>> quorum call on the senate floor during this time when the senate tibically would be attending weekly party lunches, however, this afternoon they remain in an extended quorum call apparently because of an objection to recess over patriot act legislation the senate was expect today work on this afternoon. according to cq today, a small band of civil libertarian opponents is vowing to delay the legislation as long as possible which could mean the next procedural vote may not come until close to midnight. we understand kentucky senator

rand paul is among the senates, but we have yet to hear his objections on the senate floor. earlier, the senate did join with house colleagues for a joint meeting to hear an address by israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu

ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: mr. president, we're nearly ten years after the attacks of september 11, 2001.

every one of us in the senate know america continues to face threats of terrorism. we will for the rest of our life, as do a lot of our allies. and the president's success after dogged pursuit of bin laden, success earlier this month doesn't mean we can become complacent. we have to remain vigilant. we have to make sure the men and women of our law enforcement intelligence agencies have the tools necessary to protect our nation, the american people. but as every vermonter knows, tools are only useful in they're regularly checked and maintained. otherwise, they become blunt instruments that can do harm rather than accomplish the job. congress recognizes this -- recognized this basic notion in

2001 when we wrote the u.s.a. patriot act. i worked with the then-republican house majority leader, dick armey. we included sunsets on certain surveillances in the bill. it is something, even though we had vastly different political philosophies, we both agreed we had to have sunset provisions. in 2006, when congress reauthorized the u.s.a. patriot act, i worked to ensure certain sunsets were renewed and added audits on the use of powers to unnecessarily intrude on the privacy of americans. we want america to be protected but we don't want to give a blank check to anybody, not to a republican administration, not to a democratic administration, not to anyone. we are, after all, americans who believe in our individual liberties. having granted the government broad authority to gather vast amounts of information about the daily lives of americans, i want to do what we could to ensure

information gathering didn't occur at the expense of americans' basic constitutional rights and their civil liberties. the sunsets and audits provide congress an opportunity to examine whether patriot act tools are being used appropriately. and if not, let's sharpen them or refine them or restrain these tools accordingly. the audits we added in 2005 and 2006 proved to be very helpful because they identified there were abuses in the way the patriot act was being used. abuses were with respect to national security letters and the use of exigent letters. if we hadn't had oversight, if we hadn't had the sunset provisions, we probably never would have found out about those abuses. we found out about them and we worked with the f.b.i. to correct those matters. now, that brings us to today.

the senate has the opportunity to reexamine, refine key patriot act provisions, and i think we should take that opportunity to make improvements to our current law. i've led the senate judiciary committee to diligently consider these matters with hearings and meetings and as a result the committee responded by reporting improvements both last year and again this year through bipartisan legislation. they're good measures and we've worked to ensure they would not compromise the effectiveness of our law enforcement intelligence capabilities. in fact, much of the language was derived after consultation not only with the administration but all within and including the intelligence community. the attorney general and others have repeatedly assured us the measures to enhance oversight and accountability, such as audits, public reporting would not sacrifice -- and to quote him -- the operational

effectiveness and flexibility needed to protect our citizens from terrorism. he added, or undermine the collection of vital foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information. in fact, the attorney general has consistently said that the bill passed out by the senate judiciary committee struck a good balance. it extended the patriot act authorities while at the same time it added accountability and seufpl liberties protections -- and civil liberties protections. i refer senators, we had a senate report in the bill, a report on this, it was the senate judiciary committee senate report number 112-13. i ask that a december 9, 2010, letter from the attorney general to me making these points be included in the record along with a february 19, 2010, letter from the director of national intelligence to house leaders. i ask consent that those be

included. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: unfortunately, the bill before the senate today merely extends the expiring authorities to june 1, 2015. regrettably, these authorities haven't been refined since 2006. if this means the case, through the extensions contemplated by this bill, it means we'll have nine years having this bill and we're not able to find any legislative improvement? i think most of us understand we can do better. the amendment that we're offering today seeks to improve that, improving the patriot act, changing the fact it's gone without these improvements. and i appreciate the efforts made by the majority leader to craft a compromise. i'm sorry that the republican

leadership and the congress has insisted on an extension of authority without any improvements. the amendment i have filed and wish to offer along with senators paul, cardin, binge moon, coons, shaheen, wyden, gillibrand, and akaka makes significant improvements to current law: promotes transparency, praoeuf circumstance civil -- praoeuf circumstance civil liberties safeguard. i ask unanimous consent to place a sectional analysis in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: one of the improvements congress should make is to repair a constitutional infirmity in the current law. three years ago in doe v. mccasey, the u.s. court of appeals for the second circuit found the nondisclosure in the statute authorizing issuance of

national security letters was constitutionally defective. we don't make a change, that constitutionally defective part of the national security letter provision would continue. so part of the comprehensive set of reforms in the bill reported favorably by the judiciary committee, i propose a simple statutory fix which would enable the f.b.i. to obtain the information it needs, but at the same time addressing the constitutional concerns. this proposal has never been controversial. in fact, during the last congress senator sessions, senator bond and the ranking republicans of the senate judicial intelligence committee cosponsored a bill that incorporated the legislative remedy i propose. it is a straightforward matter. it needs to be fixed. the underlying bill does not fix

the problem. our amendment would. i would trust the senators would not want to proceed to vote on an unconstitutional law, one that violates our fundamental charter as a nation and, of course, the liberty of all americans. no one who claims to honor the constitution should proceed in so cavalier a fashion. if we're to restore the constitution under the authority, let's adopt this needed improvement. i'm also troubled by the republican leadership's refusal to agree to periodic audits on the use -- use by government of the u.s.a. patriot act surveillance authorities. when i speak of the leadership, i want to mention that is not uniform within the republican parties. there are many republicans who feel we should have these periodic audits. basic transparency, mr. president, basic

accountability, they are vital to ensure that government does not overstep its legal authority. we give a lot of authority to our government. we give a lot of things they can do. but we do it usually with a sense that somebody can watch what's going on, that if they overstep the authority, you've got the power to bring them back in line. it's only because the audits are mandated by the 2006 patriot act reauthorization bill, the american public became aware of some of the abuses and misuses of the national security letter. and they were significant. and without that public accountability, without that congressional oversight, i believe the f.b.i. would not have made improvements to a system of tracking n.s.l. issuance. but because of those audits, we are more confident today that f.b.i. agents are following proper procedures for obtaining

private information about americans rather than improperly using exigent letters to circumvent the rules or using postit notes to track the records. the underlying bill, the one we want to amend, omits audits in public reporting. our amendment includes important auditing requirements, public reporting to provide accountability and protect americans' rights without the public accountability. i'm not sure what we have. no one can seriously contend that audits by an inspector general of past operations present any operational concerns to a law enforcement intelligence agent. all it says, you've got

accountability and you have to follow the rules. mr. president, you and i and 98 other members of this body have to follow the rules. certainly those in law enforcement have to follow the rules. and these have been demonstrated to be vital oversight tools. they should be incorporated. the language in our amendment is the product of more than a year and a half extensive negotiations with republicans and democrats, the intelligence community, the department of justice. this year the senate judiciary committee got support of senator kyl and cornyn and was reported favorably to the senate. the bipartisan bill we seek to offer is a reasonable package of reforms that preserves the ability of the government to use the patriot act surveillance tools, but at the same time with

transparency, accountability and oversight. it does not make it more difficult for our intelligence authorities, our law enforcement authorities to keep us safe. all it means is that they have to follow the rules each one of us expect in our own lives. now, the senate should not shirk its duty to reexamine carefully and critically the provisions of the patriot act and to consider ways to improve the law consistent with our core constitutional principles. that's what i've tried to do. that's what vermonters expect. i intend to vigilantly guard americans' privacy and civil liberties while doing all i can to keep all americans secure. we expect in vermont, but i have to assume we expect that in the other 49 states.

without a single improvement of reform, without even a word to recognize the importance of protecting the civil liberties and constitutional privacy rights of americans, the underlying bill represents a missed opportunity. let us provide our law enforcement, intelligence professionals the tools they need and give these professionals the security and certainty they need to protect our nation. let's at the same time -- let's faithfully perform our duty to protect the constitutional principles and civil liberties upon which this nation was founded. on which the american people depend. mr. president, most americans, the vast majority, 300 million americans are law-abiding, honest men and women. we shouldn't suddenly lump them in a category that they're

potential lawbreakers and, therefore, we can just go ahead and search their homes or their businesses or their personal things without ever telling them and with no proper reason. you know, we fought a revolution in this country to stop that from happening. and it's no different today. one of the things that's kept us so strong as a nation is we protect the individual rights of all americans. we can get the lawbreakers. we can get those people, as we did osama bin laden, but we can do it at the same time protecting the principles of our country. we don't have to let the terrorists win by making us give up all our own rights and lib irts in this country -- liberties in this country. they would do that if they could

take over, you would have no rights. certainly women would have virtually no rights. men would have not many themselves. we're want goin not going to al. so the american people expect us to protect our rights and to keep us safe. the amendment can do just that. so i would hope the people would support the leahy-paul amendme amendment, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: that i be able

to speak about two issues. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: thank you. well, i just wanted to acknowledge the hard work of the chairman of the intelligence committee and the chairman of the judiciary committee on the patriot act. and to state that i'm on an amendment that senator leahy has authored which has bipartisan support. i think that what senator leahy's amendment does is to put a couple of checks and balances in this bill that i think are essential, but i really hope that we don't have delays because delays would cause trouble for law enforcement people and for the work we are doing to make sure that we continue making progress against those who would harm this

country. i fully agree with the statements that we have the balance of security and liberty, and i think that the leahy amendment goes a long way toward that. but again, we need to give law enforcement the tools that they -- that they need. mr. president, as we look at what's ahead for us this week, it is not only the patriot act, but we also are going to be looking for votes on the -- a couple of different budget proposals, and i wanted to spend some time talking about the republican budget that passed the house that was originally authored by representative ryan, paul ryan. now, it sort of got to be known as the ryan budget, but let's be very clear about this. it's no longer the ryan budget. it's the republican budget. this is why i say this. out of all the republicans in

the house -- and there are a lot of them over there, they run the place, well over 100 -- every one of them voted for this budget except for, and on our side not one democrat. so let's be clear what a budget is. i served on the budget committee in the house and in the senate. a budget is a very important document, whether you write it in your own home for your own family or you write it in the senate of the united states. why? because in a budget, you're looking at all your resources and what your priorities are, and if you have got an issue with spending, which a lot of us have in our homes as well as having it right here. we know that and certainly in my state. this is when the rubber meets the road and you have to say what is important to us and what's less important? and the questions that you ask when you write a budget around here is are our children important? and the answer is yes. is it important that we have

clean air to breathe? for me, absolutely. should the water be pure? should we make sure the environment is protected? yes. should we have a transportation system so we can move people and goods in this century and be the economic world leader? yes, that's an investment. and we go through this budget piece by piece by piece, and we decide what is crucial. of course, we need a strong military. having said that, you know, some of us believe it's time to wind down the two wars that we're in, in afghanistan and iraq, that's costing us $12 billion a month. mr. president, we can use those funds back home and still keep the kind of counterterrorism forces that we must keep, i believe, in the region and bring that money home. you know, there's a lot of talk and a lot of words are thrown around about how do you balance

a budget, and i have to say that i was fortunate enough to be here thanks to the good people of my state during the clinton years, and we had similar issues. what were the issues? we were running in the red. we had a deficit. we had a debt, and we had to make sure the economy kept growing in a robust fashion. do you know what we did? we sat around and said these are the investments that are important to us. today i would argue it's still education, it's infrastructure, it's the environment, it's clean energy. these are the things that will move us forward. and over here are the issues where, you know, we look out and say how can we get some revenue here? and one of the ways is what the democrats said the other day. we said it's time to end corporate welfare for the biggest oil companies in the world who are number -- listen to this -- two, three and four

on the fortune 500 and are paying a lower tax rate than a nurse. can i say that one more time? these big multinational oil companies who are charging us an arm and a leg are making -- paying a higher tax rate than a nurse or truck driver or firefighter, an effective tax rate, that's the truth. and yet still the power of those special interests just looms over this chamber, and we were not able to end that corporate welfare and start to reduce this deficit, so there are places to go to reduce the deficit. i say start by eliminating corporate welfare for the people who don't need it, start by asking billionaires and multimillionaires to pay their fair share, and then you don't have to hurt the people of this country, the great middle class

of this country, the children. but every day in every way, that's what these battles are about. so today i want to talk about the republican budget. and just look at it from the standpoint of medicare. look at it from the standpoint of seniors. and more specifically, look at it from the standpoint of women on medicare who make up, mr. president, 56% of those on medicare. thank goodness the people in this country are tuning in to this debate. they are tuning in. a lot of what we say here just flies over the country and no one really pays attention. it's complex, it's wonky and the rest. this is an easy one. the republican budget kills medicare as we know it. pretty simple, and people are asking themselves across this nation do they want to kill

medicare as we know it? and senator mikulski who has arrived on the floor has organized women, and in the next five minutes i will summarize what i said and turn it over to her. the republican budget is a disaster for seniors and for those on medicare it's worse than a disaster. newt gingrich said 15 years ago let medicare wither on the vine. that means starving it. the republican budget just kills it outright. they lost patience with that idea. the republican house-passed budget brings a devastating cost to seniors for medicare, and let me show you the cost. listen to this. mr. president, the average income of senior women in this country in a year is $14,430.

the health care costs that she will have to pay under the ryan budget is almost all that money, money, $12,500. so the ryan republican budget devastates medicare and says to a senior woman who makes $14,000 a year that her health care costs are going to cost her her $12,000. what is she going to do with the other $2,000? well, that would be probably, if she is fortunate, maybe three months rent. in california, one month's rent. and then what does she do? starve? i'll tell you what she will do. she won't have health coverage. this is america under the republican vision, going back to the days where our senior

citizens had no dignity. i just can't imagine it. i can't imagine it. the woman earns $14,000, she is supposed to spend $12,000 on health care, forget it. she is not going to do it. who in their right mind who would women, senior women who weren't playing by the rules, who more than likely is a widow, who is living off social security, who in their right mind would ask her to face double, double the cost of health care that she now pays. i'll give you the answer -- house republicans. that is what we voted for. i am not making it up. this is what they voted for. now they have people running away from it, running toward it, they don't know which way to go

on it. i hope they run far away from this because this is a disaster. let me show you another chart. this republican budget ends medicare as we know it and it takes the benefit away from the senior and gives it straight to this guy. who is this guy? he is very happy, and behind him is a chart, health care profits. and on the other side, it talks about the c.e.o. of the company and his income. the house republican budget takes the benefit away from the senior and gives it straight to the insurance company. imagine. you know what this guy makes, the average c.e.o. of the health insurance company? mr. president, remember i told you the average woman -- senior woman makes $14,000 a year? he makes $12.2 million a year. oh, hurray for the republicans.

they're taking a benefit away from a woman who has lived by the rules, who has raised a family, and stood by that family, and in her golden years, they take away her money and they give it to this fat cat over here. it makes me ill, but i better watch out because the next thing you know they'll take away my health care and where will i go? profits in these companies are up 41% from the previous year. you know, every once in a while, a political party stands for something that shows who they are. and i think we're seeing it here. they voted to continue corporate welfare for the biggest multinational oil companies who are just running to the bank, and their c.e.o.'s make more than this guy by a few million, and now this week, we're voting on their budget which gives more

to the c.e.o. of an insurance company and steals it away from the average senior woman. and the last chart i'm going to show you is this one. there is a health care benefit in place for senior citizens who are on medicare. by the way, i was very disturbed when we voted for it because in that bill, at the insistence of the republicans, we told medicare they can't negotiate for reasonable drug prices, and that's the way it went down. it was very sad. having said that, we have a benefit for senior citizens now, and one of the leaders in trying to make sure that they get their full benefit has been senator stabenow who is joining us now, and so i'll close with this. what we did in our budget, in our health care reform budget,

is to say that seniors will now be covered for basically all of their health care costs. the republican budget cancels that out, and they now say that seniors have to pay for all of their prescription drugs, even with their insurance, there will be this period of time, the uncovered benefit called a doughnut hole, people call it different things. that means that immediately if the republican budget passed now, my seniors in california who are in that category getting help on their prescription drugs, 400,000 of them, would have to pay $9,000 more over the next decade. $9,000 more for their prescription drugs. mr. president, i've given you just a bit of the picture of what the ryan budget does. i have just focused in really on the medicare piece. that whole budget, the republican budget started by

ryan, embraced by the republicans, is a disaster for seniors, for women, for children, and it is a hot time in the old town tonight for big c.e.o.'s of health insurance companies. that's what it is. and we should bring it down. and i'm happy to now yield to senator mikulski who will have the time in her own right. thank you very, very much, senator mikulski, for your leadership on this. ms. mikulski: thank you very much, senator boxer. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, senator boxer, for your steadfast standing up for american women, and today the democratic women come to the floor to talk about the terrible impact that the republican budget coming from the house and getting started in the senate has on the women.

women -- after i speak, i will be followed by senators stabenow, shaheen, then senator blumenthal. other colleagues wanted to join us. senator mccaskill is in missouri, as she should be, with her constituents. feinstein and klobuchar are chairing hearings. but let me get right to my position. you know, the republicans, we're not going to call this the ryan budget because whether it's the ryan budget, the toomey budget, whatever, it is the wrong budget for america and it -- it continues the republican -- the radical republican attack on women that they began in h.r. 1. it started to attack us by taking away our health care, our family planning. now they're back at it again. the republican budget takes away our health care, and there's no ifs, ands and buts about it.

and we're not going to put up with it. no matter what we try to take away from us, we're not going to let it happen. what do i mean by this? well, let's start with medicare. medicare is the single-most important health care program in america for seniors. women are the majority users of medicare because we live longer. now, when the republicans want to talk about taking away or changing medicare as we know it, what is it that they mean? they're going to take away a guaranteed benefit and convert it into guaranteed profit for insurance companies. they talk about a voucher program. it is a payment for care that doesn't go to a senior, but goes to an insurance company. people believe that medicare should be they go to the doctor

that they need, get the prescriptions that their doctors say that they need. and if they have follow-up and consistent care. no matter what the republicans say, that this is going to give grandma more choice, more choice to be do what? be at the mercy of insurance company executives that ever shrink a benefit package and ever expand premiums, all of which government subsidizes their profits instead of provide a safety net so that if you're old and sick in america, you get the care you need, choose the physician you want. under the republican budget, federal dollars turned over to insurance companies will make people forced to pay more. in my own home state, it will mean $6,000 more in health care. but they don't stop just at medicare. they go on to medicaid. now, medicaid sounds like a bad word, or they have made it sound

like a bad word, that it's a budget buster. but make no mistake, medicaid primarily pays for nursing home bills. nursing home bills for middle-class americans who need it to turn to nursing home care, for a loved one who might have alzheimer's or parkinson's or lou gehrig's disease. you don't go into a nursing home because it's a lifestyle choice. it's usually a lifesaving mandate in order to do that. and in order to do that, there is no government program to help you, so you have to spend down your life savings to qualify for medicaid, and then medicaid will help you pay for those bills. but under the republican budget, they're going to pull the rug out from anyone who has a loved one in a nursing home. go out and talk to young families who are part of the sandwich general rakers those who are caring for --

generation, those who are caring for their aging parents and make sure they help pay for these long-term care costs while they're worried about how to send their kids to college. once more they're trying to undermine the safety net protections for middle americans. one thing that the republican plan does, it is a guaranteed bailout for these insurance companies. then they go a step even further. i know my colleagues will talk about what the defunding of health care will do. i want to talk about the defunding of n.i.h., the cuts to n.i.h. now, the national institutes of health of health will also be cut under the republican assault for women. and what are they talking about? shrinking n.i.h. when you shrink the national institutes of health, this means there will be setbacks and

delays to finding that cure for alzheimer's, that cure for lou gehrig's disease, that cure for parkinson's disease. right now there are 5.5 million people living with alzheimer's. it is predicted by 50 million -- by the year 2050, 50 million americans will have alzheimer's. 1.5 million have parkinson's disease. these aren't numbers and statistics. these are families that need help. now they might need help -- they certainly need medicare. they might need long-term care. but they also need to know that their government is on their side. we could race for cures. we can walk for the memory programs for the alzheimer's association. we cannot find cures for disease on private philanthropy, and the drug companies are not investing the way they should in finding these new cures. we can't undermine this. so whether you're cutting

medicare, which women need; medicaid, which is the safety net for nursing home care; and even the research to find the cure for these diseases. now who does this affect? it affects people at all ages. it affects constituents of mine who have worked very hard building automobiles and working in steel mills, working in offices, working hard to be good patriotic people. and it goes to even a member of our, former member of our supreme court, sandra day o'connor, whose husband himself was gripped by alzheimer's and one of the reasons she stepped down when she did, because she was going to take care of him. alzheimer's is an equal opportunity disease. it hits all incomes and all zip codes. but they're going to take a hit because of the republican budget. we just want to shine the light on this. this is not about a more frugal government. this is not about limited government. this is about government

abandoning its responsibility to the american people. and while we're busy promoting democracy over there, let's make sure we continue to provide health care right back here in america. i now yield the floor to a real champion of seniors and women, my colleague, debbie stabenow. ms. stabenow: thank you so much. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you to our dean of the delegation, our dean of the women senators who has not only been here the longest, but has been the strongest advocate, the strongest consistent voice for women, for seniors, for children that we have had in our country. and we want to thank you for that and thank you for bringing us together in your leadership in giving us the opportunity to come and talk about what is very serious ramifications of the budget passed by the house of

representatives. and let me first start, i want to talk about medicare because that has the biggest impact. but let me say that as we look at the budgets that have been proposed by the house, by house republicans this year, the current budget as well as next year's budget that was passed, we are seeing attacks on women and children from prenatal care forward to nursing homes at the end of life. with my hat on as chair of the agriculture committee, we all receive a nutrition program for the country, i was appalled, mr. president, that the largest cut that was proposed as we were negotiating a budget for this year in the department of agriculture was the w.i.c. program, women, infants and children, prenatal nutrition for moms who are pregnant, and healthy food for moms and babies as they move forward through

their first year of life and beyond. hard to believe that that would be the number-one cut, the largest cut in the department of agriculture budget. but that was the original proposal from this year. now we go forward and we look at the budget that was actually passed for the coming year by the republican house, and it's really astounding when we look at the priorities. the republican budget essentially ends medicare. it eliminates medicare as we know it. folks have said to me, no, they don't really mean that. they're not really going to do that. yeah, they passed that, not just a proposal that somebody had. they actually passed it as an intact insurance plan. you know, mr. president, medicare has been a wonderful success story for our country. social security and medicare

together have been great american success stories. lifting a generation of older americans, the majority of them women, out of poverty. and allowing them to be healthy longer in life; a generation of people, a generation of women. because the majority of women, particularly as we look at people of older age, the majority of people on medicare are women. and i think about my own mom at 85, going strong, and the blessing to watch her on mother's day be able to play with my two grandchildren -- the most beautiful grandchildren in the world, three-year-old lily and one-year-old walter -- and to have my mother still be healthy because of access to health care at age 85, that's a success story. that's a gift that we've all joined together as a country to give to our families, to older americans, to our parents and

grandparents and future generations. that gift would be eliminated, that ability to have medicare. and most of that elimination would be, unfortunately, an attack on women. seniors will pay double. the amount they will pay under the plan passed by the house is $6,359 more than they currently pay now. and really what does that mean? well, right now under medicare, the current system in co-pays and deductibles and so on for the average senior is about $6,154. under the republican plan passed by the house, that would double, more than double. and what does that mean to the average woman who's retired? well, the average woman senior has an income of $14,430.

$14,430. and under the republican plan, her health care costs would be $12,500. now i don't know about you, mr. president, but the idea of living roughly on $2,000 for the year for your rent or mortgage or food or clothing, gasoline -- certainly not gasoline given the price of gas -- it's impossible. it's absolutely impossible. and this is what is coming for the average woman who's retired, over age 65, under the plan passed by the house of representatives. now why would they be doing this? why would they be doing this? well, unfortunately, it's to continue to allow them to provide tax breaks for the wealthiest americans -- those earning over $1 million a year,

on which they add more tax breaks in the budget while they're cutting medicare -- and it also protects the special perks for special interests like the oil subsidies. the reality is this: we know there is a huge budget deficit that we have to tackle, and we understand also that people are living longer and there are things that we need to do both around medicare and social security, and we've already begun that process in health reform, lengthening the solvency of medicare for a number of years, taking away overpayments for for-profit insurance companies to save dollars and focusing on prevention, which saves $500 billion over the next ten years in medicare. lengthens the trust fund, doesn't cut benefits to seniors. doesn't eliminate medicare, doesn't eliminate it as an insurance plan. it strengthens it for the future. that's one way to go. but our colleagues in the other house, our republican colleagues

have basically said, well, we need to balance the budget, so let's start by eliminating medicare as we know it. let's start there. doubling the cost for the average senior, most of which are women. we've said, well, there is a lot of choices about where to start to balance the budget. let's start with the top five oil companies who are right now earning, the largest corporate profits in history for them and still get taxpayer subsidies, some of which were started almost 100 years ago, when it probably made sense over 100 years ago, when oil prices were $17 a barrel. now they're over $100 a barrel. the largest corporate profits ever. they still get taxpayer subsidies. people in my state are scratching their head. they're paying higher prices out of one pocket, and as taxpayers subsidizing the prices out of

the other, the other pocket. let's start with the billions of dollars certainly no longer needed by an industry doing extremely well, let's take away those taxpayer subsidies as a place to start to balance the budget. let's not start with the tens of millions of people who currently get health care through medicare. most of which -- most of whom are women. the republican plan goes even further, because it also attacks and dramatically cuts and weakens medicaid, which -- most of which is for low-income seniors in nursing homes, and 77% of the people living in nursing homes or long-term care facilities are women. so 77% of those in nursing homes or long-term care facilities who

are using medicaid to -- to help them, 77% are women. again, from prenatal care at the beginning of life to what happens to seniors at the end of life, women in nursing homes across the board we are seeing attacks on women's health care. it makes absolutely no sense, mr. president. it certainly is not the values that i believe in, the values that -- that we believe in as a country, certainly not the values the people of mish have, i can tell -- the people of michigan have, i can tell you that. starting to balance the budget by going back to seniors, going back to women, going back to middle-class families who've already taken hit after hit after hit in this economy is not fair. it's certainly not the place that i'm going to vote to start or i know that our democrat majority will start.

we're going to have an opportunity very soon, in the next day or two, to say yes or no about this plan that was passed by the house, this plan that eliminates medicare as we know it and puts an insurance company bureaucrat back between you and your doctor. now, every woman on medicare would be put into a situation where an insurance company bureaucrat would once again be back between she and her doctor as she tries to get the care that she needs. in my judgment the republican plan has their prioritiesup side-down. the plan to eliminate -- their priorities upside-down. the plan to limb kni eliminate , it may be good for insurance conditionersist it's bad for --

insurance companies, it's bad for taxpayers, and it's certainly bad for american women. i encourage and implore our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join with us in saying no and supporting medicare, the great american success story that it is, saying no to the effort to eliminate medicare as we know it, saying no to the republican budget which puts insurance company bureaucrats between you and your doctor. and let's say yes to other areas where we can reduce the deficit without hurting middle-class families and seniors in this country. it's my great pleasure right now to yield, mr. president, to a champion for women's health care and for the state of new hampshire, senator jeanne shaheen. mrs. shaheen: thank you.

mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you. i want to commend my colleague, senator stabenow, for the great work that she has done over a long period of time for women and families in her state of michigan and throughout the country. i remember her telling me that she got involved in politics in order to address a nursing home issue which disproportionately affects women. just as this budget that passed the house disproportionately affects women and children. so i'm pleased to be able to join on the floor and my other colleagues, appreciate senator mikulski's leadership in bringing us together today. there's no doubt that all of us in the senate and everybody who's spoken on the floor today understands that we need to deal with this country's debt and deficits. there's no question about that. but the question is, are we going to do that man in a way ts fair to everyone? and unfortunately, the house

republican plan would disproportionately impact women, in particular, older women, because make no mistake about it, the republican budget that passed the house will end medicare as we know it today. and since women are a majority of all medicare beneficiaries, any radical change to the medicare system will disproportionately affect women and it will, in the long term, hurt so many women in this country. for example, if we take a typical senior on medicare in my home state of new hampshire, under the house republican plan, that senior's out-of-pocket health care costs are going to double to $12,000 a year. as time goes on, those out-of-pocket costs are going to continue to increase. this health care impact on senior women is especially hard,

because during most women's working years, they earn less than men. still true today. women earn less than men and women often work part time or leave the work force while raising families. as a result, they have less retirement savings, on average, and lower social security benefits. so for women who already have earned less, medicare is a critical source of financial security. it keeps many women out of poverty. the house-passed republican budget will end that security. and for seniors who rely on prescription drugs, a real improvement that we made when we passed the affordable health plan because we made great progress towards closing that doughnut hole and helping seniors with their cost of

prescription drugs. but what the house republican plan will do is dramatically increase those costs. again, in new hampshire, we have 15,200 seniors who will pay $8.5 million more a year in just one year for their medications. and, of course, we all know that women toned live longer than men. so as a result, women represent three-quarters of our most vulnerable medicare beneficiaries, those who are living in nursing homes, in assisted living or in other long-term care facilities. when their savings runs out, which happens often given the cost of long-term care, seniors must turn to medicaid to pay the bills. however, the house republican budget would also make radical changes to the medicaid system, so their proposal not only

threatens medicare but it threatens long-term care for millions of women who rely on medicaid. the house republican proposal eliminates the current medicare system and puts private insurance companies in charge of the health benefits that seniors receive. the republican plan does nothing to reduce the cost of health care. it just sthaifts cost of health care -- it just shifts that cost of health care on to seniors. and what is going to happen when we shift the cost to seniors who can no longer afford to pay for their health care? they're going to go to emergency rooms, and emergency rooms are not only the most expensive care because we would have eliminated the preventive care that's part of the new medicare proposal that we passed for health care, but everybody who has health

insurance winds up paying for those emergency room costs that seniors won't be able to afford to pay. so it's a double cost-shifting, a shifting to seniors for the costs of their health care and a shifting of those health care costs on to everybody who has insurance. the house republican budget will hurt all seniors but it will especially hurt women, because they're the most vulnerable. i hope that all of our colleagues will join us in voting against the house republican budget that is on our desks that we expect to take up this week. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. a senator: thank you, madam president. i am very pleased -- the presiding officer: the house is in a quorum call. mr. blumenthal: and may i respectfully request the suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal blumenthal: mada, i'm very pleased and honored to join my colleagues, my

distinguished colleagues, most recently yourself, today as we pledge to continue the fight to stand up for women's health care and to fight the devastating cuts that are incorporated in the house republican budget. this fight against these cuts is essential, not only for the health of millions of women across the united states but also for our health care system. and even for the effort to cut the debt and the deficit, which has to be one of our most important goals. in the end. these cuts are as far from cost-effective as any could possibly be. in the end, they will actually raise the costs of health care in this country because they will deny millions and women and girls and men the health care --

preventive health care that saves money in the long run. preventive health care enables everyone from avoiding the more costly consequences. costly in terms of pain and suffering and worry and concern, as well as in dollar and cents, that come from failure to diagnose and treat problems earlier rather than later. indisputably, preventive and coordinated health care saves money, and this republican budget will cost more money. it also will have an impact on states, unquestionably. in connecticut, 114,000 people will lose medicaid if this program is changed into a block grant program. and connecticut will lose

$16.1 billion in health care benefits that will be lost if our government -- and our government, the state of connecticut will, have to shoulder this greater financial burden, and the same will be true of states across the country that will have to bear more of the costs and taxpayers at the state level will pay those costs. again, as far from cost-effective as any program could be. but the real consequences, the most dramatic and the most immediate effects of this very misguided and cruel house republican budget will be on women and children predominantly because medicaid and medicare serve them more than any other part of our population. medicaid provides in connecticut, for example, 77% of the public funding for family

planning. medicaid pays for 35% of all the births in the state of connecticut. the burden will fall disproportionately and it will have real human consequences for women and children. in a very, very pernicious way, it will also enable and encourage states to wage at their level the kind of ideological war on women's health that we've seen unfortunately and unconscionably at the federal level. we can already see the beginnings of it. in the state of indiana, for example, where that state enacted legislation to prohibit planned parenthood from receiving medicaid funds to be used for women's health care. think of it. medicaid money cut completely

for family planning, for cancer screening, for all kinds of preventive services that constitute the bulk of what planned parenthood does in indiana and across the country, under a law that is not only bad public policy but also illegal. i thank the administration for recognizing the illegality of this law. it has done so in a statement recently issued by the department of health and human services. it has said unequivocally that this indiana law that prohibits planned parenthood health centers from receiving federal funds for family planning services under medicaid and title 10 contravenes federal law. now we will ask -- and i'm

circulating a letter to my colleagues to this effect -- the federal government to take action that will provide real teeth for this statement and show that similar laws now pending in other legislatures such as kansas and oklahoma and elsewhere will also bring compliance action from the federal government. the fact of the matter is family planning services provided by medicaid are a mandatory benefit under federal law. congress created this legal program for beneficiaries in 1972, and it was so concerned about the availability of family planning services that the federal government and this congress required that they cover 90% of all of the costs of services in this area, an

unprecedented incentive and a clear signal as to the importance of these services, and so the indiana law threatens access to vital preventative health care for millions of women in that state. its precedent threatens the same kind of family planning and preventative care for millions more women across the country, and this body has in effect rejected that kind of restriction by a vote of 58-42 when we had to consider the continuing resolution just weeks ago. let me say finally that this ideological war in indiana is misguided, it is costly in dollars and in lives, and it should not be tolerated. certainly it should not be permitted by the kind of approach that's embodied in the

house republican budget, and i believe that the members of this body will take a stand against it and fight the kind of war on women's health care that the house republican budget so dramatically reflects. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: