how much money this is. no wonder there's a big brouhaha here because this is a lot of money. congress is providing providing $363 million a year to planned parenthood. that's a lot. over ten years as we have been scoring everything here over a ten-year budget, that's about about $4 trillion -- $4 billion and quite a lot of money. a lot of people in the country feel strongly that okay, the supreme court has ruled on this. they've said what the constitution says. abortions under some circumstances are -- are -- cannot be prohibited under the supreme court ruling, but they're saying the federal government doesn't have to pay for it, fund it, don't have to use my taxpayer money to do so,

and so my colleagues say well, we agree with that principle and we're not funding abortions. we're giving the money to planned parenthood, but they're not able to use it for abortions, but if 12% of their patients are obtaining abortions and they are getting getting $300 million, i think that's a fact. so i just would say i think it's a fact that the federal funding furthers their ability to grow and expand their lead as the number-one abortion provider in the country. so, mr. president, i think all in all, we don't have enough money to do a lot of good things. we have some people foreget, rural health clinics and urban health clinics that are funded and organized by the united states congress. we don't have to use money in this fashion to this private

entity that has an agenda. i don't believe it's radical to say that this is one place that we could save money out of -- and a lot more. i don't think it's extreme. that's my best judgment, that if we don't have enough money, 40% of what we spend is borrowed, i don't want to borrow borrow $363 million this year to fund a program that we don't have the money for, and this is one that i think we could legitimately say does not have to have taxpayers' money and should be -- have its funding terminated. i also would support the resolution concerning the health care bill. it clearly is a piece of legislation that costs the taxpayers large sums of money,

and it is not a piece of legislation that adds money to the treasury, as has been suggested. the congressional budget office has written a letter to me that stated explicitly that the administration is doublecounting the money, and if they weren't doublecounting the money they took from medicare to fund this new program, that you would clearly have a -- the health care bill would be a clear drain on the economy. they have to use a gimmick of double accounting through an accounting process here to justify that, and it's not the right way to do it. it's the reason the country's going broke. so i would offer -- ask unanimous consent, mr. president, to revise and extend my remarks on both of these subjects and would -- the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: and would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri is

recognized. mr. blunt: i thank the gentleman for recognition. i want to talk today about another topic, a topic that mr. kirk and i and 36 other members of the senate are cosponsoring a bill that -- an amendment that we would hope to add to the small business bill, if we ever get back to the small business bill. this is an amendment that we offer independently -- offered independently as a bill a month ago. the gas accessibility and sustainability act. and what this bill really does is it takes further an effort that was put into law in 2005 right before hurricane katrina that allowed the president to suspend the unique boutique fuel standards in the country if there was a natural disaster. and, mr. president, that happened immediately -- within a

couple of weeks, as i recall, after the bill became law, the president used that authority, and in the six months following katrina, even though the gulf was obviously disrupted and a couple of refineries were very disrupted, gas prices didn't go up because for the first time since the passage of the clean air act, gasoline was a commodity again. and what this bill would do, as we now see gasoline prices at at $4.37 in hawaii, at $3.88 in st. louis, and particularly prices that are high in communities that have a unique blend of fuel that's only available in that community, this bill would allow the president to have that authority if there's any kind of disruption. if the suez canal was shut down for some period of time, if a refinery went down, if there was a pipeline disruption that truly

made it very difficult for communities to get their unique blend of fuel but was much easier for you to just get fuel that met the standard of being fuel at the gas pump. and mr. kirk and i introduced this together. he was a great advocate of this bill when it passed the house, and i'd like to turn to him for a moment and see what he has to say today about this bill that really allows us to look at the gas prices that are creating real problems in the country today. mr. kirk: mr. president, i note that under the blunt legislation, we would correct a growing problem in the united states with gas prices. right now, for example, in the chicagoland area, gas prices total about $4.14 a gallon. i'm sure in missouri, it's probably quite high. mr. blunt: well,