paraolympic games. some of the biggest events will be on a sunday when millions of visitor come to britain to see them. we don't want to hang up a "closed for business" sign, so we will introduce legislation limited to relaxing the trade laws for eight sundays only starting on july the 2nd. mr. deputy speaker, earning our way in the world means giving young people the skills to compete. and in time my right honorable friend, the education secretary's school reforms will do more to improve the economic performance of our country than any budget measure ever will. but we've got to help the young adults who have already been let down by the school system. we're offering a record number of apprenticeships, and our youth contract comes into force next month. i can tell the house we are also exploring the idea of enterprise loans. young people get a loan to go to university or college.

now we want to help them get a loan to start their own business. >> here, here! >> we're also looking to see whether we can make public sector pay more responsive to local pay rates. it is something, as we've just heard, the last government introduced into the court system. london waiting already exists across the public sector. indeed, the opposition have proposed the interesting idea of regional benefit rates. so we should see what we can do to make our public services more responsive and help our private sector to grow and create jobs in all parts of the country. we've asked the independent pay review bodies to look at this issue. today we're publishing the evidence of the treasury submitting to them and some departments will have the option of moving to more local pay for those civil servants through pay freezes. mr. deputy speaker, new infrastructure and investment,

ambitious reforms on planning, education and welfare to help businesses to create jobs, these all help britain earn its way in the world, but we also need a tax system that supports work. 200 years ago adam smith set out the four principles of good taxation, and they remain good principles today. taxes should be simple, predictable, support work, and they should be fair. the rich should pay the most and the poor the least. the tax system this government inherited from its predecessor has drifted far from these principles. >> here, here! >> we've already addressed some of the problems. we've established an office of tax investigation to drive out complexity. companies are moving to britain, not away. we stopped the jobs tax. we've taken one million low-paid people out of tax altogether. >> here, here! >> but now we need further

reform. we need to get written a modern tax system fit for the modern world. the first goal is a far simpler tax system which businesses can easily navigate and where ordinary taxpayers understand what they're being asked to pay. so we will radically change the administration of tax for our smallest firms. last year i asked the office of tax certification for recommendations. they have proposed that we tax small terms on the basis of the cash that passes through their businesses rather than asking them to spend a huge amount of time doing calculations designed for big businesses. i agree. so we will consult on this new cash basis for calculating cash for firms with a turnover of up to 77,000 pounds -- double, actually, what the office proposed. this will make filling in tax returns dramatically simpler for up to three million pounds. we're also pressing forward with our ambition to integrate the operation of income tax and national insurance i announced in last year's budget so we

don't ask businesses to run two different payroll tax administrations, a detailed consultation on how we do this is being published next month. we will also address some of the loopholes and anomalies in our v.a.t. system. for example, soft drinks and energy drinks are taxed, sports drinks are not. some new hot takeaway products in supermarkets are not, and some companies using the v.a.t. rules to avoid the tax that their competitors are paying. we're publishing our plans today to remove loopholes and anomalies, but we keep the broad exemptions on food, children's clothes, printed books and newspapers. we should also simplify the eight related allowances which the office of tax simplification had highlighted as a particularly complicated features. it points out many pensioners

don't understand them. these allowances require around 150,000 pensioners to fill in self-assessment forms, and as we have real increases in the personal allowance, their value is already being eroded away. so we will simplify the tax system by doing away with the complexity of the additional age-related allowances for anyone reaching the age of 65 on or after the 6th of april, 2013, and i will freeze the cash value of the allowance for existing pensioners until it aligns with the personal allowance. this will protect the existing level while introduce agnew, single, personal allowance for all. it is a major simplification, and no pensioner will lose in cash terms. under this government pensioners next month will receive the largest-ever cash increase in the basic state pension of -- [inaudible] now we want to simplify the basic state pension and its interaction with the second

state pension. i pay tribute to the work my honorable friend, the pensions minister, has done on this. such is the complexity of this system. only someone like our pensions minister can work out exactly what someone's entitled to and what they need to save, so i can confirm that we will into -- introduce a new means test. it will be based on contributions, and it will cost no more than the current system in any year. we will brick forward further -- bring forward or further details later this spring. a single, generous pension for those who have worked hard and saved hard all their lives and a further major simplification of our tax and benefit system. mr. deputy speaker, in the information age people should know what taxes they're paying and what their money is being spent on.

now, my honorable friend, the member from ipswich, recently proposed to this house that we send the taxpayers an annual statement showing them just that. i think this is an excellent idea, and i intend to put it into practice. >> here, here! >> hmrc contrasts half of taxpayers each year from 2014. these 20 million taxpayers will at the same time receive a new personal tax statement. this will tell people how much income tax and national insurance they have paid, their average tax rate, how this contributes to public spending. in other words, how much proportionally of their tax bill goes to fund the health care, education or welfare bills and how much it spent on servicing interest payments on the national debt. people will know what they're paying and what they're paying it for. a tax system that is simple and transparent. >> here, here. >> now, now, mr. deputy speakert

is our first goal. our second goal is a tax system that is more competitive for business than any other major economy in the world. our predecessors wanted to increase taxes on small businesses. instead we've cut the tax rate on small companies to 20%. >> here, here. >> our predecessors wanted to increase national insurance on jobs, and we've cut it. our new control foreign company rules will be legislated for in the coming finance bill and will stop global firms leaving britain as they were and encourage them to start coming here. this government also supports research and development here in britain instead of abroad. we've already increased the generosity of the r&d tax credit for smaller firms. i confirm that for next year we will also introduce an above the line tax credit like the cbi has

campaigned hard for, and we will help new start-up businesses recruit and retain talent by doubling the grant limit to 250,000 pounds and easing the rules so that academics in our universities can turn great ideas into great companies. the treasury will review for this autumn what more we can do to encourage employee ownership. all of these tax reductions will help win business for britain. but the headline rate of corporation tax remains the most visible sign of how competitive our country is. we've already cut the rate from 28% to 26%. this april it is due to fall again to 25%. i can tell the house today that we will have a further cut of 1% to be implemented right away. from next month britain will have a corporation tax rate of just 24%. >> here, here! >> and we will continue with the two further cuts planned next

year and the year after so that by 2014 britain will have a 22% rate of corporation tax. and this is the biggest sustained reduction in business tax rates for a generation. a headline rate that is not just lower than our competitors, but dramatically lower, 18 percent lower than the u.s., 16 percent lower than japan, 12 percent lowe france and 8 percent lowe germany. an advertisement for investment and jobs in britain. gha here, here! >> and it is a rate that puts our country within sight of a 20% rate of business tax that would align basic rate income tax for small companies' rate and the corporation tax rate. i'm also increasing the rates of the bank levy to 0.105% from next january so that the additional corporation tax cuts do not benefit the banks -- [laughter]

and, and so our levy will in addition raise to two-and-a-half billion pounds a year the -- [inaudible] now, mr. deputy speaker, that brings me to the main duties. [inaudible conversations] [laughter] let me start with alcohol duty. the government will shortly be publishing its alcohol strategy to address the growing problem of alcohol abuse and the many billions of pounds it costs our nhs and the criminal justice system. but today i have no further changes to make to the duty rates set out by my predecessor. turning to tobacco duty, smoking remains the biggest cause of preventable illness and premature death in the u.k. there is clear evidence that increasing the cost of fact encourages smokers to quit and discourages young people from taking it up. so duty on all tobacco products

will rise by 5% above inflation, that's 37 pence on a packet of cigarettes, and this will take effect at 6 p.m. tonight. [inaudible conversations] one area where i am today making substantial changes in -- one area, mr. deputy speaker, where i am making substantial changes is gamble duty. [laughter] the treatment of gaming machines is being repeatedly challenged by operators in the courts, so i will introduce a new machine games duty with a standard rate of 20% and a lower rate for low stakes and prize machines of 5% of net takings. the current duty regime for remote gambling introduced by the last goth was levied on a place of supply basis. this allowed overseas operators to largely avoid it, and much of the industry has, as a result, moved offshore. 90% of online gambling consumed by our citizens is now supplied from outside the u.k., and the

remaining u.k. operations are under pressure to leave. this is clearly not fair and not a sensible way to support jobs in britain. so we invent or introduce a tax regime based on the place of consumption, where the customer is based, not the company. and from this april we will also introduce double taxation re4r50e6 for remote gambling. these changes will create a more level playing field and protect jobs here. i turn now to fuel and vehicle excise duties. high oil prices have put real pressure on household budgets and on businesses. that is why we took action in last year's budget to cut fuel duty so it is six pence lower than our predecessors planned. we have also scrapped the last government's fuel duty escalator of annual above inflation rises regardless of the oil price. and we are today confirming the fair fuel stablizer. above inflation prices will only return if fuel price falls below

40 pounds, currently equivalent to around $75. these measures mean this goth has eased the burden on motorists by 4.5 billion pounds at a time when money is very short. i do not propose to make any further changes to the fuel duty plans already set out. i am increasing vehicle excise duty by inflation only to encourage fuel-efficient fleets we will extend the 100% first-year capped allowance for low emission business car, e are lease the co2 terrible hold for allowance rates and increase the list price of company cars subject to tax. i can also announce that i am, again, freezing vehicle excise duty for road -- [inaudible] mr. deputy speaker, i now turn to personal and property taxation. my goal is a tax system where the lowest paid are lifted out of tax altogether. >> here, here!

while the revenues we get from the richest increase. now, most wealthy people pay their taxes, and without them we could not begin to afford the public services upon which this country depends. but under the last government it was the boast of some high earners that with the help of their accountants, they were paying less in tax than their cleaners. i regard tax evasion and, indeed, aggressive tax avoidance as morally repugnant. >> here, here! >> we've increased both the resources and the number of staff working on evasion and avoidance at hmrc. taken together the anti-avoidance measures in this year's finance bill will increase fax revenue over the next five years by around a billion pounds and protect a further ten billion pounds that could have been lost. this week we have signed a further agreement with the swiss to stop u.k. residents from evading tax.

we've done all these things, but today we do even more. on coming to office, i asked graham aaronson to study whether a general avoidance rule could work in the u.k. tax system. he recommended that such a rule would improve our ability to tackle tax avoidance without damaging the competitiveness of the u.k. as a place to do business. we agreed, so we will introduce one. we will consult on the details of the new rule and legislate in next year's finance bill. a major source of abuse and one that rouses the anger of many of our citizens is the way some people avoid the stamp duty that the rest of the population pays including by using companies to buy expensive residential property. i have given plenty of public warnings that this abuse should stop, and now we are taking action. i am increasing the stamp duty land tax charged applied to residential properties over two

million pounds bought into a corporate envelope. this charge will be 15%, and it will take effect today. [cheers and applause] we will also consult on the introduction of a large annual charge on those two million pound residential properties which are already contained in corporate envelopes. and to insure the wealthy nonresidents are also caught by these changes, we'll be introducing capital gains tax on residential properties held in overseas envelopes. we are also announcing legislation today to close down the subsales relief rules as a route of avoidance. and let me make this absolutely clear to people. if you buy a property in britain that is used for residential purposes, then we will expect stamp duty to be paid. this is the clear intention of parliament, and i will not hesitate to move swiftly,

without notice and retrospectively if inappropriate ways around these new rules are found. cause of action people have been warned. now, mr. deputy speaker, it is fair when money is tight and so many families could do with help that those buying the most expensive homes contribute more. from midnight tonight we will introduce a new stamp duty land tack rate of 7% on properties worth more than two million pounds. i also intend to deal with the unlimited use of income tax relief. let's be clear. most rich people pay a lot of tax. it is also right that we have tax relief that promote investment, support charitable giving and reflect genuine business loss. but it can't be right that some people make unlimited use of these reliefs year after year. everyone in this country and particularly those with the

highest incomes should contribute a fair share to the exchequer. now, some relief like the enterprise investment scheme and pension relief are already capped, and i don't intend to make any significant change to pensions relief in this budget. but to make sure that those on the highest income contribute a fair share, i am introducing a new cap on those reliefs that are currently uncapped. from next year anyone seeking to claim more than 50,000 pounds of these reliefs in any one year will have a cap set of 25% of their income. we've capped benefits, now it is right to cap tax relief too. mr. deputy speaker, that brings me to the rates of income tax and the additional rates of 50 pence. [inaudible conversations] this tax rate is the highest in the g20. it is higher not just in the tax rate of america, but also of

major european countries like france, italy and germany. it is widely acknowledged by business organizations and international observers as harming the british economy. and like the previous chancellor who introduced it, i've always said it was temporary. but i also said three years ago that i would not be prepared to reduce it while we were asking the whole public sector to accept a pay freeze, and i will stick to those pledges. a 50-p tax rate can only be justified if it raises significant sums of money. in last year's budget, i asked her majesty's revenue and customs to look at the evidence and especially to look at the self-assessment tax receipts that have come in since this january. i am publishing that report today. and what it reveals is that the 50-p tax rate has caused massive distortions. hmrc find that an astonishing 16

billion pounds of income was deliberately shifted into the previous tax year at a cost to the taxpayer of one billion pounds. something that the private government's figures made no allowance for whatsoever. [inaudible conversations] self-assessment receipts this year are below forecast by some 3.6 billion while other tax receipts have held up. the increase from 40-3 to 50-p raised just a third of the income we were told it would raise. of course, mr. deputy speaker, the previous government initially proposed the rate of 45 pence and then increased that to 50 pence. let me tell the house what her majesty's revenue and customs say about the difference between 50-p and 45-p -- >> [inaudible] >> i'm coming on to the obr. there you are. [laughter]

their figures tell the story. the direct cost is only 100 million pounds a year. indeed, hmrc calculated the loss of other tax revenues may even cancel that out. in other words, it raises at most a fraction of what we were told and may raise nothing at all. so from april next year the top rate of tax will be 45 pence.ñi >> here, here! >> no chancellor, no chancellor can justify a tax -- >> order! order! we're nearly coming to the end, is and i want the same respect to be given to the leader of the opposition so, please, chancellor of the exchequer. [inaudible conversations] >> mr. deputy speaker, no chancellor can justify a tax rate that damages our economy and raises next to nothing. it is as simple as that. [cheers and applause]

and thanks to the other new taxes on the rich i've announced today, we'll be getting five times more money each and every year from the wealthiest in our society. so the richest pay more or -- >> order. you're getting very excited in the back. i'm sure you want to calm down. it's not good for your health. [laughter] chancellor of the exchequer. >> so the richer pay more, the economy benefits, britain is competitive again. now, the shadow chancellor and quite a few members have said that the hmrc report is not enough and the office for budget responsibility should pass budget. they have. because these days the direct costing the treasury applies to every budget measure is independently assessed and certified by the obr, and unlike the previous government they also assess the consequences of forestalling. when it comes to the 100 million pound direct permanent cost to this measure, the obr say this:

we believe that this is a reasonable and central estimate. and they also assess as reasonable the estimate that the new taxes i've introduced on the rich today directly raise five times that amount. that is half a billion pounds, half a billion pounds we can now use to help people on lower and middle incomes keep more of their earnings. [cheers and applause] mr. deputy speaker, in the spending review we took the difficult decision to remove child benefits from families with a higher rate taxpayer. i said then i simply could not justify asking those earning 15 or 30,000 pounds a year to go on paying child benefits to those earning 80,000 or 100,000, and i stand by that principle. all sections of society must make a contribution to dealing with the deficit. without this measure we wouldn't get the job done.

but i said i wanted to do this in a way that is fair and that does not involve setting up some new means-tested tax credit system for millions of families. and i said i would set out exactly how this measure would be implemented in this budget. we want to avoid a cliff edge that means people use all their child benefit when they earn just a pound more, so i can confirm that instead of withdrawing child benefit all at once when people earn more than the higher rate threshold, the benefit will only be withdrawn when someone in the household has an income of more than 50,000 pounds, and the withdrawal will be gradual, 1% of child benefit for every extra 100 pounds earned over 50,000. there's no cliff edge, and only those with an income of more than 60,000 pounds lose all of their benefits. [inaudible conversations] this means an extra 750,000 families will keep some or all of their child benefit, 90% of all families will remain

eligible for child benefits. now, we can afford to implement the child benefit policy in this way because instead of extending the full benefit of this budget's increase to all high rate taxpayers as we did last year, we will pass on a quarter of the benefit to high rate taxpayers and be spend the rest on helping families with children towards the bottom of the higher rate band as i've explained. mr. deputy speaker, that brings me on to the personal allowance and the central goal of this budget which is to support working families. [cheers and applause] this coalition government believes that the best way to support working people on the lowest incomes is to take them out of tax altogether. [cheers and applause] and the best way of getting money directly into the pockets of working families on middle incomes is to increase the amount of their earnings they can keep before they pay tax. that is why this government has

set itself the goal of raising the personal taxpayer allowance to 10,000 pounds. and we promise real increases every year to reach that. in my last two budgets, we have made great strides forward. last year the personal allowance rose by a thousand pounds. in two weeks' time, it will go up by another 630 thowndz to 8, 105, and together these have taken a million people out of tax altogether. today, mr. deputy speaker, i want to go much further and much faster. [cheers and applause] i am announcing the large-ever increase in the personal allowance, that is the amount people can earn tax-free. from next april that amount will increase by 1,100 pounds. every working person on low or middle incomes will benefit. people will be able to earn up to 9,205 pounds before they have to pay any tax. [cheers and applause]

mr. deputy speaker, millions of working people will be 220 pounds better off every year, that's 170 pounds better off after inflation. because higher rate earners will also benefit, 24 million people earning less than 100,000 pounds a year will gain from this measure. we are in touching distance of the goal of a 10,000-pound personal allowance that -- [inaudible] and i can tell the country that as a result of our budget, people working full time on the minimum wage will have seen their income tax bill cut in half. and this coalition government will have taken two million people, two million of the lowest-paid people in our country out of tax altogether. [cheers and applause]

mr. deputy speaker, in the middle of this parliament in difficult economic times this coalition government has not settled for a do-nothing budget. we have not ducked the difficult choices. we've taken them head on. a competitive top rate of tax, more revenues from those best able to pay, fewer relief, a tax cut for working people, support for families, low income earners taken out of tax altogether. alongside it one of the lowest rates of business tax in the world, a simpler tax code and a country where its citizens know the taxes they are paying and what they are paying it for. we have achieved all this and kept to our deficit plan. let us be resolved no people will strive as the british will strive, no country will adapt as the british will adapt, no country will value those who work as we will value those who work. together the british people will

share in the effort and share the rewards. this country -- >> and now to our committed live coverage of the u.s. senate on this wednesday. the senate continuing work today on the small business capital bill that takes a small business public. senators will vote at about 10:30 eastern on limiting debate in amendments to the bill and a final vote possible this evening. this afternoon at about 2:30 the senate will stop work to pay tribute to senator barbara mikulski. she is now the longest-serving member of congress. and now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o god who loves us without

ceasing, we turn our thoughts toward you. remain with our senators today so that for no single instance they will be unaware of your providential power. we thank you for your infinite love that permits us to make mistakes yet still grow in grace and a knowledge of you. lord, save us from any evil course or idle path that leads them away from your will. today we pray for the president of the united states and for the leaders in every land. help them

to bear their responsibilites with honor. and, lord, today we also thank you for the amazing career of senator barbara mikulski. we pray in your holy name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance 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., march 21, 2012 to the senate:

under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten e. gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks the senate will be in a period of morning business for an hour. the majority will control the first half. the republicans the final half. following morning business senate will resume consideration of the capital tporpgs bill. at -- capital formation bill. at approximately 1:40 this morning there will be a cloture vote on the i.p.o. bill. 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 for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent to be recognized to speak in morning business.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, there's been a lot of discussion about the affordable health care act passed by congress. in fact, just next week across the street the supreme court will take up this bill and decide whether it's constitutional. it's an important decision. it's one that will affect millions of americans and scarcely anyone understands the impact of this law and what it means to their daily lives. the first thing i want to say about it is the most controversial aspect of it is the so-called mandate. individual mandate. what is it? from my point of view, it is the basic method of saying to everyone in america, you have a personal responsibility here. you cannot say i'm just not going to buy any health insurance. you know, i don't think i'm ever going to need it, and i'm not going to worry about it. the problem is, of course, those people who make that statement get sick, some of them get involved in accidents, some go to a doctor and are diagnosed

with terrible illnesses and diseases that require treatment and surgery that costs a lot of money. the uninsured people show up at the hospitals. they're not pushed away. they're invited in. they receive the treatment, and then they can't pay for it. it turns out that 63% of the medical care given to uninsured people in america isn't paid for. not by them. it turns out that the rest of us pay for it. everyone else in america who has health insurance has to pick up the cost of those who did not accept their personal responsibility to buy health insurance. so what? what difference does that make? it makes a difference. it adds $1,000 a year to our health insurance program. in other words, you and me and everyone with health insurance, we're subsidizing those people who say don't mandate anything on me. don't tell me i have a personal responsibility. but when i get sick, you can pay

for it. that's what the individual mandate comes down to. and i listened to those who say this is just too darned much government to say that people who can afford it need to have health insurance. keep in mind this affordable health care bill said if you cannot afford it, if you're too poor or your income is limited, there's a helping hand there. not only in the tax code, but even through medicaid, to make sure that you have affordable health care insurance which will never cost you more than 8% of your income. a lot of american families would jump at health insurance that only cost 8% of their income. but the law says you have to be willing to pay up to 8% of your income to have health insurance. and the reason, of course, is if they don't pay, everyone else pays. they get sick, they cost us $116 billion a year in uncompensated health care coverage paid for those who do not accept their

personal responsibility to buy health insurance. ruth marcus has an article in this morning's "washington post." i ask consent that it be entered into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you, madam president. this article spells it out. this issue of an individual mandate is an issue of personal responsibility. if you believe someone should be able to walk away from their responsibility to have health insurance coverage that they can afford and that their medical bills should be your family's responsibility, then cheer on all these folks who are saying we're going to repeal obamacare. that's what it boils down to. do you want to pay their bills? i don't think we should have to. i think 9/11 this country should accept that -- i think everyone in this country should accept that responsibility. there are other aspects you don't hear called for with respect to its repeal. you have a child graduating from college looking for a child? i've been in that circumstance. my wife and i raised three

children. some of them found a job, took a little while. while they were looking for a job, did you ever say to your son or daughter fresh out of college, how about health insurance? you know what they probably said to you? sorry mom, sorry dad. can't do that now. when i get a job, i'll get back to it. but i feel just fine. i feel just fine. doesn't work that way. and any responsible parent knows it. so we changed the law. here's what we said: if you have family health insurance, it can cover your son or daughter up to the age of 26. that expanded the reach of health insurance coverage. it covered these young college graduates and young people looking for work so that they had that protection even when they were unemployed. so did it make any difference? thanks to this provision, 2.5 million young people have gained coverage nationwide. 102,000-plus in my state of illinois. that means for 2.5 million parents, peace of mind that

their kids are covered by the family plan. that was part of this bill which many republican presidential candidates are saying they want to repeal. really? want to explain that to 2.5 million families who have the peace of mind that that i were son or daughter is covered with health insurance up to the age of 26. how about seniors paying for their medicare prescription drug bills. there was this doughnut hole. you know what that means? it intervenes if you have prescription drugs covered by medicare -- it means that you have prescription drugs covered by medicare and they're expensive, there will reach a point during the course of the year when you have to go into your savings to pay about $2,000 worth of prescription drugs before the government comes back and start helping you again. we start closing that doughnut hole, closing that gap, giving $250 of that $2,000 they have to pay back to people in rebate initially and then provided a discount on drugs for seniors. that's part of affordable care. that's part of what the

republicans scream is obamacare. is it a good idea? just ask 152,000 medicare recipients in illinois who have received this rebate to help pay for their prescription drugs. ask 144,000 seniors in illinois who have received a 50% discount on drug costs. and then ask the millions across america who have benefited. people on fixed incomes and limited savings, we're giving them a helping hand so that they can have the prescription drugs they need to be healthy and strong and safe and independent. is that what you want to be when you're a senior? most of us do. and this bill helps. the third thing it does is to basically cover preventive services. we all know the story here. get in and see a doctor for a colonoscopy, for a mammogram. early detection and treatment is money saved and lives saved.

we extended preventive care under medicare. for 1.3 million medicare recipients in illinois -- just in my state, 1.3 million -- more in your state, madam president, they have preventive kraeur now they -- care now they didn't have more. it means they are likely to stay healthy longer and cost less to our system. that's another thing they want to repeal, those who are running against the affordable care act, running against the health care bill president obama pushed for. there is also a provision that says that insurance companies have to spend 80% of the premiums they collect -- 80% -- on actual medical care. they can take 20% for profits and administrative costs and the like. but 80% on actual medical care. the state of minnesota already had that on the books, and it worked, and we said let's do it nationwide. so that if premiums go up, it's to imburse medicare, not to take

it out on profits, not to spend it on bonuses, not to spend it on an advertising project for an insurance company. the insurance companies hate it like the devil hates holy water and the republican candidates want to repeal it. i think it's one we ought to protect, not one we ought to prohibit. there are other provisions in this law as well. the one that affects me personally and has affected, i'm sure, thousands of americans, is the question of preexisting condition. do you have one? a lot of people do. a lot of people don't know they have one. sometimes insurance companies dream them up. they would deny coverage for health insurance if somebody had -- get ready -- acne. preexisting condition. no coverage. that sort of thing -- if there's a history in your family of suicide, they would deny you health care coverage. preexisting condition. let me just say to every parent listening here, thank the lord if your child doesn't have

asthma, diabetes, or something more serious. because until the affordable care act was passed, that was enough to disqualify your child and maybe your family from health insurance coverage. oh, they can't wait to repeal that. let's repeal obamacare. let's get rid of that preexisting condition provision. let those insurance companies deny coverage. america, is that what you want? is that what you're looking for? is that too much government to say to insurance companies you can't deny children under the age of 18, health insurance coverage if they are victims of diabetes, if they have had a bout with cancer, if they have asthma. some of these folks are for the wild west. get government out of my life. i will tell you this: we know that sensible regulation of insurance coverage gives people peace of mind, gives families a chance to know that their child with a challenge or a problem is still going to get the very best medical care. something called lifetime limits, there's another one.

you go to the doctor and the doctor says, well, sorry to tell you, you've been diagnosed with a form of cancer. we can treat it. it's going to take aggressive chemo or radiation, maybe even surgery. it's going to take some time and it's going to cost some money, but at the end of the day we're going to save your life. you're going to live. you're going to thrive see your daughter's -- going to live to see your daughter's wedding, live to see your grandchildren. then you say i'm in it. my family's with it. i'm going to pray for it and get the right outcome. guess what happens? it turns out the cost of that blows the lid off your health insurance coverage. you had a lifetime limit on how much they would pay. lifetime limit. you never thought you'd use it until that kind of diagnosis comes down. now we basically have said we're removing lifetime limits on health care. that's part of obamacare. that's part of the affordable care act. so i say to my republican friends and those running for president, you want to go to the american cancer society and

enter into a debate with them about whether lifetime limits are the right thing to do? they're going to explain to you with thousands and thousands of american examples of why people with lifetime limits end up in a tragic situation where they need more coverage, they need more care, they can save their lives, and their health care coverage care, they can save their lives, that was the old days. that was before the affordable care act. so those who want to repeal it -- and boy, they stand up and get cheering crowds and those cheering crowds are cancer patients. they ought to stop and think before they start cheering what they're cheering for. madam president, the affordable care act was a sensible, reasonable step in a direction toward containing health care costs and making health care insurance coverage fairer for americans all across our nation. is it a perfect law? of course not?

as i have said many times, the only perfect law i'm aware of was carried down a mountain on clay tablets by senator moses. ever since, we have done our best, we can always do better, and i'm open to change, i'm open to improvement. but for those who want to walk away from the affordable care act, listen to what they're walking away from. they are imposing a thousand dollar premium on families to pay for the uninsured who won't accept their personal responsibility for health insurance. they are walking away from helping for seniors pay for their medicare prescription drugs. they are turning their backs on families with young children fresh out of college, looking for jobs, and no health insurance coverage. they are inviting the insurance companies to once again turn down your child and your family because of a preexisting condition. they're saying once again let's get into the world of lifetime limits on insurance no matter how much health care costs. that's their idea of a future,

not mine, not my family's. i have lived through part of this. many others have as well. so when you hear the cheering crowds about repealing the affordable care act, hoping that the supreme court finds some aspect unconstitutional, step back and ask those cheering crowds about their own health insurance. the last thing i want to say is this -- it's interesting that senators are debating this. you ought to see our health insurance. you ought to see what we have as members of congress. we have the federal employees health benefit program. guess what? it's a government-administered program. oh, my goodness, you mean republican senators are part of a government-administered health care program? yes. and you mean to tell me they have to deal with an insurance exchange? yes. that's what the federal employees health benefit program is. eight million federal employees and their families choose once a year, in my case, from nine different plans that cover illinois. we like our coverage in my

family. federal employees like their coverage. senators like their coverage. but when it comes to extending the same benefit to every other american, oh, what a horror story, that's too much government. really? if you are a person of principle and believe that a government-administered health care plan is too much government, step up here in the well and tell people i'm giving up my federal health insurance. i haven't heard a single republican senator say that, not one. so let's find out, when we come down to the question about health care insurance for all americans, i think they deserve at least the kind of coverage that members of congress have. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: for the past several months, i and others have been calling on the democratic majority here in the senate to take up and pass the various bipartisan jobs bills that house republicans have been sending across the dome. these bills on their own certainly won't solve the jobs

crisis, but they will make it a lot easier for entrepreneurs and innovators to get the capital they need to build businesses and create jobs. and because these bills are more concerned with getting washington out of the way than getting it more involved, these bills also send an important message that the economy and the country are a lot better off when folks have more control over their economic destinies, not less. last night, we were on the cusp of passing a collection of bills known as the jobs act. this bill had overwhelming bipartisan support in the house. nearly 400 members voted for it, and the president himself says that it will create jobs. he supports it and would sign it into law. unfortunately, a handful of democrats here in the senate want to slow it down. they denied americans this bipartisan agreement for jobs

that we could have had last night. so this morning, i would ask our friends on the other side to reconsider. i would ask them to put the politics aside and allow this bipartisan bill to actually move forward. we could pocket this achievement and move on to other measures, including the reauthorization of the export-import bank, which i suggested yesterday. one bill alone can't undo the damage inflicted on the economy by this administration, but it sure could help, and we need to show the american people that we can do this. this bill is exactly the kind of thing americans have been asking for -- greater freedom and greater flexibility, and that's one of the reasons it had such overwhelming bipartisan support. at a moment when millions are looking for work and democrats say they want more bipartisan action on jobs, this is it. we're in the middle of march madness here. to use a basketball metaphor, this is a layup.

let's get it done. on another matter, this week marks the two-year anniversary of the president's health care law, one that's often described as his signature legislative achievement. but you wouldn't know it based on the president's schedule this week. for a president who isn't particularly shy about taking credit, even for things he didn't have anything to do with, he's curiously silent this week about a bill he talked about for more than a year before it passed. according to news reports, the president doesn't even plan to mark the occasion. well, we're happy, republicans are very happy to talk about it for him, even though he's reluctant. we're happy to point out the ways in which this law has failed to live up to the promises the president made about it. we're happy to make the case for why this unconstitutional infringement on america's liberties needs to be repealed and replaced with the kind of

commonsense reforms that americans actually want. two years ago, then-speaker pelosi said we have to pass this bill so we can find out what's in it. well, two years later, here's what we have found so far. the democrats' health care law has led and will continue to lead to higher costs and hundreds of thousands of fewer jobs over the next decade. we now know that it is loaded with broken promises, like the one the president made over and over again during the health care debate. he said if you like your current plan, you will be able to keep it. according to the independent congressional budget office, three million to five million americans will lose their current plan each year under the most likely scenario. the health care law will strip billions out of medicare and increase the medicaid roles in states by nearly 25 million.

costing already cash-strapped states an additional $118 billion and almost certainly lowering the quality of care for millions of americans who depend on this vital program. in my state of kentucky, an estimated 387,000 more people will be forced into medicaid at a time when kentucky's medicaid program is already facing huge deficits just trying to provide benefits to current medicaid recipients. as a result of this law, more than a million kentuckians or 29% of my state's population will soon be on medicaid. kentucky's governor, a democrat, is on record saying he has no idea, no idea how kentucky will meet its responsibilities if the law forces several hundred thousand more people into the state's medicaid program. the math simply doesn't add up. and this is just one example of how the law is unsustainable and hurts the most vulnerable the

most. the bottom line is this -- this health care law is an absolute mess, a mess, and the american people don't want it. according to "the washington post"/abc news poll out this week, more than half of americans don't like it, a figure that hasn't changed much at all since the democrats forced it through congress two years ago. and two-thirds believe the supreme court should throw out the individual mandate or the whole law. when it comes to the cost of health care, this law application everything worse. two and a half years ago, the president said his health care plan would -- quote -- "slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses and our government." yet, the obama administration itself now admits total spending on health care will increase by $311 billion under the president's health care law. according to the c.b.o., it increases net federal health spending and subsidies on health

care by $390 billion and drives up premiums on families by $2,100 per year. americans wanted lower costs and to have more control of their health care decisions, and they got the opposite instead. they wanted lower premiums. they got higher premiums. they wanted a government that lives within its means, and they got a new entitlement instead. they wanted more options. they got fewer. they wanted better care. it's going to be worse. and that's why americans want this bill repealed. look, this bill would be unconstitutional even if it did the things the president said it would, but the fact that it did the opposite of what he promised means it should be repealed either way. whether the constitutionality of it is upheld or not. it should say something when the president himself isn't even

talking about this bill except in closed campaign events. it's time to repeal this bill and replace it with the kind of commonsense reforms that people really want, reforms that actually lower costs, that protect jobs and state budgets and return health care decisions back to individuals and their doctors. that's a reform that both parties and all americans could support. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, those who have followed this debate know that members can disagree, and obviously i disagree with the republican leader on the issue of health care reform. i would say that there are a couple of elements i would add. yes, we expand the medicaid roles. that's health insurance for those in low-income categories, but the federal government picks up the tab. it's not an added expense to the

state governments for four or five years, and we're hoping their economy gets better. what about the millions of -- one million kentuckians who are going on the medicaid roles? those one million kentuckians have no health insurance today. will they ever get sick? will they ever show up at the hospital? yes, they will. who will pay their bills? the rest of the folks living in kentucky with health insurance and the rest of us. is that fair? do these people have a personal responsibility to have health insurance as long as we help them if they are in lower income categories, pay the premiums with tax breaks and enrolling them in medicaid? of course they do. accepting personal responsibility used to be the first thing the republicans told us about their family values. well, why don't people have to accept personal responsibility and have health insurance so the costs of their care isn't borne by their neighbors and the rest of america? and let me just also add again, members of the united states senate have a government-administered health

care program that protects them, their family and their children. they sign up for it every single year, and not a single one has come to the well here and said i'm so opposed to government-administered programs, i am going to stop enrolling in the health insurance program for members of congress. not a one. i see my colleague from colorado is on the floor. he's going to speak to an amendment which is very important. the republican leader addressed an aspect of it. i'll just say a very short, brief comment. if we want to create jobs in this country, we know how to do it. we passed a bill here just last week. 74-22, a bipartisan bill. what a miracle, huh? a bipartisan bill passes the bill. a bill that would create maybe 2.8 million jobs, create and save that many jobs in this economy, a bill that will help the american economy expand in the 21st century. what could it possibly be? it's called the federal transportation bill. we do it every five years, and if we don't do it, if we don't

build the roads, the bridges, the airports, sustained passenger rail service and amtrak, make certain that we have mass transit and buses around america, our economy starts to contract instead of grow. we passed this bill with a strong bipartisan vote thanks to senator boxer and inhofe, democrat, republican, progressive, conservative, all time together on this bill. we sent it over to the house of representatives and they said sorry, we're not going to take it up, we won't vote on it. we're going to send you a bill that allows people to create new start-ups, these new private companies, and we're going to eliminate the regulation that makes sure that investors don't get fleeced. that's how we want to create jobs. well, that's like hoping that america has amnesia. we remember the subprime mortgage mess when a lot of unsuspecting people were dragged into offices and into mortgages they had no idea were going to explode when the balloon burst.

now once again, the republicans have said the best way to create jobs in the future is to let that happen when it comes to the sale of stock in new companies. i'm with mary shapiro, the commissioner of the securities and exchange commission. she has warned us. we need to put protections in this bill. it is not going to create the jobs they talk about. it's going to endanger investors. i yield the floor of the senate to the senator from colorado.. mr. bennet: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, madam president. i thank the senator from illinois for his leadership and agree it's vital that we pass this transportation bill. madam president, in my town halls, we talk about a lot of things that are very different from the things people argue about in this place. one of the things we talk about are the structural issues facing this economy. the first is our gross domestic product, the economic output of the united states of america, which is higher today than it was before we went into this recession. a lot of people don't know that.

we're producing more than we were producing before we went into the recession. our productivity has gone up dramatically since the early 1990's as we responded to competition from china, india and other places, as we used technology to enhance economic output. we have the most productive economy we have ever seen. but we also face some very potentially catastrophic circumstances in this economy, one of which is that median family incomes has fallen for the last ten years. the first time that's happened in our country's history. and the other is we've got 23 million or 24 million people who are underemployed or unemployed in a economy which is producing before it was producing before the recession happened. that is a structural issue. i've spoken on this floor about the importance of education in that context, because the worst the employment got for people with a college degree was 4.5%.

that's a pretty good stress test of the value of a college education. but the other thing we need to make sure we're doing as a country is continuing to innovate and continuing to drive innovation across the united states, because it's those companies, the one that's created tomorrow, the one that's created next week, that's going to create new jobs here in this country, that's going to drive our median family income up instead of down. and that's why i'm on the floor today, madam president, to talk about a bipartisan bill, a bill that senator merkley and senator brown and i have worked on on crowd funding. and it's an amendment that i hope will come to the floor, and i hope we can get to a vote. over the past months we've worked together in a bipartisan way on crowd funding, a proposal that would allow crowd funding to thrive but would also contain an appropriate level of oversight and investor protections. we've done something very unusual in this town. we took time to listen to

people, and we listened to crowd funding platforms, entrepreneurs and investor protection advocates, many of whom support this bill and have endorsed this bill. we worked hard to incorporate their ideas. and as a result, we've got a bipartisan amendment that has the support of both businesses and consumer advocates. that's something that doesn't happen that frequently in this town, and i hope that we have the chance to vote on it. and i would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see this as a real opportunity to take one step -- not a huge step, not a huge step, but one important step forward to filling this gap that we see here, to creating an economy again where rising economic output also means rising wages. and the rising economic output also means growing jobs. this crowd funding amendment is a chance to do it. it's bipartisan. madam president, i have some letters of support i'd ask to enter into the record.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: and it moves this ball down the field. i hope it establishes a model for how we can work together to make sure that we're actually addressing the things that i'm hearing in the town halls and that we're driving wage growth and job growth here in the united states. and with that, madam president, i see my colleague on the other side, and i will yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: we are in morning business, are we not? the presiding officer: we are. mr. wicker: i rise to speak on the second-year anniversary of the health care patient protection and affordable care law. i will be joined shortly by a few of my colleagues. i would ask unanimous consent that at that point we engage in a colloquy. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: thank you. madam president, on friday of this week, two years will have passed since president obama signed the patient protection

and affordable care act into law. this actually is a sad anniversary, because more than enough time has gone by to reveal the failures of this massive, burdensome piece of legislation. the fact that 26 of our 50 states, more than half of the states, are part of the legal challenge currently under review by the supreme court points out the inevitable truth. this is a law that simply does not work. the case which will be argued in a few days will be one of the most consequential supreme court cases of my lifetime. consequential not only because it deals with this massive, burdensome piece of legislation, but because the implications goes so much further. the implications of this supreme court case will decide the scope of the commerce clause. and, indeed, madam president and

my colleagues, if the supreme court decides that this law can withstand constitutional scrutiny, then this large, massive federal government can in fact do almost anything. there will in fact be hardly any limitations under the constitution in the bill of rights on the power of the united states federal government. americans are right to be disappointed with obamacare, and they're right to want to repeal. and regardless of the outcome of the supreme court case, this congress can decide -- and as a matter of fact, the people of the united states will have a chance in november, as we do every two years, to decide. a recent gallup poll shows that twice as many americans think the law will make things worse for their families than those who believe it will make things better. 72% of americans believe the

individual mandate is unconstitutional. the truth is that americans deserve affordable, high-quality health care. not a 2,700-page, big-government piece of legislation that taxes, spends and regulates. the president's health care law has not lowered the cost of health care as promised. it has not created jobs as promised. it has not reduced the deficit as promised. and so, this week we mark an anniversary, not with progress but with bitter realities. president obama and his joint session to congress in 2009 assert that his plan -- quote -- "will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses and our government." in fact, last week the

nonpartisan congressional budget office and joint committee on taxation updated their outlook of the health care laws' impact on the federal government. not surprisingly, their latest analysis says obamacare will cost even more than anticipated. and the anticipated costs were high indeed. but they say that the health care law will cost nearly $1.8 trillion over the next decade, or double the estimated cost that accompanied the bill when democratic majorities, democratic super majorities passed it in 2010. this is hardly the relief that president obama promised. during his campaign, the president said the plan would reduce health care premiums by an average of $2,500 per family. instead premiums have grown by nearly that much since he was

elected. i see i'm joined here by two of my colleagues, the distinguished senator from wyoming and the distinguished senator from kansas. there are a number of other promises that we can talk about today. i will -- i know we don't impugn motives around here. it's against the rules. but one has to wonder did advocates of this massive law actually believe these promises or were they simply duped and mislead? and i don't know which is worse. but i know that my colleague, dr. barrasso, himself a physician, who is on the front line of this issue, has griffin this a great deal of thought. so at this point i ask him to join into this colloquy. mr. barrasso: madam president, i stand here with my friend and colleague from mississippi because he and i both attended in his home state of mississippi, a meeting at a hospital where we met with

doctors, also met with patients, met with people from the community while the debate and the discussion was being conducted about this health care law. at the time people were asking the sorts of questions because they had heard the promises. would this actually lower the cost of insurance by $2,500 a family? that's what people wanted. that's what they expected. the other question: will i really be able to keep the care that i have and the doctor that i have if i like it? now here we are a couple of years later, the second anniversary of this health care law being passed, and i'm here with my friend and colleague from mississippi, and it just seems to me that the questions that were asked by your constituents, by the doctors in those communities who take care of the patients, by the patients, the hospital administrators that we talked to that day in his home state of mississippi, and it does seem

that many of these promises have been broken. the costs seem to go up higher than had this health care law not been passed at all. the numbers and the statistics that we're hearing now from the budget office on the cost seem to be much, much higher than what the president promised. parts of this health care lawmakers the so-called class act -- law, the so-called class act, it comes out with schemes to make it seem like the cost of the health care law would be much less than what the american people now know it to be. it's no surprise to me -- and i see this in wyoming and i'm sure you see it in mississippi, and i would imagine the senator from kansas who is on the floor, has seen the same thing at home. he has gone to hospitals, in just about every hospital in the state of kansas as he's traveled around. what we're all seeing is this health care law is even less popular now than when it was passed. that's what i hear at town hall

meetings. when i ask do you think you're going to actually pay more under the health care law, every hand goes up. when you say do you think the quality and available of your -- availability of your own care at home is going to go down? again every hand goes up. if i could ask my colleague from kansas if he's hearing the same things. then i know we're also joined by the senator from arizona. mr. moran: i appreciate the opportunity to join my colleagues on the senate floor today, especially the senator from wyoming, a doctor, who is such an expert on the topic of really not just the moment, not just the day, but the topic of what our country faces. i would tell you that i do spend a lot of time in hospitals across our state talking to health care providers, talk to go patients, to doctors, to administrators, trustees. in fact, there's 128 hospitals in our state. i have visited all of them. and there is just genuine concern about the future of the ability for health care to be delivered in communities across our state.

and you add to that the physician and other health care provider community, this health care reform act is creating significant challenges. my interest in public service started a long time ago with the belief that we live our lives in rural america, in my state of kansas, in a pretty special way. when i came to congress, it became clear to me that if our communities were going to have a future that it was dependent upon the ability to deliver health care close to home. and those rural communities across our nation often have high proportions of senior citizen populations where medicare is the primary determining factor of whether or not they can access health care. and so when the affordable care act was passed, many promises were made. but one of the things that was sold to the american people, or at least the attempt was made to sell to the american people was there will be greater access. i would certainly say that one

of the promises that is not being kept about the affordable care act is the likelihood that there is going to be greater access for americans across our country to health care. because this bill is underfunded, it's not paid for. the consequences are that the administration is already proposing, congress will always be looking for ways to reduce spending when it comes to health care. and the most lickly target is the payments that medicare phaeuplts -- makes to health care providers which sometimes doesn't cover the services. when we look for access to health care, every time a decision will be made in order to try to make this more affordable, we're going to see fewer and fewer providers able to provide the services necessary to folks across the country, but especially in rural communities where 60, 70, 80, even 90% of the patients admitted to the hospital are on medicare. one of the problems with the

affordable care act is the reality that it will reduce the access to health care by people who live in rural america. and we will see fewer physicians accepting patients on medicare. we will see fewer hospital doors remain open, all done in a way that, as this bill takes $500 billion out of medicare to begin with, we set, the congress that passed this, the president who signed this legislation set the stage for there to be less affordable health care available to americans across the country, but especially for constituents of mine who live in a rural state like kansas. mr. wicker: if i could jump in on the issue of medicare, because i have a quote here from president obama, july 29, 2009, quoting specifically from the president. medicare is a government program, but don't worry, i'm not going to touch it. as a matter of fact, only months later, he signed into law the

obamacare act which takes half a trillion dollars from medicare and it touches on the very issue that the senator from kansas was referring to with regard to medicare access for people in rural kansas. i yield to my friend from -- mr. mccain: i point out to my friend from mississippi that the first amendment we had on the floor of the senate when we were considering obamacare was to restore that $500 billion and it was voted down on a party-line basis. i want to thank my friends for allowing me to engage in this colloquy. i'd like to discuss with my friends, probably in my view what really encapsulates the problems with this legislation. the commitment began was that we would provide affordable health care to all americans, which meant we had to put a brake on inflation in health care because health care was becoming

unaffordable, the highest quality health care in the world. nothing in my view -- i'd like to ask my colleagues -- describes that more of how this whole plan went awry than the so-called class act. late in the debate, the class act was thrown in to provide long-term care for seniors, which seems like a worthy cause, but the whole thing was a gimmick. it was described by senator conrad, our distinguished chairman of the budget committee, called it a ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that bernie madoff would have been proud of. so they foisted that off on us. why? well, initially because of c.b.o. scoring that it would show an increase in finances into -- and revenues into the whole obamacare program. but as soon as those people

paying in became eligible, then obviously the reverse happened. thank god for senator gregg, former senator of hall of fame, who had an adopted -- amendment adopted that said the program would be solvent over 75 years before the program could be implemented. if it hadn't been for that, the class act would be here today. and then in october, last october, the secretary of health and human services issued a report confirming that what many of us knew was inevitable, that the secretary could not certify. the class act solvency is required under law. here we went through this exercise franticcally searching for ways to increase revenue, at least the way that c.b.o. does scoring, so we did the class act, and thank god senator gregg of new hampshire put in an amendment that said it would be viable over 75 years. there is no way. not a snowball's chance that

they were ever going to be able to certify over 75 years that it was going to be a viable program. so it was kind of entertaining. guess what late on a friday night the secretary of health and human services said that she could not certify that the program would be solvency throughout a 75-year period. so the result of this was obviously that they didn't have the false revenues that c.b.o. could score, they didn't have a program that could provide long-term care for seniors, and again, as the senator from north dakota aptly pointed out, this ponzi scheme of the first order faced and met a well-deserved death. but that's why the american people, the overwhelming majority of the american people, disapprove of this whole

exercise, disapprove of obamacare. they want it repealed, they don't support it, and i'm proud to say that in this election, we will decide whether we repeal and replace obamacare or not, and the american people care about it. mr. wicker: let me summarize what the senator from arizona has just said. the class act was sold to the american people as a budget deficit reducer. it was going to reduce the deficit. no sooner was it signed and they started looking at it that the administration itself said we know it's unworkable and we abandon it, we're not even going to try to enforce it. that's the result. mr. mccain: they would have kept it on the books had it not been for the amendment of the senator from new hampshire that said they had to certify that it would be solvent over a 75-year period. now, if it hadn't been for that amendment, we would have the class act today, a ponzi scheme in being where people are paying

in and that is scored as revenues, and then some years later when they retire, obviously, the reverse would have been true. and i have yet to hear one of my colleagues come over and admit that they were wrong about the class act. i'd love to hear some of those who strongly advocated for it. my friend from iowa, senator harkin, said so we get a lot of bangs for the buck as one might say with the class act that we have in this bill. senator whitehouse said certain colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued that the class plan would lead to a financially unstable entitlement program and would rapidly increase the federal deficit. that is simply not accurate. i look forward to my colleagues who supported and voted for the class act to come over and agree that it was, as senator conrad pointed out, a ponzi scheme. mr. wicker: i know our friend from south dakota has joined us and is eager to join in this

discussion, so i wonder if he has anything he would like to add about the broken promises that were made during the passage of obamacare. mr. mccain: let me just say, the point is, the whole point of reforming health care was to reduce the costs of health care. that was the -- that was the goal. we all know we cannot sustain, medicare cannot be sustained for the american people if the inflation associated with health care continues. so the whole object of this game was to reduce the costs of health care and preserve the quality of health care. does anybody think that that was achieved with this legislation? that's why the american people have figured it out. i'd ask the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i would just echo what the senator from arizona has said about the class act. he was down here as was i and i think many of us when we were debating this to say this is a program that is destined to be bankrupt. in fact, if you look at what

even the independent medicare actuary was saying, that was described, the class act was, as unworkable, and they said it would collapse in short order within the health and human services department, there was a nonpartisan career staff who privately called the class program -- quote -- a recipe for disaster, end quote. there was plenty of advance warning that this thing wasn't going to work. as the senator from arizona correctly pointed out, it was used as a gimmick to make the overall cost of this thing look less and therefore bring it into balance. we now know, of course, that the class act couldn't work. they have had to acknowledge that and the amendment that was put on by the senator from new hampshire, senator gregg, that forced them to certify and made that abundantly clear. but to the senator from mississippi's point, the whole purpose of the exercise was we have got to do something about the cost of health care. we have got to get health care costs down for people in this country. in fact, the president of the united states when he was running for president said, and i quote -- "if you have got health insurance, we're going to work with you to lower your

premiums by $2,500 per family per year. we won't wait 20 years from now to do it or ten years to do it. we will do it by the end of my first term as president of the united states." end quote. i'm sure the senator from arizona probably remembers very well many of these statements. but the facts tell a different story, madam president. if you look at what health care costs are doing and even what was predicted by the congressional budget office, they said that the law was going to increase health insurance premiums by 10% to 13%, which means that families purchasing coverage on their own were going to have to pay an additional $2,100 a year more because of the new law. that's actually been borne out. if you look at the cost of health insurance for people in this country today, it's gone up, not down. it's gone up dramatically since the president took office, about 25% for most americans. so all these promises about getting costs under control, all the promises about being able to

keep what you have, all the promises about, you know, this being done in a way that would protect medicare, we all know that medicare was slashed to the tune when it's fully implemented of a trillion dollars. and if you look at the taxes that were imposed by this, a trillion dollars in new taxes, the american people got a bad, bad deal. they know it. that's why the public opinion polls show that. mr. mccain: even though we have shut down the office, the class act, even though the secretary of health and human services has said that they can't certify that it will be fiscally sustainable over 75 years, it's still on the books. isn't the class act still on the books? do you think that it might be appropriate since we can't comply with the law that maybe we could repeal that portion of the law? would that be something we might think about? in fact, i think it might be a pretty good amendment. mr. thune: a good amendment. and by the way, we have that

amendment. we would be happy to offer it. we tried to call the bill up. it was objected to by the democrats to get rid of it. because the bad thing about bad ideas around here is they tend to come back. this is a bad idea that ought to be put away once and for all, and yet it is on the books, as the senator from arizona has pointed out. i don't know why after all the evidence out there now that has been put forward, including the health and human services secretary saying this will not work, we continue to maintain this on the books in hopes i think that for some at least in the administration that it can be resurrected at some point in the future. but this is a bad idea. it was a bad idea then, it will be a bad idea in the future, because it can't -- it just doesn't pencil out. you cannot make it work. the only thing it does is saddle future generations with massive amounts of debt. mr. wicker: let me ask my colleagues about another promise. i know they are going to call time on us in just a few moments. does anybody recall hearing this staple from the president of the united states in 2009 -- if you

like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan, period. no one will take it away, no matter what. unquote, the president of the united states, june 15, 2009. what happened to that one? mr. barrasso: even the administration admits that wasn't true. small businesses, people who get their insurance through small businesses are going to have a very difficult time continuing to provide coverage for people because of the mandates, the washington mandates that say you have to provide washington-approved insurance. i mean, that's the problem, is that people have what they like. it may be something that they want, that they need, they can afford, and now they are being mandated to have something that they may not want, may not need and may not be able to afford. so, again, you have another broken promise, which is why senator coburn who has practiced medicine for about a quarter of

a century -- and i practiced medicine for about a quarter of a century, have come out with a report released yesterday, called warning, side effects, a checkup on the federal health law. fewer choices. that means people can't choose to even keep what they had. fewer choices, higher taxes, more government, less innovation. none of those things are the things that the american people have been promised by the president. mr. mccain: in addition to that, could i ask the senator how many new regulations have been issued and how many new regulations do we anticipate as a result of this legislation? mr. barrasso: from the looks of this over 2,000-page law is going to result in over 100,000 pages of regulations, pages worth of regulations. i know there is one part of the law, a couple of pages, four to six pages, they had 400 pages of regulations and 50 pages of legal guidance. you talk to hospitals, and i know that those of us travel and visit with hospitals in our states. they say we're spending money on

consultants and lawyers to help us understand the law, and it's money we ought to be spending on patients and on equipment and on technology for our hospital to provide care in our community. the senator from kansas has visited over a hundred hospitals in his state. i think he's heard exactly the same thing. mr. moran: it's certainly true. the point that was made earlier about benning this cost curve down, it doesn't do it, it can't do it. that creates the problem that we now all face, how do we have access to affordable health care if you're not reducing the cost of health care. and so the end result, in my view, is that americans will have less options, less options for their own plans. as employers, they will provide either less options or no options for employees. so the idea that you're going to get what you -- keep what you have, that begins to disappear if you're employed. if you're a senior citizen and medicare has been your primary

provider, again back to this idea we didn't bend the cost curve, so in order to make health care affordable, when the legislation fails to do that, we find other gimmicks to do that. and one of the things that this bill creates is ipab, this so-called independent agency that is going to make decisions about what is covered by your health care plan, and the goal will not be to be better quality health care. the goal of the ipab will be to reduce expenditures. so as the promise was made you get to keep what you have, it becomes something totally different than what you experienced in your health care plan, either in your own private health care insurance or as a beneficiary of medicare. and so even though presidents own medical actuary estimates that the law will increase overall national health care expenditures by $311 billion during the first ten years alone and that private health care

insurance premiums will rise 10% in 2014, so if we're complaining today about the increase in premium costs, there's more to come. 2014, the medicare actuary says another 10% increase in your health care premiums. at the center for medicare and medicaid services, their economist found that the increasing growth rate in health care spending will occur in every sector of health care, and more recently the congressional budget office, our neutral provider of analysis, says the cost of the health care law may be substantially higher than earlier estimated. one of the things that i would suggest that we should have done that never happened -- if you want to keep what you have, if you want to have access to health care in rural and urban and suburban places in the country, one would think we would do something permanent about fixing the reducing payments to physicians, so-called doc fix. one would have thault in health care reform -- would have

thought in health care reform that would have been front and center because if you don't have a physician providing the service, you don't have health care. yet, we have a medicare system that's going to reduce the payments. in fact, expected this year it would have reduced payments to physicians 30%. the reality is that no longer will physicians accept medicare patients, and that option you were promised to keep what you have disappears one more time. in fact, town hall meeting parsons, kansas, this year a physician on the front row says senator, you need to know that i no longer accept medicare and medicaid. i will take cash, but i'm not able to afford to provide the services based upon the medicare reimbursement rate that i get. and you add all the paperwork in trying to comply with medicare and medicaid, and it's no longer financially feasible for me in this small town to provide the services that my patients need under medicare. we're going to see a lot less access because, once again, the failure, the promise that have

made to reduce, to bend the cost curve down, to reduce health care costs, to reduce premiums, was totally false. mr. wicker: so the promise was not to touch medicare. that promise has not been fulfilled. the promise was to reduce the deficit. that turned out to be an empty promise. you know, also we were told by the president and by speaker pelosi that this bill would create jobs. the president said it was a key pillar for a new foundation for prosperity. how has that turned out? former speaker pelosi said in its life, the health care bill will create four million jobs. 400,000 almost immediately. of course neither of those has come true. the nonpartisan c.b.o. has estimated that the health care law will reduce america's workforce. this is a bipartisan c.b.o. reduce americans' workforce by

800,000 jobs over the next ten years. and that fact has been confirmed by the united states chamber of commerce. mr. thune: i say to my colleague from mississippi is one of the areas where jobs may be created is in the federal government because it's going to take an awful lot of federal bureaucrats to oversee and lots of new i.r.s. agents to complement this legislation -- to implement this legislation. when it comes to private-sector job creation, the thing about this is it raises the cost for hundreds coverage -- for health insurance coverage for employers. it raises taxes on a lot of people involved in health care -- the presiding officer: the minority time has expired. thune -- -- mr. thune: the combination of those things is going to cost jobs. i yield back our time. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: madam president, houfpl time? i have eight airex for

committees to -- i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: i'd like to be notified when i have one minute left. the presiding officer: okay. mr. harkin: two years ago president obama signed into law what i believe will be remembered as the most forward-thinking and humane -- humane -- reform of our health care system since medicare. just like the republicans opposed medicare when it came in, and they still want to get rid of it -- if you look at the ryan budget that came out, what do they want to do? privatize medicare. they have been at it ever since. and now they don't want this humane reform that we passed two years ago. when the affordable care act became law, i said this, i said we have made america a more compassionate and a more just society. i believe this with even greater conviction now. and in listening to my colleagues, my friends on the other side of the aisle, you would think this is all just about little nuts and bolts and

this and that, but it's about humaneness. it is about compassion. it is about justice. and, yes, it is about making the system -- the system -- work better for patients, not just for insurance companies and the insurance industry. now, we've moved ahead to implement the law. the results have been striking. every american now is protected against abusive insurance companies practices of the past. let me put it another way. because of the health reform law, americans now have protections that every senator in this chamber has enjoyed for years. under the federal employees health benefit program, we now have extended that to americans. i listened to my friends on the other side of the aisle, they want to take it away from americans but keep it for themselves. oh, no, they don't want to give it up. well, i think what's good for senators ought to be good for the american people. this is a chart of -- this is

emily schlichting. she testified before my committee last year. here's what he *f -- here's what he she said. young people are the future of the country. we need the affordable care act because it is literally an investment in the future of this country. why did she say that? because she suffers from a rare autoimmune condition which insurance companies would not even cover. but because we have said that they cannot now discriminate if you have a preexisting condition, emily gets insurance coverage. plus she can stay on her parents' health insurance program. so far the law has extended coverage to more than 2.5 million young people like emily, and they want to take it away. they want to take away emily

schlicthing's insurance coverage. that's what it's all about. they want to appeal the affordable care act. obamacare. and what it means is that 2.5 young people like emily will lose their insurance. they don't talk about that. they don't talk about that. now, right now here's the coverages that americans have: banning lifetime limits. let me read about ross daniels and amy ward from wes des moines, weigh weigh. after developing a rare lung infection, amy needed intensive treatment including a course of medication at -- get this -- $1,600 a dose. $1,600 a dose. her insurance policy had a $1 million lifetime limit. without health reform's ban on lifetime limits, this couple would have had to declare bankruptcy. after this experience, ross said he couldn't understand why opponents wanted to repeal it.

he said -- and i quote -- "it is hard for us to believe that so many of the g.o.p. candidates would have us go back in time where an illness like this would have forced us or any other family, for that matter, into bankruptcy. so, as to what the republicans said, they want to take this protection away from amy ward, ross daniels and millions of other americans. 100 million people are helped by the banning of the lifetime limits. we've covered vital preventive services, free of charge, that benefited more than 80 million people now get free preventive care. it allows young people to remain on their parents' coverage until age 26. i can't tell you how many families i've talked to in my state of iowa who said this has been a godsend to them and to their kids. here's a preventive. we all know prevention is the best thing we can do to change

our sick care system into a health care system. here's what the affordable health care act does on prevention. before health care reform, colorectal cancer screening was covered only by 68%. 68% by insurance companies. cholesterol screening only covered by 57%. tobacco cessation, only 4%. under the affordable care act, colorectal cancer screening, cholesterol screening and tobacco cessation, all covered at 100% by every insurance company. 100%. not 57% or 68%. but 100%. and we all know that early screening means that people live longer, and it cuts down on health care costs. so millions are now receiving free preventive care. 86 million americans had at least one free preventive service in 2011. a million iowans in my state received at least one free preventive service in 2011. the republicans want to take

this away. that's what it's about. americans now have preventive care. they now are able to keep their kids on their policy until they're age 26. they now have a ban on lifetime limits. we now have a ban for children up to age 19 on preexisting conditions. that is all -- that's what they want to do. they want to take this away. i say don't let them take this away from the american people. the presiding officer: 50 seconds remaining. mr. harkin: i would yield the remainder of my time to the senator from michigan. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president, in a few minutes we're going to vote on whether we should end debate on a house bill which carries a false label of a jobs bill, a bill which cries out for debate and amendment. this bill would allow companies to advertise virtually unregulated stock offerings on television or on billboards. the house bill will allow large companies with thousands of

shareholders to avoid s.e.c. regulation. the house bill will allow banks of any size to avoid s.e.c. regulation if they have fewer than 1,200 shareholders. the house bill will allow companies with annual sales of up to $1 billion to evade the most basic trance parpb circumstance accountability and disclosure requirement when making initial public offerings. this is not a bill which will promote investment in our economy. this bill will discourage investment. as the s.e.c. chairman shapiro wrote us, if the balance is tipped to the point where investors are not confident that there are appropriate protections, investors will lose confidence in our markets. that's why -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. levin: i ask for 15 additional seconds. tphaofs why the council of stphaourbss investors warns -- institutional investors warns us this is not a bill which will allow opportunities for new workers but one which will create new opportunities for

fraudsters and boiler room crooks. i urge defeat of cloture. we should not make it more difficult to vote on this bill by restricting amendments. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the balance of my statement be inserted in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 3606, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 334, h.r. 3606, an act to increase american job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to reconsider to invoke cloture. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate move to bring to a close debate on h.r. 3606 an act for job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies, signed by 16

senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on h.r. 3606, an act to increase american job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote: